Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 151

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Narutolovehinata5 in topic Double entry
Archive 145 ← Archive 149 Archive 150 Archive 151 Archive 152 Archive 153 → Archive 155

Dates

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

It happened again: I wrote an article today, finding that the subject's day of death is 24 July. Soon. A little more time: a piece of music best on Bach's day of death, 28 July. Sorry for the pressure. If they won't work, we'll survive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

... and again: Template:Did you know nominations/Liebe und Eifersucht, - I wrote the opera article mentioned above, to find out that it was premiered on 27 July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your article on Gerd Hatje was really too late for a mainpage appearance on 24 July but I have reviewed Liebe und Eifersucht and there are some problems with the hook facts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The Liebe und Eifersucht nomination is now approved, and the request is that it run on 27th July. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all who helped. Hatje can't be helped (day is today, and no review yet), Sankt-Bach-Passion is reviewed, but not yet in prep which has a different hook related to Germany that would probably need to be moved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

In the hook for Minna Lammert tomorrow (q 6), you could link Marie Lehmann to Marie Lehmann (soprano). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, could you do that? (seeing you busy in that queue) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Done. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Gatoclass, but sorry, you did too much. By whatever sort, Lilli is No. 1, and Marie her sister. Not only in the order on the image which sadly doesn't come along, also by alphabet, by age, and by fame. Lilly Lehmann is one of the best singers of all time, and her sister didn't even have an article until now, and in German still has no article. - Almost more important: please don't bold Marie, it's no reviewed article (yet), not even nominated. Just link, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Once more, now prep 3: Could Joseph Mohr be replaced by Sankt-Bach-Passion, which would make more sense on Bach's day of death than any other? - Once I'm here, the hook for Mohr was changed to that he was forced out of Germany. That will raise Error questions, because he wasn't forced, he could have stayed, just not been active in a Jesuit organization because they were dissolved, but he wanted to, so left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination page is unreadable

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It seems there are some unclosed small tags somewhere in among all the nominations to the point where the ones at the bottom are almost unreadable. I've found and fixed one, but the others are more discreet. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. [1]. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
... and I looked at the same and couldn't see a problem, just that it was that one.
What do others think of eliminating all these small-tags which cause the danger of not matching them, and rather encourage to not quote a long thing, - the reviewer will have to look anyway unless it's offline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I think it's nice to have to add a link to the immediate source on the DYK page, but if the small tags are causing trouble we could change it to be like the comments bit. Have it like this:
Source <!-- please mention which hook it is for-->:
Reviewed:
Comments:
Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a link, but no need to have it small. Small - I guess - was intended to differentiate hook and source, which is a good idea until unmatched tags cause trouble for the whole page. Another solution might be to clear all open tags on top of every nom, to limit problems to that one nom, or to clear at the end of every nom. - I am not good enough in technical stuff to know how. --

Capture of Berwick (1333)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I seem to have broken the template with Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Berwick (1333). I am not sure how I did that nor how to fix it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived about fourteen hours ago; here is an updated list with all 40 of the non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 20. Right now we have a total of 189 nominations, of which 69 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three oldest—one each remaining from March, April and May.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tribune East Tower

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This nomination dates back to the end of February, and is about a proposed skyscraper that, if built, would be the second-tallest building in Chicago. The nomination ran into trouble because of questions as to whether it was a case of WP:CRYSTAL and thus ineligible, or if a proposed building was a suitable subject for an article and for DYK.

If someone who is knowledgeable on WP:CRYSTAL could please take a look at this and see whether the nomination should proceed, and post as appropriate to the nomination page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep area 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • ... that the time limit in the puzzle game Cloud Kingdoms is calculated in Manukas?

This is the ALT0 of the nomination, which I explicitly rejected. Should the hook be substituted for ALT1, which I approved? In addition, the prep already has a video game hook before it (Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan), so Cloud Kingdoms should probably be moved to another prep. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I already moved it to the next prep before seeing this notice. Now I'm changing the hook to ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Aya Hirano

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. This nomination of mine has been approved. I requested a special occasion date of August 31, which is the date of the time-loop in the infamous Endless Eight arc of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. The date however is three days after six weeks after the article was promoted to GA status (as the article was promoted on July 17, six weeks after would be August 28). By coincidence, August 28 happens to be the birthday of Yūko Gotō, voice actress of Mikuru Asahina and Hirano's co-star in Haruhi. As such, would an IAR August 31 special occasion date still be requested, or is August 28 an acceptable alternative given the six-week limit? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll IAR and move it to August 31 in the special occasions section. Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hold on; none of the hooks are hooky and the reviewer should not have approved it, as they mentioned they had reservations. Please suggest a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not at all unusual for us to stretch things and allow six weeks from the approval date, and in this case, since the nomination wouldn't have needed to be made until seven days after it became a GA, it could have been nominated as late as July 24. August 31 should be fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Find sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Find sources is one of the most handy tools available. I added it a few weeks ago to DYK toolbox that appears as an upper right-hand sidebar on the nomination template. Because it's been newly added to the toolbox, maybe most people haven't noticed it's there. But I recommend this tool for just about anything you might be working on. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"Hooky" hooks rule

Latest comment: 5 years ago29 comments13 people in discussion

After having thought about it before i really have to ask... What is the deal with that rule? Should it be removed? Should it be followed and hence fail nominations for it? The somewhat recent discussion about the Telfair Hodgeson hook and several hooks i noticed on the main page made me think about it. Yesterday, for example, there again was a very generic hook about an opera singer performing operas in an opera... Is a hook that could be used just like that for many different topics and countless individuals really hooky? "... that (insert performer/athlete/whatever name) performed (insert piece/act/whatever) at (insert location)" style of hooks are just particularly bland in my opinion. Anyway, should the rule be clarified/simplified, followed or abandoned? Because as of now it does not seem like anyone really cares about it that much. Yes, interesting hooks are being looked for, i realise that, but if there is none there still is a decent chance it will run the main page not following the project rule it seems. I of course also realise that finding things interesting is very subjective, so it is not that easy to define 'hookyness'. Obviously this is nothing formal but... any thoughts on the rule, its implementation(or lack of), its usefulness, is it even an issue etc.? 91.248.69.62 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

As a relatively new reviewer I have failed to grasp this rule too. I have resolved it by avoiding reviewing nominations with uninteresting hooks. But on most main pages there is a hook which suggests that the rule is not in force. If I were to reject a nomination on the grounds of a boring hook, the nominator would be entirely entitled to exclaim "How can it be less interesting than that one?" Gog the Mild (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem is, as i have stated before, there is absolutely no objective way to define "interesting to a broad audience". Its an utterly meaningless concept that is used by certain editors complain about subjects they do not like or do not understand. I have stated before and will state again that it sould be removed as non-definable and non-enforceable.--Kevmin §
Just need to change the silly QPQ process and enable more than just one person to agree that a hook might be of interest. Did you know ... hooks should be interesting to a broad audience, and if articles are about super-niche subjects and don't appeal to a broad audience they shouldn't be DYKs. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
...which would immediately exclude the Canaries :p  :;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I really have to say that "...is used by certain editors complain about subjects they do not like or do not understand." is assuming incredibly bad faith kevmin. So everyone that has an issue with 'boring' hooks is either an idiot or does it just on a whim of personal preference and dislike of a topic? Can you expand on that a little? Any examples, previous instances where this happened etc.? Genuinly curious here as that is a rather serious claim. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The hook interest requirement is a core principle of DYK, and even though the standard is not always met to everybody's satisfaction, getting rid of it would result in frequent embarrassment for the project. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well... if it is a core principle, how come there is such a lackluster approach to actually enforce the rule? How come so few nominations get failed for it, how come so many hooks like an opera singer performing operas in an opera house make it all the way to the main page. If it is an important rule, treat it as such. If it is not important enough to enforce the rule... then get rid of it. But keeping it, saying it is important and then disregarding the rule so often just seems pointless. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said, DYK doesn't always live up to the ideal - nothing on Wikipedia does - but that doesn't mean we should just scrap the whole concept. With regard to the "opera singer" hooks - it's a topic area that doesn't necessarily lend itself to broadly interesting hooks. If a hook can't be interesting to a broad audience, the minimum standard that should apply is that it should at least be of interest to somebody with an interest in the topic area, and presumably these hooks qualify in that regard. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Being interesting to somebody with an interest in a topic area is a really low standard. Anything will be interesting to somebody. If that is the minimum it should be spelled out in the rule, which would water it down very much and pretty much voids it anyway. But what you said was basically my whole point for asking. The rule is an ideal to be followed...unless it would mean failing nominations so they run anyway by making up new criteria to allow it to be posted. Either re-write the rule so it actually supports what you describe, or fail nominations and leave it as is. In my opinion you cannot have it both ways.. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the hook interest is the least important matter. It pales in comparison to accurate and informational -- it is window dressing, which is why there is no real 'standard' to apply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would describe it as the core principle of DYK - they are not called "hooks" for nothing! Having said that, of course we don't compromise on hook accuracy just for the sake of interest. As for "informational", if by that you mean "informative", ie, imparting useful information, I wouldn't disagree with that as a desirable object, but I would also describe useful information as by definition interesting. A broader definition is applied at DYK however, in that trivial and not particularly useful information is also permitted if it's likely to excite interest. We are permitted to be entertaining as well as worthy! Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
No, a "principle" that is based in arbitrary feelings can hardly be called a principle. As for information, 'do you know' information. And yes it is called 'hook', just reinforcing it is window dressing. What you call entertainment, others may call boredom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
There is unfortunately a fairly widespread misconception that hook interest is entirely subjective, or "arbitrary" as you put it. That is not the case, there are some basic principles that can be applied, but not enough people are aware of them. I've been intending to write a guide for evaluating hook interest for quite some time, but haven't found time for it up to now. But since I'm getting tired of seeing the same discussion periodically repeating on this page, I think it's probably time I made that guideline a priority. Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Feel free, but that is just an admission that the current rule is arbitrary - and you want to address that by making new elaborated rules. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the rule should interpreted along the lines that it's as hooky as possible for the subjectmatter of the nominated article? Abyssal (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to watering down of the criterion. "Interesting to a broad audience" is the ideal that nominators should be striving for, and though nominators don't always manage to attain it, we don't want to encourage them to strive for something less. Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You say you would be opposed to watering down the criteria yet above you said "...the minimum standard that should apply is that it should at least be of interest to somebody with an interest in the topic area..." which is a very much watered down version of the rule and which is not mentioned at all in the rule itself. Pretty much in the spirit of what Abyssal suggested as well. I agree of course that everyone should strive for 'interesting' hooks but if it makes no difference in regards to getting onto the main page... The rule is de facto already watered down by what you described there. Lowering the standard to something made up, nowhere in the rule and a much lesser standard than the rule states. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "as hooky as possible for the subjectmatter" is good enough. If the subject matter of the article has nothing hooky, the article is not ready for DYK, just as if it's too short or otherwise deficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "as hooky as possible for the subject matter" isn't good enough, which is why it's not part of the rules. But that's not quite what I said, which is that a hook should at minimum have genuine appeal to somebody with an interest in the topic area. A hook that is unlikely to appeal to anybody, not even to people with an interest in the topic area, is clearly not good enough, regardless of whether or not it is "as hooky as possible" for the given subject. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a new rule, we need a new process. Hooks should be interesting to the nominator (obviously, that's a given), interesting to the reviewer (essential) and interesting to the set builder and queue promoter. That way we have the same process as right now overall, but four "interest" checkpoints, two more than we currently do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty much how it's supposed to work now, except with regard to the queue promoter (which I tried and failed to get enshrined as a principle in the last RFC). But we still have some dud hooks slipping through, because many users clearly don't understand, or aren't comfortable with, vetting a hook for interest. It's been clear for a long time that contributors need some assistance in dealing with this aspect, and if it's not addressed, we are just going to be having this same conversation over again six months from now and every six months thereafter. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't work though, does it? As QPQ is a selfish pursuit, the nom and reviewer won't be bothered, the prep builder will just assume the reviewer has checked for broad interest, and the queue promoter will just assume the prep builder and reviewer have done the job. Its root cause is in QPQ where the back-scratching attitude is such that daring to fail nominations never ever happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I definitely don't agree with the original poster's suggestion that this requirement be removed. We may be ignoring the requirement for hookiness more than we are obeying it, but without the requirement at all things would be even worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I just want to make clear, i do not suggest it be removed. I wanted to know what the point of the rule is if it gets ignored so often and if there perhaps is something that could be tweaked or clarified to bring it more into line with how it actually is used. Well, i did mention removal as one option as well of course, but that does not mean i agree with it. There just is a large gap between the application of the rule and what it says. So i wondered why out of personal curiosity but also, and more importantly, if that could perhaps be somehow remedied or at least the gap narrowed a little. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support removal because it relies on a subjective notion. At the very least it should be reworded because it does get tiring when a number of hooks get brought up here on WP:IDL grounds using this rule as a reason for it. Alteration of it would certainly help everyone I would say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need to scrap it, we need a different way to ensure it's implemented. More eyes on hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it always comes down to a matter of personal preference whether a hook is hooky or not. I like the way Gatoclass phrased it, that a hook should at minimum have genuine appeal to somebody with an interest in the topic area. A hook that is unlikely to appeal to anybody, not even to people with an interest in the topic area, is clearly not good enough. Take, for example, a hook that appeared yesterday which I thought was a complete waste of space: ... that Technological University Dublin, or TU Dublin, is the first university of its type in Ireland? Apparently, 1,800 viewers disagreed with me. Yoninah (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the difference between lowering the standard so much and removing the rule altogether? Anything will be of interest to somebody and any article notable enough for Wikipedia will have something of interest to someone in any given topic area. One could 'justify' any hook with that criteria, because obviously the nominator(person with interest in topic area) finds it interesting so that is that check already passed, always and by default. 91.248.249.106 (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And there is another hook about operas without anything broadly interesting in it today. I see there was a somewhat lengthy discussion on the nominations page where one person even said that no proposed hook is broadly interesting(which is absolutely true)... And what happens? It runs anyway... And now we have the 'unusual' hook of a person having a gig at two different locations. This is quite honestly getting ridiculous. But then again, it is getting quite clear that this project is not for the reader but a vanity project for the regulars. It is just as clear that nothing will change... Quite sad really. 37.138.73.155 (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This would be a perfectly acceptable hook, except it's currently in the last slot (aka the "quirky" or "funny" slot). Considering the topic (JFK's assassination), I'm not sure if the hook is appropriate for the slot. Perhaps there are two options here: 1. the hook be substituted with ALT2 (which is more humorous), or 2. the hook be moved out of the quirky slot. Pinging Cwmhiraeth who promoted the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew

