Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 139

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Yoninah in topic Pediatric Symptom Checklist
Archive 135←Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141→Archive 145

Multiple hooks for Queue 4 being discussed at WPERRORS

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Heads up. Several hooks in Queue 4 are being discussed at WP:ERRORS without notifying the nominator, promoter, or anyone else. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note, there's not a single requirement for anyone at ERRORS to dig into DYK arcane logic and find who is responsible for what. So the "without notifying the nominator, promoter, or anyone else" shouldn't come as a surprise at all to anyone here, nor should the fact that errors have made it all the way the through the various DYK quality gates to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless it is still a simple courtesy which is seemingly lacking here on this site. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope, there's not one jot of an obligation for someone reporting an error to find out where it came from. That most come from DYK is another issue. But not notifying those involved, why would you think otherwise? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Its purely illogical to avoid contacting the users that are the most familiar with the items being discussed, and not something that should be happening, its like discussing a topic one doesnt understand, but actively avoiding any expert that does understand it.--Kevmin § 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, how does a regular viewer of Wikipedia know who to contact at DYK once an error has made through all those quality gates? Why should they bother finding out? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
We're talking about the editors over at ERRORS, not the IPs who post their corrections there. If something is so serious that editors need to deal with it, it would be nice to drop us a courtesy ping at WT:DYK to let us know when a hook is under discussion at ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Problems are likely to be fixed more quickly if the nominator/reviewer are made aware of the discussion. If the person who raised the error does not know who to ping, it is easy for an experienced DYKer to figure it out. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed here. There are no instructions at ERRORS to find out the originator of the errors in the DYK section. Why would anyone go to the trouble of trying to discover who to ping? Yes, ideally, someone should do the research, find out the nomination template buried somewhere on Wikipedia, locate the nominator, reviewer and promoter from there, and let them know, but in reality, when an error gets as far as the main page, it's tough luck, it'll be "fixed" or removed however is seen fit, and probably (and hopefully) as quickly as practicable. Wikipedia's main page is not a sandbox for DYK, if poor quality makes it all the way there, it deserves to be shelved as soon as possible, regardless of "courtesy pings". It would be nice if the review process at DYK meant such errors didn't get so quickly promoted and displayed on the main page, but it's not an ideal world, so we just have to live with it. Anyone working on the DYK project can watchlist the ERRORS page, and people actually cared that much about their hooks, they'd follow them all the way through to their conclusion (although I accept given DYK's arcane nature, that's practically impossible) so they'd actually know there was an issue. Please put the onus back onto the nominators rather than those who care about the quality of the main page to do something about this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

With a simple ping, Maile alerted the nominator, reviewer, and prep promoter to a complaint at ERRORS and I immediately weighed in. A ping is no "trouble" and immediately gets the involved DYK editors on the case. Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
For most people who go to ERRORS, a ping is a lot of trouble since they have no idea where and how to find the nominator, reviewer, and promotor. And many of them don't like to be "shamed" (simply being named in an error report is often enough to raise accusations that people are being shamed, bullied, ...), so doing the right thing is hardly possible here anyway. See e.g. some sections below this, where Maile66 states "No moaning, please, no whining, no complaining about the imperfections of other people.", just two sentences after they have complained about " I guess it's too much to hope for that any admin who would yank a hook from the top queue within hours of it being on the main page, would move another hook up to fill the gap. A simple courtesy." Basically, when people try to get errors of the main page (or prevent them from appearing on the main page), they need to jump through all sorts of hoops to please the regulars here. Well, no. People who are willing to do the additional stuff are of course welcome to do so, but the main thing is getting rid of the errors, not pleasing editors or doing courtesies. And certainly not state that we shouldn't moan about the imprefections of other people unless they are admins doing something some DYK regulars don't like.
Simply take the example given by Yoninah here as a reason why we should ping the reviewer and so on. "I have no problem with "Nazi". Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)" Fine, but you having a problem or no problem with this is totally irrelevant, your opinion as the reviewer isn't worth more than that of anyone else, so the added value of pinging you and not another editor is nill. It's fine that you weigh in, but nothing would be lost in this case (and in most cases) by not pinging the people previously involved. WP:OWN and all that... Fram (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Fram, Fram, Fram ... you have been around as an admin since the earliest days of DYK. Therefore, you know well that yanking a hook from a queue next in line for the main page, without replacing it with another approved hook, creates a state of scrambling around to find another admin who happens to be around to take care of it. Not good. Also, you are mis-representing Yoninah's comments at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah was responding to a ping, and commented therein to the original poster's question about whether or not National Socialist could be changed to Nazi. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Make sure no blatant errors make it into the queues, and you won't need to "find another admin". But if you prefer, I'll simply remove the hook completely instead of leaving a line to indicate where the replacement hook should come. That way, if not a single admin willing to add a hook can be found, then we'll at least not have an empty "that ..." line on the main page. I am not going to add another hook when I remove one, I have zero interest in doing that. I don't care whether DYK has zero, one or 25 hooks on the main page at one time, as long as they are correct (and BLP compliant and a bit thoughtful and neutral and so on). Childish replies like your "Fram, Fram, Fram..." may make yourself very happy, but are not going to change anything. I'll not even bother to try to comprehend how you claim I am "misrepresenting" Yoninah's comments at errors. Did I change what they said there, did I attribute statements to them they never made? Or are you just trying to find fault with my statement, but can't find anything coherent or relevant in it to criticise and thus use the vague "misrepresent" without any indication of what I actually misrepresented? Stop wasting my time with incoherent ramblings which are a lot more disruptive than someone removing a blatantly incorrect hook from the main page. Next time, when you feel the need to reply here, first think again on what Wikipedia is really about. Fram (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - "mechanical issues"

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?

Well three of those four are listed as "Off Course" in the results. Sato, for instance, is quoted as "suddenly slowed on course and brought his car to a halt on an access lane" and nothing else, nothing about a "mechanical issue", he could have had an epiphany and decided to pull over. Likewise, "Hunter-Reay suddenly slowed and stopped on course" but no indication why, he went "Off Course" per the results but stopped "on course" per the article. What a muddle! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Bcschneider53, Orygun, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, "off course" is a peculiar way of saying that they stopped at some point during the race. The source [1] does however say "With an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – halting their collective charge this year, the entire squad finished in perfect order from P17-P20", so the hook is sourced. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I looked past that at the rest of the article which gave different indicators, as noted. Meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings from Merida, Mexico! I'm traveling all day today, currently waiting to board a flight to Mexico City before returning to the States. It appears this issue has been resolved, but is there anything else you need me to do? Or is the hook ready to go? Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some DYK suggestions

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Found via User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult:

  • ... that Naohiro Hoshikawa was forced to retire after suffering a career-ending brain injury?

50.205.178.174 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have suggested to the IP editor that if she or he made an account, he or she could make nominations.  :) EdChem (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Alternately he/she may have more luck taking the suggestions to the WP:Pro Wrestling project who has more of a vested interest in getting pro wrestling related DYKs on the front page.  MPJ-DK  12:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the IP posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling is a good idea, MPJ-DK. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I was following the instructions on WP:DYK ("if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose"). Thanks for the offer but I'm not really interested in joining Wikipedia. I'm just making a reader's suggestion. 50.205.178.174 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I am sure, we can feature at least 1 of these on the main page. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Good point, IP. I have acted on your suggestion and created Template:Did you know nominations/King Kaluha. EdChem (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Rules

Latest comment: 7 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

Do we have specific mechanisms in place to verify:

"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."

Some such as Air India have featured more than once. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Any main page appearance is listed on the article's talk page. In this case, the last main page appearance was 7 months after it was on the main page for DYK. But the first time was almost 4 years before it was submitted to DYK, and that should have been caught. If you are asking if there is a bot or anything automated to catch this in a review, I don't think so. It's up to the reviewers and promoters to check. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is the wealth of intricate DYK rules that a reviewer and a promoter (and a promoting admin) really should be checking. It's too much for most, so this kind of thing creeps through. But now it's been seen, it should be pulled and rejected, otherwise I see no purpose in that rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I just checked what I think this inquiry is all about. Air India is a non-bolded link in DYK 2017 electronics ban. I don't think anything applies if a previous DYK just happens to be a non-bold link in a subsequent DYK. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Add (yet) another rule that says "auxiliary links that have been featured in such a manner are acceptable". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you just imagine if DYK disallowed any non-bolded link that had previously been on the main page? Including FA, FL, OTD, ITN and DYK. That would exclude linking hundreds (thousands?) of famous people, landmarks, geography, structures, historical events, artwork, flora and fauna. — Maile (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes I can imagine that, definitely. It equates to the paradigm where nothing is linked beyond the target article. That's not very hard to comprehend at all. The real challenge would be working out which links had been targeted on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Maile66, I think the issue is that Air India appeared in the On this Day section in October 2012 and so was DYK-ineligible when it appeared in March 2016. I thought DYKcheck looked for previous ITN appearances, but I had not noticed the rule covered bolded links at OTD too. The non-bolded link in the hook from Template:Did you know nominations/2017 electronics ban is non-problematic, IMO. EdChem (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
DYKcheck does indeed look for previous ITN and OTD appearances by checking the article's talk page; it should certainly have found the OTD template there had it been used. Unfortunately, a good many reviewers do not use DYKcheck, and clearly they don't necessarily know they should check the talk page for prior main-page appearances. I suppose it's inevitable that the occasional duplicate is going to slip through. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, FYI, I just ran DYKcheck on the Air India article and it noted the prior DYK but not the prior OTD appearances. So, I tried DYKcheck on Battle of Clontarf, which has been in OTD numerous times and was not warned of the OTD appearances. Are you sure DYKcheck looks for OTD blurb appearances? EdChem (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
EdChem, I thought DYKcheck did, but I could be mistaken. Pinging Shubinator, to see whether OTD is included in DYKcheck's examination, and if not, how difficult it would be to add. (I'm not entirely sure it bothers to do any additional check for ITN once a prior DYK is discovered, but that wouldn't affect Battle of Clontarf.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
DYKcheck looks for previous appearances on DYK or ITN, but not OTD. Certainly looks possible to add OTD, I'll put it on my mental backlog. Shubinator (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Christ the Lord Is Risen Again

What are the rules on similar and overlapping topics, such as Christ the Lord Is Risen Again! and Christ ist erstanden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.146 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no rules on "similar and overlapping topics" at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I looked at it, and it may not even be overlapping: Mr. Weisse wrote a hymn (no article) "Christus ist erstanden", derived from the much older "Christ ist erstanden", Winkworth translated "Christus ist erstanden", described in the "Christ ist erstanden" article as "paraphrased". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Put it this way, the new article on the old German hymn (currently in the queue) is quite similar in some respects to an old article (DYK in 2015) on the newer English version of a German hymn - perhaps the old German hymn, but possibly a more recent German version of the old German hymn. But it is a free translation in any event. All three appear to be based on a very old hymn in Latin. Glad we got that straightened out. He is risen indeed. Alleluia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.146 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That English hymn ran on Easter 2 years ago! What's the point in bringing it up now? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the point is that it's similar to the article in question, I think that's clear from the discussion thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Corollary

I think given the OP question, there's a statement of fact that possibly needs to be reinforced at the rules, and it may be that it's there already, and that it just needs cementing, but it's something like:

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."

could become:

Articles that have not been previously bold-linked to on the main page, are eligible."
Articles that have been previously bold-linked to on the main page, are ineligible."

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an issue with this which we should clarify. Recent deaths in the ITN section are non-bolded and DYK-eligible, but OTD birth and death anniversaries are bolded... does that make them ineligible? I would have thought OTD blurb bold links would be excluded, but I don't see why anniversaries are given recent deaths are not? EdChem (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The OTD bolded birth and death anniversaries are a recent innovation, and the DYK rules have not yet been adjusted to accommodate them. Shall we agree that, as merely names and dates, they should not count as a prior appearance for DYK purposes? (It helps that their appearance in the birth/death section does not result in a post to the article's talk page, so DYKcheck will not think that such an appearance has been made.) I think whatever formulation we use should be more specific, and specify DYK at least, and probably all three sections involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps:
"Articles that have been previously featured (bold link) at DYK, or in a blurb in the main page sections In the news or On this day, are ineligible."
By specifying blurbs, both the recent deaths at ITN and the recently-bolded birth / death anniversaries at OTD are excluded. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Continuous errors in DYK articles' coordinates.

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I have to continuously correct the coordinates in DYK articles, such as this one today. Is there any way that a check of the coordinates be added to the Reviewing guide? Abductive (reasoning) 21:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've learned a lot of things by reading instruction pages on Wikipedia, but I've never found a page that explains how to do coordinates. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think co-ordinates are a very minor part of articles and don't impact on DYK much. Often I find that if you put the invisible co-ordinates needed tag on an article, someone better versed in it is able to come in and correct it. But it doesn't affect anything in the article that is related to DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
So in your mind, being off by a literal mile (as in my example diff) is no problem on the Front Page? Yep, you must be right, and I must be wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Abductive: Requiring this from each reviewer is asking too much, and can lead to edit wars . And it comes down to "Whose coordinates are correct?" My example on recent DYK Big Chief Restaurant:
  • Version One: 38.581111, -90.659722 from the coordinates listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Louis County, Missouri. That took me to GeoHack. I used the decimal coordinates that show in the upper right hand corner of that page.
  • Version Two: 38.581040, -90.660459 Changed by an editor while it was on the main page Big Chief Restaurant. This is the second time in a few days someone changed the coordinates on a DYK of mine.
  • Version Three - 38.5824105,-90.6635067 Google maps for the street address and zip code as listed on the restaurant website
  • Version Four - 38.5802, -90.66063 Bing maps for the street address
So which of these 4 versions are correct? In fact, both Google and Bing give conflicting results within themselves depending on how detailed you input the address. I appreciate that you are diligent about coordinates. But I don't think we should make this a requirement on reviews. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, their coordinates are often decimal conversions of dms coords. And they can be rounded. But this is not my main point. My example shows the coords were off by 1.6 kilometers. They need to be checked. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - linguistic order

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
... that the linguistic research of Elena Georgieva showed that Bulgarian word order may change based on the emphasis a speaker wants to convey?

