Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 142

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience"

No consensus to remove Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience".

The discussion was almost evenly split, and no consensus defaults to the status quo. The language 'interesting to a wide/broad audience' has been present for over a decade (2007),[1] and the 'interesting' rule dates back to the earliest months of DidYouKnow's existence (2004).

There was mention by both sides that the text might be revised. It is unclear what the result would be, but modifications can be considered. Alsee (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

This RfC is about the current DYK rule 3. a) Cited hook – The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. (See more information under The hook, below.) Facts should have an inline citation. The article as a whole should use inline, cited sources. The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.

This text was added in Feb 2012 with no discussion on the talkpage about the addition. The addition is arguably extraneous to the guideline "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content"

~~There is no neutral way to enforce the rule, and it runs counter to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which are based on verifiability and neutrality, not on potential audience interest levels.~~ This RfC proposes the removal of the text "and interesting to a broad audience" from the rule. See current discussion in the DYK talk page for background leading to this RfC. --Kev min § 02:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support per nom.--Kev min § 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose; see comment in discussion below. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. "Interesting" hooks are a facet of DYK too central for me to let go. If the specific rule is poorly phrased, we should rephrase it. The second statement in the guidelines is not redundant, it is an elaboration of the first, which is the rule Kevmin wishes to remove. The statement about notability is again a non-sequitur. Notability is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. This is a rule for featuring something on the main page. Any article featured must meet the notability threshold, but we as a project are free to set any other threshold that it must also meet. I would be far more interested in reformulating the rule in a manner which preserves the meaning but makes it easier to apply. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose this clearly serves no benefit at all to our readers and is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks, directly against the spirit of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Support - Of course the hook should be as interesting as possible, but the corollary of retaining this rule would result in the exclusion from DYK of articles with no broad-based interest such as many of those on maths, chemistry, astronomy, fossil ants and other topics. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Support removal, but make it clear the hook has to be interesting, but the article or fact don't have to interest a broad audience. I expect 99% of articles here are not of interest to a broad audience. Only the hook has to be interesting enough to hook the reader. Checking that criterion is very subjective, although I have rejected DYKs because the hook was too boring. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth and Graeme Bartlett: Since I respect both your opinions, may I ask a clarifying question? How do you read the rule as it currently stands, as requiring the article to be interesting to a broad audience? I've read it over many times, and all it says is that the hook must be interesting to a broad audience. Vanamonde (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  The rule applies to the hook, but it is difficult to craft a broadly interesting hook for a very technical article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  Difficult but seldom impossible. Removing this rule would just allow people to tell us that "Extinct ant A had six clubbed hairs" week after week after week, because removing the rule would prevent anyone complaining about the sheer banality of it all. Sometimes it's about not being able to see the wood for the trees, collaboration with other (non-expert) editors in such cases may frequently lead to hooks that would be of interest to many more people (EdChem often suggests two or three or more alt hooks when these situations arise, why can't we just keep using his approach as a good example of what to do? Is it because of ownership issues perhaps?). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  Thanks for that comment, TRM, I'm glad to hear my ALT suggestions are seen as a good example. On articles I've nominated where I've not been sure how interesting a hook might be, I've also proposed ALTs in the nomination. Technically, a reviewer should consider all ALTs that are policy compliant, but they may also favour use of a particular one, which is one reason for proposing them – to allow a reviewer to add an outside view on this criterion. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Moar or less per The Rambling Man. We can at least try to make stuff interesting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Support as an unnecessary surplusage. I've always said that what may uninteresting to one, could be very interesting to another. It is all a matter of subjectivity and as Cwmhiraeth said it is hard to write an "interesting" hook on a technical article or one that has limited information. We should not try to block articles from running just because one may not find it interesting in their opinion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