You have a point there. I have replaced the hook with ALT0 because I did not think the facts in ALT2 were entirely made out in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Trump administration family separation policy

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This nomination has turned into a stalemate, as the reviewer and the article contributor cannot come into an agreement on the article content concerns. A neutral editor, preferably one who is not involved in US politics articles, is requested to make a second review of this nomination. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 lead image

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Now that Franz Schubert is in the image slot, I must say that the image doesn't look too good. The tone is too orange and there's too much background. Is there any way to crop this, or make it vertical, so the image can be seen more clearly? Yoninah (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel in this case, the image should be replaced with File:Franz Schubert by Wilhelm August Rieder 1875.jpg: this is the most famous painting of Schubert and the lead image in the article. —Zingarese talk · contribs 16:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I suggested that image from the article that seemed natural. File:Franz Schubert by Kriehuber 1846.jpg this one might work, but is not (yet) in the article, pose but not stiff. I may disagree with you, Zingarese: I could imagine the hook without image as quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I also think it would work better as the quirky. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I substituted another image for the orange-y one. Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's stiff, posing without the famous spectacles, - really? - There's an image of the glasses only, would be cuter, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll put the bespectacled image in the article and promote that. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No Queue credits

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

All of the credits are missing in Queue 2. The credits, from Prep 2, should be: 

* {{DYKmake|Dharma Bum Temple|Wikiman5676|subpage=Dharma Bum Temple}}
* {{DYKmake|Sara Hershkowitz|Gerda Arendt|subpage=Sara Hershkowitz}}
* {{DYKmake|King Oak|Dumelow|subpage=King Oak}}
* {{DYKmake|Michael Peter Kaye|Whispyhistory|subpage=Michael Peter Kaye}}
* {{DYKmake|Michael Peter Kaye|Philafrenzy}}
* {{DYKmake|Loxahatchee Groves, Florida|12george1|subpage=Loxahatchee Groves, Florida}}
* {{DYKmake|Sutanto Djuhar|Zanhe|subpage=Sutanto Djuhar}}
* {{DYKmake|Purple eagle ray|Cwmhiraeth|subpage=Purple eagle ray}}
* {{DYKmake|Ronald Hamlyn-Harris|Cwmhiraeth|subpage=Purple eagle ray}}
* {{DYKmake|Duck netting|Chetsford|subpage=Duck netting}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 16:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done, thank you, Mandarax. Gatoclass (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know how I accidentally deleted them while copy and pasting. Thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving a hook to a prep

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, apologies if this should be at WP:ERRORS, but it's not an error per se, so I didn't think it fit there. Anyway, does anyone oppose moving the Chang and Eng Bunker from Queue 3 (live tomorrow) to a different prep/queue where it can have one of its images featured? It's fascinating that there were two people conjoined, and I don't think just having a sentence does it justice. All but preps 1 and 5 need images. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Anarchyte, as long as the sets are balanced, I don't see any issues. Probably prep 6 so that we don't have two straight sets of bio hooks as lead in. Majority of the images from this article are in public domain, so I'd just go ahead and move it. Alex Shih (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Thanks for the reply. How do I choose which hook to move from a different prep, or do I choose one of similar length from prep 1 (such as Clifford Braimah? Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: I've gone ahead and swapped the bio hook (Chang and Eng Bunker) in queue 3 with the bio hook from prep 6 and made it the picture hook ([2][3]). I think as long as you are swapping hooks that are the same type, it should be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Bug in DYK toolkit's QPQ Check?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

No idea if I'm in the right place for reporting this bug, but while working on DYKs last week, I noted that the QPQ check failed to find anything for me. Which is incorrect, though I hadn't done any in the last year. It's now listing one, which was done last week. (For test data, see User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom/DKYs) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It only checks what is on your talk page. Hence it thinks you have only one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Image hook for Prep 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago36 comments11 people in discussion

The image hook for Prep 2, as originally promoted by Yoninah, was the one from Dharma Bum Temple.

About an hour ago, Zingarese, the creator (but not nominator) of the Franz Schubert article, substituted an image of Schubert for the Dharma Bum Temple image that had been heading the set, with the edit summary replacing main page image with Schubert, he is of far higher international and historical significance than an American frat with only one or two chapters. While this may indeed be true, nominators and creators are not supposed to give their own nominations/creations a more favored slot than the set preparer gave them. They can, of course, make a request on this page if they feel a better placement is warranted.

Narutolovehinata5 subsequently finished the process by moving the Schubert hook into the lead position, which is where all pictured hooks are supposed to go, with the edit summary I'll just do this formally since I'm not sure if the nominator is allowed to make these changes themselves. However, I have reverted the entire move because I think in courtesy Yoninah should be consulted in this, and that we should carefully consider whether the out-of-process move should be allowed to go forward. Another alternative, of course, is to move the Schubert hook to a later prep set that doesn't yet have a lead hook, which would allow the Dharma Bum Temple to retain its lead slot for Prep 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize to Yoninah for the discourtesy. I realize it would have been far more appropriate to start a discussion on this talk page, no matter how uncontroversial I feel it may be to swap the image. I do very strongly stand by my original claim, however, and I welcome others to comment and determine the best course of action.—Zingarese talk · contribs 04:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Moving to another prep was actually the first thought that came into my mind when I saw the prep, and in fact the moment I saw the prep was the time I was about to move Schubert hook to another prep. However, I hesitated because I had already promoted the image hooks for two succesive preps (Prep 3 and Prep 4) and I don't want to do all the image promoting work. I apologize if my actions were disruptive, as no ill-doing was intended. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Everyone is being far too polite. It was entirely inappropriate for Zingarese to promote his own article's image in that way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: My intention was not to “promote my own article’s image”. It is indisputably true that Schubert is of far higher significance than Dharma Bum Temple. However, I was not aware it was bad practice to change the image without discussion on this talk page, and for that I apologize. I had no ill intention at all, and I’m slightly offended you feel I should be treated less politely. I continue to stand by my view that Schubert’s significance >>> Dharma Bum Temple, and I doubt many will disagree; I wish for the most appropriate course of action to be taken in this regard, whether it be moving Schubert to a later prep set or just making the change on the existing one. Regards, —Zingarese talk · contribs 07:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I hardly think fame of the subject is the right criterion (nor even among the criteria) for choosing DYK hooks. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Though I'm normally opposed to doing anything that might be seen as rewarding nominators for trying to move their own hooks to the lead, in this case I agree that it looks kind of weird to have a major composer like Schubert playing second string to some obscure temple, so I think I could support moving the Schubert hook to the lead of another prep. This doesn't mean however, that I would automatically support giving major historical figures the lead spot, that could create all kinds of problems. While we're on the topic though, I think Schubert is so well known that he hardly needs a list of greatest hits included in the hook, that's just insulting the intelligence of classical music lovers while adding nothing of interest to those unfamiliar with his works, who can read about them in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

When the image is taken, we can shorten the list or even drop it. Without image (and I always plan for that), I thought to mention a few recognisable works was a way to clarify which Schubert. You (all) are welcome to propose better hooks, but preferably in nomination stage. Also: the Main page is read by people for whom Classical Western music is nothing they'd know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zingarese: as Narutolovehinata5 pointed out, the choice of the lead image depends on several factors, among them the type of image appearing in a succession of prep sets. There was a portrait image before this and a person image after, so it was time for something else. As an editor involved with the nomination in some capacity, you are not allowed to make any changes once the hook goes to prep, but you can post a request on this talk page. That said, you have a good point, and I will move Schubert to a later prep set. Other editors can discuss whether the hook needs to include a list of his works. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hook wording

Now that this is the lead image, does anyone object if we delete this list of works, per Gatoclass and Gerda Arendt?
  • ALT1: ... that Franz Schubert (pictured) gave only one public concert presenting his own works?

Or for complete ignoramuses, we could say:

  • ALT2: ... that Franz Schubert (pictured), who wrote more than 600 vocal works and seven complete symphonies, gave only one public concert presenting his own works? Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Although longer, I think I prefer ALT2. Not necessarily because it might appeal to those who don't know Schubert, but more to contrast with the fact that he only gave one public concert. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
ALT2 looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the MOSNUM fail... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
ALT1 is fine if people recognize him. I'd prefer the precise original to ALT2 with boasting figures (or trying to boast, Mozart wrote more than 50 symphonies, Haydn more than 100), - quality, not quantity, + we had 700 Lieder in another hook, "vocal works" is hopelessly unprecise, - sorry, striking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I still think ALT2, despite being struck, is the best option. It can interest both fans and non-fans of classical music, unlike the list of works which might appeal to classical music enthusiasts but may be inaccesible to laymen. In addition, as someone who is familiar with classical music and is related to a number of musicians, ALT0 is frankly boring to those unfamiliar with those works (many who do know Schubert are probably only familiar with the Serenade and maybe the Unfinished Symphony), unlike ALT2 which emphasizes just how much work he put out. The wording can probably still be worked out, but as for the argument that "quality over quantity", that might work out in a different hook, but not in this one which emphasizes that he only made one public concert of his own works. The context is important here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
ALT2 is clearly the better hook, firstly because it informs the reader as to why it's unusual that he gave only one public concert, secondly because it has broader appeal - substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
How is ALT "clearly" the better hook?? Why stress the seven finished symphonies, when the Unfinished is what is unusual and what he is known for?? With a link to one of our better articles on a classical composition? Why overly general "vocal works" when he is known specifically for Lieder?? I suggest we better drop the whole clause, then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I wrote the hook for non-music aficionados like myself. I was trying to balance the "one concert" with the many works, as Gatoclass noted. Gerda, you know so much more about music than most of our readers, but the hooks written for the masses will appeal to the broadest audience. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe the numbers are that impressive, 7 symphonies vs more than 100 by Hadn. I believe that those people who don't know that the Eighth is the outstanding work (please read lead), will not enjoy the article about Schubert. It's a GA and deserves a hook to match. You wouldn't speak about 8 symphonies by Dvořák but miss the 9th, New World. I also believe that the "Unfinished" part might be a bit of a mystery for those who really don't know.
Compromise: ... that Franz Schubert (pictured), who composed the Unfinished Symphony, gave only one public concert presenting his own works? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm very much aware Gerda that you're very passionate about classical works, but sadly I don't think the new compromise hook is interesting to a broad audience either. And I say this as someone who is familiar with classical music. The problem here is the actual subject of the hook: i.e. that Schubert only gave one public performance of his works. If you give a list of works, that would appeal to classical music fans, but not everyone is one, and even if they did appreciate classical music, they would more-or-less think "so what"? The proposed hook is something like "Artist A, who made song A and song B, only gave one public performance". The topic is not that they made song A and song B, but the public performance part. On the other hand, something like Yoninah's hook, with the format "Artist A, who made many songs, only gave one public performance". The part about Schubert's output contrasts with the fact about his sole public performance of his work, and would make uninvolved readers go "huh?". Even if people are only vaguely aware of Schubert, they know that he is a well-regarded musician, so that contrast may come as a surprise to many (and indeed, it did to me too). It's kind of like a cause-and-effect situation here, which makes the hook, uh, hookier. By contrast, the list of works (or even listing one particular work) just doesn't have the same effect, or the same punch if you will. Such a hook would be fine, but the hookiness effect would be diminished, as there's no contrast. Essentially: Yoninah's hook is intended for the masses and may appeal even to classical music fans, while the proposed compromise hook and indeed any hook which talk about his works would appeal mostly to classical music fans but not much else. Which hook has the broader target audience? If you really don't like Yoninah's hook (and it would be a shame for it not to go up, as I personally believe it's a really good hook), it might be a better idea to just propose a completely different hook with a different topic. Otherwise, I know it may be hard to accept that a preferred hook may not go up, but it is hoped that this will be for the best. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Imagine, say for example, we wrote a DYK hook about The Beatles. What would be the more interesting hook: "... that The Beatles, who were known for songs such as "Hey Jude", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", and "Let It Be", were turned down when they initially auditioned for Decca Records?", "... that The Beatles, who released over 200 songs and sold over one billion units worldwide, were turned down when they initially auditioned for Decca Records?", or even simply "... that The Beatles were turned down when they initially auditioned for Decca Records?" Yes I know The Beatles is isn't DYK-eligible anymore, but I'm just stating these as examples, as these parallel what Gerda is proposing here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
About the Beatles, I'd prefer the first, with precise songs, anytime!! I wouldn't care for any hook with sheer numbers of whatever. The simple one is also fine. Same for Schubert. The simple one (no works, you know him, or will not care anyway) is fine!! How many more times do I have to say that, and it's the very beginning of this thread. Mentioning one of his greatest works, with a link, is also fine. We could link the list of works, for another compromise. The current hook is not acceptable. It should at least say "songs" instead of "vocal works", the number is questionable and will get us the next round of errors, and please mention eight symphonies, if anything of the kind, but better not. Would we say that Beethoven composed eight symphonies? Correct, but missing the Ninth? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre: 600 solo songs, + 150 part songs, + 7 masses, + other sacred works, + you name it, - that 600 figure is way too low. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah, Gatoclass, The Rambling Man, and Casliber: Thoughts? It seems Gerda is really unhappy with the current hook. Maybe we should considering moving the hook to a later slot so that we can have time to reach a consensus on what hook to use? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not about happy, but telling our readers "vocal works" (a phrase some may not even know) instead of songs, and 7 symphonies instead of 8. No need to postpone, just some admin could take out the clause about his works. If you want something sensational, mention the number of compositions and his age when he died, but again, who would care more if that was said? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Without commenting on the hooks (as I'm not informed enough on the subject to have a useful opinion), Gerda Arendt, are you fine with me removing it from the queue just for a bit while this discussion continues? As is, there are only 12 hours until it's on the main page, and based on this discussion, no one is content with what's about to go live. I'll replace it with Torrance Barrens from prep 2, if you're okay with that. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Suggest
  • ALT3: ... that prolific composer Franz Schubert (pictured) gave only one public concert presenting his own works?72.94.18.189 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 would work for me, also dropping the works clause (ALT1), so why remove it, just because a hook was inserted that was not approved? - I wonder if we perhaps should mark Good articles as such, by the little green symbol, to tell a reader: don't expect a new little thing, but high quality about a topic you may think you know, but look now. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I prefer ALT2, it's more informative. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Misleading information, wrong numbers, see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
ALT4: ... Franz Schubert (pictured), a prolific composer of songs, symphonies and much more, gave only one public concert presenting his own works? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec)We are writing hooks here, not paeans to great composers. The casual reader does not know that this is a GA, either. All I know about Schubert is his name. I would never click on ALT1 or ALT3 without additional information, or a "hook", as we call it here at DYK. Gerda, I put "vocal works" in the hook because that's what I saw in the lead. Please fix up the article while you're at it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That said, doesn't "songs and symphonies" kind of downplay his corpus? As a journalist, I've always been taught to put in numbers to make an impression. Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry Yoninah, I didn't see your comment and so I substituted ALT4 already. Gerda thinks ALT2 wasn't sufficiently accurate and perhaps it wasn't, so I substituted ALT4 with a slight tweak (the "and much more" phrase was a little clunky IMO). I think ALT4 reads quite nicely and it also doesn't run into the MOSNUM issue, which is an additional bonus. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec, twice) Numbers have to be correct. - I picked songs and symphonies for alliteration, - If you like, add masses, piano sonatas (another GA: Schubert's last sonatas), string quartets, part-song (150!), even operas, - I think it would bore the readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not going to fiddle with the hook any more, I think it's fine as it is and we've already spent more than enough time discussing it IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#C6

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way.