Isn't this true of most languages? Word order changes to emphasise different things all the time: "I love that dog", "that's the dog I love", etc etc etc. Is this special somehow? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging SusunW, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, HaEr48. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
What happens in other languages isn't the subject of Georgieva's work. We don't determine whether her work was special, sources do, and specifically, one of them states: "The impact of her work on the field of Bulgarian syntax was considerable… Slovored was and is a high-water mark in the field for a number of reasons…it was the first work on Bulgarian syntax to view Bulgarian sentential word order as the culminating result of a number of different factors." Dyer p 14 "Georgieva’s contention is that Bulgarian sentential word order has multiple faces…and of the creation of an emphatic or stylistic atmosphere in language communication…” Dyer p 15. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the point I'm trying to emphasise is that this isn't unique, or even interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:: Please check Word order, the example examples you cite aren't changing word order. They're all still SVO. That (S) - is (V) - the dog I love (O). Saying "The dog love I" to mean "I love the dog" would be OVS, but English doesn't allow this. In English sometimes there are sentences with non-SVO order, e.g. "I thee wed", but it's not normal. A language having variable word order is certainly not unique, but given that this is the English Wikipedia and English has generally strict word order, I think this is an interesting fact for English speakers. HaEr48 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine, but it means the hook is somewhat inaccessible to most of our readers. Please revise it to make it "interesting to a broad audience" per the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess where we differ here is that you are assuming since you find it uninteresting that others will agree. Your opinion, and I am not trying to be disrespectful, doesn't necessarily represent that of a broad audience either. And thank you HaEr48 you said pretty much what I was writing when we had our edit conflict. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I guess pageviews will let us know. This is not interesting to a broad audience by any means, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but I wondered if there was something more hooky to publish. You're sticking to your guns, fair play, let's see how it plays out. My guess is sub-2k hits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe The Rambling Man should write an essay about his personal opinions of what is hooky and we could all go by his almighty word... I can be pretty blunt to. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Topic-prominent language might help? It is fairly unusual in European languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.146 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Per above, perhaps a re-word here to ensure a few more hits than my normal talkpage daily visitors? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing infoboxes

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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

Missing infoboxes
This discussion is closed
 
A visual representation of the weather forecast pertaining to this topic
Chances of requirement being addedNext to no chance
Utility of discussion continuingNext to no chance
Name of user closing discussionBencherlite
Time of closing of discussion20:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noted that many DyK articles are missing infoboxes. Is there a way that a check could be made prior to approving a DyK for an appropriate infobox? Perhaps a brief mention of this could be written into the instructions for the DyK writers or for the reviewers. Abductive (reasoning) 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Why? I mean I get the use of info boxes, but the lack of one does not seem like a hinderance for it being on the main page. Do we need yet another check point when there are enough issues making sure we hit all the current quality checks?  MPJ-DK  16:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Infobox's are not required on any article and many articles have editor consensus *not* to have one. As far as I am aware having an infobox is not a criteria for being a FA, GA etc either (but I could be wrong on that) so it would be beyond laughable for DYK to require one. (Its also considered bad form to include an infobox on an article where the primary creator has decided not to use one) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 5

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

@Prioryman: @Gerda Arendt:

Sigurd Slembe was a real person. Though he was illegitimate, is it encyclopedic to call him "a worthless bastard"? The phrasing also seems to indicate a value judgment. Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it is acceptable to use "bastard" as we are using it in the correct context (Indeed when Flag of Guernsey ran, we called William The Conquerer a bastard in the hook for that is what he was. The question is; is the word "worthless" encyclopedic? Is it in the context of a quote or an accusation by the writer of the plays? Personally it should either be in quote marks or remove the word worthless but I see no legitimate reason why we should remove bastard from the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
'Slembe' in context can mean multiple things, bastard, worthless, bad etc. The article in question Sigurd Slembe (trilogy) makes this clear - as far as the intention of the naming of the plays are concerned. 'Slembi' in old Norse means something else again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and the name has been translated multiple ways - "Sigurd the Worthless", "Sigurd the Bad", "Sigurd the Bastard" etc. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I suspect, given the wordplay, this ought to be the "quirky" hook, just to avoid people making a fuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm moving it to the quirky slot in the next set. Yoninah (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Blog and an internet forum as a reliable source

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm having trouble with Template:Did you know nominations/MBT-80. The nominator is saying that a blog and an internet forum are considered reliable sources for the topic. Certain blogs can be reliable sources, but I don't see anything that would amount to the WordPress blog being a reliable source. I'm doubtful of the internet forum being a reliable source because it seems like anyone can register and even misinterpret the sources that they post. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:SPS, the only way that blog posts can be considered notable is if they are written by "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - camerawork

Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion
... that the camerawork of Swedish film The King of Ping Pong was compared to that of Roy Andersson?

I read this and thought, "so what"? Sadly, although Andersson may be an acclaimed Swedish director, he's not commonly known, this hook will be lost on a lot of people. Grand Jury prize (in its category) at Sundance might be of much broader interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the current hook is sufficient. Also, I removed the lead too short tag on the article. The article is short per the type of coverage it received so there really isn't a need for a long lead. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree on both counts, and since you're the main contributor, I suggest you let others discuss this. I'm not asking for a "long lead", just one that, per WP:LEAD, "... serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ..." i.e. not one which is just a single statement of fact about this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I can discuss it if I want to. On the contrary, as the main contributor of both the article and the hook, I have the right to discuss it. I can't expand the lead if you don't give me more of an idea of what you want. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought that was evident from the instructions in the {{lead too short}} template, i.e. cover all major points in the lead, such as actors, awards, criticism etc. When I said others should be allowed to discuss this, I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't, just that others should be free to wade in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Um, I never said people couldn't. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, me neither. Anyway, hopefully you have enough information now to work out how to fix this up, the hook is inconsequential and the lead is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The lead has been expanded and the tag removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Bravo, it doesn't address the "hook" issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Northamerica1000 as the reviewer. SL93 (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think TRM has a valid point, the hookiness of the hook depends on know who Andersson was. There is an easy fix, however... add something to the article (with citation) that establishes Andersson as an acclaimed Swedish Director or multi-award winning or whatever... then use that descriptor to change the hook to something like "... that the camerawork in the Swedish film The King of Ping Pong was compared to that of acclaimed Director Roy Andersson?" Failing that sort of change, TRM's idea of using the Sundance Grand Jury prize is worth considering. Also, SL93, removing a tag about a lead that is too short without expanding the lead and when (at a single sentence) it is manifestly not an adequate summary of the article is not good editing. The problem has been addressed now, so there is no longer an issue, but it is worth you recognising that your actions here were less than ideal. EdChem (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I reacted that way because I think that tagging a DYK article without notifying the nominator is a bad move. Not only can tagged articles not be put on the main page, but what if no one notices the tag before the queue is promoted - like recently with one of The Rambling Man's citation needed tags. SL93 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
SL93, any article I nominate at DYK is included on my watchlist. I check changes made to it. TRM has added cn tags and noted other issues in my articles, and I usually respond by addressing the issue, even if I am unconvinced it is needed. Only if I think it is wrong for some significant reason do I dispute it. TRM's manner can be blunt (or worse at times), but he is usually right – as he was in this case – and addressing the issues he notes usually leads to better encyclopaedic content. DYK is meant to bring attention to articles and that means improvements being made as well as deficiencies being noted, both prior to and during its main-page appearance. Reverting valid taggings is not helpful, and it does not matter who places the tag if it is valid. Please, try to look at tags and ask yourself if they point to an issue that should be addressed and put aside who placed them. EdChem (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, you're lucky that an editor who kind of knows the ropes is reviewing these things post-promotion. At least I have kind-of clue as to what constitutes reliable sourcing, suitable leads, BLP infringements etc. That way the chances of enduring the embarrassment of posting such poor articles to the main page is substantially reduced. SL93, you claim that "Not only can tagged articles not be put on the main page...", can you point to that directive as others have been questioning the reason behind posting such tagged articles on the main page. My bluntness (EdChem) can sometimes be summed up by the fact that I have very little time to work on Wikipedia, and I'm trying to keep the main page free of junk, so if I don't jump through all the hoops expected by some here at this particular project (I review ITN, OTD, TFL... too) then sorry about that, but as Fram would agree, it's not up to someone who's making a complaint against an error to follow some kind of arcane procedure to ensure the "nominator" and the "promoter" knows, and all that other project-related bureaucracy. That's a problem for each project to cope with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
We will clearly have to disagree about when to notify or not to notify editors. SL93 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well as I said, you're lucky in this case that I notify people when these erroneous issues are in prep or queue. If they're at ERRORS, then DYK has fouled up two or three times. There's no reason to go looking for the creator, why would anyone do that? This is an encyclopedia for our readers not our editors, and it would serve us all well to remember that from time to time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
My view is if you go to the article creator, who can likely fix the problem, then the creator can fix it and our readers will not have to deal with it. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 will soon be put into a queue and I think this hook should be dealt with already. I agree with TRM's alt proposal as being much more interesting to a broad audience, and suggest substituting it for the hook:

ALT1: ... that the Swedish film The King of Ping Pong won the Grand Jury Prize for world cinema at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival? Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @SL93:. Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I said it was fine. Someone might want to change it before its loaded into a queue. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done Yoninah (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead (picture) hook pulled from next queue

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican Federal Highway 40D @Raymie, Gerda Arendt, and Yoninah:

As always with first, largest, tallest, ... hooks, don't just check that the source makes that claim, but also check that no other sources contradict it, or that the record has been beaten since. In this case, the Baluarte Bridge is not the tallest cable-stayed bridge in the world: it is 403m above the ground, but the 2016 Duge Bridge is 565m above the ground. Checking our own List of highest bridges would have been sufficient... The Yachi River Bridge as well is higher and of the same type. I have pulled the hook, the nom will need to be reopened. Fram (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. You could simply have changed the hook to "Baluarte Bridge, then the world's tallest cable-stayed bridge", no? Or to just "Baluarte Bridge". Readers who remember the DYK of that bridge (like me) will remember that it was the tallest then without adding it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I will not change hooks to something I haven't checked, nor to a mention of a bridge without any indication of why that one is mentioned. Hook is factually wrong => take it back to prep and find a correct one instead. No rushed changes to get it into the queue at all costs. Fram (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm dearly sorry for that. Yeah, it makes sense that China's infrastructure development is moving even faster than Mexico's. Raymie (t • c) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Sigh ... I guess it's too much to hope for that any admin who would yank a hook from the top queue within hours of it being on the main page, would move another hook up to fill the gap. A simple courtesy. I moved Sagunto Castle up from prep 5 to fill the top slot. And, yes, I checked the source to make sure the hook is verified. No moaning, please, no whining, no complaining about the imperfections of other people. It's done. @Raymie, Gerda Arendt, and Yoninah: your hook can be re-added to some prep. Sorry it went down this way. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Where can I find the corrected hook? Prep 5 is short one hook because Sagunto Castle was moved up, I think it makes sense if the corrected hook go there. HaEr48 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I re-posted the template on the Approved page. The new ALT is waiting for approval from an uninvolved editor. Yoninah (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Raymie: Mexican Federal Highway 40D nomination was in limbo, at neither the Approved page nor the one waiting for approval. I just added it to the Approved page. Let's hope it stays there this time. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Raymie: Well ... Wugbot just removed it and sent it into limbo again. Apparently, Wugbot sees this nomination as "closed" and thinks it doesn't belong anywhere. Looking at the template, Yoninah, whoever reopened it should have done a "revert" on the close, instead of however somebody did it. I looked at it in the edit screen, and it had all the coding for the closing on it, so that's why Wugbot keeps deleting it. I pasted over that with what was there immediately before you promoted it. Hopefully, it will now stay on the Approved page. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Why would you want to have an unapproved hook on the Approved page? This is making things more confusing, not less. Fram (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1 (due to go live in 7 hours) - copied from WP:ERRORS

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
  • "... that Pangeran Adipati Anom expected a fake engagement at the Battle of Gegodog, but instead his army suffered a decisive defeat?" - very confusing. "Pangeran Adipati Anom" is linked to Amangkurat II of Mataram, which does not mention "Pangeran Adipati Anom" at all, neither does it mention the Battle of Gegodog. Who is Pangeran Adipati Anom? What, if anything, is his or her relationship with Amangkurat II of Mataram? What has the Battle of Gegodog to do with either? DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the present hook. Perhaps it could be changed to the ALT hook, but really, HaEr48 is the editor who understands this historical article about Java. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly surprised that this hook causes confusion, as in the article Battle of Gegodog it is explicitly stated "then known as Pangeran Adipati Anom, future Amangkurat II". Thats why I passed the article. But if it does cause confusion, then we can de-link "Pangeran Adipati Anom" and go with ALT. Applodion (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Right. He was only Amangkurat II after being king, before that he was crown prince and known as Pangeran Adipati Anom (this is also a title and not his real name). This battle happened when he was crown prince. Kind of like in Battle of Vitoria, the British commander was referred to as the Marquess of Wellington and not the Duke - because he was not Duke yet. HaEr48 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
OK - I've gone with ALT because Trunajaya rebellion is also a much better article to link. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

Should DYK nominations be moved from the template namespace to the Wikipedia namespace? KMF (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole project needs an overhaul to make it more intuitive and easier to follow a nomination from proposal to main page. But sadly it's far from modest, and sadly there's no appetite to do it; the regulars understand how it works, and that's just fine for them, the newcomers are completely discouraged by the arcane machinations of DYK and that's why the project has so few genuinely new editors contributing, the majority are seasoned editors who know the ropes, and those who are gaining points for WikiCup. It doesn't serve Wikipedia well, in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is too complicated. I have made three DYK noms, and only on my third (and current) one am I beginning to understand all the plethora of pages. What is really needed is a concrete proposal on how the process could be simplified. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason why they were put into the templates were because prior to this, stuffing them all onto one page cluttered it and made it hard to track nominations. Plus I can't recall if there was a nomination template at the time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that newbies are put off by the plethora of templates because all they have to do is fill in the initial nomination template and then follow the progress of their nomination via their watchlist. I think they may have more difficulty with finding where to nominate in the first place (part way down the large page), and then in filling up a cluttered, off-putting and difficult to understand form. What did @PaleCloudedWhite: think of the nomination process? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, the template system is a rather elegant method of keeping track of the whole process. I remember doing my first DYK nomination: there were some tricky parts, but the nomination system itself was not one of them. The C of E is quite correct: our time would be well spent letting new article creators know that nominating here is a possibility. What we also need to do is overhaul our system of rules and regulations. Having a page of detailed rules is not an issue, because they are there precisely to address issues of detail that do not crop up often; but there is no reason to have more than one very basic and one detailed page of rules. Or even a single page. We have four, I think, at present. Vanamonde (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think nominating is difficult, thanks to the templates. Perhaps we should tell users who find it difficult where to ask for help, such as somewhere on this page. I'd be willing to help with first nominations, - someone did the first for me, fondly remembered. - I suggest to keep nominations open until archived after appearing, and to hold all related discussions within, not hook questions here only, for more transparency. Here, we could just link to a list of problem noms, as BlueMoonset does for the old ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the instructions, if not the actual process, need some clarification. My first nom occurred without too much hassle if I remember rightly, but then I slightly mucked-up my second one - despite trying to follow the instructions to the letter - and my recent one was OK but it was only part way through that I realised that filling in the template makes changes appear wherever in the process the nom is. A minor example of how easy it is to misunderstand the whole process: I recently added a couple of comments to Cwmhiraeth's nom for Aulacaspis yasumatsui, and I think Cwmhiraeth thought I was reviewing it, whereas I thought it had already been reviewed, by an editor called "Jerry London (wrestler)", because underneath Cwm's nom is a line that states "reviewed: Jerry London (wrestler)".... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the point in KMF's original question has been missed. As I read it, KMF is wondering whether we should move from "Template:Did you know nominations/Name of article" to "Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Name of article" - along the lines of "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Name of article". I don't think KMF is asking to do away with the template submission system - as the TFAR method shows, you can easily have a template-based nomination system in WP space. I think that all of these nominations are in template space because of a historical accident whereby everything is regarded as a subpage of Template:Did you know. It doesn't make a practical difference which namespace we use, I don't think, and making the change would require a lot of updating of processes for no net benefit. BencherliteTalk 08:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then I suppose the real question is whether such a move would make the process more intuitive for newbies; and I for one cannot think of why this would be the case. Of course what we really would have to do is to ask newbies, but that's a bit of a catch 22, isn't it; the only ones interested enough to participate in such discussions tend to be more experienced editors. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

