Open main menu

Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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

C6: another two years and no actionEdit

Just go ahead and read the topic here. Quick summary: "rule" C6 was added to the SR by a single editor who did so solely to use it as a bludgeon. This has been discussed in depth three times now, and there is widespread consensus every time that this BF entry should be struck. And yet, it's still there, unchanged. Enough already! Speak now or forever hold your peace. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Start a WP:RFC, advertise it at WP:VPP and WP:CENT, and let it run for a while. If consensus becomes clear to change the rule, then we can deal with it. --Jayron32 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: great advice Jayron, with the exception that the rule was inserted by a single editor who did none of these things, and in fact had no discussion about it at all. If I added a new rule Z1 that said all DYKs fail if the first letter of the article is A, you would demand RFC, VPP and CENT before removing it again? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: There has been a more recent discussion; see this. There was some disagreement against the precise interpretation of the rule, but only one editor supported scrapping it altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
In case it's unclear, I certainly support that rule in some form. It's too easy to have fancruft in the hooks, otherwise (did you know that the one ring gave to Gollum unnatural long life?) Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I am sad to see that in spite of repeatedly bringing this to the discussion, no one bothered to ping me about the latest thread. Maury Markowitz (talk)
While perhaps not phrased as well as it could be, the rule definitely should be maintained and applied. --Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
From the discussion Vanamonde linked to before, just to clarify my position:
"B) The rule is to prevent a flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc
Support this meaning and think the wording should be clarified but not sure how. "Such-and-such happened in a book by so-and-so" does not strike me as a real-world connection. Tell me about how a real person inspired a character. Or how a book inspired something to happen in real life. Or how the author's life and writings show parallels or contrasts. Or how a character or plot line in a TV show caused said show to be banned in Country X. Or.... I think you get the idea. --Khajidha (talk) 7:41 pm, 12 May 2018, Saturday (1 year, 4 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)
--Khajidha (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Revel TransitEdit

Maybe I shouldn't be checking preps any more, because my standards are out of sync...the hook says "that electric moped sharing company Revel dropped 1,000 new mopeds on New York City streets in the space of a week?" Aside from the oddity of "dropped", the article, and one of the sources, says they expanded from 68 to 1000 over a week, meaning they only "dropped" 932. Minor, but an inaccuracy nonetheless. Pinging @Hydromania, Storye book, and Yoninah: (apologies, Yoninah, I know that's the third one). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Linked source says 1000 were introduced in a week, and tech crunch says the original 68 were pulled.
'Introduced' would probably make more sense but I personally think 'dropped' conveys the abrupt and upstart side of it. Hope that covers it.
As an aside, the vehicles are technically scooters as they don't have pedals. The company keeps calling them mopeds. I used both terms interchangeably, I believe Yoninah chose moped for uniformity. Hydromania (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hydromania: I'd prefer "introduced", honestly, because the other sounds like they had an accident. Source-wise, you're okay, but would you clarify the text in the article, to make it clear that there were, in fact, 1000 new mopeds in the space of a week? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Or how about "released", which is what the source says? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Linked source says parked, slate uses deployed. I still prefer 'dropped' or at the very least 'quietly parked', the point is how sudden it was. I'll leave it to someone else to decide. I'll try to tweak article prose at some point. Hydromania (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: how about "deposited" or "left"?
@Hydromania: I wasn't aware of the Scooter (motorcycle) page when I changed all the scooter references to moped. You can change back what you like. @Vanamonde93:, you could also change the second "moped" in the hook to "scooter" if you like. Now I'll add the Wikiproject Motorcycling to the talk page. Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hydromania: The sooner you change the prose, the better; if this gets to within a day of the main page, someone is going to complain about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Left" is perhaps the most basic statement of fact; I'd prefer that. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd prefer deposited.Hydromania (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
'Deposited' sounds more intentional than either 'dropped' or 'left'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Due to time difference I have come late to this discussion - apologies. I'd just like to add that I have no objection to "dropped" because I don't think it's misleading, and I believe it helps to make the hook hooky. However if the consensus is to change it, then that's fine by me. Storye book (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hook working adjusted, article has been modified. Thanks all. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
At least where I'm from, scooter and moped are interchangeable terms. I don't think I've ever actually seen one with pedals ("moped" sensu stricto). --Khajidha (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 GA?Edit