I fail to see the reasoning behind this guideline. It has generated problems on the project, the most recent of which involved my own hook: see Template:Did you know nominations/Vampyr (video game), this, and my talk page. If the guideline is sometimes enforced and at other times not, there is no reason for it to remain when it simultaneously disturbs DYK nominations. I propose that it be removed as a guideline as it causes too much havoc for its own good. @Alex Shih, Anarchyte, Mr rnddude, Yoninah, and The Rambling Man: Cognissonance (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: This discussion might be of interest to you. But suffice to say, I don't think a proposal to abolish the requirement completely will fly. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If the guideline is there to prevent "wholly in-universe hooks that do not make it clear the hook covers fiction, so as not to mislead" or "a flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc", there should be a comment underneath it explaining exceptions to the rule, given that it is so inconsistently applied. This would allow individual hooks the scrutiny they deserve, without entirely discounting hooks like mine based on one sentence. Cognissonance (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Opera hooks interest

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion

There was a discussion over at WP:ERRORS on opera hooks, and how they are interesting to a broad audience, although it appears to have been archived as I wrote this post; the link is here. It appears that there are concerns on if these opera hooks as they are written are interesting to a broad audience, and/or if they are accessible enough to those unfamiliar with opera and classical music. Calling on the attention of Gerda Arendt who is the primary author of these opera articles, as well as DYK regulars @Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, The C of E, The Rambling Man, and David Eppstein:, and other interested parties, and Stephen who archived the original discussion. Also pinging WP:ERRORS discussion participants @Double sharp and GreatCaesarsGhost: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment with sadness I tend to agree that many of these hooks certainly aren't interesting to a broad audience. And they often contain easter egg links. But the real problem here is with the QPQ process which allows a hook to be signed off and sent all the way to the main page with literally one person making a "summary" check of the checklist, including the "interesting" rule. It's more and more obvious that QPQ needs a shake up to reinforce the broadly interesting or to dismiss it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, I have to point out that interest is subjective and just because some may not enjoy classical music, doesn't mean that others won't. I see nothing wrong with them and I wonder why we are suddenly jumping to this when just one IP commented "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Likewise I could argue that biology articles aren't interesting to those unfamiliar with it but I don't go around saying that we shouldn't have them because I know that broadly other people may still enjoy them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It goes far deeper than some opera hooks, of which not all are even 'bad'. The one about bringing tears to Wagners eyes a few days ago was much better than the hooks like "professional opera singer sings operas"(of which there were at least two within the last week i think). Hook facts which are stupidly obvious and only mean something more, or even become 'interesting', with extensive knowledge in any given topic area cannot be a standard you want to set, and are just not included in the rule. And i cannot stress this enough, it is your rule. I did not make it. If you want me to stop bringing this up, maybe clarify the rule, enforce the rule or get rid of it. Because as of now my complaints are absolutely legitimate when the DYK project disregards its own rules. Even more so in cases like yesterday where the Rambling Man has mentioned the used hook was not in line with the rule on the nominations page. So reviewer, set builder and promoter willfully ignored the rule, whose lack of broad interest was, to repeat, even mentioned on the nominations page, to get it onto the main page anyway. But why have a good discussion about anything like this if you can just say it is only a sole IP who doesn't like topics... And to be honest, i would also complain about hooks like "person does chosen profession" in fields that interest me. And i also have to say, i do not dislike opera at all, that would mean i actually cared enough about it to form an opinion. 91.96.116.138 (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ERRORS should talk about errors. We have an open nomination page, where you can raise concerns and improve, including some female opera singers as a result of the WiR drive in June. The one questioned, Kateryna Kasper, had a simpler hook (which offerred a woman between Ukraine and Germany for the general public, and an opera which was restored to its original title, staged by one of the great masters of directing for the specialists), but Narutolovehinata5 didn't like it, so we searched (long) for an alternative. Rambling Man, I liked to mention Kosky once more, the first Jewish director in Bayreuth, and got thanks for mentioning Dido. We can't please them all. - My lead hook for yesterday found more than 20k viewers. A question for the legalistically minded: It was pictured for most of the day, but not when archived, - is that now a pictured hook or not, for the stats? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, i did look at the nominations page even before posting at errors. And guess what i saw there? It was brought up that the proposed hooks were not 'broadly interesting'. So what happened with that objection? It was completely ingored. That was actually the main reason i even brought this up. 91.96.116.138 (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, why talk about the number of clicks of an entirely different article to which there was no objection or even mention of? The Kateryna Kasper hook had only 1100 hits if i read the pageview thing right. 91.96.116.138 (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda, the ERRORS page is for errors, inaccuracies, false claims etc. in the hook of a DYK on (or soon to be on) the main page. Any infringement of the DYK rules is not an error, and should be discussed on the DYK discussion page, preferably long before the hook gets to the mainpage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
And what if that was tried, ingored and the hook reached main page? That is what happened with yesterdays hook anyway. I do understand the notion of errors not being the optimal place, but if it was brought up at the place you mentioned and still did not matter to anyone building sets and promoting them... Well, then what? 91.96.116.138 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Still, ERRORS is for errors, and doesn't get archived. The place for a better wording suggestion is still here, where the interested people will look. Longer frustrated comment can be seen on my talk. Nutshell: I want to write a new article, not debate if a hook could get from 1,1k views to 1,5k. Both stage directors received more than 300 views. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
And some of us believe that ERRORS should be also be used to pick up errors in process, i.e. where DYK or ITN or OTD articles are promoted to the main page erroneously per their due processes. And "interesting to a broad audience" is oft overlooked by reviewers, promoters etc alike. It's an error because it fails the DYK requirements for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I should note there's a common theme here in those who believe that just because someone isn't personally "interested" or "enjoys" or "likes" something that they can't agree that a hook about the same subject can still be interesting. That, I'm afraid, is nonsense. At least, as far as I'm concerned, I can easily determine (in fact, I can better determine) if a hook about an opera singer will be appealing to a "broad audience" precisely because I'm not an aficionado. People who are too close to the subject matter are the last people to ask if a hook is interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposal I would like to propose that the current rule, which states "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." should be replaced by
"The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and is of interest to as broad an audience as possible." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think what is required here is a definition of interest that is both enforceable and reasonable. I don't think we can make it entirely objective, but we can do better than we are now. I know Gatoclass has also expressed interest in this in the past: maybe the best way forward is for one of us to write up a draft in userspace which can then be workshopped before being presented to the community. I suspect any proposal that isn't fleshed out isn't going to gain support. Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I said I was going to make that a priority. Unfortunately, I have been unwell for the last ten days or so and am still not 100%, but I intend to move forward with this as soon as I am able. I'm inclined to agree with Vanamonde that it won't be a lot of use changing the wording of the basic rule until we have a better definition of interest. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
That will never happen. Interest is (here) gauged by pageviews and we don't get that until after the event. To maximise the chances of a hook being considered interesting, it needs more people to agree that it's interesting outside its niche and that requires a change to the arcane and hopeless QPQ process. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

ps: I read in the FAZ that Kosky's Meistersinger were celebrated in Bayreuth, with a curtain call for Kosky alone, for standing ovations, which I never heard of. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I have to say I agree with many of the concerns expressed here. DYK is a good thing, and it gives people a chance to feel some pride in their work here when it’s featured on the main page, but often the hooks just aren’t very interesting and I believe The Rambling Man is correct that QPQ is at least part of the problem. I understand why it exists but it’s practically the only time ever on Wikipedia where you have to do something, and therefore some people just half-ass their way through it to get the check mark on their own review. I’m not saying do away with it but I do think it could benefit from a re-examination, probably though an RFC listed on WP:CENT in order that it not just be the same regulars here going over the same material again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Counter-Proposal: Repeal the interest criteria entirely I find the opera hooks interesting (and, specifically, I find 100% of Gerda Arendt's hooks interesting) so maybe I'm an outlier. And, to The C of E's point, I do not find any of the biology hooks interesting. As a slightly out-of-the-box counter-proposal to the frequent suggestions to layer additional standards or more nuanced definitions on the interest criteria I would suggest we do away with the interest criteria altogether. While there is a possibility - probably inevitability - we could or would end-up with hooks like "Did you know Tau Ceti is a star?" or "Did you know that Bombus lapidarius is an insect?" I suspect it would be few of the total. Most nominations are self-noms and authors generally will be disinclined to proffer purely inane hooks.
This would not resolve the issue of subjectively uninteresting hooks but it would resolve the endless discussions about the status of the criteria by simply removing it as a possible subject of discussion while effectively maintaining the status quo of a selectively interesting, but not always scintillating, section. As a volunteer, horizontally organized project there are limits as to what can realistically be accomplished and it seems we sometimes have a challenge achieving our primary objective of accuracy; taking on the responsibility of providing entertainment on top of that is maybe an Objective that needs to be re-categorized to Aspiration for the time being. I know this counter-proposal may not stand much of a chance as we have a Germanic sensibility to create policies, not take them away. However, I advance it with the idea it might have some utility as a thought starter, at least. Chetsford (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If there is no interest criterion, then reviewers have no ground whatever for challenging or rejecting a hook as uninteresting. Any time they try to do so, the nominator will simply respond "interest is not a criterion so you can't challenge my hook on that basis, you have to pass it as is." And they will be correct. So it will basically open the floodgates to a plethora of substandard hooks. Just because hook interest is at the moment a poorly understood requirement, or because substandard hooks sometimes slip through, is not a reason for just giving up altogether. The readership deserves better than to have the main page peppered with banalities of the order of "Did you know that the sky is blue?" Not to mention that allowing any kind of crap on the main page would probably be the quickest and surest means of getting the DYK project scrapped. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no doubt we will get some banal hooks, however, I also think this will largely self-regulate. Since a large majority of nominations are self-noms I'm of the opinion authors generally will be disinclined to proffer purely inane hooks just to troll DYK or because they have no better sense. Looking through all the recent noms there are very few that are currently rejected for lack of interest and, of those that are, none descend to the level of "Did you know cats have four legs?" and such. With absolutely no filter occasional ones will certainly start to materialize but I have a hard time believing this would be a regular occurrence. Needless to say, of course, this is entirely speculative on my part. Chetsford (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We already get too many complaints. Moving to a "self-regulatory" approach would result in an unacceptable number of substandard hooks reaching the main page in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment to reiterate, the worst people to ask about broad ibter st are the hook writers and the hook reviewers. QPQ needs to change. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting a clarification/addition to the supplementary guidelines

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Recently, there was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 150#Question about eligibility about if delisted GAs which then are re-promoted to GA status are eligible for DYK. Right now, the rules only say that an article is DYK eligible if it was promoted to GA within the last seven days, regardless of previous circumstances. Perhaps this can be added to the supplementary guidelines? That a former GA that is then promoted back to GA status may still be DYK eligible on a case-by-case basis? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It is rule 1(d), Why do you think we need to repeat it? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
As per the discussion I linked above, it wasn't clear if former GAs that became GAs again were considered as fitting the "promoted to GA status" part. This proposal would simply make that clearer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I see now that this is a different question. So this concerns once-GA => not GA => GA again, but never appeared on the main page? My feeling is no (this is analogous to once-long, cut down and re-expanded, which doesn't count as a 5x expansion). But the article in the archived discussion sounds like an exceptional case as the ealier GA and delist were long ago under different standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The idea behind 1(d) is that an article can only be featured on DYK once. If an article has previously been a GA, been delisted and then promoted to GA again, the rules do not prevent it being nominated for DYK provided it has never been on DYK before. On the question of whether a delisted and re-promoted GA should be eligible, I think the only reason one might want to prevent it would be to discourage possible gaming (ie, getting a GA delisted in order to re-promote and nominate at DYK), but how likely is that? I would have thought, not very. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

IMO at least, such cases could probably be allowed on a case-by-case basis. For example, the article could be given a chance if say it's been a few years since it was originally delisted. If there was an obvious attempt to game the system, the nomination instead could be rejected then and there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived yesterday; here is an updated list with 35 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 26. Right now we have a total of 170 nominations, of which 50 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four still remaining from April and May, and the five from June.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
@Kosack: @Anarchyte:

On first read, I didn't understand why this is in the quirky slot. Upon reading the article, I learned that the V sign is an insulting gesture in the UK. I think this needs to be made clearer in the hook. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I considered the premise of the hook to be a little silly, so I put it in that slot. As for making it clearer, we could change it from "flicking the V" to "flicking the V sign", if you think that's enough. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was slightly concerned about that because flicking the V is a largely British phenomenon I believe. But would that not perhaps increase potential views by the sheer curiosity of what that is? Kosack (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, to Americans, a V sign is a thumbs-up. Flicking it at your opponent would be quirky; flicking it at your supporters would not. I suggest a simple tweak:
Sure, I'd be happy with that if it needs clarifying. Kosack (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
No, that's getting silly. British insults are often given ironically, and with no real meaning. I read somewhere else on this site that nobody outside the UK can quite grasp how frequently we use the C word in jest. The original hook was just perfect. And v-signs have been around since Battle of Agincourt (allegedly), plus it's linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
TRM, it's perfect for the British, but as I explained above, an American would not interpret it as an insult but a victory sign, and would say, "Of course he's flashing it at his own fans", because their team scored a goal. Yoninah (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, considering a certain Briton known for using a V sign, I'm actually surprised to learn that it's considered an insult over there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Churchill used it as the victory sign. If you invert your hand, it becomes offensive (showing palm is acceptable, showing back of hand is not). I'm in Australia and I'm aware of this, so it's not only a British thing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. There's still no need to change the hook. If Americans think it means something else, whatever. Adding a clause within the hook to have to explain why the hook is hooky, is ridiculous. Besides, if nothing else, per our own article it would seem that Americans are in the minority of English speakers in this regard (i.e. having to have it all explained), so why even bother catering for that? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'm not really arguing about the hook wording, just about its placement as the "quirky". If it's a quirky, it doesn't seem quirky. I think it's best to move it back in the set and put a real quirky there. Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's quirky, it's very unusual for sportspeople to insult their own fans after scoring for them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly more quirky than what we've got queued up for tomorrow. If this type of hook isn't considered quirky, I'd love to see what's placed there usually. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK Format question