GA nom

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can I have a little clarification - what's the date to enter a hook that's been promoted to GA today, but was expanded in January? In otherwords, of course, one that has pent months in the GAN queue. I can't put it in the January column- there isn't one, out of time I guess- but to put it in as today seems misleading. houghts? Cheers, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the date to use for a GA is indeed when it was listed as a GA, even if that's today. What matters at DYK is the moment of listing, not when the expansion or correction work was done. You have seven days from the date of listing to nominate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent news BlueMoonset, and I thank ye. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Next queue short by four hooks

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion

As mentioned above, at least four hooks in Prep 2, which is set to become Queue2, which is the next queue to be on the main page, were seriously dubious or simply wrong. To prevent these of appearing on the main page in their current state and without further discussion, I have removed them from the prep. Fram (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

NDR Chor

Template:Did you know nominations/NDR Chor @Gerda Arendt, HaEr48, and Cwmhiraeth:

It was in its 71st year, not it's 70th year. Simply changing the fact makes for an utterly unremarkable hook (why is it in any way important that it was in its 71st year?) Fram (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the year part could just be omitted entirely with the rest of the hook being used. SL93 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps something like ... that the NDR Chor performed at the opening concert of the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, Germany, singing in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony? BencherliteTalk 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have returned this to Prep 2 with the "in its 70th year" omitted. If anyone wants to change the hook, they are welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw this coming ;) - It occurred to me that the celebration of a birthday is the completion of that year. It's their 70th-anniversary season, - they celebrate the whole 2016/17 season. I find "70th-anniversary season" a clumsy term, so didn't want to change. The opening of the long-awaited hall was quite an event, even without that. I plan to mention other events from their career with their conductors. Another option might be:
... that the NDR Chor, founded after World War II, performed in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for the opening of the Elbphilharmonie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

R v Jordan (2016)

  • ... that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person charged with an offence in a provincial court normally has to be tried within 18 months?

Template:Did you know nominations/R v Jordan (2016) @Valmi, Maile66, and Cwmhiraeth:

No, they normally have to be tried within 18 months or within 30 months, depending on whether a preliminary enquiry is done or not. Nothing in the article or source indicates that 18 months is the normal situation and 30 months the abnormal one. Fram (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Returned to the nominations page for further consideration of the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cornell Pulpwood Stacker

Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker @Maile66, NearEMPTiness, and Cwmhiraeth:

What do you mean, "the left side"? The article says "A "Save the Stacker" fund was set up in Cornell, where as of 2009, it was estimated that it would take a minimum of $350,000 to clean off the rust and refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle" which is a good example of WP:SYNTH; there is a catwalk on the stacker which was used for routine maintenance when the thig still worked (prior to 1971), which is sourced to the NRHP text: and there is a group now (well, a few years ago)[2]: "working on raising $350,000 to sandblast and resurface the rusty stacker." There is no evidence there of them using that catwalk to sandblast it, and not scaffolding, a crane, ... Apart from that, it is hardly surprising that when you have a 175 foot building or structure at a 45° angle, that people working on it will need to climb up and down the structure. Fram (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach

Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach @Bschneider53, Orygun, and Cwmhiraeth:

This was discussed before, but somehow still isn't changed. The article also has the hook claim, but the source[3] makes it clear that the retirements were due to mechanical and electrical problems: "an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – ". Fram (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Apologies, typo in the previous ping. Fram (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Shall we go with "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical and electrical issues?" Or I suppose we could drop the phrase altogether and say that they simply retired from the race... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My only issue is that the source says or rather than and. Also, the article has still not been edited to reflect the hook. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have dealt with both of those too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, SL93, and Fram: Thank you for your concerns. It looks good to me. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't the simplest solution to change one word in the hook, "mechanical", to "engine"?

Or "engine problems"? Or "engine failures"? I also raised a question at WT:NAME about the use of corporate sponsor names (Toyota, in this case) in article names, and whether this is promotional. Perhaps I chose to raise it at the wrong page as it has had no response, but it seemed appropriate. I still wonder why the page is not titled 2017 Grand Prix of Long Beach... EdChem (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What went wrong?

We are so often told that "human error" is inevitable, but in this one set we've seen a 50% error rate, that's not acceptable, especially since it was just about to hit the main page. I'm trying hard to get to each DYK and review it and its sources, after it's been reviewed, accepted, promoted and then moved to a queue (i.e. the four "quality" checkpoints at DYK) but it's clear that I alone cannot conduct this task flawlessly. I'm sorry for that. If Fram can, in moments, detect four errors in a set then we still have a major issue. Rather than sweep it under the carpet as "we all make mistakes", it's time to confront it full-on. Why are so many errors getting onto or so close to being posted to the Main Page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A part of the issue might be the QPQ process. It does look like some reviewers just want to do a half-assed QPQ to get their own article on the main page. When I see mostly checkmarks or a quick review that doesn't seem to cover all points, I doubt that a thorough review was completed. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
An interesting and perceptive response. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's an idea, which may not fix everything, but can't hurt. Part of every review is checking to see whether the nominator has completed a QPQ. Surely we can extend this just a little, and say that every reviewer needs to check whether the nominator has completed a thorough QPQ; as in, have they explicitly checked each criterion? So for instance, if I did a review for article X, and submitted it as a QPQ for article Y, but neglected to do a copyvio check for article X, the reviewer for Y could then legitimately fail my nomination. This isn't exactly a radical idea, I'm just suggesting making explicit what seems to be implied by the review process. Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I already do what Vanamonde93 is suggesting. I have refused to accept a QPQ where there was no copyvio check until one was done, and in another case I said the QPQ was inadequate and the editor volunteered to do another. The next steps of disallowing QPQs and even restricting nominations from editors whose QPQ reviews are regularly poor are worth discussing. We also have to recognise, however, that not all errors are equally serious. EdChem (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, not all errors are equally serious. Take the hook "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?" What that hook is illustrating is that the cars did not exit the race because of collisions or driver errors, but because they ceased to function correctly, they had problems. That some of these problems may have been electrical is only a subset of mechanical, they failed as machines. Big fuss about nothing in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, Cwmhiraeth, that was the exact hook I was thinking of. As someone who watches motorsport, I am well aware that "mechanical failures" can mean specifically a problem with mechanics or a more general "catch all" term for failure to finish that was not due to a collision, a black flag, driver error leading to a crash, etc. Both the concerns raised by TRM and Fram are understandable confusions from (I suspect) non-motorsports watchers, and yes tweaking the hooks led to improvements, but they were minor issues, and it is my view that when treat all errors as equally serious they undermine their own argument. Just in this thread, to me the R v Jordan (2016) and Cornell Pulpwood Stacker cases are the errors that are seriously problematic and that should not have made it as far as preps / queues, and I note that Cwmhiraeth has correctly returned those two to the nomination pages and Fram has correctly added problem tags overruling the ticks. On the topic TRM has raised here, are these more serious cases ones where Vanamonde's point applies?
Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/R v Jordan (2016), the original review by Edwardx noted a problem with 18 months only applying to "most cases" and Maile66 then gave a tick for a hook where "applicable to most cases" became "normally has to be" – two phrases which are similar in meaning but not the same, and as Fram noted, the connotation of "normal" is problematic here. This was a first-time DYK nomination (as Edwardx noted) from an editor whose last 50 edits go back to July 2015, and who last made more than 100 edits in a year in 2006. Had the ALT1 used "usually" or "typically" instead of "normally", the tweak by Valmi would have been much less problematic. According to this reference (added by Valmi on the same day ALT1 was proposed): "There is a presumptive ceiling of 18 months on the length of a criminal case in provincial courts, from the charge to the end of trial" and "[t]here is a presumptive ceiling of 30 months on criminal cases in superior courts, or cases tried in provincial courts after a preliminary inquiry." Also according to the reference, this presumptive ceiling can be exceeded in certain circumstances, and a delay can be found to be unconscionable even under the ceiling. I think the article does not yet fully cover these points and this needs addressing before a new hook is formed. I note that both Edwardx {Template:Did you know nominations/Grosvenor Gardens House already promoted) and Maile66 (already has a tick at Template:Did you know nominations/McLoughlin Promenade) have claimed QPQ credits for reviews of R v Jordan.
 
Cornell Pulpwood Stacker
Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker, the review by NearEMPTiness used the template checklist and raised no problems. "Left side" is always going to be unclear because it depends on perspective, especially if the hook was not promoted with the associated image (as it was not, when Cwmhiraeth built the prep). The article itself also uses "left side" in a statement followed by this NHRP ref, page 8 which substantiates the dimensions and the 45 degree angle but also uses a much clearer east / west description: "It is a steel cantilever truss structure that stands 175 feet above the ground at an angle of approximately forty-five degrees. ... The front (east) lower section of the stacker rests on two concrete piers where it is held in place by steel pins. This served as a fulcrum which enabled the engineers to raise the stacker to its operating position by pouring concrete into the counterweight mold at the rear (west) section of the frame." Note also that the front / east / lower section at 45 degrees is actually on the right side of the image. The other ref on this sentence requires a subscription for access. Unless it is in that reference, I don't see where the assertion that "workers must climb at a 45-degree angle" is in the references. The article says "a catwalk along one side is provided for maintenance workers to climb up and down the equipment" and the picture proposed for the hook and reproduced here shows that the catwalk is not located on the eastern-side 45 degree section but the western (rear) structure that is inclined at a lower angle. Later on is the statement that "A "Save the Stacker" fund ... refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle.[4][2]" Ref 4 is the NHRP, 2 is the subscription required, and ref 11 includes: "Winter, spring, summer, 30 below zero, ice, heat of summer, [workers would] still have to walk to the top to make sure things were working properly", likely referring to walking along to catwalk to check the equipment at the apex of the stacker. I don't see anything about climbing the front structure. Now, refinishing would require accessing that structure, but, as Fram notes, that could be by scaffolds and not require climbing the structure at all. I think Cwmhiraeth has been careless in promoting into a prep a hook with "left side" (that is unclear and especially unclear when the image is not included) in it. NearEMPTiness has 12 DYK credits, and appears to me to have not reviewed the sources sufficiently to recognise the SYNTH issue that I think exists here.
Answering TRM, both of these cases trace to issues in the article, in my opinion. Without a thorough review of the hook fact at promotion, the Jordan error was difficult to catch, but the stacker should have been caught at that point based on not the "left" thing being clear without an image, if nothing else, let alone the idea of a restoration of a 100-year old structure having workers in the US climb up the structure on a 45 degree incline without a catwalk structure, which would make me wonder about safety and be doubtful. EdChem (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Credit removal required

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The sixth {{DYKmake}} in Queue 5, for Onesimus Ustonson, needs to be removed. (The hook was removed while it was in Prep 5, but only one of the two credits was removed.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done - thanks for catching that. Mifter (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructions for removing a hook from prep or queue

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

In regards to more than one thread above, I looked for the appropriate instructions for removing a hook from prep or queue, and what to do with the nomination template. These instructions, which are the consensus from numerous discussions since December 2016, are on the Approved page. How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue . — Maile (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"These instructions, which are the consensus from numerous discussions since December 2016"? Um, no, these are the same instructions which have been on T:DYKN for years and years (compare with e.g. December 2014 or December 2012). While the "approved" situation was discussed at length, this specific aspect has not been the subject of "numerous discussions since December 2016", or it wouldn't still be this version which is seriously outdated and isn't strictly followed by anyone anymore. Fram (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I largely follow the procedure mentioned, but take a short cut by clicking "undo" for the action in the template's history that archived the nomination, adding a new icon and comment in the process. This returns the hook to where it was previously, on the Approved nominations page, and effectively replaces bullet points 4, 5 and 6 in the instructions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
When was the last time you (or anyone else for that matter) "Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed to help in tracking removals."? That page is marked "inactive", for crying out loud, but is still required in the instructions which were arrived at after numerous discussions since December 2016. I'll continue to remove problems from main page or queue if I happen to look at them (which I rarely do any longer, nonsense like this very discussion makees it abundantly clear that too many people at DYK are beyond hope) and explain this here, without taking any further steps which I'll gladly leave to the bureaucracy of this page. Fram (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
(e.g. there is no next queue, but in the first prep is a hook for Template:Did you know nominations/NDR Chor; the Chor was created in May 1946, it's sevntieth year was 2015/2016, this is their 71th year; they have celebrated their 70th birthday in May 2016, which means they are now in their 71st year, not their 70th as the hook claims; this is the kind of carelessness that fills DYK constantly). Fram (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
And the next hook in that prep claims that in Canada a person "charged with an offence in a provincial court normally has to be tried within 18 months?", but the article makes it clear that this is 18 months without preliminarie inquiry, and 30 months with one: it doesn't make it clear at all which of these two (if any) is "normal", so it may just as well be that the Supreme Court ruled that people normally have to be tried within 30 months instead of the claimed 18 months. Fram (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I qualified my reply by using the word "largely". I think what you are saying is that when you pull hooks, you don't follow the instructions, but leave the "bureaucracy of this page" to clear up after you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
No-one is obligated to adhere to some arcane ruleset when preventing errors getting to the mainpage. How many times must this be stated? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
No one needs to "clear up", if people want to give pulled hooks a second (third, fourth...) chance by putting them in noms again and restarting the process, that's their choice. Nothing is broken by pulling hooks from queues or main page and doing nothing else. Thanks for making me laugh with your attempt at an excuse for your mistaken statement above, "largely", which you followed by describing a shortcut for some points, but simply "forgot" to mention that you don't do the last point at all. Typical... Fram (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Fram, knock it off with the rudeness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes Fram, rudeness is so much worse than dishonesty. Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello C of E, I left you a message about your spin-off articles on your talkpage, I was wondering if you could please respond? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The C of E, I've made a number of requests now, and seeing as the ivy article, and the Fucking article are both being re-merged, could you please point me to any of the other spin-offs you created for DYK? Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Still in the same queue, Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker: what do you mean, "the left side"? The article says "A "Save the Stacker" fund was set up in Cornell, where as of 2009, it was estimated that it would take a minimum of $350,000 to clean off the rust and refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle" which is a good example of WP:SYNTH; there is a catwalk on the stacker which was used for routine maintenance when the thig still worked (prior to 1971), which is sourced to the NRHP text: and there is a group now (well, a few years ago)[4]: "working on raising $350,000 to sandblast and resurface the rusty stacker." There is no evidence there of them using that catwalk to sandblast it, and not scaffolding, a crane, ... Apart from that, it is hardly surprising that when you have a 175 foot building or structure at a 45° angle, that people working on it will need to climb up and down the structure. Fram (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
And a fourth one from that very same prep, "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?" This was discussed before, but somehow still isn't changed. The article also has the hook claim, but the source[5] makes it clear that the retirements were due to mechanical and electrical problems: "an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – ".
That's four dubious or problematic hooks in the next set of 8 hooks. I'm really not going to bother with a list of outdated and dubious rules to sort this out if this kind of thing is set to hit the main page. Fram (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 lead hook: Persis Foster Eames Albee

