Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 128

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

→

Archive 135

Prep 1

I didn't expect Template:Did you know nominations/Grace's Little Belmont to be approved and promoted within 2 days of nomination! We hope and I have been working on expanding the History section – it wasn't incorrect, but it was missing a lot of facts. I just posted the corrected version now, along with a great new image of Wild Bill Davis, and would like to request that the hook be returned to the noms area so (1) an editor can review the new material and confirm it meets DYK criteria, (2) We hope can be added to the creation credits, and (3) the image can be added to the nomination. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've undone the nom closure, removed the credits and hook from the prep, is that it, or have I missed something in this wonky process? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, The Rambling Man. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, you won't have to worry about me pestering you much longer about these kinds of things, but do try to work to make it easier for people, especially newbies, to understand this giant heap of messy templates and queues and preps and arcane rules. It's lost sight of what it should be, an easy and gratifying route for new users to get a half-decent quality article onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Would it really be a crime to nuke the 16 trillion guideline pages and consolidate them into one? Montanabw^(talk) 07:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia has a habit of spawning insane bureaucracies, I'd recommend to pare down that significantly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

See latest section below, a proposal to add yet more bureaucracy to this stymied process. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Modest proposals

It's worthwhile trying to simplify things, if anyone wants to have a crack at it and post a draught page and what page or pages it'd replace. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be condensed into about eight bullet points. I know there are caveats where articles become invalid because of other posts elsewhere, but beyond that it should be really easy. But at the same time, it's worth upping the ante and increasing the quality conditions. Make it 2,000 characters, referenced (not just movie plots), reject the fivefold increase nonsense (how arbitrary is that?), pretty much reject the "new" concept, include it but don't make it the focus, after all it's not the focus of most DYKs these days. A few ideas to streamline... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'd go further, and simpler, than that. DYK should simply be for GAs, period -- kind of "Today's Featured Article, Junior". Imagine if all this time and effort was redirected at bringing 1/3 as many articles to GA! [Later clarification: That doesn't mean every GA can go straight to main page -- being a GA is just the threshold requirement. We'd still have some kind of review here at DYK, at the very least for the hook specifically, but likely more.]

and/or

• No matter what, any effective solution to the quality problem has to involve reducing the throughput. There are simply too many hooks per day. The best way to fix that, IMO, is to start enforcing the requirement that hooks actually be interesting. In all my years I can't ever recall a nom being rejected because there was nothing to say about the subject worth saying, and there were plenty of times that was in fact the case. So how do we figure out what's interesting? Easy: straight voting. No discussion. No consensus. Raw vote counts based on gut reaction, like this:

• Every day, 21 hooks are randomly chosen to be gathered in a set to be voted on.
• Everyone gets to vote for up to 7 of these. When the day's votes are in...
• The bottom 7 are struck permanently -- too unpopular.
• The middle 7 are marginal -- unclear if they're interesting enough. These are returned to the main pool so that sooner or later they end up in a new set of 21 to be voted on. (These 7 don't move as a block, they just all go back into the pool to swim around again until one by one each ends up in a new voting-set-of-21 selected from the whole pool.) This might happen to a given hook two or three times, but every hook eventually ends up either in the top 7 or the bottom 7, deciding its final fate.
• The top 7 hooks are "interesting", and pass on to the usual stages of review etc.

This produces 7 interesting hooks per day to go on to the review stage. Assuming about 1 in 7 doesn't actually pass review, that gives us 6 per day to go on the main page. (Yes, 6. We're only going to run 6 DYKs per day.) The beauty of this is that we eliminate 1/2 of the noms right at the door, before any significant brainpower at all is spent on them -- nothing more than the gut, "Wow! That's interesting!"

Obviously the specific numbers are adjusted according to the rate at which noms are coming in and the actual # we want to run each day.

EEng 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The beauty of this is that we eliminate 1/2 of the noms right at the door - while arithmetic is not my strong suit, 7 is a third of 21, not a half. I doubt this process would cut the workload at all given that a bunch of people have to go through all those hooks every day and try to decide whether or not to !vote for them.

And while I sympathize with your vision of more interesting hook sets, I don't believe a process like this would significantly improve them. If you look through the DYK archives, you will occasionally see a standout hook but most are pretty run of the mill no matter how you cut it. A very small number of hooks are genuine dogs, but far less than a third, so under a process like this, you would be penalizing a third of nominators quite arbitrarily in order to get rid of the occasional dog. Not a very fair or efficient process IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

EEng Happy Reading. GAs are passed with one lone reviewer and no oversight. Also, at GA, there is no requirement of "notability". — Maile (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a strange argument - GAs don't have to be notable. Yes, people have made it in the past and what it seems to boil down to is "please don't take my green blob away waaaaaah". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There would still be a DYK-specific review; see new clarifying text above. I don't understand what you two are arguing about re notability -- all articles have to be on notable topics. EEng 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more than content to limit DYK to GAs; after all there are hundreds of GANs and DYK could use a quality hike. While Maile66 makes a fair point, i.e. that GAs are promoted by an individual, it would be instructive to see the rate of failure of that process. There's no QPQ, there's no main page badge for a GA (I should know, I have about 163 of them), so the reason for doing it is somewhat different from the lightweight, happy snack DYK approach. I would expect to see the rate of failure of DYK plummet if we stuck to GAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I wasn't making an argument on the notability factor. Just a passing comment. I don't actually understand what you meant about GA, and guess I don't need to. But I've dipped my review/nominator toes into both processes. DYK is more thorough, if only that we allow all criticism to be heard on a nomination. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK is more thorough is almost the funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. At GAN, people are expected to review the whole article, DYK reviews usually focus on the arcane rule set (expansion factors, days since creation etc) and completely ignore things like basic grammar. DYK reviews focus on the hook, GAN focuses on the article in general. GAN does not prohibit any kind of interaction with multiple reviewers. Stop pretending otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You, sir, have read your own meaning into what I wrote. I never claimed GAN prohibits anything, and under the set up of Wikipedia the project would not be able to. Nobody but ANI and Arbcom can prevent interaction with anybody. I said there is no oversight to the one reviewer situation. That is basically true, especially when you take into consideration the GA Cup that, with the best of intentions, is a contest for the most reviews in a set time frame, and there are not enough editors to check each one passed even if that were desired. I basically believe in GA, but the routine lack of a second set of eyes puts it at a disadvantage. DYK at least requires a promoter to either Prep or Queue to once again check the article and be a second and third set of eyes. Whether or not it's done that way, it is at least in the guidelines. And unlike DYK, there aren't daily complaints on the GAC talk page about a sloppy review. Because nobody usually bothers to look. When we first got GA at DYK, I was happy and started reviewing those. There were multiple issues that would never have made it past DYK. There were also blatant copyvio issues. While DYK also has that issue, you'd think something touted as superior to DYK would be better. GAC is not set up to be as thorough as DYK, if only because of the second and third set of eyes in the prep stages. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so (at least for starters) keep the entire DYK reviewing process the same, just restrict to GAs only i.e. strike 1a-1f of WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria, leaving only 1g (probably dropping or modifying the 7 days requirement too). EEng 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, not a big fan of the idea. I think that even if DYK is failing at the "easy achievement for relatively new editors" notion, it still provides an incentive for people to create and improve articles on marginal topics. I don't mean marginal in terms of notability, but of available information. I've created a good few articles myself on subjects that are clearly notable and obviously important, but that have no chance in hell of reaching GA status in the near future, given the paucity of information available. There's flaws with both processes, for certain; but they're not going to be solved by clubbing them in this strange way. GAN needs more scrutiny, and more thorough reviews. DYK needs (among other things) to simplify its rules, and focus more on some basics like hook accuracy and hookiness. Which is sort of where this post started, it seems to me....Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares if they'll reach GA in the near future? If they reach GA in the future future, they can run as a DYK then. We can do without editors who will create articles only if they can get a DYK tick for it -- particularly if they'll only do if they can get the DYK tick for creating a start-class article. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is one of the reasons why I !voted against GAs being allowed on DYK. I knew that there would eventually be a creep towards GA trying to take over DYK's position. This is proving my point. DYK as it is currently allows for new and improved articles to be showcased on the main page while also gaining articles exposure to editors who might be able to help improve each individual article. Not to mention it gives new editors a chance to show what good work they have done and also allows for smaller articles to make it. To make it GAs only (of which most reviewers seem to just give out free passes to just because they are GAs and we have had more than our fair share of GA DYKs being pulled) would actually lower the quality as inaccurate hooks can be hidden and not to mention makes it very unwelcoming to newer editors. Also making a lottery on what runs will only benefit us regulars who will only vote to run what we have a personal interest in. As I have always said, interest is subjective, and while the regulars may vote an individual DYK as uninteresting and essentially censor it from appearing on the main page, others may well find it very interesting and want to read about it but they wouldn't be able to because us regulars would have been the self-appointed guardians of the project and censored it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Right now we only run things that "people here" at DYK think are interesting, because the people here are the ones doing the nominating. The only difference is that now, everything gets run no matter how stupid or dull the "interesting" fact is -- Did You Know, that Joan Smith's new hit single is the first by a former pastry chef who owns a pitbull? How about this: the qualification for voting each day is that you've nominated an article in the last 60 days. That's a rotating mix of DYK regulars and DYK newbies. If our goal is to run stuff that's even arguably interesting, we do have to make choices; just running everything because someone might find it interesting is an act of desperation. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not desperation, it is the truth. For example, we have a very proficient nominator here who creates several very specialist scientific DYKs, which many mainstream people may not find interesting at all, yet the scientific community might. You are neglecting to mention that there are people outside the DYK community who might also feel that what you might consider to be "dull" can be interesting. With regard to the whole voting precondition, who will police that given people won't have time to go around running background checks on peoples DYKs? Also, It is one thing to get a newbie to nominate their work, it is another to get them to start !voting for it too. In the end it will cause conflict with newbies who will still come up against regulars who will be voting all the time which could have a negative effect. Adding another layer to the process is not the way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are all these newbies nominating articles? Can you give me half a dozen examples from the past two or three sets please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The C of E perhaps you missed this note? Could you give me just a couple of examples in the past and present couple of sets of "newbies" please? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The pings don't seem to be working. Tempt, Tease and Touch, Statcast and Stéphane Sparagna to name a few done by newbies. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

C of E the first was nominated by an editor with over 7,000 edits, the second by an editor with over 172,000 edits (with a courtesy co-nom with a new editor who made four trivial edits), the third by an editor with over 2,000 edits. These are not newbies. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rambling Man Your interpretation of newbie is different to mine. My understanding of newbie in this context is one who has not contributed to DYK before or has less than 5 credits. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Then that's not a newbie. DYK was intended to encourage editors new to Wikipedia, not editors new to the process. That misses the point entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Equally editors may have made several edits but not yet created a page or made a major improvement to it. At the end of the day, if they are new to the process then they are newbies in this situation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• EEng What you are attempting is a takeover by GA of the DYK slot on the main page. At the end of the day, it's about the prize on the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, don't you think that's a tad overdramatic? I know there are people all hot under the collar about what's on MP, its format, and so on. I don't give a shit about that, but I do give a shit that when people look at DYK they don't get the idea that WP is full of slapdash articles offering frequently wrong tidbits of pseudofact. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• DYK is supposed to be about showcasing new content, confining DYK to GAs would kill that. GAs aren't that great either - a lot of the GA articles I have looked at here don't even pass the DYK criteria, let alone meeting legitimate GA standard. The GA process is a joke, it's even less rigorous than DYK because it requires only one reviewer whereas DYK nominations are generally looked at by multiple users. Also, the GAN process only produces 3 or 4 passed articles per day, which not only is not enough to fill even a single hook set, it isn't remotely enough to produce a sufficiently large pool from which to build a varied set. I just think the idea is a non-starter. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm explicitly advocating junking the "new content" fetish in favor of "good content". Since (as I'm now saying for the 3rd or 4th time) the proposal is to leave all the current DYK review machinery in place, there's no reason to think quality will go down. And with the huge effort now poured into reviewing 20 half-baked articles per day refocused on reviewing 3 more GAs per day on top of the 3 to 4 you say are currently coming through anyway, there should be no problem getting 6 per days, which is all we should be running to have actually good content with interesting hooks. Varied sets won't be a problem if we allow a backlog of 50 or so approved hooks to accumulate, just as we do now. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole "new user/new content" is myth. There are virtually no new users here trying to work their way through this awkward system. It's just long-term editors accumulating credits. Quality on the mainpage must trump any other goal. This massive turnover of mediocrity is a running joke, and claiming the GA process to be a joke is a joke itself when the DYK process, which has oversight of three or four individuals per nomination routinely messes it up, and that's just focussed on one sentence in an article, not the article as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• If it works, don't fix it The original issue here was a request for Grace's Little Belmont to be given a bit more time. It appears that this was done and done correctly. As this incident was resolved expeditiously, there doesn't seem to be a problem that needs fixing. Opening up the discussion into a radical reworking of DYK seems to be quite off-topic. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, this is a subsection of the original discussion. It's fine to discuss it here and is not "off-topic" or "lightbulbish". The initial problem, and its fix, is merely a symptom of a broken system, as you are well aware. Continually lawyering over it won't help anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, discussions are allowed to go in whatever direction they go. It doesn't currently work -- it's an embarrassment. I held out little hope (I've made both these proposals before) but thought I'd give it a try again and see if the ground was more fertile. EEng 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

18 verified hooks

It looks as if we only have 18 verified hooks, and only 167 hooks overall. That isn't nearly enough. We may have to slow down to one update per day for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with one set per day. We've been seeing fewer nominations since the beginning of the Olympics. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the quality issues with the most recent two sets, one set per day would seem optimal right now, and hopefully the promoting admin can take time to read the whole article, not just the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Give me a day or two and I can whip up 70 articles ;-) But in all seriousness I agree there seems to be a slump, if we go to one a day for a bit it would help. And while there have been issues found in prep, I am just glad they were not found on the main page - we're actually using the prep areas as intended, keeping the main page more error free. But there have been too many "approved" hooks I was not able to move by doing a simple check before moving, that is really concerning.  MPJ-DK  18:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How about one set of eight hooks per day. That'll be six hooks fewer in a 24 hour period. While there aren't that many Paralympics hooks—at the moment we have just enough to run one per day—I expect we'll want to do two hook sets on September 8, however, given the large group of Star Trek 50th anniversary hooks in the special occasions area (seventeen at last count). If we do make the switchover to one per day, please make sure it's at midnight UTC (for bot reasons). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