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I've been working on a GA status for the Algorithmic bias article which was finally passed last night. The article has previously been a DYK (November 2017). I understand it should be eligible again, but when I create the template, the old discussion appears in the window. Should I be doing something differently for the second DYK nomination? Thanks for the help and sorry for this technical-ish question, I'm not new to Wikipedia but I haven't encountered this before. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Per DYK criteria 1d, "Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible." So it's not eligible for DYK as it appeared at DYK in Nov 2017. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Per section F, though, "Articles designated as Good articles within the past seven days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible." The wording suggests that an article designated as a GA within the past 7 days can be used again for a DYK. If this is not the case, the wording in section F should be changed. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Newly promoted good articles are eligible if they have not already appeared in DYK or elsewhere on the main page. Otherwise they are ineligible. The "regardless of whether they were expanded" has nothing to do with this constraint. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It's also important to note that the exclusion only applies if the article was featured as a bold link on the front page. For example, an article would only be DYK ineligible if the article was a bold link at OTD, DYK, TFA, ITN, etc, but would still be allowed otherwise if the link was not bolded. Taking as an example, in today's ITN, Fields Medal would be DYK ineligible, but Caucher Birkar would be DYK eligible. There is also consensus that being featured on Recent deaths does not preclude DYK featuring, and indeed we have a recent example of an article (Wang Jian (businessman)) which was originally featured at Recent deaths and was later featured on DYK. Not sure about ongoing events, as I don't think there's been a discussion about that yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe you and defer to the group on this, but the wording you just italicized doesn't appear on the page (at least, I can't find them) and in two places in the DYK criteria the role of GA in eligibility is left unclear. In WP:DYKRULES it states "DYK is only for articles that have achieved one of the following within the past seven days" and lists GA, which could imply that GA triggers eligibility. There is also the rule I cited above. Any objection to improving the wording of these policies to be clearer about the connection between GA and DYK eligibility? The wording you write above is clearer and would be useful to add directly to the sentence about GA articles. If I had known/seen that it would have saved me a bit of time yesterday and allowed me to focus on other editing projects. Nothing wrong with clearer rules. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I was bold and made the edit, as there seems to be an existing consensus that just hadn't been clarified in the wording of the guideline. If I was out of line, revert and let's discuss. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The constraint is very clearly stated in point 1(d) of the rules. I undid your change to 1(f), because it is redundant with 1(d) and falsely makes it appear that the constraint of not appearing previously only concerns GA content. In fact, it concerns all DYK nominations, whether they are from a new creation, 5x expansion, or GA promotion. We might consider reordering the rules to put the "already appeared" clause last, though, or to clarify within 1(d) that it applies regardless of whether the article is new, expanded, or newly promoted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm very late to this, but making 1(d) the last point seems the best way of clarifying this to me. I agree that the current organisation is unintentionally ambiguous. › Mortee talk 22:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener

Latest comment: 5 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion

An editor has proposed this hook:

IMO this is graphic enough without the anal sex, which is anyway speculative. I suggested this ALT:
ALT1: ... that in 1394 John Rykener, known as "Eleanor", was found committing an "ignominious vice" in Cheapside and later confessed to having had sex with both friars and nuns?
However, the nominator is insistent on using the original. What do others think? Should the original go up on the main page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is precisely the kind of thing that the much-abused WP:NOTCENSORED (which is abused precisely because editors all too often forget that it is policy) applies to, and Yoninah's WP:IDLI is very much at odds with it: ..."being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The activity the two people were involved in is not only at the heart of the article, but pretty much at the heart of what we know of the subject's life. It is, therefore, both relevant and explanatory to the WP:READER. Further, since the only explanation of the illegality of their conduct left in ALT1 is "ignominious vice", you are relying on the reader (whose first language may not be English) to understand or otherwise try and find out exactly what that archaic phrase actually means. It also implies that we know what they were doing; whereas, when they link through to the article, it will be made clear to them by numerous RS that it is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one. I feel, strongly, that the disambiguator is necessary to clarify to the reader what his offence was in plain and simple English, and avoids the obfuscation that ALT1 throws up by not clarifying whether sex with "friars [or] nuns" was the "ignominious vice"—when, of course, technically, it was neither. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm undecided and won't have time to look more closely into it now, but my first response is, why not use the full quote: "that detestable unmentionable and ignominious vice", which is much more intriguing (and would be better without the "anal sex" spoiler anyway). Gatoclass (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:CENSORMAIN is the guideline for the main page. — Maile (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
To some extent, I agree: of course it does say, Each situation should be judged on its merits, and there shouldn't be a blanket rule that says "anal sex is banned" :) even so, it's actually an essay, not a guideline (let alone policy). —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The hook may be somewhat graphic, but if ever there were an article for which that would be appropriate, this—which is not a salacious stub created solely for DYK, but is a serious treatment of an object of serious academic interest—is probably it. The hook is less prurient (compare with the occasional irrelevant sex joke) than it is directly related to the substance of the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
But as Maile points out, CENSORMAIN is the operative guideline for DYK hooks. Censorship of the article itself is not the issue. As a more intriguing hook, I think the suggestion by Gatoclass is much better anyway — not only does it allay main page concerns, likely it will actually pique the reader's interest even more to read the article out of curiosity!  JGHowes  talk_
No, it obfuscates the scenario even more, and will likely leave the WP:READER all the more bemused. In any case, CENSORMAIN does not apply (well, not unless one takes a particularly puritanical slant). This hook is not "relating to pornography or gore"; "clearly offensive content"; use (or over-use) "fuck"; or generally shocking. On the other hand, "the words are treated with the same impartiality and neutral tone as any other". —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The "probably anal sex" clause is redundant in any case because the hook goes on to say he had "sex with both friars and nuns". You don't have to beat readers over the head with the fact. Suggested alt:
  • ALT2: ... that in 1394, John Rykener, known as "Eleanor", was apprehended for committing a "detestable unmentionable and ignominious vice" in Cheapside and later confessed to having had sex with both friars and nuns? Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:OWN, this discussion has stalled. WP:CONSENSUS is against the nominator, but he is insistent. I do not think DYK exists as a personal showcase for page creators. Perhaps it's time to fail this nomination. Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As a matter of policy or practice, is a DYK hook an exception to OWN, such that the nom has the final say? If so, then since the nom adamently rejects Alt1 and Alt2, I'd have to concur there's no alternative to fail.  JGHowes  talk 02:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi all, apologies for my WP:OWNership issues, I don't quite know what possessed me; I don't usually care enough to argue  :) anyway, this has been an interesting discussion—and I hope not too much of a waste of anyone's time, including my own—and I am very much persuaded towards the collegiate approach, viz, let the community decide. Yes, I think that means you lot  :)
    Pinging participants—@Gatoclass, JGHowes, Maile66, Usernameunique, and Yoninah:—to the discussion for final verdict.
    Cheers, and thanks for all the time you have all taken with this. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally I think ALT1 is a decent compromise since it makes readers curious. ALT2 is too long. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Naturally I'm in favour of my own suggestion, ALT2, for which I gave my reasons above - I think the full quote is more intriguing (and amusing). Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: well, obviously I'm now recused, but FYI, Nurotolovehinata was noting that ALT2's currently 6 characters ove-budget. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO people follow the letter of the guidelines too closely these days - the 200-character outside limit was intended to prevent long, turgid hooks, but if a hook scans well - and I believe this one does - it really shouldn't matter if it's a few characters over the limit. However, if you want a strictly compliant hook, you could go with:
  • I like ALT3 best. Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Since the DYK nom with the original hook was tick'd by @Catrìona: do they need to re-approve with ALT3?  JGHowes  talk 00:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I approve ALT 3. Catrìona (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll move ALT3 back to prep. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Leonard Owen

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone please put this in the queue for main page? It's already been thoroughly reviewed and approved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WugBot has already done so: it automatically moves approved hooks to the approved page about every hour or so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
More precisely, WugBot has moved it to the "Approved nominations" page where it is available, along with about 50 other approved hooks, to be promoted to a Prep area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Madonna's 60th birthday

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

There are 2 hooks in the special occasion area for Madonna's 60th birthday (I just promoted one). With two hooks in the same set, it would be nice to have one in the image slot, but there isn't a good portrait in either article. Could we add an image from the main article to one of these nominated articles? Pinging @IndianBio: @SNUGGUMS: @Gatoclass:. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: sure, what about this image? Do I need to add it anywhere just let me know. —IB [ Poke ] 03:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Perfectly fine image choice. No preference on which hook it gets attached to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Good choice, @IndianBio:. Please add it to the Rescue Me article, which has plenty of room for it, and I'll move the hook up in the set. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I was wondering do we really need the image in the actual article? For the DYK page I can understand it gives identification, but in "Rescue Me", which is a Madonna song, I think its quite redundant. —IB [ Poke ] 04:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I'm now thinking we should use it in the Life with My Sister Madonna hook and will add it to that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the one you proposed with the image its good, so on August 16 prep area we will have the image corroborate both the book and the song article. —IB [ Poke ] 05:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@IndianBio: per DYK rules, the hook image has to appear in the article. But I don't think the Life with My Sister Madonna is a good enough hook at the moment to feature in the lead slot, while the Rescue Me hook is hooky. Please work on the book hook if you want that featured in the lead slot. Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok @Yoninah: I have added the image to the "Rescue Me" article. Once Life with My Sister Madonna is done we can move that too. —IB [ Poke ] 10:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

About that special occasion hook rule

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
  • Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within seven days of creation or expansion (as usual) and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion...

In practice, this rule isn't always uniformly applied. For example, right now we have Bombing of Wieluń which was nominated in June for a September 1 occasion (though this was explicitly an IAR case), Elizabeth Kekaʻaniau which was nominated in July for a September 11 occasion (a request that was approved against my objection). There have been similar cases of this taking place before, including my own Inori Minase hook (nominated March 31, was suggested by the reviewer to be a May 23 hook even though May 23 was way beyond six weeks after March 31). In some of these cases, to be fair, by the time they were reviewed, the special occasion fell within six weeks of the review date, though the rule talks about the nomination date rather than the review date. Considering in practice the rule is regularly "broken", should something be done about it? Say, revising it or perhaps getting rid of it all together? Pinging Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth as the reviewers of the aforementioned hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering that reviews can take quite long sometimes (see three sections above), I'd propose to get rid of the rule altogether. After all, it only concerns the date when it will be seen on the Main Page. DYK was meant to showcase new content, true, but I think we can all agree that "new" does not really apply to most articles featured, again because of the delays between nomination, review and inclusion. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
We could also leave it and just IAR more, generally. If it's a GA to-be, - it can take LONG until you get it reviewed, so plan ahead. Such an effort shouldn't be punished by applying a rule strictly, in case it gets reviewed more than six weeks before the date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I also prefer IAR'ing occasionally rather than eliminating the rule. Otherwise nominators can routinely ask for "special occasion" appearances on birthdays, anniversaries, etc., months in advance, which wouldn't help us clear the noms page and promote hooks on a timely basis. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I prefer flexibility. If the rule did not exist, one could visualise a situation where there were fifty approved hooks and forty of them were in the special holding area, making it difficult for a promoter to fill a set. But in reality, there are relatively few requests for special dates and this is not a problem. Three months from approval to appearance might be a possible limit? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

13 August

The special occasion that day is the opening of the first Bayreuth Festival in 1876. Related hook, with an iconic historic image: Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Lehmann (soprano). Waiting for completion of the review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done Space cleared in Prep 1 for promotion. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Queue 5 pipe link suggestion

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  • I suggest switching the pipe link from swineherd to pig farming, as the latter is a proper article without maintenance tags. I apologize for overlooking this on the nomination page. Flibirigit (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The visible text was changed to "pig farming", but it still links to swineherd. I agree that if it's to be linked, it should be to pig farming. (Personally, I think it should just be unlinked.) In any case, the hook also needs a space after the ellipsis. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Unlinked, thank you Mandarax. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Also in Queue 5, the caption includes "Frescoes", while the hook spells it "frescos". According to the fresco article, both spellings are correct. One spelling should be used consistently, and since the DYK article, as well as another article linked to in the hook, spell it "frescos", I recommend using that. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not a spelling I'm familiar with, but I've made the change for the sake of consistency as requested. Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hook 4 of queue 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I fail to see how this is interesting:

... that American video game producer Ben Judd is fluent in Japanese, speaking the Kansai dialect?