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

@Doug Coldwell: User:7&6=thirteen @Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:

I did some editing on the article, and wondered why the first paragraphs under Career were so chatty about David McConnell's sales efforts. Now I see that text is line-by-line paraphrased from [6]. Compare:

Source: McConnell continuously sought new and different ways to engage his customers, and one method was to give out free samples of rose scented perfume with his book orders. When he realized that the fragrances were more popular than the books, he decided that selling perfume could be a profitable business opportunity. In June 1886, he founded The California Perfume Company and began selling perfumes along with books.
Article: McConnell innovated new ways to sell his books. One technique he came up with was to give free samples of home-made rose scented perfume with book orders. He soon realized the ladies were more interested in the perfumes than the books, so decided to sell perfumes with the books. He started The California Perfume Company in June 1886 and began selling perfumes and books.
The previous paragraph also has line-by-line paraphrasing. I haven't gone through the whole article, but I think this should be cleaned up before it hits the main page. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  Done With recent edits by User:7&6=thirteen and User:Doug Coldwell, the problem has been resolved. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Edward Elliott

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I need some help with this nomination. The hook isn't in the article, but the reviewer said, "It is unusual for the exact hook to be in the article due to the restrictions on hooks". I find this to be not true, but I'm checking here just because the nominator has a bunch of Good Articles and DYKs. This is more of a good faith effort for help rather than outright denying the hook. SL93 (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided general advice on the nomination page, though not on the specific hook. The hook's fact(s) must be in the article, with sourcing support, but I don't see that as requiring a word-for-word occurrence of the hook in the article, though there are certainly cases I've seen when the hook is not an accurate reflection of the article, which is obviously not acceptable. EdChem (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I now see that the hook is an image caption. I've never seen that before so I wasn't expecting it. I do read image captions when I review DYK articles, but it didn't register with me that one of them was the hook. SL93 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It's been years, I think, but the last time I remember that the hook material was only in an image caption, the nomination was not approved until it was also included in the article proper. We've never had a requirement that the hook be a word-for-word replication of text in the article, just that the fact(s) be in the article and sourced by the end of the sentence in which they appear (the end of the paragraph is not soon enough). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please could somebody who is not involved add the hook for Jerry London (wrestler), which is in the special holding area, to Prep 2, for Anti-Bullying Day, which is apparently on May 4th. Yoninah nominated it and I reviewed it. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done: but I've tweaked the wording. The article, and the sources, say "humiliated", and not "bullied"; the two words are, IMHO, different enough that we shouldn't substitute one for the other. The fact that it's related to bullying is clear enough. Vanamonde (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

@SL93: @Tachs:

Who is Toby Sells? Shouldn't there be a page about him/her if s/he's being mentioned on the main page? Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the issue. I guess we could do "...that the film Zombie Killers: Elephant's Graveyard has special effects created by someone who has also done work for the television series The Walking Dead? SL93 (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is that a problem? does it make a stronger hook to say "some guy" instead of Toby Sells? Yeah he does not have an article, but that alone is not a standard of notability in any way.  MPJ-DK  17:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It has been mentioned on this page before that subjects without articles are a poor fit for the main page. If he's so notable, why doesn't he have an article? I suggest finding a different hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
So by that logic we should just drop all red link policies in general.  MPJ-DK  21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Was Toby Sells linked in the hook? I missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Was I talking to you? Or replying to If he's so notable, why doesn't he have an article? - It ain't all about the Rambling Man.  MPJ-DK  21:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Seriously now, holier than thou, you missed the in general part. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely. If Toby Sells is so non-notable that he doesn't have an article, why should our readers care about this at all? There must be a better hook in Zombie Killers.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I can answer why they would care - The Walking Dead. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you're somewhat missing the point here, the blurb relates, indeed is predicated on the significance of "Toby Sells". He doesn't have a Wikipedia article. So he's not notable. Or not yet. When claiming "NOTABLE A was fascinating because _non-notable B_ was also involved in NOTABLE C", please consider that our readers will lose sight of any interest once you start discussing someone who isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. (Also, "done work" is shambolic English). I suspect this is another case of an article which is so average that it can't sustain a "Did You Know" moment. Reject it, failed, and hope for better in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you could find a reliable source, it would be far better to have something like:
... that Zombie Killers: Elephant's Graveyard features no elephants and no graveyards?
which is what this source claims. Infinitely superior to the promoted hook, in my humble opinion of course...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(Also, just Googling "Toby Sells" reveals no swift RS that he worked on Walking Dead other than mirrors etc).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I will find another hook, but only because it isn't worth arguing over. However, I will point out three things - 1) You are not all our readers , 2) Toby Sells may very well be notable. Notable articles are created every day, including about historically significant people from centuries ago. and 3) I have a Google Books page in the DYK nomination which verifies that he worked for The Walking Dead. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I will be glad to see that, (1) I never said I was "all our readers", (2) Wikipedia notability works by having an article or a redlink, (3) I never doubted he worked on The Walking Dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
You didn't say it, but you seem to act like it. That isn't how notability works... WP:N, WP:BIO, etc... SL93 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
SL93 why don't you go ahead and create an article for Toby Sells? Then you could get a double nomination, or at the very least, a blue link in the hook. But I like TRM's alt suggestion too. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I will just change the hook sometime today. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, TRM's hook can be used... or something about the main characters attacking zombies with paintball guns. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about hating to say it, I'm not worried in the slightest, I just want our main page to be the best it can be. Thanks for your consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm moving this back to the noms page so there won't be time pressure on finding a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6 - stating the bleeding obvious

Latest comment: 7 years ago45 comments11 people in discussion
... that substitution of a hazardous chemical can backfire if it turns out to be a "regrettable substitution" that unwittingly introduces a new hazard?

So now DYK, instead of being something that seems interesting, novel, or interesting, has become a statement of the obvious? I don't have time to chase all the arcane templates but this will be at ERRORS if it's not pulled or fixed. It's basically saying "if you replace hazard A with hazard B, hazard B might be hazardous". Come on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That looks valid enough to me; I've certainly seen worse at DYK. It's a little clumsily worded, but I assume that's an artefact of sticking to the precise technical terminology rather than the vernacular—to me it translates as "sometimes applying safety procedures can make the situation more dangerous than if you'd left things well alone". ‑ Iridescent 22:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, perhaps it's because I'm coming at it with some experience in both DYK and hazards. This is just a statement of the obvious, but maybe it's exciting for others. How low we plumb. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
What TRM says here may be perfectly valid. The "notability" doesn't seem to be very distinct or particularly "notable"/ interesting? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Here we go again. Please stop this stalking, even when you're not making any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 Despite the number of people who believe otherwise, "interesting" has never been one of the DYK eligibility criteria. (The first ever DYK set was Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?", ...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?, ...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?, ...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?, ...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?, only one of which could by any possible standard be considered interesting—the meme that there was once a Golden Age when DYK hooks were catchy and exciting, but standards have since lapsed, is a complete myth.) I agree that if we have to have DYK, it's a service to the reader to make the hooks catchy if possible, but the idea that "too boring for the Main Page" is grounds for exclusion has only ever existed in the heads of a couple of vocal individuals. ‑ Iridescent 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Shucks yes, I hadn't even thought of that. How well dumb of me. But I think you meant kph, not kph. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
A vocal few control the entire DYK process. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be any error here but the hook might work better if it were truncated:
ALT2 ... that substitution of a hazardous chemical can backfire?
To avoid "regrettable substitution", we should always consult the author and reviewer. Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll defer to the author here, but it seems from reference sources that the term "regrettable substitution" has a specific technical meaning: "regrettable substitution, in which chemicals with health concerns are replaced by chemicals we know nothing about".[7] It's mentioned in quite a few sources.[8],[9] The point of it clearly is that what TRM calls "hazard B" is not known to be a hazard at the time of its introduction, but is only found to be hazardous later. Given that it appears to be an established technical term, I don't think it would be advisable to change it in a misplaced effort to spice up the hook, which seems perfectly accurate to me. Prioryman (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Honestly, I found the term "regrettable substitution" to be amusingly evocative, and that's why I built the hook around it. And most of the alternate hooks in the articles are even more technical (for example: "... that the substitution of dichloromethane with n-hexane as a brake cleaner was a "regrettable substitution" because the latter was found to be neurotoxic?") In any case, I don't think it's worth holding a hook up over an issue that is not a factual error or a copyvio. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the pain caused by the search for things which are amusing. Perhaps amusement should be banned as a non-encyclopedic activity. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Being amused is already banned, practically. A friend was taken to ANI because he was amused, said "I just have fun", 1 January, not 1 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation - I'd suggest we just continue with the original hook since there seems to be little good reason to change it. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS isn't for hooks that are factually correct so go ahead. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Martinevans123: TRM may be being brusque, but you are adding absolutely nothing to this conversation. Please cut it out. Vanamonde (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I was offering my support to TRM, before he essentially told me to shut up. Iridescent then very cleverly explained why I was wrong. I think a decision has already been made, but I agree with what Prioryman has said. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I asked you to stop following my edits once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, contrary to what Iridescent says, we have a current DYK rule that clearly (and in bold) states "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.". I.e. "interesting" most definitely is a factor. That some users are confused and/or ignore that is a different issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Where you go wrong, TRM, is that you use as the yardstick what you find interesting. Personally, I found it interesting enough. Prioryman (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No, not really, I'm a reasonable enough bellwether to determine what would be interesting to a "broad audience" having edited here for over a decade. Although a lot of people dislike me, my style, my comments, I'm certainly operating on more than a 50% success rating for issues raised here and at ERRORS. I'm glad you personally found it interesting enough, I didn't and I don't think others would, which is why I brought it here for discussion. I have no super-vote, no ability to do anything beyond generate debate here, and that's my entitlement as an editor of Wikipedia. If nothing changes after debate, that's fine by me, but people suggesting that "interesting" isn't part of the DYK ruleset, for instance, isn't going to wash. If people don't want "interesting to a broad audience" in there, remove it from the instructions. Anyway, this seems to have concluded, I just wanted to correct the fallacious assertion about "interesting", and that's done (to death) now, so perhaps we won't need to hear people denying its existence in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hatting this unproductive section. Claiming TRM has no credentials is ludicrous and disruptive. We have better things to argue. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do you get the feedback from this "broad audience"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious, have you created any content in those over 10 years, or just tagged and debated? I'm just wondering since you critique the work of other people a lot. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
TRM and I are not on good terms right now, but... jesus, this is a really stupid question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I think it's a perfect question. Someone who has been here for over 10 years and barely (or if at all) created any content is someone who I don't think is the most needed for a critique. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm saying anyone claiming he hardly creates any content is an idiot. He's got a contributions tab... maybe click on it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I went through it, idiot. How far back must I go? Years? SL93 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What do you mean by "idiot"? How about checking how many GAs TRM wrote. How does this exchange improve DYK? Last Alf Ramsey, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I said idiot merely because I was called an idiot. I was genuinely curious and didn't mean anything bad by it...until I was insulted. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting to get the feeling I've misinterpreted you. Based on you indentation, I assumed you're talking about TRM. Are you talking about someone else? If so, I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You're very dumb if you don't realize I mean creating and expanding articles. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
[10] --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
So...mostly redirects and stubs? SL93 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
So... now you're changing the goalposts once you realize you said something dumb? And do GA's count? Or would your criterion suddenly become "so... mostly non-FA's"? Bye bye. Someone sane can hat as desired, I have no idea why I even bothered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean my original question in a bad way, but you seem to think so since you came in calling me an idiot. I was merely curious since TRM did say once that the didn't have much time for Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What the fuck? Perhaps nearly 200 GAs, 16 Featured Articles, 90 Featured Lists, and too many ITN and DYKs that I can care to mention. Is that the kind of information you need SL93? What more? Please, feel free to request additional information. Perhaps you'd like to see the GANs I've reviewed (around 145?) or the Peer Reviews I've conducted? Anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I was just wondering and I was polite about it until an admin came in and turned it into a long shitfest. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Just a random page with several GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, you stated Someone who has been here for over 10 years and barely (or if at all) created any content is someone who I don't think is the most needed for a critique. So get your facts straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
That's my rightful opinion. I was only referring to anyone in general...and I see you're not like that. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No, that's a bullshit accusation and you did not refer to anyone in general. At least we know how to treat your edits hereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't state your name in that comment. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You didn't need to, we're not stupid. Your comments are noted, your accusations are noted. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can believe what they want. I can't control that. As long as I know what I meant, I'm fine. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - suicide link

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion
that professional wrestler Jerry London committed suicide hours after being humiliated by an American promoter? Vanamonde93, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah.