As noted already, interesting may be subjective, but once a hook has been called out as dull and more than one or two individuals agree, it should be fixed. I realise the WikiCup doesn't care for quality, just numbers, hence all the content forks you create, but that's not what DYK was ever about. It's lost its way in the rush to mediocrity to facilitate a factory-line of "pass, pass, pass". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not create content forks and I'm no longer in the WikiCup. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You did, several times, and you were. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Not true. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
So "Fucking sign", about a town in austria(or rather about its sign), is not a content fork you created? Certainly looks like it was created by you and very much defended after. Then it got merged after some discussion with very clear comments about the standalone content fork. Just a single example i can think of from earlier this year. 91.49.70.132 (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Another of your content forks would be Wrigley Field Ivy by the way. Cannot see any discussion but it is a mere redirect to Wrigley Field now anyway. As to the wiki cup, you are clearly listed as a participant in round one of 2017. So remind me, which of TRM's statements above were "not true"? 91.49.86.44 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - hooks should be interesting, although we need to interpret "interesting" in a broad manner. Dull hooks should not disqualify the nomination, but instead the DYK community should propose alternate, more "interesting" hooks, which is what I see happen most of the time. I suppose "interesting in a broad manner" is ambiguous, and what I'm trying to say is that if I wrote a hook that said "Did you know that Grey Gull Records used the 4000 matrix series twice?", this would be fascinating to me as a discographer, but would probably mean absolutely nothing to the general reader. We also don't need to try aim our hooks at the average 10-year-old with ADD, either. We should make our hooks understandable to the average reader, and there should be a reasonable chance that any given reader will find it interesting. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per previous discussion, and per 78. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose removal but would support a redrafting of the criterion. I am a scientist and so find many scientific topics / facts / observations interesting. I find many sporting topics / facts uninteresting or even boring. Many people would have differing views from mine on what is personally interesting, and anyone claiming to know that a randomly chosen hook is objectively interesting to a "broad audience" is going to have a very difficult mounting an evidence-based argument in most cases. There are hooks, though, that a consensus here can conclude that a hook is sufficiently uninteresting to this community to be not worth running (imagine "... that water is wet?"). Perhaps we might consider an alternative like "interesting within its topic" or "interesting to readers of its topic"? EdChem (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Kind-of support, as written it seems categorical (as if there really is a known category of things interesting, in which things either are or are not) and is misleading, as it's not and probably can never be treated as categorical, it is more treated as quite vague advice, so perhaps change to "generally aim". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Support but add weaker version to supplementary rules. It's reasonable for a reviewer to ask the nominator to suggest a more interesting hook during the initial review, but having discussions about interestingness after the hook has moved to the prep/queue takes our resources away from dealing with hooks that have factual problems. It would be good to have a supplementary rule to this effect. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 14:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Support The requirement is too subjective, and in the end, unnecessary. The majority of articles are of interest only to subsets of the readership. I see no reason why the hooks should have top appeal to a broad audience. I seems that this is just being used as a tool to enforce US-centric hooks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Support per WP:CREEP. That whole section about eligibility criteria is absurdly bloated and should be rewritten. For example, it starts by saying that there are four criteria and then lists five numbered items ("the number of the counting shall be three ... five is right out"). The eligibility criteria should stick to the essential points – that the article should be new, expanded or a GA that hasn't been on the main page before. Hook quality is not an eligibility criterion at all because hooks are often developed or changed during the DYK process. There's an entire separate section about the hook, following the eligibility criteria, and so any observations about the hook should be confined to that section. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. It is vitally important that the "interesting" criterion be retained at DYK. I know from experience that even with this criterion, some nominators will argue that the most crushingly banal hooks should be promoted because interest is "subjective", while in spite of the criterion, uninteresting hooks still have a tendency to slip by. Quality controllers at DYK need to reference this criterion when removing uninteresting hooks because the other reference in the rules pertaining to this issue, which states that a hook be "catchy", is indeed subjective, as well as being unacceptably vague. Hook interest is a vital component of DYK and while the project sometimes fails the criterion, removing it altogether will make the situation much worse.