Someone's able to speak a different language. Whoop-de-doo. Why don't we discuss his involvement in the video game industry or a game he's helped develop? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a foreigner knowing the Japanese language is a bit commonplace, but a foreigner being fluent in the Kansai dialect, a dialect that even among Japanese is considered weird (hence its frequent use in comedy and the like) does sound a bit unusual. Usually foreigners fluent in Japanese would be familiar with the standard (i.e. Tokyo) dialect, not Kansai's. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It gets Kansai dialect onto the main page, so I think it's useful. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Always good to promote an article which has been maintenance-tagged for ten years. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not ideal, but it's not against the DYK rules so far as I am aware. Gatoclass (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say it was against DYK rules, just that your satisfaction at seeing a super shit article highlighted on the main page with a maintenance tag dating back ten years (that's rare!) is quite interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a "super shit" article, it looks like a labour of love to me, and well referenced, albeit very lacking in citations. But admittedly I didn't take a close look at it before making the above comment. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The very first sentence states that one dialect is a group of dialects. And it just gets worse from there. And how the hell can something be "well referenced, albeit very lacking in citations"? Those are contradictory statements. --Khajidha (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't "get worse from there", it's actually a quite informative article. And the reference section contains a list of seven books, several of them dedicated to the subject, so in that sense it's well referenced. Clearly it isn't well cited, which is why it has the tag. Gatoclass (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
So the choppy sentences and poor grammar of much of the rest of the article are better in your estimation? A list of books is just a list of books, if they are not cited there is no way to know if they were referenced or not. --Khajidha (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess that's why it has the tag. Gatoclass (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I gave it a tweak to put the emphasis on the dialect. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ernst Königsgarten

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to propose this article for DYK - but as I am from the German Wikipedia I do not know how to do it. Could somebody please help me or do it for me? My idea for a hook is "Did you know, that Ernst Königsgarten performed fencing for King Edward VII?" (Is the language correct?) Many thanks in advance, --Nicola (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I will be happy to nominate it for you, and I would suggest the hook should be worded:
With regard to the article, it appears to have been translated from the German Wikipedia and it needs to provide attribution on the talk page as to where the text came from, even if you were the person mainly responsible for the German language article. I have added the attribution template for you so that you will know how to do it for your next article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth At first: Thank you for your assistance! But: Königstgarten was Austrian :) In the German Wikipedia it is only a "translation" if the author is a different one - well then, it is not important to me. Now I wonder what will happen... Have a nice day, --Nicola (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK file featured on main page now moved to commons

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I recently had a DYK hook featured on the main page that used a PD image from Wikipedia. That image has since been uploaded to Commons. When I get time and figure out the syntax for how to reference Commons images (with the same name as Wikipedia images), I'll change all the File Usage links from the WP image to link to the Commons image. I'm thinking that eventually that will mean the orphaned WP image will be deleted.

The DYK template is one of those File Usage articles but it says do not update it. Is this an exception to the rule to modify the template (it's my nomination if that matters) to reference the Commons file to maintain the traceability that this WP image was used? Or do I just leave it and have the WP image remain because it will have only the File Usage associated with that template? Thanks! Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The syntax for invoking a Commons image is the same as for invoking one uploaded to Wikipedia, so I don't think there will be an issue. If the template does somehow end up image-less then I don't see any reason not to fix it. It won't affect readers either way, and it would make the history clearer if the image were visible. › Mortee talk 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mortee. If the syntax is the same, then I shouldn't need to make any update to any of the wikitext, but how will the article know to pull from Commons now instead of Wikipedia if nothing is updated? Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea how it works on the backend, but since the invocation is the same I trust that it will work by magic. I'd guess that the software looks first for Wikipedia uploads and if none is present looks to Commons instead. If it doesn't work out that way then I'll happily help you debug. › Mortee talk 02:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I added a "Now Commons" template to the Wikipedia file. I think that means an admin will verify the file is in Commons properly then delete the WP version. I could see WP then "knowing" that since there's no WP version, it should find the Commons file. So I guess we just wait a bit to see if that happens... Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted from en. The instances of the image in the article and DYK nomination page etc still work, as expected. Thanks for the contribution to Commons! —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it all works as promised and it was a success. Thanks for all your help! Theodor Langhorne Franklin (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

removed Atlantis hook from MainPage. Need replacement?

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Dear all, I just removed the hook on Atlantis from MainPage. The identical hook was on MainPage two days ago already. (Wikipedia:Recent_additions#15_August_2018) Perhaps a replacement hook is needed there? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone put in a suitable replacement hook, please? I have to go offline now. Sorry. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This is incredible. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This was a deliberate replacement of a problematic hook in Queue 5 two and a half hours before (and an hour before the queue was promoted to the main page) by admin Amakuru, as witness the diff and the edit summary, which ends replacing with old Ireland hook from recent queue 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps so many problematic hooks shouldn't be making it to the queues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My understanding is that it is standard practice when removing a hook at short notice to include already-promoted hooks from recent DYKs rather than attempting to switch around with other queues. After all, the DYK is not suddenly invalid just because it previously appeared, and I saw another admin doing exactly this a few weeks ago. If there is a better way to achieve this, without having to delve into the murky depths of the DYK process, then please enlighten me.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The better way to achieve it is for the project to stop summarily promoting erroneous or boring hooks. But until the nonsense QPQ and continual avoidance of some of the basic rules of DYK are changed for the good, this will not happen. So we'll need to continually triage sets as they approach completion for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
To answer Amakuru's question, the standard practice is to move in another hook from a prep or a later queue to replace the one removed; only when there is extremely little time is the hook replaced with a previously run hook. Note that not only is the hook replaced but the credit for it in the Credits section is as well; if you leave the existing credit there, the nominator is credited as their hook having been run and the article is as well, which shouldn't happen. (If you use a hook from a prep or another queue, then you need to move in the hook credit as well; if you are rerunning a hook, then it shouldn't be credited a second time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for letting me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
I passed over this hook for promotion because, although the image is fine, the hook is hardly lead-hook worthy. Now I see that this is a GA, and the first footnote offers up a few juicy facts, notably that he was a water-carrier, and that he never raced again after his win. Could we come up with a better hook please? Yoninah (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure Yoninah, but isn't winning the inaugural men's marathon pretty hooky by itself? If not, how about something like:
ALT1: ... that Greek Spyridon Louis, a former water carrier, became a national hero as a result of winning the inaugural modern Olympic men's marathon?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
How about ALT2. I have removed the word "former" because, like the other athletes, he was an amateur and needed to work to support himself. (First ever marathon event, first ever Olympic Games, and held in Greece!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As you like it. I don't think "first ever modern" is a great phrase but what do I know about English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The article, in particular the "After the Olympics" section, is very interesting. That he never competed again, that he was received by Hitler in 1936, both of these facts are far more interesting than him being a water carrier, and more hooky than "became a national hero", after all most people who win a gold at the Olympics are considered in that light. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TRM. How about:
ALT3: ... that after winning the first modern-day men's marathon at the 1896 Summer Olympics, Spyridon Louis (pictured) never competed again?
BTW the lead section does not summarize key points of the article and I have tagged it. I'm surprised this wasn't addressed in the GA review. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Should the hook be pulled/postponed first while the lead section issues are being addressed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just pulled the hook, not only due to the lead section, which would have been enough, but due to potential copying issues that appear to have been with the article since its creation in June 2004. The nomination has been reopened, and you may want to add ALT3 there, assuming the other issues can be dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative text

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was surprised to learn that it is standard practice to not use the |alt= parameter in {{main page image}}. As a result, the caption text is repeated for the alt text, which is redundant (screen readers will read the same information twice). Although the community has not entirely agreed on the use of alt text, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images suggests that alt text should convey the same information as the image (i.e.: describe the image for those who cannot see it) while the caption should convey why the image is important in the context of the article (or accompanying hook/blurb). I hope that editors will consider meaningful alt text for the main page and elsewhere. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:DYKSTATS

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments13 people in discussion

For many years, 5,000 hits has been the gold standard for acceptance to our Stats page. But for many years, hooks ran in sets that lasted 6, 8, or 12 hours on the main page. Now, with hooks appearing for 24 hours at a time, a hook just has to attract some 200 viewers an hour in order to qualify. This is a far cry from the 1,000 (or more) hits per hour that hooks in years past had to collect, and it detracts from those other hooks' accomplishments. I think we should change the lower limit to 10,000 hits for hooks in 24-hour sets to qualify. What do others think? Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter too much, because we normally compare only within a month. - We could instead think about making the permanent lists not by hits, but by hits/hour, and set a high limit, to make it more meaningful for comparison over a longer period. - The question further up if Donald Trump baby balloon was pictured or not for these everlasting lists, has not been answered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As a nominator who had 10 articles get over 5,000 hits in July, from 11 featured, I would agree that 5,000 is too low a threshold. Increasing it to 10,000 seems the easiest and simplest "solution". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, fewer hooks featured per day means fewer hooks ending up on the stats page. And isn't that page essentially for showcasing a "best of" former hooks? Having said that, I am kind of sympathetic to the idea of raising the bar somewhat. However, if we are going to start fiddling with the criteria, perhaps the first thing we should be looking at is changing the basic criterion to hits per hour rather than total hits, given that we still switch from 24 to 12 and sometimes still even 8 hours per set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep, 250 hits per hour seems like a good baseline. But let's not forget this project needs to put a lot more focus on hook accuracy, article quality and broad interest, and less focus on the scoreboard here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As someone whose hooks don't tend to hit 5,000 (with only one exception so far), I don't really care for any particular number either way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
250 hits per hour is very low. That's where we're holding now with a 24-hour set. I would say at least 500 hits per hour, and better, 1,000 hits per hour, which will equal the totals earned by previous hooks. But @Gatoclass: we're averaging the hooks per hour anyway. Why not stick with the overall total number of hits? Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
1000 hits per hour? That would be 24,000 hits per day - almost five times the current threshold, I think that's far too much. I was thinking perhaps 375 hits per hour, which would equal 9000 per 24 hours. I think we wouldn't be archiving enough hooks at 10,000 per day, but there are usually a fair few that don't quite make it to 10k, so 9k might be an acceptable cut-off. I'd probably prefer 8k per 24 hours, but that ends up being an odd number of hits per hour. Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and with regard to your question about total number vs. hits per hour - the problem is that if you just go by total number of hits, then hooks up for 24 hours have double the time to reach the minimum threshold by comparison with hooks displayed for only 12 hours, which obviously puts the latter at a great disadvantage. Also, total hits gives a misleading impression of the most popular hooks, because the list is skewed in favour of the hooks that were displayed for longer time periods. Gatoclass (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, perhaps aiming for 10k hits per 24 hours would be an appropriate cut-off, it appears, at least from recent trends, that that would result in about 20 hooks per month going into the hall of fame, which might arguably be enough. I might want to look into that some more though, and I don't have time right now. Gatoclass (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
"On the other hand, fewer hooks featured per day means fewer hooks ending up on the stats page. And isn't that page essentially for showcasing a "best of" former hooks? " Isn't that an argument in favor of doing this? A "best of" list is supposed to be smaller than the complete list, or there would be no reason for having the "best of" list in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but it's a question of where the best cut-off point might be. You don't want to have a "best of the month" table that only features a handful of hooks. I'm currently thinking that about 20 hooks per month might be an appropriate cut-off, and that would probably be achieved with a cut-off at 10,000 per 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Why not? Seems to me that a handful is best. Possibly even just top three, certainly no more than ten.--Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(As Gerda says) a per-hour measure is fairer. It means popular hooks that don't run for long will be recognised alongside hooks that run for longer. 5k over 24 hours would be 208 per hour. 10k would be 416 per hour. I don't have strong view about the right level, but somewhere about 400 per hour seems fair. We should revisit the all-time list requirements (currently 25k for a lead, 15k for a non-lead) at the same time if we make the switch. › Mortee talk 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the most pressing issue DYK has, better get the completely irrelevant stats in order first and leave the plethora of other more pressing issues unresolved. Is this really the highest priority issue to fix/improve? Just confirms even more that DYK is not for readers but regular contributors... 91.96.115.199 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, as I noted above But let's not forget this project needs to put a lot more focus on hook accuracy, article quality and broad interest, and less focus on the scoreboard here. It's transparent what the mission statement here is nowadays. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I really don't understand people like you, 91.96.115.199. If you have an issue with the DYK project, mention it in a thread about that issue, not in a thread about a different issue. Surely you don't expect the majority of Wikipedia contributors to spend hours researching and posting articles on a public-domain source that can be copied by students, authors, and who knows who else, out of the goodness of their hearts? The paltry online "prizes" and statistics charts are hardly sufficient thanks for their efforts. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What a strange thing to say. I've created literally hundreds of good and featured items and expect nothing back at all in any shape or form. So yes, I did it out of the goodness of my heart. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i have been very busy and had no time to reply. My point is that DYK has many issues like quality control, major issues with QPQ, structural issues, etc. The stats are only relevant to the internal workings of DYK, and an utterly non-vital part of it at that(if one can even say a stat page is part of the workings, which is more than debatable). My issue is prioritization, like fixing the reasons embarassing stuff hits the main page on a regular basis first and not something as inconsequential as this. After that is sorted, go ahead and worry about unimportant project internas. And what a strange thing to say indeed Yoninah, there are tens of thousands of people improving the encyclopedia without chasing DYK stats, the vast majority don't take part in DYK, no? I am also not entirely sure how an entry on a stat page with 34 views a day on average which no one outside of this project ever looks at, or even knows of, is so vital for 'rewarding' people. And i actually do expect volunteers to do things out of the goodness of their hearts and without anything in return, that is the point of volunteering ones time and money after all. 85.16.161.201 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That is kind of the entire idea behind Wikipedia, you know? It's a VOLUNTEER project. I think we should ban and purge all such recognition tags, barnstars, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with changing the threshold. The vast majority of articles still don't make 5,000 so it not as if there is a big influx of entries on the stats page. Seems completely unnecessary to change it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I also do not think the threshold should change. There is no actual problem here. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason to change the monthly stats threshold. Those are for comparing within the month; I don't think many people are comparing June 2018 to June 2014 (or whenever the hours on the main page was different). From January to June 2018 there are under 260 items on the list (out of something like 1460 total DYKs over that period), so page size doesn't seem to be an issue. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Credit tweaks

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sir Cusack Patrick Roney was moved to Cusack Patrick Roney. The hook in Queue 2 has been changed to reflect this, but the credits still need adjustment. They should be: 

* {{DYKmake|Cusack Patrick Roney|Philafrenzy|subpage=Sir Cusack Patrick Roney}}
* {{DYKmake|Cusack Patrick Roney|Whispyhistory|subpage=Sir Cusack Patrick Roney}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Just goes to show that this system is wonky and needs better automation. Or perhaps we don't need these automated credits at all. Just an overhead to pat one another on the back. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the bot used to have a problem with redirects (which is why I posted the above), but that's apparently been fixed, as everything seems to have been done correctly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Are possible WP:CRYSTAL hooks allowed?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We've had long and winding discussions at both Template:Did you know nominations/Tribune East Tower and at Template:Did you know nominations/Ybor Stadium. The question has been raised: do proposed buildings (and perhaps, proposed things in general) count as WP:CRYSTAL? And are hooks on proposed events, structures, etc. allowed? The Tribune East Tower nomination has been stuck since February while this issue has been unaddressed, so now we need a discussion on how to move forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The articles and hooks are clear on the status of the projects, so there's no CRYSTAL violation. If the projects fall through, you could easily word it as "would have been the X" and it would still be valid. (Full disclosure: I nominated Ybor Stadium.) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Per WP:CRYSTAL: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. What are the reasons for thinking it is a general problem for DYK, or for these specific cases?—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Debussy

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

DYK that Debussy's birthday is 22 August, and that we are in the year of the centenary of his death? I proposed The Little Nigar a while ago, as a supporting DYK to the TFA that day, - it is still not reviewed. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It's (almost) approved now, thanks to Yoninah. The only objection was that it was an orphan, which I fixed. Can we proceed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  Done Approved and in special occasions holding area for August 22. Could someone move this into Prep 4? If they think the image can be run on the main page, please substitute for the lead image. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In Prep 5, the İsmet Kür hook was changed to

  • ... that the father, sister, and daughter of writer İsmet Kür are also writers?