Bengal famine of 1943 became a GA on 20 September, but was taken to reassessment the same day. Assuming it will remain GA, can we take that date as a starting point for a DYK nom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends. Was it already planned to be nominated for DYK at the time? If that were the case, then perhaps we can use the original promotion date for DYK purposes. Otherwise, considering the circumstances, perhaps we can have some leeway and allow for an IAR case here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Which time. I saw today that it became GA on 20 Sep, and wanted to nominate, even if a bit late. Then I noticed the GAR. I derive that it doesn't really meet the criteria today, as possibly not a GA after all. But if a GA some day in the future, I'd hope that day can be taken as the starting day for a "new" GA. - Or should I make a nom right now, not to miss more time, which happened due to travel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
If that were the case, then unfortunately the date of newness would be from the date it was originally promoted, which is September 20 or almost two weeks ago. Of course, an IAR exception could be granted in this case if there was good reason to do so, but it would require a discussion here and consensus to approve it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, you should nominate it immediately. It was passed as a GA on 20 September, and that status remains good unless the GAR removes it. Since it is being nominated late, it would need an IAR to pass at DYK, but given how confused the situation was at the time, I wouldn't object to a belated nomination. If nominated, the review should be put on hold until the GAR closes (just like we hold DYKs for articles at AfD), which as it's a community reassessment may take some time, since work continues to be done on the article. (The DYK review would need to be based on the final version of the article after the GAR closes.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Bengal famine of 1943 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
So I picked up this template, but hadn't seen this conversation. I'm quite happy to promote, but as this is out of the dates, I think we'd need more than just my opinion. Could we get a consensus on promoting/not promoting this one? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It would really depend on the outcome of the GAR, because if the GAR fails and the article is delisted, then the discussion would end up being moot. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think of this as similar to an article that is nominated for deletion. We accept it as of the date it was created, expanded or promoted, but withhold it until the AfD is closed. We have already had articles that have been delisted by GAR, but have been accepted after a subsequent successful expansion or promotion, so long as they are otherwise eligible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I see this has passed the GAR (and been nominated for FA), could I just get someone else to say it's fine for the nomination to be slightly late? If so, I'll pass the nom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue promotionsEdit

We've been looking at full prep sets and rapidly emptying queues for a few days now. Prep builders have nothing to do. Can someone move things up? Pinging Maile, Valereee, Casliber, Vanamonde, Amakuru. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about delay, just before 7am here and just got up (have moved along a couple) where is my coffee.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, travelling for the next ten days and will be in and out. --valereee (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Next couple of days are terrible from a work perspective. I will see what I can do. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Improve representation of DYK in portalsEdit

We are undergoing a process of winnowing down portal space to not more than a few hundred (and perhaps ultimately a few dozen) key portals. The idea is that portals should be constructed like the main page, but as an entryway for readers to explore specific topic areas, like the arts, technology, law, etc. Many portals have their own "DYK" section, which appears to be an internally established feature, but it would be great if we could find some way to represent DYK items from this project in relevant portals. Since the number of DYK items relevant to a specific portal would be a small subset of the whole, they would remain on display in the portals for a much longer period of time. How can we do this? bd2412 T 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What kind of idea do you have in mind? That DYK entries on specific areas be reused for Portal DYKs? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:Transclude selected recent additions can be used to automatically provide a selection of DYKs for a portal based on some criteria. It helps avoid content-forking and other maintenance costs which end up multiplying mistakes down the road. If you try to be too smart with the keywords, it can give unexpected results.
I would suggest to go through the most visited portals to replace manual DYK sections with automated ones, so that the DYK work for the main page is reused and has more impact. Nemo 07:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see the process automated as much as possible. In theory, we could develop some system for tagging DYKs on the front end with some kind of coding for the relevant area, and have those populate the portal DYK sections automatically. We might even be able to get a bot to parse DYK subjects by the category tree of the related article. bd2412 T 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to continue to have portals and those portals are going to have DYK sections of their own, I think it is preferable that they be run by the portals themselves and NOT reuse the ones from the Main Page. I would think that the Portal DYK's (PDYK) could be run more like what I've always said that we should do here: allow interesting items from ANY article, not just new or expanded. Any particular portal would only have a few items relevant to it in the general run of DYKs, so that the PDYK would be much more static under your proposal. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate in the portal community over how static portals should be. Some portals have nothing more than a static selection of ten-year-old DYK topics. I like the idea that a topic that will be on the Main page for only a day might gain additional (and targeted) exposure through the portal for perhaps a few weeks. bd2412 T 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I see PDYK as a way to show the breadth of topics covered by each portal. Even if the rest of the portal page is static, this is one place that could be more active. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"Could", sure, in an alternate universe. But it has not in over ten years of attempts. If the main page process has already selected a suitable stack of DYK, why not reuse them? Are you saying they might be worse than ten years old copy-paste by a single user? Nemo 10:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that whether Main Page DYKs are used on portals is a question for each portal to answer for itself. If the portals are so moribund that they don't update their own DYK sections, I would consider first removing the DYK section from that portal and second deleting that portal. --Khajidha (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If we go with that and say that this is "a question for each portal to answer for itself", shouldn't we set up a system to assist those portals that do want to use Main Page DYKs? bd2412 T 22:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd wait until it was requested. --Khajidha (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I am requesting it. bd2412 T 23:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I meant by a particular portal. Show us that the portals want this, not just that you think they should want it. --Khajidha (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I am asking specifically for Portal:Law, which I work on. bd2412 T 01:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I oppose retention in portals of old DYKs.

  • Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section". Using old DYKs loses that newness, and becomes just a random WP:TRIVIA section. There is a further problem that DYKs assert facts which were verified at the time of publication, but facts can change over time. New things happen, data shifts, the historical record is revealed to have been faulty, and so on; and of course the cursory scrutiny at FYK may not have been aware of other relevant sources which would have changed the picture.
So I propose three principles for the use of DYKs in portals:
  1. Only items which have been scrutinised at WP:DYK should be included in the DYK section of portals. An alarming number of portals misuse the good name of DYK as the label for a random trivia section. These are basically fake DYKs, and I have found a non-trivial number which are basically just promotion or soapboxing.
  2. Each item displayed in the DYK section of a portal should be accompanied by the date of publication in WP:DYK, ideally with a link back to the relevant DYK archive.
  3. Items displayed in the DYK section of a portal should be removed from the portal no later than one year after publication date.
Those three steps would reconnect portals to the purpose of DYK, which is to showcase "new or expanded articles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose Khajidha's suggestion that the Portal DYK's (PDYK) could be run more like what I've always said that we should do here: allow interesting items from ANY article, not just new or expanded. That's just a license for unscrutinised promotion, POV-pushing and soapboxing. Yes, in theory there could be a scrutiny process for PDYK's, but a) most portals lack even once active maintainer, so the level of scrutiny would be low; b) any such process would likely be dominated by the portal specialists, who usually lack content creation skills, creating a high risk of misrepresentation of facts. So portals should either use the output of WP:DYK, or drop that whole section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Can you clarify what you mean by "old DYKs"? What would be the appropriate expiration period of a usable DYK? bd2412 T 03:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl: Thank you, I see. I think that's a very good idea, and a mechanism for populating portal DYK sections with Main Page DYKs that automatically get pushed out as new ones accumulate would probably refresh the entire section much more quickly than that, for broader and higher level topics. bd2412 T 03:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • If a portal is not being actively maintained, why should we keep it around much less add to it? And, as for your "fake DYKs" and "purpose of DYK" points, why should the nature of the Main Page DYK be imposed on Portal DYKs? They are separate things. --Khajidha (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

More preps?Edit

It seems a common problem is that prep areas get filled up before an admin can move them to queue. Is there any reason why the number of preps is limited to 6? Could we just add more preps or is that like widening a highway? Wug·a·po·des​ 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is really looking at the filled sets until they're moved into the queue. So I don't see why the queues can't stay filled and the preps empty and ready for more. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
After having several times moved preps to queues that I knew I wouldn't be able to personally check, I've been reliably informed that violates WP:ADMINACCT, and that's not something I want to be accused of. I don't know the answer to this other than we need more admins willing to work at DYK or we need to let non-admin DYK regulars move preps to queues. There's a good likelihood I will have a quiet uninterrupted chunk of time the morning of the 9th; I can probably move at least one set then. --valereee (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: believe in yourself as much as the majority of us believe in your being a danged good admin we are proud to have among us. And grow a thick skin. There are a lot of reasons why admins aren't promoting, some of them personal that we will never know. Some just have other priorities at a given time. And some wanted a break from being "reliably informed". Get my message, babe? You're one of the best we have. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: As the guilty party here, let me second what Maile66 said. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: and @Vanamonde93:, you're both very kind! I didn't mention that to complain about being informed, just to explain why I was reluctant to continue to do that. I literally do not want to be consistently doing something that goes against what we've as a community decided our policy/procedure should be, even if I was doing it for the "right" reasons. :) I was absolutely not upset or offended or anything else bad in any way to have it brought to my attention, and appreciated it. --valereee (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: A possible answer to your question: It's an orderly process that works. Please note that the Queue number is filled with hooks from the like-numbered Prep. You promote Prep 1 to Queue 1, etc. The chart that gives local update times, gives a prep promoter an idea of which prep should be filled with any given Special Date request. Start having more prep sets than queues, and it gets confusing on that issue alone. Also, you open the door to whether or not the next prep was moved to the next queue. Maybe some admin would like a different Prep better than another, and decides to move that one to the top of the list. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a very good reason to not add more preps. Valereee floated the idea of letting non-admin DYK regulars move preps to queues; has anyone ever considered lowering the protection level of the queues to template protectedMight and assigning WP:TPE to some regulars who build preps? Wug·a·po·des​ 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
There used to be less preps than queues. The number of preps was expanded from four to six in September 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Might help to know who have that right Category:Wikipedia template editors. I would trust you to do that, and maybe a few others on that list. Might be a good discussion to have. — Maile (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Special:ListUsers/templateeditor is a more complete list of users with the right. Lowering to template protection would increase the number of people who can edit queues by about 175. We'd probably want a discussion wider than WT:DYK before doing so since it would effectively change policy on who can edit the main page and change the scope of template editor rights. Who knows, maybe ITN or OTD would want to go in on a mainpageeditor user right and mainpageprotect protection level to go along with it. Or maybe it's time to spin-out editfullprotect from the admin tools. I'm just thinking out loud at this point though. Let's see what ideas others have. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm a template editor. The idea of allowing template editors has been floated before more than once, and always foundered on the fact that the main page is sacrosanct. I would feel reluctant to undertake such work given that the community rejected my application for the admin toolkit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I would favour broader access for the queue pages, because I can't help but think that it would lead to more issues, not fewer - and unresolved issues are the real concern. It would be easy for me, for example, to move a bunch of preps to the queue pretty much every day, but like Valereee I am very reluctant to do so if I haven't had time to do a thorough check of the set. And since I got into the habit of only loading a set when the queue was empty, I haven't had much to do lately as every time I drop in there are sets in the queue. But it really doesn't matter if the prep area is full, so long as there is a set in the queue ready to go to the main page. If the prep area is full, that means virtually a full week's worth of sets ready to go, there's no rush to prepare yet more. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