18 approved Star Trek hooks now in the holding area. Two more in the nominations, as far as I can see. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds ideal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is also a good place to remind everyone that we are only a little over a month away before we have to curtail political themed hooks. The general election in the United States is Nov. 8. So, as of October 8, this would affect articles about any U. S. candidate running on any level, in any political party. Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. Maybe it also might be a good idea to avoid those hooks we've seen that very cleverly mention a main candidate's name in the hook, but is actually about something or someone else. That kind of hook amounts to free advertising, putting a candidate's name on the main page. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Good point, would it make sense to have like a big bold announcement at the top of both this page and the nomination page? If your hook in anyway includes anything related to the US election I will not run between Oct 8 and Nov 8 - I assume if a hook is approved after Oct 8 it would run afterwards and be in a special holding zone?  MPJ-DK  01:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the input, I have reset the clock to run one update every 24 hours. I agree that we should probably go back to eight-hook sets while this rate is in place. We can review the situation again in a week or two. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Gatoclass, can I ask a favor: can you please temporarily put the clock back to 12 hours, promote Prep 6 with seven hooks rather than eight, and then set the next promotion time to midnight? Right now the bot will take the next set at 15:05, and then it's going to crawl by 15 minutes each set until it eventually gets to 00:00. That's over a month away, and in the meantime it'll make a hash of the two Star Trek sets on September 8 and running the Paralympics hooks on the right day. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I am a bit rusty on some of the technical aspects, how do I reset the time to midnight? Gatoclass (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I haven't verified the hooks in Prep 6 yet, and it might take me up to an hour to do so, will this mess up your proposed schedule? Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, no, that will be fine. It doesn't matter whether the hooks run for 16 or 17 or 15 hours; we should end up at midnight regardless. Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has the time of the next update; you just reset it as necessary for when you want that to be. It occurs to me that rather than change the ‎interval from 24 hours back to 12 and then again to 24, it might be easiest, once you've verified Prep 6 and moved it to Queue 6, to reset the Next update to occur a couple of minutes in the future instead of waiting until 15:05. Then, when the update is done, reset the Next update again to occur at 00:00. (The dates should be fine, but double check to be sure.) Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I am struggling to understand the logical steps here. Maile66, any chance you could do what BlueMoonset is requesting? I have already verified the set in Prep 6. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, since the current set has already had about 17 hours on the main page, what I could do is load prep 6 to the queue, set the time to go off in a few minutes, then alter the new timestamp to point to midnight tonight UTC. Is that what you meant? I think that should mean the hooks in Prep 6 will get about 12 hours exposure before being archived. Gatoclass (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I'm sorry; that's because I forgot that the bot adds the update interval (now 24 hours) to the "Next update/Time" to determine when next to do a promotion to the main page. Here's what needs to happen:

• Promote Prep 6 to Queue 6. (You've just done this.)
• Change the string at Template:Did you know/Next update/Time from "2016-08-24T15:05:00Z" to "2016-08-24T09:05:00Z". (The middle "15:05" to "09:05".)
• The bot will test conditions, see that an update is overdue (since "2016-08-24T09:05:00Z" plus 24 hours is "2016-08-25T09:05:00Z", or 18 minutes ago as I type this), and kick off a new update, moving Queue 6 to the main page.
• When it finishes, it will update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time to whatever the then-current time is.
• After it does that, change Template:Did you know/Next update/Time one final time to "2016-08-25T00:00:00Z". We're then all set for midnight promotions going forward, starting with midnight on the 26th. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. Thank you for the assistance BlueMoonset. Gatoclass (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I have reverted your undiscussed change to the Tamar Bridge back to what was reviewed and put in prep. Using "boobs" trivialises breast cancer, and carrying fake breasts across the bridge does not imply they wore them. (I also preferred the non-breast related hook, but that's consensus for you...) If you were uncertain about the factual accuracy of the hook, you could have pulled it from queue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Ritchie333, why don't I spend another half an hour looking for a substitute hook when I've just spent two hours fixing other people's mistakes? The answer is because I'm an unpaid volunteer and there is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to spend picking up after other people.

On reflection, I am not going to restore my copyedit on the assumption that the current hook is correct, but it doesn't actually state anywhere in the provided source that the marchers "carried" their fake breasts over the bridge, and it's also misleading to say they carried them "to highlight breast cancer" when if they actually carried them at all, they did it to avoid distracting drivers. Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Would it be fair to say they took a trip down mammary lane? EEng 16:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Boom-boom! ;) Gatoclass (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 18:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It worked for me :)

We really must recruit you for next year's April Fools. Though I fear we may all end up getting arrested in the process. Gatoclass (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me to any nom that shows appropriate promise. Perhaps you're familiar with my greatest hits? EEng 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Visual oddity on the bot review

I see the same thing with both Firefox and IE. I purged the page several times. Template:Did you know nominations/Epinecrophylla shows the Review bot check all four hooks. But if you look at it Here, it looks like the Review did not much at all. @Cwmhiraeth and Intelligentsium: ? Something funky happened here, but I'm guessing it was DYK funky and not bot funky. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: This is intentional per Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 126#DYKReviewBot on the nominations page. Pppery (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't. I did not say it was using small type or collapsed boxes. I said it isn't showing. No reviewer or potential reviewer scanning the nomination page can tell what happened. It's an error.— Maile (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: It's still intentional. See Intelligentsium's last comment on the thread. Pppery (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. And there's the "noinclude" right on the template. Looks odd, though. Thanks for mentioning this. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this, this was intentional per the above discussion (to improve page readability and load-times) but it looks like one of my noinclude tags is misplaced. I think this only affects multiple nominations. I think it's fixed now. Intelligentsium 23:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Notes on quality

Now we have a more optimal turnover rate (as I'd suggested several times) of one set of eight per 24 hours, we should be capable of reviewing each set properly before it gets promoted to the main page. Please remember to check that the hook is cited correctly (ideally with more than one citation) and please, please, please read the rest of the article to ensure that errors aren't found there too. Check for violations of the fair use of images, check that articles are categorised correctly and aren't stubs. If you have the knowledge, check the articles meet some of the basics of the WP:MOS. Yes, each hook and article will have been reviewed two or three times before the set is built, but errors still make it through, all too often. Between us, we should be able to cover those quality control items for eight hooks per day reasonably easily, as long as people genuinely care for the quality of the DYK project and its ongoing existence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wonder if DYK reviewers should be messaged about this post. I don't think DYK reviewers by default have this talk page watchlisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Right back at you with "please, please, please" continue your practice of looking through the top queue. No matter how diligent and well-intentioned editors are, you still notice things others don't. You have a great instinct in that regard. We need somebody with a fine eye for detail, and that's you. It might also be others, but for sure it's you.— Maile (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Low on approved hooks

Putting together Prep 5 this morning I found that we're a little low on approved hooks, especially approved hooks where there are no issues. The "Approved" number on the page looks higher than it is since the bot cannot tell when anything LavaBaron is involved in needs a second approval so the numbers are off. I am going to go through and pull in approved hooks to get as much in the preps and then I am going to do a round of reviews, but that means I cannot move those hooks to prep areas.  MPJ-DK  10:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with MPJ-DK. The greatest need that DYK has at the moment is for some extra voluntary reviews to be done. There are currently 26 approved hooks out of a total of 165 hooks, and the balance of 140 or so represents a permanent backlog that needs reducing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Error on Main Page for 12 hours, after involved admin reverted it ion the main page to the wrong version!

• ... that a group of people carried fake breasts over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer?

Template:Did you know nominations/Tamar Bridge @Ritchie333, Cwmhiraeth, MPJ-DK, and Gatoclass:

This one is really very problematic, and may ned further action. The above, incorrect hook was nominated by Ritchie333 and approved and promoted by Cwmhiraeth and MPJ-DK. It was then at the last minute, but correctly, changed by Gatoclass[1] to read:

• ... that a group of people removed their boobs pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer?

The source [2] clearl indicates that the breasts were removed, so Gatoclass was completely correct to change this.

Ritchie333 then changed the hook back to the promoted version[3] while it was already on the fully protected Main Page, and despite being the nominator of the article and hook (making him clearly and undeniably involved). So restoring an error to the Main Page while clearly very involved, I don't think one can do much worse than this...

I wanted to note it here first, as pulled hooks get discussed here first, but I'll probably put this on WP:ANI as a very problematic admin action. Fram (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already addressed this in the thread above. Carrying, in my opinon (and not necessarily yours) does not imply wearing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You were clearly involved, and the source doesn't say they were carrying it, no matter what your opinion is. No matter what, you should never have reverted this. Fram (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• As the chief hooker in charge of titillating (get it?) hooks, what I don't get is that "removed their boobs" is a way hookier hook anyway, in addition to literally following what the source says. EEng 20:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• The source does not say they carried them, but it does say they removed the costumes before they got on the bridge, and the point according to the source was that they were removed before the bridge so as not to distract. So, Fram appears to be right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup I agree, did not look close enough at the source when building the prep.  MPJ-DK  20:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • And there it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Whoop there it is? There is what exactly? If that was a hook it would be yanked off the main page for being too ambiguous.  MPJ-DK  22:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • There is another example of how the quality of reviews here is a timebomb for the project. Sling it into the current Arbcom case melting pot... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• No idea of this meltingpot you are stirring somewhere else but whatever floats your boat I guess?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is perhaps water under the bridge now but I like to get to the bottom of such mysteries. My impression from this source and that source is that the focus of the walk was the bridge rather than it being a crossing point to somewhere else. So, when they were refused permission to wear the costumes on the bridge, they will have taken them off and walked across without them. After parading on the bridge, they then will have walked back, recovered the costumes, and then gone back to their college student's union. The bridge is 34 miles from the college's main centre in St Austell so it may be that they had a coach to take them to the bridge, rather than walking there. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• The other part that does not actually fit the source is that they did not "carry the boobs for charity", the walk was for charity, it was not one of those "Push a peanut with your nose" things where the act of carrying the fake boobs was the point so to say they "Carried them for charity" is actually wrong, they took them off for traffic safety is what the source said.  MPJ-DK  10:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• The image in your first source does appear to show them on the bridge not carrying anything (makes sense if one does not want the costumes on the bridge) -- sure, they could have stacked them up in a van (or do you call those lorry). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1

• ... "that the first public house officially visited by Queen Elizabeth II was the Bridge Inn, Topsham?"

There's nothing wrong with this hook, but the interesting thing is that it took the Queen 46 years of her reign to officially visit a public house, given that they are such an intrinsic part of British life. I wonder if this could be added? i.e....

• ... "that Queen Elizabeth II first officially visited a public house, the Bridge Inn, Topsham, in the 46th year of her reign?"

Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Was she not a mechanic in the war, and she never visited a public house?:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Even if the hook weren't already on the main page, since the fact that the visit was in the 46th year of Elizabeth II's reign is not in the article (nor sourced there, obviously), it cannot appear in the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I believe she was over a month into her 47th year as Queen at the time; that potential for error is one of the reasons it's better not to make this kind of late change without the usual checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• This sounded like an unlikely "first" and quick browse soon finds coverage of the Queen visiting a new pub in Stevenage in 1959. This was reported in Parliament too and so seems reasonably "official". This indicates that the claim should be toned down. Andrew D. (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not an error as such

But the DYK about David Pountney is completely non-understandable, and going to the page doesn't explain it any further. Red Fiona (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• So the DYK is not about Pountney but the Merchants of Venice article in bold, If you look for this in Pountney's article it is possible you won't find it. In there he is quoted as stating something along the line of "I was part of the silence, now I am part of the noise" - Mercantile = Merchant.  MPJ-DK  11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Red Fiona on this. Even following the link to the Merchant of Venice does not shed any light; you need to scroll down to "Reception" to solve the riddle. Is this how DYK is supposed to work? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well hooks are meant to be hooky, to entice you to the article. So in that sense it did work. Nom here. Although I must say the quote in the Merchant of Venice (opera) article seems rather misplaced, reception sections are usually for the reception by critics/press/public etc, not by artistic directors. Was the quote in response to staging the production? or was it in response to the reception of it? Also its unclear what involvement Pountney had with the production beyond ticking the box that said 'yes, this can be put on at the Festival'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, the hook was a bit cryptic, but I found the relevant passage easily enough just by searching for the word "silence". Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nompage links

Can we add a link just to the nompage in the nompage links (which display as "( Review or comment Article history )" under the article name on T:TDYK). The current "Review or comment" link automatically takes the user to the edit screen, which may not be desirable if a user simply wants to view the nomination without editing it. The relevant pages are Module:DYK nompage links and Template:DYK nompage links. Unfortunately I don't have experience with Lua, the wiki scripting language to do it myself (and I'm also not able to edit these pages as a non-admin/template editor). Intelligentsium 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius didn't you create the Module? — Maile (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's right. @Intelligentsium: Do you want to change the existing edit link to a view link, or do you want to add an extra link so that there are both edit and view links available? And how would you like the resulting links to look? Maybe something like ( Nomination page · Review or comment · Article history ) ? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think the edit link is useful too so I think we could just add an extra link? Nompage/edit/history looks fine to me. Intelligentsium 16:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jason Spriggs, Queue 3

I have linked "All-American" in the hook to College Football All-America Team, as the term will be meaningless to most of those outside North America, and it isn't explained in his article either. Could someone more au fait with American Football just check that I have linked to the correct article, please. (I was going to link to All-America originally, but it's a terrible, mostly unsourced article). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Problem is the assumption that all our readers are Americans and will readily consume this kind of "in-universe" hook. Thanks for being diligent enough to pick it up. Before the hawks descend, I have, on numerous occasions, expanded "football" to "association football" just to ensure everyone gets it. Comme ci comme ça. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed the link on the Jason Spriggs hook to 2015 College Football All-America Team, which actually has his name listed. — Maile (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, nice one. That was why I asked, in case there was a better target. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

"that philosopher Tamara Horowitz stopped looking in mirrors in her twenties?"

The article says "During her mid-twenties, she spent a period of two years not looking in mirrors;" i.e. she didn't stop looking in mirrors period, as implied by the hook, it was a brief interlude of two years. The hook should be made more accurate or replaced with something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: — Maile (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

... that in her mid-20s, the philosopher Tamara Horowitz spent two years not looking into mirrors, testing her own dependence on her appearance? — Maile (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's much better per the sources, but as you've already pinged the nominator, let's leave it to them, or pull it and re-open the nom if nothing forthcoming. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also @Gatoclass: as the queue's promoting admin, just so he knows this question is out there. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to the hook being changed, as it is perfectly accurate. The statement "A stopped doing x at time t" does not imply that A was not doing x at time t+1, contrary to what The Rambling Man said above. Apologies if this reply seems curt; I have no interest whatsoever in engaging with The Rambling Man, as I suspect he knows. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not with me the engagement is important with, it's our readers. I suggest the hook is changed to that suggested by Maile66 so at least it doesn't mislead our readers. I couldn't really care less what Milburn thinks I'm afraid. You could argue that she stopped looking in the mirror for five minutes would still make the same hook true. Fundamentally it's misleading to our audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) Could someone please close this thread? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, closing this thread is not helpful. The error was noted hours before the hook went onto the main page. Now ERRORS has complaints from two other editors. If we don't act on these clearly misleading hooks before they go to the main page, we're just delaying the issue and embarrassing Wikipedia at the same time by publicising such issues to our millions and millions of visitors. As soon as we stop thinking of the readers, we might as well pack up and close the site down. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully Stephen has addressed the issue here. This thread should be recalled when the DYK process is more closely scrutinised in the forthcoming weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

When I checked the hook statement before loading the set last night, I noted that Horowitz had only stopped using mirrors for two years, rather than permanently as the hook implies, but the hook was nonetheless factually accurate and I did not feel unduly misled by it. DYK is not obliged to add caveats to eliminate every possible ambiguity or misreading of a hook, because doing so would in many cases eliminate the hookiness factor along with it. Having said that, what constitutes an acceptable degree of "fuzziness" is often a judgement call, and in this case I thought the degree acceptable, though it seems clear in hindsight that not all users agreed. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

All of that is understood, but as soon as I raised a valid issue here, way before the hook was heading to the main page, it should have been addressed, not simply dismissed by the owner of the hook. As a consequence, the misleading hook made it onto the main page for 8 hours (which, up until recently, was the time an entire set might stay on the main page). Just because the item had moved from the queue to the main page, there was no cause to close the discussion down. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

When I scanned through the queues a few days ago, I was also clearly misled by the hook. If it had been "...that philosopher Tamara Horowitz became a vegetarian in her twenties?", one wouldn't have expected to find that she started eating meat again two years later. It needed to be made explicit (as it has been now). Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well the WikiCup people get their points, regardless of whether the hook makes sense or is corrected. It's not unusual now to see that the highest scoring participants are those piling up the DYK credits. Easy touch. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden

Why is the last bit of this approved nom sticking out at T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on August 8? Something funny with that "</noinclude>" before DYKReviewBot's signature at 19:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)? --PFHLai (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably because someone wrote below the line that states "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• The issue seems to be the bot code itself. Please see Problem with the closing "/noinclude" tag when the DYK template closes. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I left that last bit there temporarily until bot-owner Intelligentsium has had a chance to see it in place, though I can edit the Vic Lambdem template sooner if this is likely to disturb people. I imagine we'll have a fix before too long; until then, this bit from bot sig to the end will show up when the nomination is promoted or rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've seen this issue and am looking into it. Intelligentsium 18:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed the problem (many thanks to BlueMoonset for an exceptionally detailed issue report!). This was due to a brain fart on my part for using noincludes without realizing nested noincludes don't play nice after the DYK templates are substituted once a decision is taken. I had assumed the inner pair of noincludes would just do nothing but apparently the MW software only reads up to the first close tag and then closes both of them.

