Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 133

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 7 years ago by BlueMoonset in topic DYK is almost overdue
Archive 130 Archive 131 Archive 132 Archive 133 Archive 134 Archive 135 → Archive 140

Removing part of DYK 3a

Latest comment: 7 years ago45 comments17 people in discussion

So, the current rules for DYK state:

"The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience."

My interest here is in the latter clause, i.e. interesting to a broad audience. This is purely subjective and, in my opinion is being ignored. Therefore we should remove it. There seems to be no effort at all to ensure that hooks are "interesting". Indeed, some promoting admins have claimed this part of the ruleset to be not important or not something worth considering while pushing these hooks through. Time to remove a rule that is being ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Even here, on the microcosm of the DYK talk page, we see that what is uninteresting to one editor is interesting to another. I was initially opposed to the ambiguity of this hook, but was outvoted by numerous other editors, so I promoted the newly revised version. I still think the rules should say something about being "interesting", but maybe we shouldn't spend so much time scrutinizing every single hook on this one point. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with The Rambling Man here. However well meant that was when it became part of the rules, "interesting" is unquantifiable. You can't measure it, and a handful of reviewers is not a sampling of "a broad audience". — Maile (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
So let's remove the rule. It's obvious that little if not no effort is given to finding a hook that's interesting to a broad audience and as it's so subjective, it needs to be removed from the rules. That way we can withstand all the criticism thrown at DYK for boring hooks because it simply doesn't matter how boring they are. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That was added by Nikkimaria in February 2012. Perhaps Nikkimaria was following a consensus then, but it would be nice to have their feedback here. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That would be interesting, but right now we have a situation where this "rule" is overlooked, ignored, denigrated as "not important", so while we wait for explanation as to its addition, let's discuss its removal. There's clearly no way of determining an objective "interesting" criterion, and time and again hooks are promoted which are clearly not "interesting to a broad audience" so I would say this caveat needs to be removed post-haste. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Even if subjective, I think it's worth trying to find something interesting for a large number of people. I realize that this statement does not fix any problems, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Certainly not helpful if promoting editors are ignoring it and deliberately so. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus Removing it from the rules would not prevent any reviewer(s) from civilly prodding a nominator to come up with an alt hook, or from offering one. At this point, this possibly only serves as one of those things somebody can trot out to support their own viewpoint. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: Actually that text predated my edit - the earliest version of it I can find is 2007. FWIW, I agree both that uninteresting hooks pass through and that they oughtn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  Removed from the rules. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted. I don't see a consensus above for removing a longstanding criterion. The requirement that a hook be interesting is an essential aspect of DYK IMO and removing it is going to leave reviewers with no justification for challenging uninteresting hooks, which is likely to lead to a serious degradation of hook standards. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. I don't care. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
" ... likely to lead to a serious degradation of hook standards ... is doubtful given the evidence provided. A handful of hits on most of the items in the set analysed by Colonel Warden, just two hooks showing up as being mildly more interesting than the baseline mediocrity. The project has so many hoops to jump through with so many rules, just to culminate in a few hundred hits on the main page for most of the content, surely there's some kind of cost-benefit analysis that needs to be applied as to whether DYK is actually worthwhile in any sense. Particularly given the relatively astonishing rate of errors, thankfully most of which are caught by just two or three editors prior to main page embarrassment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkimaria, uninteresting hooks pass through and they ought not. For example, the picture hook in the current Prep 2 provokes in me a "So what?" response, and the Holocaust survivor hook further down has a good image and a much more interesting hook. I can't swap them, though, because I approved the latter hook and I don't think the set preparer should be overruled unilaterally. EdChem (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I think "generally interesting" is a more appropriate phrasing than "to a broad audience" - we don't know what a "broad audience" is, so the term is either useless or an excuse to restrict subjects that some people do not care for with comments like "Well I personally never find "XYZ" interesting". The idea is not to be restrictive, but to not be boring and pedestrian.  MPJ-DK  04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The clause in question is not subjective. The effectiveness of hooks is measured by recording the amount of click-throughs that they get; the bigger the number, the better. Of course, it is difficult to predict this exactly in advance and so we should content ourselves by looking at the hooks which did especially well or especially badly. This feedback will then help editors improve subsequent hooks. For example, let's look at yesterday's bundle. The number of views has been added in bold so we can see how they did:
  • 4061 ... that Air-Cobot (pictured) is a French research and development project for a wheeled collaborative mobile robot able to inspect aircraft during maintenance operations?
  • _672 ... that Cybele Records has published award-winning audiobooks, "portraits" of living composers, and in 2016 the complete organ works of Max Reger?
  • 2036 ... that 2016 Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Callahan once ran for the Oregon House of Representatives under the Green Party label in order to siphon votes from the Democratic candidate?
  • 2910 ... that the Palace of Cerro Castillo is the summer residence of the President of Chile?
  • _748 ... that Slovenian gymnast and Olympic medallist Boris Gregorka later coached the double gold Olympic medallist Miroslav Cerar?
  • 6123 ... that around 1100, Yaozhou ware was accepted by the Chinese Imperial court, but several decades later it was described by a poet as "extremely coarse and used only by restaurants"?
  • 1638 ... that Montreal architect Maxwell M. Kalman designed more than 1,100 buildings, including Canada's first shopping centre?
  • 7614 ... that The Passion of Christ was moved from one church to another, which saved it from being destroyed by fire in 1904?
So, Edelseider and Johnbod can feel pleased that their hooks scored even better than the picture hook. However, Gerda should please note that her hooks are not working so well; this is not the first time that I've noticed them coming last. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
One of my hooks just went to the stats, probably because it mentioned "sin against religion". I know how to be "interesting" but am still not willing to find some relation to sex or crime in every hook about classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
ps: the Cybele hook generated 607 hits for Max Reger, my topic of the year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

So, in summary, it's clear that current DYK crops are actually not broadly interesting based on this metric-based approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If I may give my lay opinion on that matter - as in literature, films, the stage, and in general, the arts but also advertising and journalism: emotions and/or drama work best. Hooks should always aim for the dramatic or emotional angle in order to attract attention. Of course this implies that only subjects should be nominated that have, at one stage or another, gone through hard times, moved the hearts of people or caused something terrible. --Edelseider (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That can be summarised as "nominate things that are actually interesting". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes but no. It's rather "nominate only things than can be made to sound thrilling." Anything can be interesting to certain people. But there are more or less objective criteria to separate "dull" (nothing dramatic happened) from "exciting". --Edelseider (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Given main page hits of less than 1000 for some items, we're really in the realms of generally "not interesting". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Edelseider: we might add to your list anything that's "first", any celebrity hook, and any sports hook (aside from that ill-fated Slovenian gymnast in the hook set above). Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
"Any sports hook"? Wow, there is such a divide between the United States and the United Kingdom when it comes to cricket or base-ball, rugby or American football, association football (aka soccer) or basketball that you can always be sure that a lot of people will never click on a specific sports hook. Sorry, I'm going off topic here. :) --Edelseider (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Let me offer some perspective here on the numbers. Yesteday's featured article, SMS Lützow, had 189 page views yesterday.  MPJ-DK  00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Please look at the stats again. 189 are the stats for Nov 28, Monday, the day before it was on the MP. Tuesday's stats aren't listed yet. — Maile (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
You are right I did not look at the time.  MPJ-DK  02:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Oftentimes nominators, especially inexperience ones, simply pick a boring hook when there are much more interesting facts in the article to build a hook from. In those cases, it's a good idea to encourage reviewers to gently prod the nominator for a more interesting hook. That said, some topics just aren't very broadly interesting, and these should not be completely excluded from DYK, not least because of the extreme subjectivity of deciding what's interesting.
As far as the rules change, I'd perhaps support removing it from the main rules, but adding a supplementary rule saying that reviewers may request a more interesting hook, but the review should not be failed on the basis of interestingness alone. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • While there are many ways it could be tinkered -- "interesting" might be changed to "interesting or intriguing", for starters -- the interestingness requirement should remain, and if, after appropriate prodding, no one can suggest an interesting hook (yes it's subjective, but almost every decision editors make is subjective) the nom should be failed. DYK would benefit greatly from cutting throughput by a factor of two. EEng 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Making statements along the lines of "it is clear that this hook is boring" is not helping the situation, because it brings us no closer to any objective assessment of "interest," which I for one believe to be impossible. There is a step we can take though, that does not toss out the requirement altogether, but also does not fall into the trap of trying to make everything interesting to the majority of Wikipedia's readers, and thereby falls into the familiar trap of systemic bias. Require a hook to be interesting within the framework of a certain topic. A hook about Western classical music, such as Gerda Arendt frequently proposes, does not have to be interesting to everybody, because then we are stuck finding click-baity factoids in articles that do not contain them. But it should be interesting to anybody with any interest in Western classical music. Thus "Did you know that Bach's cello concerto was played on a cello" would still be disallowed. Oh, and I'm loving how easily the conversation slips from "hooks are not interesting enough" to "DYK is full of errors and should be scrapped." I know WP:COATRACK was meant for articles, but I rather think it can be applied here, too. Vanamonde (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
DYK that Bach did a lot for the cello, but didn't write a cello concerto? - Thank you, Vanamonde. I believe that whatever we do, we shouldn't stare at clicks. While some hook inventers go for the little unusual fact, I try - for a person, a company as above, a piece of music - to give those readers a more general idea who will not click. - Clicks say nothing. Just compare Danke [1] and its creator [2]), - just because one hook mentioned ... see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
XD, Gerda "Suite" is what I meant, my apologies. I was paying more attention to the general point, thank you for understanding. Vanamonde (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Andrew D. is quite mistaken to propose click-throughs as the criterion on which to base hook legitimacy. This is unfortunately a misconception that is commonly made. It would in fact be pretty easy to vastly increase the number of click-throughs for DYK. We could start by just featuring, or highlighting, any fact that had anything to do with sex and violence, because they are proven hook winners. Where sex and violence are not available, we could simply resort to clickbait. For example, instead of posting one of the hooks above:

  • that Cybele Records has published award-winning audiobooks, "portraits" of living composers, and in 2016 the complete organ works of Max Reger?
- we could go with something like:

I can guarantee you that the latter would get literally thousands more hits, but does that make for a more successful hook? Only if you judge on the number of click-throughs alone, because by any other criteria, such hooks would be an embarrassment to the project.

Hook success can be gauged in part by click-throughs, but it can never be the sole criterion. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid, our goal is to educate and inform, not merely to entertain or excite interest, and the tone and content of hooks has to reflect those general aims. It doesn't mean we can't at times be playful, just as reputable news organizations may sometimes employ puns and other amusing wordplays in their headlines, but it does mean there are standards to maintain.

With regard to the current wording of the rule, ie the phrase "interesting to a broad audience", I have long maintained that it is problematic, because not every hook can be of interest to a broad audience, but have struggled to come up with an alternative that would not further weaken a rule that is already too frequently ignored. In that regard, I think Vanamonde's suggestion in the post above may be worth considering. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Gatoclass: Thank you. How is this for a first attempt, which we can edit/tweak as we like: ""The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting, quirky, or unusual, within the general topic of the article." Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
A bit vague IMO. I was thinking more along the lines of "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience, or failing that, likely to be of interest to somebody with an interest in the particular topic." Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Two responses to that. First, if we're allowing things interesting to a specific audience, surely it is not necessary to mention the broad audience? Also, The reason I said "general topic" is because "particular topic" can get too specific. I just want to pre-empt arguments that hook X is interesting to "people interested in the history of the manufacture of porcelain in yunnan province in the 1800s" or something absurdly specific. Or even to pre-empt the argument that the proposed rule might allow that sort of argument. Willing to be persuaded, though. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass' suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: if you want more specifics: firstly, I think it's important to maintain the phrase "interesting to a broad audience" because that is the gold standard for which every hook writer should be striving. What we need is simply a qualifier for that requirement, along the lines of "but if you can't manage that, you must at least achieve this much." With regard to your suggested addition of the words "quirky" and "unusual", while they can be important components of a good hook, in practice, a lot of users make the mistake of trying too hard to find something quirky and unusual when a perfectly good hook addressing the main topic of the article is already there right under their noses. So I don't want to see these aspects unduly emphasized. With regard to "general" v "particular", however, you may have a point. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I take your point about including the "broad interest", and I'm absolutely not hung up on "quirky" etc. I do hold, though, to my point about preventing something too abstruse, which you seem open to. So, how about something like "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience, or failing that, must be interesting within the general topic of the article." Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I still prefer my own wording (with the possible exception of the word "general") because that final phrase ("interesting within the topic") doesn't read with sufficient clarity to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
And I, who have not bothered to read the above, would still humbly suggest that intriguing be added to the list, if we're going to have a list. Take it from an experienced hooker -- a little mystery reels the clients in. EEng 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Count me as one who is fully in support of dumping the undefinable phrase "interesting to a broad audience". Inclusion on wiki has never included a caveat that a topic be "interesting", only that it meets notability standards. If it meets those standards, DYK should at NO point be saying "well its boring, so it shouldn't be on the main page".--Kevmin § 16:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps just turn it into mostly editing advice: The hook should have a definite fact mentioned in the article. DYK also seeks to promote interesting hooks. Please propose a hook that is as interesting as possible. All hooks are subject to editing consensus and well referenced, interesting hooks are likely to be promoted more easily. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (As an aside, my one encounter with this 'rule' was when a reviewer argued racial discrimination was not interesting -- we went with what they proposed but I was unimpressed, to say the least.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's a list of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through November 15. Right now the nominations page shows 255, of which 107 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 27 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved input requested

Latest comment: 7 years ago47 comments12 people in discussion

Please see John Dominis Holt, II and Through the Wilderness. I'm not sure what "a DYK delegate" is, but this needs another voice. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have posted to the Holt and Wilderness nominations. I believe that Maile66 is correct that IndianBio's review of the Holt nomination is inadequate as it does not address the reviewing criteria. It would be fine (IMO) to post a brief QPQ-requirement compliant review which raises a notability issue (which this one does) and expresses that the criteria will be addressed if the nominator addresses the notability concerns or it passes an AfD, but that is not the case here, and Maile has provided a further review which renders such further comment from IndianBio moot. IndianBio is free to raise an AfD, of course, as the nominator (KAVEBEAR) has declined to act on IB's concerns, but I think the article will survive an AfD. As I see it, the issues faced in this specific case are:
  • Can a reviewer on the Wilderness nomination (like Maile) unilaterally deny the QPQ credit which IB is claiming for the Holt review, especially in the case where another reviewer (LavaBaron, in this case) has already accepted it?
  • If not, is there community consensus here at WT:DYK to deny the credit in this case and require IB to do an acceptable QPQ review for use on the Wilderness nomination, or to take some other action?
On the more general issue, what are we as a community going to do about claims of QPQ credit for reviews which are inadequate on their face, or subsequently shown to be seriously flawed? When I do a review, I look at the QPQ review and if I think something needs further consideration, I ask for it, but I suspect I am in the minority and that at least some reviewers simply check that some review was done. Fram and The Rambling Man have both given distressingly regular examples of reviewing problems where removing a QPQ credit would be a justifiable action, IMO, and I think being more willing to deny credits would be a helpful step to improving reviewing standards. Starting two sub-sections for discussion of the specific and general issues. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Adequacy of QPQ review of DYK nomination of John Dominis Holt, II article

Situation: John Dominis Holt, II article (DYK nomination), nominator KAVEBEAR, reviewer IndianBio claimed QPQ credit as nominator at Through the Wilderness article (DYK nomination), accepted by reviewer LavaBaron, challenged by Maile66.