Instead of having 6 prep areas and 6 queues, we can load hooks straight into a date specific page, e.g. Template:Did you know/2019-10-18. This page would automatically get cascade protected within two days of being transcluded to the main page (this system works perfectly with WP:OTD). Advantages include:

  • No need for admin intervention (unless hooks are changed within two days of featuring).
  • Simplify the whole process. No need to copy to prep, then copy to queue, then copy to main template.
  • Better archive of what hooks appeared on which day.
  • Easier to manage hooks for specific days. The "Special occasion holding area" would be superceded.

In fact I don't think I can think of any disadvantages apart from the work involved in the transition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4: The DairyEdit

Two issues : 1. I'm not sure what the word "specifically" is trying to convey here, and I think it could just be dropped. And 2. According to the article it wasn't just to sell milk, it was also to sell other refreshments and be a place where kids could play board games. I think this needs a tweak or a rewrite as it is a bit misleading right now. Pinging those who know about this hook: @Epicgenius: @Juxlos: @Yoninah:  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Yeah. I think we should go with this, which may be much more interesting: epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, that's better. Done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Special occasion review requestEdit

If anyone needs a QPQ, would you mind reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Fleet Review (Japan) for an October 13 special event hold? Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

doing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This was approved, but needs to be in a prep, replacing something else. The 13th (proposed above, saying "tomorrow") is already in a queue. For the 14th (saying "today"), I could offer to swap for Hans Riemer. Yoninah, valereee? - Once we are here, Thomas Mohr was suggested for 17 October, which is another full prep, and still needs an approval (but is almost there). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Now both days - 13 Oct, 14 Oct - are in queues, - an admin is needed to swap the Fleet review in and something else out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it tomorrow, Gerda, if nobody else gets there first.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Where do hooks removed from preps and queues go?Edit