Firstly, this is a little macabre, to feature a suicide (on a selected date no less, for some unknown reason), but worse this somehow points a finger at this "Roy Shire" individual as being, at least, partially responsible for the death. People commit suicide, or try to do so, for a wild variety of reasons, even here on Wikipedia. To relate the last person's comments to them as being somehow key or even related to their death is a stretch too far. The only source I have access to is hardly something I'd consider massively reliable; the offline source might shed more light, but nevertheless, the blame culture issue here, i.e. pinning a suicide on a single incident, is absolutely incorrigible. I would urge the community, particularly in light of some recent events, to find a more wholesome and less pointed blurb about this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Oh I don't like this either, not at all. Thank you TRM. If I knew how to do it I'd pull it, but I trust that someone who knows what they're doing will do it, at least pending consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, that needs to be pulled. Roy Shire is dead (he died in 1996) but that is in no way an appropriate hook for the Main Page. Not only that, but the sources "showing" that Shire humiliated him are rubbish, pulled from other sources. There's no reliable sourcing there at all. I am, again, astonished that this made it all the way to a Prep. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec) As it's in prep, you can simply remove it Drmies, delete the line. There are other related tasks that the project want to mandate (e.g. you could find the nomination template and "undo" the promotion, you could add it to the [mainly deprecated] "removed" section of the project, etc etc). I've pinged the main individuals, and we have a day or so before this gross nonsense hits the main page, but in short order, just deleting the line from the prep template would be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Apparently it is a special nomination for Anti-Bullying day (May 4) - much as I'm on board with that, we do need actual reliable sources instead of poor links and insinuation. There's enough time for the pinged editors to have a look at it - but it clearly can't go forward as is. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I've done a few Google searches on this subject. The Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling briefly says he committed suicide after losing a match. Only wrestling websites and message boards speak of the "dressing down" he received in front of other wrestlers backstage. The book cited in Further Reading, One of the Boys by Jack Laskin, apparently goes into detail about his death, but I have no access to that book.
In addition to being distasteful to members of the community, I might also say that the connection between his suicide and the "dressing down" is not firmly established, as he left a suicide note (quoted on the Wikipedia page) stating, "I'm tired of the farce of life. I wish to explore the beyond". Maybe he killed himself for another reason. I suggest returning this to the noms page for further work and forgetting about Anti-Bullying Day. I have pinged the page creator, who is an IP, and who has not edited since posting this on April 9. Also pinging @MPJ-DK: our in-house professional wrestling expert. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree. He's a fairly interesting character in wrestling, there's got to be a decent hook there somewhere - just not this. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking at my sources and books and stuff and I'm not really seeing anything that correlates the two - yes there was a dressing down, yes there was a suicide based on what I have read, but they stop short of blaming the sucide on Shire, noting that London had been depressed in the weeks leading up to it. I only see message boards and semi-garbage sources (like Online World of Wrestling which is good for results and title history, less so on anything else). It is an extraordinary claim, but I am no finding a source to match it.  MPJ-DK  23:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Haha TRM--I don't even know how to find the "line" in "prep2". The last time I looked through preps and queues and stuff I got hopelessly lost--but I trust that someone who knows what they're doing has taken care of it? Black Kite? Yoninah? Drmies (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Returning to noms area. Yoninah (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in retrospect, the sourcing was not as good as it should have been here, and so taking it back to prep was the right call. (Redacted) Also Yoninah; when I saw your comment on the nomination, I did assume that you were, in a sense, signing off on it. Was I wrong about this? Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: No. I was trying to do a favor for an IP, and didn't look closely enough at the sourcing of the hook. I'll think twice before being so helpful next time. Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Well, I should have caught it too, so I suppose that's okay...Vanamonde (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Attributing someone's death to a particular individual on the main page is not a good practice, period. It's not neutral. ~ Rob13Talk 04:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't seriously expect an answer to the recent events question, I assume. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
YGBSM!. This is a BLP issue, and in bad taste to boot. Causation is speculative at best. Make it go away. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I edited the speculation out of the article. The hook is back in the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Drug lord

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Antonio Oseguera Cervantes

Having discussed the suicide of a wrestler, perhaps you could look at this approved article about a suspected drug lord and consider what hook is appropriate. It's not clear to me that he has been convicted of drug trafficking, but the whole article concerns his criminal activities and reputation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 138#Prep 6 - (suspected) drug lord who has been released which was only here around three weeks ago, and to which you contributed. An alternative hook was derived that didn't need to focus on the possibility of him being a "drug lord". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I remember that, which was why I brought the matter up here, hoping that you, or others, would read the article and suggest a suitable hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Even something simple like:
... that former leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, Antonio Oseguera Cervantes's nickname is Tony Montana, after the character in Scarface?
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't see mention of "Scarface" in the article, I am not sure he was "the" leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and does use of the word "former" imply that he is dead? This is a BLP you know, and we have to be careful what we say. (Only kidding!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Then we should unlink Tony Montana in the article as promoted because it links to Scarface, i.e. makes that leap without referencing. The article explicitly states "former high-ranking leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG)" so "former" yes and "leader" yes. Perhaps you missed those three points in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't his nickname Tony Montana be a reference to Scarface? Though it doesn't explicitly say this in the source, I think it is a no-brainer that his nickanme is a reference to the fictional character. I can agree with taking of "suspected drug lord" from this and future hooks, but I don't really see the point behind unlinking Tony Montana. I still tried to do some digging and see if there was any reference of Scarface but didn't find anything. BTW, he's "former" because he is not at large anymore. And "the" leader of the CJNG is El Mencho. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The ALT hook suggested by ComputerJA is acceptable and has an inline citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I moved this discussion to the nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Withdraw an accepted nomination?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ask the promoting admin to remove it from prep/queue, or simply re-open the nom template and close it as "withdrawn". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Coon hunting

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The following hook is presently in Prep 1:

  • ... that coon hunting dogs can emit as many as 150 barks per minute?

Nominator: White Arabian Filly — Reviewer: Coin945 — Promoter to prep: ONUnicorn

This hook strikes me as awkwardly worded, with dogs "emitting" barks. How about:

  • ... that coon hunting dogs can bark as many as 150 times per minute?

I know I could just make the change, but I would prefer to seek the views of those involved with the hook and the wider DYK community. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur, I'm not sure I have ever heard of anyone referring to a dog as emitting a bark, they simply bark. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Me too. The original wording made me chuckle, no disrespect intended. Vanamonde (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see a problem with "emit" when I promoted it, but I also don't see a problem with the proposed change. The article uses "emit" (twice), but the source says the dogs "get up to as high as" 150 barks per minute. To me "emit" has a connotation of being almost involuntary - when one is hurt one might emit a yelp - and I'm not sure if that's what was meant in the article or not. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • opinion: avoid using "emit" and reword as necessarily. Should say something like - Excessive (more than usual) barking to create attention or scare the racoon. This behavior could be partly based on how they are thought to behave. The main contributor has made good editing and only this word requires change. I mainly helped out with the organization of the literature which was requested. The dog becomes sort of "vociferating" in such context. I am not sure how to help further; English is my fourth language.Continentaleurope (talk)
  • I'm fine with the change as the nominator. I don't know why I used emit in the first place, except that the last time I worded a hook simply somebody changed it to be much more formal. I'm hoping to get 10,000 views from this one; the most I've had before was over 5,000. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sock

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Per Sockpuppets of BlueSalix, it appears Darjeeling Tea and LavaBaron were both socks. I don't think there have been any contributions as LavaBaron lately. But Darjeeling Tea has been active here fairly recently. One is a review at Muscle Dysmorphia (do we need a new full review for that one?) and another is The Old Axolotl. Under non-DYK situations, contributions by blocked socks get deleted from an article. But DYK is always a bit of a special slant on how things are handled. Comments?— Maile (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As a site-banned user, all contributions should be undone, deleted or ignored. The nomination contributions should be closed and removed. We don't encourage banned editors by promoting their nominations reviews. I'm surprised the question needed to be asked, especially by an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I will extend the courtesy of information to this body of editors anytime I please, which is what this has been. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Also here. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, but it's a direct dereliction of your obligations. A site-banned user is a site-banned user, regardless of whether he used to be helpful (or otherwise) at DYK. You are obligated to do the right thing here, it's not about a DYK community consensus to override WP:BAN. Of course, if you'd prefer to centralise this, we can always start a thread at ANI to discuss your approach to site-banned users and your allowance of their edits despite their ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Have a nice day. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Maile, I'm not entirely sure why you've brought this up here, given that for both of those nominations, I put in a request for new, full reviews back on April 30 on each of the nomination pages, shortly after the sock's accounts (including Darjeeling Tea). If you disagree (or anyone else does), then please say so. Otherwise, I think it's pretty clear that a completely new review is needed on both of them. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I don't disagree with anything on those nominations. I just kind of wanted feedback from a knowledgeable veteran here, and I guess that's you. You always seem to see all the aspects of those nominations. If you're fine with them, then there is no problem as far as I'm concerned. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Maile, these were two nominations by people who were unlucky enough to have a sock as their reviewer. The thing to do is to proceed as if the sock had never shown up, which simply requires a new, full review. One of the two was approved within the past 24 hours, and the other will eventually get a reviewer. There had been an active nomination by Darjeeling Tea, Template:Did you know nominations/2017 state visit of the United States to the United Kingdom, which I marked for closure on April 30 after the sock block occurred; it was formally rejected by someone else two days later. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I have reviewed the second, at Template:Did you know nominations/Muscle Dysmorphia. The article is in a good shape, though the blocked editor missed that it is too short (because of use of dot points), the over-long hook (which BlueMoonset caught), and the supporting ref for the hook being wrong. It is close, however, despite the number of minor / giving advice issues for the student editor at his or her first DYK. I would welcome someone looking from a MEDRS perspective, though, as I am not a medical person. EdChem (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Clifford Kinvig

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
... that the military historian Clifford Kinvig, whose surname is an anagram of Viking, came from an Isle of Man family? Yoninah, ComputerJA, Philafrenzy

Call me stupid, and many have, but I fail to see the purpose of the hook. People's surnames are anagrams of other words, frequently. I guess the missing link is the assumption that all our readers would know that " it was not unusual on the Isle of Man which had been settled by the Vikings in the tenth century". If it's that notable, I would have expected an article at Kinvig to exist. Anyway, the hook left me cold as I was unaware of the settlement over 1000 years ago. Maybe exchange "an Isle of Man family" for "the Isle of Man, settled by the Norsemen in the tenth century?". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I take the point, it was The Times that made the connection. I think the hook could be more explicit about why it is relevant. I will try to think of an alt. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, at least it did actually get me to learn something today, my knowledge of Vikings is limited to Vikings, and only the first season of that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Alt ... that the family of military historian Clifford Kinvig, whose surname is an anagram of Viking, originated in the Isle of Man where the Vikings had settled in the tenth century? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure if it's possible to approve this hook again, but I think this helps clarify TRM's concerns. I wouldn't want this one to go back to the nomination page again unless you guys think it should... Cheers. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Manx

The correct adjective pertaining to the Isle of Man is "Manx". He "...came from a Manx family". If he came from an English family, we wouldn't say he "came from an England family". Ewen (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

On the main page (and ERRORS)

Well, due to the recalcitrance of the project members who could have done something about this, it's now on the main page in its original unhelpful form, including the error. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
  • " Dura-Europos synagogue" or " Dura Europos synagogue"? The article doesn't have the hyphen, the caption for the image doesn't have the hyphen, the hook has the hyphen. Please be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "be a negative look at the police" hardly encyclopedic prose. The article puts it much better: "as a chance to do in the pigs." so let's stick with that rather than make a bowlderized version of what he actually said. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course, ANYTHING but notify the actual editors of the articles! Actually the articles Dura-Europos synagogue and Dura-Europos do have the hyphen, and the original nom did not. Usage is so inconsistent, also with "-os" and "-as" etc, that there is probably no right answer, but I'll adjust the article to inclde the hyphen. So an admin needs to add to the caption. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, these issues don't really need the nominator's input at all, just edits from someone who knows how to construct error-free and consistent hooks and articles. There is no "expertise" required here, and no-one "owns" these articles. But once again, thanks for you help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  Done Fixes made. Yoninah (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived very early today, so here is an updated list of the 32 non-current nominations (those through April 20). Right now we have a total of 191 nominations, of which 75 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from February and two from mid-March that still needs a reviewer's attention.

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) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Since there haven't been many reviews of nominations on this list, I'm going to add a timestamp to prevent its archiving this evening. I hope there will be more action on these over the next week. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
  • Is it " Pickett-Hamilton fort" or " Pickett-Hamilton Fort"? Be consistent. Plus "pop up at any time" isn't directly referenced in the article, moreover it's much more suited for a quirky placement rather than the first hook of the set, given its hilarious nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  The preps usually sit for a day or two before being promoted to queue so that all eyes can look at them. In this case, however, Queues 4 and 5 were promoted far before their time. Could an administrator move them back to the prep area so we can take care of these fixes? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, I came here with the intention of raising the two issues cited by the Rambling Man. "Fort" and "fort" are used interchangeably, and the "pop up at any time" statement is informally worded and conveys a claim not made in the article (which isn't particularly meaningful, regardless). —David Levy 06:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, David Levy. I made a few fixes in the prep set, but more work is needed for the Pickett-Hamilton fort hook and caption. I made it a lowercase "fort" in the article to reflect the fact that it is a type, not a specific installation. However, there's one paragraph that I tagged as needing a citation. Regarding the hook, we could say "could rise/emerge from the ground at any time", but it lacks that hooky quality of "pop up". For the caption, we could say: "A Pickett-Hamilton fort being raised and lowered". Yoninah (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah. Setting aside the specific wording used, the article appears to contain no mention of temporal flexibility/unpredictability. This information might be accurate, but is it noteworthy and verifiable? —David Levy 15:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66, Casliber, and Mifter:: DYK is almost overdue, please see above. HaEr48 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The prep areas are all empty. I'll try to build a prep, but I've never done that before so if someone could check it out when I'm done.... ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I hope I did that right. It seems right. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks good to me! My only comment is that you added each nominated hook in two separate edits, one for the hook and one for the credits. It is simpler to edit the whole preparation area page, adding the hook and credits for each nomination in one transaction. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66, Casliber, and Mifter: Nothing in the next queue, I guess another admin intervention is needed? HaEr48 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - razed

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Bouxwiller, Bas-Rhin: AHeneen, ONUnicorn, Cwmhiraeth.

Hook reads "... that the residence (pictured) of the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg in Bouxwiller was pillaged during the French Revolution and completely razed soon thereafter?" while article's use of "razed" is "The medieval fortified city's two gates were razed in 1830.[4]", somewhat different. And I'm not sure "soon thereafter" easily translates to the 37 years between the pillage and the razing of the gates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is talking about the gates of the city, not the chateau. The sentence before that says "The last remnants of the château were gone by the early 19th century." (after having been pillaged during the revolution in 1793.) So: 1. 1793 - chateau is pillaged during the revolution 2. Sometime between 1793 and the early 1800s the chateau is completely destroyed. 3. 1830 the gates of the town are destroyed. The hook does not contradict the article; although the use of the word "razed" in the hook but not the article to describe the chateau is a little inconsistent and should be fixed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the hook in prep to, " ... that the residence (pictured) of the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg in Bouxwiller was pillaged during the French Revolution and completely destroyed soon thereafter?" ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The promoted hook was incorrect and improperly phrased, so this is a suitable improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what was incorrect about it. Could you clarify? Raze and destroy are synonyms. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The original hook was off the mark on at least two counts, the overall "razing" and the timeframing. We're somewhat closer to reality now, thanks. It's worth checking these things. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
As already noted, the quote in the OP refers to the city, not the chateau. The article states: "During the French Revolution, the château was confiscated by the state and was pillaged in November 1793 by revolutionaries. The last remnants of the château were gone by the early 19th century. The medieval fortified city's two gates were razed in 1830." Merriam-Webster gives this definition for raze: "to destroy to the ground : Demolish" and gives the example "raze an old building". Wiktionary is almost identical: "To demolish; to level to the ground." The three sources quoted in the DYK nomination (the same three used in the article to support the statement) support the use of "razed" per the preceding definition:
  • "The château was destroyed in 1794 and razed in 1805." ("razed" being a translation of "rasé" in the French-language source, also quoted in the DYK nom, which is the past tense of the verb "raser", which Wikitionary translates as "to raze (level to the ground)")
  • "And the structure was pillaged and completely destroyed at the beginning of the 19th century."
  • "The château was slowly plundered; it ended by filling the ditches."
Although not mentioned in the DYK nom or used in the article, here is a translation of what the French Wikipedia article has to say on the subject:

The château and its gardens were devastated and plundered in November 1793 by the revolutionaries after the fighting that followed the Austrian invasion. In the wake, the inhabitants of Bouxwiller helped themselves and took home the furniture and statues. Ten years later, in March 1804, the castle and the surrounding buildings, confiscated by the State, were given to the municipality for 6,000 francs "without which this town will no longer be a miserable village after having been for centuries the residence of one of the richest princes of Germany and one of the most flourishing cities of the second order of the former Alsace." ... The municipality did not have the financial resources to maintain the château and tried to find a landlord. In 1808, Bouxwiller offered it to the Alsatian Marshal François Christophe Kellermann, but he refused the gift. A decade later, there was nothing left of this château, not even the foundations, the stones having been reused by the inhabitants of Bouxwiller. Between 1816 and 1837, the only visible traces were the hole formed by the moat in the middle of the market place. This famous Busswiller Loch, object of mockery, was finally completely filled in 1837.