Question: Is the QPQ review of the Holt article adequate for claiming QPQ credit at the Wilderness article? If not, what should be done.

  • Review inadequate and replacement QPQ review required for Wilderness nomination: As proposer and in line with comments here and at the two nomination pages. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
You conducted this review [3] (for a nom ultimately withdrawn) and did not explicitly state you had checked for Copyvio or QPQ in your first comment, yet tried to claim credit for a QPQ yourself [4]. Seems to be the same thing you're accusing IB of, no? In the future, don't bother pinging me into this this kind of stuff; I have limited time at WP and prefer to devote it to content creation, not trying to gather scalps of other editors. After this [5] it should have been clear I want nothing to do with "silly season" stuff. LavaBaron (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Review adequate as a work-in-progress The review does not address the five core DYK criteria, however, it's not unusual to impose a "critical stop" when a reviewer believes a serious issues has been discovered, then continue reviewing against the criteria when the issue is resolved. In this review [6], for instance, EdChem fails to review against the five criteria (not addressing Copyvio or QPQ at all), instead focusing on resolution of an issue he felt was a "critical stop", yet was given an immediate QPQ credit anyway (as customary). The fact User:IndianBio used a "?" tick, instead of a fail tick, indicates he - like EdChem - is operating this as a review still in-progress, which is fine. Let's calm down, take a step back, set the pitchforks down, and see where the review goes. Cool? Update - I just did the review myself and credited it to the original reviewer. It took me 11 minutes. Problem solved with minimum heartache and hair-rending. (There's almost always an easier option than starting a debating thread with multiple voting options, and pinging-in half-a-dozen editors for days of argument.) LavaBaron (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Taking no action because the outcome of the work-in-progress can't be known as Maile's action rendered it moot is a reasonable position, and one I considered. As for your attempts to provoke me by casting aspersion on my DYK work [7] [8], trying to side-step this discusion [9] [10], and attacking a QPQ of mine [11], others can decide if my editing is problematic. I have noted your request for no further pings [12], and will respect it. EdChem (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Take a breath. To descend this discussion into "silly space" by saying I'm trying to "provoke" you by simply pointing out that your own QPQ had the exact same problem [13] you're now trying to use IB's QPQ to scalp-collect off of really underscores the problematic nature of this expansive thread you've started. No one is out to "get" you. No one is trying to "provoke" you.
In the meantime, I think it's in the community's interest if you stop sitting on KAVEBEAR's excellent nomination with nitpicking just to prove a point, which it seems like you're doing. And, if that's not what you're doing, then just consider backing off and let an uninvolved editor complete the review. Cool? LavaBaron (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, I leave it for others to form their own views on your actions. If the consensus is to accept IB's QPQ, I will accept it. Regarding KAVEBEAR's nomination, I will be happy to give a tick myself when it is compliant and not in danger of being pulled (and no, I will not be claiming a QPQ because I don't need to do a full review of it, most of it is done already). Any other uninvolved editor is free to complete the review, I do not WP:OWN the review of the nomination, I only contradicted your review as there was clear non-compliance with the direct citation requirement and the ALT0 proposal was questionable in accuracy (to the extent Kavebear has now struck it). As you know, I have also looked at another Kavebear nomination, made copy-edits to the article, and Kavebear has expressed a willingness for me to do the full review, so I suggest he does not see my contribution as problematic. You have now done a review, which will prevent me claiming QPQ, which I suspect was part of your motivation, but I will still look at the article in an objective way because your actions do not reflect on Kavebear's work. I have not pinged him in this post as he has expressed a desire to avoid discussing issues outside article topics (though I will on nominations), and I have not pinged you here as you requested not to be pinged.

To me, inadequate reviews are an ongoing issue and IB's QPQ is but one example of a more general topic, which is why I tried to structure a specific and general discussion. I believe IB's review was inadequate, and admit that had Maile not intervened and an ongoing discussion developed (similar in kind to the Simplot case), I would see it differently, which is why I think your position (as I understand it) that we don't know what else IB might have said / done and so the QPQ should be allowed is arguable. The DYK community will either find this thread useful, or not, which is out of my control. I do not claim my approach was the best, or even necessarily good, it is what seemed reasonable to me. EdChem (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"You have now done a review, which will prevent me claiming QPQ, which I suspect was part of your motivation ..." For the third time, no one is out to "get" you. People review articles to help out at DYK, not because they're orchestrating a sweeping, Machiavelian plot against you. Let's cut the conspiracy theories and personal attacks and focus on DYK. If that's what you're really here to discuss, great, but it seems every 200-word speech you shotgun out includes these insinuations about how DYK reviews are a process for realizing dark, hidden motivations against you. This silliness is not a productive use of anyone's time. Maybe take it to userspace. Cool? LavaBaron (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where to put my comment, so I'll do so here. IndianBio's review is clearly not eligible for a QPQ. If he had started ticking off the usual DYK criteria – "new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, no close paraphrasing, etc." – and then mentioned the notability issue, then a reviewer of his nomination would have seen that his QPQ was "in progress" and would have given him credit for it. But to zero in on the notability issue just looks like a drive-by comment. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

General issue of what to do about allegedly inadequate QPQ reviews

I have no specific proposal here, I think we need a community discussion to see where consensus might be, but my immediate thoughts are:

  • Any reviewer can and should request changes to a DYK review or deny the credit during the nomination in which the credit is claimed, depending on whether s/he believes the QPQ review can be salvaged or not.
  • The nominator can comply or call for another reviewer to express an opinion, either by posting at the nomination or requesting at WT:DYK, but not by asking a specific editor. The third reviewer can modify their decision based on discussion, but it will stand unless consensus is sought at WT:DYK.
  • In cases where a serious problem is subsequently discovered (say in queues) and the nomination re-opened, the editor who pulls the hook and re-opens has the option to deny the QPQ credit for that article on the nomination where it is claimed, based on the seriousness of the issue and the adequacy of the review. For example, I review article X and claim credit on article Y. A coyvio issue on X is discovered in prep, and the hook for X is pulled. I think my QPQ credit on Y could and likely should be denied. However, if X was pulled because of a good faith error over understanding of wording in sources, then denying the credit may not be justified.
  • In the case of a credit being denied because of a subsequent pulling of a hook, the editor whose QPQ review credit was denied could also call for a third opinion or request a WT:DYK review.

How do these ideas sound? Any suggestions, comments, criticisms, alternatives, etc.? Any and all views welcome. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose We don't need to generate another four paragraphs of rules, amendments, and corollaries at this light and fun feature, DYK. Our swollen and indecipherable volumes of legal arcana are already virtually incomprehensible to digest for anyone who doesn't have either a J.D. or copious amounts of time to do nothing but sit on WP all day. Let's get back to content creation rather than rulemaking. LavaBaron (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ed, I can see where you are coming from, but I can also see endless problems. Occasionally we get a review like this one that is manifestly inadequate, with the reviewer not understanding what a DYK review is about. There are easy to spot and deal with. But a larger problem occurs with denying credit when it has already been claimed on another nomination. If that hook is in the queue, does it get pulled? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • When the QPQ credit is being used to support a nomination, then I skim the other nomination to see how that worked out. If if seemed that the review was inadequate then I will suggest that the reviewer might do another one to make sure that they are keeping their end up. Likewise, if there's a problem with my own work, I might chip in an extra QPQ to make up for it. But I agree with LavaBaron that we shouldn't turn this into a full double-entry accounting system. A bit of nagging or nudging should suffice. Andrew D. (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Inadequate reviews are one reason why LavaBaron got put on editing restrictions. — Maile (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but the primary issue is whether IndianBio's review is adequate. LavaBaron's acceptance of it is a separate issue. EdChem (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Maile mentioned LavaBaron here. LavaBaron may have had problems with reviews in the past but the recent ones I have seen have been satisfactory. This is about an inadequate review by IndianBio, which in my view should not have been used as a QPQ, but IndianBio being a relative newcomer to DYK, allowances can perhaps be made. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
My mentioning this here, is to say there is a precedent in what has been done about inadequate QPQ reviews. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. Understood. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Except it comes across as shaming other editors. You may want to refactor. LavaBaron (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. It's a fair statement of fact that there are both general project problems and specific user problems. To highlight one which has resulted in sanctions is perfectly reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Disagreement noted. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(→) Thank you for this discussion. I would be glad to do another QPQ based on the DYKC. —IB [ Poke ] 07:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for final resolution

Out of fairness to IB, we need some resolution here. EdChem's "e-baby" nomination has now been promoted [ed - (after EEng overrode the original nom)], though both Pppery and me objected to it due to his decision not to check for copyvio in his QPQ. I don't want to act out of turn so can we do a quick consensus check to see if IndianBio's nom can also be green-lit now on the basis of his current QPQ, or if IB's nominations are to be held to more stringent standards? LavaBaron (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng - when expressing disagreement, can you please explore different words to use other than "nonsense"? Thanks so much - LavaBaron (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I would if it weren't nonsense. EEng 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Promote IB's nomination under the e-baby precedent; equal treatment for all editors, no two-caste DYK LavaBaron (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not allow IB QPQ credit, therefore do not promote IB's nomination, and trout (or worse) LavaBaron for his pointy waste of everyone's time with his sad attempts to salve his bruised ego. IB's "review" of the John Dominis Holt II nomination was nonsense. EEng 07:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"sad attempts to salve his bruised ego" - Please don't bring personal attacks here, it's disruptive and derails the potential for the quick resolution of this open question we're trying to achieve. You've recently been blocked by Nakon, Mike V and many others for personal attacks so should definitely know by now that you need to explore other outlets to let off steam instead of attacking other editors. I also don't think IB appreciates his excellent contributions being described as "nonsense". Thank you for your consideration of my request. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, aren't you cute, trying to get me in trouble with your casual pings of admins! Every once in a while a benighted person such as yourself tries to embarrass me by invoking my block log, not noticing such threads as (for example) "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers", "Unblocked", and so on; overlooking that one of the admins you pinged was seriously proposed for desysoping as a result of his blocking me, and that the other came in for what might be charitably termed a serious trouting; and failing to perceive that my most recent block was, literally, a joke. You'll need to try much, much harder.
Whatever may be the value of his other contributions, IndianBio's review of the Holt nomination had nothing at all to do with the DYK criteria, and certainly doesn't merit a QPQ.
You've wasted huge amounts of others' time here trying to vicariously relitigate the imposition of the quite appropriate special restrictions placed on you because of the low quality of your DYK submissions and reviews. EEng 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Just calm down. This is an edit discussion, not the Fourth Crusade. LavaBaron (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Please calm down yourself, it appears you're almost writing your own exclusion warrant from this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not allow it Yes, I am aware I am arguing for an inconsistency, but the system is biased in favor of people who accept these reviews. Any uninvolved editor can promote a nomination, and it would seem incorrect to pull one from prep for procedural errors (although I seriously considered doing that. Pppery 15:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not allow it - the review really did not outright touch much on the actual DYK criterias. There was input on notability and so on, but then abandoned by IB. So the "inconsistency" is between "did not explicitly cover one item" and "did not really cover the DYK criterias in general".  MPJ-DK  16:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Do not allow it - It's not a case of one criteria or another being missed in a review. It's a case of absolutely none of them being covered. It has absolutely no value in telling a promoter it's ready. That's what reviews are all about, to check off the criteria so that a nomination can be promoted to prep. Lacking all of the criteria, it is not a review. DYK Reviewing guide — Maile (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
So, — Maile , just to be clear - if I decide not to review against Copyvio in my next review, provided I review against everything else, I can count it for QPQ just like EdChem? Want to make sure I understand that this is an option we all enjoy, not just a special privilege you're extending to EdChem. This would definitely take a load off. LavaBaron (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The Holt nomination was ticked by Maile66 nearly a week ago. The Wilderness nomination had an objection from Maile pointing out what LB missed. I had the impression IndianBio had already agreed to provide another review with comments here and on the nomination page, which I thought brought a resolution. If I am mistaken about that, I don't see a consensus here to require another review and this discussion has stalled, so I think it is open to anyone independent to close this discussion and act on the nomination. EdChem (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not what happened. Promotion was arrested because it was claimed IB's QPQ did not review against each of the five key DYK criteria. Now that your own nomination has been promoted with a review that did not check each of the five DYK criteria, we need to sort-out whether IB enjoys similar privileges or not. The strange nature of this situation has prompted confusion among many, and IB has even asked me what's going on at my Talk page; unfortunately, I can't answer him. He deserves clarification. He also should not be expected to do more work than is expected of other editors. LavaBaron (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear here EdChem, if the same situation arose in another nomination and if that is promoted, then my nomination would deserve the same treatment as well. I'm willing to do another QPQ, however I need a fair assessment. —IB [ Poke ] 13:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Great point. Simple equality and fairness seems to be all those of us without special QPQ privileges are seeking. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @IndianBio: the problem with your review in the Holt review for which you claimed QPQ credit is not that you raised an issue of notability, that is fine for a DYK review or in plenty of other WP venues. It is not that others disagreed. It is not that you did not cover all the criteria. The problem was that your review was mostly opinion and did not address any of the DYK criteria as described in the guide to reviewing. We can't know what you would have done had Maile not done a review, and in that sense you were unable to remedy the situation, but the contribution as it stands is not a review against the DYK criteria or any part of them beyond questioning notability. If you had posted "  Questionable notability, suggest refocus as article on Holt family", it would have said the same as your review but it not being a review would be more obvious. When I write a review, I put in as much as seems to me to be needed to help the nominator / creator bring the article to DYK standards / compliance. Sometimes that means saying quite a bit, sometimes things are ready and so much less needs to be said, and sometimes I post a comment which I would never dream of claiming for QPQ. The consensus now seems to be not to give your Holt review QPQ credit, so I suggest that you pick another article to review, and make sure you address the guidelines at WP:DYKR. I also suggest you reflect on why LavaBaron's views are not gaining traction, and it is not because of bias. You don't have to do all of the review in one edit, you can post back here for input if you like. If the review is incomplete, I suggest a brief note on the review that there is more to come. The nomination you review need not be promoted for credit, just so long as it is sufficiently thorough. Article length and nomination. Article quality and referencing. Hook supported, interesting enough, inline citations. Copyvio and paraphrasing. QPQ. I am sorry that you have ended up the focus here, you are far from the only editor to do an inadequate review and the general issue of reviewing standards is what concerns me. The DYK community can be helpful, supportive, and inclusive, but we also have difficult times and LB has already been restricted once and seems to me to be heading towards a DYK ban – none of which is your problem. Short version: reviews that address the DYK criteria are needed for QPQ credit, and also earn the regard of other reviewers. I will give you any help I can, if you want to ask, or seek support from other more experienced reviewers, or both. EdChem (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What about reviews that don't address copyvio like this one [14]? All we're trying to find out is if all of us can do reviews that don't address copyvio and get QPQ credit or just some of us? It's a simple question with no ulterior motive; I just want the opportunity to save a little time in my QPQ reviews if it's an option that's available to me and I think other editors would appreciate being able to do so as well. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You started the topic about IB's review, feedback is clear that it was not adequate by a long stretch, please stick to the subject at hand. Yes I know iit did not turn out like you wanted but please don't change the subject so you can keep hitting that poor dead horse.  MPJ-DK  01:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The topic was not "about IB's review" is was about whether IB's review is also eligible for a copyvio review exemption or not. I almost just reviewed another nom whose QPQ omitted copyvio but I stopped because I don't know if I can pass it or not. We really need some clarification as to which editors do not need to review for copyvio in QPQs and which do. It's just a very simple request for clarification. Not sure why it's so difficult. In the thread further down we have four editors who have said EdChem's QPQ was not adequate. Maybe we merge the threads for ease of processing? Open to suggestions! LavaBaron (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh right, because the only issue in the IB review was that it did not explicitly state the copyvio check (Sarcasm alert). Clearly you're not trying to push an extreme case through to prove whatever point you think you have. Considering you withdrew the nomination while the review was actively going on is comparable to IB doing a totally inadequate review and then not following up. you chose to end the nom, the reviewer was working on the review, trying to work with you to get it to a state of approval. That's the biggest difference, a reviewer who touched on all DYK criteria but Copyvio but was still actively engaged compared to a reviewer who did not really touch on the DYK criteria at all and looked to be done with the review. In my mind that's a huge part of why the review of your article was okay, is because you never gave them a chance to complete it, if the article was expanded as suggested the Copyvio check would have had to be repeated anyway, but it never got to that point. You complain that it wasn't done, but to me the review was clearly not done yet, no final "ya or nay", it was not completed erroneously, it was an ongoing review that you chose to cut short - and now you're trying to punish the reviewer for something you did. Basically you're saying "I got mad and withdrew this so no QPQ for you", same sort of ownership feeling you display when trying to get critical reviewers removed because they did a bit of copyediting.  MPJ-DK  02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting an article during a review