It's always OK to hand edit them to clean them up as the bot doesn't touch them again after but as this may be a lot of work, it may make more sense simply to remove or comment out affected nominations. I have applied a fix for future reviews, moving to a collapsible box rather than a noincluded bot review, per one of the other suggestions in the original discussion. However, it should be noted that while this keeps the nominations page more tidy than showing the reviews by default, unlike the noinclude solution, this does not address the issue of load time as everything in the hidden box is still part of the page HTML and thus still has to be rendered by the user's browser. Intelligentsium 04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, Intelligentsium. While the suggestion to remove or comment out affected nominations makes some sense, the problem is that any nominations that are promoted to prep or queue and then pulled back will not show up again if they've been commented out. I'll do the extra work of editing the templates for now. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Intelligentsium & BlueMoonset. I'll remove the no-longer-needed "<noinclude>"and "</noinclude>" the next time I encounter them on T:TDYK. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Negative BLP hook in next set

• ... that Mexican politician Marco Antonio García Ayala has been described as a "ghost deputy"?

Template:Did you know nominations/Marco Antonio García Ayala @Raymie, Cwmhiraeth, and MPJ-DK:

Now in prep5, the next prep to hit the main page. This seems to run against our DYK rule that "[...] hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.". The source is a column in a local newspaper.[4]. Fram (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's an opinion piece by the looks of it as well, not a investigative story. Pull. Black Kite (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As this prep set has now been moved into the queue with only seven hooks, perhaps someone would like to add another to complete the set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

... that the father/son team of Pantera and El Hijo del Pantera is the only team to have participated in all three Legado Final professional wrestling shows so far?

I think that "so far" is superfluous here as "in all three" comprehensively defines the scope. Alternatively I suppose you could lose the "three"? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that the "so far" is superfluous: the way I would understand it, that is an implicit qualifier to all "biggest," "longest," "oldest," "all" type of hooks. Vanamonde (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thus removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

"that actor Nat Polen played Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live from 1969 until his death from pancreatic cancer in 1981?"

Sadly, this can be read as either Nat Polen or Jim Craig dying from pancreatic cancer in 1981. Please reword to avoid the ambiguity, I've already fixed two other hooks in that set, and made some obvious corrections to the target articles, as approved by a reviewer, promoter, admin etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FrickFrack What to you say about the above hook? — Maile (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In case there is no response in the next hour or so, how about the following (which mostly moves clauses around):

• ... that Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live was played by Nat Polen from 1969 until the actor's death from pancreatic cancer in 1981? —BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not trim "from pancreatic cancer"? Shorter and hookier without it. Edwardx (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Let's go with the trim. FrickFrack 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting a variance on this, because I can almost see "this is unclear" said by somebody somewhere:

• ... that the character of Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live was played by actor Nat Polen from 1969 until his own death in 1981? — Maile (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man one of the changes you made was incorrect. Regarding W. Wallace Kellet, The United States Postal Service did not exist until 1971. I changed it back to United States Post Office Department with a link in the hook. The source confirms this. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, both the hook and the article were incorrect. So I'm guessing the reviewer(s) and promoter(s) all missed that too. And for the avoidance of doubt, you didn't change it "back" to United States Post Office Department because it was originally "United States Post office". Finally, of the three sources used to ref that hook, only one mentions the name of the organisation explicitly, and guess what... "the first autogyro used by the U.S. Postal Service.... Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Heber Robert McBride hook would be hookier if "ill-fated" were inserted before "Martin Handcart Company". Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not in queue 5, it's currently on the main page so you would need to register the issue at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New update needed

Can somebody please put a new update together? I can't verify an update to load into the queue if there are no updates. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I will work on Prep 6 to get the last 5 hooks in it.  MPJ-DK  11:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have all but the quirky hook spot filled, looking for a non-bio quirky hook preferably. But I got to jet for a while, hopefully someone else can fill the last spot?  MPJ-DK  12:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing and promoting in the post-DYKReviewBot era

When reviewing a nomination or promoting a hook to Prep, please have a quick look at the article history for anything that significantly altered the article from what was reviewed by either the bot or the human. To be clear, I'm not laying blame on anybody, just giving an example of why it is important to glance at the article history. The Triggering had so many significant edits that it lost half its size since the bot review, and was not the same article. The bot review version, first human review version. So, please, what you are reviewing or promoting might not be the same version DYKReviewBot, or any subsequent reviewer, signed off on. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

While that's pretty important, it's a little bit surprising that you have to remind promoters to actually re-read the article and check it meets the DYK standards. Perhaps it's a symptom of the bizarre and arcane workings of the process that things can change so radically between a hook being "approved" and it being on the main page. Perhaps that needs to change. In the meantime, please work on the hooks that are promoted to the queues regardless of when they were promoted. So far, even with the slower rate, I'm seeing hooks promoted that aren't referenced, or are just incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that the number of traffic collisions in Gaziantep, Turkey, decreased by about 40% within two months of the installation of TEDES?

The article says that it's only in areas monitored by TEDES that this reduction was observed (to whit: It was reported that the number of traffic collisions at the TEDES-monitored intersections and fast lanes in Gaziantep declined by about 40% within two months...), not in the whole city of Gaziantep. Hook needs clarification or pulling so it can be revised into something succinct. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting close to pulling time, so can CeeGee please address this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, pulled, I'm off to bed soon, I don't want to see errors on the main page, so better safe than sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a lot of trouble reading the underlying source. I cannot read Turkish and Google Translate does an appalling job of translating the language into English. In the end, I pretty much gave up on it and decided to AGF that the hook was correct. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But the hook, as written, wasn't backed up in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I overlooked that. I went immediately to the source when I opened the article to verify the hook, but got so frustrated trying to interpret the google translation, decided to AGF on the hook, forgetting to check that the article itself said the same thing. I'll try to be more careful next time. Thanks for picking up the error. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 bowling hook

• ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was the initiator of the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?

Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger @Yoninah, Doug Coldwell, and Jsayre64:

As far as I can tell from the article, he was the initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which was the initiator of the rules and regulations. And even the claim that he was the initiator of that congress is debatable, it looks as if Joe Thum has at least as much claim to being the initiator of the congress and the rules and regulations. E.g. the Bowlingmuseum.com mentions the essential role of Thum, but doesn't discuss Bensinger at all. Here as well they discuss the role of Thum and also mention Thomas Curtis, but no mention of Bensinger. Looking there for Bensinger gives no results. The Historical Dictionary of Bowling doesn't mention Bensinger at all! It mentions again Thum's role in 1895, and it mentions the Brunswick company (but nothing about them for the period of the hook), but nothing about Bensinger... This book lists four crucial members at the founding of the ABC, but doesn't include Bensinger (he isn't mentioned anywhere in this book on bowling).

Other sources do indicate that Bensinger helped founding the ABC[5]("played an important role in establishing the ABC")

It seems to me that Bensinger can be described as an initiator of the ABC, which was in its turn the initiator of the rules etc. But to go from this to the hook seems quite a stretch. Fram (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this problem while the hook is still in prep. I have pulled it, as I don't see a quick fix for this problem and the article may need closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have verified the four hooks already in Prep 6, but since I had to pull the other three for various reasons, I am probably not going to have time to put this update together now, so someone else will have to complete and promote it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I finished it myself after all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I think the sources cited in the article after the sentence: "He helped found the American Bowling Congress in 1895, which set in place a legislative body that enforced these rules and regulations for all to follow as the standard for the game of bowling."
support a hook like this: … that Moses Bensinger (pictured), an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, helped establish the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?
or this, not as exciting:
… that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which established rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling? Jsayre64 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of a better hook should happen at the nomination template, not here, but in any case: no on the first: you shouldn't change "he helped found A which established B" into "He helped establish B" as that indicates that the had an active role in writing the rules and regulations, while the source only supports the claim that he helped bring together others who then did the writing. Fram (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that there is no direct evidence that an ancient Roman bust known as the Capitoline Brutus actually depicts the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus (d. 509 BC)?

So what? The clearly needed link here is that it's "commonly thought to depict the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus". Missing that fact from the hook makes it relatively pointless unless we expect all things called "Brutus" in some form are supposed to represent all things called "Brutus". Plus, I'm not sure why we need the "(d. 509 BC)" as we've already covered that this is ancient Rome we're talking about. Please reword swiftly and succinctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting close to pulling time: PericlesofAthens can you fix this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, added some more phrasing and removed the nugatory text. Tough if it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the meaning of the original hook was clear enough, but regardless, I think the changes are an improvement, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry that I didn't see this in time to do anything about it. Looks like you guys handled it. Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, everyone. So I'm a newbie and I'm interested in getting a DYK done, but the whole process seems so complicated. I'm writing my draft at Draft:Devonshire White Paper and I'm looking for someone to guide me through the process. I asked Shubinator and they directed me here. If anyone would like to help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

MediaKill13 it's always nice to see a new editor at DYK. You do seem to write well. Instructions for nominators will help guide you through it. If you make a mistake in creating the template, it can always be corrected. Your hook(s) should be 200 characters or less, have a neutral point of view, and be "hooky", something that makes the reader want to click on the article link. You can use the Character Count tool to check the length of the hook. The hook must be stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence in which it is stated. The article qualifies as new the date it is moved to main space, and must be nominated within 7 days. New articles need to be 1500 characters in length, but you've already exceeded that in draft space. If you need more help, please feel free to ask for it either on this page or on the nomination template itself. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: So can I remove the {{New unreviewed article}} template and move the draft into mainspace now? MediaKill13 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

MediaKill13 Yes. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

...that King Henry IV's English invasion of Scotland in 1400 was delayed while they waited for the king's tents to arrive? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi did you want this to be a new nomination? Just follow Instructions for nominators and create the template. Don't worry about making a mistake, because we can always correct errors. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 I was expecting my servants to do it for me. Since they made such a pig's ear of bringing my tent. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, another glaring tents error at DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Cwmhiraeth, AKS.9955, Antidiskriminator: The Mijo Babić article has been recently tagged since 27 August as requiring a copyedit. Despite that, it was promoted four days later with nothing in the article being addressed. I've had a cursory glance - this really isn't the quality of article even DYK should be aspiring to post on the main page. Suggest it is pulled and given the needed care and attention before it is promoted to a queue again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given it a copyedit and removed the tag, so it should be fine now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, better, but why would it have been promoted in that state? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There's been some debate about whether or not DYK should withhold articles with minor copyediting issues - minor in this case meaning articles with grammatical issues that are nonetheless comprehensible. DYK articles are not required to be perfect given that they represent mostly new content, and it's been found in practice that articles needing a copyedit are quickly cleaned up after they hit the main page. Given that one of the supposed purposes of DYK is to allow articles to be seen and improved upon by a wide audience, it can be argued that featuring articles which still display a copyediting tag is an example of WAD. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"WAD" ? Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Working As Designed". Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that articles highlighted on the main page of Wikipedia should not require a wholesale copyedit for the basics of English grammar, nor should articles tagged as such be promoted until the issues are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know you think that, but not everybody agrees. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Having said all that, I do find it somewhat ironic that the supplemental guidelines pay homage to WP:DASH (F5), MOS:NUM (F6), WP:ELLIPSIS (F1), and even have to go as far as to tell editors "Don't capitalize your article as it appears in the hook, just because that's how it appears in the article" (B2), but at no point anywhere do I see anything that says "the article should be written in English, even simple English, with minimal grammatical errors and typographical issues". The project cares more about an en-dash/hyphen debate than readable English? Even worse is the instruction to self-appointedly remove the any stub tags (D11) (because that way you get your article onto the main page quicker and get those WikiCup points!). That's just plain wrong, article assessment doesn't work that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The "F" rules pertain to the hook (except F8, which really shouldn't be there). Obviously, consistency of presentation is required for the hooks that actually appear on the mainpage. MOS breaches in the article, on the other hand, are of little concern, DYK is not FA. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think given the state of the articles being promoted, you don't need to clarify that. I'm not (and never have been) looking for even GA quality, I just believe that the main page should feature articles that are written in grammatically correct English, and if an article is so bad that it has to be tagged for copyediting, it shouldn't go anywhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

... that Hamilton was first presented at Vassar College as part of the Powerhouse Theater program?

I found this confusing as when I went to the Hamilton article, it stated that it wasn't the musical per se but a "a workshop production of the show" which comprised just "the first act of the show and three songs from the second act". Maybe that's covered by "was first presented at" (which I also find odd phrasing). It also notes that it was actually called The Hamilton Mixtape when performed. And actually, part of Hamilton appears (according to its own article) was performed first at the White House... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to:

• ... that an act from the musical Hamilton was first presented at Vassar College as part of the Powerhouse Theater program? Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Though I think it would be hookier to have something like:

• that award-winning Broadway shows Hamilton, Bright Star, and The Humans were workshopped at the Powerhouse Theater? Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Paging Bobamnertiopsis for comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass In case you want to go with that last one, which I also like, I linked the plays. — Maile (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dab Broadway if that's what you're going with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note the target article doesn't substantiate the "award-winning" claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It substantiates the claim now, and the claim is sourced. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, pity this all wasn't done before it was promoted etc etc etc change the record etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the sourcing, Maile66. All of this looks fine. Sorry this wasn't dealt with sooner. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Change made in the queue. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shit Museum

Malformed nomination. Could somebody correct this. Thanks. And my apologies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog) on August 28

BlueMoonset, The Wordsmith We have an error here. How do we fix it?