— fr:Bouxwiller (Bas-Rhin)#Les débuts de la municipalité bouxwilleroise
As far as the "razing", the hook was certainly not off the mark. So only "soon thereafter" is really debatable. It is phrased this way because different sources gave different accounts of when the last remnants were gone. In my view, considering the long history of the chateau, a decade can reasonably be considered "soon thereafter". However, it would be fine to just say "in the early 19th century" and thus change the hook to "... that the residence (pictured) of the Counts of Hanau-Lichtenberg in Bouxwiller was pillaged by revolutionaries during the French Revolution and completely razed in the early 19th century ...?". AHeneen (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - 20 years

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Yves Bélanger (cinematographer): 97198, Tachs, Yoninah.

Hook reads " that Yves Bélanger had been working as a cinematographer for 20 years when he made his breakthrough with Dallas Buyers Club?", article notes "Bélanger began working as a cinematographer in 1989 ... work on his upcoming film Dallas Buyers Club (2013).", so that's 24 years, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@97198, The Rambling Man, and Yoninah: Checked it, think we have to tweak the hook to read "24 years". --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be safer to change it to "more than twenty years". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I had been going by the source which rounded down to two decades, but yes, 24 years would be more precise. I see Cwmhiraeth has changed it to "more than twenty years" which I think is fine. 97198 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Misleading hook

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Queue now states that in 2007 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court absolved a sperm donor of his obligation to pay child support? The wording his obligation presupposes that such an obligation previously existed, whereas the court held that there was no such obligation. The word "his" in the hook should be replaced by "any". Kablammo (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure changing it to "any" solves the problem you perceive; I think the problem is more the use of the word "absolve". The court does not use the word absolve, and neither do any of the secondary sources the article cites. A more accurate statement would be that they "reversed a lower court decision ordering a sperm donor to pay child support." ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I also think that's more hooky as the mere fact that the lower court ordered a donor to pay child support would catch people off guard, whereas them absolving him of any obligation to pay would lead people to think, "of course not!"~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - a band's description of themselves

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/The Sixth Lie Cwmhiraeth, ISD, SL93.

"... that Japanese rock band The Sixth Lie describe their style of music as "future rock"?"

Really, who cares what an unremarkable band unremarkably describes their own style of music as? Isn't it also inherently POV to publish what a band thinks of their own work? It would be far more interesting to relate the name of the band to Debussy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I don't know why the ALT was used - the first hook is far more interesting. Not to mention that "Future Rock" must be ironic given that they sound like a synth-rock band from the 1980s ... but that's not really relevant here Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I gave the promoter a choice of which hook to use. If one hook is an issue and the other isn't, it can be switched. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and switched the hooks. I agree with TRM that presenting what a band says about themselves is an NPOV problem. The original hook is also more interesting, IMO. Vanamonde (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So you think this is better?

  • ... that the name of Japanese electronic rock band The Sixth Lie is a reference to quote by Claude Debussy?

The reason I did not choose it was because it required too much amendment to the wording for me to make the changes at the time of promotion, while it was safe for me to promote ALT1. Apparently Debussy said: "Art is the most beautiful of all lies." This is a statement made by him, not a "quote", people don't talk in quotations, so the hook would need to be something like

I've amended it to read "...quotation from Claude Debussy". This is correct, is it not? Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I did assume that the Debussy reference would be the most likely hook to use. Out of the suggestions made, the "... that the name of Japanese electronic rock band The Sixth Lie is a reference to quote by Claude Debussy?" is my preferred choice. ISD (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to belittle anyone involved in this nomination, but my personal preference would be for it to not exist at all. I just can't see anything "hooky" about this article. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible discussion of interest

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a discussion related to the DId you know template, specifically, moving it from "Full protection" to "Template protection". Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't need no water

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Queue 6: * ... that rioters burned the first provincial seat of Canada?

Template:Did you know nominations/St. Anne's Market @SounderBruce, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth:

Weird, I can find no evidence of the burning of Kingston Hospital Building by rioters. Even more bizarre, the claim that the hook target was the "first seat" isn't even in the article, so how can it have been approved multiple times? Being wrong and not being in the article should normally be sufficient reason to fail the DYK hook test. Pulled. Fram (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am puzzled. This article is about a building in Old Montreal. What connection does this have with Kingston General Hospital? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
From the St. Anne's Market article: "The market was acquired by the municipal government in 1842, and became the provincial seat of government after it was moved in 1844 to Montreal from Kingston."
From Kingston, Ontario: "Kingston was named the first capital of the Province of Canada on February 10, 1841".
From Kingston General Hospital: "When Kingston was named the capital of the Province of Canada in 1841 and the United Provinces required an unoccupied building to serve as the first house of Parliament, the hospital was chosen. Parliament met in the hospital from the time of the Union of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada from 1841 until 1844 when the capital and parliament were moved to Montreal."
You promoted an article with a hook reading "that rioters burned the first provincial seat of Canada?" that was factually incorrect, and not supported even in the article you promoted! The article promoted says directly it was not the first capital. Now in your reply you have failed to do *basic* investigation to see what the problem is. Did you even READ the article you promoted? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, no. The discussion above was about how you (and the others) missed this in the review, and how you could fail to spot it (or even understand it) after it had been spoonfed to you. It was not a discussion to find a better hook, which belongs at the nomination page. Responding constructively is not the same as dodging the question and your responsability. Fram (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Fram, for your fresh set of eyes on this. I read the article and the source before approving it, and everything did seem fine. But now that I reread the source, I noticed the subtle addition that the St. Anne's Market was the "first permanent" provincial seat of Canada. I added that to the article, and will note it back on the nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Mother's Day

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"... that the Rugrats episode "Mother's Day" addressed the absence of Chuckie Finster's mother by revealing that she had died of a terminal illness?"

Nothing wrong with the hook or the main article, but Chuckie Finster leads to a section in the article List of Rugrats characters, a terrible article with multiple issues which is mostly unsourced, and any references are primary. The section on Finster has two sources, one of which is Wikipedia and the other one is dead. I would suggest unlinking his name, because that article shouldn't be linked from the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, no need to link Chuckie's name here beyond window dressing. (Also on a minor British point, this is a little late as Mothering Sunday was in March!). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Chuckie British then? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so here is an updated list of 35 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 203 nominations, of which 70 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the two from March that need a reviewer's attention.

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) 04:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Next picture hook may need pulling

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Queue 3: * ... that the abrupt collapse of Broken Down Dam (pictured) in 1909 caused the only flood ever recorded in the history of Fergus Falls, Minnesota?

Template:Did you know nominations/Broken Down Dam @Ultracobalt, Muboshgu, and Cwmhiraeth:

There was flooding in Fergus Falls in 2010, described in 2011 as "recurring floods"[11]. There was street flooding in 2002[12] and flooding in 2009[13]. Fram (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right, the local newspaper stated that it was the only time the town was flooded, but it was not. Can I suggest replacing the hook with

@Vanamonde93, Mifter, and Maile66: This hook is currently in Queue 3 and needs changing before Queue 3 goes live in a few hours time. I believe ALT1 above is an acceptable alternative, or you could swap the picture hook with one of the ones in prep. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I added an URL to the existing source, so there is no doubt that what you are proposing is sourced: the full force of the dammed-up Otter Trail River rampaged downstream .. The debris-filled flood destroyed or damaged several other dams and bridges, including the Mount Faith Avenue bridge p. 90. I have changed it in Queue. — Maile (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why was this allowed to get to the queue? Are we just going to continually allow this kind of error, bluff it off as "human nature"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you like an answer, or was this a rhetorical question? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like an answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The fact in the hook that was inaccurate was cited to what seemed to be a reliable source, the local newspaper. We are all volunteers who do not have unlimited time and like to use it productively. The article creator, reviewer, promoter and queue-mover were happy with the claim that there had been no other floods in the town. Nobody who inspected the prep area, where the hook resided for three and a half days, noticed anything amiss. It was moved to the queue where it resided for about 18 hours before Fram queried it, presumably having done a search and found that there had been other floods in the town. Kudos to Fram. The person really at fault here is the local journalist who did not research his story properly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the journalist was using Wikipedia. It has been noted on numerous occasions that "first" and "only" type hooks need to have more research applied to them to verify the claim. That due diligence is not being exercised in the rush to get articles onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You are right about the due diligence, TRM, but not about the "rush". The hooks are now sitting in prep for several days, as Cwmhiraeth noted. I'm sure you also had other things to do with your time, this time, TRM, since you only informed us of the last batch of errors after the hooks had been promoted to queue, when only administrators could change them. BTW I notice that administrators have slowed down the promotions rate, only promoting one prep at a time to queue, so we can continue to work on the hooks in prep. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, try this: "It has been noted on numerous occasions that "first" and "only" type hooks need to have more research applied to them to verify the claim. That due diligence is not being exercised." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. And at the risk of adding yet another rule to DYK, I strongly feel that something should be added to the rules about hooks containing the words "first" or "only" should be closely scrutinized in their sourcing to verify that they are indeed the first and only. Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ulubey Canyon Nature Park geology

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please read the geology before you vet it for the front page! Also, copy pasting from Google translate without understanding is a bad idea. Please fix me!!!! (I tried, but it's too confusing. I suggest starting over from scratch.)

--2601:648:8503:4467:1428:B48A:9F71:6C58 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Nomination page for article Ulubey Canyon Nature Park, nominated by CeeGee, reviewed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, promoted to prep by Cwmhiraeth. I note that Cwmhiraeth made some copyedit improvements as has the IP editor 2601:648:8503:4467:1428:B48A:9F71:6C58 – for reference, this is the version given the tick. I agree with the IP editor (and thank her or him for raising this here) the that there are still parts of the article that are problematic, including:
    • The main canyon along both creeks has tens of big lateral canyons.
    • The soil erosion movements (dynamic rejuvenation) began with the collapse of the Büyük Menderes Graben occurring at least three times, and thus, in these regions where the Ulubey Creek and Banaz Creek passed, deep meander valleys, hills and terraces surrounding old valleys were formed.
    • In 2015, a 135 m2 (1,450 sq ft)-big glass-floor observation deck in the form of a ship bow, constructed 131 m (430 ft) high above ... – this is the sentence that contains the hook fact, so I am concerned that this made it to prep.
The hook is in prep 4 currently, so there is some time to improve the article (including addressing the failed verification tag the IP editor has added. EdChem (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

These sentences are copied, "The canyon's geological formation is linked to the karstic formation process by the collapse of the Büyük Menderes Graben. The soil erosion movements (dynamic rejuvenation) began with the collapse of the Büyük Menderes Graben," "soil erosion" here makes no sense, and it is not dynamic rejuvenation. Also, it seems that this is geologically basin and range, according to some of the sources, but we miss that, while naming a major graben. The geology section would be best deleted before it goes on the front page, imo. It wluld be too muchb work for me to fix, and I did not even check all of it. --2601:648:8503:4467:1428:B48A:9F71:6C58 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm returning the hook to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6 - Midden

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
... that the big blue octopus often forms a midden outside its den? Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, David Eppstein. nom.

The article's only mention of the technical term "midden" is "... Empty mollusc shells and crab carapaces may be discarded near the den in a midden.". I don't believe the hook meets the requirements of DYK where it says "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article". The article simply states that a den may be "in a midden", not that the octopus "forms a midden". Also interesting that this has somehow crept straight into the queues, lending more weight those who are asking why we have prep then queue, when such items can just leap immediately into queue and almost straight onto the main page. Perhaps we should just remove the intermediate layer. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If you discard empty shells into a pile outside your den, you are forming a midden. That is what "midden" means. There is no separate process of "forming a midden" different from "discarding shells onto a midden" — they are the same thing. So the article already clearly states the hook claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
TRM, I agree that that sentence can be parsed to read that the den is in a midden, but that is patently not the intended meaning. It is the crab shells that are being discarded...in a midden. Vanamonde (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If I am understanding correctly, isn't this easily fixed by changing "... Empty mollusc shells and crab carapaces may be discarded near the den in a midden." in the article to something like "... Empty mollusc shells and crab carapaces may be discarded near the den, forming a midden."? I note that the article midden includes the statement that "Octopus middens are piles of debris that the octopus piles up to conceal the entrance of its den" (though it has no reference)... so, perhaps "... The octopus may add empty mollusc shells and crab carapaces to the midden near the entrance to its den."? EdChem (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks EdChem, a better solution, and better time spent just tweaking it than denying it needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
TRM, I take the view that anyone raising a concern is offering a perspective that might be taken by some of our readers, and so it is worth exploring whether there is an easy fix available that clarifies the article. I'm glad to see that the article has been tweaked and a reference added (thank you, Gatoclass), so the issue has been addressed. EdChem (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you know that octopuses are highly intelligent, perhaps more so than any other invertebrate? However, I'm not sure that this intelligence is exhibited by chucking out their food waste to form a midden and thus revealing where their den is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Queue tweaeak

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the third hook of Queue 2, |adj=on should be added to the {{convert}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1 citation failed

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I can't find anywhere in the source where it says this tree is endemic to "inland Australia" as the hook says. Queue 1 I looked at it to find a more interesting hook after laughing at the conversation above about another boring hook. I not only couldn't find a more interesting one, I couldn't find this one. Eucalyptus gracilis --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Gosh darn, you're right. One of the other sources said "inland" somewhere but I can't find which one. So I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The main point of the hook was the funny name. The "inland" is a minor adjective and makes very little difference whether there or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
My brain would have glossed over the funny name as I converted it to a real species. lol Would you please remove "inland" from the hook in the queue, too? Why is it named snap and rattle, do its dried pods make noise? --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Am curious myself but origin is obscure. Not great if I tweak the hook I wrote...should leave that to someone else. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  Administrator needed to remove "inland" from the image hook in Queue 1, going live in a few hours. Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Eating some leaves

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
... that a large group of Tomostethus multicinctus larvae can consume all of a tree's leaves within a week? SL93, Cwmhiraeth, Rlendog, nom.