Latest comment: 7 years ago52 comments10 people in discussion

I have had reviews criticised by LavaBaron (who I am not pinging as he has asked me not) for being incomplete (here) and because I had done copyediting of the article (here, where Yoninah expressed disagreement). I have just commented at the Template:Did you know nominations/Bexley Hospital after copyediting the article (written by LoopZilla). I have also suggested ALTs. I would like the DYK community views on:

  1. Is the review I have done reasonable to claim for QPQ?
  2. If not, when an article looks like this (the Bexley Hospital article before I nominated it), are my choices to do a review which says a copyedit is needed and thus claim QPQ credit or copyedit it and then leave it for another reviewer?
  3. More generally, where is the line when making minor changes / corrections to an article and also being a reviewer?

Thanks. EdChem (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I have routinely copy-edited an article when reviewing it, both here and at GAN, sometimes extensively. A number of folks reviewing things I have nominated have done the same. Essentially, I think this is because the review process should be about helping the article get where it needs to get, rather than being a prim-and-proper process where the reviewer does not touch the article in question. Of course, the reviewer needs to maintain a certain degree of independence, and shouldn't get too deep into the article: but in my view, doing grammar and syntax fixes is just fine. Vanamonde (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely nothing should get in the way of improving articles. If there are examples of poorly promoted articles as a result of the reviewer improving them and then passing them just to get the QPQ, I'd like to see them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • TRM, a QPQ credit applies no matter what the outcome of the review. My point is that I turned this into this which I think is an improvement, and don't think it should preclude me from reviewing as well, and if I just reviewed saying a copy edit is needed, I don't know if the outcome would be as good. EdChem (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The whole reason I create DYK nominations is to get more eyes on the article in question and improve bits of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • EdChem, I'm not disputing that. The only issue I can see is some perceived COI if a reviewer improves an article simply to pass it for a QPQ. Even if that did happen, the outcome would still be an improved article which (hopefully) meets the minimum standards of the DYK process. Complaining about copyediting articles during review is counter-productive and counter-Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, any complaint about positive copyediting should be dismissed out of hand. If there is some process that trips on it, and it doesn't seem this is the case (?) here, then it's the process that is in the wrong. People routinely copyedit my FACs, and I'm grateful for it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, that's fine with me. However, maybe, for the benefit of those of us who are under continuous threat of sudden death for violation of any rule no matter how obscure, we could make a list of (a) rules we can ignore, and, (b) rules we can't ignore? Or maybe even a list of (a) editors permitted to ignore rules when they cramp their style (DYK's Platinum Titans), and, (b) editors subject to immediate dismemberment for ignoring a rule (DYK's Untouchables). Speaking as one of the Untouchables, I think many of us would find this helpful. LavaBaron (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Nobody dies (at least not directly) from DYK debate, no-one is a platinum titan or a golden immortal, nor is anyone untouchable, but your ongoing demonstrations of big words is noted. The point is copyediting any article on Wikipedia to make it better is a good thing. End of. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
And passing an article for DYK that one has edited violates our rules. End of. But, as we've routinely established, some DYK editors only have to obey the spirit of the law, while others have to obey the letter. Are we going to amend this rule for everyone or just grant another one-off waiver for an upper caste editor requesting a post-facto exemption? LavaBaron (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
And passing an article for DYK that one has edited violates our rules for the avoidance of doubt, can you specify which rule says that any article edited at all by a reviewer cannot be passed by that reviewer? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Per the nominations page, "Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it", which logically means - unless one wants to WikiLawyer or WikiWaltz around it - any editor who has been involved in writing an article may not review it. LavaBaron (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering both are acceptable behaviors for a GA reviewer and anyone giving FA/FL input I am fairly certain that this is a case of the one WikiLawyering doing the WikiWangTango being a Baron of Lava.  MPJ-DK  00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have read the writing/expanding as referring to writing a new article for nomination, or x5 or x2 expanding for nomination. I don't see that it necessarily means copyediting, and further, I think that such an interpretation is arguable but not persuasive. EdChem (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I disagree - clearly the entire project dies due to DYK debate. The entire purpose of this mechanism has been lost, and seems to have turned into a debating society. I signed up on DYK to easily get more eyes on my articles. It is no longer easy. I have had FACs go through in less time than DYKs. This is killing DYK, and killing the wiki. Editors are clearly upset over this, and you can see it by perusing the noms list. And what do we do about it? MOAR RULEZ! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    I don't really follow your argument but I am very tired and a little ill. DYKs should still remain "quality content" and whatever route is taken to achieve that should not be dismissed. The fewer inadequate reviews, inadequate nominations, inadequate promotions etc etc the project has, the better. Wikipedia has suffered this project for far too long and thankfully, albeit years too late, some moves are being made to drag the quality up a few notches. If that means fewer DYKs are nominated or make it to the main page, so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I too am tired and sick, which is not uncommon with a 10-mo-old, especially one who's favourite toy is this keyboard. It was literally covered with something I later realized was dried snot, and I don't even want to think how that got into me. Thankfully, modern pharmacology is a thing.
My point, if I'll ever get it across, is that I believe the Wikipedia is about the articles and that everything else is secondary. So I'm perfectly happy with rules that actually improve articles. Not just rules, but processes in general. PR, FA, A-class and GA absolutely do improve articles.
Can you honestly say that DYK does that? I cannot see the slightest hint of it. What I do see is widespread arguing over hooks, people making edits to the nom to game the rules, and argument after argument over the rules themselves. Your own statement is a perfect example - you start off by talking about quality content, but every example is about the DYK process itself, and nothing about the articles themselves!
Yet these rules are clearly having a negative effect. They cause the hooks to be the most boring statements one can imagine. They force us to use less-than-perfect images. They are clearly causing strife among editors. They are causing noms to go on forever. They are actively lowering the quality of reviews, because no one can possibly know that all the rules are - they are 26 printed pages! I've been here 15 years and even I don't know what the rules are any more.
I fail to see any evidence of recent improvement. But I see lots of fallout. I argue that if even one editor doesn't use DYK again, or god forbid leaves the project, because this process has become so mil-spec, then modern DYK is, by definition, hurting the wiki through it's process to improve itself.
Does that make any sense? Or am I the only one that considers this all to be madness? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new section since I accidentally put a comment in the wrong place and now it's taken root and it's too late to move it

  • As much as it pains me to to do so, I have to agree with LB on this point. Once you start contributing significantly to the article (even just copyediting -- significant copyeditinng, I mean) you can't be the reviewer. I've often begun a review, then decided I could do more good copyediting, so abandoned the reviewer role. The reason for this is clear: once you become a contributor, you're no longer the "fresh set of eyes" the reviewer needs to be. EEng 00:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you EEng, however, you put this in the wrong section. This section has to do with whether a QPQ that does not review for copyvio is adequate for QPQ credit. The section above has to do with the copyediting thing. LavaBaron (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that's rubbish. I've copyedited loads and loads of GANs and made them better and described what I've done and why I've done it before finally passing them in review. The edits aren't major, just copyedits, but it doesn't help Wikipedia one iota to play bureaucrat and sit on the fence and say "well, you could do it like this" and wait, and "not quite what I meant, try that" and wait and "ooh, nearly" and then wait more. What a pointless pursuit. We're not building a space shuttle here, independent peer review is great but no-one dies if it's not 100%. Time to get practical and improve Wikipedia rather than turn it into some "if you don't mind" mindless exercise. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps my memory deceives me, but I believe somewhere it says that reviewers should not have contibuted substantially to the article. EEng 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. But even if it was the case, I do not equate "copyediting" with having "contributed substantially". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I endorse the comments made by TRM. Reviewers should be able to tweak and copyedit articles without disqualifying themselves from the review. I think most reviewers have sufficient discretion to be able to decide for themselves whether their additions are substantial enough to need reviewing by a third party. I do not think however that users should be permitted to both review an article and personally claim a DYK credit for contributing to it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Sufficient discretion" and the modern DYK result in the empty set. That is clear from this thread, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts on these edits[15] [16] which were done to an article while EdChem was reviewing it for DYK? This isn't a simple question of copyediting, despite how EdChem is positioning it. He has a history of making substantial, functional edits to articles while he's reviewing / passing them for DYK. Quite often the articles he's passing look substantially different than they appeared at the point of nomination, usually as a result of direct edits he's applied, rather than suggestions for improvement or the simple addition of a comma here or a period there. LavaBaron (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Those edits are not copyediting in the strict sense, but I would describe them as tweaks and no, I would not necessarily consider such tweaks to be disqualifying for a reviewer. I have made scores of similar tweaks to articles as a reviewer and gone ahead and finished the review. Per TRM, improvements to articles are paramount and DYK suffers a chronic shortage of reviewers, if we have some reviewers who are willing to go the extra mile and make useful improvements as they go, so much the better for the project. Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I would think the appropriate, and rule compliant, course of action in this circumstance would to point-out the "tweaks" to the editor with the suggestion the editor makes them and, if the editor chose not to do so, then to recuse oneself completely from the review and make them oneself. (In background, EdChem did the first part of that correctly - offering these as suggestions to the nominator [me], but then - when the nominator declined to make these edits due to him [me] questioning their encyclopedic nature - EdChem charged ahead and made them himself while continuing to review the article in which he was now an active editor in the article in a content dispute with the nominator.) LavaBaron (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I would have to agree that if a reviewer makes edits that are challenged by another editor, it would be better for that reviewer to step aside and allow somebody else to complete the review. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate you agreeing, Gatoclass. While we're at it, I also feel that EdChem announcing to everyone I'm "headed" for a TBAN [17] doesn't have a whole lot to do with hook development and prep, which is what this forum is for, and borders on WP:BAITing. I understand EdChem doesn't agree with your, my, IndianBio, and Pppery's concerns with the suitability of his QPQs but I really think disagreement can be more constructively expressed. Maybe you can remind him that people are allowed to express different opinions from each other in Talk? LavaBaron (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can a review be credited as QPQ if it fails to address all the core DYK criteria?

To ensure two unrelated questions aren't mixed together, we should separate the matter of editing a DYK article one is reviewing from the separate question of whether or not the review EdChem did for a QPQ (credited here) meets the standards for a QPQ credit. To wit: the review did not state whether or not it included a copyvio check. Can a review that doesn't check for copyvio receive QPQ credit? LavaBaron (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Not Reasonable for QPQ Without addressing the copyediting question (I've already expressed my opinion elsewhere on that) I !vote on the separate issue of the different QPQ review (you did here) that it is not adquate. You failed to review against all of the key DYK criteria, namely copyvio. Many, many editors have had, and continue to have on a daily basis, their QPQs delayed or arrested altogether for missing one of the criteria in their review (e.g. here among a thousand other places I've previously cited). Unless we throw aside all pretense and just acknowledge we have a two-caste system at DYK - one caste against whom even the most obscure rules are relentlessly enforced with no quarter given, and a second caste of Golden Immortals who get to claim "common sense" exemptions to core rules and GF "oopsies" - you'll need to address each of the DYK criteria, including copyvio, in your reviews to claim QPQ. LavaBaron (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong no per LavaBaron. Don't encourage lazy reviews omitting criteria. Pppery 01:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Pppery: Please indicate where the laziness is in Template:Did you know nominations/Scott Simplot, the case LavaBaron is complaining about which the nomination ended when he withdrew it. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
      • ... by not bothering to check for copyvios in your review. Pppery 01:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
        • You mean in a review which never reached a tick because it was withdrawn by LavaBaron? The one where it is obvious I have been reading the sources and so would have seen a copyvio? The one where I could have (and did) check Earwig (here, re-check for copyvio yourself) and missed mentioning it in the face of other issues? Can you seriously suggest that what my work was (a) inadequate and (b) inferior to reviews routinely accepted for QPQ? EdChem (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was inadequate. I mentioned this to you almost immediately in that review, in fact, when you stopped reviewing it altogether and began simply providing the full text of WP:PROMOTIONAL claims and WP:PUFFERY you wanted added to the article as a condition of passing it. You seem to have confused the job of reviewer with that of managing editor. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • All: LavaBaron has taken it upon himself to deny the QPQ in his review of Template:Did you know nominations/e-baby. I could make an issue with his omission of any comment on close paraphrasing, or general policy compliance. I could note cases where he only reviews a single ALT. Suffice it to say, it is clear he has an issue with me, that he is unilaterally pre-empting consensus, and that his views on copyediting appear to be in a minority. I would appreciate action based on whatever consensus emerges here, both on my reviews of Simplot and the Hospital for QPQs. I put a lot of time and effort into the Simplot review, made changes to the article which LavaBaron appreciated at the time, IIRC. The nomination ended when LavaBaron over-reacted to an ALT suggestion and withdrew it, so no final tick was given. I think the review was far more considered and thorough than many (most?) I see. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
When you say I "overreacted" are you referring to the thread where I was told to drink my own semen, and where gay-bashing 8th grade Alt-hooks (e.g. "Scott Simplot has a Gay sister who was married to a Butch") were being shotgunned out? [18] Sorry if I overreacted. Next time I'll be more aware of when I've wandered into the DYK Locker Room and keep my mouth shut. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The intention of the relevant rule is to prevent "rubber stamp" reviews that fail to address all criteria. However, this is really meant to apply to passed reviews, not failed ones. Reviewers are entitled to identify issues with a nomination as they go, and if the nomination fails or is withdrawn before all criteria have been addressed, that should still be considered a legitimate review. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