I noticed today that two hooks have been removed - one from today's DYK, and one from a queue. I have been able to find them, but they don't seem to be back in either Noms (Approved) or Noms (Awaiting Approval). Am I missing something in those pages? They will presumably both need more work, so I expected to find them somewhere among the waiting nominations. (The DYK noms I'm referring to are Template:Did you know nominations/Venezuelan cinema in the 1890s and Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Boutiaut Poulard.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Where they go depends on who removed. A diligent person puts them where they belong. You can check (on the left side) "What links here", and find out, and if not on the page for noms to be reviewed, put them back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I find them both under approved, but think it's not a good idea when they require further work. Go ahead, move them, unless you think this notice makes people aware enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The nomination pages for the two DYKs mentioned have both been reopened with a   or   symbol on them, so are back at the stage where they await approval. As Gerda says, they remain on the WP:DYKNA page unless otherwise moved, as the bot which handles those things only moves them on a one-time basis. If it's advisable for editors who reopen nominations to move them elsewhere, then I'll be happy to oblige. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I was forgetting about "What links here"! I'm glad some editors can see them on the DYK pages - I still can't, even after purging! I'll check again later. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Amakuru, well, it depends, and perhaps let's discuss. Those editors active in a nom, nominator(s) and reviewer(s) hopefully will watch and act and reply anyway wherever they are, but if new eyes are wanted, they will not notice on the "approved" page. Perhaps we could even train the bot to look for noms without a final approval, to make that move.? - We could also have a corner on this page linking to them for attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I did query this with Wugapodes here actually... it's something they said they might be able to work on for the bot, so if it would be useful we could ask them nicely if they can do it for us!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
They can be removed from a prepset or queue by undoing the edit which was made when they were promoted. But I don't think that actually puts them anywhere, and I think the editor concerned needs to manually add them to one of the nominations pages. In answer to Gerda, they will get seen on the approved nominations page by people who promote hooks, and Yoninah, particularly, is good at sorting out the problem that caused them to be pulled in the first place. And in due course, BlueMoonset will add them to the "oldest nominations" list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Dropping in to say I saw this. I'm at a conference right now so probably shouldn't be making major changes to the bot. I'll probably be able to make this change Tuesday PDT. Don't hesitate to keep pinging me! Wug·a·po·des​ 23:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Gerda Arendt: I've gotten two-way movement working. You can see examples at User:Wugapodes/DYKTest and User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/Approved. We should be on schedule for implementation on Tuesday. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I still don't see those two noms on either WP:DYKNA or WP:DYKN - if others had not said that they could, I would think that what Cwmhiraeth explained is what has happened, that the promotion has been undone but they have not been manually re-added anywhere. The same seems now to have happened with Template:Did you know nominations/Qarhan Playa (which does not seem to have been re-opened, just replaced in the queue with another hook plus image). I'm sure there's a long history of promoted hooks being removed from preps and queues, and it must work somehow, I am just still confused about how, and where to find re-opened noms if I don't happen to remember what they were. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: They have miraculously reappeared on the approved nominations page. ;) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the miracle, Cwmhiraeth! Even I can now see them ;-) I hope the bot will be able to do this automatically, so none fall through the cracks :-) RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking at your other example, I see Gatoclass has pulled it today with this edit but has left it in limbo. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I have just noticed the instructions to admins at the top of the Queue page, which ends with "Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. That looked like the obvious answer to my question which I'd overlooked! However .... that page says it is "currently inactive and is retained for historical reference" - so perhaps the instruction at the top of the Queue page should be removed? Mentioning Amakuru and Cwmhiraeth as editors who build preps and queues who have commented here and might be able to follow it up. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The hook needs to be returned to a nominations page manually. This might be from prep or queue so it is not just a queue-movers problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
If I may point out, a reopened nomination should go to the Nominations page, not the Approved page, since by definition any nomination pulled from prep or queue is no longer approved but needs work, hence the need to put them on the Nominations page. I had to move those two miraculously reappeared ones to Nominations after Cwmhiraeth placed them on Approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: Given how the current DYK system is set up, re-adding nominations for hooks that get pulled from prep is probably not something that can be done by bot. It's easier to just have them listed here or manually added back to the nom page. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So perhaps something needs to be added to the prep and queue instructions, so everyone is clear - and the instructions at the top of the queue page updated, too. (The Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed pages look like they might have been useful, though I note a comment on the Talk page that "You don't "have to re-open a nomination" which has been pulled". Clearly, some issues are not resolvable, but some are - it would seem to me quite discouraging to nominators to simply pull hooks without explanation or an opportunity to work on the article or the hook.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't all the DYK discussion take place on a subpage of each article's talk page with a simple link out from DYK? --Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Because that would make too much sense and wouldn't be complicated and bureaucratic enough. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I guess because it often has nothing to do with the article, - just the special considerations of DYK. When I see DYK noms transcluded to talk pages I remove the clutter. A link is enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
... and how would I see open noms for review? I wouldn't want to click on links but browse at a glance, as the noms page offers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt It would probably look something like Good article reviews, which take place on the article talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but how would I - as a qpq reviewer looking for something to review - have an overview of open nominations? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Presumably, the same way Good Article reviewers find nominations to review. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Not what I'd want: a list of just article titles, grouped by topics. I like the convenience in seeing the images, the hook alternatives, the names of nominators and authors, the discussions that already happened, without having to click. I am quite open to various topics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6 (not an error) Fifth Avenue/53rd Street stationEdit

Fifth Avenue/53rd Street station @Cwmhiraeth: @Epicgenius: There is nothing wrong with this nomination. The hook promoted was ALT1. I'm wondering if we could entertain the idea of using the original approved hook. The article is interesting and informative. Both hooks are equally sourced. It's just that as someone who does occasionally ride subways, I find it a lot more relevant - something mass transit riders could relate to - that private ownership of the gates allowed them to be closed and trap passengers. We exist in a world of governments outsourcing to private contractors and leaving human beings in the lurch. The art work, etc is nice, but the original hook is more, "OMG! This could happen to me!" Any ideas about using the original hook? — Maile (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: I'm fine with either hook. I agree that the original may be more interesting, just because of the lack of coordination that leads to a major mixup like that. epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy with either hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Substituted, thank you Maile. Gatoclass (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