How "large" a group? How big is the tree? What kind of tree, a particularly leafy one? The hook is too vague to be interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The tree is an ash tree but otherwise the source does not specify. I have done some rewriting of the article and I propose ALT1: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say it was very unusual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

...that two red-eyed vireo were witnessed bashing Tomostethus multicinctus larvae against a twig up to eighteen times, and then consuming them with multiple swallows without any noise? SL93 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)ASA

So should we go with either of the two alts, something else, or nothing? SL93 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well the ALT1 is no better than the original hook, i.e. what is a "heavy infestation", what is a "tree" (i.e. size etc). Your alt looks better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I don't think I can change the hook while it is in prep because it was my nomination, so I will just wait till someone gets to it. On a side note, I didn't realize those birds were silent killers. Poor larvae never stood a chance. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I just went through and changed it "that two red-eyed vireo were witnessed bashing Tomostethus multicinctus larvae against a twig up to eighteen times, and then consuming them silently?" as I believe that just saying silently is simpler phrasing. I also verified the cite in the article for the new alt. Mifter (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I really appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's now in queue 2, saying "... that a heavy infestation of brownheaded ash sawfly larvae can defoliate a tree in a week?" which is the same thing. What is "heavy" and what is a "tree"? There's no context here. I imagine I' could defoliate a tree in two hours, so this hook remains odd. This has been noted now for three-and-a-half days yet nothing has been done. This will go to ERRORS in a few hours time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it, but I will just say that while a large group of larvae defoliating a tree might not be impressive, a human defoliating a tree in two hours is way less so and doesn't compare. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hooks tied to a single unnamed primary field research source

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Last one. "... that two red-eyed vireo were witnessed bashing Tomostethus multicinctus larvae against a twig up to eighteen times before consuming them?"

This was observed one time, in 1933, and now Wikipedia is elevating it to front page information status based on an unnamed source? The Searchable Ornithological Research Archive is like a library of sources, it isn't the source. You don't cite notes from The Birds of Seattle to "Notes in a book at the Seattle Public Library."

Also. So What? I don't think this should be in the article--it's primary field research--much less on the front page. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the hook is rather trivial. I have substituted the originally proposed hook (with a slight tweak), which wasn't great either but I think it was probably better than the current one and I can't see anything "hookier" in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with removing my nomination from DYK if no hook is suitable. SL93 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is yet another example of the unique intersection that is "when TRM and EEng (might) agree", i.e. not every article will provide an interesting hook, so when you see one of those, fail it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The original hook is fine and properly sourced. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:9E (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I'm debating it's "fine" nor that it isn't "properly sourced", I'm simply questioning whether or not it's actually interesting at all. To me, it's such an contrived hook, it's not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
To me it was interesting, even though I work in plant pests (viruses, not insects) to visualize the ravishing hoard of insects defoliating an entire tree. It is not spectacular, but it's cool. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:9E (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the point is we all know that insects like locusts can strip acres of foliage in hours, this hook is so vague that it lacks real meaning or context. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
That grasshoppers do it extraordinarily and rarely doesn't make it common in my book. --12.199.205.115 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Certainly I concur with TRM about that intersection. But sometimes weird specificity ("eighteen times") can transmogrify an otherwise dull tidbit into something weirdly interesting. I'm afraid that until we stop trying to discuss interestingness, and just recognize that it's a gut feel we should vote on, we're never going to get anywhere on it. EEng 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    This hook is "... that seventeen blokes took five tons of bricks and built a wall seven feet tall in nine hours?". It's WHAT(EVER)? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

At IP 12.199.205.115, why do you think Wikipedia doesn't allow primary sources and that it is OK to remove them? SL93 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want the exact source, it is here. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a published field notebook, and it is not sourced, or rather it's sourced to a library, and Wikipedia allows primary sources in some instances. "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Is this observation notable or typical of the species? If it was, it wouod be included elsewhere. But no one should write articles and include every obscure piece of information. Is everything ever written about a species notable? Everything? Is every field observation ever made notable. This wasn't even published in the article, whatever it was. It's a note. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:5D (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I will let other editors decide the outcome of this DYK because I'm done caring. It's also annoying to talk to one person with multiple IPs (I also don't take those words from such editors that seriously). SL93 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
In other words, I'm right, but you don't like it and already reverted. lol --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:5D (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin responsibility

Latest comment: 7 years ago29 comments10 people in discussion

Folks, there's been a few errors in the queue's in the last few weeks, and without getting into whose fault these are/how bad these are, I think we can agree that we should be trying to minimize these. When an error has been found, we tend to ping the nominator, the reviewer, and the promoter, because all these individuals are signing off on some aspects of the hook. However, the instructions for admins also explicitly say we should be checking the article for verifiability, BLP, and copyright. It seems to me that at the very least, admins who promote sets should be checking to see if the hook is in the article, and is sourced, and if possible, that this is supported by the source. Otherwise, we are just rubber stamping the process, and there is no point in restricting the ability to promote sets at all. Vanamonde (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, the idea was that the first three steps (nominator, reviewer and promotor) are responsible for the factual correctness, and the admin making the queue is just there to ensure technical correctness and avoid vandalism (from the point of view that content tasks are not admin tasks, admins don't judge content disputes). Otherwise said, when "the community" agrees on a hook and has checked its factual correctness (and BLP, copyvio, ... issues), an admin just needs to check that the hook in prep is indeed the promoted hook and that the queue will render correctly on the main page. It would be better if theadmin also checked all DYK rules again, but the idea was that a triple check would be sufficient (this is assuming that all prep builders actually do these checks and not simply move reviewed hooks into preps without checking their correctness). Why the system fails so often is unclear. Having a fourth check of everything may help, but will probably further reduce the number of admins willing to spend time on this (not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, just an observation). Fram (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. You may be right, but that seems to be a practice that has evolved over time, and no longer matches the guidelines. Of course, the guidelines are not important in and of themselves, so long as all the admins are following what this community determines to be best practice. Given our record here, I think we should make a brief hook check part of our best practice, if it isn't already. I'm not suggesting a fourth review. I don't do a fourth review myself. But I do check the three things I mentioned above. I'm not even suggesting that admins must look through the internet for evidence of inaccuracy. Just a check against the article itself and the sources therein should go a long way towards checking basic errors. It doesn't take much time, even for an eight hook set. Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mifter, Casliber, Maile66, Coffee, Schwede66, Harrias, and Gatoclass: The bunch of us have been responsible for essentially all of the updates over a few months now. Thoughts on this discussion? Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really active at DYK any more, but when I did queue promotions, I always checked the hook fact was in the article and appropriately sourced, along with a quick scan through the article to check for any glaring issues (such as tags that might have been added since the review). Harrias talk 09:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The example in the section above illustrates how easily faulty hooks can get passed despite being scrutinised by several people. A check of the main hook fact and its source, in this case a riot and the burning of a building, can easily miss an error in some other part of the hook (the word "first" relating to the provincial parliament in this instance). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Was the method by which you 'easily missed' the issue that the hook was factually incorrect and not supported in the article you promoted... because you didnt read the article? Because its not just that 'first' doesnt appear in the article, its that the article itself says it was not the first. I didnt get an answer to my question above, did you even read the article? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes I did. I considered various aspects of the hook like the riots and fire and whether the "provincial seat of government" was correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
So you are not a competent reader then? Because you failed to spot that the hook was neither sourced in the article, nor factually correct. Secondly when Fram raised this above, you denied all knowledge of knowing what it had to do with Kingston, despite this being mentioned in the article you allegedly read. I say allegedly because you clearly did not read it when you promoted it, nor did you read it above before responding to Fram because otherwise you would have spotted within five seconds what the problem was. The point of *this* section is to discuss if Admin's are there to press the buttons after it has gone through the review process. They are not there to do another review because you cant be bothered to look at the article when promoting it, or when your mistakes are pointed out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Please stop hounding me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Please stop promoting articles. Fram (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I intend to continue promoting nominations whenever I see that there are prep sets that need filling. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Then don't be surprised that people have a problem with your promotions when you make such mistakes, and then show that you are incapable of getting the problem even when it is explained (I explicitly said that it wasn't the first, and gave an article which had the history of the first one instead). That is not "hounding", that is normal criticism of someone putting wrong information on the main page because they seem incapable of sufficiently critical reading to catch problems. If you don't want such criticism to be leveled at you, then either stop promoting hooks, or do it a lot better. Fram (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not complain that you were hounding me, only that "Only in death does duty end" was. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I know. And I don't think you have any reason to play the victim here. Fram (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Too many hooks being promoted with too many issues. Only one or two people doing the promoting. Perhaps those individuals should stand up and say "these aren't good enough" rather than just accept, say, mediocrity at best, factual inaccuracy at worst, and enable its passage to the main page. Set builders and promoting admins appear to be just doing this by the numbers, rather than actually looking at the articles. Indeed, one set builder states that checking such things as copyvios is not part of the role of a set builder. Maybe that particular role is being overlooked/ignored? Either way, DYK seems to be descending again, despite currently only having to sanction 8 correct hooks per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • To keep this on-topic, the reason certain actions and pages are restricted to administrators (to edit) is that the potential for mistakes that can break things badly (as opposed to just being minor issues) is greater. Cwmhiraeth above has actually provided a clear example of something that should not be up to the Admin who is flipping the technical switch to police. This is a content issue that should have been spotted way before it got to that point. Personally I think it should be made explicit in the rules that an admin promoting to the queues etc is not responsible for any content issues or mistakes therein - as the article has already undergone (allegedly) an extensive review process. If there are issues, there should not be an increased burden on admins to make up for editors mistakes. Otherwise as noted above, the risk is that admins will no longer be involved as the burden outweighs any real benefit to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • My view aligns with the previous. The more checking steps one makes, the less rigorous any one of them will be as they think other people will be checking elsewhere. There should be just the two steps - reviewer and promoter to prep. Theoretically anyway, an admin has no greater ability to review material for verifiability and accuracy than anyone else. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with the prior points and especially with Cas's directly above. I personally have been very busy as of late and though I generally do spot/sanity checks before promoting sets I generally do not go through every article in-depth the way I would if I am reviewing it as a first line reviewer. Mifter (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If you think the promoter has a prime responsibility for checking hooks, you should rewrite the instructions for promoters which are detailed behind a green bar above the prep sets on the Preps and Queues page. They currently just state "4. Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)", and do not require the promoter to make any further checks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I actually disagree with what's been said above. I don't think I have necessarily a greater ability to check content, but the community has vetted my ability to perform this check. Actually promoting a prep is only a matter of copy-pasting accurately, and as such, is a rubber stamp if its not accompanied by a check. But I can recognize that I am in the minority here. I am almost reading a consensus to change the admin instructions to remove any checks about article quality. Am I wrong in this? Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, and you spectacularly failed above to do that. Even by the process as written you had one job and failed it. The admin who does the final tick should not be responsible because you cannot manage that. RE Vanamonde - the problem with having *more* checks is that it spreads accountability for mistakes over a wider group. Its not about blame, but part of any quality control or outcome testing is identifying which point in the process has caused the wrong result. Given the current review process there is no need for admins performing the final step to re-run previous checks, so they should be absolved of any reason to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I look forward to you being able to follow one instruction. Its clear you want to abrogate your own responsibility, given your history of careless and casual attitude towards accuracy, its not surprising you support more people cleaning up your messes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You have been asked repeatedly to stop making more work for others due to your lack of care and attention. When that happens, you will find criticism of you disappears. You also seem to be under the impression that you are the victim of WP:HOUND. I suggest you read and understand it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The main reason that the queues are protected is surely that they would otherwise be a channel for deliberate vandalism. It's like the reason that images going on the main page are protected; to stop them being replaced maliciously. As these channels are protected, the actions have to be taken by admins. The admins should not however be looking closely at the content and getting into its rights and wrongs because they would then be involved. If factual, grammatical or other errors should get through then they will be handled by the WP:ERRORS process, which exists for that purpose. We should not overload such admin tasks with repeat-reviewing because this would be inefficient – duplicating work which has already been done – and would be so burdensome that it would tend to burn out the people doing it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • When the bot is primed with DYKbotdo it clearly states that The hooks below have been approved by an administrator and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time. Ergo, the set should be properly verified by the promoting administrator. If admins don't have time to verify the sets, they shouldn't be signing off on the promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: these were more or less my thoughts; however, there is clearly some divergence among the admins on this question. How do you suggest we should proceed? Given the magnitude of the disagreement I'm wondering if we need an RFC, closed by somebody uninvolved. Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Main page DYK error reports

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I often find errors in DYK on the front page. When I correct them I get asked why I don't correct them in the queue before they hit the front page. The reason is, DYK editors don't like corrections, don't like to be disagreed with, don't want to discuss their articles.

I'm going back to tagging articles on the main page when they are on it. Usually the errors are corrected by non DYK editors who actually discuss the articles and corrections I suggest. Sometimes I learn something new from the discussion. I'm not always right. At least twice I was spectacularly wrong, and everyone had a good laugh. I am right more often than not, and the articles are usually better after the corrections.

But, DYK editors is why I wait until the articles are on the main page to point out errors. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You should definitely be tagging them before they hit the main page. The earlier the better. Anyone who is annoyed by this will be annoyed whenever it happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
NB: Many folks will be appreciative of anyone pointing out stuff regardless of whether they are established editor or IP. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That does not appear to be the case, and your demeanor is hardly the problem. I believe I have tagged one of your articles on the front page, you disagreed, we went back and forth, eventually you saw the issue. (Don't you write Aussie plant articles?) But you want your articles to be good and informative. It's about the article for you. That is hardly standard on Wikipedia, especially with DYK, so I respectfully dismiss your input. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I've already mentioned elsewhere that DYK needs to be scrapped or have a major overhaul, so the more comments you bring here (in advance of them appearing on ERRORS), the better as far as I'm concerned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I like reading the articles, finding them on the main page. The number of hooks, imo, guarantees you'll wind up with ones like the toilet plume maybe unknown crap. Has anyone proposed dropping down to just 2 or 3 good hooks? The biggest offenders lately are the ones that mention 5 species articles, "these listed members of the genus are members of the genus and have traits of the genus." I want to just yell, "Stop!"--2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I have put forward some ideas to turn DYK into a more consensus-based system like AfD, FAC, FLC and RfA on my talk page : User_talk:Ritchie333#"DYK should probably be taken outside and shot" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
lol So tell me how you really feel about it. --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidney C. Wolff

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

" that astronomer Sidney C. Wolff was the first woman to direct a major observatory in the United States? "

This hook is tied to two sources that don't appear to say this. Also, what is a "major observatory," since, according to the article, Kitt Peak isn't one? --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? The first source says exactly that, I quote: Sidney Carne Wolff is a “starblazer,” the first woman to serve as director of a major U.S. observatory and to have led the construction of six premier telescopes.[14] Gatoclass (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That's fine but the issue of "major observatory" is outstanding. What criteria is being used to judge that? It might be safer to "quote" that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
So, where does it say they're talking about NOAO and not Kitt Peak? --2601:648:8503:4467:D547:1255:7ABB:B7BF (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Her tenure as director of NOAO marked the first time a woman had directed a major U.S. observatory." The next line; however, I think Kitt Peak is a major US observatory; and if you're going to downgrade it in an article, I would like more than a press release on an alumni site for confirmation. I think it needs better sourcing. --2601:648:8503:4467:D547:1255:7ABB:B7BF (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Toilet plumes queue 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

"... that there is indirect, but unconfirmed, evidence of certain diseases being spread by toilet plume?"