But her father and sister are not living. Is this use of "are" OK, or should the hook be changed back? Gulumeemee (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have changed it back to the approved hook
  • ... that the writer İsmet Kür's father and sister were writers, and her daughter is also a writer? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems better, but that's three repetitions of the word "writer". Can this be addressed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
We could say:
... that the father, sister, and daughter of writer İsmet Kür were also writers?
Even though the daughter is presumably still writing, this is a common form of speech. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

second nomination for a page?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, last December I nominated a page (DYK nom: Brian Kershisnik) which turned out to be ineligible for DYK. It recently passed a GA review and is now eligible again. Should I edit the original nomination or create a new one? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Make a new one and add a comment, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks, will do. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4 Debussy – admin needed to add this special occasion nom to queue in next 8 hours

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

We have a last-minute entry to the Special Occasions holding area for this set, but the queue was just promoted. Could an administrator bring it back to the prep area so we can move the approved hook into it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Still open: could an admin please replace one of the hooks by the one for The Little Nigar (discussion above), for the composer's birthday? Could be pictured, quirky, or ordinary. Please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

ps: couldn't be pictured because someone changed the image, and the new one is not good in smal size. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's too late to move the queue back to prep; best at this point for an admin to check and insert the Debussy hook and credit directly into Queue 4, and move the hook and credit(s) that are displaced by it into an open prep slot. Pinging a handful of admins—Maile, Cas Liber, Alex Shih, Gatoclass, and Vanamonde—in the hopes that one of them will be able to take this on before UTC midnight. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. If someone could double check, that would be great. Alex Shih (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks, Alex Shih! Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

addition to supplementary rules: no people in hook w/o link and no links to pages with maintenance tags? (wikilinks)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, over in my recent nomination, Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mormon_studies, Yoninah mentioned that it's not common practice to mention a person in the hook without linking them, and also other links in a hook should link to pages that don't have excessive maintenance tags. If there is consensus for these unwritten rules it would benefit others to write them down. Do most people follow those rules about linking in the hook? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Another - and almost contradicting - rule is to link to as little as possible except the main topic, to focus on the main topic. Of course not if your real topic isn't the bolded article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I try not to link anything in the hook except the main article for otherwise I feel it violates WP:OLINK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

@Antony-22, Pingumeister, Maliepa, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't know, but this sounds like a pretty boring hook if you ask me. "Scientists react positively to a scientist being appointed" seems routine or obvious. I know it's Trump, but still. Perhaps a hook about his weather computer simulation work or otherwise another hook might be better here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh? What could be more unexpected than Trump appointing someone qualified for a role, and this being welcomed by the relevant scientists? Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
It just feels bland to be honest. If this were, say Obama or a Democrat president, such a hook wouldn't even be considered. Like I mentioned, yes he is a Trump appointee, but still. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the surprise is Trump doing something pro-science. When I first saw the news, my instinct was "Oh, Trump nominated the TV weather man to be his science advisor!" and then found he's actually a real solid scientist. I'm hoping this hook gives others have the same thought process... Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I read this and found it reasonably interesting. I don't think we need to qualify "Donald Trump" with "US President", and perhaps we could embellish Droegemeier's description in return (e.g. the fact he specialises in extreme weather event prediction makes it even more surprising that Trump has nominated him) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The hook originally didn't identify Droegemeier by profession. I added "extreme-weather expert" but the page creator changed it to "meteorologist". I think it had more hook interest my way. Yoninah (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@FourViolas, Hawkeye7, and Yoninah: This was brought up at WP:TRM as being a very "meh" hook. Suggest: "...that Gavin Buckley, now the mayor of Annapolis, Maryland, arrived in the state with only $200 to his name?" Or maybe, "...that Gavin Buckley, the mayor of Annapolis, Maryland, was previously an illegal immigrant in the United States?" —howcheng {chat} 23:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What amused me about my version was the singsong rhythm ("mayor of Maryland/thinks as Australian"), which was apparently less obvious than I thought and has been changed without anyone notifying me. Your first alt is pretty clearly a case of reporters credulously reprinting his own possibly-embellished story, so I'm not sure it's verifiable; I like the second, although since the language is political ("illegal"/"undocumented"/"unauthorized" etc.) I'd prefer "...that Gavin Buckley, the mayor of Annapolis, Maryland, overstayed his original visa in the United States?". FourViolas (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
But if clickiness is favored over political correctness, I'm fine with the second as proposed. FourViolas (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Howcheng, sorry. FourViolas (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Well the idea of an Australian mayor of an American city was big news in Australia, especially one espousing Australian values. Oddly, one embellishing his story, or overstaying his visa, was not regarded as headline-worthy. So there may be some cultural factors at play here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree; an American mayor thinking of himself as Australian is something I would certainly click on. And I think there would be slight BLP concerns with both proposed ALTs, certainly with the "illegal immigrant" one. Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, it went to the Main Page as-is, so the point is moot now. —howcheng {chat} 17:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: The Carpenters

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

This is a GA, and the hook is very bland. There were a few other alts on the nomination page, but only this one has any oomph:

Surely there are better hooks out there. Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Who chose this hook? I threw options open to the floor here because I couldn't think of anything decent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I moved the hook to Prep 3 so we can work on it more. So far these hooks look promising:
ALT1: ... that the Carpenters received hate mail because they combined a soft ballad with a loud electric guitar?
ALT2: ... that upon meeting The Carpenters, Herb Alpert stated "Let's hope we can have some hits!"?
ALT3: ... that when signing The Carpenters contract with A&M Records, Karen Carpenter's parents had to sign for her?
  • I'll try to think of something else later. Yoninah (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    Shouldn't "The" be "the" per MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    It's "the Carpenters" in the middle of sentences in the article itself, so I'd imagine it should also be that way here. (ALT1 and ALT3 seem possible, and definitely preferable to ALT2, which strikes me as dull.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On second look, it seems the potential for hooks is as easy-going and low-key as their singing style. I opt for ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Swapped. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Part of the problem for me is that the story of the Carpenters generally is not exactly a rib-tickling laugh-a-minute cabaret (well, alright, the drum solos actually were to some extent), but if people think ALT1 works well then that sounds good to me too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"...though best known as a vocalist, Karen Carpenter of the Carpenters originally tried playing the glockenspiel before switching to drums?"--Khajidha (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  • That's nice, Khajidha, but it puts more emphasis on the individual than the musical group, which is the subject of the GA and the hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"...the Carpenters' Billboard #2 hit "We've Only Just Begun" had previously been used as a bank jingle?"--Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's kind of well-known, isn't it? I personally prefer ALT1 because it contrasts the group's laid-back style with "hate mail" and "loud guitar". Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall hearing it mentioned before, but I wouldn't say it was a really well known fact. --Khajidha (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
In addition, I don't think famous songs being used as bank jingles (or indeed being used as songs for commercials in general) is unusual, is it? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the song was a bank jingle BEFORE it became a hit. Richard Carpenter saw the commercials, liked the song, and decided to record it. --Khajidha (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Still, I think the other suggestions mentioned above are better. I'm not sure about ALT3 since I think it's common with child personalities, but with an adult? That does sound unusual. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
She was 19. I guess contract law at that time and place required her to be 21. --Khajidha (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6: Denny Way

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Denny Way is in Prep 6, but I don't really like the way past-me worded the hook. Perhaps "the city's train station", given that the intention was to have the big city train terminus there instead of just any old station. SounderBruce 05:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The hook is now in Queue 6. @SounderBruce: do you want it linked this way?
ALT1: ... that Seattle's Denny Way was originally named "Depot Street" in hopes of luring a city train terminus? Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer "a major train terminus", if it's worded like that. SounderBruce 23:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  Fine. Administrator needed to change 3rd hook in Queue 6 to:
  Done — Maile (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: thanks! Yoninah (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I changed it to "station" per an objection at TRM/ERRORS, and delinked King Street Station as it isn't mentioned in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Vaughan Williams

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Debussy will be featured on 22 August (see above), Ralph Vaughan Williams on 26 August. I found that we can relate a DYK to him today, Psalm 47, written with Yoninah, so she can't review this time. Any chance to IAR? Sorry about another request like that. Bernstein will be celebrated on his centenary 25 August, and that DYK went normally ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ps: reviewed already! thank you! off to rehearsal --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That worked all nicely. I began now the article about his composition, which could be linked in the hook, which is now in Q2, so I can't do it myself: O clap your hands, [[O clap your hands (Vaughan Williams)|O clap your hands]]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  Pinging @Gatoclass: @Maile66: @Casliber: for assistance here. Yoninah (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The previous list was archived early yesterday; here is an updated list with 38 of the non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 3. Right now we have a total of 205 nominations, of which 76 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three remaining from April and May.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I was wondering if something like this could be used on Template talk:Did you know. I'm not a frequent reviewer so I thought I should ask first. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, since the individual hooks are already on Template talk:Did you know, I don't see the benefit of duplicating this there given the extreme length of that page and the need to keep the lists in synch, especially when the list here will attract more eyes. If others think it would be useful, I'm willing to be convinced. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: What about hooks that need a second or further review? Shouldn't they be listed as well? E. g. Template:Did you know nominations/Dungeons 3 which was pulled from DYK and put back on the nom page but has not been touched for a month. I know it's one of my nominations, so this is maybe selfish, but honestly it's just the first example that came to mind. There are plenty others I think. Regards SoWhy 10:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
SoWhy, I list any and all nominations that are unreviewed or have a pending   icon, meaning that it needs a review. If another icon is the latest, then I typically assume that something needs to be addressed before a new reviewer will be needed. In Dungeons 3, it has indeed been waiting an awfully long time for a further response; I think the hope may have been that Yoninah and/or Gatoclass would stop by since they were involved earlier and had been pinged there. At this point, assuming the ping here doesn't get a response in the next couple of days, I will likely add the "needs review" icon myself and include the nomination in the list here in the hopes of attracting attention to it, assuming this specific post doesn't do the trick. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks for the explanation. Again, I wasn't trying to push my nomination, I just didn't know that you are looking for the pending icon. That explains it of course. Regards SoWhy 19:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Third opinions requested on hook neutrality

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd appreciate third opinions at Template:Did you know nominations/Unhinged (book) regarding the neutrality of the hooks, which involve an unresolved civil legal matter. (I don't want to call for a new review if it's premature or unnecessary.) Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think ALT1 does not violate BLP policy and is sufficiently neutral. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@IntoThinAir: @Juxlos: @Cwmhiraeth:
The article is not balanced, having a huge controversy section as its main focus. Without that section, the article is hardly start-class. Yoninah (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Deborah Linsley

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This seems to be stuck; anything that needs to be done to it that isn't / hasn't? Thanks in advance. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is it "stuck"? It was approved on August 15. Today is August 26. There are 109 other hooks waiting to be promoted. Be patient please. Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It needs an infobox.[FBDB] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Ha!  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Image in article cropped for DYK?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
DYK from February 24, 2011
 
Original image

With regard to recent practice at DYK, can the image in the article be cropped specifically for DYK, to yield better viewability in the very small format required? For instance the pairs of images at right. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 
DYK from January 27, 2011
 
Original image
 
DYK from August 5, 2009
 
Original image
Yes, of course. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree (having raised the issue in a review). Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: Ruhr-Scala

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
@Gerda Arendt:
I think some explanation needs to be added both in the hook and in the article for our English readership. Does the Scala refer to La Scala? Then perhaps Scala should be linked to that. But what does "Ruhr" mean? Yoninah (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
More to the point, why should we care about any of this? It's a boring hook and should have been failed for that reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It might be hooky, if we knew what it was saying. Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That sentence demonstrates precisely why it is not hooky. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ruhr. Industrial district. But probably you have to grow up there to have the image, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm returning this to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: IFK Kristianstad

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Unless there is a technical reason "–" can't be included, "2017/18" should be "2017–18" since this is how sport seasons are referred to in English. BlueSwede92 (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Y—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list is about to be archived and has run out of hooks; here is an updated list with 34 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 18. Right now we have a total of 252 nominations, of which 117 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two still remaining from July.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Special occasion to mark the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I am seeking a wider consensus to mark the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. Armstrong stepped foot on the moon at 02:56 UTC on July 21, 1969. We would be marking the 50th anniversary of that landmark event in human history and perhaps demonstrating the effects it had over the last 50 years of development in technology.

The project will be coordinated in conjunction with TFA of Neil Armstrong to be included on July 21, 2019. If there is a spillover of additional FAs and DYKs, we can expand to adjacent days.

Some pages for your review to gain a better grasp of the preliminary plans I have developed:

The biggest obstacle in view is meeting DYKs rules on inclusion. We must diversify the hook set by limiting US < 50% and BIO < 50%. There are already ideas about including Russian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese... astronauts/cosmonauts and the space programs of other nations to complement this occasion.

