Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 123

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120 Archive 121 Archive 122 Archive 123 Archive 124 Archive 125 → Archive 130

[Closed] Update: I'm Now at 50

This is not productive nor directly related to the DYK nominations. Please feel free to award yourself whatever you need. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've been burning 'n churning new articles like a banshee to get to 50 DYKs, and Attempted theft of George Washington's head officially puts me there.[1]. So who wants to give me a 50 DYK Award? Just drop it off at my wall. LavaBaron (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well done. Please now consider not continually posting here with updates on your score. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Just update the stats board and it will come, not need to ask for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
If that were true, I wouldn't need to post updates on my score. LavaBaron (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of anything, you definitely do not need to post updates on your score. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Or, for that matter, consider it a "score". Think of plaudits for content creation and improvement as wasabi—useless without something to accompany, and bloody terrible when applied in any great volume. GRAPPLE X 15:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Why so harsh on a prolific contributor like LavaBaron? Some of us contribute out of pure altruism, some solely for the glory, some for the joy of writing, many (such as myself) probably for all of the above. The end result is the same: an expanded and improved encyclopedia, and all should be encouraged. It costs nothing but a few electrons to give people a token of appreciation for their hard work. -Zanhe (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I contribute solely for the glory. LavaBaron (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not harsh, it's just boring to keep hearing people request recognition. It comes when it's deserved. Asking for it is cheap. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I actually find his unpretentiousness refreshing and admirable, besides, he's not asking for something undeserved. Since I just awarded him the 25 DYK medal not long ago, I'd prefer someone else give the next medal for the sake of variety. Any volunteer? -Zanhe (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you do. I prefer people to just get on with improving the encyclopaedia without asking for badges. This isn't the scouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, sorry typo. I didn't mean "I contribute solely for the glory" but actually meant "I contribute because of the inspiration I feel at being part of this incredible experiment in the diffusion of free and accessible information to humankind or whatever." Now that we've established my loyalty and political reliability ... MEDALLLLS!!!!! LavaBaron (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pulitzer hook removed from Main page

Template:Did you know nominations/Exodus: An Oratorio in Three Parts @Tucoxn, Notecardforfree, Staceydolxx, and Casliber:

It was never nominated[2]. As their FAQ[3] states: "Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission." and in bold "Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term "nominee" for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was "nominated" for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us."

To enter the Pulitzer, you just have to pay $50 (there are some rules on nationality and year of publication, but nothing restrictive), so to call an entry "nominated", like some sources do, is misleading (or at best meaningless). Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm extremely surprised about this. Google lists about 170 results for "David Itkin" "pulitzer prize" "nominated", including many reliable sources such as the Baltimore Sun, the Las Vegas Review-Journal , the Las Vegas Weekly, the Arkansas Democrat‑Gazette, and the Reno Gazette-Journal. It was also in a book and in Playbill. I've nominated several articles for DYK and never had one pulled after it was approved. Fram, does this happen often? Feel free to remove the DYK credit if you feel that is right. In addition to the page on Exodus: An Oratorio in Three Parts, there are 117 other Wikipedia pages that talk about a "pulitzer Prize-nominated" work or person. - tucoxn\talk 14:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
For something like an award, checking the award website is often the best choice. Fram (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sam Pepper

This article was in Prep 3 the last time I checked. I'm not convinced it would be appropriate to put this DYK on the Main Page. WP:DYKRULES states that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided", and just about the entire article is about the controversy behind Pepper's pranks. Furthermore, the article contains the sentence, "[Pepper] also debunked all allegations of sexual harassment and rape towards him." The claim that all allegations have been debunked is not supported by the citations given. My opinion is that Wikipedia should avoid fanning the flames of sensationalism and give this article a more thorough vetting before even considering putting it on the Main Page. As I am relatively new to DYK, any second opinions on whether this hook should be pulled? Altamel (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

After a brief reading of the article, it seems as though the hook may just about be the only thing to say about him that isn't all that bad. There are many more negative things in the article that one could have drawn on. As for the unverified claim that he debunked all allegations... that should definitely warrant removal. Jolly Ω Janner 06:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I was about to post on this one myself as I too have concerns about it. Not only is the hook very negative, but so is the article. I am having trouble persuading myself that this is an appropriate article for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Since the set is only four hours away from being featured on the main page, I have pulled the article to ensure it doesn't get inadvertently featured while discussion continues. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
As the one who nominated the article, also it being my first DYK nomination, I apologize in advance as I don't really know much about DYK. But, I'm confused on why it was removed. I feel that article meets WP:NPOV, as it really states the facts about his allegations. In my opinion, the hook wasn't focused on an extremely negative aspect, as it was a part of his notable apology and confession video. The article also contains info on his life, his role in the reality television show, Big Brother (which I also made a hook for, but the 'staged prank' hook was chosen), and his other YouTube activity. A lot of his more notable, more covered info was on the many controversial actions by Pepper, which is why there is a lot of info on it in the article, which may make the article seem very negative. But really, it's in a neutral point of view. Hope to hear back. Sekyaw (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, as for the unverified claim on "debunked sexual harassment allegations", I changed the wording of it to fit the given source that states that he "addresses the several claims of sexual assault that were leveled against him, which he has continued to completely deny". Sekyaw (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I gave that article the go ahead, and apologies if it's too negative for a BLP. I could be biased because I'm familiar with the subject's work. Pranks are really his entire claim to fame, and knowing that in advanced could have colored my reading too much. —Torchiest talkedits 15:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I still do believe that although, yes there are many negative info on the article, all are heavily sourced by various news sources, thus passing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. I also feel that the hook still is neutral, due to the fact that it's him really confessing and apologizing, rather than the other more negative info involving allegations and such. Are there any other voices on the matter? Sekyaw (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Altamel, Jolly Janner, and Gatoclass: what is the next step for this article? Does it need to be resubmitted for DYK, or is it possible to reevaluate the existing DYK entry, or is it not salvageable due to the negativity? At this point it seems stuck in limbo. —Torchiest talkedits 03:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have given my view on this nomination and have nothing to add to that. I think it would have to depend on consensus from this point. It would need at least a couple more users in good standing giving it the thumbs up to get approval, or another oppose to reject it. If it hangs about with no further input from anyone, it will eventually be rejected anyway. Another option would be to raise the matter at the BLP noticeboard, to see what people have to say about it as a DYK submission there. Gatoclass (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #5 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) 20:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • The lead hook of the next prep set is time-sensitive and will become invalid after April 22-23. Can an admin please move the set to the queue? Pinging @Casliber, Gatoclass, and Worm That Turned:. Thanks. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like somebody already got there. Thank you Zanhe for the reminder. Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Worm That Turned did it. Thank you! -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I'm posting a new list of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through April 3. As of the most recent update, 45 nominations have been approved, leaving 192 of 237 nominations still needing approval. The slowdown in reviewing older nominations has continued, which has contributed to the current low number of approvals: once again, only 16 are new listings this time, while we have 24 left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these; they've been waiting quite a while.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

When the messenger is shot and mentioning the fact is worse than murder

If you get some spotlight for supporting religious extremist murderers in real life, you can at least count on Wikipedia's certified "sensitivity"-protection. Liberal Muslims better shut up to not provoke extremists – and sensitive Wiki-admins. RIP Salmaan Taseer, killed for the second time today by Wikipedia. User2534 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we want to call any living people "self-confessed convicted murderer[s]" on the main page. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the admin's stated reason for the deletion/censorship. (And it's obviously not BLP.) User2534 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DragonflySixtyseven's rationale for changing the hook. Calling Mumtaz Qadri a "self-confessed convicted murderer" would be fine if the DYK was about him, but highlighting the Pakistani murderer in a hook about Norway's largest mosque is seriously undue. As mentioned in my review, your proposed hook in Template:Did you know nominations/2014 Hotel Amalo attack is also problematic. -Zanhe (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, this has nothing to do with why the hook was effectively deleted. And unless you're personally exonerating Qadri in spite of everything (including himself), the exact wording should instead be changed if it somehow was a problem, not just delete everything. User2534 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, fine. I agree with DragonflySixtyseven's change because it is inappropriate for you to use DYK to turn the main page into a coatrack. Resolute 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
+1. I'm floored that this hook was approved in the first place? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems the mud tends to stick, even at DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Kudos to Dragonfly. The article is about the mosque, not the imam, and using the DYK of the mosque as a round-about way to link the two is grossly inappropriate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with kelapstick. If the focus is on the mosque, the hook should be about the mosque and not the iman. It was a better hook and I agree that I don't get how the first one passed either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Just in the current DYK, there are at least two hooks that are mainly about some interesting fact about not strictly the article title itself, but a person closely related or a main person related to the article. These hooks, which I have seen to be common for DYK for years is what inspired me to write the hook that I wrote. My hook on the other hand out of nowhere gets a bunch of claims and demands that no other similar hook gets. As stated in the article, the imam has been the head imam for the mosque since 1992; the current mosque building (which has it's own name and is not the main subject of the article) was not opened until 2006. A subject more closely tied to the article at hand would be hard to find, but standards are suddenly completely different for this hook somehow. User2534 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh please. The nominal DYK was merely a WP:COATRACK designed to allow you to tie an Imam (a living person, so yes, BLP applies) to a "self-confessed mass murderer", which has nothing to do with the mosque itself. Given you got called out for the same thing in a second nomination, I strongly suggest you reevaluate your intentions at DYK in any future nominations. Resolute 02:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The leader of a congregation for 25 years has nothing to do with the congregation, good to know. User2534 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
(And it's obviously not BLP.) My mistake, I assumed he was still alive. However, it would still likely fall under the "recently deceased" clause of BLP, as it has been less than three months. Also, why should it matter that I support an action for a different reason than someone else? The point is that Dragonfly made a good move, whatever his (her?) reason. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
BLP applies to the iman as well. The article says that the iman "attended a memorial rally" and later in parenthesis that he spoke there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #6 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) 09:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hooks for Passover (April 22)

In the tradition of celebrating major holidays, Frank Sinatra's birthday, etc—, how do people feel about making a set of Passover-themed hooks for April 22 (the first night of Passover)? I just finished a review of Template:Did you know nominations/Exodus: An Oratorio in Three Parts, and the nominator and I agreed that we should run the hook on April 22. I have already created an entry in the special occasion holding area, and I think this is an excellent opportunity to celebrate the holiday! There aren't really any other current DYK nominations that work for the theme (nor are there any Passover-related GAs that have been promoted recently), but there are some great articles that we can create for the occasion:

Elements of the Seder:

Songs: There are a number of Passover songs that don't have their own articles (see also Passover songs)

Food items:

Other topics:

I'll try to create and nominate as many of these articles as possible, and I'd also love to hear suggestions from other editors as well. Hopefully we can make this happen! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Great idea, @Notecardforfree:! Please also be aware that everywhere but Israel, the Passover Seder is celebrated on both the night of April 22 and the night of April 23. Meanwhile, non-Seder topics can run the whole week, from the night of April 22 through the day of April 30. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah! I posted a discussion at WT:JEW to hopefully get more editors involved in the article creation process. I'll try to create and nominate as many of these as I can, but it would be nice to have a set of eight Passover-themed hooks that can run on April 22. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: I'm now finishing up White House Passover Seder. I wonder if you'd also like an article on the Maxwell House Haggadah? Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The Maxwell House Haggadah is a classic; definitely worthy of an encyclopedia article! Did you know that President Obama uses Maxwel House Haggadot at the White Hosue Seder? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: the TFA that day is planned to be this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt:, thanks so much for letting us know! I started a discussion at WT:TFA in hopes that we can reschedule the Hitler Diaries TFA. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In general, I think it is better not to have full queues dedicated to one event, certainly not yearly events. Having queus varied and aimed at all audiences is better than to have exclusive ones for whatever reasons, bar very exceptional circumstances. I'm aware of the April 1 queues, but apart from that, I would prefer not to fill or nearly fill queues with articles connected to one subject. Fram (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this section, because I am very unfamiliar with Passover. But would like to add that I fully support the concept of filling an entire prep with hooks for the special occasion. Jolly Ω Janner 07:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: in the same way that User:Dr. Blofeld did not fill the Frank Sinatra Day prep sets with articles only about Sinatra, but about many topics related to his career (e.g. the hotels where he performed, his opening act, his manager, his songs), the Passover set will include all kinds of topics related to Passover. BTW Passover is one of the most celebrated holidays by a majority of Jews, as well as by some Christian groups. It definitely has widespread appeal. Yoninah (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't dispute that Passover is important to the Jews, and I have no objection against having some hooks related to the date in the queues, but I don't think in general that having al or most hooks in the queues related to one occasion is a good idea. It lacks variety and can give the impression of bias. When you look back at previous hook sets, you may well notice an understandable bias towards Christian and Jewish topics, and towards American topics (that's at least the impression I got). Considering our editor base, this is understandable, but I think we shouldn't be encouraging this but instead try to counteract this and have our hook sets as varied as possible. One way could be to have special preps for other countries, beliefs, ... and so on; another (and the one I prefer) is to avoid special preps filled with such hooks, and simply provide one or two hooks on special occasions and spread other related hooks throughout the year. Fram (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: I know that hooks related to Judaism are not uncommon here at DYK, but I don't think there has ever been a special occasion set for a Jewish holiday. If there hasn't been one before, then I think this would actually help improve diversity. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, there have been sets for Jewish holidays I think, but not for mainly Jewish holidays like Passover. So you're right that stopping this practice now would be a bad idea. I still think we shouldn't have such sets or seriously rethink when to have them and when to avoid them, but I'll drop the issue now as this isn't the best time to bring it up. Fram (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This has my full support, in fact I think we should do a lot more special occasion DYK sets like this throughout the year. This is important to the Jewish calendar and an excellent way to get people producing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is hopefully still on, right? --PFHLai (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I support this as well. There may not have been a set of Jewish holiday hooks before, but that's no reason not to have them now. We have special hooks for Black History Month, April Fool's, and plenty of other holidays and special occasions. Why not Passover? It's one of the most important Jewish holidays. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@PFHLai: this is indeed still on. With the exception of one hook, Prep 4 is filled with Passover-themed material. Many thanks to everyone for your support with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. I hope everyone had a nice Passover. --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Lower to one set per day?