Please check the history on this article.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Right Stuff (blog) was opened on June 23, 2016 and closed July 9 as being merged with Triple parentheses.
• The merge was done on July 15, 2016, leaving behind a redirect.
• The Wordsmith recreated this article over the redirect on August 28.
• The old article had been pending-changes protected on June 8, which has carried over to this recreation.
• A second DYK nomination was created at the bottom of the old closed nomination, on the same template.
• A footnote appears at the end of the hook, causing the footnote to mysteriously appear at the very bottom of the nominations page below the special holding area.

This article never should have been recreated and needs to be converted back to a redirect. We can't just delete the article and salt it to prevent it from being recreated, because there are hundreds of pages that link to the redirect.

Meanwhile, BlueMoonset, what do we do about this template? Sitting in the nominations area, it messed up the formatting. Scroll to the December 25 special holding area to see what I mean. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• First off, I removed the reference, that was an error on my part. It fixed the formatting error. Second, I'm not sure what the procedure is for a second nomination after a failed first nomination is. I don't know that there's much precedent. Third, there's nothing wrong with rewriting an article that had previously been redirected, especially if there are new sources used and the content is substantially different (both are true). That's why the DYK template has a specific option for articles created from a redirect. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• The existing nomination page cannot be reused for the new nomination. I have reverted the recent edits to it, so it is restored to its condition at the original closure. When a second DYK nomination needs to take place for the same article—very rare, but it can happen—then the best thing is to add a " 2" to the end of the original name, for example, Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog) 2. The new nomination template page has to be created directly, rather than go through the normal "Create nomination" process on the nominations page (it wasn't set up for this unusual exception). Whether the article should have been recreated or not is not the purpose of this post, though the DYK template has a specific option for articles recreated from a redirect because a lot of article pages have only ever been a redirect, sometimes years old, before the topic gains sufficient individual notability to be initially created as an article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. As you said a second nomination is extremely rare, so I wasn't aware of that convention. I'll take care of the rest of it. I recognize that this is a very unusual circumstance that basically never happens, so thanks for bearing with me. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Set builder needed

We need somebody to complete the set in Prep 3 as the queue is empty again. I can verify completed sets, but I can't both build sets and verify them, it's too much to do. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it myself. But we could still use some additional sets. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see you need me, so I'll relent ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In Prep 3

... that golfer Thomas Detry broke the Challenge Tour record for largest winning margin with his 12-shot win at the 2016 Bridgestone Challenge?

• So let's start by pining hook creator @Fram: and then reviewer @Herostratus:. Being in the prep area means this will hit the main page at some point soon so this requires immediate attention. The actual fact used for the DYK hook is not directly sourced in the article, there is a source after the next sentence, but not the hook sentence and that is not acceptable.  MPJ-DK  11:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a technical breach, yes. But I don't see any point in making a song and dance about it. This can simply serve as a reminder to Fram and everybody else that the cite is supposed to come directly after the hook fact. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Fram (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that we're all human and no one is infallible.  MPJ-DK  12:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez I missed that, sorry. Fram fixed it. Herostratus (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just one thing more that perhaps I should add - the rule requiring the cite to be placed directly at the end of the sentence containing the hook fact was originally added because many nominators would forget altogether to add a cite, or would put the cite someplace where it was difficult to identify. So the rule is there for the convenience of reviewers, it's not meant to be something that a reviewer must ensure has been done before approving a nomination. Nominators should certainly follow the rule, but if they have failed to do so and the reviewer was nonetheless able to find the cite with ease, then there is no problem and the review should move ahead regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 2 September 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) 22:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On it, DYKUpdateBot Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible cock up

I did this one earlier, but not sure if I finished the process properly? Any advice, accusations of hoaxing, or other assistance most welcome  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, but I am very rusty at this as I haven't had a nomination of my own for a long time. In any case, I have added your nomination to the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Whooooah! Thanks very much _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:46, 7 September 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) 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Q6 Sandra Blow

I've just noticed in Q6 it says Sandra Blow made glass screens for Heathrow's departure lounge. I think that is a bit vague as Heathrow Airport has more than one departure lounge as they have more than 1 terminal. I think that the hook should be clarified as to which terminal it was or reworded to be more general. The Royal C (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The source just says "the departure lounge" so I don't see why we need to be any more specific. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick google. The other sources available say either 'departure lounge' or 'Heathrow Airport'. I did find this which indicates Terminal 3. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the hook from "the departure lounge" to "a departure lounge" which will be make it accurate in all circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I imagine Heathrow has something like 50 to 100 departure lounges so to claim that "the departure lounge" is acceptable is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Heathrow has 125 airbridges so that's 125 departure lounges for a kick off. Then there are the others. Please, when making glib assertions that hooks are somehow fine and that an encyclopedia doesn't "need to be any more specific", think harder about it. Some people don't realise that Heathrow has more than one departure lounge, so the hook, as was written, was misleading, probably even incorrect. Try harder please, especially now we only have to verify 8 hooks per day. If we can't manage that, give it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So now it's wrong to state exactly what the source itself says? The source says: In 1995 she completed an important commission to produce large glass screens for the departure lounge of Heathrow Airport.[6] Could there be a main departure lounge at the airport that everybody thinks of as the departure lounge? Could the writer have meant multiple departure lounges, but just been referring to them generically as a familiar space, "the departure lounge", in the same way that one might say, perhaps, that "the plane is on the runway", even though airports typically have multiple runways? So one might just as well argue that substituting "a" for "the" was an example of OR. One can endlessly quibble about such minutiae, but i hardly think that castigating those working to keep the project running over trivia of this kind can be described as constructive. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's wrong to blindly follow and parrot hooks which are clearly wrong. Heathrow has five terminals so it can't possibly have one departure lounge. There's nothing wrong with applying some common sense to these hooks, and if a reference is dubious, making some odd claim about something that couldn't possibly be correct, it shouldn't be used. I'm sure there are plenty of other hooks in that article, along with plenty of errors too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically Heathrow only has 4 terminals as Terminal 1 has closed. But still agree with the intent of the statement. Just saying. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As usual TRM, in your haste to criticize you ignore alternative points of view. You may be justified in arguing that the indefinite article is more appropriate in this case, but I have no idea how many departure lounges Heathrow might have and I don't think it inappropriate of me to sound a note of caution about deviating from the source in the last post I made before logging off last night. One thing I do know is that switching to the indefinite article made an already weak hook so much the weaker, by further trivializing what was described in the source as an "important commission". There are many factors to take into account in evaluating hooks, hooks are rarely if ever perfect and there is almost always another tweak, clarification or rephrasing that can improve it, the fact that such tweaks can be identified is not actually evidence of negligence or incompetence on the part of set builders as you never seem to tire of implying. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's nothing to do with that. The hook needed to be fixed. It was misleading. End of. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Moot, now at ERRORS!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've amended the hook to conform with the source highlighted by Andrew D. This is unfortunately one of those issues that occasionally turn up when the source for a hook turns out to be incorrect. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  It really highlights the one of the fundamental problems here, that DYKs are taken at face value by the reviewers, the promoters and the admins who sanction them for the main page. That this kind of thing can change so radically after an innocuous complaint about a dubious hook is testimony to the poor review process. We're seeing, on average, at least one hook per set being modified or worse, rejected, after promotion to a queue. The error rate is creeping over 10% and is something which is certainly unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sure. Checking for those sorts of errors requires expertise which the reviewers, the promoters and the admins may not have. But putting them on DYK brings more sets of eyes to bear. Much better than leaving the article incorrect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  If by "expertise" you mean the ability to use Google, then yes. I don't believe anyone here is necessarily an expert on the works of Sandra Blow, but several people have pointed out issues with the hook and the article that were overlooked and promoted by reviewers and promoters alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The law of diminishing returns also applies here. One can spend hours cross-checking sources to verify that something said in a source is unquestionably correct, or one can do something useful, like, I don't know, adding some new content or something. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 15. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 46 nominations have been approved, leaving 139 of 185 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six that are over a month old; they all need a reviewer's attention.

Over a month old:

• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Kunwar Singh Negi
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rogue Fitness
• July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Mani Yadanabon
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cash Trapped (two articles)

Other old nominations:

• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Region, Nigeria
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mathilda Twomey
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Satoshi Mitazono
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Bathurst Deane
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Eliza Walker Dunbar
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Political designations in Massachusetts
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Elizabeth Manning James
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Bolivia
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Rangers signing policy
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesús Sesma Suárez
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ioan Kalinderu
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Captain Rex
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Swift videography
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Heroes of Remix
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gustavo Cárdenas Gutiérrez
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/José Antonio Arévalo González
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Clare Palmer
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Kentucky Avenue Renaissance Festival
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Talbieh Camp
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Black
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/La Negra Formation
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/T. J. Friedl
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Revival (comics)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House

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) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Nutcracker dolls

Currently the lead hook in Prep 6. I'm thinking this could be saved over for Christmas? We didn't have enough variety in the Christmas sets last year and I'm thinking this one would make a nice addition. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I promoted it to Prep. But there was no request for that on the nomination template, and Christmas is 4 months off. The guidelines on the Special Holding area limits to 6 weeks ahead of the requested date, with the exception of April Fool's Day. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The holiday sets tend to be so sparsely populated (I remember the scramble to put something up for July 4, American Independence Day), that I think we should make an exception in this case. Perhaps seeing Christmas in the Special Occasions area will inspire other editors to come up with more hooks, too. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could set up a separate page for holding Christmas hooks, like we do April Fool's Day. That way, people won't have to work up their Christmas articles in a much shorter deadline and chance missing the date. We could potentially get a lot of hooks. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved the hook to a later prep set (Prep 4) so it won't be promoted during this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why this discussion is languishing; it seems a lot of editors have deserted the project. I'm going to be bold and open a Christmas section in the Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Yoninah; too much other stuff happening. I'm actually dubious about letting the various special days proliferate and be given exceptions to our quite generous way of offering special date placements. Should we save Christmas hooks year 'round? Half a year? Will other such religious holidays be given equivalent consideration? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thought, is that not every culture celebrates Christmas in December. Please see Christmas traditions. So, whose Christmas celebrations do we do this for? — Maile (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek hooks

Prep area 2, 3 and 4 are for the Star Trek anniversary hooks in the special holding area. I have put in a total of 16 hooks in the 21 spots - and there are three hooks I reviewed so I cannot move those: Lincoln Enterprises, Ronald B. Moore, Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation). once they are moved by someone we'd have all Trek hooks in with two spots open, so close to a clean sweep.  MPJ-DK  02:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a go at doing Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation). It is now in prep 3. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 needs to be 8 hooks to completely promote all existing ST hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done All approved Star Trek hooks are now in Preps 2, 3, 4. I made Prep 2 the 8-hook set, while 3 and 4 have 7 hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

REALLY, REALLY, REALLY important. We've had several weeks to know this anniversary was coming up. For those of you who like perfection hooks and articles, you've also had that long to review everybody else's work. If you have questions, please list the hook and details here, rather than wait and pull something from either prep, queue or the main page.— Maile (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• That is also one of the the reasons I filled ALL prep areas, get eyes on the hooks before they hit the Queues or main page. And the Paralympic hooks are next, anyone feel like giving them a once-over that would be great as they are up soon too.  MPJ-DK  13:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We all want to make sure these are correct. Now is the time to speak up. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, if there are concerns about the hooks or articles, please discuss here so a fix can happen. Thanks to everyone for their hard work on this anniversary. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There was an uncited banner on Victor Lundin which was in one of the prep sets, but I've just gone through and cited it, removing the banner as well. Miyagawa (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Linda DeScenna hook, Prep 4

• Linda DeScenna hook, Prep 4. Yoninah When I loaded this hook, I left an edit summary saying I have changed "five" to "5" to keep the hook within the 200 character limit. When you changed it back, it then exceeded the limit. I have reverted it back to "5". — Maile (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Easily fixed. The Academy Award is for the set designer, not the set design. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Heads up certain people (you know who you are), Linda DeScenna is an American, so in keeping with American style, there is no need to now insert "the" in front of "set designer". — Maile (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Janeway Lambda hook in Prep 4

• "... that Janeway Lambda one was the first holonovel to be featured on the Star Trek franchise?". Holonovel redirects to Holodeck which is a terrible collection of mostly unsourced fancruft and original research (which doesn't even explain very well what a holonovel is). Is there a way of rewriting the hook without linking to it? Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I must say I am totally bewildered by the first and second paragraphs of the Janeway Lambda one article in any case. The intro doesn't adequately distinguish between fictional and real-life events IMO, I can't imagine anyone not familiar with the program would be able to follow the description here and I think it needs a rewrite for clarity. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Aoba47 and Miyagawa: as article creator and GA reviewer. Input please. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it could do with an edit to stop referring to itself as a "holonovel" as that's an inuniverse term. Perhaps "plot element" or "subplot" or even "holonovel subplot" would rectify it. Miyagawa (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but then the hook would be meaningless. If this article is going to hit the Main Page I think (a) the hook has to concentrate on something else, and (b) as Gatoclass says the lede needs rewriting completely, because it's very confusing and not everyone who reads it is familiar with the show. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: @Black Kite: Thank you both for your input, but I disagree with your comments. The lead does in fact distinguish between fictional and real-life events as it discusses the production, writing, and filming of the scenes involving this narrative element as well its reception so I have no idea where you are getting that from to be honest. I clearly identify what the "holonovel" means in the context of the show as "a holographic simulation" so I am not entirely sure how it can make it more apparent than that, and how it operates within this specific instance/storyline.

And the first two paragraphs you are referring to discuss how this narrative element is used on the show itself so by that its very nature, it has to be in-universe. All of the subsequent sections (Production, Themes, and Reception) discuss it as a fictional narrative element so again I do not understand your point of criticism regarding that fact either. The criticism that this page does not distinguish between fictional and real-life events is completely invalid IMO.

I have provided two alternative hooks belowf that hopefully can be used:

• ALT1: ... that the set used to shoot the Star Trek: Voyager subplot Janeway Lambda one was nicknamed "the Jane Eyre set" by the filming crew due to its similarity to locations from the novel?
• ALT2: ... that the Star Trek: Voyager subplot Janeway Lambda one was developed as a futuristic adaptation of audiobooks?

If you do not believe that either of these ALTs are appropriate for the main page, then I am open to suggestion (particularly @Miyagawa: since he has the most experience working with DYKs from the Star Trek franchise) or I could just remove this completely. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, if necessary, I can move the "Production" section before the "Appearances" section if that would helpful in defining unfamiliar terms to readers who are not familiar with the franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Either of those hooks sounds absoutely fine to me, the first one is more interesting I think. Anything you can do to make the article more accessible would be great. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I will swap out the current hook for the ALT1 hook. Montanabw^(talk) 20:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead does in fact distinguish between fictional and real-life events as it discusses the production, writing, and filming of the scenes involving this narrative element as well its reception - Aoba47.