I appreciate your input, expressions of misgivings, support, guidance, and general comments. Please also include Oppose and Support so we can gauge consesus.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you know .... that Sting wrote "Walking on the Moon" when he was wandering round a hotel room drunk? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, the entire point behind a special occasion day such as this, or the Frank Sinatra 100th anniversary day, or the annual International Women's Day, is that special days like this are not subject to the DYK rules of inclusion or set building, so there is no limit on the number of hooks having to do with a single country, or on bios. We can certainly strive for diversity, but if there is a consensus to have this day be only hooks about the various space programs and people who took part in them, or about moon voyages in particular, or whatever specific ideas reflect the anniversary in question, then that's what we go for. One thing about the spillover: once a special day is over here at DYK, we tend to limit further hooks on the subject to one every set or every other set until what we have is exhausted. Another possibility is having two or more sets during the day, if there are 16 or more hooks: there were so many Frank Sinatra hooks that we ran three sets on that day, each staying on the main page for eight hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The thought was to try to have a block of time from when they launched to when they returned to Earth. I am working on Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins to bring them to FAC, and someone else will be working on Apollo 11. If we would rather not do multiple days in a row, I could see if I could do a multi-TFA, which I believe has happened in the past. The days picked out now are shown in WP:S2019, do you think something like that would work?
That is good to know on inclusion rules. I will still attempt to diversify the DYK set, but it is much harder to write about other space programs since information on NASA is so abundant (and in English). Zond 5 is a must, along with some other lunar probes. Kees08 (Talk) 23:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I am not opposed to relaxing the DYK rules if that is the usual practice. There is also precedent for spillover. Star Trek got three sets of DYK in September 2016. I would argue this deserves more. And the additional days are not insignificant. July 16 was the launch date for the mission. July 19 is when they enter a low orbit around the moon, also a first for crewed flight. July 20 is the date Armstrong and Aldrin landed the lunar module, leaving Collins in orbit. July 21 according to UTC is when they walked on the moon. July 24 is when they landed safely back on Earth. Millions of people watched the entire 8-day mission. An estimated 500 to 600 million people around the world, also a record at the time, and a telecast lasting 230 hours.[4][5] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, Star Trek was another example of getting a day, which was (in this case) divided into three sets of hooks because there were a lot of articles created and/or expanded, just as happened with Sinatra. (The times shown in the archives are the time the set was removed from the main page and archived; in this case each Star Trek set ran eight hours and together covered a single day only, without any spillover.) While I would be willing to support a single day of related hooks at DYK for this anniversary, I would be opposed to multiple all-DYK days: your "block of time" seems to mean July 16 (launch) through July 24 (landing back at earth), and that's beyond excessive. I see no reason why there couldn't be a single hook with a related article on other days where something particularly noteworthy occurred, but July 21 appears to be the best day to take over DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I was also under the impression that you are asking for one day at DYK, corresponding to the July 21 moon landing. That makes sense. Spreading it over those other dates is excessive, and not as clear to most people why we are featuring space on the front page day after day. How many of those 500 to 600 million people who watched the moon landing are still alive today, and how many youngsters feel any connection to it? I think you should start a special occasion section for July 21 and start compiling it with new pages, GAs, FACs, etc. I'm unaware of the Star Trek day, but I was involved in the Frank Sinatra day, which had two 12-hour sets (see here). Since we are running 8-hook sets, you could go for 2 12-hour sets (16 hooks in total) or 3 8-hook sets (24 hooks in total). Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
O.K. If consensus is to only allow DYK sets on July 21. That is ok with me. However, TFA coordinators have preliminary given an opening to run multiple FA that week. I was only hoping to do the same with DYKs. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Queues

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

The next preps have yet to be promoted to the queue. Better promote them as soon as possible if we don't want to have repeats of our previous delays. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. And we need time to check them thoroughly once the queue has been finally selected. Tick tock. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have put the two oldest preps into queue. I haven't checked any of it, so for all I know the whole lot could be reported at WP:ERRORS / WP:ERRORS2 when it hits the main page, but at least y'all can have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's optimistic, but most stuff just appears at WP:ERRORS2 these days. Averaging around 7 main page errors per day! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday was a good day, but today, well WP:TRM says it all really.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
And that's why I don't do queues that often, it takes an hour to fact check everything, and then everyone grumbles when I pull half the hooks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Funny thing is, I normally take around half an hour to check the entire queue, whole articles, not just the usual QPQ-verified hook. WP:TRM is the starting point for the end of DYK unless the ways are changed substantially. If at least half the hooks are in need of triage by the time they're locked and loaded, something is seriously wrong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
TRM, it has been told to you so many times before, but if you're so frustrated about the whole process, just be bold and work on the preps yourself. It would be far faster and more efficient than WP:ERRORS or ERRORS2, and it would save everyone time. It would be a win-win. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
No, and you know who you can thank for that. Also, I barely have time to review the next queue in any case. DYK averages something like 4.5 errors per day. It's just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Queues are empty again... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

... but there are plenty of hooks in the preps. TRM, you can work on Prep 4, for example, the next to go live. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope, I don't have time. Nor the inclination thanks to you-know-who. So when the queue's ready and I have time, I'll re-review all the hard work!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Plus this project needs to buck up and start preparing and proposing proper main page content at least 24 hours in advance, not (as is the case now) leave nothing in place with only five hour to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've just done the update, as per the above instructions. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

ANYONE WANT TO ADD A QUEUE?

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Just a nudge, there should be at least two queues loaded right now, and there's nothing. Come on you lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Here comes the bot................ The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I tried getting somebody but the community didn't want them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Dude, you know we have plenty of capable people who are persona non grata, I'm not surprised with your latest I'm afraid to say. Point being, if anyone wants to not be surprised by a shit load of errors, they've got a few moments to post now, or else it gets the real errors treatment. Mind you, at the real errors page, we're very close to our 300th correction in just 40-odd days. I'd be delighted to see what the happy-clappy, non-toxic WP:ERRORS page has pulled up in the same period. Well done to the admins/Arbs who were so keen on that (who have just simply disappeared when real work is needed). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

But, not to digress too much, ANYONE WANT TO ADD A QUEUE? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Maile, Cas Liber, Alex Shih, Gatoclass, and Vanamonde, in the hopes that one of them may stop by Wikipedia before UTC midnight. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

There's really no need to get your knickers in a twist, TRM. It is possible, and in fact rather more convenient, to find errors and make minor alterations to hooks while they are still in a prep set rather than in a queue or on the main page. If you need any help with this aspect of DYK, do please ask. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Not twisted at all, just trying to seek out some reasonably good practice in this place. The rest of the main page seems to manage it quite easily and well, but oddly not here. And as you are well aware, since I've told you at least twice in the past 24 hours, I've been dissuaded from looking at the dubious prep sets by one of your own project admins. If you need help finding those posts of mine and help interpreting them, don't hesitate to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I have two concerns with this hook. Firstly, it might be a BLP violation as it seems to focus on a negative aspect of a person's life (i.e. an injury). Second and most importantly for me, I don't see how this is hook is interesting or quirky. Athletes get injured all the time in basketball: Glaze's case isn't even unusual: shoulder dislocation injuries are common in basketball, and missing five games isn't really that long when you consider that basketball players often miss longer periods or even entire seasons due to injuries. Pinging nominator Runningibis and reviewer Hameltion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree, a five game injury isn't that unusual, especially as teams play many games a week (so he was out for about 2-3 weeks?) and doing it diving is hardly spectacular. If it'd be an interesting/quirky injury then maybe, but this current hook is not at all interesting. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a yawn too. Can't something a bit more interesting be found? Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
He led the league in rebounding but Correcaminos, which is owned by the Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, finished last in league standings. Could this work as a hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about:

I think that's a better hook. Thoughts Runningibis, Hameltion? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 looks good. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It is fine, but reword to "... that basketball player Grandy Glaze made his professional debut in the Mexican league, which he led in rebounding?" Runningibis (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done, subbed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Tree app

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
  • ... that while mayor of Pontianak, Indonesia, Sutarmidji launched an app allowing the tracking of trees in the city?
@Juxlos: @Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:
Sorry, I don't understand why this is hooky, nor why it is in the quirky slot. A look at the source shows a lot more of interest that could be said about the mapping of every tree on the main street and building the app to help officials monitor pollution in their districts. If the article were expanded a bit, I'm sure a better hook could be written. Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, the word "tracking" is incorrect; it's "mapping". Yoninah (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I'm open to suggestions. Juxlos (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Juxlos: please expand the apps section from the source, and then you'll have a hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I expanded the paragraph somewhat by adding elaboration, that better for you? Juxlos (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Late to this: the mapping/tracking of trees in a city is nothing unusual, and further details are nothing about his person and achievements. Don't we go for concise hooks? I would not have made it the quirky one, but sometimes there's no quirky. - I offered the quirky fact that Richards Wagner's grandson directed a Verdi opera, and received the suggestion not to mention that. (Rudolf Sellner) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I put it in the quirky slot because I found the idea of tracking trees amusing, but if the word "tracking" is replaced by "mapping", the quirkiness is lost. What the app actually does is correlate individual trees with pollution levels, and that is much more interesting in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm returning the hook to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Azumi Waki

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I just nominated the article Azumi Waki for DYK, and I would wish to request a prompt review as I have requested a special occasion hook date on her birthday on September 8, which is only four days away. As such, a quick response and an immediate review would be appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone else had reviewed it so I moved it to prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: "Someone else" couldn't move it to Prep 3 could they :p  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
No, indeed. I was in the process of reviewing it before I realised somebody else had beaten me to it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK Slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A DYK nomination I had submitted last May (see here) was approved, then deemed ineligible and, after some edits, finally approved for a second time, but this back-and-forth seems to have somehow caused the derailment of the article's nomination, which did not thenceforth follow the ordinary process for DYK nominations. I am wondering whether this situation could somehow be mended and, if yes, whether someone could please provide her/his assistance towards this end. Thanks in advance, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you mean that the template has dropped off the nominations pages, that's right. I restored it to WP:DYKN. The nomination does not have a final approval tick, so it cannot be promoted yet. Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Yoninah. I was under the impression that howcheng's filling "yes" in the "passed" field was effectively equivalent to obtaining the final approval for the DYK nomination, which, judging from your response, was a wrong assumption to make. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I did another review for this, hope it helps. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Help, please

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A new editor made a nomination with a typo, and then redirected the template. But when I try to open it on the Approved page, I get the original nomination that has been redirected: Template:Did you know nominations/Principal Secretary to the Prime Minnister of India. Could someone help here, please? Yoninah (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.—Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

New DYK for 7th Sept anni

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Ping here, since two days may not be enough for the normal review speed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Westerplatte. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed (and approved) this nomination but the relevant hook set is already in Queue 2, which means that if it is to appear on September 7th, an administrator will be needed to promote it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done. Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Lafargue Clinic

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I just promoted this hook, and then saw a discussion about the images in the article on the nominator's talk page. It is not clear that these are freely licensed, and a decision must be made on them before the hook hits the main page. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the images that Animalparty objected to from the article. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Etzedek24: thank you. What about the children's therapy one? Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
As part of Wertham's papers, it is free to reproduce. I verified that info myself this summer. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived about nineteen hours ago; here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 27. Right now we have a total of 255 nominations, of which 121 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four remaining from July and early August.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Rudolf Sellner

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I feel that the hook is a bit busy and has too much information in it. The DYK rules state that a hook must be "short, punchy, catchy", and I don't see how this hook fits that. Perhaps it could be shortened, or an alternate hook be proposed instead? My suggestions (additional ones are also welcomed):

Pinging nominator Gerda Arendt and reviewers Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerda will not like any of your suggestions! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
You are right. Nothing specifically Sellner in any of these hooks. Plenty of prisoners of war, Don Giovanni common place for a theatre opening, and "second largest" could be "showcase of West Berlin". Really sad about "too much information" as a no-no. The hook proposed in the template is at least a bit quirky, but guess what, I still don't like. Do as you wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of pulling this from prep, discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: Tiffany Whitton

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Pinging Yoninah who approved the original hook and Cwmhiraeth who promoted it: nominator Daniel Case just edited the hook, replacing "and disappeared" with "never to be seen again". Since we frown on nominators editing their own hooks once they've hit prep, but this is a special occasion hook due to be promoted to the main page in just under 24 hours (and to queue rather sooner than that), I thought I'd mention it here to see whether approver and promoter were okay with the updated hook, which had the edit summary, "reword this slightly in hopes of making it more interesting". Thanks. (Note: the original nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Tiffany Whitton.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have asked first; I thought that since it didn't really change the hook substantively it would be OK. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The two hooks are:
I think the original version flows better while the present version reads awkwardly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
That was my concern when I saw the change that had been made; I've reverted Daniel Case's edit for now, so the hook is now as it was originally approved and promoted. Should subsequent consensus go the other way, my own edit can certainly be reverted. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, am I missing something, or did no one else notice she disappeared in 2013, which would be five years ago today? Alex Shih (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Well spotted! We are all blind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the original version, although I kept toying with the idea of writing "five years ago today" first:
ALT1: ... that five years ago today, Tiffany Whitton left her purse and flip-flops behind when she ran out of a Walmart at 2 a.m., and disappeared? Yoninah (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No, she didn't run out and "disappear", that's nonsense. She ran out and was never seen again. Plus there's the ENGVAR issue over the use of the word "purse". But I don't expect anyone here to worry too much about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

So you prefer:
ALT2: ... that five years ago today, Tiffany Whitton left her pursehandbag and flip-flops behind when she ran out of a Walmart at 2 a.m., and was never seen again? Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Replace "purse" with "handbag" and you have a winner! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  Administrator needed to replace second hook in Queue 2 with ALT2 aboveALT3. Pinging @Alex Shih: and others. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the language in the article, "and has not been seen since", is more encyclopedic. We hope she will be seen again. Here is an updated hook:
ALT3: ... that five years ago today, Tiffany Whitton left her handbag and flip-flops behind when she ran out of a Walmart at 2 a.m., and has not been seen since? Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Approved! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Alex Shih (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Empty queues yet again

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just over 12 hours to go and nothing in the queues. Come on people, this is the only main page project which doesn't have its house in order here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears that this has now been resolved. Admins, please ensure that you at least one hook is ready at a time, ideally as many as three if possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: Helen Woodrow Bones image

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone crop the image to remove the border and photographer's name? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Done, here. I cropped a little more than the border off the bottom to remove some other defects in the image. MB 03:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@MB: thank you very much! Yoninah (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: Island or volcano?