The DYK is no longer as it had been for months. Furthermore, queues are empty now because there are not enough prep areas to fill up. Furthermore, bots sent overdue messages here. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicup round ends Wednesday. It will start filling up again ;-) Montanabw(talk) 08:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
How about once per day for just one week until the start of May? --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think things have got this bad yet. I know there is a high amount of untapped content that is suitable that isn't being proposed and that is those at WikiProject Wales with Dr Blofeld's contest not being proposed because people don't get points for putting their articles on DYK. But as was said, the WikiCup is starting the next round on the 29th so it should be ok. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand how more nominations are going to help the empty prep sets. Right now there are 227 nominations with only 50 approved. The new nominations will each submit a QPQ, and we'll still be left with 227 unapproved nominations. I think the problem is (1) a lack of reviewers and (2) the need to re-review the QPQs done by novice nominators. Unless more editors pitch in to do reviews just for the sake of reviewing, this situation of empty prep sets will continue. Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I will volunteer to do more reviews - I enjoy that more than filling prep areas but we still need more editors to fill prep areas.. I tried but am feeling a bit deflated by Frams comments. I will do some reviews later ツStacey (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Staceydolxx:. A good review is the prep builder's best friend! Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed another Nvvchar hook where the image did not match the description

Prep 6, "* ... that Pathers use "Vandal sand" to make moulds for Nachiarkoil Lamps (pictured)?"

Template:Did you know nominations/Nachiarkoil Lamp @Nvvchar, Al Ameer son, Yoninah, and Zanhe:

The picture is of a Kuthu vilakku lamp, added to Commons in 2011 by another editor; there is no evidence at all that it is a Nachiarkoil kuthu vilakku. Kuthu Vilakkus are basically standing lamps in brass or silver, they were made in a wide region, and the Nachiarkoil type is but one version of it. See e.g. [4][5][6]. It's hard to find a good article or book on the type of lamp (the few that seem promising aren't freely available), but it is clear from what can be gleaned that kuthu Vilakku can not be equated simply with Nachairkoil lamps.

Considering that we had Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 122#Removed image hook from Queue4 (6 April 2016) where another nvvchar hook had an incorrect image (plus a fair number of other problematic DYKs by this editor, like Template:Did you know nominations/Devanahalli Pomello, Template:Did you know nominations/Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad, Template:Did you know nominations/Kashmir Walnut Wood Carving, Template:Did you know nominations/Angela Craciun, Template:Did you know nominations/Limassol Carnival Festival), perhaps it is time to impose some restriction? At least disallow the nomination of image hooks for the forseeable future, if nothing further is wanted yet. Fram (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Fram. The img file has this nomenclature "Nachiarkoil Lamp or Kuthuvilakku" and it shows only the top portion of the lamp. Hence, I used it. In case you still feel unconvinced then why remove the hook from the prep. The hook without the picture could be placed at any other number down the line. Thanks.Nvvchar. 15:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you indicate please where on that img file there is any mention of Nachiarkoil? I don't see it on that page (here or at commons), and a search at Commons also doesn't return this[7]. Of course, if the information was on the image page before your edits, my apologies. But I don't see it. File:KuthuVilakku.JPG Fram (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Fram Please see this URL [8] from which I used the image.Nvvchar. 02:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No, that URL only existed "after" you added the image to that page. Look at e.g. this url, the text "Official poster of the exhibition, designed by Amédée Lynen" comes from the image caption at Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges. Similarly, the "Nachiarkoil Lamp" text at your image url is the caption of the image at Template:Did you know nominations/Nachiarkoil Lamp, not something at the image. Before you added that image to the Nachiarkoil pages, there was nothing there suggesting that it had any link with Nachiarkoil. This is the URL you need to look at. Except for the links you added, nothing there supports your claim. Fram (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Nvvchar:, now that you have removed the images from the article and DYK nomination, is there still anyway that you can see a reference to Nachiarkoil on the images? Can you please indicate how you found these images and why you thought they were of Nachiarkoil lamps? And can you indicate how you are going to avoid these problems in the future? Fram (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I found the discussion about the pomelo and yes I was dismayed at the 6 April one. I missed the Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_121#Beatles_hook_removed_from_Main_Page but....yeah not good. I am thinking we need to discuss this situation some more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Fram It was surely a miss judgement. When I saw the url of the image while searching in Wikicommons I thought of using it as the lamp head was highly ornamented, fitted with a swan and had five grooves to fix wicks for lighting. Otherwise, I was not to include an img with the hook. In fact I have similar lamps in my house but with seven "V" groves and hence I did not use it. But I failed to check the source of the img, which was a mistake. In future, whenever I use images from Wikicommons posted by other users I will double or triple check the source and the other details. Once bitten twice shy. Sorry about it. Nvvchar. 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I still don't get how you found this image or why you insisted that it was about Nachiarkoil when nothing there said anything about Nachiarkoil. As this isn't the first time you have done this, I have my doubts that this won't happen again, but I guess we'll see. Fram (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Filling preps plzzzz

If folks can please fill a prep or three? I am busy for next several hours. And please double check hooks. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Prince's Birthday

I am not sure what is customary in this regard. I am sure there is a precedent or a policy. Prince's birthday is June 7 and I just created "International Lover", the song for which he received his first Grammy nomination. I am guessing that I am not the only person who has recently created new content related to him. Should we start building towards a day of DYK content for his birthday?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea. I suspect there would be many songs to expand...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be no objection. I am going to create a new section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Like. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Help, please

Could someone review ALT2 in Template:Did you know nominations/Sairat ASAP? The film is opening on April 29 and it would be great to get it into Prep 5/Queue 5. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and approved ALT2. Need another user to promote it to prep 5. -Zanhe (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #4 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) 21:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Filling preps plzzzz

If folks can please fill a prep or three? I am busy for next couple of hours. And please double check hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber: I built one for you. I did them before, when I was still active. If you'd like to return the favor, you could donate a QPQ to Template:Did you know nominations/Chan Yuen-ting. I'll get around to it if I have to, but I'm super inactive and the motivation to edit is pretty much gone at the moment. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'll take a look in several hours. Run off my feet IRL at present....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #5 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) 13:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #3 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) 10:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Rule D3

I am aware that there is some discrepancy in the way DYK editors interpret Rule D2, which calls for at least one cite per paragraph in a DYK-nominated article. Some editors say this is a suggested guideline, while others see it as a rule. (I am in the latter camp.) However, I have never come across User:LavaBaron's contention on the nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Jamie Ramsay that Rule D3, which proscribes bare URLs in the References section, only applies to the reference for the hook. I spend a lot of time formatting refs and cleaning up bare URLs before promoting articles to prep (see for example [9]). Could other experienced editors on the project please validate the intention of Rule D3? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No prob, Y, happy to offer some guidance. First, per G4, These supplementary guidelines are intended to describe the consensus, not to prescribe it. So it's all optional anyway. Second, requiring correctly formatted citations on every reference is (aside from good editing practice) a requirement of GAN. It logically follows, therefore, that the requirements of GAN and DYK would not be identical, otherwise we would not have both GAN and DYK we would just have one mega-thing called DYKGAN. LavaBaron (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah, you are absolutely right: no bare URLs are allowed in the references for articles nominated for DYK. DYK and GAN do vary in many requirements, but not this one. D3 is clear, and I've never before heard the argument that it only applies to the hook fact. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, since these supplementary guidelines are intended to describe the consensus, not to prescribe it, "no(ne) ... allowed" is probably not entirely accurate. Probably "none ... encouraged" would be more accurate. Rule D3 isn't Order 66. LavaBaron (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see a single constructive circumstance where a bare URL would ever be preferable, so why even argue the point out of anything other than idleness (especially since the effort it takes to dispute it can't be much less than that taken to comply with it). GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure no one here is arguing that a bare URL is preferable. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that there's no good reason to permit them, so whether it's mandatory or optional to fix them is academic; any move to codify allowing them is basically permitting something that we don't want or need, so why not just take it as given that they're ruled against? GRAPPLE X 12:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Because I don't have the authority to conjure-up rules of my own design and then impose them on other editors. LavaBaron (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the original discussion makes clear that the rule means "no bare urls in the reference section". That was certainly the intention of the discussion and how it was understood by participants.

As for the supplementary rules being "optional", that is simply incorrect. The supplementary rules describe consensus, and editors are expected to abide by consensus until a new consensus is arrived at, which has not occurred in this case and is highly unlikely to occur. Gatoclass (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If a consensus that has been achieved is thereafter described, but specifically not prescribed, then it is ipso facto, optional. The consensus is that bare URLs in DYKs should not occur but the consensus has, apparently, stopped short of requiring it, only frowning on lack of compliance. Fortunately, as a Wikipedia Platinum Editor, I never use bare URLs so this is all just academic to me. LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who authored G4, I certainly don't recall any discussion over its addition, but I've never objected to it because I've always interpreted to mean, quite simply, that rules can change so the existing ruleset isn't set in stone. If however, that clause is going to lead to the notion that our rules are merely optional, it may be appropriate to clarify it or just drop it. Gatoclass (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
But you approve articles that do have bare URLs, so apparently it does apply to you as a DYK reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Articles implies two or more of the 113 articles I've approved have bare URLs. Since you're keeping track, I'm curious what the second one is, Yoninah? LavaBaron (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm glad you're ending the streak at one :) Yoninah (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
uh huh LavaBaron (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? How is this even a discussion? Running Reflinks for an article takes less than a minute. SSTflyer 10:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not an argument. I can run 300 meters in less than a minute but I don't feel obligated to do that each time I pass a DYK. (And, frankly, given the physique of some of the Wikipedians I've seen IRL, this might be a better rule to have, anyway.) LavaBaron (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #2 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) 00:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Douglass T. Greene

Hi all,

I'm newish to DYK, and I have a question about this nomination. How explicitly does the cited source have to state the fact in the hook? The nominator's main hook is that Greene never held a combat command, and the source for that is a list of Greene's postings, none of which were combat postings. Is that sufficient for DYK, or does the source need to actually say something like "he never held a combat command"? Pinging creator N0TABENE and other reviewer Staceydolxx. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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) 12:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Working on filling more prep sets now, looks like one is GTG, will get more lined up. Montanabw(talk) 17:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I'm posting a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through April 13. As of the most recent update, 43 nominations have been approved, leaving 184 of 227 nominations still needing approval. There was a nice pickup in reviewing older nominations since last time; only 10 are left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these; they've been waiting quite a while.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ban Upcoming Films from DYK

NO ACTION
It's snowing here. SSTflyer 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that films and other upcoming (unreleased) products are officially banned from DYK since they violate WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTFILM. At its current state the DYK process can be easily WP:GAMEd in order to promote products of questionable Wikipedia:Notability.

An example: DYK... that the upcoming film Allied, scripted by Steven Knight, is based on a true story personally told to Knight at the age of 21?

I am not claiming that the content creator in this particular case is trying to promote the film but someone else might use the same mechanisms in order to gain extra publicity for their product.--Catlemur (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose I would support this if there were evidence of actual gaming but, in absence of that, don't. LavaBaron (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the article violates WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTFILM, it should be deleted. If it doesn't, then, even if it is upcoming, it should be allowed to run. Why should upcoming releases be subject to additional standards here just because they are upcoming?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • 3family6 Because the biggest amount of marketing for films and similar products is done before they are released.--Catlemur (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but I support that most films should be banned from DYK unless their prose excluding the plot synopsis exceeds the minimum required of a DYK, i.e. that a plot synopsis does not count at all towards the word count. It doesn't need to be referenced in any way, so it's a shortcut to getting items onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you wish to get a DYK criterion that says that boldlinked articles must be notable, go ahead and do that, but until that time, it's unfair to single out films. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not, and never has been, the role of DYK to determine the WP:Notability of an article subject. That is the role of Wikipedia's deletion processes. If someone believes an article deals with a non-notable subject then that person should nominate the article is question for deletion. Creating a parallel process at DYK to determine an article's notablity is just an invitation for additional WP:DRAMA by enabling unneeded WP:Forum shopping. --Allen3 talk 23:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can appreciate the intention but this draws a weirdly skewed line. Released films can still be "promoted", as can books, records, products, businesses, tourist destinations, or unusual sexual practices that someone might charge for. If you want to remove possibly-promotional material from the main page you'd probably have to remove the entire main page. GRAPPLE X 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for given rationale per above - a nom that isn't notable shouldn't run no matter the topic. WP:DYKNOT et al should cover the promotional issues. Would also support TRM's suggestion on excluding plot from prose count, for both movies and other relevant articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: All subjects can be deemed promotional by somebody, and "If the article violates WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTFILM, it should be deleted." (to borrow 3Family6's phrasing). Also, I note that though plot summaries for extant and already released films do not require in-line citations, that does not mean they are not referenced. They are understood to be referenced to the film itself. "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary.". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - Catlemur, do you have any specific examples of recent DYKs that violated WP:NOTFILM? Gatoclass (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Gatoclass,LavaBaron This is another example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruise (film). An article that got into the front page and then got deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTFILM, at least half the article was based on promotional material. At this point I am convinced that the DYK process is outright broken, the articles often contain factual errors, are pushing POV or contain ridiculous hooks. There should be higher standards for articles to get into the front page.--Catlemur (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but that was back in February. Any more recent examples? Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I have not found any more recent examples.--Catlemur (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Well then it doesn't look like a recurring issue. But thank you for raising it - I will be paying closer attention to such nominations in future. Gatoclass (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic hook in Prep 1 (on Main page in 7 hours time)

Template:Did you know nominations/Banton, Romblon @Lawrence ruiz, Omni Flames, Redfiona99, and Yoninah: (a Good Article)

"Burial cloth" is a link to [Ikat]], but an ikat is a technique of weaving, while a burial cloth is a purpose of the cloth, the two are not synonymous at all (the Ikat article doesn't even mention "burial cloth"). The two sources given, [10] and [11], don't support the hook.

The Inquirer one says "[...] the oldest existing cloth in the Philippines. [...] The Banton cloth is a piece of ikat-dyed abaca made sometime in the 13-14th centuries and is supposed to be one of the oldest known warp ikat textiles in Southeast Asia."

The Filipiniknow article says "Also known as ikat, the piece of burial cloth is said to be the oldest existing cloth in the country and possibly the oldest warp ikat textile in Southeast Asia." (this probably caused the confusion between it being an ikat (technique) and a burial cloth (purpose).