While I used to agree with this, a consensus has now been created here (at EdChem's instigation) that "as you go" reviews aren't acceptable for QPQ. Until EdChem can demonstrate he has the DYK Immunity Idol this month, he will need to follow the same standards to which others are now being subjected. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, just ignore him -- no need to respond. Everyone sees what's going on here. EEng 21:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
EEng, thanks for the words of support. I've being trying to ignore LB, but it is a challenge, even though I know he is trying to bait me. It is frustrating that he can disrupt a nomination and I feel like I can't get anyone else to comment, though. EdChem (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, so far, both User talk:Pppery and myself have opined in this thread to point-out your QPQ review was inadequate. I guess you can just say that you're always right, that everyone who questions your work must therefore be "baiting" you, and that the only reason no one rushes to your defense is because you just can't get anyone's attention, but I don't think you're all that likely to improve as an editor by taking an "EdChem vs The World" mentality. No? (It's a shame you're still sitting on IndianBio's review for failing to address all the key criteria in QPQ as your own review is now passed-through with the same failing. Guess what's good for the goose isn't for the gander?) LavaBaron (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, just ignore him -- no need to respond. Everyone sees what's going on here. EEng 06:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC) The expression is What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Having taken the trouble to look a little more closely into this dispute, it does appear that EdChem has opposed the principle of "as you go" QPQ reviews in one context while defending the same concerning a claimed QPQ of his own. Perhaps I have misunderstood the arguments being put but that's how it read to me.

Regardless, the substantive question here is with regard to whether "as you go" QPQ reviews should be acceptable or not. On reflection, for the sake of both clarity and rigour, I think it would be appropriate to insist that a reviewer wishing to claim a QPQ review credit must address all aspects of a nomination in his review, whether the result is a pass or hold. That way, there can no misunderstanding of what the requirement is, and it will be easy to identify valid QPQs from invalid ones. That said, I see no reason to re-litigate the nominations that led to this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, EdChem has no problem with the notion of an "as you go" review. I indicated that LB's view in that regard was arguable. However, the original review of IB's was not the start of an as-you-go approach, it made some poor comments on notability and added a bunch of comments which had nothing to do with the DYK criteria. We can't know if it would have become a proper review with further additions as a subsequent review rendered that moot, so we are left to form a view on what was contributed. LB is complaining about my Simplot review which was focused on article improvement, the hook, and DYK criteria, even if it made no mention of copyvio, as if it and IB's several lines are in some way comparable, which I do not accept. IB will either do another QPQ or the current one will be accepted, and while I have a view, the decision will not be mine. Please, however, don't buy into the absurdities which LB is posting... and if you have been looking into my work, you might notice that LB keeps appearing. I am not enjoying him following me around, in case you are wondering. EdChem (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem:, possibly I have done you a disservice by suggesting that you may have taken a self-contradictory position, in which case I will apologize. My larger point, however, is that if it is difficult even for the likes of me, a veteran of DYK, to see the distinction between one allegedly valid "as you go" review and another allegedly invalid one, then wouldn't it be better to clarify the rule so that it is clear to all what the requirement is? (Edit: Struck part of the previous comment for clumsy wording and lack of good faith). Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Thanks for the apology and the striking. If you look at my first comment on the QPQ review in question, I allowed for the possibility of an as-you-go approach, and recognised that pausing for a notability concern is reasonable. However, please look at the review IB did, and think about what DYK criteria it actually addressed. Then compare that to my first post on Simplot, where I focus directly on DYK criteria and add suggested approaches to addressing it. Are these really so difficult to distinguish? To me, the only argument I can see for seeing IB's as allowable for QPQ is that the possibility of addressing the criteria was foreclosed by Maile's intervention and review. On the point of clarifying the rule, I can't argue that isn't desirable... but the bigger issue for me is on inadequate reviews. Sadly, it is clear to me from the way this discussion has all developed that nothing will be achieved on the larger issue at this time. EdChem (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I asked User:Maile66 if I can also enjoy the option of not having to review against copyvio if I review everything else and still count it as QPQ, similar to EdChem [19]. I do a lot of reviews and this would save me a a bunch of time. IndianBio is also wondering if he can enjoy this privilege as well, as are I'm sure other editors. Can you clarify if this is an option all editors enjoy or just select editors? Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
EdChem - your review also had "a lot of comments that had nothing to do with DYK criteria" such as suggestions for content additions (while not reviewing against things like copyvio) [20]. Still not sure I see a difference between what IB did and what you do, other than the fact that IB, like me, is one of the Untouchables caste at DYK and you're not. Definitely open to correction if I missed something, though. LavaBaron (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, all this "untouchables caste" nonsense really needs to stop. It absolutely undermines your position and makes your argument(s) seem petty and vindictive rather than substantive and actionable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
LB, you forget that content additions were needed when length was in issue and the criteria prohibit stubs. EdChem (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing DYK topic ban for LavaBaron

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

Lava who? Proposal withdrawn - suggestion to move this to WP:AN if people have concerns. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

With this edit [21] LavaBaron makes it clear that there's no limit to the amount of editor time and attention he's prepared to waste so that he can continue his pointy displays of (real or feigned) cluelessness. Thus I'm proposing that LavaBaron be topic banned from DYK (no nominating, no reviewing, no talk page participation) for six months, with the hope that he will return with an improved sense of perspective and ability to cooperate usefully. I think Floquenbeam's comment here [22] re his "smug obliviousness to previous problems" was prescient, and LB should feel lucky that a block isn't being proposed. EEng 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. EEng 01:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as subject. #1 I'm not sure that me politely and succinctly asking (in response to a 480-word comment by another editor) -
is what Floquenbeam was referring to when he spoke of my "smug obliviousness" nor do I think that merits a TBAN, particularly as other editors, including IndianBio and Pppery had raised issues with the QPQ in question,as well here. I don't think the majority can TBAN away the minority that passionately, but politely, expresses disagreement on Talk. Maybe I'm wrong?
#2 - To the point of me only being here to "waste people's time", an hour before this TBAN was proposed I contributed no less than six non-QPQ reviews for great nominations by Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth, et al (see: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]), as part of my general commitment to DYK; these are reviews out of my general sense of community, with no QPQ credit claimed by me (this is something I regularly do). As well, I've had more than 96 of my own DYKs promoted in the last 16 months [29] (by comparison, the OP has had 18 noms promoted [30] in the last four years). I think the evidence clearly disabuses the idea I'm "only here to waste people's time".
#3 - As to my ability to "cooperate" - I think I have been very composed, cheerful, and patient, even while facing a deluge of punishing personal attacks from the OP, referring to me as "sad" and with a "bruised ego" [31], etc., or by someone pinged into a thread by the nom who told me to drink my own semen. I have an unblemished disciplinary record and I question if the OP, who has been blocked six or seven times in the last two years, is advancing this proposal with clean hands.
All that said, obviously I will respect a TBAN if the community feels me posting that comment/question was out of bounds and will fully respect whatever decision is taken. Thanks, in advance, for everyone's time and kind consideration! Best - LavaBaron (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • #1 The post I linked was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. You just won't WP:DROPTHESTICK.
  • #2 I didn't say you're "only here to waste people's time", but rather that you are wasting people's time. Just under 1/3 of all posts to this page since November 24 have been you trying to prove that you're being mistreated; and most of the rest have been by people dealing with you when they could be doing real editing.
  • #3 This is the third time you've tried to bring up my block record, and by doing so you're just making my point for me: most of my blocks were overturned, but on others' initiative – my reputation speaks for itself, and I don't waste everyone's time trying to prove I was right.
EEng 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, you have mentioned this comment from editor Hillbillyholiday, and I get why you object to it, but you have not gone to Hillbillyholiday's user talk page to express your feelings, which is necessary if you want to resolve the situation, or put it behind you. Hillbillyholiday was not pinged into the thread by anyone, as far as I can see, so please stop making that claim (or substantiate it, if I am mistaken), but in any case, your issue is with Hillbillyholiday. Remember that the discussion was closed because of that comment, which was someone here taking action to protect you, and also that the time to seek a sanction for the comment was a month ago. EdChem (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng: Comment: The action you've proposed is not a small thing, and cannot be taken just by basing upon the opinions of some editors. Also this is not the right place to discuss, take this to the Arbitration Committee. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Possibly this may need to go to ANI, but let's see what happens here first. The idea that Arbcom is required is obviously wrong. EEng 05:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Conflicted – on a personal level, I would like to see LavaBaron banned from DYK.
    • His recent DYK interactions with me have been both unpleasant and frustrating, especially as he has continued to find new places to (in my view) try to bait me: here LB appeared on a nomination of mine to start asking questions on a topic which had just been the subject of a 10,000 byte discussion, and also !voted to support a merge proposal on that article but in the opposite direction from proposed, so that all coverage of the shooting murder of a police officer be included in a BLP of someone who commented controversially on the topic. To me, this shows poor judgement, which the several threads on this page also illustrate.
    • LB also decided to unilaterally impose his view of my QPQ review and describe a play on gestational surrogacy described as a "visceral experience" as not that interesting, though he did then add that it was enough to pass. Having been over-ruled, LB left a note asking that it not be promoted, and for him to be pinged if it was.
    • On a DYK project level, I think the various threads on this page in the last few days demonstrate that he does not respond to others, instead ignoring comments that show the flaws in his arguments and reasoning, and simply restates them over and over again. It might be that he does not understand (though I seriously doubt this), but if it was true then there are competence issues. If he does understand, there are definitely beating a dead horse and I didn't hear that issues. I also have problems with the quality of his reviews, such as:
    • So, I think there are plenty of grounds for questioning LB's skills. My feeling conflicted comes from concerns over whether a topic ban can be decided at WT:DYK (i.e. whether we have the authority, which I doubt), and that the presentation of the issues by EEng is insufficient for anyone who has not been involved. I understand that the cited diff was the last straw for EEng, but LB could appeal a ban predicated on it as an over-reaction – it's hardly his worst post, especially in context. Further, any outsider reviewing a ban would need to dig through diffs to actually see his actions and the issues, or could assume there is none and LB is being persecuted. I wonder if we might not be better off, should it prove necessary, to put together a collective proposal from the DYK community to collectively request AN impose a ban. LB will either change significantly, or I think he'll end up sanctioned (and rightly so, in my opinion), but a proper discussion on a fair basis is vital to anything being seen as legitimate, which is another reason that a decision here could be questioned. I know this will be another time sink, but I don't see an alternative that will stand up to scrutiny.
EdChem (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
On reflection you're probably right this needs to go to AN, and that would require a lot of tiresome diffs and so on, so again, let's see what people here think first. I don't think there's such a thing as someone in your position being "conflicted"; what you're experienced is what you've experienced. EEng 06:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm rather tempted to propose a two-way interaction ban between the two of you as an alternative. There are far more productive ways the folks at this project could spend our time: by paying more attention to detail on reviews, for instance. In any case, though, I think the place for this is ANI. Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC) I think that if this discussion needs to happen at all, which it does not, the place to do that is ANI. Vanamonde (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with this, if Ed feels it would be helpful for his editing. But oppose any sort of ban. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a topic ban or a referral to ANi. I would just suggest that LavaBaron, and everyone else involved, exercised more restraint before posting to this page. Go and do something more useful instead (like reviewing one of the 180 or so unreviewed DYK nominations). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 and Cwmhiraeth: perhaps neither of you noticed that I described issues with three of LB's six reviews from today. Is that not paying attention to detail on reviews, or usefully looking at reviews? Quality of reviews and getting consensus outcomes are what I have been seeking. EdChem (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
When I promote hooks to prep, something I have been doing a lot recently, I see many less than perfect reviews. LavaBaron's do not stand out in this respect, and some are excellent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I know you do a lot of prep building, which is a difficult and time consuming task with little in the way of recognition and plenty of potential for criticism, so allow me to thank you for those efforts. I don't doubt there are plenty of poor reviews, and if you look at the discussion I tried to structure, I brought up a specific case (not an LB review) and the general issue. I did not set out to target anyone but to try to move towards higher quality reviews. Looking at the train wreck it has become, I accept that I failed in my aim, and will accept if others view my approach to seeking my aim was unwise / poorly constructed / whatever... if I have criticisms coming, I'll accept them and hope they are constructive, but I maintain that my aim was improvement of the DYK project. I also recognise that the point at which I would post on a nomination rather than promote it might differ from yours. And, to state the obvious, I make mistakes in my reviews too, everyone does, and mistakes are not a hanging offence, but I try to learn and improve. EdChem (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't disagree with you and your objectives were and are good. However this matter has escalated and this thread is about a proposed topic ban, a rather extreme sanction which I consider unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a topic ban. Nobody has to interact with LB, so the claimed "waste of time" is voluntary and can be avoided. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a great point. I therefore withdraw my proposal for a topic ban and instead propose that everyone just ignore LavaBaron here at Talk:DYK. A good protocol would be: every time you see a post here by Lava Baron, instead of reading and responding to it use that time to start a review or copyedit a hook. Dealing with his posts elsewhere at DYK can be assigned on a round-robin basis, taking care that no one exceeds his or her government-designated exposure limits for bobbing and weaving and miscellaneous nonsense. If necessary we could issue little dosimeter badges like they do for nuclear plant workers. EEng 21:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Queues need filling

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Queues 3 and 4 need filling to replace the pulled hooks. Queue 3 is due to go live at midnight and currently has seven hooks instead of eight. Queue 4 has six hooks and another day before it goes live. There are plenty of hooks in prep that can be moved in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

See below—great minds work alike, just some slower than others. I made a few suggestions for hooks that could fit. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulled from Prep 2 per WP:BLPCRIME

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • ... that the priest who heard the last confession of Texas beauty queen Irene Garza is the only suspect in her 1960 killing?

Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Irene Garza @EricEnfermero, Cwmhiraeath, and Miyagawa:

Per WP:BLPCRIME, such a hook (and article) should never be promoted to Main Page appearance. Fram (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had similar concerns about that hook and maybe I should have linked to WP:BLPCRIME in the discussion on the nomination page. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you meant to ping Cwmhiraeth... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Fram (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 needs admin to fix it before it hits the main page

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
 
Team DYK Pit Crew

At the moment, Queue 3 has a blank hook in it, even though it's due to be promoted to the main page in under five hours.

I'd like to suggest that the Thomas of Tolentino hook from Prep 1 be moved to that blank slot in Queue 3; martyrdom isn't really the best for the quirky slot, which is where it is not. But any appropriate hook from the various preps is fine.

There are also two issues with Queue 4 that need admin fixing by sometime tomorrow: first, it also has a blank hook slot, and second, it's missing a hook slot altogether (it currently has six hooks and one blank slot, and needs eight hooks total). Perhaps other Prep 1 hooks, Assyrian sculpture and Aubrey Lewis, could be moved here—there are already three bios, so no more than one additional bio should be used. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Cwmhiraeth: Queues 3 and 4 are taken care of. Thanks to both of you for all the times you both jump in to keep this engine running. My oh my, neither of you are admins. I hereby nominate you for recognition on Team DYK Pit Crew. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but we still need to reduce the number of erroneous hooks being promoted and moved to preps and queues. Just see above, something like seven or eight hooks have been questioned today alone. Something's still not quite right, and the old "we're only human" excuse can only last so long.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I second the nomination. Great job BlueMoonset and Cwmhiraeth! LavaBaron (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulled from queue 4: Egypt at the 1906 Intercalated Games

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
  • ... that two athletes marched under the Egyptian banner at what contemporary sources considered the first-ever Olympic opening ceremony in 1906?

Template:Did you know nominations/Egypt at the 1906 Intercalated Games @Canadian Paul, Cwmhiraeth, and Miyagawa: (note: this article was pulled from the preps with a different hook in the past).

What does the source say: "A true opening ceremony was conducted for the first time, with the athletes marching with their teams following flag bearers from their own countries". So, we have two Egyptians competing, and we athletes marching behind their flag: but nothing says that the two Egyptians marched in the opening ceremonies. It is very, very common at the Olympics to have only some of the athletes in the opening ceremony, while others prefer to rest, or are not yet in the country of the games. It may be that both Egyptians marched behind their flag, but we have no evidence for it.

The hook also has a second incorrect or unsupported element. The source given does not indicate that this was "what contemporary sources considered the first-ever Olympic opening ceremony": it says that this was the first opening ceremony, and continuous in the next paragraph with the observation that contemporary sources "considered these games to be the Olympics". Whether the newspapers even commented on the opening ceremony is not said in the source given. Fram (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram is correct that athletes who compete early in the Games often don't march, but I don't know if that was true more than a century ago. I am also concerned about the use of the word "contemporary", which could be interpreted as referring to sources contemporary to the 1906 games or sources contemporary to now. If the former, perhaps "contemporaneous sources" would be clearer? If the latter, perhaps "what sources now consider"? EdChem (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This is why I was hesitant to go this direction in the first place. I think the concerns are valid. I say we go with the original hook, which was pulled only because one individual did not find it interesting enough. Or if consensus is that it is indeed not interesting enough, then just close it as failed. All of our time could be spent better elsewhere on the project. Canadian Paul 13:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where was best to post so I posted in both places, but the discussion now has moved to the actual nom page. Additional comments would be very much welcomed. Canadian Paul 14:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't about it being "not interesting", it was about the fact that the subject wasn't notable, so non-notable that he didn't have an article. I thought the discussion at the nom page brought out some better ideas, like the fact that this "Egyptian" was actually an Italian (which is FAR more interesting). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
But was he an Italian? He has an Italian name, but I haven't seen any evidence in the article or even on the nomination page that he wasn't an Egyptian citizen (or indeed that he was an Italian citizen). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, Canadian Paul said he was Italian in a previous discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I looked but found no evidence, and did find a link (posted on the nomination page) that showed the cycling team with the Italian-sounding name as Egyptian, though I don't know how reliable it is. TRM, you actually questioned the Italian nationality / ancestry earlier in the nomination. If he is Italian, that would be interesting, but we would need good evidence. As for the point that he is not notable (more accurately, that we don't have sources to support a notability claim, which probably not surprising for relatively minor sports people from a century ago), we could change the hook to not mention the name, such as "... that an Egyptian cyclist at the 1906 Intercalated Games also participated in the Greco-Roman wrestling competition?" EdChem (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I realise I discussed it, because Canadian Paul suggested "{[xt|Personally I find the idea of an Italian competing for Egypt in two completely different sports at a large international festival to be quite interesting...}}" and my query was that the "Italian-ness" was certainly interesting but not in the hook, nor reliably sourced. It still remains the best bit of this hook, if it could be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulled from Queue: Hill-Crest

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  • ... that in 2013, Hill-Crest was said to be the United States' most valuable university presidential residence?

Template:Did you know nominations/Hill-Crest Mansion @LavaBaron, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:

While the hook I removed was already a lot better than the originally proposed one, it still isn't verifiable and probably incorrect as written. The source[32] (the second source given at the DYK template has no value for this hook) makes it clear that the claim is only about public colleges, so doesn't include things like Princeton, Yale, Columbia or Cornell. Furthermore, "Of the 118 public institutions in the survey that reported providing the chief executive with a residence, more than half didn't report any value for it.", so it's said to be the most valuable from less than half universities in a subgroup of all US universities . At least among the private universities, there seem to be vastly more valuable residences, like at Cornell, Yale (which has had a $17 million renovation[33] and Columbia (which had a $20 million plus renovation in the 2000s[34] and was valued in 2008 at nearly $20 million[35]). Fram (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Some ignoramuses like me don't know the difference between a public and a private college in the US, but putting that aside, there is a lot in what you say, and coming top in a survey where half the results are missing is not a good basis for a "biggest" type hook. A better hook with a different theme is needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd favor an altogether different hook, as Eeng started to propose then. How about reopening the nom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Gerda, something along the lines of EEng's idea is to me both more interesting and less problematic in terms of sourcing. EdChem (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rule D2 and video game articles

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Rule D2 requires inline citations at a minimum of one per paragraph, but carves out an exception for the introduction and plot summaries. In this DYK nomination for the video game The Global Dilemma: Guns or Butter, nominator Maury Markowitz has stated that video game articles do not require citations for gameplay sections. Is there an established consensus for DYK that gameplay sections are similar to plot summaries and so fall within the D2 exception? EdChem (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I took a look at D2, and the way I read the rule, it looks like plot summaries (and intros) are only subject to the "no citations" exception when they summarize other portions of the article that are substantiated by inline citations to reliable sources ("... excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content", emphasis added). Therefore, if the "gameplay" section does not summarize other content that is substantiated by inline citations, then I think citations should be added. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • See, my impression is that plot synopses are usually assumed to be sourced to the original work, thus they don't have explicit citations to such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Jo-Jo Eumerus, I stand corrected. I just discovered MOS:PLOT, which says: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." If we treat a "gameplay" section like a plot summary, then the relevant guideline tells us that citations are not necessary. Speaking from my personal perspective, I think we should require citations for plot summary sections, but it looks like there is longstanding consensus against such a requirement. C'est la vie. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, this is a funny one, anyone can write the minimum length required for a DYK by creating a hell-and-all lengthy plot synopsis for a book or a play or a movie or a video game and not need one single citation for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No, you still need to prove notability, and that requires cited content. If there is just a plot summary and nothing else, there's no proof that the subject is notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No, the article needs notability, but the plot section can occupy 90% of the prose, without reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that having non-referenced sections (other than the intro) is problematic, partly because plot sections can easily slip from description into evaluation / critique / opinion. I also think there is a potential for a did-incentive to reference. In a recent DYK I wrote (Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks), the plot section is referenced but TRM added a "cn" tag in the plot. I didn't mind addressing it, but the situation is absurd if I could have removed it and all references, or simply not included any, and the article would have been policy compliant, but having included refs, the nomination can be held up by a request for more in the plot section. (Note: I am not referring to the other "cn" TRM added, which was necessary and something I had meant to reference earlier and forgot.) EdChem (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you somewhat made a rod for your own back with your diligence because you'd referenced most of it, so I felt you should go the whole hog and reference all of it. An alternative (perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia and the DYK process for character counting) would have been to remove all references within the plot section! Absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
"Absurd" is an excellent choice of word for the situation, I agree. I also see that I am open to being asked for additional references in a section which technically requires none... but I will continue to include the references nonetheless. I believe that references should be provided as a matter of routine, and so I include them, and if more are needed, I'll look for those too. With the video game case I posted above, I do think that references should be required, but if the rules / consensus say that references are not mandatory then I won't require them. Whether DYK rules lead to inadequate referencing at times is a larger issue of which this is a single example. EdChem (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Depends on what the plot section contains. A straightforward synopsis is not an issue. If there is the slightest bit of analysis, opinion and the like, citations are needed. Anyway, oftentimes when plot sections are cited that's because they are a) derived from another synopsis (which tends to run into the "second hand information is often poor" issue) or b) copied from another synopsis (which tends to run into the "copying text from elsewhere is usually copyright infringement" issue). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
To add to comments above, there is a reason that WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF insist on concise plot summaries, as to avoid giving editors too much room to go into details only sourcable to the primary source. The concise aspects forces editors to key attention on main, obvious details which usually aren't covered otherwise in reliable sources but obvious to anyone watching/reading the work. If you can source a plot summary, great, but 90% of the time there's little you can get from RS for a full plot, so keeping what is implicitly sourced to the primary work as concise as possible is the next best option. Do note that in longer works one should use citations to point out where things are occurring in said work and/or provide quotes that establish context to meet WP:V. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Speaking for the VG project, we do not consider unsourced gameplay sections to be acceptable, as sourcing for a notable game that has received some type of coverage will cover gameplay aspects. There may be fewer-than-normal refs per prose ratio in such cases, and some reliance on the primary source is acceptable to a point, as long as the points are obvious and do not require intricate knowledge of the game, but moreso than not, we really ask people to source gameplay as much as they can. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: Would you please express a view on the specific section at issue, The Global Dilemma: Guns or Butter#Gameplay? As I read it, at present this discussion has "apparently not required but should be" (Notecardforfree), The Rambling Man), "not required as notability elsewhere" (3family6), "maybe, depending on content" (Jo-Jo Eumerus), and "yes, references required" (Masem), but all of these are generic views rather than looking at the specific article. I am inclined to pass Maury's article once QPQ is sorted, but further specific opinions on the article are welcome while the QPQ is done. I think I've run into a case where existing practice is unclear. EdChem (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be sourced, but there is going to be some difficulty sourcing it to third-party works due to the age and period of the game's release. It can be sourced to the game's manual, and perhaps some points to the book by Crawford that is a reflection back on his works, but the amount of detail in that really needs at least a cite per paragraph, and which should be possible from the manual alone. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, would some referencing as Masem suggests doable? EdChem (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, the manual is online. But honestly, what is the point of adding pointers to every para that all point to the same place? This is completely out of hand, people have forgotten why we are here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It comes down to WP:V policy. Irregardless of topic, the only section of an article that can be unsourced and treated as being supported by the primary work is the plot section per WP:V. The VG project does not make exceptions for Gameplay, even though you could argue it can be sourced in the same manner, because as I noted, the manual or reviews of the game can readily serve for that, whereas plot sections generally do not have such type of referencing available. It's our effort to try to make VG articles more "special" by allowing for an additional unsourced section, and instead move VG articles closer to being of the same quality that all other articles on WP have to be. It's also particularly important for WP:V where any details about the game itself are likely difficult to verify due to age, platform, etc. The manual at least serves as something in a more permanent medium (originally print) that far outlasts the digital executable format of the game. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Give Thanks with a Grateful Heart (Prep 3)

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I'm thinking that this article, currently in Prep 3, could be retained as a reserve hook for the Christmas season, any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The C of E, as the article creator you may also want to comment. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I had hoped we could have got it done for Thanksgiving but it did take a little while to get passed. I'm not too sure about the Christmas relevance apart from the fact it's a Christian song and Christmas is a Christian festival. But I don't mind if we do hold it, though we already have The Babe in Bethlem's Manger held as the obligatory Christmas carol on Christmas. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's why I said use it as a "reserve" Christmas hook, because it's a hook about Christianity rather than Christmas per se. Even if we don't run it on the day itself, it would still suit for Christmas Eve, or Boxing Day or thereabouts. Gatoclass (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind if you want to do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The song wasn't first released on Give Thanks though, it was first released on Hosanna! Music. Or at least that's what our article says ("In 1986, Integrity Music published the song on their Hosanna! Music audio cassette but credited the author as "author unknown". Later in that year, Don Moen released the song on his Give Thanks album.[4] "). It is hard to get this straight from the sources, it may well be that the Give Thanks album is the Hosanna! Music audio cassette mentioned. No "later" would be involved in this case. But as it stands, the hook and article contradict each other. Fram (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hosanna! Music record label is a subsiduary of Integrity Music. Record labels quite often release samplers of music from their subsidiaries, so I'm guessing that this cassette was a Hosanna! Music sampler. But as you say, it's very unclear from the article. Black Kite (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just delete the word "first" then. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Or delete the album:
ALT1: ... that the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was credited as unknown authorship when first released in 1986, despite being written by Henry Smith in 1978? Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done I made the edit. Yoninah (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulled from Prep 1: Filibus

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Filibus @Lemuellio, Soman, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is sourced to a 1997 source[36]: at that time, only Filibus and Caino were known. But we are 20 years later, and many early films have been found since then. The company from the hook is "Corona", and at least one further film has been found since: Signore Giurati. Fram (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

How clever you are! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Whether you truly believe that you are an ignoramus and I am clever or not, such comments don't really help these discussions or DYK in general. If you don't want these discussions to be personalized, then drop the personal comments. Fram (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

We are talking about a film from a century ago which explores themes of lesbianism and genderfluidity, according to ALT1 and the article. Surely there is a more interesting hook to be found in that than in how many films of the studio have survived? I am going to invite input from the LGBT WikiProject as someone knowledgeable regarding these topics could be helpful. EdChem (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Request made: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Can the DYK project get some help from one or more editors with knowledge of lesbianism and genderfluidity? Please note, as I also noted in the request, that I am seeking the input of those with knowledge and experience in an area where there is the potential to inadvertently give offense. I am not suggesting / implying anything about anyone, or reflecting on the knowledge of those who have commented at the nomination, I just think that the LGBT WikiProject can help us get a suitable hook quickly. I am adding this disclaimer because of the recent tensions here and because I do not want to cause inadvertent offense either. EdChem (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Per Fram's point about Corona, we should definitely drop ALT0. I strongly support inviting input from WikiProject LGBT studies—thanks for making this happen, EdChem! Lemuellio (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes you think LGTB expertise needs to be imported from other projects? We have our own experts in-house. EEng 15:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @EEng: I recall your comments, and I am sure there are members of the LGBTQI community here at DYK and throughout Wikipedia. I did not mean to imply that the knowledge of you and other community members is devalued or disrespected. I consider myself highly knowledgeable in some areas, and to have a good general knowledge, but when it comes to genderfluidity, am well aware that my experiences don't give me either great insight or a basis for immediately recognising subtleties which could be offensive. Certainly, I wonder about the use of the term "genderfluid" to a 1915 film based (it seems) on it including cross-dressing, and have added a new review / source which mentions transgenderism (and, desirably, also recognises that is a modern perspective applied retrospectively). I thought that the LGBT WikiProject members could provide advice and would have relevant knowledge. No offense intended. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I was joking about another editor's insistence on telling gay and lesbian editors what sorts of things are offensive to gays and lesbians. EEng 17:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ... that Filibus (1915) was "probably one of the first lesbian characters in the history of film"? EEng 16:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Appropriations Committee Suite and came across this concern. Can contents in DYKs be copied verbatim Public Domain sources? A few paragraphs in Appropriations Committee Suite is copied verbatim from http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/resources/pdf/Appropriations_Committee_Pages.pdf . --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Public Domain materials are fine for any article, but I don't think the text counts towards an expansion or as part of the 1500 characters of a new article. EdChem (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
What makes you "think" that? LavaBaron (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
If we equate "public domain" text to text copied from other Wikipedia articles (because they're basically the same type) then it becomes clear that it cannot count towards the 1500 characters. If I create 5 related articles and put them up for DYK and they all have an identical "background" section, then only 1 of the 5 articles can count that text, the others have to have 1500 characters BEYOND that, thems the rules.  MPJ-DK  16:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It's right there in Rule 2b: text copied from public domain sources doesn't count towards the "long enough" criterion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have noted at the nomination that Rule 2b needs to be considered, thanks to Antony-22 for reminding us that this specific issues is covered in that rule, and as far as I can see, has been since January 2012. EdChem (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Going out on a limb

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
  • ... that the hairy-breasted barbet has been observed to remove wings and legs from insects by bashing them on branches?