More non-bio's please!Edit

There seems to be an awful lot of biography hooks on the approved nominations page right now, which makes it hard to create balanced sets. Could reviewers please try to focus on reviewing non-biographies for a while? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also a plethora of U.S.-based hooks! We need other countries for better balance. Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
While I'd very much support more non-U.S. hooks on DYK, it's going to be easier said than done considering the majority of DYK nominations involve America-related articles. It's really just a function of Wikipedia's known systemic bias and it's not easy to overcome it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of my noms are neither of these things. Maybe it's worth a reminder to certain Wikiprojects that might produce more worldwide results? Not that I want to produce a bigger backlog, but I suspect quite a few editors don't know too much about the process, and would write about something more unique. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's more a matter of reviewers going in and reviewing non-U.S. hooks. Radio stations by Raymie and New York City attractions by Epicgenius seem to be most popular among reviewers around here. I just reviewed a few foreign nominations. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nazi cigarettes hookEdit

Hi, I've just noticed that the hook about the article Sturm Cigarette Company had already appeared on the main page exactly one year ago. I'm kind of confused: I thought DYK eligibility rule 1. d. stated that articles could only appear once at DYK. L293D ( • ) 17:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: added it to balance the main page. Sam Walton (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep, if it's early enough in the day I would add a new hook, but if it is later on then the convention is just to recycle old hooks so that the new ones don't miss out on their hours in the limelight.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1Edit

I know different people have different ideas about what's interesting (or even understandable), but what is interesting about someone being engaged to marry someone they've known since childhood? (... that property developer Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi is engaged to marry Princess Beatrice of York, whom he has known since childhood?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Edwardx. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC) -- and nominator Surtsicna. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
As suggestions, I think something like these would be more interesting:
ALT1: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, helped to design the engagement ring himself?
ALT2: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, co-founded a charity in Rwanda that aims to use cricket to buildfoster social change?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally, ALT2 (which I've relabeled since "ALT1" was listed twice) sounds more interesting, although ALT1 may be of interest to royal family enthusiasts. My only concern is that ALT2 is a bit vague on what kind of "social change" is involved, though I suppose it might entice readers to read the article to find out more. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I only started the article as a redirect to Beatrice and had no role in the hook, although I agree that is hardly "interesting". We are somewhat constrained by it being a BLP, but perhaps some sort of meta hook might be worth considering. Edwardx (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, fiancé of Princess Beatrice of York, has a father and two stepfathers all with articles on Wikipedia?
As cute as ALT3 is, if ALT3 isn't in the article and/or can't be cited, it can't be used. Sorry. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Narutolovehinata5. His biological father and both stepfathers are linked to from his article, and his relationship to all three of them is cited. Obviously, we are not going to find a third party reliable source for "a father and two stepfathers all with articles on Wikipedia", but it is manifestly self-evident. Surely a case can be made for not complying with one of the DYK rules, in the spirit of WP:COMMONSENSE? Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think that's likely, considering the rule that hook facts must be in articles is perhaps the most strictly enforced DYK rule, and in the past many hooks have been pulled for not properly complying with it. I think the only time such a hook could fly would be on April Fools Day, when rules are more relaxed, but otherwise a more serious hook would be needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I think ALT2 works best; hook ref verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair point, Narutolovehinata5. And I agree with you and Yoninah that ALT2 is better than ALT0 or ALT1. Edwardx (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and subbed in ALT2 in prep; courtesy ping to Surtsicna to inform them of the change. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK Nom for World Martial Arts MastershipsEdit

Hello everyone, I am in the process of promoting my article on the World Martial Arts Masterships, with @Narutolovehinata5: as the reviewer. The reviewer was concerned that the Korean source I used for hook, while being reliable and coming from a reliable news organization (Yonhap) sounded a bit promotional and wanted other reviewers' thoughts on this. So, I am publicizing this discussion to gain the opinions of other reviewers. I have linked the article and review process to this post. Thank you, Taewangkorea (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Policy on rescuesEdit

This article, Baden-Powell grave was merged three years ago. I expanded it and republished it yesterday. Does this qualify for a potential DYK? Thanks! --evrik (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evrik: Looking at the diff probably not yet (sorry for mobile diff, feel free to refactor with better link). It would have to fall under 5x expansion from what it was prior to the redirect and merge. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --evrik (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
evrik, it looks like 826 prose characters survive from the previous article, so a 5x expansion would need to be to 4130 prose characters, which is quite long, given that the article currently has 1801 prose characters. You'd need to add another 2329 prose characters. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Dabusun Lake hookEdit

  • ... that Dabusun Lake (pictured) in China's Qarhan Playa has a mean annual temperature of only 0.1 °C (32 °F) despite lying at the same latitude as Greece and Virginia?