It is not clear why the direct source for this cloth, the National Museum, is not being used: [12]. "The Banton cloth is the earliest known warp ikat (tie-resist dyeing) textile in Southeast Asia. Estimated to be 400 years old, [...]" Again, the oldest ikat, not the oldest burial cloth. And contrary to what the popular sources state (and our article), not from the 13th-14th century but from the 16th-17th century (if it is 400 years old) or from the 15th c. (according to the header of the National Museum page).

It may be the oldest burial cloth of the region, but I haven't found a truly reliable source for this (some blogs and recent things which may just parrot our article). It probably is the oldest ikat of the region, but that's not what the hook claims.

Can this be checked and if necessary corrected please? The link from burial cloth to ikat has to go in any case. Fram (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Thanks for bringing this up. I've added the National Museum source you suggested to the article for the moment. This is a bit of a mess though. The sources keep referring to the cloth as an ikat, but our article states that it's a method of weaving cloth. Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fram and Omni Flames! Thanks for bringing up the issue regarding the DYK hook. As per your suggestion, I corrected the reference to the cloth as an ikat (In the Philippines, the dyeing process and the cloth are both called ikat, although I have no references to back this up) and clarified that it is the oldest known warp ikat textile in Southeast Asia (instead of Southeast Asia's oldest burial cloth). I hope my revisions will help in clarifying the issues regarding the hook. Thank you. — Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
According to dictionary.com, "ikat" can refer to both the method of weaving and the cloth made through that method. Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for backing me up on the definition of ikat. — Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. Yes, an ikat is a cloth weaved with the ikat method (basically, to get the full explanation read the article :-) ). but it isn't a burial cloth, although one can use an ikat as a burial cloth of course. Fram (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What is next after this development, Fram? — Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I have corrected the hook that will appear on the main page, so I think everything is done for now. Further checks and corrections always welcome of course. Fram (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
May I know what the revised hook is and what time it will appear on the main page? — Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. You can always check upcoming hooks at Template:Did you know/Queue, in this case your hook is in Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep area 1, which should be moved to Queue1 on the same page, and then be on the main page in about 1 hour time (if some other admin checks it and moves it from prep to queue in that hour, otherwise it will be later). Fram (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

Zahida Khatun Sherwani has a copyediting tag on it. Should this be cleared up before promotion to the main page? Yoninah (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice that - too tired. I would say, leave it there now, I think it will probably inspire some good samaritan to improve it while it's on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #4 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) 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #5 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) 10:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Again removed hook from the main page

As has happened too often recently, I again have removed a hook from the main page for being wrong.

Template:Did you know nominations/St Stephen's Church, Old Radnor @The C of E, Zanhe, Staceydolxx, and Worm That Turned:

The source listed for the hook[13] makes it clear that the claim isn't that the organ is the oldest, but the organ case; the organ is from 1872, the case is originally from the 16th century. This article discusses the oldest British organs, and it doesn't list the one from this church (it does discuss the oldest church organ, from St Botolph's Aldgate). Fram (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is put it back with case after the word organ then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
No, all you have to do is get your act together. Too many of your hooks are wrong. If you want your articles to appear in DYK, at least make certain that the article and hook are correct. If this one aspect, which you especially choose to highlight, is wrong, then I'm not going to put this back on the main page with a corrected hook and an article that may be comparable in quality and accuracy to the original hook. Fram (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you have noticed Fram but no-one is currently updating the Preps or Queues others than a small number of us (who are inexperienced at doing this). As you seem to read all the DYK's and do the checking, have you thought about doing the preps or queues? ツStacey (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
No. I suggested slowing down DYK, but some people (including the C of E) have opposed this. I don't care whether we have 0 or 20 articles a day in the DYK section, but if we do have a DYK section, it should be correct (and without copyvios, BLP violations, ...). Checking the ones that reach the main page is mostly all I have time for (even many of the main page DYKs I haven't seen or checked), although I try to catch the errors earlier (made harder by not having any queues and barely any prep lines of course).
Another solution is removing the repeat offenders from the DYK process for a while. Once you know that with some people, there is a reasonable chance that their hooks will contain errors, it makes little sense to allow them to keep on nominating their articles. Fix the problem at the start, not at the end of the chain. Fram (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The organ case is a functional part of the organ and so the issue is debatable, like the Ship of Theseus. Removing the entry from the front page for this reason seems disruptive but it could be run again after more work to thrash out this issue. Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the case is no "functional part" (doesn't make music), and often a case is much older than the functional parts. I also think that the little missing critical word could simply have been added, to not waste time in processing this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Nothing debatable about it, the case of the organ is like the frame of a painting. Nothing disruptive about it either, having such a glaring error on the main page is disruptive, and defending it even afterwards is probably more disruptive still. No need to waste time on this, C of E has had his chance to provide us with a correct hook to get this on the main page, instead he gave us an incorrect one that was on the main page for a while, end of story. Like I said, adding the word to the hook also means correcting the article, with the chance that you'll find many other similar errors. Furthermore, adding a word to the hook would get discussion with people who think the difference between an organ and an organ case is "debatable". Finally, the preview is done by three or four people, my check is only done by one. It is better that I bring it here for review, so that if I am demonstrably wrong (not simply on the say-so of people willing to find disruption in any attempt to remove errors from the main page) it can be rerun with a correct hook (the original or another). If I am right, I see little reason to rerun the hook. Fram (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's go through the numbers. The reviewer, the prep builder, the promoting admin and two neutral observers here feel that the hook was either fine or could have had a word added without changing much of the hook. It seems to me that you are the only one who has a problem with it so it seems reasonable that it should be put back or rerun later with the word added. The Royal C (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know that accuracy was decided by numbers. There is a genuine discussion possible about whether a hook with an error in it should be removed or should be altered (where possible) to make it correct. No real discussion is possible about the fact that the original hook was not fine, and anyone who put the hook back as it was should be blocked for knowingly posting false information to the main page. Putting it back with a word added is not "without changing much of the hook", it's changing the meaning of the hook.
Every hook I removed from the main page was in your reasoning said to be fine by the nominator, reviewer, promotor and queue builder, so that would make it always 4 against 1. Still, most hooks I removed were wrong anyway (I remember one case where I was wrong in removing it, and that's one reason why I bring these here for review and discussion).
So, if you have any reliable sources for the original hook, feel free to present them and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, please don't state that the original hook was correct because some people wrote or approved it. Fram (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

For all clarity (it wasn't clear to me initially), the editor above, "The Royal C" who claims that the hook could be rerun without changing it, is an alternative account of the C of E, the one that wrote the wrong hook and article in the first place. Using both your normal acount and an alternative account in one discussion isn't a good idea. Anyway, making a mistake in a hook is understandable (making them too often is a problem of course); continuing to defend the error after it has been pointed out, with evidence, to be wrong is a much more serious issue though, as it points to lack of competence (to give the AGF possibility). The only ones since I raised this here to defend the hook are Andrew Davidson, always happy to disagree with me no matter if he is right or wrong, and you, who wrote the hook in the first place. Neither has presented any evidence to suggest that this is indeed the oldest organ in the British Isles, but still you want to repost it to the main page. Please stay away from DYK completely if you can't see the problem with this. Fram (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The claim of "the oldest organ" is a major thing: it means the oldest musical instrument, which is highly significant. The oldest organ case is, as noted, a very different claim: a housing or piece of furniture, not something that makes music. This is a major mistake to have made, and minimizing it rather than owning up to it is very disappointing to see. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A church organ is a complex instrument with many parts and the case is a significant part. For example, see Understanding the Pipe Organ which states "Not only does the organ case physically define its contents, it actually plays an important part in the production of the sound of an instrument." It functions as a resonator and projector of the sound. As it also defines the physical form of the instrument, it is comparable to the body of a violin, say. One might have an antique violin in which components such as the strings, bow, bridge and pegs have been renovated or replaced but, so long as the body is the same, one might say that it is the same instrument. Per the Ship of Theseus, it is a philosophical question as to when the extent of component replacement makes an instrument no longer the same. One might compare it with a Wikipedia article which may be subject to many changes but still might be regarded as the same article in some senses.
Such issues are best resolved by discussion and consensus, not by peremptory action. This is a content dispute and Fram has used admin powers to edit through protection, contrary to WP:INVOLVED. If Fram is too superior to get involved in the preliminary business of DYK review and assembly, they should still follow the process of logging their complaints at WP:ERRORS so the issue can be discussed and an impartial admin then resolve the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you really understand WP:INVOLVED. I remove errors from the main page, I am not involved with these articles. If I notice, as an admin, that some editors are too often responsible for such errors, then I raise this issue and if needed take action. In this case, the hook doesn't match the source for it, and in addition I have added a reliable source about the subject of the hook (oldest British organ) which also doesn't mention the hook article but another one. You can start as many philosophical discussions as you want, but they won't change a thing. Fram (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Fram has taken a position on a content issue and then edited both the article and the main page in support of that position. Editing through protection in a unilateral way is a clear breach of WP:INVOLVED. Acting in this way is also contrary to the big box at the head of this page which states plainly "Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors." Fram repeatedly refuses to follow our customary, consensus-based processes. Per WP:ADMIN, admins "are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute." Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • [14] You are free to raise this issue at WP:ANI any time you like, but I would suggest starting with some fact-checking before you make claims about other editors. Starting an allegation with an obviously false claim is the best way to get a boomerang there. Fram (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Fram said "in addition I have added a reliable source about the subject of the hook". I took this to mean that they had updated the article. Now it seems that they did not do so. I'm not sure what that comment was supposed to mean now. In future, I shall verify Fram's comments. Andrew D. (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In my original post, right at the start of this section, I have added a reliable source about the subject of the hook (the oldest organ in the British Isles). This source doesn't mention this church or organ case, so why would I add it to the article? While you are free to verify all my comments as much as you like, it would be wiser if in the future you first verified your own comments. Checking whether someone has or hasn't updated an article really isn't that hard. Fram (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, the box at the top of this page is there to let people know that the current template is unlikely to get attention here fast enough; admins regularly monitor the Errors page and can actually make changes there in a timely fashion, usually within an hour or two. An admin who spots a problem directly can fix it even faster than that, and many admins do so. What Fram posts here are post-mortems, after an issues has been corrected. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Fram is right to remove such poor hooks from the main page and we should fully support that. After all, why would anyone condone incorrect or even debatable content on the main page? Sadly folks like Davidson spend too much time incorrectly attempting to quote Wikipedia policy and not enough time actually understanding it and implementing it to the benefit of our readers. Never mind, the ignorance can be ignored, as is often the case, and Fram should be congratulated for continuing to patrol the jokey bit of the main page which is frequently peddling bollocks, as Davidson well knows. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I think Fram is right, and has said all that needs to be said. "Davidson" and "ignorance"?? Would like it if Andrew D. decided to condescendingly call you "Man"? That's just impolite. 217.38.166.147 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Move on, it wasn't long ago that he was Colonel Warden, and frankly who cares what a drive by IP with an agenda thinks? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Update I happened to spot another error in ITN yesterday which I reported at WP:ERROR. A day later, I find that, after prevaricating for while about how to handle this, the editors at WP:ERROR have done nothing and the error is still there on the main page. That process seems to be ineffective and so Fram's bold policy of pulling suspect items has something to be said for it. I shall report this error to Fram now. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    There was no "prevarication" merely an invitation to you to fix the article you were complaining about so that it would be synchronous with any error reports. Clearly the competence levels aren't quite there yet. I see your pointed comment was treated with the contempt it deserved. Now then, take your horse and leave it out to dry. Somewhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I reported the problem to Fram but they immediately reverted the report! But the main page error is still there days later. See the Hindustan Times, for a more accurate statement. Some errors are more equal than others, it seems... Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You rejected the suggestion to fix the article which would have led to an embarrassing mismatch between the blurb in ITN and the referenced article. You need to start stepping up and help to actually solve problems rather than just observe and prevaricate and flog horses. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The revision I suggested was to simply to remain silent about the level of collection loss and so there would be no mismatch. And even if there were some kind of mismatch, that's not something I could resolve because changing both pages in sync would require admin rights. The error remains on the main page and has been there for five days now. I'd be quite happy to fix it but the page is protected to prevent me. I've reported it three times now but nothing is done. It's quite remarkable. Andrew D. (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What's remarkable is your recalcitrance and your reluctance to do anything practical to help with issues, you simply keep flogging the horse. If you believe the hook to be erroneous, then the article is erroneous. You can do something about that but you choose not to. The hypocrisy is remarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

Can the prep promoter also be the queue promoter? User:Coffee added a bunch of hooks to Prep 4, then promoted the set to the queue. I notice that the bios/non-bios are all clumped together instead of alternating, as we usually do it. Yoninah (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As I rarely find all of the prep areas basically empty with an empty queue line as well (as was the case this time), I rarely have to promote hooks myself. But, regardless, there aren't any actual policies backing up what you may perceive to be some of my fellow admins "de facto" applications of hook promotion... so unless another admin wants to edit queue 4 for consistency, there's no reason to fall into instruction creep or request some form of unneeded bureaucracy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Probably best to ping us non-admins to build some prep sets; there is supposed to be a double-check between prep and queueing. Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any problem here. Many admins routinely promote sets with their own articles. SSTflyer 11:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what our rules currently say about this, but it isn't best practice to both build a set and promote it, it's better that someone else does the promotion as it adds another level of scrutiny. Probably the only time it should be done is when DYK is on the verge of running late and there is nobody else around to do the promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw: All of the prep areas are empty and only one queue is filled currently. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It feels like all the prep builders are on strike. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll be honest, there was a real eager beaver over here for awhile who sort of charged in and took over for a bit... I felt rather unneeded. But if the pace has slowed, I can re-up. Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not on strike, but have temporarily been completely absorbed in the Awaken the Dragon contest, so much so that I haven't done anything much at DYK for several weeks. The same will not be true of the upcoming Core contest, where competitors will have six weeks to work on one core article! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, please re-up. The pace has slowed quite a bit, and you are needed. Thanks for offering! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, Please see Queue 6. I just did my very first admin promoting from Prep 6 to Queue 6. So, you have another back-up admin available, now, to help promote to queues. Let me know if anything seems amiss. — Maile (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Maile, congratulations on becoming an admin, and for your first prep to queue promotion. Glad to know you'll be available; I expect you'll be needed. The added DYKbotdo looks fine. However, I did notice that the set has an extraneous DYKnom template in it (at the end of the DYKmakes); the example template wasn't removed when the set was prepared. So if you could please delete that one line, that would be great. This sort of thing is why it makes sense to double-check everything as part of the promotion process. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Being able to promote to DYK queue is one of the reasons I ran for admin. Hopefully, to be able to do my end with low drama. I was going to promote Prep 1, also, but when checking the wrestling hook vs. source, while it might be correct, is confusing to me in the source. And I don't know wrestling terminology (etc.). — Maile (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
LOL! It was one of the reasons I ran for mine too, but I had a bit more trouble. Congrats on surviving the gauntlet, Maile! Montanabw(talk) 21:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you can take another shot at RFA later. I was a bit surprised that mine had relatively few snags. And what Opposes came up really had nothing to do with my edit history, but rather because (IMO) I wasn't dancing to the right tune on an issue or two, shall we say. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed incorrect Elizabeth Peer hook from Main Page

  • ... that American journalist Elizabeth Peer was Newsweek's first female foreign correspondent, foreign bureau chief, and war correspondent?

Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Peer @Mackensen, Northamerica1000, Yoninah, and Coffee:

No idea if the other claims are correct, but she definitely wasn't the first foreign bureau chief for Newsweek; this honour was for Jane Whitmore (Rome, 1971), as explicitly stated in a book extensively used in the Peer article [15] and in a newspaper article from that time [16], showing that this is not an error from that book. Fram (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies on missing that, I tend to trust Yoninah's hook promotions... but, it seems I'll need to double check them from now on. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
And what would the alternative be? To use the word "female" three times in the hook? The meaning is clear enough for any non-nitpicking reader. SSTflyer 09:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Is Jane Whitmore not female? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite, I thought Fram's point rendered the hook factually inaccurate, not just to a "non-nitpicking reader". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I did have to check though, since my favorite character in Firefly is named 'Jane'. I read Fram's comment as "They are not the first female foreign bureau chief" as like the hook, he did not feel he had to spell it out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. Blair (otherwise reliable), described Peer becoming Paris bureau chief as "another first" and I had no reason to doubt the source. There would have been no way for anyone to check Blair; my own copy came from microfilm. I've amended the article to reflect that Peer had two firsts, no three. It would entirely accurate to say that she was its first female foreign correspondent and war correspondent. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that Povich gives 1971 for Jane Whitmore, which conflicts with the Post-Standard article. Any masthead from the era can resolve the matter, though it's not relevant for Peer's article. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot

I thought I should report that DYKUpdateBot has failed to complete all its tasks related to the most recent updating of the DYK template on MainPage. I hope it's running alright. It may be a good idea to check again when the next update is due at May 5th, 01:51 (UTC). Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio in Q4

Please pull Theory of mind in animals ASAP - it contains blatant copying / close paraphrasing of multiple sources, including [17][18][19] and others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pulled now. Can someone fill preps please? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber, can you please also pull the DYKmake and DYKnom credits (there shouldn't have been both for the same person on the same article), and change the first ellipsis from an ellipsis character to three periods? Although, hopefully, you'll be able to promote a hook from a newly filled prep before too long, so we don't have a queue that could potentially be promoted with an unfilled hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
removed credits - gotta run. back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I have filled Prep5 and put one hook in Prep6 that you might like to use to fill Queue4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That hook on P6 is now on Q4. Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. --PFHLai (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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) 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot blooper

APerson, I think our bot has the hiccups. The update bot just posted the new DYK set on the main page. And nominators for two sets previous - this one - started getting second notices on their talk pages. Have any idea what happened? — Maile (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, currently investigating. APerson (talk!) 01:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Maile66, I do believe you have the wrong bot; the bot that left the message you commented under is DYKUpdateBot, operated by Shubinator. For the record, the messages left by that bot should probably be signed. APerson (talk!) 01:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Crisco 1492, APerson - Never mind. It wasn't the bot, and I'm the one who moved this set up from Prep to Queue, so it's ultimately my fault. I just looked at the empty template. It had {DYKmake|Marlia Hardi|Crisco 1492}} at the top, in addition to the ones that should have been there. A lesson learned. I'll make sure I check each and every DYK make before I move anymore from Prep to Queue. My fault. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no problem at all! (I still think we should have the bot's signature on those messages, though.) APerson (talk!) 02:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No big deal. Glad we figured that out, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #5 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) 11:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Victoria Coates

Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 is now suspended. Can we use the hook on Template:Did you know nominations/Victoria Coates now? Or do we still wait till after June 15th? Please advise. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for it to wait. As it says on the Coates template, the delay was until the end of the primaries "or until Ted Cruz quits the race". Suspending a campaign is effectively quitting the race, so even though he (and all the other candidates who have dropped out) are still on the primary ballots, they're not contesting the election any more. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 Done Promoted. SSTflyer 05:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset & SSTflyer. --PFHLai (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Tinned peaches

I read an interesting obituary in The Times last week. The subject was Lord James Blears and I found that this article had been created recently by another editor. As the topic seemed quite fresh and fascinating, I nominated it for DYK, spending a QPQ to do so.

I was expecting that there might be an objection that the nomination was late but I had a response ready. This was rule D9 which states, "'Seven days old' limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations." It seemed that we were having trouble filling the DYK queues at that time and so there was a need for good topics such as this. Unfortunately, the nomination was closed without notifying me and so I didn't get a chance to discuss the matter.

One problem with the seven day rule is that it tends to favour self-noms by regular DYK contributors who are familiar with this rule and game it by preparing articles in user space and only moving them to article space when they are ready to nominate. Articles by new and unfamiliar editors will tend to be discriminated against and so their first exposure to DYK may give the impression that it is an unfriendly and bureaucratic place. To confirm this systemic bias, I just checked the current DYK set on the main page and found that every single case was a self-nom.

To encourage new blood, I suggest that the seven day rule be relaxed for first timers and nominations which are not self-noms. In such cases, the rule of D9 should be used instead – that the nomination be accepted if it is newer than the oldest date listed in the older nominations section.

Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Relaxing the time limit by a day or two should be no big deal, esp. for newbies. Please also consider showing newbies the way to WP:GAR, the other way to qualify one's (older) work for DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully, new contributions and the wisdom of experienced editors can be "reunited". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
An aside about this particular article. "Interesting" doesn't even scratch the surface of Lord Tallyho Blears. His name brings a smile to my face. And I know nothing about wrestling, just his presence in Hawaii surfing. I left a message on the article's talk page in hopes that someone with a comprehensive knowledge of both wrestling and surfing can bring that article up to GA, irrespective of any DYK issues. The subject is certainly worth the bother to do so. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I rejeced the nomination because it was made a month and a half after the article was created: there has never been an article nominated so far after creation or expansion that has been accepted, and I can't imagine one so late ever being accepted. With a backlog of 200+ nominations, D9 doesn't come into it: 200 is a large backlog. As PFHLai says, a few days for a newbie is fine. Over a month late by a very experienced nominator: clearly ineligible. No special exception for nominations that are not self-noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Rotten peaches? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This proposal looks like it's designed to increase the bureaucracy of the process, yet another rule &c. We appear to have plenty of nominations, just not enough people checking hooks and loading preps. I remember (back in the day) when three sets of eight per day was the norm. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I also remember for a while we had 4 sets each day.... --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Solid nitrogen

Someone has been unwise enough to move the Solid nitrogen template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I'm posting a new list of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through April 27. As of the most recent update, 43 nominations have been approved, leaving 148 of 191 nominations still needing approval, the first time since summer 2014 that we've been below 200. There was a nice pickup in reviewing older nominations since last time; only six are left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 06:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jungle cat

More confusion coming up, in Jungle cat, "Unlike its name, the jungle cat shuns rainforests and woodlands;[28][32][35] it also keeps away from open areas.[30] In Indochina, the jungle cat occurs mainly in deciduous forests rich in dipterocarp trees.[1]"

How does it shun rainforests and woodlands while it lives in forests rich in rainforest trees? Was this article science fact checked? --2600:380:B311:4565:8DFA:A87E:7C3B:4572 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked one source, no shunning or eschewing involved, "the jungle cat, despite its name, is not strongly associated with the classic rainforest "jungle" habitat, but rather with wetlands."

Maybe someone should check the others, or will this just run like they extra long epoch? --2600:380:B311:4565:8DFA:A87E:7C3B:4572 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2016

Please remove Jungle cat from the queue and get the article cleaned up and verified before it is on the main page. --2600:380:B311:4565:8DFA:A87E:7C3B:4572 (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC) 2600:380:B311:4565:8DFA:A87E:7C3B:4572 (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hook, article and sources say that it prefers swamps and generally is not usually found in dense forests, can you elaborate where you see the inconsistency? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Request disabled due to lack of response — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone here care that bad articles and mistated facts are put on the main page

At all? Dorkovo Museum. --2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that was not good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
So how about a bot that puts a notice somewhere, here or where the queues are prepped, when the main page DYK errors report is edited? It should not be business as usual, keep prepping, add more DYKs, it's someone else's problem, when incorrect information is spotlighted on Wikipedia's main page. It is not possible to edit the main page, and DYK community just says, "Don't tell us about it," when DYK community should want to fix it. --2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Your enthusiasm is wonderful. Can you specifically link us to something where anyone told you "Don't tell us about it,"? Quite frankly, those who are willing to take on the task of correcting the main page errors already have Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on their watchlists, and they know as soon as an error is reported. And I think they should be applauded for their willingness to take on the errors. Many of those editors, if not most of them, are also active here. It's all volunteer effort at Wikipedia, and there are no big bosses to delegate the work load. Those who are not willing to deal with main page errors are not going to be motivated by a bot message on the DYK pages. Nobody likes errors, but there's already a team of diligent DYK editors checking the Main Page/Errors notification. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Right at the very top of this page, "Error reports: Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you." Nobody was diligently checking anything. Not the DYK before it went on the main page, calling a gomphothere a mastodon, and an epoch an era in one place and an epoch in another; not the main page after the error was reported and sat there unattended to for a few hours. I can't imagine much more embarrassing than getting thousands of hits on a bad fact. A bad fact should be instantly removable, but instead, it can't even be edited, and it sits around for hours drawing people into the worst of Wikipedia. This notice at the top of the page says a lot, like, "We churn them out, but then it's not our responsibility." There isn't a diligent team of DYK editors checking the Main Page/Errors notification; I got another editor to correct it by posting on his/her talk page. --2601:285:101:A67A:6182:FC72:30D:17CD (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It is still sitting on the article talk page, by the way. It matters that readers are misinformed anywhere on Wikipedia. --2601:285:101:A67A:6182:FC72:30D:17CD (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #5 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) 10:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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) 10:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #5 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) 10:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Updates needed in the hours UTC 0 - UTC 12:00

I'm always happy to do the updates, but please be advised that I am usually not on DYK the hours UTC 0 - UTC 12:00. Today's update will be about 2 hours late because the top queue was empty overnight. So, any admins who are online during those hours and notice the top Queue is empty, it would be good if you could move a set into it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Olympics articles

Casting our minds back to 2012, several editors had quite a bit of fun expanding and creating dozens of articles which were spread out throughout the two weeks of the Olympics with peaks on the opening day and the closing day. The same again occurred for the paralympics. I'm presuming that something similar will happen again for this year's games - certainly I'm planning on working up some articles (I've already got a list!). What I wanted to check was if it was OK for the work to begin slightly earlier than normal given the numbers of articles we're probably talking here - I was thinking two months ahead of the opening ceremony, meaning that work could begin on June 5. Any thoughts? Miyagawa (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've boldly added a section to the Special Occasion holding area for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which will be held August 5-21, and suggest that Template:Did you know nominations/Zahra Nemati be moved there. The 2016 Summer Paralympics aren't scheduled until September 7-18; perhaps it's too early to open a section for that? If not, I'm happy to go ahead; there's already one nomination approved, Template:Did you know nominations/Sandra Khumalo. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'm not sure I fully agree with moving everything to a special holding area so far out. If one idea behind DYK is to attract new editors then I'd think some attempt to do so in the run up to the Games, to tidy up current articles on athletes, nations, events etc. (and create new ones) is what would be needed. During the Games themselves there will already be plenty of people searching for these pages and hopefully being inspired to edit. Whilst it's nice to have some mention on the front page, in the past this has been also been covered by an ongoing events link to e.g. Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics at the bottom of ITN. I think a sensible assesement of how many DYKs we might want during the Games is needed before we horde too many. 1 hook per set, 2 sets per day for 17 days = 34 hooks for example? I'm not against my hooks being held back but would like to hear everyone's thoughts the points I've raised - Basement12 (T.C) 16:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
If i remember right, we pretty much did that for the 2012 games although we didn't set a specific number parameter. I remember the opening/closing day had perhaps two or three hooks per set but we never even came close to filling a set on any day of the competition. For the most part each set had one, two or even none. I'm pretty sure we only reached around the 30 hooks or so you're suggesting, but I think the key thing is that there's no guarantee that they'll be included during the Olympics and may appear afterwards in order to balance the sets. Prior to the 2012 games we started running some hooks early as it looked like we had quite a few. Miyagawa (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I have created a holding area for the Paralympics. The NCs have started naming teams, and the article creation process has started. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

Chahan (food) was promoted without an image, leaving the hook obscure rather than hooky. Could an administrator please adjust the hook as follows:

... that chahan, a Japanese fried rice dish, may have originated from Chinese immigrants who arrived at the port of Kobe in the 1860s?
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

The hook related to The True Memoirs of an International Assassin currently in Prep 4 reads; ... that in an upcoming film, Kevin James plays a writer who is mistaken for a real assassin when his fictional novel publishes as a non-fiction? Our rule book says "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." Writing plot of the film in the hook doesn't fit in our this rule; unless we are not much keen on following this point these days. Pinging involved editors @Yoninah, Captain Assassin!, and Cwmhiraeth: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The real world is involved in the statement that Kevin James plays one of the characters in the film. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if that much of real worldliness is sufficient. Am not sure why such a clause was even introduced in the rules. It probably was to avoid all fictional stuff going on main page. But do such subordinate clause like phrases make enough of real worldliness? I mean, we can always throw the creator's name in the hook related to fictional work and get clear of this. If that's what's intended then maybe rules can be altered a bit for clarity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're reading so much into this, Dharmadhyaksha. The hook describes a noted actor who plays a part in a film. The hook is hooky. I think it's fine the way it is. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This is puzzling to me, also. I find nothing wrong with this hook. The rules do not say the hook must entirely be about the real world. It says "in some way". Nor does the rule say the hook cannot use part of the fiction. Seems to me that criteria has been met. — Maile (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to point out, the rule is 'the hook must involve the real world in some way' - if your argument that it involves the real world because the part is played by a 'real' actor, that is frankly ridiculous. It means every single fictional hook can get away with ignoring the rule - it renders it impotent. 'Fictional character X written by author (real person)...' etc etc. The point of the rule is that primarily fictional hooks are to have links to reality more substantial than 'they were created/portray by a real person'. Which would apply to every single fiction-based hook. If that *is* consensus as to how the rule should be interpreted, the rule needs to disappear as serving no purpose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

@Nvvchar: it is not clear that the image you've matched with the lead hook is the same golden wreath found in 2005. The article that you've used as a reference shows a different gold wreath. Please advise. Yoninah (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • YoninahThere are two gold wreaths in the museum. There is only one img of the 2005 wreath in Wikicommons but this is different from the one found and gifted to the museum in 2015. The ref2 gives imgs of the wreaths. At the beginning of the article which is the one found in 2015 and which is not uploaded to Wikicommons by any one. The same ref at the end also gives img of the 2005 wreath which matches with img in the hook. May be the photographer and uploader of the img is different. I feel that the img is genuine and of 2005 as exhibited in the museum.--Nvvchar. 01:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, now I see it in the source. Thanks for the update. Yoninah (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

For six hours we claimed on the Main Page that someone set an athletics world record. He didn't.