(in Queue3, not pulled). Template:Did you know nominations/Hairy-breasted barbet @Gulumeemee, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:

The source says "we have seen these barbets bash insects on limbs to remove wings and legs before eating them". Why is this read to mean "branches" (one poissible meaning of limbs), and not "appendages" (the limbs of the animals)? Bashing on the limbs may remove them from the body: basking insects on branches will only turn the insect to pulp but not remove the wings, I would think. Perhaps there is a reason why the reading of the source as rendered in the hook certainly is the correct one, so I didn't pull it. But to me it seems the less likely explanation of the two possible meanings. Fram (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that the word "limb" can be used for a branch or a bodily appendage, I think its interpretation here as branch is correct. Look at the picture of the bird - its not going to use its wings for this purpose, and using its legs would involve some gymnastic manipulations and would be pretty pointless when the solid branch is so close at hand (or foot). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Why "its limbs", and not "their limbs", i.e. the limbs of the insects? Fram (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean bashing the insect's limbs with something? I think not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The source says "bash insects on limbs", so I interpreted that as meaning the insects were bashed against limbs, and I don't think the insects were bashed against the insects' limbs. Gulumeemee (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC) If the source means bashing the insects' limbs, it would probably have said "bash insects' limbs" or "bash insects on the limbs". Gulumeemee (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
In the context, I think that "limbs" referring to trees is much less likely than to appendages. Surely the birds don't only catch these insects in trees, and otherwise the needed-limbs would not be available. The source is interpretable in two ways, so perhaps look for another source which is not ambiguous on this point? EdChem (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The only other source that I could find that might verify the hook is this, but I do not have subscription and cannot view all of the text. Gulumeemee (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Sorry about my lack of finesse in English, - I simply didn't see the other options. How about stopping the hook after "insects"? The bashing doesn't add too much, at least for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If we do that, as a reader I would wonder even more why the birds were doing this than I did with the distraction at the end of the current wording. So, I suggest adding "before eating them" or something similar to the end of the hook would be wise. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a legendary episode in which Nature (or maybe Science) published a paper dispelling the myth of gorillas as gentle herbivores, noting that on the Serengeti they had been observed killing other creatures and eating them "with relish". A subsequent letter to the editor challenged this: "Where", it asked, "would a gorilla on the Serengeti get relish?" This discussion is like that. Are you guys kidding? Obviously what's meant is that the bird bashes the insect against the arm or leg of a passing monkey. EEng 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: Why do you assume that the birds are not able to bash prey without pulping them? I read the source as meaning branches not legs, and see no reason to assume otherwise.--Kevmin § 20:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
In case my kidding wasn't clear, of course limbs = branches. Sometimes this place is unbelievable. EEng 21:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It eats beetles, so I think it is possible that bashing them against trees does not turn them into pulp. Gulumeemee (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If there's any room for uncertainty, reword the hook. Unless you want to make it the "quirky" one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • ... that the hairy-breasted barbet has been observed to remove wings and legs from insects before eating them? This hook seems a little less interesting, but at least it is certain. Gulumeemee (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, my God! What are we talking about? There's no other sensible interpretation of bash insects on limbs. It's not bird limbs or monkey limbs or insect limbs or human limbs or lion limbs or the limbic system -- it's tree limbs. Has there been a mass poisoning of LSD at DYK? This is insane. Just run the original hook. EEng 00:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind - run the original hook: Thank you, Gulumeemee, for pointing to an additional source, though I can't read it either. I agree with Cwmhiraeth I meant Fram, oops. that the sentence quoted is ambiguous in isolation and definitely open to interpreting "limb" as something other than "limb of a tree". However, I also recognise that a bird is somewhat lacking in suitable appendages to bash insects against, and if it was against another bird, I suspect bird 2 would try and steal the food. I have been looking online and found a source that I think would be definitive, this book, where I can get "possibly also soft hooting song (Ivory Coast), nearly as in Tricholaema hirsuta; also grating calls, with nasal version, chattering "chchch" calls to 0 5 seconds, and soft "bdaa-aa-" calls, all during encounters. .... Probes into lichens, mosses and bark crevices, hovers at times to seize insect or fruit; often smashes insect against bark to remove limbs." from this Google search. Smashing into bark does not have the ambiguity of "limbs". Further, looking at the original source, I find: "Most foraging takes place at more than 20 m (10 to 35 m) in the canopy ... sometimes hover to grasp a fruit or seize an insect ... more quickly along branches and vines, making frequent short flights ... we have seen these barbets bash insects on limbs to remove wings and legs before eating them ... when feeding, often wipes not only its bill but the sides of its head against a branch" page 173 All of this context around the "limb" comment makes it totally clear we are talking about feeding exclusively in trees, with mentions of branches and vines as well as limbs, so I see the original hook as verified.
    @EEng: may I suggest that pointing out / explaining the context in which "limb" appears would have been a more productive and persuasive response? I understood your view clearly, but declaring there is no other reasonable interpretation is not as helpful as explaining why. Just my 2 c...
    @Fram, The Rambling Man, and Cwmhiraeth: Does this persuade you that the source is actually not ambiguous, and that the original hook is suitable? EdChem (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. One doesn't talk about a bird's limbs but rather its wings and legs. This whole kerfuffle has been a complete waste of time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And as I said before, I wasn't talking about the bird's limbs, but about the insects' limbs. And I wasn't the only one who thought that the sentence was ambiguous and possibly wrong. That's why people have a discussion, to determine whether something is right or not. In this case, it seems as if the hook and article were right, great, but that the original hook remains doesn't mean that this was "a complete waste of time". Now, having to check all your reviews and promotions and having to pull 5 hooks in one day, that is a complete waste of time. But that doesn't seem to concern you as much. Fram (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so here's a list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through November 18. Right now the nominations page shows 262, of which 109 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 63 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three seven that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Maile and Cas Liber, or any other admin around. Fortunately, the bot is back up, so all this needs is a promotion from Prep 3 to Queue 3. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Abzurdah (book)

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I am interested in knowing how the hook approved in the DYK review got changed on the Main Page. I'm not upset about it (it did get over 19,000 hits), but I am interested in how one can track down who made the change. I can't find a link in "What links here" on the page for Abzurdah (book). I have no idea which prep it was added to. I'm not sure where the archives are for the Did You Know errors at WP:ERRORS. Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me. Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hooks - tracking from nomination to main page:
a) Check nomination template edit history for the editor who closed the nomination. They might be able to point out which prep they were building if they left a summary. If not, check the timestamp against their template contributions (User contributions -> check the namespace drop down for template).
b) Check prep template edit history from when it was built until when an admin moves it to queue. Repeat above to get queue number.
c) Check queue template edit history from when it was promoted until when DYKUpdateBot moves it to the main page.
d) Check DYK template edit history from when it hit the main page until when it rolled off.
In this case, it was moved to prep on 11:41 3 Dec, moved to queue sixteen hours later, moved to the main page on 00:00 7 Dec and rolled off 24 hours later. Intermediate edits might shed some light into how the hook got changed. Fuebaey (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yoninah, it appears to have been changed in this edit while the hook was in Queue 4; Gatoclass's edit summary was tweak hook to avoid awkward phraseology and possible unduly negative emphasis. How I found it: I looked at who promoted the hook, checked Miyagawa's contributions from around the promotion time, saw which prep (4) it was added to, and when I didn't see any edits that changed the hook in that prep, I looked at the queue the prep went to and a few diffs found the edit that changed the hook. Then I checked to see when the queue was promoted, and checked Template:Did you know (the DYK section of the main page) to be sure there weren't any further edits to the hook in the 24 hours after the queue was promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. In normal circumstances I might have pulled this hook for further discussion, but as I recall there were only a few hours to go before the set was featured, so decided to alter it in situ. Regarding the changes, I was a little concerned that the hook may have attracted criticism for being unduly negative once on the main page. Also, I wasn't sure that the phrase "apologetic about anorexia" was correct usage or that the intended meaning would be clear (since "apology" has a more common meaning), and it didn't help that the original source was in Spanish and didn't translate well into English. So basically all things considered, I thought discretion would be the better part of valour in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Gatoclass, it did come out as a better hook. And thank you, Fuebaey and BlueMoonset, for your detective work! Now I understand what Template:Did you know is all about. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/ReCore

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

@AdrianGamer and MPJ-DK: How to open a new nomination when the previous one failed? Halp. Cognissonance (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah, BlueMoonset, MPJ-DK, AdrianGamer, and Cognissonance: After having been rejected because it was submitted too late, this article underwent a GA review and passed December 13. Cognissonance would like to resubmit the article for DYK now that it is GA. Can they do it on the same template that was closed as rejected, or should they create a new template? — Maile (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether the correct procedure is to re-open the previous nomination or to start a new one, but having reached GA the article is now definitely eligible for DYK a fresh evaluation. I say this so the nominator will know that sorting out process might take a bit but eligibility is not in issue, in my opinion.  :) EdChem (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You'll want to set up a completely new nomination page/template, and call it Template:Did you know nominations/ReCore 2. If you want, I can set up a nomination template under that name for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: That's fine. Is creating Template:Did you know nominations/ReCore 2 with the usual DYK template and putting it under December 13 on Template talk:Did you know all I have to do? Cognissonance (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Cognissonance, creating the template with the usual DYK template contents, and then transcluding it under December 13 on the nominations page is indeed all that's necessary. I'll be happy to look it over and make sure everything's in order once you've finished it; just give me another ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: If you could transclude the page that'd be great. I'm not exactly sure about that part of the process. Cognissonance (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Cognissonance, done. I've also adjusted the hook slightly, since video game titles are supposed to be italicized, and added the subpage field to the DYKmake template. I think everything should be set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the halp! Cognissonance (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Bug!

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Bug! @Jaguar, SounderBruce, and Cwmhiraeth:

According to the article and source, it was one of three candidates to become the new mascot, it wasn't certain that Bug! (and not one of the two others) was "going to be the mascot". The article states "one of three candidates for "would-be" mascots for Sega's upcoming Sega Saturn console in 1994" (with an offline source), and the next source says "within the first year of the Saturn, three world-be[sic!] mascots appeared on the 32-bit console"[37]. Fram (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

While I see your point, I must point out that IGN's article on the Saturn's failure is a contemporary source. Next Generation Magazine (the offline source you mentioned) was what I based it on. Look at the Sega Saturn article (an FA), which states in itself that "The platformer Bug! received attention for its eponymous main character being a potential mascot for the Saturn, but it failed to catch on as the Sonic series had". While I was looking for sources for Clockwork Knight (the other potential mascot candidate, though I remain sceptical as this is only speculated in IGN), there were no mentions of it becoming the mascot for the flagship console. A couple of issues did in fact mention Bug! as being the potential mascot. I have access to the Next Generation Magazine source, and it backs it up. To summarise, I think you misjudged this on IGN's retrospective, whilst it is in fact firmly sourced to the offline magazine. JAGUAR  11:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Your own article describes it as "one of three candidates for "would-be" mascots for Sega's upcoming Sega Saturn console in 1994", so please don't complain that I misjudged it when you wrote it like that. Even in your reply here, you go from it being "a potential mascot" to "the potential mascot". The two are not the same... Fram (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Would it be less confusing for reader's sake if I used the IGN source instead? To come and think of it, the Sega Saturn article itself would be better off stating that it had three potential mascots upon launch, although I don't know if I should put preference over retrospective sources or the sources that existed at the time. Other than IGN, I see no source asserting that it had a potential of "three" mascots, but as IGN is the only accessible one at the moment, perhaps it's better to change Bug! to reflect that. It's only a GA, and I doubt I'll ever bring it to FA. Should I rephrase the hook to say it was one of three potential mascots? JAGUAR  11:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The nomination is reopened, discussion about a new hook can be had there. Fram (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Shah Mosque (Tehran) article

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

The article Shah Mosque (Tehran) is presently the bolded article in the lead hook of the current DYK set.

Nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Shah Mosque (Tehran) Nominator: AlmaBeta Reviewer: AdventurousSquirrel Promoter: Cwmhiraeth

The hook which was proposed contains an NPOV violation with a link "[[Fada'iyan-e Islam|religious fanatic]]." The article Fada'iyan-e Islam does not contain the word fanatic, and the source mentioned in the nomination from The New York Times uses the phrase "religious fanatic" for the assassin, Khalil Tahmasebi, though his article did not include it until I tidied it up recently.

The Rambling Man made a request at WP:ERRORS for a correction, which was made by Stephen, quite properly. I have since made a further ERRORS request (which TRM supports) for the intent of the nomination be preserved by directing the link at the assassin's page. Both TRM and Stephen commented on the fact that a hook with an NPOV issue like this made it to the main page, and I think we should look at that issue. This was AlmaBeta's first DYK credit and the nomination page was so mangled that Vanamonde deleted and recreated it. Geni noted the article was too short, BlueMoonset called for a review when it was lengthened, and AdventurousSquirrel (4 DYK credits) did the review, noting a paraphrasing issue. Johnbod commented on the need for a review of the English, and AlmaBeta mentioned linking to the assassin's article, which AdventurousSquirrel encouraged, specifically mentioning the Fada'iyan-e Islam link. AdventurousSpirit gave the tick more than a week later, saying "cleaned up," presumably referring to these two article edits where AlmaBeta made the edits suggested to the article but did nothing to the nomination / hook. Cwmhiraeth promoted about a day later.