I'm sure it does to you, because you have presumably read and understood the source material. What I am telling you, from the POV of somebody who knows nothing about this topic, is that the lede reads like gobbledegook. I have tried to read it half a dozen times now, and I still can't understand what the heck it is trying to say. If you need a few pointers on some of the issues:

Janeway Lambda one is the name of a fictional computer program in the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. So far so good.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures of the Starfleet and Maquis crew of the starship USS Voyager after they were stranded in the Delta Quadrant far from the rest of the Federation. Uh, wait, I thought the topic here was "Janeway Lamba one", so what are we discussing here, Janeway Lambda one the fictional program series or Star Trek Voyager, the actual television series? And if the latter, what is this sentence doing here when the topic is something else?

It is standard practice in television-related articles to include a brief, one-sentence summary of the show to better familiarize an unfamiliar reader to the subject being discussed. Without this sentence, a reader who has never seen the show would have no idea how this particular subject matter fits within the larger television show itself.

Developed by series creator Jeri Taylor What was developed "by series creator Jeri Taylor", Janeway Lambda one, or are we still talking about Star Trek: Voyager? Is Jeri Taylor a character in the series Star Trek: Voyager who developed the computer program Jane Lambda one, or is she a real person who developed the television series Star Trek: Voyager?

Revised

... the program name was given by Captain Kathryn Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) Wait, are we talking about a fictional event, where the program name was given by a character called Captain Kathryn Janeway, or a real event, where the name of the fictional program called Janeway Lambda one was given by Kate Mulgrew?

Revised

... for her holonovel, a holographic simulation in which she plays the governess Lucille Davenport in a fictional gothic novel. For her holonovel? Whose holonovel, Kate Mulgrew's or Kathryn Janeway's? Is this holonovel Janeway Lambda one itself, or is it a "fictional gothic novel" named after the computer program Janeway Lambda? And who is the "she" referring to in the sentence, the fictional character Kathryn Janeway or the real-life actor Kate Mulgrew?

Revised sentence so this is clear.

Now, all that confusion from just the first three sentences, and the rest is no more transparent. It needs a rewrite. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Having spent some time reading a bit of the rest of the article and the holonovel article, I think I have a better handle on these admittedly complex concepts than I had before, so I might as well suggest some changes myself. I suggest the article open with something like:

Janeway Lambda one is a holonovel, or advanced virtual reality adventure, experienced by one of the characters in the television series Star Trek: Voyager. The character's experiences within the holonovel are presented as sub-plots across several episodes of the Star Trek: Voyager series.

Thank you for the suggestion.

- Something like that would be a much better way IMO to present these otherwise quite complex concepts to somebody totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. With a couple of plain statements of this type at the outset, the likelihood of the reader becoming further confused by what follows ought to be greatly reduced. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made some corrections to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: So, is ALT1 now approved to appear on the main page? Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Aoba47, but I think that intro still needs work. Perhaps it would be better if we took this discussion to the article talk page from this point. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Since we are running out of time to discuss this, I decided it would be quicker to just make a few edits myself. I think the intro reads a lot more transparently now and prepares the reader for what follows. The rest of the article appears to be reasonably well written, so I think this is ready for main page exposure now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Thank you for the edits. I am trying to be a better writer so I appreciate your feedback. I just wish you were more respectful and diplomatic with your messages as they come across as rude. Your comments came across as very accusatory and dismissive when this should be a place for collaboration and discussion. While I appreciate constructive feedback and I do want to grow was a writer, I am still disappointed by some of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Aoba47, I am usually much less forthright when dealing with such issues, however, in this case, your response to my initial post was that my concerns were, quote unquote "completely invalid"! Given that there was a critical time factor in getting this article ready for the Star Trek anniversary set, and the message clearly wasn't getting through, I felt I had to speak plainly in order to get you to recognize that there was a problem. It was either that, or pull your article from the queue and risk not having it ready on time. So I'm sorry that you obviously feel offended by a couple of my comments, but perhaps you might consider that I spoke frankly only for the good of the project and in order to ensure that your article got featured on the day you presumably wanted to have it featured. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I still found your comments quite rude and inappropriate. Prior to my "completely invalid" comment, you still were quite rude so I apologize that my article left you "bewildered" and was not up to your level. I tried my best, and that's all I can say to defend myself. Either way, I am mostly likely going to take a rather long break from adding new content or expanding anything on here as quite honestly, this discussion (as well as some others I had with other users) left disappointed and disillusioned with this site. It's probably the best time for a wikibreak. Aoba47 (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my rude and disrespectful remarks and responses. Aoba47 (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Is ALT1 approved to appear on the main page? Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Gatoclass Another editor swapped to ALT1 hook in Prep 4 three days ago. If you have problems with the hook, please speak up now. Otherwise, it will eventually go to Queue 4 with the other hooks. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: Thank you for the update. I just want to make absolutely sure. The ALT1 hook is perfect. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, Aoba47, the source doesn't actually say it was called that "due to its similarity to locations from the novel", the source doesn't give any reason for the naming of the set at all. My guess is that it got that name because of similarities in the plot of the novel, but that is just an assumption. So I'm not sure what to do about that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, Gatoclass To avoid any assumptions on the exact reasons behind the name, the hook should be changed to the following: "that the set used to shoot the Star Trek: Voyager subplot Janeway Lambda one was nicknamed "the Jane Eyre set" by the filming crew". Should be simple enough. I have also made the adjustments to the article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the quick response. Gatoclass (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

World Enough and Time (new nom just promoted)

Just to be aware, I've created another spare article/nomination should it be needed at Template:Did you know nominations/World Enough and Time. Needs a review, but the hooks are really straight forward. I hadn't written it specifically for this, but it's there if needed. Miyagawa (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed World Enough and Time, and it passes. If someone wants, we could make it an 8th hook on one of the two 7-hook sets. @MPJ-DK and Yoninah: ?? — Maile (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll out it as 8th in Prep 4, and that way if we have a hook pulled earlier, there will be time to shuffle around if needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Galileo (Star Trek) (needs review)

Awesome. Do we want an 8th hook for that third set, because I could certainly rustle something up. Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Then all the ST hook sets will be consistent with the way we've been running everything else. — Maile (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Casliber just promoted the 7-hook set to Queue 3. However, if you come up with this other article, if someone will review it, then I can stick it in that queue. I wouldn't be breaking any rules on that, would I, Casliber?— Maile (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that the admin moving a hook from prep to queue is not Reviewing as such, then it is not hard-and-fast verboten. However one would try to avoid it if possible I suspect to minimise any semblance of impropriety. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Miyagawa Prep 4 is the last ST set. Right now, it only has 7 hooks. If you want to come up with one last article, and can get someone to review it, I can promote it to Prep 4. Casliber I think I confused you, because Miyagawa's comment right above mine had been accidentally deleted by me when I posted. So you really didn't understand what my comment was about. Sorry about that. But if Miyagawa wants to come up with one more article and get it reviewed, I'll promote it to the last slot in Prep 4 for him. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

New nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Galileo (Star Trek). Miyagawa (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If someone will review this nomination, it will complete the hooks for the 50th anniversary for Star Trek. — Maile (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed and ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that this hook be moved to the lead image slot, to alleviate the tedium of this prep having the fourth person image in a row? Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. It's a done deal. The final Star Trek set is now ready. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Timing

• Do we really want three solid days of Star Wars Trek hooks, isn't that a bit excessive? How about reverting to changing sets every 12 hours for the duration? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No we certainly don't want 3 solid days of Star Wars hooks, it's crap compare to Star Trek anyway. If you note the discussion I raised above about "Trouble Ahead", the agreement was to revert to 3x7 for that day only. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My error, I meant Star Trek. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 121

It has just occured to me that the image currently in Queue 2 is a small snippet of a larger image which is going to appear at the same time on the main page as Today's Featured Picture - File:The Shuttle Enterprise - GPN-2000-001363.jpg. Is this an issue? I could swap out the image in the article for File:Gene roddenberry 1976 cropped.jpg and then the one in Queue 2 could also be switched. It just isn't as good a photo. Another alternative would be if a cropped version of File:MONY Gene Roddenberry.JPG would be created (since the full size image wouldn't work as a thumb for DYK purposes). That perhaps might be the preferred photo since that image actually dates closer to the crash than the current shot. Miyagawa (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not covered by any of the DYK rules/guidelines. I can find no reason not to use the cropped image from the larger image. Anyone else? — Maile (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, just wanted to make sure. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote below, I do think the current duplication is a problem. I'd much prefer a crop of File:MONY Gene Roddenberry.JPG. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Bradley Cooper

FrB.TG I just saw this in Prep 1:

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of the ten actors to receive an Academy Award nomination for acting in three consecutive years?

Seems a little awkward to me. It sounds like he was nominated for being gainfully employed three years in a row. How about wording it exactly as you have it in the article?

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of the ten actors to receive an Academy Award nomination in three consecutive years?

It sounds so much more clear worded that way. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure both of them work for me. The above one was tweaked by the reviewer who thought that one might get confused whether it was acting non or..? FrB.TG (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the phrase "for acting" is redundant and should be deleted, it's obvious what he received the nomination for. I would also delete the definite article in the phrase "the ten actors" because it too is unnecessary and sounds a bit peacockish. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, before seeing this discussion, I changed it to:

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of only ten actors to be nominated for an Academy Award in three consecutive years? Yoninah (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Better still. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Lose the "only", unnecessary POV. In any case, I'm surprised there are so many people have been nominated three consecutive years. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• The phrase "for acting" is not redundant but is needed to exclude the many non-acting Oscars. For example, Walt Disney won many consecutive Oscars. He was also a sometime actor – he did the voice acting for Mickey Mouse, for example. The phrase is needed to exclude cases like this – where a sometime actor was nominated for consecutive non-acting Oscars. As people in the movie industry move around between the different functions – acting, directing, producing, &c. – there may well be other cases which throw the count off if the exact qualification is changed. Better to stick to the formulation of the source – "the 10th actor in Oscar history to score three (or more) acting nominations in consecutive years." Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What about

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of only ten men to be nominated for an Academy Award for acting in three consecutive years?

That way, you make it clear that it is about acting nominations only, and you make it clear that "actors" here only applies to male actors, not actresses, and you avoid the duplicate actor / acting. Fram (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the last one the best. The Rambling Man or any admin: could you tweak the hook which is on Queue 1. FrB.TG (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said above: "Lose the "only", unnecessary POV. In any case, I'm surprised there are so many people have been nominated three consecutive years." The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is the tenth man to be nominated for an Academy Award for acting in three consecutive years?

Well, if you want to go down that route, I would suggest "person" rather than "man", because it appears no female actors have ever managed the feat. Gatoclass (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

...apart from Bette Davis, Greer Garson, Thelma Ritter, Jennifer Jones, Elizabeth Taylor, Ingrid Bergman, Deborah Kerr, [[Jane Fonda], Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Renée Zellweger (strangely, Katharine Hepburn didn't achieve the feat]]. Fram (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Fram, you've managed to top the source![7] Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Image for 1st Trek set (up now)

The image used appears to be a crop of today's Featured Image. Is there another suitable image available? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Miyagawa, the editor who picked the image, asked about that just a few hours ago and had a different one as a backup. I couldn't find anything that covers this at DYK. No one else offered any opinion or advice at all. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I missed Miyagawa's comment in the recent torrent of discussion. I'm not sure the situation has happened before? I would certainly suggest using a different image of Roddenberry, as the current duplication looks very odd. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just swapped it out in the article to match the image on the hook. Miyagawa (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just realised I did that at pretty much the instant we switched to set #2. Oh well, it's still better! :) Miyagawa (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent timing :) The Rambling Man switched it on the main page minutes before the set switched. No-one except me seems to have noticed, so no harm done. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When I looked, the bot was still updating every 24 hours, so I thought it was worthwhile...! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek Day: Trouble Ahead

I have just noticed on Star Trek Day (8 September), we have 20 approved hooks. Given we have just gone to 1 set a day, I can foresee a problem here. I am bringing this to the community's attention so we are aware there is a potential issue with a large number of hooks here. Will the solution be we go to 2x8 (and lose a couple) or 3x7 for that day? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was wondering that myself too, two sets of 8 would still leave 4 out - but perhaps the rest can run on different days? MPJ-DK  16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much point trying to figure out an appropriate cycle right now as we may get more nominations yet. But we can certainly run three sets on the day if we have to. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just run three sets of seven. Easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming here to suggest three sets of seven - that'd only leave one out (and I'm more than happy for it to be one of the filler expansions I did when I wasn't sure if I'd hit two full sets (i.e. The Lost Era or something). One other thing - the bottom of the holding sections seems to have become malformed, but I can't work out what it is. Can someone take a look? Miyagawa (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pringles unsung

Currently in prep 3, we have an article on Pringles Unsung, a music competition, which has no information on the actual competition, like, I don't know, who won it? Aren't DYK articles supposed to be comprehensive? This one, while long enough for DYK, can hardly be described as anything but a stub IMO. I can't even tell, from the article, whether it had one edition, two or more ("Pringles Unsung was a music competition in the United Kingdom that ran from 2006 to 2007" is all it says, and that line seems to be unsourced). A highly unsatisfactory article. Fram (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• An article about a talent competition which does not actually tell you what the result was is, or who won, is pretty pointless IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get around to looking at that one yet. If the problem is that it fails to name the winner, that can probably just be added from one of the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not, as far as I can tell, from any of the sources currently in the article at least. Fram (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

After quite a bit of searching, it appears a band called The Toy Band won the competition [8]. This is the only page I can find claiming this, though. Putting "The Toy Band"+Pringles into Google produces only this page as relevant. We have no article on the band (Toy (band) are a different group). There is so little about this competition that I do wonder if it's even notable as a stand-alone article, and should be merged to the Pringles article if not deleted. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I pulled it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken code on WP:DYKN

I am encountering a lot of broken code at WP:DYKN over the last couple of days, for example, the NSO Group nomination looks like it has been verified on the nominations page, but it actually hasn't, the verification belongs to another nomination that is half hidden. I've come across several of these in the last 24 hours, and it's making it difficult to select nominations as some of them show verifications that don't apply while others can't be accessed at all. We need somebody with a bit of technical expertise to go through the page and try to track down and correct the error or errors. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligentsium Is this related to Problem with the closing "/noinclude" tag when the DYK template closes? — Maile (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass what you are seeing on the nominations page appears to be left over from Did you know nominations/Capitoline Brutus. It didn't close correctly and has to do with the noinclude. I tried to fix it just now, but that hasn't worked. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this all have something to do with the new DYK review bot? Because this is a problem with more than one nomination, I have encountered three or four noms with the same problem and it's getting quite annoying. Maybe the bot should be disabled for now to see if it fixes the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's the review bot, if you go by Intelligentsium's talk page link above. It also looks like he thought he had it fixed, but maybe not. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, I deleted the Capitoline Brutus nom from the nominations page, and at least now NSO Group is displaying correctly, but I don't know about the other nominations I've seen with a similar issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, I note that several days on the DYKN page - August 16 and 17, for example - start with broken code, which may be of some assistance in tracking down the error. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass Yeah, it's the review bot, all right. Both those nominations were just promoted today, and the closing apparently messed with the review bot code or vice versa. Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn and Albert Sherman Christensen. — Maile (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a known issue, as discussed above in WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden. I've been taking care of these as I see them, but I'm not always around. Basically, all of the nomination templates that were reviewed by the bot when it started regular operations on August 25 and over the next couple of days, before Intelligentsium made the bot fix early on August 28, will have this issue when they are promoted. Eventually, we'll run out. The issue was fixed and recent reviews will not have this problem. So it's a temporary condition, but one that will crop up over the next couple of weeks with fair regularity, and then happen with less and less frequency. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, BlueMoonset is correct; this is an annoying problem but has been addressed and will not affect future nominations. I'll also make the fixes when I see them. I could attempt to automate it to lessen the work in fixing these but it might take too long to go through BRFA. I think the most time-efficient solution is if you see a nomination like this that hasn't yet been human-reviewed, just undo/revert the bot's review and it will replace it with a new review (which is not affected by this issue) on its next run. Intelligentsium 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify what the problem was (for those new to the discussion): at the end of the BRFA there seemed to be a consensus to hide the full bot reviews from the nominations page to avoid clutter and improve the page loadtime. I originally went with one of the suggestions to add <noinclude>...</noinclude> to the bot review so it would not be transcluded onto the nominations page. When a nomination is closed by subst'ing, it surrounds the nominations with <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to hide closed nominations from the nomination page. The issue which I did not foresee is that the MediaWiki software interprets the first </noinclude> close tag as the close tag for the entire nomination, so anything after that is still transcluded. I have removed the <noinclude> tags from the bot review template so future reviews will not suffer from this issue, but reviews that were saved before that still have them. Intelligentsium 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Amafufunyana hook - inaccurate?