Having said that, it's undeniable that some topics are inevitably unlikely to appeal "to a broad audience" but that is still the gold standard the project should be striving for. If the argument is that the criterion should be scrapped because some hooks - on arcane or specialist subjects for example - cannot meet it, the appropriate solution would be simply to add a qualifier to the phrase such as "preferably" so that it reads "interesting, preferably to a broad audience", not to scrap it altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The argument that the broadness rule runs counter to wikipedia notability guidelines, which are based on verifiability and neutrality, not on potential audience interest levels is a non-sequitur. Verifiability and neutrality are part of the DYK criteria, but so are—as Kevmin notes—that a hook must be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers into wanting to read the article", which also has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In addition to being notable, an article must have something interesting about it that can be conveyed in a hook. The rule in question seems to me to be saying that the hook cannot simply be catchy to a specialized group, say entomologists or football fans, but pique the interest of a spectrum of readers. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

But why does it need to be in the rule set in the first place (given it was added without discussion and is already covered by the guideline you just quoted. Also there still is no way it can be neutrally applied and assessed in any situation.--Kev min § 03:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Question What exactly are we "supporting" here? The inclusion of that text, or its removal? The RfC opening statement lays down a position, but does not ask a question relating to that position. See how it shows in the listing and also WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I've tried to do a copyedit of the original proposal text on both pages to address this concern. Alex Shih ^Talk 09:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Point of information, the selection of an article "interesting to a wide audience" has been in the rules since 2007. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The rule is very subjective. I would not object to changing it to "as interesting as possible", with the requirement that anyone challenging a hook on these grounds should suggest a more interesting hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Non-boring is already amply covered in the nomination guidelines and there is no need for the wording of Rule 3A as it stands, what do you see as the harm of reverting 3a to the pre 2012 version?-Kevmin § 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is it covered? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- In the instructions directly after the rules set, specifically in the recommendation for short concise hooky nominations--Kev min § 23:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Please provide direct evidence of the purposeful bad faith you are asserting in your statement. Otherwise please retract the purposeful assertion of bad faith against me.--Kevmin § 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll need to clarify that request, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- The request was very clear. You have very specifically asserted bad faith on my part in creating the RFC. Provide the specific evidence and examples of my bad faith in this matter or retract your statement made in your vote.--Kevmin § 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  - The request may have been "clear" but not precise. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I don't recall assuming any "bad faith", perhaps you're referring to the issue that some users have when their "hooks" are continually berated for not being hooky? If so, I don't need to providence evidence of that, because that's already clear. Was it something else I said? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  - Hang on, I said this clearly serves no benefit at all to our readers and is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks, directly against the spirit of DYK.. So, breaking it down, this clearly serves no benefit at all to our readers, well that's true, why would our readers want to read hooks which aren't interesting? is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks this is a natural conclusion from people who are actively working to remove the "interesting" criterion. This isn't bad faith, a personal attack, or anything else, just a statement of fact. Why would anyone nominate a hook at DYK that wouldn't be interesting to the world at large? What would be the point? directly against the spirit of DYK yes, 100%. "Did you know" are the opening three words of a sentence that is intended to provide something interesting afterwards. The spirit of DYK has been destroyed by the reluctance of reviewers to simply kick dull hooks to the curb. It's a shame because actually, as I noted above, with a little bit of consideration, usually an actually interesting hook can be teased out, but due to ownership issues, this is seldom an easy or rewarding task. The over-riding issue is a complete lack of understanding of our readers. And that's really preoblmatic. And this RFC underlines the idea that our editors and their preferences are more important than our audience. Which is plain wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    But again, the readership is not a monolithic whole that will only ever like certain things, that is false, thus your statement "why would our readers want to read hooks which aren't interesting" is never going to anything but based on gut feelings of the people who nominate and promote hooks, there is no way to define something as "boring". It is also NOT and i will repeat NOT a natural conclusion that is designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks from people who are actively working to remove the "interesting" criterion. That is a bad faith assertion on your part, unless you are going to claim being privy to personal thought processes. You do NOT know what my thoughts are regarding the matter, and asserting motive on my behalf is not acceptable. The rest of your statement boils down to trying to guess what at least 470 million people (minimum estimate of world English speakers) will all think is interesting.--Kev min § 23:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    
    TRM, the part where you say "designed purely to help users gain credits for dull hooks" is an example of what is being argued at ARCA. You are commenting on the motivation of others as if what you think is their motivation not only is their motivation, but is the only possible motivation. As Kevmin's comments indicate, this can upset other editors. Further, your own comments above show why this specific comment was unnecessary. Lifting from your own words (in blue), you could have written:
    Oppose this clearly serves no benefit at all to, and reflects a complete lack of understanding of, our readers, which is directly against the spirit of DYK. Removing this rule would just allow people to tell us that "Extinct ant A had six clubbed hairs" week after week after week, because removing the rule would prevent anyone complaining about the sheer banality of it all. Sometimes it's about not being able to see the wood for the trees, collaboration with other (non-expert) editors in such cases may frequently lead to hooks that would be of interest to many more people. I believe that once a hook has been called out as dull and more than one or two individuals agree, it should be fixed as why would our readers want to read hooks which aren't interesting? The spirit of DYK is being destroyed by ownership issues, in my opinion, and the reluctance of reviewers to simply kick dull hooks to the curb. It's a shame because usually an actually interesting hook can be teased out, but ownership issues mean that this is seldom an easy or rewarding task. Our editors and their preferences should not be more important than our audience.
    
    I think this comment expresses your view accurately (please disagree if I have distorted your view). It expresses what I see as your view that the source of the problem is ownership issues and a focus on editors rather than readers, without attributing motivation to !voters in this RfC. It avoids the distraction of alleged bad faith taking away from the change to DY guidelines. And, it prevents anyone putting you through another round of pointless AE debate. I am not suggesting that you alter your view or limit your expression on what are WP issues, but please avoid guessing about other's motivations as it just provides an opportunity to move focus from the issues and onto you. EdChem (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Entirely the wrong venue and completely derailing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Derailing the discussion was certainly not my intent. Sorry. EdChem (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem: In response to your suggestion above: I'd made a similar proposal a few months ago (can't be bothered to dig it up) but it received next to no support. Since then, though, I've reconsidered. We shouldn't require a hook to be interesting "within the field"; because you can always find smaller and smaller populations of people who are acquainted with a certain subject, and therefore find a hook interesting. I now think we should require the reverse. The hook fact should be interesting to at least some individuals outside the field in question. If we have a chemistry hook, at least some non-chemists should find it interesting. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've always tried for something with broader interest, yes. I didn't so much mean a chemistry hook needs to be interesting to chemists as mean a chemistry hook should be (at least) interesting to WP readers of chemistry content. EdChem (talk) 06:02, 13 August 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