I wonder how so many editors could look at a nomination, as well as in prep and queues, and no one raise a flag about a proposed main page link for "religious fanatic" to an organisation whose page does not go close to supporting such a claim. The bolded article links "religious fanatic" to [[religious fanaticism]] and the Britannica source it uses reads: "On March 7, 1951, Razmara was assassinated outside the Solṭāni Mosque by a member of the Fedaʾeyān-e Eslām (Persian: “Self-Sacrificers of Islam”), an extremist religious organization with close ties to the traditional merchant class and the clergy." I'm not looking for blame, just wondering whether we as a project can learn something here? EdChem (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, the error entered the picture with the piped link. It should have been caught by the reviewer, the promoter, or the admin who sent it to the main page. All the scrutiny the nomination received before that is not really relevant, because it wasn't dealing with the substance of the nomination, but more with the technicalities: for instance, I didn't even read the article in question, I was merely responding to a request for help on this page. Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The hook was promoted by me on 7th December and was moved to the queue on 11th December so there have been five days available to detect this error, rather than leave things till the hook is on the main page. During that time, the hook was changed once by @Fram:, with this edit, without this issue coming to light. The instructions for promoters do not include any instructions on checking that each link in the hook goes to an appropriate place. Perhaps they should. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well it should be common sense to check highly POV phrasing of hooks before they're promoted. It should be, regardless of any "instructions" (or lack of). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • So reading the actual article I came across this gem "by ridding it of 'corrupting individuals' by means of carefully planned assassinations" - how i that NOT religious fanaticism? Are we really complaining that an organization based on religion that actually advocate assassinations is called "Fanatic" just because that term is not used in the article? And of course followed up by recriminations against everyone who touched the nomination, because that seems to be part for the course now at DYK.  MPJ-DK  12:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Assassinations may be in order.[FBDB] EEng 13:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Just because one source makes such a claim, there's no need for Wikipedia to use non-neutral language. And it's "par for the course" by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact that numerous experienced editors passed this indicates that the usage was reasonable. Per WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:FALSEBALANCE, we are expected to speak plainly in such cases. The main issue, in my view, is that the hook is now too long and the links to other topics tend to distract the reader from the main subject. It might have been better to cut out most of the detail and just say the following. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
ALT ... that the Prime Minister of Iran was assassinated at the Shah Mosque (pictured)?
That also works. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Your solution avoids any need to even point to the guideline (euphemism) you noted; but there was no "false balance", "fanatical" is way to POV to be true balance. It was an Easter egg link in any case, as you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had some serious reservations about the use of that word, but if an organization most notable for its assassinations of ideologically opposed individuals isn't "fanatic", I'm not sure what is. I reasoned that hooks are supposed to be hook-ey, and invite further research and discussion - and that it certainly did. In retrospect I definitely should have been more proactive about inviting other editors' opinions regarding the use of that term, but I suppose I figured (as has been noted here) that since so many other eyes had seen it and not expressed any concern with it, it may not have been an issue at all. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh deer

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

(I thought I had posted this already, but apparently it never got here, so this is a bit later than intended)

Pulled from Queue1, queue needs one additional hook.

Template:Did you know nominations/Deer Valley, Phoenix @MB, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth:

You can do those things in the park, but the problem is that the park is located in Glendale, Arizona, not in neighbouring Deer Valley (the park is on the border, and may be partly in Deer Valley perhaps, this isn't clear). The official address of the park, as given by the source used for the DYK hook[38], is Adobe Dam Regional Park 23280 N. 43rd Avenue Glendale, AZ 85310. The model airplane club[39] and their flying field[40] has the address Arizona Model Pilot Society Adobe Dam Recreation Area 43rd Avenue & Pinnacle Peak Road Glendale, AZ 85310. Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So it's not just the dam that's in Deer Valley (where ever that is)? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, one can read it that way as well. Still, would be a rather stupid hook if that was the intention: there is a dam in Deer Valley, and behind that dam, outside of deer valley, you can do all kinds of fun stuff! It's like having an article about Calexico touting the fun things you can do in Mexicali (sorry, "flood control dam" made me think of that region for some reason). A hook for Deer Valley should be about things in Deer Valley, not things next to Deer Valley... Fram (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
A "rather stupid hook"? I'm sure that's just not possible, is it. Perhaps one could fly over the dam, not just behind it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
When I saw Fram had posted nothing here but I knew there was a problem because my promotion of the hook had been reverted, I was tempted to start a section here "Deer, deer". I guess the expanse of land is the Deer Valley and the dam is across the River Deer, however the article is about the urban village and not the geographical location, so I agree with Fram that the hook is unsuitable. On the other hand, it is possible that it is correct; where I live near the boundary of one UK county, my postal town, and hence address, is in the adjoining county. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, it is possible that the hook is factually correct, but it can't be verified by the source given, and that source seems to actively contradict it... (I know, the "oh deer" pun was probably too easy, but I just couldn't resist it). Fram (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fram, Martinevans123, and Cwmhiraeth:The dam and recreation area are located in Deer Valley. This can be verified if you look at the map in REF3. I have duplicated that ref after the sentence that says "The Adobe Dam Regional Park ... is located here." It has a postal address of Glendale, Arizona but in the US, postal addresses do not directly correlate to municipal jurisdictions in many cases. The area was assigned to Glendale by the US Postal Service before it was annexed into (Deer Valley) Phoenix when it was still an unincorporated part of the county. It's postal address will remain forever Glendale although it is actually located in Phoenix. The hook is correct as is. MB 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That verifies that at least part of the park is in Deer Valley, but doesn't make it clear whether the park continues in Glendale and whether the hook facilities are in Deer Valley or not. Fram (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
No, on that map the park (Point of Interest #5) is shaded in grey and it is entirely within Deer Valley. The western boundary of Deer Valley and the park are both at 51st Avenue. The mailing address given above is 43rd Avenue, which is one mile east of the boundary. All the recreational facilities are within the park and within Deer Valley. MB 15:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This can also be verified at google maps [[41]] MB 16:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes it was too easy. Next time please provide better sauces. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed

One way or another, Queue 1 is the next queue to be promoted (eight hours from now), and it currently has an empty hook slot after the above removal. An admin is needed to fill that slot; if the Deer Valley hook is not eligible, then please use one of the non-bio hooks in prep. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Done @Fram: When you pull a hook from a queue, it would be good if you could put another hook in its place. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not interested. Checking hooks and pulling them if needed takes already enough of my time and patience. If it would help, I can of course simply remove the line instead of leaving a "... that ... " line; that would prevent that empty line to appear on the main page, but would make it less clear that another hook may be wanted. Fram (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
So what is your interest in DYK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
And we have a winner! Fram (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
We can't all be Gareth Bale, can we, dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
wow. obv. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I only have one left, where would you like it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Main page, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
No-one gives a fuck about the main page any more Martin. You know that. Diff'rent Strokes eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It's tough up North, isn't it. Thank goodness we still have a trusty filter. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC) (sincere apologies Fram, if your grandmother was actually on any of those Amundsen voyages)
  •   If I had wanted to know what TRM thought that Fram's interest in DYK was, I would have phrased the question differently - Fram is quite literate and perfectly able to reply on his own behalf. I am still interested in what @Fram:'s purpose or motivation for participating in the DYK project really is. Let's hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Fram's comment immediately following TRM's makes Fram's motivation absolutely clear. Both Fram and TRM can be abrasive and even frustrating at times, but both make points worthy of serious consideration and both have caught a lot of issues which should have been caught earlier. And while the DYK community is unable or unwilling to actually make changes to reduce the rate at which errors are missed, both are providing important support. I wish at times that one or both of them would take a different style in making their contributions, but I don't doubt the value of those contributions. We need what they do and, to some extent, that means we have to put up with how they do it. I ask that you not imply that their motives are not in line with the best interests of Wikipedia and of quality DYK content. EdChem (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • (ec)Please don't ping me for such nonsense. I already made it quite clear that I agree with TRMs answer. As a quite literate person, I perfectly knew that when you replied to me with the question "So what is your interest in DYK?", you wanted to know my reasons (which I thought were quite clear from previous discussions already, as evidenced by the fact that TRM grasped it without any problems). Most quite literate persons would have known from my answer to TRMs response that his response matched what I would have said. If I had wanted to add something "on my own behalf", I would have done so. Now, feel free to add this dismissiveness to your laundry list of terrible actions I have done over the years (that page you have in preparation of an ArbCom case which has already been rejected, you know?). Fram (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Va tacito e nascosto

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This has just been promoted GA, so I wanted to create a DYK, but on nominating I get the closed review for when it was a new article. What do I do?--Smerus (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

When a GA passes, the message on your talk page states "If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know." An article cannot appear at DYK on more than one occasion and Va tacito e nascosto has already appeared there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see - apologies!--Smerus (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I already DYK'ed it after I wrote the original (shorter) version, unfortunately. Excellent job on the GA. LavaBaron (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK Bot is down

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It did the update and put queue 1 on the main page, but didn't empty the queue or give credits or any of its other tasks. Would someone who knows what to do about this fix things? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the usual admins (Maile, Cas Liber) in the hopes that one of you can finish this update so that Queue 1 is not promoted again tonight. The bot updated the main page and archived the old set, and updated the time for the next promotion. That's it. What still needs to be done (in order of importance):
  •   Increment the next queue count (should be to "2" for Queue 2, the next queue to be promoted)
  •   Clear Queue 1; the queue page should consist solely of {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}.
  •   If you have time, please do the credits for the hooks that were promoted—this includes all the article pages, the user pages, and even the image file page. The bot appears to have choked when attempting to start this step (article pages appear to go first if you look at the DYKUpdateBot contributions.

Please post here if you do any of these steps. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Did everything but the image file pages. I don't see DYK notices on image file pages. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK Bot is still down

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@BlueMoonset and Shubinator: I just did a manual update, because the bot is not functioning. Right now, I don't have time to do the nominator/article hook credits. Just an FYI. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restarted the bot, it's good to go for the next update. Shubinator (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
  • ... that after the base of the dome of the New Jersey State House was painted in a shade of blue, George H. Barbour introduced legislation that would require the dome to be restored in its traditional gold with an off-white base?
Pinging nominator @Alansohn:
This hook is 225 characters long. Should we pull it or shorten it? Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done Hook shortened in prep per Cwmhiraeth's suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all for taking care of this. I apologize for failing to miss this when I created the hook. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Appears to have two Polynesia hooks right now. Surely these could be separated...? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

One moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Two classical music hooks in a row here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that was me trying to accommodate an Advent request that had been overlooked. I will swap hooks round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"that in 1967, President Hastings Banda established the Order of the Lion, Malawi's second-highest honor?"

I can see that it's called the second-highest honor in the lead but this appears to be unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's in footnote 1. I added the fact to that citation. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Warionia

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

There's a more interesting aspect to the perfume, according to the source (and now the article), the women who use this perfume from this plant "believe that the supernatural powers attributed to the plant make them more seductive". That should be worked into the hook which currently is rather bland. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging nominator @Cwmhiraeth:. The quote could be paraphrased as making them more "sexually alluring". Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I like ALT0, with its suggestion that a pungent odour is alluring, but we could change it to ALT1 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT0 ... that the desert plant Warionia saharae has a pungent smell and is used by local women as a perfume?
    • Changed in prep to: ... that the desert plant Warionia saharae, which has a pungent smell when handled, is used by local women as a perfume?
  • ALT1 ... that a perfume made from the desert plant Warionia saharae is used by local women who believe it makes them more alluring?
  • I liked ALT0 a lot, too. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It's missing the point, all women think that perfume makes them more "alluring", but not all of them think it's related to "supernatural powers" from the perfume they're wearing. Seriously! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Without checking sources or the article and just going from this thread, how about:
  • (ALT2): ... that perfumes made from the pungent Warionia saharae desert plant are reputed to employ its "supernatural powers" to make women more seductive?
I think the juxtaposition of pungent and perfume is worth preserving, but I also think the "supernatural powers" is hooky. Does this alternative seem reasonable, supported, and hooky? EdChem (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
ALT2 is much more hooky and interesting than the others. In this case its length allows it to be more interesting rather than detracting from it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
As the nominator of the article, I do not object to any of these hooks, but someone else will need to make the alteration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done ALT2 is verified and cited inline. Changed hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Comparing the hooks for Shafiqa Habibi (8 December) and Licancabur Lake (19 December)

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

... that journalist Shafiqa Habibi was one of only three women candidates in the 2004 Afghan presidential election?

... that the environment of Licancabur Lake (pictured) on Earth has been compared to early lakes on Mars?

So the powers that be at DYK did not deem it necessary to state that Shafiqa Habibi was actually a candidate for vice-president but you deem it necessary to clarify that Licancabur Lake is indeed located on Earth? --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I've already pointed out that "on Earth" is entirely pointless, but my comment was deemed unworthy of consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, both; I've changed it to "in Chile" instead, hope that's better! Fram (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
That was, indeed, my suggestion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Warren Allmand says that this article appeared on ITN. Can it still qualify for DYK, after a 5x expansion? Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends on if it was the bold link: Eligibility criteria 1.e - Articles that have featured (bold link) ... In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.) — Maile (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it was not bold, and in the recent death section: 2016 December 13. Should be OK. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was in RD (added 11 Dec, removed 14 Dec, my time zone), so it is still eligible under criterion 1e, quoted above by Maile. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for 15-19 December not displaying correctly

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The nomination templates for nominations posted from 15 December aren't displaying correctly on WP:DYKN at the moment. I suspect that something has gone wrong in Template:Did you know nominations/Shuixian Zunwang, but can't see what it is. Could a more DYK-savvy person please look into this? Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D Please see this thread. The short of it, is that we outgrew Template limits. Too much on the page. As we move approved nominations to the prep pages, the bottom ones start to appear fully. There was a consensus above to move all approved nominations to their own separate page, but nobody with a plan of how to implement and maintain the solution. And there are some who feel that would add more complications than it would solve. So...it's just visual...wait a few days, and the date you're looking at now will appear fully. — Maile (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If we could clear Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware, today on its 3 month anniversary & the oldest and perhaps longest nom on the page, which only needs a minor re-review, that would allow space for most of them, I'd think. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that Maile. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed hook on main page

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

changed to

Template:Did you know nominations/Anadi Das @Soman, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Cwmhiraeth:

According to the source, he ran as an independent, not as a candidate for the Revolutionary Communist Party of India.[42] The source quote given at the nomination, "Au Bengale, le camarade Anadi Dns a battu le président de l'Assemblée législative dans la circonscription" also doesn't support (nor contradict) the party claim.