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Paul 012: @Narutolovehinata5:
Nowhere in the article is this called "a former island". It is called a guyot, a seamount, or a volcano. The piped link needs to be changed. Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to say "seamount", as seamount appears to be the general term in this case (inclusive of guyots). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but then the lead should call it a seamount, not a guyot. Waiting for page creator's input. Yoninah (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
According to the guyot article, a guyot is a kind of seamount. Simple substitution of terms like this should be okay. As for the original hook using "former island", this is covered by the last sentence of the Carbonate platform and late volcanism section: "It is likely that this volcanic activity caused the formation of a volcanic island above the carbonate platform," and the following paragraph which mentions its drowning. Personally, though, I think "undersea mountain" or just "guyot" would probably be more interesting for a DYK hook. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It is false that the article doesn't state that it is a former island. It doesn't use those exact words, but it is clear through much of the text that it was an island and now is not. If you want a specific sourced sentence, try the one "In the case of MIT, the platform underwent a temporary uplift before drowning." towards the end. I happen to think that "former island" is likely to be more attractive to DYK readers than some technical jargon meaning the same thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with David Eppstein's statement, including the part about "guyot" and "seamount" not being good replacement terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
OK. Back to "island". Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Lorena Cuéllar Cisneros

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Nomination was approved, but there is a lot of information (mostly in the infobox) that is mentioned as absolute statements of fact but have no sources to back it up. Ideally, this info should be added in the body instead of adding refs in the infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE. The lead mentions "LXIV Legislature" but is not cited in the body. Pinging Raymie (nominator), Cwmhiraeth (reviewer), and Yoninah (promoter). Please let me know if you have any questions. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is running live on the main page so probably should be at WP:ERRORS for immediate attention. Of course, QPQ doesn't address article quality, it simply verifies the hook, so the rest of the article can be junk. Tomorrow was no exception with Edel-optics.de Arena running full of poor grammar and repeated blocks of text. Thankfully that one was spotted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@MX: I've commented out the unsourced information in the infobox; the last sentence of the lead is fine, as it's supported by the body. Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this is a perennial problem of infoboxes, rather than anything else; I've seen FACs ignore unsourced information in the infobox. Infobox bloat on en.wiki is a real issue; I seem to recall a signpost article about it a while ago. Vanamonde (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've reviewed sports biographies and I am always amazed by some of the things that are included in the boxes even if they come with sources; they often don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for the help guys. And I apologize for not using the errors page. I saw this page as a link in the article's DYK nomination template and figured this was the right place. And to your point Vanamonde93, yes, unsourced info in infoboxes is a real issue here. I'm very strict about it but it seems most are not. I try to catch them when they appear on the main page and often try to do the work myself (i.e. unsourced DOB/POB that I can simply pull with a Google search or by using the sources already cited), but when there is a lot of unsourced info I try to get the nominator involved. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I might as well say that I went and grabbed from the LXIII Legislature of the Mexican Congress article the information corresponding to the last federal deputy from the district, as well as Tlaxcala's two current senators. This information, along with the birth date, place and party, can be verified by searching the SIL system which contains biographical and party information. Raymie (t • c) 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Raymie: That's fine, but you should still copy the citations over, preferably to a specific individual's page rather than to the database. Vanamonde (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I just did that (the SIL has individual pages, and pretty much every Mexican legislative article should cite them). In the future I'm definitely going to pay attention to adding citations into the infobox. Raymie (t • c) 19:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Raymie: Thank you. You may also wish to look at the information currently hidden (using the <!-- --> tags, so it's visible in the edit window) and see if you can source any of that; if not, it's best removed. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ernst Königsgarten

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I came by to promote this hook, but found the article rather hard to follow. All the information is there, perhaps in chronological order, but not in a logical or organized way that would make for easy comprehension. The nominator disagrees with me, saying that DYK already has too many rules and we shouldn't put off new nominators with trivial reasons of style or format. I would appreciate other eyes here. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's quite true that the article doesn't section easily, but I don't think it's a lost cause: I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Done, commented at the nomination page. Vanamonde (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I didn't mean to imply it was a lost cause; it just needed someone like you to put in the work! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure. Vanamonde (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Vanamonde. As the unnamed nominator mentioned above, I am asking a more generalised question below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Manual categorization of archives is no longer needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've updated {{DYK archive header}} to include automatic categorization into Category:Wikipedia Did you know archives. When archiving DYK history, you no longer need to do add the category manually. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK Sturm Cigarette Company

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Separate issue: the first hook (SA cigarettes) is not ready for the main page. We were discussing it, and the first clause is not really supported by recent scholarship. Could it be pushed back until the discussion of the hook is finished? I've let the discussion slip, I will try to get it sorted this weekend. HLHJ (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually the nomination itself was approved by Catriona, the question was more of what hook to use (the nominators were leaning towards ALT1). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook from prep, and reopened the template. There are often nominations where an original hook is approved, and then others want an alt hook. As long as there is a discussion going on, with no final check-off or closing of that discussioin, the nomination should remain open. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all. I've done some work and messaged Catrìona, so hopefully this will be ready soon. HLHJ (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: There is an ALT9 that needs to be reviewed. — Maile (talk)

Prep 4: European pilchard

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I don't really have problems with the hook wording itself: in fact I find it interesting. My concern is more of quirkyness: it's a sardine, and sardines are commonly sold canned. I'm not sure if the variety of ways it's sold (fresh, frozen, canned, fish meal, etc.) is uncommon either, and I can think of several examples of fish that are sold fresh, frozen, canned. Perhaps we need a new hook here? Pinging nominators @Cwmhiraeth and HLHJ: and reviewer Gerda Arendt. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Late reply from reviewer: I didn't like the hook much - as you can see in the nom - but believe in the nominator's right to suggest something, and go along if I "don't have a problem". I know already that the day will be too short for the things I want to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Linking the actual DYK nom template for reference: DYK nominations/European pilchard — Maile (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I don't have access to the source for this sentence "Multiple batches of eggs are produced over a long breeding period, total fecundity being 50,000 to 60,000", but it seems to me that if that egg count is from one sardine, it might make an interesting hook. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you know ...the difference between a European pilchard and a sardine? Or perhaps something about its commoness as food, since I many people may not be aware that they eat European pilchards? Maile's suggestion is good, but I don't have access to that source either. HLHJ (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The European pilchard article has an image that could be used as a mainpage image, if that's a problem. HLHJ (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
A different-names hook suggestion. "Juveniles" is used in the article. HLHJ (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't like either of these suggestionsn. According to #3 in the article, there are twelve different species of fish that are acceptable in canned sardine or sardine-type products. Eleven of these do not grow up to become pilchards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Returning to prep for further work; discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Article issues

Latest comment: 5 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

Is it reasonable to demand that before it is promoted, an article nominated for DYK must conform to certain standards even though these are not covered by the DYK rules? The examples that come to mind are article layout (subdivision into sections, the presence of a lead, the lead being too short), the article being an orphan or the method of formatting the citations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good list of common sense checks. Of course, articles which exhibit such problems can simply be tagged which would render them invalid for DYK in any case, so it’s probably better to check for such obvious issues before promoting. We’ve had a few stinkers recently where it’s been obvious that only the hook was checked, and that’s really not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Back in the days, my approach to submitting DYK was a way to get more exposure for these articles to get the valuable copyediting they need. Although time has changed, this approach is still somewhat retained in ITN, but not exactly in DYK. My thought would be if it is a newer editor, I wouldn't "demand" any changes prior to promoting the article; but after five articles or so by the same editor, quality standards should started to be asked if the same type of concerns continues to exist. I am sure people are always happy to improve their content creation. Alex Shih (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I always informally try to help improving the article by suggestions, but would hesitate to make things more formal, as we have rules enough. I am dealing with a nom where two editors raised even more concerns than I did, content more than formality, - so I will wait a bit before approving, and perhaps will not. Case-by-case, I'd say. The typical short DYK article doesn't "need" a lead or sections. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
TRM has a good point that if the article does not meet basic Wikipedia standards, it will be tagged, and then it will be ineligible for DYK. Certainly something should be written into the DYK rules that since the article is appearing on the main page, it should satisfy basic Wikipedia guidelines. (Perhaps there's one page that could be referred to. I know the WP:Women in Red project has drawn up its own checklist for new contributors.) In order to promote nominations that have been approved but that still fall short of certain Wikipedia standards, without starting a long back-and-forth with a new page creator that will delay the promotion even more, I often go in and do a light copyedit, or format the references, or even look for new reliable sources to improve the referencing. Of course, if I do too much, I recuse myself from promoting it. Yoninah (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but where does it say in the rules that DYK nominations are ineligible if the article has tags? So far as I am aware, the only tags that render a nomination ineligible are dispute tags, per supplementary rule D6. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Excused. We're talking about dispute tags being added when articles fail basic Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I don't think it would be reasonable to fail a nomination because the article doesn't have enough sections, for instance; but I don't it unreasonable to ask the creator/nominator to do a little additional work beyond the rules. For things like leads on a short article or creating subsections, it isn't much work, but makes for a drastically better article, so I'm not against holding up a nomination until this is done; particularly with more experienced creators. I've done so myself on a number of occasions. Vanamonde (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I am in two minds about this myself. Sometimes there is a lengthy review and much discussion of a suitable hook and then, just when everything seems settled and the hook is ready for promotion, the nomination is scuppered for some reason that is outside the rules. If any article creator gets disheartened by the process and decides not to nominate their articles again, we have failed in our role of encouraging new article creators. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like the review process is not fit for purpose in that case. DYK isn't a free pass to sending articles with fundamental issues which contravene Wikipedia guidelines (and, for example, are "dispute tagged") to the main page. That's not how it works, nor should it be. DYK has its own "rules" but Wikipedia has guidelines and policies which trump anything a DYK nomination might allow. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
From experience, I have encountered at least one case like this, where the article wasn't sectioned, but the nominator declined to make the requested changes, and a second review by another user said that such changes weren't necessary. Consensus may have been different then, or that it was debatable in the first place if the requested edits were needed, but it would probably be important to take note. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that adherence to Wikipedia guidelines is of paramount importance. If, upon review, articles fail to meet those guidelines, they can simply be tagged until the issues are resolved. It doesn't really matter what DYK "rules" say, preserving the integrity of the main page using Wikipedia guidelines and policies trumps DYK every single time. Ironically, I think putting sections into articles is one of the least of these problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, the presence of orange clean-up tags has usually been regarded as the first indicator of unacceptability for bold Main Page links. This criterion is listed at WP:ITN, and is also the bar for OTD. Minor formatting issues such as sectioning would only warrant yellow tags, and shouldn't be too bad for the Main Page. I don't usually consider them against DYK. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's not the rule for DYK, so ignoring dispute tags contravenes QPQ rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Your understanding of a "dispute" tag differs from mine. Do you consider "Orphan" or "Lead too short" to be dispute tags? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Just look at dispute tags if you're confused. If I suggest that other tags should render articles ineligible then that's because I think we shouldn't promote articles with any tags, because it's unprofessional and looks crap. Our readers should not be subjected to crap articles, it's nothing to do with them that DYK offers such a poor level of quality control. Do also note that {{cn}} is listed there as a "dispute tag", ho hum...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Now see, I thought that any maintenance tags in general are undesirable, at least on the bolded link article, for DYK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I'm not quite sure which exactly is your position. On one hand, I gather that you mean that (a) DYK rules (specifically, supplementary rule D6) disallows articles with current dispute tags (the aforementioned orange tags, plus a few more including {{citation needed}}), and (b) personally, you think other issues such as {{sections}} and {{lead too short}} are also undesirable, even if they're not against DYK rules. But then you also said "that's not the rule for DYK" in reply to my comment about sections issues not being against DYK rules. This seems rather contradictory. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No, not at all. You do know some dispute tags are yellow, right? And you do know some dispute tags don’t even have colours? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I get now what you're saying. I'd have been easier to understand, though, if you pointed that out directly, instead of jumping around and forcing the reader to try and figure out what your point was. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The DYK rules have said dispute tags for some while. It’s been there in black and white and red and orange and colourless. I’m not here to re- xplain these basic rules, just remind you all to follow them and enforce them at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Just... never mind. I understand now that what you meant above was that "we should be talking about dispute tags, not orange ones", and not that "minor formatting issues such as sectioning are against DYK rules". --Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well now we all know what a dispute tag is, hopefully the rules can be finally followed! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But the original question raised in this discussion was about style issues and other issues that don't warrant dispute tags ("The examples that come to mind are article layout (subdivision into sections, the presence of a lead, the lead being too short), the article being an orphan or the method of formatting the citations"). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those were just examples. That sprung to mind. There’s a significant issue with the overall quality of a lot of DYKs but if nothing else, this thread has taught a few people a few things, and will inevitably result in fewer poor articles making it to the main page as they’ll fail D6. But as a general rule, no part of the project which contributes to the main page should be promoting articles with any kinds of tags, as I said, our readers don’t deserve that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Rule D6 states "The article is likely to be rejected for ... the presence of dispute tags", but TRM states "But as a general rule, no part of the project which contributes to the main page should be promoting articles with any kinds of tags, as I said, our readers don’t deserve that." So there we are then TRM says no tags and TRM always knows best! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. There is not one single good reason to promote anything to the main page which has maintenance or dispute issues. Only DYK does it multiple times a week. DYK is not special as far as the readers are concerned. I will continue to call out dross before it gets to the main page, and I will continue to tag issues as I find them. And judging by WP:TRM, I really do know best. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked earlier if there was a DYK rule I had missed that prohibits the promotion of articles with any kind of tag (as opposed to articles with dispute tags which are prohibited under D6) and it appears from this discussion that there is no such rule. So hopefully that's clear to everybody now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I clarified that DYK is the only section of the main page which allows such leniency. It's become very clear in the course of this discussion that there's a serious misunderstanding as to what constitutes a "dispute tag", and now you're all aware that includes [citation needed], you're all going to have to work harder to ensure nominated articles are reviewed thoroughly enough such that tags of that nature are not required to be added after promotion. Please work harder on this, the average of more than three errors per day with DYK alone, including just basically factually incorrect hooks (like one tomorrow!). It's letting the main page down severely. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Just like the "longest loop trail" DYK which has been posted on the main page now for eight or so hours, replete with disputed tag on top. It's not factually accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived about fourteen hours ago; here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of August. Right now we have a total of 278 nominations, of which 130 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones remaining from July and early August.

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) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Josette Frank

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Etzedek24: @Argento Surfer:
The second hook fact is not mentioned in the article. The corruption part seems to be implied by the Ellsworth quote, though I'm not so sure about that. The whole career section is rather sketchy on Frank's contribution, being dominated by that Ellsworth quote. If her comics advocacy is her claim to notability, I think more should be drawn from the sources to improve the article. Also, I think the hook as a whole is rather clunky and could be a lot sharper. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I think that the Sterling North quote shows the corrupting claims pretty well. I will try to update her profile with some of her Child Study publications or some stuff from her book in the near future. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't need a list of publications, but more information about her career and her activities, why people were so against her (as stated in the sources but not in the article). Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that this hasn't yet been resolved, I have pulled the hook from prep; it wasn't supported by the text in the article. There's a slot open in prep five, if this is fixed soon. Vanamonde (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Double entry

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Uchchhishta is on the approved page twice - Sept 8 and 11. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_151&oldid=1085471585"