Template:Did you know nominations/Andre Morris @Acdixon, Yoninah, Intelligentsium, and Maile66:

The team set a Universiade Games record, the best time ever achieved at this one recurring event. That's not the same as a world record though. Apparently he did set a world record in the 4*400m relay indoor in 1999 (though the article mistakenly says it is the 4*100m relay, and also in error claims it was broken in 2015 when that happened in 2014).

The hook was also incorrect as he didn't compete in the 4 × 100 metres relay but in the 4 × 400 metres relay at the Games Record event at the Universiade. Fram (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Regarding your heading, that is wrong. He did actually help set a world record. Regarding the rest, you seem to be correct. The competition in question is correct in the article, but was wrong in the hook; my fault. After re-checking the source, the event was the 4x400, not the 4x100; also my fault, and also incorrect in the article. Regarding the year the record was broken, the source wasn't totally clear, so I had to go by its publication date; again, probably my fault for trying to read between the lines.
The takeaway? I should not try to write articles outside my general knowledge area. I know beans about track and field, obviously. I just saw a reference to this person in an article and noticed he was kind of an interesting dude from a city near me, so I thought I'd take a little time and try to expand the article. The version I started with didn't mention a world record, a Games record, or even an event, but henceforth, I suppose I should just leave the stub to someone who knows more about the subject. There are plenty of historical politicians that need to be written about, after all. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, he didn't set the world record as claimed on the Main Page. I said in my post that he did set another world record. And there's no need to stop creating or expanding these articles, just try to avoid these small but essential errors. Normally these get picked up at the DYK process, but in this case thing slipped through. Fram (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed sourced nonsense from Prep 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Can't Stop the Feeling! @PFHLai, Cornerstonepicker, and Snuggums:

This is sourced to a Eurovision press release[20]: "For the first time in the history of the Eurovision Song Contest, a non-contestant Global Superstar, Justin Timberlake, will enter the Eurovision stage in Stockholm. " The problem is that while it reads a if no non-contestant has ever performed at Eurovision, this isn't true; many non-contestants have done the same, but apparently (and rather insulting to all the previous such stars), none of them were a "Global Superstar" (sic!).

Nearly every year, in the interval of the contest a non-participant performs, including e.g. Goran Bregović at the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, Apocalyptica at the Eurovision Song Contest 2007, Aqua (band) at the Eurovision Song Contest 2001, Riverdance at the Eurovision Song Contest 1994, and perhaps the biggest of them all, Boyzone at the Eurovision Song Contest 1997. Fram (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I would say it would be a hard argument that Boyzone are global superstars, but Riverdance was performed all over the place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Fram. Good catch. I thought that was "a non-contestant, Global Superstar Justin Timberlake,..." Now I see where the commas are. --PFHLai (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the intention wasn't that the others weren't "superstars" but that they weren't from elsewhere in the world—everyone else listed played in their home nation. Not germane to the hook, mind, just playing devil's advocate with the press release there. GRAPPLE X 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
From a brief look, that seems more likely (and also vaguely interesting) I cant find another Eurovision offhand where an international singer has performed (not as a contestant) rather than a home-grown act. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Didn't notice this right away since I wasn't pinged properly, but sorry about the hook being misleading. I wouldn't have accepted it if I knew about other non-contestants previously performing. Still open to other suggestions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Cornerstonepicker: As the original nominator, please come up with a new hook(s) and post it (them) on the nom template. Thanks --PFHLai (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Football Cup final hooks need review urgently

Hi all, Template:Did you know nominations/2016 FA Cup Final and Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Scottish Cup Final were being held for Saturday (21 May) but at the last minute Yoninah has placed the blue question mark on them. As I would like for these to run on the day of the finals, can I ask if members of the DYK community could review and pass these again please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to help out by promoting all the hooks today, but found a lack of citations in each article. Perhaps you could help out by adding the cites to the scores in the charts, and then I'll be happy to promote them. Yoninah (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
That is a very minor issue given that the sources and information is already mentioned in the text. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but DYK rulz are the DYK rulz. Pop in the cites, everyone will be happy. Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May 21 and May 22 special holding

Corey Lanerie (American horse jockey) is in the special holding area for May 21. Prep 1 is about the only prep area left that would be good for the United States on that date. In a squeeze, Prep 2. However, I didn't promote this hook to Prep, because I'm not sure where to put it. And maybe someone else might want to look at those two prep areas and mix things up a bit. Prep 1 has 3 football hooks and a cricket hook.

And just an alert that Höchsterwünschtes Freudenfest, BWV 194 is in special holding for this May 22, Trinity Sunday. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why an admin couldn't swap one of the three FA Cup hooks in Prep 1 (most likely the 1927 one) with Queue 6, which would be on the main page from 0100 to 1300 local time on the day of the 2016 FA Cup. Of course, this would have to be done within the next two hours, before Queue 6 is promoted... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
All right, that swap is done. Thanks for the suggestion. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The Lanerie article doesn't have to have an image if that's an issue. The race is tomorrow at about 6:30 pm EST. Prep 1 would work, I think. I moved the May 22 article to Prep 2. Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Lanerie is now in Prep 1. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Problems

Did you know nominations/2016 Uttarakhand forest fires did not archive correctly when I promoted it to Prep 4, and Did you know nominations/Can't Stop the Feeling is "broken". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Uttarakhand forest fires appeared to be already fixed by Allen3.
Try Template:Did you know nominations/Can't Stop the Feeling!. (Note the punctuation marks.) --PFHLai (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a while ago; here's a new list of the 32 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks at least ten days old. As of the most recent update, 38 nominations have been approved, leaving 147 of 185 nominations still needing approval. There continues to be steady activity working on these old reviews; only one is left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 05:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Age of Trevor Ford (now on Main Page)

I changed

to

Template:Did you know nominations/Trevor Ford @Kosack, Joseph2302, Cwmhiraeth, and Casliber:

The age of 45 is supported by the source[21], but seems to be wrong (or else his date of birth is wrong). The article gives his date of birth as 1 October 1923, and the date of the match he played in was August 31, 1968 (in the same source, and also in e.g. Garfield Sobers#Six sixes in an over. If these two dates are correct, he was 44 at the time of the match, not 45.

This didin't seem sufficient to pull the hook completely, but I removed the age anyway. Fram (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Great catch. All the references I have match his dob and the date of the match so perhaps the newspaper article simply assumed that it was because it's 45 years between the dates. Apologies for not checking that myself. Kosack (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, great catch. I checked the source, which said he was 45, but great catch on realising that the source was wrong. My bad. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

archived error

I can't seem to find any information about correcting errors in archived DYKs. I happened to find one and mentioned it in the relevant talk page, Template talk:Did you know nominations/Marin Temperica. Should anything else be done? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Joy. I am the author of the article in question and dyk nomination. What is the error you have in mind?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Apparently an extraordinary statement was referenced to an Ivo Vukcevich source, which is not only not WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's not even WP:RS, because of his countless biased diatribes against nationalities other than his own (he's so biased that he even put some of that in book titles, so it's not only non-encyclopedic, it's Vojislav Šešelj territory - a borderline WP:ARBMAC violation in and of itself). I have recently edited the article to remove the invalid source and the contentious claim, and the remaining issue is whether we still do something with the DYK entry (and what). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Vuckevich's works are indeed not WP:RS. I should have checked them better before using them. I added alternative sources: reference to a primary source with original text and secondary source. I don't think there was anything extraordinary in a dyk statement. Many people believed that version of Serbian language spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina was most beautiful and purest (meaning most correct). I think that Vuk Karadžić, who also dealt with preparation of literary language, took this version for modern literary Serbian language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

10 (MercyMe album) on Prep 5

This article carries the {{non-free}} tag. Is it still good for use on MainPage? --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No, not unless the tag is taken care of, PFHLai. What seems to be at issue is the non-free justification for the sound sample in the article, which J Milburn found "really lacking" in his edit summary when adding the tag; I think this is something that Toa Nidhiki05 needs to address before the hook can be sent to the main page. (Obviously, I disagree with Northamerica1000, who promoted the hook despite the tag.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Cancelled. I pulled the hook from Prep 5, reopened and left a comment about this matter at Template:Did you know nominations/10 (MercyMe album) and notified both the article creator and reviewer about this matter, pointing them to the DYK nomination page. In the process of verifying things before promoting the hook, I apparently overlooked the tag atop the article. North America1000 20:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Milburn has taken issue for some reason with many of my articles I've recently worked on. The justification is standard and I have dozens of good articles using NF material without any complaint. I frankly find his complaint really lacking, unless he wants to add it to the literally hundreds of good and featured articles using them. Toa Nidhiki05 20:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Arguably individual songs, unless deserving of special mention, do not require samples on articles that are not about that song. I think its safe here since at least a couple of the reviews of the album call out that song specifically for praise/criticism, however that needs to be made explicit for NF usage. 'Audio files demonstrate the song better than words alone' is not a fantastic rationale by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree, which is why when I do put songs in album articles (usually 2 or 3, maybe more if there are a ton of songs commented about or the album has more songs than normal) I make sure they are either singles or album cuts with notability. But he's even tagged articles for songs I've written - and it's generally accepted, at least from what I've seen, that a song article can have a sample of the song. Your clarification on what would be problematic is much appreciated, though - I'll add a better justification. Toa Nidhiki05 15:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hooks that contain part of a source

The above section on the Prep 4 hook prompts me to put a reminder here about how hooks are worded. Being a fairly new admin, it's also new to me for checking each nomination against its source before moving a prep up to queue. After a couple of weeks of it, I think I can safely say DYK "takes a village" on catching the slip ups. No blame is applied here, because I believe each reviewer catches errors on instinct of what they're used to noticing. Not everybody catches the same type of error. I just removed three promoted hooks because the wording is too close to the source. I think that's kind of a biggie to have a hook on the main page that is almost verbatim to the source, if it's not in quotes. So, please, when anyone is promoting to prep, checking the hook against the wording of the source is a plus factor. — Maile (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 lead hook

The hook for George O'Mullane includes the phrase "pluck and skill", which reads to me like a quote—at least "pluck" does, since it's a characterization that is highly unusual for encyclopedic prose. Unfortunately, I can't check the offline source, but rather than pre-emptively pull the hook, I thought I'd ask nominator HappyWaldo whether "pluck" or the larger phrase is taken from the source. If it is, then the appropriate quotes should be added to the article (or the phrase reworded); if not, then a word other than "pluck" is probably more appropriate (perhaps something along the lines of "determination" can be used instead). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, BlueMoonset. "Pluck and skill" comes directly from the source. Perhaps quotation marks should be added? - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
HappyWaldo, thanks for the quick response. I've added the quotes to both the Prep 4 hook and the passage in the article. If the quoted material from the source is more than those three words, please modify the placement of the double quotes in the article as appropriate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #6 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) 22:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

1979 Revolution: Black Friday (Queue 3)

In Queue 3, the hook about 1979 Revolution: Black Friday should say "after the announcement", not "after the release", per the article and sources. – Rhain ☔ 05:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pull needed from Q2

Please pull Pashtun colonization of northern Afghanistan from Q2, it contains too-close paraphrasing of this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 Done — Maile (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you basing this statement on, though? After all, the copyright violation percentage for this article here is a mere 5.7%: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Pashtun+colonization+of+northern+Afghanistan&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Futurist110 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Futurist110: Copyvio tools will only catch exact word-for-word copying, not close paraphrasing. Compare for example:
  • Article: In many cases, voluntary migrants to the north were provided with travel expenses, animals, free land in perpetuity and a three year tax exemption.[1] Abdur Rahman's policies of voluntary migration for sedentary Pashtuns proved to be more successful than previous forced attempts, especially regarding nomads.
  • Source: In many cases voluntary migrants to the north were provided with travel expenses, animals, free land in perpetuity and a three year tax exemption. Many accepted this offer. Abdur Rahman’s policies of voluntary migration for sedentary Pashtuns proved to be more successful than previous forced attempts, especially regarding nomads (Kakar, 1979, p. 134).
These two excerpts are almost identical, but not exactly - so this likely wouldn't be caught by a copyvio tool, but it's still problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, on closer look it appears that the tool is only comparing the first couple of sections of the source article anyway - that is also contributing to its failure to pick up on problems here. Anyone know why that's happening? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's related to the recent switch to Yandex? We had to stop using Yahoo and can't use more well known search engines like Bing or Google for TOU/cost reasons. @The Earwig: might be able to shed light? Intelligentsium 19:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay...
  • This has nothing to do with the switch to Yandex. This direct comparison does not involve a search engine.
  • The source uses JavaScript to load its text, so most of the content is not available to the comparison tool. A PDF is available on the page, but unfortunately its formatting is too unusual for the tool to handle properly.
  • The tool can catch close paraphrasing, as long as it finds a source URL to compare with. The example you gave would definitely be detected. For fun, I copied the paper to a plain text document, and it finds plenty of interesting stuff.
— Earwig talk 20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good to know. @Futurist110: 65%! Tools aren't perfect, but this should give you an idea of where to start. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Prep 6 needs promoting, but I compiled the set