I have not changed the name of the candidate, even though the official source calls him Anadi Dass (with double s) instead of Anadi Das. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I distinctly remember the first Google Books link saying that he was a member of the Communist party. But now that page is not displayed anymore. Some other sources (such as http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/SE_1969/StatReport_WB_69.pdf) call him a RCI member but that might have been a different party alignment during a different election. As for Das vs. Dass, different sources use different number of "s"es. My impression is that Indian names often have such alternative spellings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't change the Das(s) because these things tend to vary. It's clear that Das was a Communist, but not so much what his affiliation was at the time of that election (officially independent, in reality ?). Fram (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Smaller parties, like RCPI, often put their candidates as independents. So while it is technically correct to call Das an independent as he ran on an independent ticket, he was put forth in the election on behalf of RCPI and he represented RCPI in the assembly. I would keep the original hook. --Soman (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a good source for this? Fram (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, the source quote is quite clear to indicate that Das is a 'comrade', i.e. a party member. You also have https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=CNeNAAAAMAAJ page 416 which clearly states Das as a RCPI candidate in 1962. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The "comrade" can point to any communist party (there were a few in India at the time). I can't access thatGoogle Books link though (I see that he is mentioned at page 416, "10.01. Anadi Das" and so on, but what I can see gives no indication of his party at that election (that line discusses two elections at once in any case). Fram (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, in this case it is a Trotskyist publication, so they wouldn't call anyone from CPI as 'comrade'... And yes, p. 416 clearly lists Das and the 1962 election under RCPI. The party name is given above 10.01, and 10.02, 10.03 etc are other RCPI legislators in the state. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Communist Party of India (Marxist) doesn't seem to be Trotskyist, FWIW. In any case, I would prefer an independent source, perferably from the period, to contradict the official source. This one looks too much like political recuperation. We can be sure about the hook as it stands now, i'm not really sure about the original version of the hook. Perhaps some others would like to chime in about this? Fram (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Revolutionary Communist Party of India (not a reliable source, I know) lists Das as a 1969 candidate (and winner) for the party, but not as a 1962 candidate. Fram (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 1) the ref saying "Au Bengale, le camarade Anadi Dns a battu le président de l'Assemblée législative dans la circonscription" is a Trotskyist publication. 2) "Election results of West Bengal: statistics & analysis, 1952-1991" p. 416 explicitly states that Das was a RCPI candidate in 1962, copy-pasted "Revolutionary Communist Paity of India — RCPI 10.01. AnadiDas Howrah-West (1962)/Howrah-Central (1969)" --Soman (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Dehm, which may make a good bio hook to complete Prep 4, Christmas Day. Yoninah (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The hook says he was fired but the article says he was suspended, they are not the same thing, which is it? Gatoclass (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Yes, I noticed that, too. I'm changing the hook to "suspended" per the article. Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not so easy, and my lack of English may not be helpful. "Fristlos entlassen" is what he got, I'd translate that to "fired", but then he went to court, and the "fristlos" was found not justified, so he was dismissed after the time elapse, however got vacation for the remaining time, - I'd still think that's fired, even if the attempt to fire wasn't completely successful. The perfect hook for the love and peace among Christians on Christmas Day, I must say ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Essentially this is 'dismissed for cause', 'dismissed without pay' etc. The court found his pay shouldnt have been docked, but the dismissal itself was not completely invalid. So he was awarded pay (and accrued holiday) for the period between his initial dismissal and his actual dismissal. Which is why 'suspended' is a convenient explanation for the period straight after the event, however not entirely accurate. He was actually initially *attempted* to be dismissed on no notice. In the EU where 'at will' dismissals rarely exist it is more complicated than the US. Actually firing someone on no notice with no pay and none of their accrued holiday entitlement is very difficult short of gross misconduct or something criminal. And while ongoing appeals etc the person is sometimes still considered employed for the purposes of claiming benefits and so on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Well then, how about "dismissed" rather than "suspended"? Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
And BTW, I am not very keen on this as a Christmas hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what makes it a hook appropriate for Christmas either. I'd rather have an unrelated hook rather than one somewhat about religion yet not in the spirit of the season. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I have promoted a different hook to the vacant slot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

As I am not conversant with Christian tradition, I would like to know if the Saint George and the Dragon image and hook need to be in Prep 4, which is scheduled for Christmas Day (December 25). We have a nice image for Jesus in the manger that would also go well here. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

St George and the dragon are not connected with Christmas and could be moved to another set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. @Cwmhiraeth: could you promote The Babe in Bethlem's Manger, as I reviewed it? Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
So that hook "... that "The Babe in Bethlem's Manger" (Nativity of Jesus pictured) is thought to be a traditional Kentish folk carol but its tune is described as being "very much of the 18th century"?" why couldn't it be both a Kentish folk carol and an "18th century" tune? What makes these mutually exclusive? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Approved hook "... that "The Babe in Bethlem's Manger" (Nativity of Jesus pictured) is described as a traditional Kentish folk carol, despite claims it was from the 18th century?"
  • My version "... that "The Babe in Bethlem's Manger" (Nativity of Jesus pictured) is thought to be a traditional Kentish folk carol but its tune is described as being "very much of the 18th century"?"
@The Rambling Man and The C of E: I changed the hook to the present version, as it better follows the source which is talking about the tune as being 18th century while the lyrics are traditional. If you can suggest better wording, please do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a suggestion, I'm just saying that to a non-expert reader, I don't understand why it couldn't be a "traditoinal Kentish folk carol" and "18th century". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think either would do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
So we're assuming that no traditional Kentish carols came from the 18th century? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be very nice if a friendly admin would promote a couple of additional sets (yes, including the Christmas Day set; trying to find an admin on Christmas Eve may not be easy). Right now, only one prep is empty; it would be wonderful if a few preps were freed and available to be populated. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulled from Queue4: A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons @Kingoflettuce, David Eppstein, and Cwmhiraeth:

Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the hook "C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." Fram (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be pulled, and I would cite Template:Did you know nominations/The customer is not a moron as precedent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Plus I suspect the articles confuses varieties with species. EEng 15:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I proposed for it to be saved for April 1. The reviewer took note of that too. Tx. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. See Cut Sleeve's DYK: ... that He was gay? Certainly would do the trick for April 1; no need for tinkering, just waiting. Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It also addresses Fram's concern, in my opinion, because the character in the story named "He" becomes a pigeon, so the hook is stating a fact about the plot – just like with the Cut Sleeve DYK, where a character named "He" was gay. The consequent problem, though, is that at least the "He becomes a pigeon" aspect of the plot needs to be supported with a citation to a reliable source. This should be a solvable problem, but it does need to be done, IMO. EdChem (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Basic uncontroversial plot/story points can be reliably sourced to the work itself as a primary source is reliable for information on itself. This is the same for books, films, tv series etc. Interpretation/abstract concepts need a secondary source to comment on them. 'Becomes a pigeon' (assuming he does indeed become a pigeon) would not. -edit- although from reading the article, the story itself infers that he was always a pigeon in human disguise, so 'transforms into a pigeon' as the article words it would be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"was a pigeon" (as originally proposed) in itself is accurate enuf but that can be sorted out in due time. Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 
... that He was a pigeon.
  • Just don't run it on Christmas Day. Could cause confusion. EEng 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you know that the only known French limerick is:
"Il y avait un jeune homme de Dijon
Qui n’aimait du tout la religon.
Il dit: “Eh ma foi;
Je deteste tous les trois,
Le Pere, et le Fils, et le Pigeon"? source Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Typical DYK work there. "The only Limerick I know in French" gets changed to "the only known French limerick" and hey presto, Wikipedia remains a proud member of the posttruth movement! Fram (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Typical Fram OR - let's have another one then! To save you looking, there are none at Limerick (poeme), where all examples are in English. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. Let's see, your OR is incorrect, my OR is correct, I can live with that. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not only are there very few Limericks in French, I understand there are very few French in Limerick. EEng 04:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Une dame au bord du Nil S'amuse avec un crocodile, Lui lance des pierres Avec un lance-pierre Et l'animal croque... Odile. [43]

C'était une dame de fer Qui brûlait au fond de l'enfer On fit sur ses cuisses Griller des saucisses Pour le diner de Lucifer[44]

Native de Vic-en-Badoit A la fête comme il se doit S'en va la gentille Charlotte Sous sa robe point de culotte Qui te l'a dit? Mon petit doigt[45]

And please do your "research" a little bit better, there is a French language example listed at [46]. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Sogdia

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

PericlesofAthens nominated Sogdia for DYK back in late August, but it was rejected for insufficient expansion in September. The article was then promoted to GA in October, but the nominator did not renominate the article for whatever reason. This is a great article about an ancient civilization (thanks Pericles!), and I really think it deserves to be read by more people. Can we reopen this nomination? -Zanhe (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Zanhe: Well, you can do that if you want, bro. However, I generally do not resubmit DYK's that were failures, even if it has passed as a Good Article by now. Generally speaking, I don't like wasting my time on things if nothing comes of it. Pericles of AthensTalk 09:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Zanhe, the time to renominate it was in October, when it did qualify as a new GA. Indeed, I see that I suggested that in the original nomination itself: submit again should it become a GA. Since it's December, I'm afraid it's too late to submit it anew. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I wasn't around in October and never saw the GA passing. However, it does not have to be submitted anew; the original nomination can be reopened and is not technically late. I just feel this is the type of article we should feature more on DYK. -Zanhe (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
No, the original nomination cannot be reopened after three months. It would need to be a new nomination. And, as I noted, that one would also not be eligible, as it is actually (and technically) too late. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • How is it not technically late?  MPJ-DK  00:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Because it was nominated too early, not too late. Anyways, I'm just hoping we could apply WP:IAR for a worthy article like this. I'm not personally involved in the article (although it's a subject I'm quite familiar with and interested in), just something I stumbled upon. -Zanhe (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep builders needed

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Many of the older DYK nominations that have been reviewed and approved were reviewed by me, and some of them have been waiting weeks for promotion. Promoters are discouraged from moving to prep any nominations they have themselves made or approved. Since, at the moment, I have been doing most of the prep-set building, I am not allowed to promote these hooks, and they need to be moved to prep by some other editor. This one for example has been waiting since the 2nd November. There are currently two slots in Prep 4 which a "novice" promoter could fill, as well as some completely empty prep sets. There is no obligation to fill a whole set and instructions for promoters are given above each prep set on the Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q page. Good luck! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who responded to this request. The present Prep 3 will be live on Christmas Eve and the present Prep 4 on Christmas Day, so we need to accommodate the hooks in the special holding area in these sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Most of the hooks in Prep 4 (corresponding to Christmas Day) have to be moved to a later prep set when one becomes available. Yoninah (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
". that in 2010, footballer Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team, the Rangers?"

Ok, this is another case where not being commensurate with the language has introduced an error upon promotion. Firstly, I've adjust it to "the association footballer" since we get so many complaints that many people don't understand that in this context "football" means "soccer". Secondly, it's never "the Rangers". Never. So I've excised the "the". Finally, it's disingenuous because the match was only a friendly, ... In a pre-season testimonial game ... so it wasn't actually that significant. Would propose, on top of my corrections, that the concept of a friendly is introduced to the hook so as not to deliberately confuse our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not to add the "friendly" was discussed at length in the DYK review, and it was decided to shorten the hook to increase its hookiness. Pinging @EdChem: to join this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, Yoninah, and thanks to the editors (most likely, Cwmhiraeth) who have filled several queues and so we have time to consider concerns which are raised.
  • The Rambling Man, I was not aware that there is a convention on the definite article "the," and I accept that what you say is true, but I also am uncomfortable with "Rangers" on its own. Fortunately, it is easy enough to write around. I also don't think "the" is needed before "association footballer Neil Alexander." I can see the concern about needing "association" as a modifier of footballer for clarity, so that change is fine with me.
  • On the question of being disingenuous, I doubt that is anyone's intention here, but we equally don't want to be unintentionally disingenuous. I don't think the hook implies what sort of match was involved, though readers familiar with soccer will likely suspect a friendly given the event described. I have requested input from the Association Football WikiProject here, and suggest (based on the above) several alternatives – some links could be included or not:
  • Pings: Kosack, as the nominator, do you have any thoughts / comments? IndianBio, as the approver of the nomination, do you have thoughts / comments?
  • My preference is ALT1d or ALT1e, but I think that any of these would be acceptable. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    Well "the" (i.e. definite article" is included before "player" etc in BritEng typically. And one reason I've pointed out that the hook is slightly misleading is that players often go out on loan to other clubs, they usually (if ever) don't play against their parent club and if this hook had been an example of a goalkeeper actually playing against his parent club in a competitive match, that really would have been one of the most interesting hooks I've seen. As it was, it was a friendly so anything goes in those cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

In my DYK hooks in the past, it's normally been accepted to use footballer as the description but link the word to association football. If the need is for the hook to include association football and mention the friendly, I believe The Rambling Man's current version in the prep area as the most suitable. Kosack (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Rule C6 is not a rule

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Once again I see that "rule" C6 is being invoked, in spite of never being a "real rule". I remind everyone that C6 was inserted, apparently in bad faith, with no discussion and considerable negative backlash. I also point out that it is a complete unnecessary rule, as @Fram:'s example shows - the hook in question was terrible and any number of other, real, rules already cover that example. And all the others. And yet this illegal rule is still "on the books". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Care to enlighten us on which hook you're referring to? And I suspect that many here will tell you that if you don't like the way things work, you need to something about it. E.g. start a discussion to have C6 removed if you feel so strongly about it. Do you have a diff for the "bad faith insertion"? I would say that calling it an "illegal rule" is somewhat hyperbolic.... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Even if not created in the normal way, it has been part of DYK for six years, and was treated as a real rule up until the point that Maury Markowitz ran afoul of it. I point everyone to the discussion he initiated earlier this fall, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive 132#C6 appears to have never actually been a rule, yet it continues to be applied. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this is about the "He was a pigeon" hook further up the page. But I'm not certain. And, in that case, I've already noted that C6 is not a barrier given that "He" is a character in the book and does become a pigeon, so if there is a suitable citation in the article, then that hook would summarise a plot point and thus have the required real-world connection. Running on April 1 has also been proposed. EdChem (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
A suitable citation to anything but the plot, you mean? Even then, Wikipedia is supposed to be written from an out-of-universe perspective, not an in-universe perspective, and I see no reason why DYK hooks should be an exception (excepting April 1, which too often is an unfunny adolescent disruption festival around Wikipedia but which so far seems to have enough support to remain). Fram (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so here's a list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through November 18. Right now the nominations page shows 276, of which 107 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 35 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. A few of these have initial review info from the DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ten that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please offer feedback to Wugapodes for approved DYK holding page

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary and implementation being worked on now by Wugapodes. Please give him feed back in the section linked here. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_133&oldid=1142665716"