Did you know that amafufunyana is believed by the Xhosa peoples to be caused by demonic possession, but is actually schizophrenia?

Is this hook actually accurate? Emphasis on the use of the word actually in the hook. The article says that the term is applied to people suffering from schizophrenia. But it doesn't say that it isn't demon possession. And demon possession, as something that is supernatural, is something that couldn't be scientifically determined or not as a cause, I would venture to say. I'm fine if the hook is left as is, or is tweaked or pulled. This comment was more for future reference. I personally think that a statement like "that amafufunyana is believed by the Xhosa peoples to be caused by demonic possession, and describes schizophrenics?" or something like that (probably could be polished up more) would be more neutral and accurate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes: it should be pulled or rewritten. The source claims " Some overlap between [amafufunyana] and schizophrenia (DSM-IV) is apparent. " and "The culture-bound syndrome amafufunyana and the culture-specific phenomenon of ukuthwasa are both used to explain symptoms in patients with schizophrenia"[9]. If I read it correctly, the study took known schizophrenia patients and checked whether they had been "diagnosed" with amafufunyana before; it didn't take amafufunyana patients and check whether they had schizophrenia. So while this study confirms that many amafufunyana cases suffer from schizophrenia, it doesn't establish (or aim to establish) that amafufunyana is schizophrenia, it may just as well be a name for a series of syndromes or diseases. Fram (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How about something like, "is often applied to schizophrenics"? Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just avoid trying to cobble together a pseudo-medical hook and stick with another fact, e.g. that they are commonly treated by exorcism. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled it for now, as there seems to be little enthusiams for keeping it as is in any case. @Silver seren, Yoninah, and MPJ-DK: Fram (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That was totally unnecessary Fram. The hook was under discussion and a quick fix was probably not far away. I would suggest just dropping the "is actually schizophrenia" phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Leaving an inaccurate hook on the main page while we discuss a better alternative hook is a better solution than pulling it from the main page while we discus a better alternative hook? It takes just as much effort to change the hook as to put it back in the corrected form (and both require an admin). In what way was my move "totally unnecessary", or in what way was it better not to pull it for now? Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not start all this again. Better safe than sorry. Try getting it right before it gets to the main page, after all it's only eight hooks a day, although there seems to be a current error rate of around 25%. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggested alt:
• ... that while the condition known as amafufunyana is associated by the Xhosa people with demonic possession, the preferred treatment is shifting to psychiatric assessment? Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Which seems also to suffer heavily from selection bias. This is the source, which is about "the experience of 10 Xhosa-speaking schizophrenic patients attending a community psychiatry clinic in Cape Town": yes, among these ten people already at a psychiatry clinic, the preferred treatment is the "use of psychiatric services". How many are not using psychiatric services? How many have used psychiatric services but no longer do so? Your hook may be correct, but is not supported by the source. That source actually also makes it clear that the original hook was indeed very dubious, as amafufunyana is a lot more complex than simple being "actually schizophrenia". Fram (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    Okay, well as I'm not inclined to spend any more time on this, as far as I'm concerned it can stay off the main page. We are not responsible for the fact that the nominator did not take sufficient care in crafting their hook supplied an inaccurate hook. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, the reviewers and the promoters are responsible for ensuring that it doesn't get to main page. Otherwise what's the point of all the arcane steps required to get these hooks to the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, they are, I was simply making the point that the nominator ultimately only has himself to blame bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that his hook was prematurely removed. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, that was incredibly rude on all your parts. And the suggestion to remove the end part was just fine. And your issues with it are really just technical nonsense that could have been fixed with a single word change if necessary ("actually" to "often"). Do you normally treat other editors with such disdain, @Fram:, @Gatoclass:, @The Rambling Man:? How many editors such as myself wake up to find you all badmouthing them for a technicality in wording? Silverseren^C 18:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  An error on the mainpage has to be treated swiftly. This kind of thing is happening all too often. I don't recall anyone bad-mouthing you, other than Gatoclass suggesting that the failure was of your own making, and that was just a statement of fact in reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Because of you all being upset at a single word not technically being accurate, in your opinion? And rather than changing that one word and fixing the problem entirely, there's this whole nonsense section? Why are you all in charge of this area again? Because it seems you all completely lack the professionalism to be doing anything here. Silverseren^C 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you think that keeping an inaccurate hook off the Main Page is "unprofessional", perhaps you ought to reconsider that opinion. Fixing it and re-presenting it would be by far the best course of action at this point. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  The latter is what i'm saying should have been done when it was brought up here in the first place. Especially since a simple single word change would have fixed the problem. And this was even brought up in the above discussion and yet no one did it. Also, I dispute "inaccurate hook" completely. The issue brought up here is a technicality based on an opinion of the sources and doesn't meaningfully change what the hook says at all. Silverseren^C 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  No, it does. The hook says that amafufunyana = schizophrenia. Now whilst that may well be the case, the article doesn't make that definitive equivalence. This shouldn't be a difficult one to fix, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Is that even allowed? It was pulled directly from the main page and it's been 12 hours since then. Silverseren^C 19:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Um, I hadn't realised it had been pulled straight off the Main Page. Someone else more familiar with the arcane maze that is DYK rules could probably tell you. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Given the frequency of this kind of issue, it would be worth the DYK regulars preparing some words based on consensus as to whether pulled hooks can or should be reinserted, or even renominated (e.g. if they've only been on the main page for, say, half an hour). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  While you're here, could you clarify where, in particular, I "bad-mouthed" you? That would be very helpful. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  By trying to put me in your "error rate" statistics, when this has nothing to do with the hooks that are actually wrong or biased. This was a technical wording issue around a single word that was easily fixed. And yet no one even tried to fix it. Also, don't you have a long history of essentially badmouthing the entire DYK process and trying to make it seem like it's worthless? Silverseren^C 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  I certainly have a long history of observing that the process fails relentlessly and the rate of failure is astonishingly high given the number of "quality gates" through which a DYK has to pass before it hits the main page. It wasn't badmouthing you at all, so you need to redact that, it was simply that the pulling of the hook contributes to the overall failure rate of the wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  It shouldn't have been pulled in the first place. It doesn't contribute to a failure rate when it shouldn't have been removed at all. And I stand by badmouthing, per its definition, unless you're going to say your comments above weren't criticism. Silverseren^C 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you don't understand the difference between criticism and bad-mouthing, this conversation is no longer of any use. It does contribute to a failure rate as it was removed. Sorry if that's hard to swallow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Silver seren: Welcome to the world of DYK, which is currently suffering from people, and their hangers on, who pull hooks off the main page (sometimes for ridiculous reasons), are scornful, rude and disparaging to others, and generally bully the rest of us, with the result that many editors who used to help with DYK regularly have curtailed their activities, or been driven away from the project altogether. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Silver seren and Cwmhiraeth: what in my posts in this section was "incredibly rude", "scornful, rude and disparaging"? I agree that I pull hooks of the main page (though never for ridiculous reasons), but the rest of your post is a severe personal attack. I only discussed the hook and sources, not the editors involved with it. There was 6 hours between the initial post here and my first reply, and a further hour between that and my pull. Should we have waited until Silver seren was again available for comments? Then you can just as well close down this page, as all anyone would have to do to make certain that his or her hook remained on the main page was keep quiet for a few hours. So how should I have handled this, in your opinion? Fram (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I already stated how you should have handled it. If the problem with the hook in your opinion was the one word, then you should have just changed "actually" to "often" and fixed the problem, with no need to pull the hook. Silverseren^C 18:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Silver seren: It may seem that a one-word change is the only issue, but sometimes that masks deeper problems. For example, in Template:Did you know nominations/Sketches from an Island 2, it was initially discovered that the hook had incorrect quotation marks, but there was also a fundamental misreading of the source that supported the hook. Simply fixing the obvious error would have still left an incorrect hook with an error that might not have been spotted at all. Pppery (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue here. The issue raised was that not all cases of amafufunyana are necessarily schizophrenia, just that they often are. Thus, the one word change would have fixed the hook entirely. Other cases being different have no application here. Silverseren^C 19:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing "incredibly rude", "scornful, rude and disparaging" in any of this discussion other than the indignation of the nominator at having his/her hook pulled. We have an endemic issue in this project, and despite what folks like Cwmhiraeth claim, there's not a jot of scorn, rudeness, disparagement, or bullying, it's simply a continual and repetitive and boring statement of fact that the project can do its job properly, i.e. place eight hooks onto the main page once a day without numerous issues. Yet the head-in-the-sand continues, it's all about the people who complain and protect the main page, and never about those who repeatedly make mistakes, promote erroneous hooks, advocate sub-stub articles, defend non-English tripe. Other cases being different is absolutely the case, "your" hook was erroneous, just as all the others that have been pulled were. Now, I would suggest anyone interested in this project spend more time in actually creating reliably sourced and accurate hooks, decently written articles and then there'll be no problems. If the project got that right, the project would probably never see "Fram" or "The Rambling Man" in the talk page archives ever again. Imagine what a halcyon era that would be? I bet that Fram would be as happy as me to not have to provide oversight to this project to the extent we are doing. Three or four stages of review should be enough. Why so many errors? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have modified a couple of my comments above, which in retrospect might be read as unduly abrasive. My response arose from a growing sense of exasperation about the number of issues I have been finding in nominations that need to be dealt with, at a considerable cost in time, but Silver seren is not personally responsible for the systemic problems, nor is there any reason to single him out for particular criticism. I do understand how difficult it can be to write an appropriate hook when one is the author of a new article and still very close to the source material, so again, chief responsibility for identifiying hook issues lies with the initial reviewer. At the same time, however, I think it bears repeating to all nominators that if you take the time to craft your hook with sufficient care, you will be in no danger of having your hook removed prematurely from the main page regardless of the quality of the initial review. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible hoax?

I'm always a bit bothered when I see an article with no checkable references. English invasion of Scotland (1400) is one of those. I can see no mention of an English invasion in the Henry IV of England article, although that may be simply because the invasion was apparently short and uneventful, but still, it would be nice if somebody with some expertise in this area took a closer look at this one before it gets promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a hoax[10][11]. Fram (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just found one of those sources myself. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanking Gatoclass for the large dollop of WP:ABF there; a genuine thanks to Fram for pointing out the ease with which sources are, after all, discovered. The rather outrageous attitude displayed originally, though, persuades me against promoting any further articles in this quarter of the project. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sakes Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, this has nothing whatever to do with ABF. The fact is that we have had hoaxes on DYK in the past, and it's standard procedure to check the bona fides of articles sourced entirely to offline or foreign-language sources in such a way that you cannot verify that the subject of the article actually exists per supplementary rule H3. Having said that, you are quite correct that I should have made a google search before posting here, but as I was in the middle of something else, decided to leave a note here while completing the task in hand. I immediately thought better of it, initiated a google search and quickly found a source, but when I returned here to delete my post, found it had already been responded to. I will nonetheless offer an apology for my over-hasty post, and add that I hope it won't deter you from further participation here. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Gatoclass In any case, has this been pulled. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, it hasn't been pulled, it's still on the nominations page. Did you mean you want to withdraw it as a nomination? Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I am gracious in forgiveness and bone-idle in vengeance :p let it stay :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I bet you typed that thinking 'Don't do me no favours...' _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

In the next due update:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a reported comment by a Kent official claiming women only made teas in there?

- This hook has been bothering me for a while, because while I understand more or less what it is trying to say, it's not getting the point across very clearly IMO. I would suggest something along the lines of:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a Kent official's reported suggestion that women there were only good for tea-making? Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Or more simply:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a sexist remark reportedly made by a Kent official? Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, the original is fine. The others are misleading as he didn't say women were "only good for tea making". Also, this was the 1910s and was common language and attitude at the time so can hardly be considered sexist in context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well if you want to be pernickety about it, he didn't claim women "only" made the teas there either. And my suggested alts were only rough drafts. But I see somebody has deftly modified the hook in any case, in which case this discussion is now redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For completeness, this was pulled from the main page and discussed at WP:ERRORS before being re-posted in yet another form. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

Lisa Martin (equestrian) is sitting in this prep area, but approximately one-third of it is quotation which could (and should) be paraphrased as the precise verbiage adds precisely nothing. In actual fact, the quotes help push the article above the 1,500 character requirement. I would suggest reviewers are more judicial when it comes to allowing such quotefarms to be counted as characters for one of the main DYK criteria. Suggest this article has its quotes re-mastered and if it stays above the minimum, fine, but a lesson to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there some reason not to ping nominator Hawkeye7, author Aussiesportlibrarian and reviewer Anarchyte? Kind of hard to get it corrected if they don't know about this post. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No reason at all, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Hawkeye7, and Aussiesportlibrarian: I've paraphrased it, it's still over the required count (albeit by a measly 20 characters). Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC

Thanks for that! I thought that her reluctance to be classed as a para-athlete was very interesting. I used her words so as not to misrepresent her position. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

.. that Kunwar Singh Negi translated over 300 books in various Indian languages into braille, and even some from Russian?

This is badly worded, I had to read it three times to fully parse it. I would suggest that slightly peacock "and even some from Russian" clause is removed altogether. Better still, an alt hook like:

.. that Kunwar Singh Negi, winner of both the Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan, has translated over 300 books in various Indian languages into braille?

Just a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - done. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please withdraw following nominations

I am going to leave WP for an extended period. Unless someone would like to recover them, I have the following active DYK nominations that can be closed (I believe this is all-inclusive, however, if there are others please consider them also withdrawn at request of nominator). I apologize, in advance, for inconvenience this may cause to reviewers or promoters.

• Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary
• Italian Parliament (1928-1939)
• Ecology Party of Florida
• Political designations in Massachusetts
• Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• Opera Lafayette
• Austin Petersen
• Trump plant theory
• 1917 United States declaration of war on Austria-Hungary
• A7FL
• Chris Keniston

Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with your extended leave. I fully expect Arbcom will be knocking on your door should you find a few "New message" notifications. Happy Christmas! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - regarding what, The Rambling Man? To tell me you don't like me? I don't think Arbcom delivers personalized greetings like that, but I could be wrong. Happy holidays to you, as well. LavaBaron (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry if it wasn't clear. The behaviour of individuals at DYK is forming part of the forthcoming Arbcom case, so there'll be a few pings going around no doubt. Happy days! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think these nominations should be withdrawn en bloc, but each one should be considered on its merits. I will volunteer to help resolve any issues, and if the proposed hook is found to be unsuitable in an otherwise acceptable nomination, an alternative hook can probably be found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth, I didn't see this until after I had already closed several per LavaBaron's request, which is his right as nominator: a number of these had long been awaiting action by LavaBaron and I think those should remain closed (i.e., the Barbary, Italian Parliament, Trump plant, and declaration of war nominations). If you want to bring back Template:Did you know nominations/Political designations in Massachusetts or even Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen, which I closed because they were on the list of oldest nominations needing reviewing and it seemed silly to leave them there when the nominator had withdrawn them, you can, but in that case they become your responsibility going forward. All ones that are not ultimately withdrawn will still need two reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My enthusiasm for helping does not quite extend to reopening nominations you have closed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area glitch

For some reason, two of the headings in the Special Occasion Holding area are not transcluding, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Christmas_season_.28December.29 and the September 12 Paralympics section -- one shows the link to the article, but doesn't transclude; the other (the Christmas one I just created) just links the raw template. Both look normal in preview. There's probably some hidden text or formatting that I can't see that is causing this, so can someone more techie than I am look at these? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Broken code on WP:DYKN, which is where this started. I also tried several times to make the bottom of the Special Occasion Holding transclude. It started when the bot started to malfunction on that noinclude stuff. I'm pretty sure this is related to what the review bot is doing. According to Another bot problem, the bot did something odd again today. Whatever it's doing on new nomination reviews seems to affect the bottom of the Special Occasion Holding. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 4 September 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) 22:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Understandable error in queue1

• ... that Madison Janssen, a national and world champion as a junior BMX rider, won a world championship on a tandem bicycle with skier and athlete Jessica Gallagher in world record time?

Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Janssen @Hawkeye7, Amgisseman(BYU), and MPJ-DK:

They set a new world record in qualification, and went on to win the world championship, but they didn't win the world championship in world record time.[12] states "Gallagher and Janssen broke the world record in qualification with a time of 11.045 seconds". The same can be read in more detail at e.g. [13]. I have not pulled the hook yet, perhaps some easy fix can help here. Fram (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you change it to:

• ... that Madison Janssen, a national and world champion as a junior BMX rider, set a world record and won a world championship on a tandem bicycle with skier and athlete Jessica Gallagher?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Or further shortening, and simplifying grammatical structure:

• ... that paralympian and world BMX champion Madison Janssen set a world record and won a world championship on a tandem bicycle with skier and athlete Jessica Gallagher?

EdChem (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

She is not really a Paralympian (so far), it would be much more logical to add the "Paralympian" to Jessica Gallagher. Fram (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a Paralympian because she has yet to compete in the Paralympics (which start in 2 days)? She is certainly an athlete on the Australian Paralympic team. However, an improvement which includes Gallagher more appropriately is:

• ... that world BMX champion Madison Janssen set a world record and won a world tandem bicycle championship with fellow-Paralympian Jessica Gallagher?

EdChem (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Er, but you just called her a Paralympian again. Also misleading is calling Maddie a BMX champion, as she was a junior BMX champion. The interesting thing about Jess is that she was a skier in Vancouver and Sochi, but a field athlete in Beijing and London; and now she's a cyclist. So I prefer my ALT hook, which didn't call Maddie a Paralympian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm just making suggestions. At what point do you consider this athlete who is in the Australian team for the Paralympics that start in Rio very soon becomes a Paralympian? EdChem (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I spoke to Maddie an hour ago. As far as anyone here in Rio is concerned, she became a Paralympian when she was selected last month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that Turkish female goalball player Sevda Altınoluk was named top scorer at several international competitions?

Sevda Altınoluk is one of those articles written in poor English with basic grammar faults. The hook is really not hooky at all, particularly when none of the tournaments at which she was top scorer are notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article. And the article is still marked as a stub, and assessed as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@CeeGee and Raymie: — Maile (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Aha! I noticed your above claim right now. I was not aware of this as I re-assessed the article. You say "the article is written in poor English". It is possible, I cannot judge it. However, how comes that someone with GA-experience as the reviewer MPJ-DK missed that all. Yor say "none of the tournaments which she was top scorer are not notable enough". This is not true because "IBSA European Goalball Championships" is the top continental competition in this sport. And about the stub-status. Yes, I had missed to re-assess it before ı nominated the article. Unfortunately, no one detected the discrepancy before I noticed it during my routine check. So, I kindly ask you to recheck your claims. CeeGee 05:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I tried to do some copyediting but, admittedly, I was not knowledgeable enough on the topic to give the article a proper once-over. Raymie (t • c) 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What I actually said was that these tournaments seem to be insufficiently notable such that they don't even have Wikipedia articles, e.g. if IBSA European Goalball Championships is so significant, why is it a red link? A non-"goalball" reader will look at this and just think "meh" *shrugs shoulders* and "who cares"? As for reviewers missing basic errors of English grammar and punctuation, don't get me started. There's a vast history of such failings with little or no appetite to improve in this regard.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• The red link comment is a total fallacy, red link is not automatically the same as "not notable" making a claim based only on that is misguided.  MPJ-DK  12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not a fallacy in the slightest. Wikipedia has over five million articles, and if this was notable enough, it'd be at least red-linked. But my point is, to a non-expert reader, there is no context for the significance of these tournaments. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• So you assume that the editor knows it is okay, even encouraged to add red links, or that zomeone else didn't remove the red link simply because it is red? So not a fallacy, but an assumption on your part... careful with those assumptions, you know what those do. I have seen hundreds of legitimate red links removed simply because they are red, so outside the ivory tower pf perfection your comment is indeed a fallacy built on an assumption and no kind of knowlede at all.  MPJ-DK  12:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Poor attempt at a personal attack. "no kind of knowlede (sic) at all"? Really? None of us are seeking perfection, we're just seeking to make the readers' experience a good one. If you aren't bothered about that, fine by me, but don't expect the rest of us to stop caring. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• So me objecting to you making a general and false blanket statement is now me "not caring abou quality"? Alright however you want to play it it off.  MPJ-DK  13:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• So instead of trying to address the problem you go "well MPJ missed it too", not the DYK reviewer but the guy that took the approved hook and put it in prep for another set of eyes? Moving the hooks to prep does not mean I am also reviewing the article in anybdetail. I generally look for the hook in the article, but that is about it - don't put any shortcomings on me, you got to own it. You made a similar "I am not good at English" claim on another hook where I was the actual reviewer, that one is not approved, partially because of the poor language. Now as a hook movet should I be the third set of eyes doing a full assessment? It would naturally help and I try to at times but not always. I do believe that instead of throwing around names you need to own the poor English part yourself - you want articles featured in DYK? Put in the work on the grammar, even if it is not your native language, you made the choice to edit the main Wikipedia, you mad≠e the choice to write in English.  MPJ-DK  12:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• @MPJ-DK: My apologizes for naming you as the reviewer. It was my mistake, I should say Raymie, who actually reviewed the DYK-nom. Forget about it and calm down please. I am in the belief that everyone can create articles at en:WP, even someone without native en-language. Because, it is a way to enrich the WP. No problem, if no one gets interested in fixing any grammar errors. Even I spot sometimes errors in articles written by WPians with native en-language. Besides, I completely agree with you what you say about the red link. CeeGee 10:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry I did not mean to sound like an ass here. But my point is that putting something up for DYK means you have to produce articles that have certain standards, by all means write any and all articles you want, I encourage that. But for DYK you need to own the issues, cannot just say "sorry cannot help it" and expect the article to be featured on the main page. That was thebpoint I was trying to make.  MPJ-DK  12:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

.. that singer Syster Sol (pictured) won an award for Best Reggae/Dancehall at the 2014 Kingsizegala?

If the "2014 Kingsizegala" is lacking in notability such that an article doesn't even exist, why is this hook even remotely interesting? I would have preferred to see a hook perhaps relating to her performance with an Afghanistani refugee to Sweden. And if the hook stays, it ought to be "the award" rather than "an award". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is getting closer to the main page, so needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Article creator and nomination BabbaQ has not been active since August 30. At least link the template Syster Sol. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What good is linking the template? And we don't need the nominator explicitly in order to decide if this hook is actually worthy on mainpage inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's an idea, given the stunning regularity with which promoted hooks are discussed for minor tweaks, error corrections or to be pulled, perhaps someone here could create a template that not only links to the article and the nomination but pings the nominator, promoting reviewer and promoting admin? That would save a lot of hassle, especially since it seems like it would be used perhaps once or twice a day at the moment, and that's with just one set of eight hooks per day... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have created an article about the awards. Will continue to improve the article in the next coming hours and days. BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eleonore Büning hook in Prep 1

• ... that Eleonore Büning wrote in the FAZ that the French team staging the Jahrhundertring revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany?

Template:Did you know nominations/Eleonore Büning @Gerda Arendt, Bobamnertiopsis, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is discussed at the DYK template, but despite everyone being eventually convinced that the hook is supported by the source[14], I can't find a reference in it for the "French team". Büning discusses Patrice Chéreau, not his team (French or otherwise), and makes no mention of the other members of the supposed "team" (Boulez is mentioned, but only as the one who recommended Chéreau to the organisation: "Pierre Boulez hatte ihn [...] an die Festspielleitung weiterempfohlen"). Note also how the intro to the article, which supports other parts of the hook, is clearly about one person, not about a team or group of people: "Mit seiner unbefangenen „Ring“-Inszenierung aus dem Jahr 1976 revolutionierte er das Wagner-Verständnis der Deutschen." Can any of you please quote the line(s) that discuss the French team and support the hook? Fram (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right, of course, strictly spaking. As it is an obituary for Chéreau, it's no wonder that he is the one mentioned. I thought that many in our general readership might not recognize the name, so tried to say something more general. Rephrasing is fine with me, and I expressed anyway that I'd prefer ALT1 (or that rephrased). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Alt1 was not clearly covered by the source without some poetic license so I picked the one that looked like it had no issues.  MPJ-DK  16:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

According to our article on the French director Patrice Chéreau, he collaborated with the French conductor Pierre Boulez on the staging of Jahrhundertring in the Bayreuth Festival, so wasn't that a French team? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's about what "Eleonore Büning wrote", not about what you can come up with from other sources. If that's too hard to understand, then don't review or promote hooks please, as this is DYK 101. She wrote that "[...] revolutionierte er das Wagner-Verständnis der Deutschen." (emphasis mine), not what the hook says (nor, as I indicated, is it supported elsewhere in the article by Büning). That this escapes your attention, fine; but that you still don't get it after it has been explained is really a problem (and not new). Fram (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't have your expertise in German, but what about: - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that Eleonore Büning wrote in the FAZ that the way the Jahrhundertring was staged at the Bayreuth Festival revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany?

If you lack even the most basic knowledge of German, then you can't have checked the hook, and should never have promoted the article. But lack of knowledge or understanding never seems to stop you from DYK participation. Fram (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now you are being ridiculous. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's see. You accepted an incorrect hook. After the error was pointed out, you still defended the original hook. After the error was again pointed out, with emphasis on the very basic German word "er", you came back with "Well I don't have your expertise in German". If you lack even the expertise to understand the meaning of "er", a basic pronoun, then you have no knowledge of German at all and should never have promoted the hook (never mind continued to defend it here as if you had any understanding of what you were doing). So there is only one person here being ridiculous and seriously disruptive, and it's you. Please let people with some knowledge, some basic sense of criticism, and an open mind work on DYK and find another hobby where you can do less harm. Fram (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

To er is human. EEng 14:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be able to read the source language in order to review or promote a hook, you are permitted to AGF on those hooks if you are unable to use a translation program on the source, in the same way as you can AGF on a source if it is offline. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But if someone who can understand the hook then explains that it is wrong, and you start saying that the hook is right anyway, without even indicating that you don't understand it and just take it on AGF, then you are simply being disruptive and deceptive. Compare his reply to the one by MPJ-DK: "I picked the one that looked like it had no issues." indicates what happened, and is no problem (as long as AGF hooks are accepted, which is a different issue). Fram (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• ALT: ... that Eleonore Büning wrote in the FAZ that Patrice Chéreau's staging of the Jahrhundertring revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany?

Even people who don't know the name may guess that he is not German ;) - Always ready to highlight an article made GA in collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Strike previous ALT, doesn't work for me, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As there was no protest, I took it to Prep 1, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

9/11 anniversary hook

I recently completed Henryk Siwiak homicide, and nominated it for DYK, about the only official homicide in New York City on 9/11. I have requested expedited review so we can get it on the Main Page Sunday ... I see there are still two slots left in Prep Area 6.

I have also thought, if someone really wants to dare me, of another missing-person case that also ties into 9/11, Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris (TL;DR: woman going through acrimonious divorce upstate who still lives in same house as wealthy soon-to-be-ex-husband is last seen leaving her job on the night of 9/11; the ex-husband, who had left a phone message threatening to "make [her] disappear", was tried four times for the murder, at one point doing four years in prison, until he was finally acquitted this spring although many people still think he did it, taking advantage of law enforcement's attention being mostly elsewhere in the state at the time) that I could get a reasonable article ready in time to fill the other slot. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2, Queue 3, and Prep 4 are supposedly all running on Star Trek 50th Anniversary Day, September 8, so the prep set for September 11 will be Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Time between updates

Now that the Star Trek series of updates has begun, aren't we supposed to have switched to three updates per day? Right now, User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates is still set to 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have switched it to an 8-hour cycle. I'm rusty on the mechanics of the bot so hopefully I didn't break the internet. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit opaque how to get one set per day, but I've undone Gatoclass's edit which should hopefully put it back to how it was. Ping me if I've stuffed up; I should be online for several hours. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That did it, Espresso Addict. Thanks. We're back on a daily schedule. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Holding area request missed?

I've just been looking over the preps and queues and i know they're slightly out of whack with the Star Trek Day but as aras I can tell, it looks like Template:Did you know nominations/Rangers signing policy, which was in the holding area for 10 September has been overlooked and isn't in the preps. Could someone please move it into the prep that will run on 10 September please? It's because that date coincides with the first Old Firm league match in 4 years. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile, I've moved it to Prep 6. (Fortunately, there was an empty slot.) We'll be going back to one set per day after the current set—will you or Gatoclass be able to set the update time back to 24 hours from 8 hours shortly after midnight UTC (but not before)? For that matter, can one of you promote Prep 5 to Queue 5, so it gets promoted on time? This way, Prep 5 will be on the main page for all of September 9, and Prep 6 for all of September 10, the requested date. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

24 track flamenco recording (prep 6)

• ... that the purely instrumental album Flamenco Road by Michael Laucke in 2001, is believed to be the first recording in this style to employ a 24-track recording system?