Just an FYI on Prep 6. All hooks are loaded, but I promoted 6 of the 7 hooks. I think someone else needs to promote it to queue. — Maile (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep areas need immediate attention

We've entirely ran out of queues again and have no completed prep areas. Can someone please address this soon so a promoting administrator (such as myself) doesn't have to break the chain of review by adding a hook theirself. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw:, @BlueMoonset: Please see above. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, @Northamerica1000: — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Starting...Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Prep 1 and 2 done, will take a whack at the others until I run out of hooks. Montanabw(talk) 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, Preps 1, 2 and 3 are now filled, 4-6 partial, I'm out of hooks I can promote. I cleared a couple of hooks that needed additional reviewers and did a qpq on a DYK, so there should be enough approved hooks right now for someone else to finish up prep 4 at least. Lots of basic reviews needed, fewer dramas to settle than usual. Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We've been scraping the bottom of the barrel for a while now. Right now there are only 15 approved hooks to choose from to build new prep sets. The set running on the main page right now has 5 U.S.-based hooks, in contradiction of the rule to have only 4. Is it time to slow down the promotions and go back to 7-hook sets? Yoninah (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be better to keep 8 hooks but slow the rate, otherwise it compromises the balance of the main page, and that's not fair on ITN or OTD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the main page right now, it's unbalanced with 8 hooks; 7 would clearly be better today. The sweet spot is typically 7 to 8, and reducing to 7 is something we've done many times in the past without deleterious effects. Reducing to 7 hooks twice a day would decrease our burn rate by 14 hooks a week; reducing to 8 hooks once a day would decrease our burn rate by 56 hooks a week. Why don't we try 7 hooks per set and see if that works; if it doesn't, we can go to one set a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I boldly reduced the hook count to 7 in Preps 4 and 5, and found that filling in these sets was a breeze. Could a bot program the other prep sets to 7 hooks? Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
If the "sweet spot" is 7, stick to 7 for good. We have lots of very wordy hooks at the moment: admins are promoting too many unhooky hooks. And I'm not sure how filling 7 is "a breeze" yet 8 is nigh-on impossible. Maybe it's a "lost in translation" thing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Because it's one less unwieldy hook to wade through... Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Boldly going where no other bot has gone before, I temporarily reduced the others to 7 hooks. Also the "clear" template admins use when they promote to queue. Took only a few seconds. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see how 7 is "a breeze" and just one more hook is so much more difficult. Oh well. We'll have to trim the OTD/ITN side to match when we have shorter blurbs then. Which is a shame. The rest of the main page shouldn't have to suffer just because DYK can't get its act together. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Seven hooks should be okay, if most of the hooks are wordy. Let's not have too many short hooks together. --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely. Thanks PFHLai. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@PFHLai: Trust me, that won't be a problem. Gone are the days when nominators used to write snappy hooks. My favorite: "Did you know ... that Wooden Leg didn't have one?" Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW, maybe we can "cheat" by making the picture slightly bigger (or taller, if it's a portrait). We just need to be consistent in how much space the hook sets occupy on MainPage. My favorite short hook: ... ?  ;-) --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #6 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) 22:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And I repeat here. Prep 6 is ready, and I promoted the majority of the hooks to it. Can an admin other than me please promote Prep 6 up to Queue 6? And just in case, I'm alerting BlueMoonset — Maile (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did it myself, since there's only about 10 minutes before the deadline. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Probably for the best, Maile. I had just pinged Crisco 1492's talk page, in case he showed up before 00:00, and was about to do the same with Cas Liber, but there were no guarantees they would be on line in time. Since I'm not an admin, there's nothing I can do directly. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous DYK admin after checking multiple sets of hooks in succession. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting clarification of hook currently on Main Page

I was reading through the DYK section on the main page when one of the hooks caught my eye:

  • "... that Anna Rügerin's 1484 books are the first publications known to be typeset by a woman?"

When I followed the link to the article for Anna Rügerin, I noticed that this fact isn't mentioned in the article. Instead, the article simply says that "Anna Rügerin is considered to be the first female typographer to inscribe her name in the colophon of a book" (see Colophon (publishing) to learn what a "colophon" is). The article does not say that her 1484 books are the first to be typeset by a women. In fact, the source cited by the article states that "In Mantua, northern Italy, about 1476, Estellina Conat, wife to physician and printer Abraham Conat was involved in the typesetting of one of the earliest printed Hebrew books ...." If I understand this correctly, it sounds like Rügerin's books were not the first to be typeset by a woman, because they were preceded by Conat's work eight years earlier.

I am posting this here rather than at WP:ERRORS, because I don't want this pulled prematurely if my interpretation is wrong. I am pinging Carwil (who wrote/nominated the article), MartinPoulter (who approved the nomination), and Maile66 (who promoted the hook). Thanks in advance for the clarification! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you pinged the nominator and approver. I noticed this is translated from the Spanish wikipedia. What I see in that same source is: The very first woman to ever add her name to the colophon of a printed book as its printer is Anna Rügerin, who published two folio editions in the summer of 1484 in the imperial city of Augsburg in southern Germany. I'm sure that's the basis for that hook. Let's see what the others have to say. — Maile (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the hook is not supported by the source. Can we change the hook to something like this:
  • ... that Anna Rügerin is considered to be the first female typographer to inscribe her name in the colophon of a book?
Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Update: I placed a post at WP:ERRORS in which I asked for this hook to be changed. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Update #2: This has been removed from the main page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Note: As I feared, I have now had to reduce OTD to four items as the DYK section is so short. Please reconsider using just seven hooks, it would be better to slow the updates down and go back to eight hooks, as the current approach is compromising other sections of the main page. This is unfair as other, well-managed sections of the main page should not have to suffer because DYK can't get hooks sorted out and accurate enough in time. Slow it down. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't we have some mechanism for immediately replacing a pulled hook with another that's approved and in the preps/queues? Yoninah (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Which would mean that if an erroneous hook gets pulled after 6 or 8 hours (not uncommon), the replacement unproblematic hook would only get 6 or 4 hours on the main page, due to a problem with another hook. This seems hardly fair on the people who worked hard to get their hook on the main page. Plus, you then need to check that the replacement hook wasn't intended for a specific day or timeslot, and that it doesn't unbalance the DYK section on the main page (by then having e.g. two hooks on works by the same German composer or memebers of the same animal family or two different dino eggs or two creeks from Pennsylvania or ...) "Immediately" replacing a hook would put a significant extra burden on the people removing hooks from the main page. I for one will not burden myself with it. Fram (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This is on me: apologies to everyone concerned. One cited source describes Rügerin as "the first recorded female printer. Her 1484 books..." The other source specifically mentions typography. Reading in haste, I missed the statement about Conat. Lesson learned, thanks to Notecardforfree for the correction and, again, sorry to the volunteers whose time has been wasted. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Note to Yoninah: I can't recall ever having a hook replaced once the set has gone to the main page. We do replace pulled queue hooks with ones from prep, because we want the proper number to be promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is due to be archived, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current hooks (through May 20). As of the most recent update, 39 nominations have been approved, leaving 136 of 175 nominations still needing approval. There continues to be steady activity working on these old reviews, though any from before May 11 are left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 popash problems

  • ... that Popash, Florida was named after a large tree that nobody at the time was able to identify?

Template:Did you know nominations/Popash, Florida @SSTflyer, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, and Northamerica1000:

I removed this from Prep4 because

  • The source used in the article ([22]) states "The community of Popash, possibly named after the poplar ash or pop ash tree, began in the 1850s. According to the University of Florida, the popash or pop ash tree is native to Florida[23]. This is the Fraxinus caroliniana. The hook comes apparently from another source [24] but it is unclear to me why this one would be considered reliable, or why when we have tco contradictory sources, we would go with one of them and not with the other.
  • Speaking of sources, apart from the one unreliable sources all others link back to [25] a freepages genealogy site that is nothing but a page of scans of copyrighted texts from newspapers and the like, some with source, some without. This violates WP:ELNEVER rather badly. (Well, not all others link back, there is also a commercial link to a company located in popash: it is not clear to me why that would warrant free exposure here either, but luckily the domain has expired and the link isn't doing anything at all expect linking to Godaddy.com: at the moment, I can't even verify that the Oaks Ranch in Popash ever existed[26], which is weird).

Please remove the elnever link, consider removing the other link of questionable reliability, remove all reference to the Oaks Ranch, and rewrite the article to incorporate both theories about the origin of the name or eliminate the current one (without a reliable source). Fram (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note at the time. Just because the tree is later identified does not make the hook incorrect. SSTflyer 13:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
You are rapidly on your way to diqualify yourself as a DYK reviewer with such comments. Anything relevant to say about my comments? The fact that we have two contradictory sources, where the article and hook choose to go with one (unreliable) source and completely ignore the other, is somehow not important because the hook says "at the time"? Incredible. Fram (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn. I have copy edited the article to address content about the possible origin of the town's name, and have removed the link in question per WP:ELNEVER. Content about The Oaks Ranch has also been removed from the article. North America1000 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • N.b. Popash, Florida. Despite all of this, (WP:ELNEVER, et al.), it is easily arguable that the manner in which the sources exist and were presented in the article technically qualify under Fair use. However, I suppose it's moot now since I withdrew the nomination. It's all good. Who cares? It's just a rural town that hasn't really received any significant attention by mass media. The end. North America1000 14:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • WP:ELNEVER states in its lead (in bold): "These external-link guidelines do not apply to footnoted citations within the body of the article." So, they are not relevant to references in the article. Further, even if the online copies of the newspaper are not accessible, the newspaper articles themselves can be linked as off line sources. Stripping the article of references is not an improvement and if it is what Fram seeks then Fram should rethink. EdChem (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Let's just keep nitpicking and wiki-lawyering everything forever. It's just a hick town, no big deal. Maybe just nominate it for deletion instead. The end. North America1000 14:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I thought I was helping by pointing out that ELNEVER does not apply and the changes you are being asked for are unhelpful, but whatever - no reason for anyone to give a damn about my trying to help. EdChem (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
            • @EdChem: Your comments were helpful. You just happened to step into an already sore situation, not your fault. — Maile (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
              • My comment is open-ended; not directed toward anyone, just observations. There's no "sore situation" here. Bleh. I came along and improved the Popash, Florida article; seemed worthy of DYK so I nominated it. Yeah, I think the source and source usage is fair per Fair use. Maybe somebody will come along and work on the article later. It's just a small hick town. Who cares? It seems that I wasted my time working to improve a Wikipedia article, only to be met with derision and shaming, rather than discussion about actually improving the article. And people keep wondering why Wikipedia keeps losing editors. North America1000 14:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't believe WP:ELNEVER is usable here, then you can always read WP:LINKVIO, "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." Some quotes: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. " and "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." So, EdChem, the changes that I asked for are not "unhelpful", they are necessary under policy. And no, NorthAmerica1000, a site that reprints full articles without commentary and in some cases without even any indication of what the source was is not "fair use" under any stretch of the definition, it is pure and blatant copyright violation. My comments were necessary things to improve the article (and the hook), if you can't accept that and are being misguided by others here than tough luck, it's not my intention to discourage you but maintaining our policies is more important than what you believe or what must be accepted to keep you editing. Fram (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • All right, after consideration, I removed the link to the source in question per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINKS. As long as they're not linked, I believe the sources are still usable. I have re-opened the DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Popash, Florida. North America1000 03:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Northamerica1000: I am glad that you have kept the nomination and the references (without the links). EdChem (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Fram: If you can't see how your behaviour is unhelpful, then you need some time off to regain some perspective. Your goal of policy compliance is fine but your methods aren't. Just look at how NA1000 has reacted and see how content was affected and try taking some responsibility - you were concerned about links and achieved the removal of all references and in so doing almost got a valued contributor to withdraw. EdChem (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC) PS: Fram, starting with "If you don't believe WP:ELNEVER is usable here, then you can always read WP:LINKVIO, "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations."" sets a dreadful tone. You come across (in my view) as "I'm right, you're wrong so stop bothering me" rather than something more collaborative. Would it have been so hard to say "Yes, my mistake, the ELNEVER policy applies to external links. However, the links in the references (and just the links) are still to copyright violations and so are inconsistent with LINKVIO." You could have emphasised the issue and admitted to your error. Instead, you came across as the high-and-mighty admin before whom DYK editors should cower. You might not believe that goes on here, but it does, and I believe a collaborative and mutually respectful approach would be better for everyone. EdChem (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, what did I ask: "Please remove the elnever link, consider removing the other link of questionable reliability, remove all reference to the Oaks Ranch, and rewrite the article to incorporate both theories about the origin of the name or eliminate the current one (without a reliable source)." I did not ask to remove the copyvio references, just the links in them, which is what has been done now. The only reference I asked to be removed was the Oaks Ranch one, which was a dead link to a commercial entity without any notability. If you want to criticize my attitude and my demands, it would help if you started representing them correctly. That NorthAmerica, goaded on by you, at first overreacted is too bad, but he (and you) should know the policies on copyright (he nearly was an admin, for crying out loud). You stated "Stripping the article of references is not an improvement and if it is what Fram seeks then Fram should rethink. " and later "the changes you are being asked for are unhelpful", but this is obviously wrong. The changes I asked for where not what you claimed them to be, and were the minimum necessary under policy. I linked to WP:ELNEVER because it says "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:" (emphasis in original) which I thought made it clear that this overruled the "These external-link guidelines do not apply to footnoted citations within the body of the article." from the lead of that page. You disagreed with that interpretation, so I showed you another policy page (about the strongest policy page we have) with the necessary rules again in it. You may ask for collaboration all you want, but all I asked for was what the policy required, nothing more. I have seen no collaboration from you to achieve that goal, only obstruction. Oh, and @Maile66: please don't state that someone's comments are "helpful" if they misrepresent the situation and don't know policy, you were here not helping the discussion with your support for EdChem. Fram (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer we all move on now. Matters in the article have been addressed and the DYK nomination has been reopened. Also, inre "he nearly was an admin" above, I am an administrator on English Wikipedia. I don't mind Fram pointing out WP:LINKVIO, and actually agree with their doing so. For what it's worth, it's unlikely that all users and admins have memorized every point on every policy and guideline page on Wikipedia. North America1000 10:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, for some reason I (mis)remembered a failed RfA and never bothered to check. What I meant with that comment is that you aren't a newbie, but someone with enough experience to know our policies in general (just like me, Maile66 or EdChem for that matter). But I agree, the article has been cleaned up, the DYK can continue, and further discusion here is unlikely to improve matters beyond that. Fram (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5: eat and be eaten

  • ... that the California smoothtongue has a black pigment in its stomach lining which may help this small fish avoid being eaten?