Just noting (as was also noted above by Cwmhiraeth) that Gatoclass [1] pulled this hook on the grounds of WP:OR earlier today. I can see the argument for that, certainly, but personally I would have let it ride I think. The mean temperature is obviously cited, and the fact that the lake is at the same latitude as the places mentioned is verified trivially, just by looking in an atlas. The only OR then, is the connection of the two things. No source is known to express surprise that the lake is cold and level with Greece/Virginia. But most people know those are hot places, so it's not really rocket science that this is surprising. Normally I'm a stickler for verifiability, but I can see where this hook is coming from and I think it's somewhat interesting too.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also have re-opened DYK nomination Qarhan Playa, so this can be addressed on the template. It never even made it to queue, so perhaps discuss on the template. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @LlywelynII: @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: — Maile (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I considered this issue when promoting the hook as well, but my view was that WP:BLUE applies; Greece and Virginia are places enwiki readers would likely be familiar with, so comparing the lake's altitude to these two places aids readers' understanding. So yes, going by a textual approach it may perhaps be WP:OR, but no one is going to seriously dispute the accuracy of that statement. feminist (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
When hooks sit for that long after approval, it's frequently because promoters are uncomfortable with the idea of promoting it due to the sourcing or a borderline POV or the like, as happened here. It would have been (and still should be) a relatively simple matter to cite locations at that latitude in those countries/states—for DYK, hook facts are supposed to be sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
True, but I think objection is as much about the WP:SYNTH element in tying together the latitude of this lake with the Greek and Virginian latitudes as anything. The latitudes of Greece and Virginia pretty much would qualify as WP:BLUE, but saying it's astonishing that the place is cold is perhaps OR...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Surely it's not even surprising that it's so cold, given that it's 3000m above sea level. IIRC mean temperature drops something like 7C for every 1000m elevation ... so a place with that elevation in Greece or Virginia would have the same issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, one big selling point of Mount Kilimanjaro to tourists is that there is snow on a mountain close to the equator, even though it shouldn't be surprising that a mountain almost 6km high has snow. Evidently, for most people this realization is in fact surprising. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you to Maile for reopening the nomination page for me - I simply ran out of time to do any more last night. With regards to the pull, I did notice on the nom page that a discussion had been had about whether the latitudes of Virginia and Greece should be sourced in the article or considered WP:BLUE, and was prepared to defer to apparent consensus on that point. However, there was a second assumption being made in the hook, namely that readers would be aware that both Virginia and Greece have substantially warmer average temperatures. But to my mind there was a still third assumption being made, which is that it's unusual for places on the same latitude to have substantially different temperatures, and that's where I felt the OR was creeping in. But overall, suffice it to say that I felt the hook needed more discussion at least. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pulling it, Gatoclass. I felt the nominator was pressuring me to promote something that did not meet DYK criteria re sourcing. Hopefully sourcing will now be offered for the hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I have added a couple of alternative hooks which include both articles on the nomination page. I think it's very unlikely that we'll find any sources about those Chinese lakes which mention Greece and Virginia. The point about expecting locations on the same latitude to have the same temperature is also very valid. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Full protected edit-requestEdit

On Template:Did you know/Queue please change the line

Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed.


Hooks removed from the prep areas or queue for unresolved issues should be listed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and the nomination re-added to Template talk:Did you know.