Template:Did you know nominations/Flamenco Road @Natalie.Desautels, Ritchie333, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

The hook correctly summarizes the source (note that "style" refers to flamenco, not to instrumental), but the source is incorrect in its belief, I think. Paco De Lucia has a 1984 live album which was recorded on 24-track[15] (one can dispute whether Ottmar Liebert is a flamenco artist or not, he had 24 track recordings like Borrasca in 1991). This article discusses a 1989 48-track (!) flamenco record, and states that the standard in Spain at the time was 24-track ("El disco «Flamenco Challenge» supuso la primera grabación digital en España en 48 pistas, cuando en aquel momento lo habitual era grabar en 24 pistas."). So, while it is true that one journalist believed the hook to be true, it actually appears not to be true, so it seems better not to present it like this. Fram (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't know why you pinged me Fram, I gave up on this nom as unsalvageable if I'm honest. As I said over there "We need to get this information right, otherwise people will complain as soon as it hits the main page and file reports on ERRORS" :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Because you had commented on the DYK nomination, not to suggest that you had done anything wrong. Fram (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall Checkingfax had a hand in this DYK, so we should probably ping them as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook from prep 6 and reopened the nomination. I'll also restore the date and hook transclusion to the nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dyknu listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Dyknu. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 20:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that one editor seems to be you. The above section heading you have linked takes us to RFD Ancient names for DYK prep areas, a closed as Keep discussion where you proposed deletions for redirects to our Prep areas. That was closed by Deryck Chan on August 16, 2016. The second link takes us to one of those redirects you are opening up again for RFD. And the third link up there is the actual current discussion. Maybe you can clarify. It looks to me like you're going to put these up for deletion as many times as it takes for you to get it closed the way you want. If I got that wrong, please explain. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

One argument for keeping these redirects in the August 6 discussion was that they are heavily linked, which this one isn't. In addition, I have other reaons for thus rfd - shortcuts are generally UPPERCASE and WP:DYKNU doesn't exist. Pppery 20:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. This was the one redirect in the original set that it made no sense to retain, since there's no evidence anyone actually used it; if they did, the link is long since gone. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it too late to add a picture?

The Razer Naga hook is in prep 2 right now, but I was wondering if it'd be too late to add an image to the hook. Adding an image will probably result in it being removed from prep 2, which may cause problems. Image in question would be File:Razer-naga-hex-goliathus-lol 開箱 (8615327683).jpg.

The hook would change to

... that after Razer announced a partnership with Riot Games, a League of Legends style Razer Naga Hex (pictured) was released?

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte at this point, it's in Queue2. Only the lead hook gets an image, and this is not the lead hook. If you want it taken out of queue and placed as a lead hook in a prep, there needs to be discussion here. Not all nominations with images become the lead hook. So, I think this would take community input. — Maile (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you will need find a more interesting image than that to justify it being the lead hook. Edwardx (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh, either way it's too late now. It's on the main page right now. Feel free to close this discussion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Errors

There is currently a proposed ALT at WP:ERRORS proposed by EEng for a hook currently on the main page. I'm inclined to be in favour of it, but more input would be useful. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, issue resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Gatoclass, thanks for trying to bring a little joy into the heart of an old semiretired hooker. EEng 15:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination: Kai-Tai Fang

Pao-Lu Hsu

Fang designed experiments to improve Qindao Beer in 1972

Did you know

• … that the statistician Kai-Tai Fang's dissertation was written in two weeks under the supervision of Professor Pao-Lu Hsu (pictured) but not published for nineteen years—because of the Cultural Revolution?
• … that the statistician Kai-Tai Fang promoted designed experiments to improve Tsingtao Beer (pictured) during the Cultural Revolution?

Self-nomination 162.250.169.162 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Template:Did you know nominations/Kai-Tai Fang. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Special holding area October 2016 Great Britain's Olympic Parade

Cowlibob per your request on Helen Richardson-Walsh, I have moved it to the Special Holding area for Great Britain's Olympic Parade. As soon as the exact date in October is announced, please add it to the subheading. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 26. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 73 nominations have been approved, leaving 136 of 209 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the eight that are over a month old and have received little notice lately; they all need a reviewer's attention.

Over a month old:

• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Cavu
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rogue Fitness
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cash Trapped (two articles)
• August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Ecology Party of Florida
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Under Armour All-America Baseball Game
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/CMLL 68th Anniversary Show
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Region, Nigeria
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mathilda Twomey
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Lights of North Shields
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Southwest Airlines Flight 345

Other old nominations:

• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Elizabeth Manning James
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/José Antonio Arévalo González
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/XHLUV-FM
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Talbieh Camp
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Luscombe Castle
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Revival (comics)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Saprykin
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace's Little Belmont
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Jones (footballer, born 1994)
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Lupe Fiasco versus Daigo Umehara
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Sundström
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Democratic Alliance List : Though we can't run it until after 8 October as its an election hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Dafo Temple, Zhangye
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/1928 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Yale Institute of International Studies
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Debatable, Make Me an Egghead
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/TEDES (traffic enforcement system)
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Bishophill
• August 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of songs recorded by Siti Nurhaliza
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Clay Blaker
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/NSO Group (two articles)
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Bound (video game)
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tharsis (video game)
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Léolo
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Bilberg
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/1928 Florida Gators football team
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Former Residence of Lu Xun (Shanghai)

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) 06:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody Speak (Prep 5)

Currently in Prep 5:

• ... that in the music video for DJ Shadow's "Nobody Speak", featuring Run the Jewels, two groups of politicians start an all-out brawl?

I find this hook completely uninteresting, as anything can happen in a music video, and I think it violates supplementary rule C6 that a hook about "a work of fiction ... must involve the real world in some way." I would suggest the following in its place:

• ALT1: * ... that the music video for DJ Shadow's "Nobody Speak", featuring Run the Jewels, has been described as "brutal" and "politically charged"? Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody please comment on the proposed alt? Otherwise, I think I am just going to have to pull the original hook as uninteresting. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am okay with the ALT, and it is an improvement. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. That's a decent hook. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue1: 2004 or 2002?

• ... that in 2004, the University of Oxford tried to block registration of Oxford Blue cheese as a trademark, because "Oxford Blue" is well known as a sporting award?

Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese) @Northamerica1000, The C of E, and Cwmhiraeth:

It looks as if Oxford tried to do this in 2002, and that the ruling only happened in 2004[16]. Change to "in 2002" or simply drop the year? Fram (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. You could drop the 2004 or how about

• ... that in 2004, the University of Oxford was denied the right to block registration of Oxford Blue as a trademark for cheese, despite "Oxford Blue" being a well known sporting award? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"Denied the right to block" is too convoluted, like "Congress fails to veto president's override of bill repealing antiabortion rule" -- wha-at? Just say "... that the University of Oxford tried to block registration of a trademark Oxford Blue cheese?" EEng 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

... OR: "that the University of Oxford unsuccessfully attempted to block registration of a trademark Oxford Blue cheese?" Neutrality^talk 18:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, the pdf link above appears to refer to dispute between a clothing company, H S Tank & Sons Limited, and Oxford Limited, which is "wholly owned by the University of Oxford" (link). Oxford Cheese Company, the producer of Oxford blue cheese, is not mentioned in the document, nor is any mention of cheese. The book source cited states, "An example of an unsuccessful opposition is OXFORD BLUE Trade Mark, Registry, 23 March 2004, where Oxford University failed in its attempt to prevent the registration of OXFORD BLUE for cheese." It is possible that the book got the facts incorrect, or that the book content is correct, and the pdf file content simply does not mention the cheese product for whatever reasons. Per this uncertainty, I have removed the dates from the article for the time being (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• In that case, an admin needs to edit Queue 1 before the end of the day today to remove the date from the hook there, since hook facts must appear in the article and be sourced there, and "2004" is no longer even in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Adding edit request template below, to remove "in 2004" from the Oxford Blue (cheese) entry at Template:Did you know/Queue/1. Since I'm involved, I won't be performing the edit myself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the date as it is no longer in the article and the hook seems cleaner without it. (I have not investigated whether the book reference to Oxford Blue cheese is adequate in the light of the H S Tank & Sons Limited pdf.) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook. While the source in the article did claim that the case was about the cheese, both the original case documents (linked above) and other sources[17] make it clear that the case had nothing to do with the cheese. Fram (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by cheese. EEng 07:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed the content from the article for the time being (diff). Yes, it is quite possible that the book source is in error. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have struck the hook content at the DYK nom page, and have added a new ALT hook there, at Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

... that the 1928 Florida Gators football team led the nation in scoring with 336 points?"

Firstly this "led the nation in scoring" is a direct copy from the second source used in the article for the claim. Secondly there appears to be no context for what "led the nation" means, when in reality it seems to be referring to scoring the most points in the 1928 college football season. Thirdly, the hook is boring, a real "so what?" moment. Other, more interesting facts from that article include the claim that six of the squad could run the 100m in 10.1 s (which, in 1928, seems incredibly impressive), an ambidextrous quarterback (don't know how rare that is, but it seems unusual, and certainly interesting, especially when combined with the fact he could punt with both feet too), or even the controversy over the single-point win for Tennessee which denied the Gators a place (and secured it for Tennessee) in the Rose Bowl would be preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm moving this back to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Points were then one of few stats kept (compare the 1901 Michigan Wolverines or 1915 Vanderbilt Commodores), and the biggest claim to fame for the team is leading the nation in scoring. Crabtree was definitely special. PS Georgia Tech went to the Rose Bowl. Cake (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It may be a claim to fame, but it's not the most interesting element in that article by a long way, and to those outside the minute world of college football, impenetrably dull. Presumably one team "led the nation in scoring" every year, so this is not exactly a humdinger of a hook, hence my concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All good points, rambling. Other hooks have me worried about length. I tried another. Note the ball was a lot fatter in those days, making Crabtree all the more surprising. Cake (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for taking the criticism as it was intended. Good luck to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

that 16 months after doing their first load of free laundry for the homeless, the co-founders of Orange Sky Laundry were awarded Young Australian of the Year?

The article has an unreferenced "formation date of 10 October 2014. The lead says the service was "conceived in September 2014". The article says "In February 2015, five months after they started ... " and then "On Australia Day 2016, the two co-founders were jointly named Young Australians of the Year...". That's the 26 January 2016. As the hook isn't directly referenced in the article, I'm unsure how the 16 months is derived. At the very least the article should be clearer on the start date of the charity. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Great example of why hook sources should be quoted directly on the nom page. EEng 15:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Five months prior to February 2015 is October 2014 as the operation's start, consistent with unreferenced 10 October date.
• Australia Day 2016 = 26 January 2016
• October 2014 to January 2016 = 3 months in 2014 + 12 months in 2015 + 1 month in 2016 = 16 months from start to joint young Australians of the year. EdChem (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  But the October date is unreferenced, so the hook should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  Plus the fact they actually started (apparently) "In February 2015, five months after they started with the first van in Brisbane", so that would mean they started in September. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that 10 October is World Homeless Day. And whether "five months after" means September or October depends on whether Feb is counted as one of the months. Also, here's a reference: On Orange Sky Laundry's 1st Birthday, and World Homeless Day (10 October 2015) ... EdChem (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the hook is not directly cited in the article, therefore it should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC supports October 2014 formation. The point is that the hook is accurate, so add refs rather than pulling the hook. Address the actual problem, in other words. EdChem (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} yourself. Be my guest. I have other things to do rather than fix an article in which I have no interest. This should have been picked up in the review, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice edit summary. For your information, it was necessary within the current ruleset of DYK. Sorry if that upsets you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

TRM, you said you were unsure how the 16 months was derived. I explained. You claimed the October was unreferenced, despite five months before February being referenced, so I pointed to explicit references to October, and even knowing that references which did not require you to understand a calendar exist and having been given them, you seek to remove the hook rather than fix a problem you still insisted exists. Typically for you, you declined to actually edit to fix the problem you perceive despite knowing the solution. Do you really wonder why you are perceived as less than constructive with this behaviour? Would you like some references added to establish Australia Day as being in January too? What annoys me is not DYK rules or fixing legitimate problems, but you (and others) making a mountain out of a trivial molehill. EdChem (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The approved hook actually said "15 months" but I changed that to 16 momths when I promoted the hook as the maths did not work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The hook was not suitably inline referenced, per the rules. Plus there was the whole confusion over when they started versus when the organisation was formally "founded". That is all there is to say. For someone to have to "do the math" is not sufficient. It was confusing enough for me to note it here. If y'all think that was "less than constructive" or "trivial" then that's not my problem. I'm more worried about our readers than your individual perceptions of my motives. Cheers. It's still wrong, if they used their van for the first time (I guess this is the translation in the article for the hook's after doing their first load of free laundry for the homeless?) in October 2014, then it would be only 15 months until Australia Day in January 2016 (3 months to January 2015, 15 months to January 2016). But clearly just arguing with me is more important than getting the facts straight and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who is right or wrong in the above debate and am not interested in figuring it out as it's inessential to the hook, so I have just changed it to "* ... that in their second year of providing a free laundry service for the homeless, the co-founders of Orange Sky Laundry were jointly awarded Young Australian of the Year?" Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Much better, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Errors on nomination page

I'm only able to read up to "Articles created/expanded on August 31" at WP:DYKNOM. Entries after this are not showing up, including the special occasion holding area. I tried purging, checked through the page, etc., but I haven't been able to find the cause of the error. I was thinking the problem might be due to missing syntax in the hidden comments, but they all seem to be in order. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Any ideas about this one, Maile66? Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it's likely due to some formatting problems in Template:Did you know nominations/WWT Slimbridge. I tweaked it a few times and previewed, but couldn't get it fixed yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Intelligentsium, because this may be occurring per the DYKReviewBot script on the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the Bot informed me that there was a problem with the Slimbridge nomination and then quit half way through its review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is, in fact, a DYKReviewBot issue caused by a vertical bar appearing in the summary of a paragraph. Pppery 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you do, a vertical bar out of place. If you see it, can you remove it? — Maile (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Intelligentsium, Northamerica1000, Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Pppery: I have removed the incomplete DYKReviewBot review from Template:Did you know nominations/WWT Slimbridge. That seems to have resolved the issues for now. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Why didn't I think of that? Facepalm. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Up on this page in the section Broken code on WP:DYKN Intelligentsium commented "...the most time-efficient solution is if you see a nomination like this that hasn't yet been human-reviewed, just undo/revert the bot's review and it will replace it with a new review (which is not affected by this issue) on its next run." — Maile (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Pppery is correct, the issue here was because one of the paragraphs the bot grabbed included a pipe character/vertical bar "|". Review pages can't have pipes in the text because they are wrapped in a template, {{DYKsubpage}}, and the pipe breaks the template. On further inspection, the bot should not have grabbed that bit of text as it was an image caption which does not count under the DYK rules. I've made a tweak to the code so this won't happen anymore. This is not related to the previous issue. Intelligentsium 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem on the nomination page for August 22nd with Template:Did you know nominations/Fallout 4: Nuka-World. This nomination has been promoted and archived, but part of it remains on the nomination page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)