Template:Did you know nominations/Leuroglossus stilbius @Cwmhiraeth, Jakec, and SSTflyer:

Removed from prep 5 because the hook is not supported by the article and at first glance not by the source either. The only line in the article related to the hook says "The fish has a double-chambered stomach, the first chamber having a black pigment in its lining which may prevent the light from luminescent prey it has swallowed from being visible from the exterior." No mention is being made of "why" this light is prevented from being seen from the exterior. Is it too hide the smoothtongue from its predators, or is to hide it from its prey? Perhaps another reason? The source given for the hook, [27] also doesn't seem to shed any light on this (pun intended). Page 110 is the only part I could find that deals with this black pigment. Fram (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I see that now. Though I suspect it would be a relatively easy fix. Perhaps something like ... that the California smoothtongue fish has a black pigment in its stomach lining which may prevent its bioluminescent food from being seen inside its stomach? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This fish spends much of its life in the deep ocean in total darkness. If it had eaten bioluminous prey it would not want light to shine through its translucent, pigmentless skin so evolution has solved the problem by including a black pigment in the lining of its stomach. Researchers observe things like this without being able to prove why the stomach lining is black. They state "an adaptation that may prevent light from bioluminescent prey from showing through" and my article states "... may prevent the light from luminescent prey it has swallowed from being visible from the exterior." This is one of many small fish that make daily vertical migrations to the surface to feed and then down into the depths to remain quiescent and digest the food. The hook statement seems OK to me, it does use the word "may" after all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:OR. It is only your idea of why this "may" happen, not something sourced. Fram (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It's sourced secondarily by Caillet and Ebeling (1990, p.110) where is has a primary original source of McAllister (1961)? They feed close to the surface, so what other purpose would preventing the escape if light have? This seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw. 86.171.17.120 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that this is indeed pure WP:OR. Fram (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not "pure OR" at all, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the article quoted. 86.171.17.120 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually read WP:OR? From the lead: "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Please explain how "this seems a prefectly reasonable conclusion to draw" differs one bit from this definition of WP:OR... Fram (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The authors found the presence of the pigment interesting and probably thought the advantages of its screening function too obvious to need explanation. But no matter, I have suggested a different hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hook in current Q4

Regarding this nomination currently in Queue 4, the hook states what Justice Sotomayor did but I think the hook is misleading as one justice alone does not determine a case. I suggest the hook be changed to note that Sotomayor J was writing the unanimous judgement for SCOTUS. EdChem (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@SSTflyer, Notecardforfree, and Omni Flames: for input. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, instead of "... that in a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"?" something like:
  • ... that a recent unanimous United States Supreme Court decision declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"?
  • ... that in a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Justice Sotomayor (writing for the Court) declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"?
I also wonder whether "retained" might be better than "declined to remove", shorter and it removes the double negative. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, I really don't think there is anything wrong with the original hook. Although the opinion was joined by seven of her colleagues, Justice Sotomayor is given credit as the author of the opinion. In fact, in legal scholarship, it is standard practice to attribute doctrinal developments to the Justice who authored the opinion. Compare, for example, "Chief Justice Marshall explained why ..." in this Harvard Law Review article at p. 2124 and "As Justice Brennan explained ..." in this Harvard Law Review Forum article at p. 275. Nevertheless, if you really feel strongly about this matter, then we can use this hook, which you suggested above:
As for the "declined to remove" v. "retained" issue, I think that "declined to remove" is a more accurate characterization of her opinion because there is dicta at the very end of the opinion (in which Justice Sotomayor explained that "it is up to Congress if it wishes to incorporate other entities into 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)’s special jurisdictional rule") that could be interpreted as an invitation for congress to break down the "doctrinal wall." In any event, I appreciate the fact that you took a close look at this hook (I really do think that check-ins like this make DYK much better). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Notecardforfree, I guess it is moot now, given the hook is on the Main Page. The reason for the double negative makes sense. I don't agree with your rationale, though, as both examples you cite have a single Justice explaining not unilaterally deciding. Put it this way, suppose Sotomayor J had been the single dissent in an 8-1 decision, the same hook could be written - that in a decision, she did X - but the situation would be different. Simply adding the word "unanimous" - as in "in a recent unanimous United States Supreme Court decision" - indicates that the position being quoted is that of the Court as expressed by the Justice and not of the Justice alone. In any case, we agree on the value of check-ins and other opinions and consensus can and will carry the day, so if my view isn't found persuasive, so be it. EdChem (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphans

I was looking at an article to review and found the article is an orphan and it's not obvious what should link to the article. Are orphan articles allowed in DYK? EdChem (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not among the DYK criteria. Review it if you like. — Maile (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Please tag the wikiarticle in question with {{Orphan|{{subst:DATE}}}} and mention this issue on the nom template. Hopefully, someone will come along and de-orphanize it soon. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Aromatization

I'd like some advice on the aromatization article. I had been meaning to nominate it for DYK but time has now passed and I am not sure how it would be viewed. A brief history:

Since that time, I have some difficulties including an overnight stay in hospital and a break-up.  :( My questions:

  1. Is it still worth my nominating this?
  2. If so, on what date would it go and is it "new" or "x5"?
  3. Re the hook, I would like to use "... that aromatization can produce "moderately aromatic" arsoles?" but I wonder if that is beyond quirky and into tasteless, and from the reverse perspective, could the page link be obscured as something like "... that "moderately aromatic" arsoles can be produced?"
  4. An alternative hook in the use of aromatase inhibitors in cancer treatment is possible, though less "hooky" IMO.

There are other changes that are needed, so I guess the other approach is to try and make a GA, but maybe that is too difficult. Any advice welcomed. EdChem (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The DYK Check says "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 58 edits ago on May 18, 2016" You don't have any edits on the article prior to that date, so I believe we can assume DYK Check is correct. It was 1017 characters on the edit right before you began, and is currently 12526 characters, so it meets 5X expansion. So, we're talking about a 3-day grace period on whether or not this is eligible. grace period says P1: If your article was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations, it may still be approved. So you have at least seven days, but probably a few more. Give it a try. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Nomination posted. See what happens. Was hoping for some comments on hook, though. EdChem (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I've taken on the review for this article, given the interesting nature of the hook I'm not bothered by the minor delay in nominating and I like the wording of the hook hiding the word aromatization (a collegue of mine once had an extract from a book/journal stuck up on the wall in our office with the sentence "some arsoles may be aromatic" highlighted). All perfectly legitimate chemical terms and Wikipedia is not censored - Basement12 (T.C) 22:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Basement12 I'm not sure I get the "Wikipedia is not censored" sentence, probably because I didn't get the EdChem "I wonder if that is beyond quirky and into tasteless" comment. I'm American. Are the two of you having a joke based on the British slang of "arse"? If that's it, then I get it. And it's funny as anything, if that's what the two of you mean. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 that is indeed what I meant. When I was at university these molecules were the butt (pun intended) of many a joke in the chemistry department - Basement12 (T.C) 23:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Main Page: Nascar hook corrected

Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Teel @Z105space, 001Jrm, PFHLai, and Maile66:

It was 1978, not 1979, and it wasn't a real NASCAR race but a NASCAR-sanctioned one (well not all sources agree whether a Nascar sanctioned race can be called a Nascar race full stop, so better to play it safe here). See e.g. the NYTimes from 2009[28]. Fram (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry about that. The source given in the article says it was in 1979. For the NASCAR-sanctioned race, I'll look into that more closely in the future. Thank you! 001Jrm (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
To avoid ambiguity, wouldn't either of these be better:

or

Bit late, I realise. One tries to pick up these things earlier, but they do slip through. Edwardx (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2, hook #1

"Cabinet Minister" should be "cabinet minister", per MOS:JOBTITLES. Edwardx (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And "in 1969" should follow "cabinet minister". Edwardx (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 Done I think you mean what is on the main page already.— Maile (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #3 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) 10:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Errr, Q3 is full....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
While there is a set loaded at Q3, the {{DYKbotdo}} template was removed.[29] The bot will only promote the set to the Mian page if the template is present. --Allen3 talk 11:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
aah ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Belatedly requesting a DYK credit

I've requested the reviewer of Template:Did you know nominations/Danell Lynn to consider whether it would be appropriate for me to receive credit for it. It caught me by surprise that it's already in the queue. - Brianhe (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It was in the Prep area, where I moved it this morning, rather than the Queue. I agree that you should be included in the credits and have added your name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 errors (due to be promoted to main page in 70 minutes at 00:00 UTC June 2): admin needed

There are two formatting errors in the current Queue 6, which is due to hit the main page in 70 minutes:

  1. The Mary Cabot Wheelwright hook's "(pictured as a child)" should have the parenthesis in italics as well as the words in it
  2. The next hook needs a space after the three periods and before "that" (the Potala Tower hook)

Thanks to any admin who can handle this before promotion to the main page... or afterward. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #6 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) 22:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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) 10:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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 #2 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) 09:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 credit errors; admin, please fix before 12:00 UTC

There are three credit errors that need an admin's fix before the queue hits the main page in just under five hours:

  • the second credit is a DYKmake "Example" one that should have been removed; please remove it
  • the fourth credit is a DYKnom that duplicates the DYKmake before it (same username, Chevvin): please remove this DYKnom
  • the sixth credit is also a DYKnom that duplicates the DYKmake before it (same username, Homiho): please remove this DYKnom

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've fixed this but could you check that I did it right as it's actually the first time I've edited a DYK queue? I just happened to see this and decided I could help out. anemoneprojectors 09:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks great, AnemoneProjectors. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Slow down