The paragraphs supporting this:

There is indirect evidence indicating that toilet aerosols could promote disease transmission through a fecal-oral route via contamination of nearby surfaces. The feces and vomit of infected persons can contain high concentrations of pathogens, many of which are known to survive on surfaces for weeks or months, although the combination of cleaning and disinfecting surfaces is usually effective at removing contamination.[1] Some pathogens such as norovirus have an apparent resistance to these techniques,[1][2] and toilets may continue to produce contaminated toilet plumes over multiple successive flushes.[1]

Toilet aerosols, surfaces but nothing about toilet plumes, disinfectant resistance, then contaminated plumes. But nothing ties contaminated feces and vomit to toilet plumes, or puts any contaminants in the plumes. Is this OR?

Epidemiological studies of norovirus in passenger airplanes[3] and ships,[4] and building sewage system contaminated by SARS coronavirus,[5] indirectly indicate transmission via contaminated toilets rather than other routes.[1] Whether or not aerosols can contain SARS coronavirus or norovirus, however, has not been directly measured as of 2015.[6]

Are these articles about norovirus in toilet plumes? Do the articles mention toilet plumes, of just contaminated toilsts? The book chapter is about children's brain tumors. If no one knows if the plumes can contain norovirus why did the authors speculate they do? Especially in a chapter on children's brain tumors?

Disease transmission through droplet nuclei, which are dry particles that stay in the air longer, is not a concern for many pathogens, because they are not excreted in feces or vomit, or are susceptible to drying. Some pathogens of concern include gram-positive MRSA, mycobacterium tuberculosis, the pandemic H1N1/09 virus commonly known as "swine flu", SARS coronavirus, and norovirus, although as of 2013 their transmission by toilet plume had not been directly studied.[1]

So now this paragraph seems to say there are no studies of norovirus in toilet plumes, so what is the first paragraph about?

And what does any of this have to do with primary brain tumors in children? "Allen, E. D.; Byrd, S. E.; Darling, C. F.; Tomita, T.; Wilczynski, M. A. (1 June 1993). "The clinical and radiological evaluation of primary brain tumors in children, Part I: Clinical evaluation.". Journal of the National Medical Association. 85 (6): 445–451. ISSN 0027-9684. PMC 2571872 Freely accessible. PMID 8366534.--2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Toilet aerosols, surfaces but nothing about toilet plumes. My understanding is that "plume" and "aerosol" are different words referrring to the same phenomenon here. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence is about plumes, but calls them aerosols, so, yes, I am using those terms interchangeably, but this is followed by a sentence about surface contamination, but it is not connected to the plumes. The article talks about surfaces, but does not connect them to the plumes, it's as if every other sentence is a different topic. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The article states that "[Toilet plume] refers to both the contamination of nearby surfaces through droplets ejected from the toilet, and the formation of smaller, dry particles that stay in the air for long periods", so the article does connect surfaces to plumes. What is more concerning is that the hook appears to be making a claim based on a hypothesis; "there is indirect, but unconfirmed, evidence" translates to me as "there is no evidence" - indeed within the article is the statement "as of 2013 no direct experimental studies had clearly demonstrated or refuted actual disease transmission from toilet aerosols". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll grant the quality of the hook is mind boggling. I added a failed verification tag and a discussion point about it on the article talk page. I am not communicating well here. Wbat I am trying to say is that our article does not make a transition, but appears to be talking about two different things. --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I also really really want to know what primary brain tumors in children have to do with norovirus in toilet plumes on ships?! --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I pulled the hook. I'm not sure that your criticisms have any validity, but I had a feeling this hook was going to cause problems the first time I read the "indirect but unconfirmed" phrase which just sounds weird and it looks as if it is going to need further discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a mind boggler, but it appears to be the one thing in the article supported by the sources. My concern remains that the sources seem to be used to synthesize this article. They appear to have been poorly read. The abstract of source 2 says exactly the opposite of what our article claims it says. --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the hook has been pulled thus can be dealt with on the article talk page. --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've responded at both the nomination page and the article talk page. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"WikiProject Did you know"

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is this a commonly used term? DYK is often just referred to as "Did you know". I rarely see editors using the term "WikiProject Did you know". Why is {{DYK blue}} using such wording? feminist 15:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are individual groups on Wikipedia that specialize in a certain area of interest. Such as Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. They have a colon after the word Wikiproject. So, it's saying "we are a Wikiproject" that focuses on whatever it is. In this case, Wikiproject: DYK focuses its efforts on DYK. And the template you are asking about is only designed for use by this project. — Maile (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the wording "WikiProject Did you know?" be used for that template? feminist 05:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so, there is no WP:WikiProject Did You Know, nor WP:WikiProject DYK. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Technically, DYK is a Wikiproject. Hence, the tab (if you have tabs) in the upper left that says "Project page". And technically, it's listed as a project under Category: Wikipedia WikiProjects. DYK just doesn't have its pages set up to say it's a Wikiproject.— Maile (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK check

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is anyone else having trouble with this? It's giving me the following readout for eligible articles:

Prose size (text only): 0 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto here. Also, it looks strange on Modern skin. The DYK bogus results appear above the top border that says "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia" The look is not odd on Monoskin, but the bogus results are the same. Shubinator? — Maile (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried DYKcheck on a few articles, it worked fine for me. If you're still seeing the issue, let me know which article(s) and which browser and I'll dig deeper. Shubinator (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I had the same problem, for some articles while others worked. Right now it's working for all I checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 - a video game set in a place resembling London

Latest comment: 7 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion
... that the setting of Nights: Journey of Dreams resembles England, especially parts of London? Jaguar, Dr Aaij, Cwmhiraeth (nom).

Can I just ask: "so what"? If it was explicitly noted that the game was an entirely Japanese development or something along those lines, I could start to be interested, but otherwise this is really a non-event of a hook. Video games are set all over the world, it's not notable without context. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

How about rephrase it to something like ... that the setting of Nights: Journey of Dreams resembles parts of London, despite it being a Japanese franchise? JAGUAR  22:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's much better. Any fictional work from any country can have elements of other countries. It's isn't uncommon. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Then how about something development-based like ... that although Nights: Journey of Dreams was first conceptualised for the Dreamcast, it was eventually designed for the Wii? JAGUAR  22:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that's better. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Anything is better than the existing blurb, I just quickly checked our categories, Category:Video games set in London has more than 100 entries. This really reinforces that the original hook to be somewhat mediocre. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The hook doesn't say the game is set in London, it says the game is set in a world that resembles London. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, but all those in that category also are set in a world that resembles London, it just happens that it is London. In any case, the original hook was very poor and tweaking it is absolutely necessary to ensure it's "interesting to a broad audience". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This game is not set in London, it's set in a dream world that resembles London, a considerably more interesting concept. If the hook only said the game is set in London, I would agree with you that that is totally mundane and uninteresting, but it doesn't say that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The hook makes no mention of a "dream world". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It's implied from the game title. Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No, you've inferred it from the game title. Game titles can mean anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
They can, but in this case it means what it says, and I think readers are smart enough to connect the dots. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It's still dull at best, inaccessible at worst. Hopefully common sense prevails and DYK doesn't publish yet another pointless hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the hook is acceptable, and will probably get plenty of hits, but if you think you can do better, feel free to propose an alt. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I think I could do better by admitting that there's nothing in there that's particularly interesting to a broad audience. Every article gets a pass at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ..that a game made in Japan, set in a fictional England, celebrates Chinese New Year.. (or some variation thereof to satisfy the various linking rules). Its the interesting thing for me that stood out from reading the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That is neither interesting nor correct. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Its more interesting than the previous examples. Also what part is not correct? It was made in Japan by Sonic Team, its clearly set in a fictionalised version of London (a fact which is sourced in the article as "William Taylor and Helen Cartwright are two children who live in the city of Bellbridge (a fictionalised version of London[13][20])."), as is "in February Nightopians hold a giant dragon for the Chinese New Year". Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The first part of your hook boils down to "a game was made in one part of the world but set in another", a circumstance as common as mud and therefore of no interest whatever. The second part, stating that the game "celebrates Chinese New Year" is totally inaccurate as it isn't "the game" that celebrates the New Year, but some characters in the game. Also, there is nothing remotely unusual about the Chinese New Year being celebrated in England, fictional or otherwise, since the Chinese New Year is celebrated by Chinese all over the world, not just in China. In short, two mundane, everyday events do not make for an interesting hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Characters in the game celebrating chinese new year is exactly the same as 'the game celebrates chinese new year' given that 'the game' contains *everything in the game*. So your statement 'its not correct' is complete bullshit. 'Its not correct if you take one extremely strict anal interpretation of the English language' would be an accurate statement. You can say its not interesting as thats a subjective opinion, but when something is trivially easy to prove wrong *by just reading the article* dont waste my time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
For a guy who's never been shy about disparaging the contributions of others on this page, you sure turn out to be hypersensitive when you find yourself on the receiving end for a change. And I'm sorry, but I don't find your rationale for the hook at all persuasive and can't see myself changing my mind about it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Having said that, I have decided to pull the current hook in any case as upon further reflection I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit borderline. So we are still looking for a viable hook for this one. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How about:

Thank you for finally pulling the hook. Let's continue the discussion at the nomination. For what it's worth, your alt hook is a marginal improvement, but still not something that would really "interest a broad audience". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  Done Nomination reopened. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How long can we hold articles back for certain dates?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, if this has been answered before but I couldn't find it. Is there a limit on how long an article can be held in the "Special occasion holding area"? For example, I had nominated Alaska P. Davidson recently which could be run on October 11, which is the 95th anniversary of her being hired as the first female FBI agent. But that would mean putting it in the holding area for five months. That does not seem in the spirit of DYK to showcase new articles but apart from that, I can't think of any reason why not... Regards SoWhy 14:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Officially the maximum holding time is 6 weeks except for April Fools Day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

20 May Prep 1 Elias Beckingham

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

... that the 13th-century English royal justice Elias Beckingham was described, along with only one other, as "the only honest judge" in the kingdom?

This hook reads a little oddly; can more than one judge be the only honest judge in the kingdom? I suppose multiple, different parties have weighed in on who the only honest judge in the kingdom was, perhaps, but the way the hook is worded, it's not clear that this is the case. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • ... that the 13th-century English royal justice Elias Beckingham was described as being one of only two honest judges in the kingdom?
@Cwmhiraeth: (sense of longing for homeland?) I'm sure that's fine. If I remember correctly, the hook you're critiquing is already a rewrite by a reviewer of my original :) cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have made the change as this prep set is the next one due to be moved into the queue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
That agrees with the one source of three cited for the target article's sentence He thereby gained a historical record for probity that I checked (British History Online). There's still the matter of the only honest judge in quotation marks in the article's lead paragraph. I guess I'll bring this up on the article's talk page. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - "wife beating"

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion
"... that Ivy Josiah led opposition to wife beating in Malaysia?" Cwmhiraeth, Yuitsum, Andrew Davidson, G-Eazy951, (nom)

I've twice changed this to reflect the actual article (which doesn't mention "wife beating" at all), but have been reverted twice by the involved reviewer. The article mentions "battered women" who aren't necessarily anyone's wives, and that "battered women" redirects to domestic violence. This individual works for "women", hence her setting up Women's Aid Organisation which helps " women fleeing from domestic violence", not necessarily victims of "wife beating". I sumbit that the alternative I provided " that Ivy Josiah led opposition to domestic violence against women in Malaysia?" which is factually accurate and encyclopedic in tone, unlike the current hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • This wording was discussed in the nomination and then approved. TRM should not get to impose his personal view just by being the last to touch it as a consensus has already been established. In the hook, we want simple, plain language, not wordy euphemisms per WP:DYK which advises " please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in". The shorter form is therefore best. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is inaccurate. It's not about "wives" it's about women. There's a good reason we don't have an article entitled "wife beating". Now please allow other, uninvolved people to have their opinion heard. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with The Rambling Man on this. The term "wife beating" does not appear in the article and the reasoning behind the comment by Edwardx supporting use of the term in the hook could be considered as OR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Notice that I pinged the nominator, the updater, the reviewer and the promoter. That's more than sufficient, but if you wish to elicit comments from people who favour your position, feel free to canvass them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wife beating is a blue link because it is a common usage. It appears in the OED ("The action of beating one's wife or female partner, esp. habitually") with citations ranging from 1650 to 2014. It is a short and punchy way of conveying the concept, which is what we want in a hook. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Per the article, this is not about "wife beating", which isn't even mentioned in the article. This isn't about punchiness, we should never toss out verifiability for your version of "punchiness". Wife beating is a "blue link" because it's a redirect to an encyclopedic article about domestic violence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The article states (unsourced, but the WAO's own website agrees) that the Women's Aid Organization also assists trafficked women and migrant domestic workers who are being abused, so it might better be phrased as "opposition to violence against women" ... Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with TRM; we're running an encyclopedia here. As hooky as "wife beating" is, it's not in the article/source and it's not encyclopedic. BTW the article refers to "battered women and children", while the source only says "domestic violence". I think the article should be toned down too. Yoninah (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless they were in favour of non-wife beating, the DYK is inaccurate. And not in the article anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Wife beating" is a subset of "domestic violence against women" and "violence against women." Using the former as a shorthand for the latter excludes many women Ivy Josiah sought to help. It could also be read as suggesting Josiah was only concerned about violence against women perpetrated by their husbands, excluding (say) family violence from father / uncles / brothers, etc. The alleged consensus at the nomination page is illusory as the issues TRM notes were raised and not properly addressed. The hook should not have been given a tick, let alone be promoted, in my opinion, and edit warring in the prep over it is absurd. TRM's opening statement in the thread is mildly worded and correct. If the original hook goes onto the main page, it will not survive long after the inevitable posting to WP:ERRORS. Black Kite's comments underline the scope of the WAO as far beyond only wife beating, and argue for a hook that notes the breadth of behaviours that Josiah opposes and the groups that the WAO helps. EdChem (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think that's overwhelming consensus in favour of changing the hook before it runs. If no-one does it soon, suggest we pull the hook and pass it back to noms with a link to this useful discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everyone saying that "wife beating" is not the same thing as domestic violence or violence against women, and have changed the hook in prep accordingly. Feel free to tweak that wording. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ONUnicorn. Given the depth and breadth of opposition to the hook that was passed, we probably need to work out how to prevent such controversial hooks being passed and promoted in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, ONUnicorn, but as noted above and in the source, violence against children is also part of the organization's mandate. I'm returning this to the noms page and referencing this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pediatric Symptom Checklist

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I reviewed the DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Pediatric Symptom Checklist and the only issue that I can find is that the hook in the article isn't directly cited. The editor hasn't edited since May 2 and I do see the hook fact in the first reference, but I don't know if I can add that citation as the reviewer. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@SL93: You certainly can. And you can make other minor changes and still finish the review. If you feel you have edited an article to the point that you could be considered a co-creator, then add your name to the DYK credit line and call on another reviewer to complete the review. Yoninah (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_139&oldid=1137408782"