WP:DYK/Removed is historical and not used. This talk page is the de facto place where removed hooks get discussed. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's be careful with the updated wording. While the /Removed page is historical, it is not always necessary or even desirable to discuss a removed hook here. Sometimes the removal is straightforward, and the place to discuss the removal is the reopened nomination template—it happens all the time. The idea behind the /Removed page was to have an ongoing record of how often nominations had to be pulled from prep/queue/main page, and what the reasons were. If it wasn't desirable to retain that information, I see no reason to post to this page unless necessary. (Usually, the discussion takes place here in the hopes that a removal will not be necessary.) What does need to be done in the case of a removal is having the nomination template reopened and (as you note) the template transcluded to the nominations page. So I'm opposed to the proposed wording as is, since it's not what we do. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: is there a phrasing you'd prefer? Maybe something like ...should have their nominations re-added to WP:DYKN and, if necessary, notification to WT:DYK? Feel free to edit this proposal as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes, let's keep it simple: Hooks removed from the prep areas or queues for unresolved issues should have their nominations reopened and readded to WP:DYKN. If someone wants to post to WT:DYK, they obviously can, but it isn't a necessary step. Similarly, hooks removed from the main page may or may not be reopened depending on how long they actually ran on the main page (a couple of hours, probably yes; many hours, probably no)—it's a similar process, but doesn't involve preps or queues. We don't want an exhaustive description here, just the minimum that needs to be done to get the pulled nomination back into the DYK system. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Or, perhaps nominations reopened and retranscluded at WP:DYKN instead of nominations reopened and readded to WP:DYKN. Just a thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, could we just move the header information to a subpage and transclude it? That way we could make this kind of change through the regular brd cycle, and the info could be kept more up to date since more than just admins could maintain it. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I know this came up around 2016 on that discussion page. And I understand why you say it was established (c. 2011). But the fact of the matter is, each nomination going back that far has a closed nomination template. The record is there on each of those templates. If we ever wanted to go back and do some kind of analysis, there is surely a bot that could do it better. If we delete all those pages, and keep the closed templates, we are deleting nothing but a bunch of lists that were never really used for anything. So why re we keeping this? — Maile (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Why delete those pages? Is there a crying need for disk space? There is historical information there that may prove valuable... or not. (Should a bot be created that can do the analysis you suggest, and matches the Remove data, then a deletion could make sense.) I also don't think moving some information onto a subpage is going to help with a protected page; protections tend to propagate down to subpages, at least if done properly. And never really used for anything isn't accurate; I know I was paying attention to trends at the time, and doubt I was the only one. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Administrator note: as far as I can tell, there is no need for this subtemplate to be fully protected because it is not transcluded on the main page. Can anyone confirm/deny this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ, the page itself controls which queue is considered to be "next", which in turn is what the DYKUpdateBot uses to decide which queue to promote to the main page next. Allowing non-admins to edit the page means there's a chance a vandal can mess up what determines the queue that gets promoted next, which would be highly unfortunate. Unless you see something I don't, I wouldn't remove the full protection. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
We could always lower it down to template protection as a compromise, although I understand that it's an unpopular opinion among Main Page regulars. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the "what is next" coming from Template:Did you know/Queue/Next? In any case "directions" should not be fully protected, if necessary to keep the page content protected, move the direction to a /doc page. — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure which instructions you to refer to. The "Instructions on how to promote a hook" is merely a transclusion from a template. There are a lot of templates in the DYK process. I couldn't say right off which are protected and which are not, but they probably have template protection. Don't know for sure. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
In fact, in looking at the above link, everything on that link is a transcluded template from elsewhere. With the exception of the lead paragraphs, but even within those are template transclusions. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks xaosflux for confirming my suspicions. I have lowered the protection of this page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've created Template:Did you know/Queue/instructions which is a fork of the existing instructions. Can the page be edited so that the subpage of instructions is transcluded on the Queue page? For those who aren't familiar with this pattern, see WP:GAN which has its instructions on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines and has a lower protection level (none) than the page it is transcluded on (semi). We can do something similar here: transclude Template:Did you know/Queue/instructions on Template:Did you know/Queue and give the instructions page a lower protection. This way the rest of DYK regulars can maintain the documentation without needing the ability to edit through full protection and there's no risk of vandalism making it to the mainpage. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have lowered the protection, so you can edit this page yourself now. If you still think the instructions should be in a separate page, then go ahead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    MSGJ, Wugapodes, at the moment, it appears that all non-level-2 sections on the page have two edit links, one to the source of the protected queue, and one to the code that generates the proper queue for that section. Can we please have this page restored to the point where there is only one edit link? This is incredibly confusing and not at all helpful to people who use this page regularly. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    I have added __NOEDITSECTION__ to suppress these extra links — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hopefully, all is ok on this now. I personally object to instructions being moved elsewhere. DYK is convoluted enough with rules and instructions being in different places, and users not knowing what is where - much less that they are supposed to know about something they never knew existed. Please, let's leave the instructions where they are. Don't make it more of a maze for the users. Enough is enough. — Maile (talk)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewersEdit

The late-summer run of twice-daily sets was so successful in reducing the backlog of unpromoted and unapproved nominations that there are still many fewer than usual non-current nominations that need reviewing. There are only ten such nominations, those through October 5, all listed below. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 132 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ten.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Red Alert - Queue 4Edit

Hi - sorry for this, however, my nom in Queue 4 has become out-of-date. It reads:

... that today's Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Fleet Review is the first to include a vessel of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy?

However, a few hours ago the JMSDF officially canceled the Fleet Review due to Typhoon Hagibis. I'd suggest the DYK either be pulled or amended thus:

... that today's Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Fleet Review was canceled due to Typhoon Hagibis?

The reference for the newly proposed Alt is here. Sorry to push this through to Discussion, however, given the imminence of the DYK going live I thought a Red Alert was warranted. (pinging @Amakuru:, @Gerda Arendt: and @Dumelow:) Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford: OK that looks acceptable, and makes the hook interesting despite the cancellation. I've amended it to that, unless anyone objects.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Will there be a fleet review in a few days, or next in three years? If the former, we could also wait those few days. But again: the changed hook is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Did you know".