We've had a large surge in error reports for DYK, we've had problems balancing the main page since dropping to 7 hooks per set, can we please go back to 8 hooks but slow things down, perhaps even to one set per day. It's completely unfair on the ITN/OTD side of the main page to have to accommodate such meagre offerings from DYK and it's clear that the rush to try to get even 7 hooks promoted is causing more problems than it's solving. There's no deadline, I don't even know if the WikiCup is running or whatever, so why the need to rush the hooks through? Please, do us a favour and slow down. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
We've slowed down to 7 or even 6 a set plenty of times before and never had any complaints from ITN/OTD, why should it be any different this time? Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
"Balancing" is still a thing in an age where screen sizes vary from mobile to 17.3" to 24"+? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking at a main page with 7 hooks, and the last two (on my screen) are matched with white space in the ITN/OTD side. Going to 8 hooks would make the imbalance even worse. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
^my point exactly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Bollocks I'm afraid. I was forced to reduce OTD to four items today because DYK had only six viable hooks. This is unacceptable. Deal with it or I will start to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
And you are getting complaints, right now. ITN and OTD are relevant and useful and receive serious pageviews, while DYK is a little bit of fun. We cannot compromise the encyclopedic half of the main page because DYK can't get its act together. Eight hooks, SLOWLY. If not, then it will be easy for me to remove the last entry at DYK whenever I need to in order to balance the main page rather than continually juggle ITN and OTD to suit the vagaries and inadequacies of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not bollocks. I'm far from a DYK cheerleader, but the false notion of "balancing" the main page is (to a point, of course) straight from a decade ago. If you pointedly start removing DYK hooks from the main page for balancing reasons, I will revert you myself. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well perhaps you don't know what you're talking about. And doing that would be wheel warring and you would be de-sysoped, which, by the sounds of it, wouldn't be such a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, back from the hysterical ed, can someone explain why we can't just stick with 8 hooks and slow the rate down, considering we can't fill it properly and we have had a surge in errors because of lackadaisical promotions, prompted by the continued rapid demand for hooks? SLOW it down please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
... I think you need to go re-read WP:WHEEL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you need to start trying to be part of the solution, not revel in being part of the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
On one of the suggestions you made above, where we would go back to eight hooks, and it would be up to you to delete whichever one you chose once it was out there, if you felt like it, but not always, sort of hit and miss if you felt it was needed, in order to attain balance. How would you decide which nominator's work gets short-changed, and would that hook be put back in the rotation for another chance? That part of it isn't good. I'm not debating the number of hooks with you, just saying it's not a good idea for you to yank a hook at will, just because you see the balance off. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
No, if we went back to eight hooks we'd probably be okay most of the time unless hooks were pulled once on the main page through errors. As for "yanking a hook", that's precisely what we have to do to OTD to make it balance when DYK fouls it up. And I agree, it's not good, so DYK should work harder to avoid it happening to any section of the main page. People have worked hard on all parts of the main page, not just the fun DYK aspects, so it's unfair on them when DYK causes a mess by having fewer and fewer hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem here, folks, is not enough reviewed hooks. The other day, I could only build a couple of prep sets, and in the process I also approved about a half-dozen reviews that had been languishing with tags. I would suggest that qpq alone isn't getting us there, and that perhaps the solution is that anyone who has to put on a tag should also be obligated to find at least ONE article per day (as sometimes it IS necessary to tag multiple problematic articles that they can pass). But in the meantime, we HAVE gone to one set of hooks per day if needed, and that probably is preferable over fewer hooks. (Frankly, when I have an article at DYK, I kind of like it to stay there as long as possible while I tell all my wiki-friends and neighbors, ups the page view count, don't 'cha know? LOL) Montanabw(talk) 01:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Inre: "How would you decide which nominator's work gets short-changed, and would that hook be put back in the rotation for another chance?" – It's likely that if a valid, qualified hook is to be pulled for balancing purposes, it would simply be placed in a different DYK Queue or back to a Preparation area, rather than the nomination being rejected or hook being erased. North America1000 03:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Certainly there would be no "punishment", so reinserting them to a later queue would be fine. But listen, what's the problem with going back to eight hooks and slowing the rate? That way we have a decent chance of not continually having to remove items from ITN and OTD (both were down to just four items yesterday because DYK had slipped to six measly hooks). If we don't have sufficient hooks to fill the sets, slow it down until we do. The rush seems to have resulted in poorer quality DYKs, with hooks being re-written on the fly or removed from the main page, with an increased frequency lately. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Using eight hooks and slowing the rate from time-to-time as necessary seems like it would be the easiest route in terms of making things easier for those involved with other aspects of Main page content. The rate of DYK queue time on Main page can be adjusted accordingly when necessary; slowed when there are lesser promoted hooks and sped up when DYK gets flooded with a bunch of new promoted hooks. It's not like it has to be set in stone. North America1000 05:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Well that's certainly my opinion, but there seems to be so much emphasis here on getting things rotated around the main page as quickly as possible, regardless of the lack of quality that ensues. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I keep hearing this assertion that if only we slowed down the number of hooks, quality control would improve, but why would it when it's still the same group of people applying the same procedures? All that slowing down the total number of hooks in that circumstance is likely to achieve is to reduce the amount of time people spend on DYK management, which isn't the same thing as quality control, at all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Why the surge in poor hooks/pulled hooks/errors in preps then? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that we are already promoting fewer hooks, by your reasoning there should have been a corresponding decrease in the number of problems, but since that apparently hasn't been the case, that would appear to support my argument. Gatoclass (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It's the panic to meet the 12-hour deadline that's causing the pisspoor promotions and errors. You know that, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support eight hooks. I'm a fan of working in unison with others to keep things running as smoothly and simply as possible. As such, I'm for using eight hooks on an adjustable/variable time rate for DYK content, based upon content levels in the DYK queues and preparation areas. North America1000 05:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral about how many hooks. Just for the record, I don't care how many hooks there are, as long as we are decided on what that should be. I don't want this dissolving into a constant edit war on this issue, so I'd like to see more opinions here than two or three people. And maybe some opinions from the very people who have "skin in the game", the people who promote to both prep and queue. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment We have run with six and seven hooks for months at a time on many previous occasions, and there were never any complaints about main page imbalance. This just looks like a manufactured issue from a user who has long argued that the number of hooks should be permanently reduced to improve quality control - an assumption which I have pointed out above, doesn't follow. Speaking personally, I don't much care whether we run one set of 8 hooks for 24 hours or two sets of six or seven in the same time frame, but I strongly suspect that if we go to 8 hooks every 24 hours, the next step from the aforesaid user will be to attempt to make this arrangement permanent. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    Why is there a need to push hooks through quickly? And no, if DYK can sustain a quality set of 8 hooks every 12 hours, brilliant, but right now it seems they can't sustain even 7 hooks that rapidly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, hooks must be either promoted or rejected at about the same speed as they are nominated. It's not a matter of "pushing hooks through quickly", but of matching the pace of nominations. There are a lot of potential methods of improving quality control at DYK, but merely reducing the number of promotions isn't one of them. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not when you have a backlog of 170 already. Slow it down, as you have already noted it wasn't long ago that you had twice as many in the backlog. It makes little difference. Just stick with eight, and stop cocking the main page around. If you get to a backlog of 40 or 50, then worry. All that needs to happen (which has done lately) to address this in any case is that a set is delayed in promotion to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make now. Yes, we are all agreed that the current rate of promotion needs to be slowed a bit because it has been exceeding the rate of nomination. The question is how best to achieve that slowdown. As I already said, I don't really care what solution is adopted so long as there's a clear understanding that the solution is a temporary measure employed to increase the available pool of hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
My point is the same I asserted from the outset. Stick to eight hooks per set so the main page isn't cocked around every time DYK fails its "mission", and promote every day instead of every 12 hours until such a time that the DYK regulars feel confident that they can meet a more demanding schedule of an eight-hook set every 12 hours. It's really simple and much better and effective for the whole of Wikipedia than tinkering with the number of hooks, especially given the fact that if an update is missed, the whole equation goes out of the window anyway. If you don't really care, just say "Yeah, 8 hooks and slowed down to one set per day for a bit". That would be great and actually productive, unlike the majority of this discourse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my suspicion that your real agenda here is to permanently reduce the number of promoted hooks. Sorry, but if that's your goal, you should start a debate about that, rather than attempting to use another issue as a trojan horse for your cause. Gatoclass (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Why are you lying? I've already refuted your accusation and your bad faith. I have no such goal. What part of "slowed down to one set per day for a bit" don't you understand? Do you need me to help you understand that more, or do you wish to continue lying about me and my "agenda"? I just want DYK to stop cocking the main page up. Simple as that. You, on the other hand, are defending the indefensible and lying about me at the same time. Please retract your lies and we can continue the discussion on how best to deal with this obvious problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Rambling Man, please keep your cool. I am not "lying" about anything, I am merely responding to your own comments. You are the one who has continually conflated the issue of nomination deficit with that of quality control. This discussion has nothing to do with quality control, it's about ensuring we have an adequate pool of hooks. You started out by arguing that less than eight hooks in a set unbalances the main page, and is thus not a good way to rectify the hook deficit - which is a legitimate argument, even if I don't happen to agree with it - but now you are back on your hobby horse of quality control again. What I have tried to say above is that I think it's perfectly fine to be concerned about quality control and to raise it as an issue - but not in the middle of a discussion about something else. Gatoclass (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
You are lying about my intentions. I am sick and tired of having to remove blurbs from ITN and OTD just to cater for the inadequacies of DYK. You have lied about my comments here and frankly I am sick and tired of you attempting to conflate my comments with other issues. Yes, quality is an issue and it's an issue that affects this too, we went to six hooks yesterday and that meant I had to reduce ITN and OTD to four hooks each. That's completely unreasonable. Stop lying and covering up the issues. And stop assuming bad faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
No, The Rambling Man, I am not "lying" about your intentions, I have simply called it as I see it. With regard to the particular post that triggered this disagreement however, I concede that I may have misinterpreted your intended meaning and thus responded inappropriately, as a result of which I have struck said post. In return, I request that you retract the accusation of "lying". Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment We currently have about fourteen new DYK nominations on an average day. If we have two sets of seven hooks, the total number of nominations will remain about the same. If we had one set of eight hooks, the nominations would accumulate, so I think we should stay as we are at two sets of seven per day. What we do need however, is to make a bit of an effort to reduce the number of unreviewed nominations. If everyone that read this did one extra review, that would be a start (I aim to do two reviews for every article I nominate). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
We want the overall number to accumulate a bit because the current 170 or so is a bit on the low side. A year ago the backlog was routinely around 340 hooks, which was high, somewhere in between is probably ideal. We just need to set the update size and time to a point where hooks are accumulating, the debate here is basically about the best means of achieving that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, can you clarify the initial assertion, fourteen noms per day doesn't equate to fourteen promoted per day, how many promotions take place each day? If you increased to 8 per set, and base it on you initial assertion, you will use up the backlog in, what, 85 days?!! I think the system can adequatley handle that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we're finally back to historical norms in the 130 to 170 range; this isn't the low side at all. The climb up into the 300s was the aberration, and the resultant backlog was enormous. The 200s were also a problem; we're finally at a point where most hooks are promoted when they're still relatively recent. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that 300+ was obviously excessive, although I think we handled it surprisingly well. I don't know though that "130 to 170" is the ideal range, I regard 120 as an absolute minimum below which we should never go and 150 is uncomfortably close to that IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Having refreshed my memory—all those years of assembling "oldest nominations needing reviewers" posts—I think you're right about the low end: while we did have total nominations in the 130s on a number of occasions, we didn't have a decent number of them reviewed, which caused strain when assembling sets. I don't think 170 is a level that we need to worry about, especially with over 50 of them approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If the problem is a lack of noms getting reviewed, we could always reduce the QPQ exception for beginners from 5 DYKs to 3. I think most people should have a fairly decent grasp of the DYK process by the time they've nominated three articles. I know I did. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think part of the problem, ironically, is that as we've become more stringent about checking DYKs, we've increased the labor needed to check each nomination, which means people are less likely to do reviews outside of needing a QPQ, and thus the reviews get done hurriedly whenever the queues run dry, which seems to happen pretty often now. Perhaps we should consider how to make each individual review less burdensome while still maintaining quality. Many of the criteria are currently checked through semi-automatic tools such as DYKcheck and Earwig; a couple more could be added to this, such as checking hook format and length, or flagging articles that don't have a cite for each paragraph, or whether QPQ is needed and has been done. Perhaps we could fully automate these through a bot posting to each new nomination. The only things that really need to be checked by a human are whether the sources are reliable and whether the article (especially the hook fact) accurately reflects those sources. Everything that could possibly be automated, should be. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Antony-22. You said:

, or flagging articles that don't have a cite for each paragraph,

I want to point out that per supplementary guideline D2, one cite for each paragraph is a "rule of thumb" not a rule. If an article is 5 paragraphs long and has 55 citations, I don't think it should necessarily be held back if one tiny paragraph is not cited. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, anything a bot does is subject to sanity check by humans. The precise details weren't the main point of my suggestion, though; I'm saying that we should find ways to reduce the burden on reviewers in general. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quantity is not a factor in accuracy

Taking my own advice above, I have some skin in the review game in just about every review process on Wikipedia. Some more than others. And you know what? There's not a ONE of them that is error free. And why is that? Oh, dag-nab-it, we imperfect human beings have a way of being flawed. Besides which, I don't know if anybody on Wikipedia is an expert on every subject matter under the sun, but they go through their check lists and do the best they can. As far as I know, the other review processes don't get flogged on a semi-regular basis by people who could actually help out by, at the very least, for instance, eyeballing the hooks in prep well in advance of their being promoted to queue.

And, dang, if I'm not frustrated by some review processes where somebody missed the obvious...sometimes it's not discovered for months or years down the line. And while I'm not admitting to missing anything, ever, on a review, I do admit to being human. And you can add to that, I have it on good authority (I'm not naming names) some review participants don't seem to know which end is up, and yet the poor frustrated nominator has to accommodate their "corrections". There are times I go through an article and wonder why somebody didn't catch the obvious-as-the-nose-on-your-face flub-up, but I just don't have it in me to flog those processes. I'm also not admitting to having had more than one TFA article where while it's awaiting its day in the sun, either I or somebody else, caught an error missed by a whole slew of reviewers all the way back to Peer reviews.

For everyone who is really out of sorts about errors, I get it. Right off hand, I can think of one particular failed nomination (not DYK) where the reviewers listed specific reasons for failing it, and the nominator resubmitted it through the same process with very few corrections, and it went flying towards passing.

If you want to discuss changing, or not changing, the number of hooks in a set, and the frequency, go for it. But the number of hooks has nothing to do with accuracy. It's those darned pesky human flaws that get us every time. There are a number of regular editors/admins who have been working hard on this project for a long time. Beats me why, since the very process of helping out qualifies a person for the Rodney Dangerfield Award. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

All of which is, well, fascinating, but doesn't address the initial post. Please stick to eight hooks per set and if you're running out of hooks, either prepare some more or slow the rate down. The continual tinkering with the section on the main page is unfair on the other aspects. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Preparing some more seems like a good idea. I don't understand the initial premise for this proposal (subjective page-balancing?), but if DYK is running low on reviewed/promoted nominations maybe we should encourage editors to temporarily review extra, like two for each nom? Or G S Palmer's suggestion, though I'm not sure how prevalent new DYK editors are. Fuebaey (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

Several of us are not understanding this page balancing issue. Where's the evidence that there's a significant problem, please? As I look at the main page currently, there's a bit of white space under the DYK section but that's no big deal. If that's the issue then one could just as well say that the OTD section is too big. That's mainly due to OTD's blurbs being too wordy, using three lines per item instead of DYK's two. There's also a line at the bottom on that side which doesn't seem to belong there. It currently reads "Current date: May 31, 2016 (UTC) Reload this page". Shouldn't that be at the foot of the page instead? Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As you and your edits have been called out as a "time sink", and have had no fewer than five admins ask you to stop wasting our time, I feel under no obligation to respond to your requests any further. If you have an issue with the design of the main page, take it somewhere relevant. In the meantime, best stick to doing what you do best, whatever that is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The front page seems nicely balanced to me on my screen. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, because some helpful admins have to spend time each time DYK changes its output balancing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Today ITN has six items and that seems ok. I reckon the main weirdness is the set of links underneath ITN. These currently read:
More anniversaries: May 31 June 1 June 2
Archive By email List of historical anniversaries
Current date: June 1, 2016 (UTC) Reload this page
There are some entries there which don't seem to belong to ITN -- the "By email", "Current date" and "Reload this page" links. These are page level links for the entire main page and so look wrong being buried in a section. Today, they would fit better in a corner of the FP which has huge amounts of white space. If those entries were removed from ITN, then the ITN archive links could be consolidated into a neater single line which might help provide more space for entries. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss reorganising the main page, this is not the venue to do it, as you well know and have already been told. Stop wasting your own time and wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
TRM, you seem to be the only person arguing (at length) for this proposal. Several editors have asked you to clarify and/or explain in detail how this would benefit DYK. You have either: not done so fully, or ignored/dismissed those who disagree with you. If you're unwilling to clearly demonstrate that there is a problem that this proposal solves, without resorting to bludgeoning the discussion, I would recommend walking away from this. Fuebaey (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing. And if I need to remove the odd DYK to make sure it's not making the main page lopsided, I will. End of discussion. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Experiment concluded?

There has been a very argument that all DYK needs to do is "slow down" and the quality will improve. As @Gatoclass: notes above this is clearly not true. As you slow down. and those who are still involved spend their time here debating minor issues, the main benefit of DYK is lost. Projects that used to submit hundreds of articles now submit a few. The new wikiarticles that are being produced are not being submitted to DYK. They are suffering in terms of lower quality as they are not getting the DYK overcheck. Editors like the DYK overcheck but it too frequently comes with insults and disparaging bullying. This project is almost at the point of reducing quantity to zero in the belief that quality will be increased. Isn't it about time that you abandon that objective? You have tried it and if has worked then no one has noticed. The only people who have noticed are the editors who are choosing to stay away. Actually the new articles that are being produced are not being submitted here. I know that there are other editors who would submit here if we/you were capable of controlling the bullying voices who are indulged here. Victuallers (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to place this in the right place? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

QPQ credit

I just did a review here: Template:Did you know nominations/James Bond (naval officer). I have no idea how I missed that there was already a review. However, I think my review was thorough and detected important issues. Is this suitable for me to claim a QPQ? EdChem (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There can be more than on reviewer on a nomination. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_123&oldid=1089919070"