@Narutolovehinata5: @Adityavagarwal:

... that Sayaka Harada decided to become a voice actress in high school despite having seen little anime or manga?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this hook at all. I linked anime and manga because I wasn't sure what they were. Now that I know that anime is computer animation and manga is comics, what does that have to do with voice acting? Perhaps the hook hinges on knowing who Sayaka Harada is. But I don't. The hook is confusing rather than hooky. I think we need a new hook for an international audience. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the hook to Prep 3 since this set is scheduled to be promoted to the main page—assuming an admin comes along in the next four hours or so—and I doubt this will be settled by then. I have replaced the spot in the prep set with a hook moved in from Prep 1. The hook was opaque to me as well. Voice acting can be for radio plays, voiceovers, and other things; it doesn't have to be for anime. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A few points: 1) "anime" is the Japanese term for "cartoon", it's a direct borrowing from "animation", 2) "manga" are Japanese comic books, 3) use of either untranslated term in English text that is not comparing and contrasting the Japanese forms with the American, British, French, etc forms seems somewhat pretentious, 4) discussing a Japanese person's experience with anime and manga comes off kind of like asking a Beijing native for directions to their favorite Chinese restaurant in that city (unless, again, you are comparing and contrasting it with their experience with non-Japanese cartoons and comics), 5) comics don't utilize voice actors so "manga" aren't really relevant here. Is the point of the hook that "Sayaka Harada decided on a career in cartoon voice acting despite not having watched many cartoons?" --Khajidha (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This hook makes the assumption that the readers will automatically make the connection (which is somewhat true here in Japan, as the hook quotes from an interview where the interviewer asks Sayaka Harada about her experience with anime and manga right after asking her about why she became a voice actress). I like the alternative suggestion by Khajidha, and maybe I can also propose something else with minor adjustment that reflects the source better. Alex Shih ^Talk 21:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ALT1 ...that Sayaka Harada decided to become a voice actress in anime despite not being familiar with Japanese cartoons?

@Alex Shih: @Khajidha: @BlueMoonset: "Japanese cartoons" is not exactly a common term I've seen elsewhere considering manga has become rather well-known even to non-anime fans, but I guess the alternate hook suggested here would work as a compromise for people unfamiliar with the subject matter. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: @Khajidha: @BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: What about:

ALT2 ...that while in high school, Sayaka Harada decided to become a voice actress in anime despite having seen little anime?

This suggestion seems to be a little more accurate, as it's never implied in the source that she's unfamiliar with anime (as she's a Japanese person, this is very unlikely), but rather, she hasn't watched/seen it often. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to mention anime and link it in a hook, but to repeat it in the hook as if the reader already knows what it means, is very confusing. I like Alex Shih's ALT1 improvement. Yoninah (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To answer Narutolovehinata5's query about familiarity, you could tweak the hook to:

ALT1a: ... that Sayaka Harada decided to become a voice actress in anime despite not having watched many Japanese cartoons? Yoninah (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I guess that works too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change it in Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - ... that as of 12 September, 48 wildfires in Montana (example pictured) were actively burning?

This might have worked well had it been remotely close to 12 September, but it isn't. Worse, the lead starts with "... were a series ..." while the infobox says that the fires are "(ongoing)". It appears that the article isn't up to date really. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pining: Montanabw, Bri, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll be off and on for a few days. Fixed lede grammar. Added an end-of-season source from 23 September. Hope another editor can get an updated source for status. The source I added might have it but it is a video and I don't have time to watch it right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that the date given is 12 September, which is only a fortnight ago after all. The number of fires is obviously going to dwindle as summer ends and the fall sets in, and this article is about a wildfire season rather than an unfolding news item. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A fortnight ago and getting more remote as time goes on. Never a good idea to talk about something ongoing in DYK. If this goes up the very first thing people are going to think is "So? Are any of them active NOW?" We would not have a DYK such as "...as of 19 September, hurricane Maria was battering Domenica?", this is no different.--Khajidha (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll do an update today, thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In the future it would make sense for nominators/reviewers to request a quick promotion for time-sensitive hooks like this. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"

FYI, I've just reported a DYK at WP:ERRORS. It's the Mick Jagger hook and so will be of general interest. I don't have time to follow up right now so others might like to take it from here. Andrew D. (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Pulled - unacceptable hook for the main page IMHO. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the next DYK set overdue?

As it seems, yesterday's hooks are still running. The next prep set 1 is already in queue 1, and it shows the message of earliest update of 00:30 am, 29 September, in a red box. I thought the hooks in the queue would be automatically moved to the main page, by the bot. Any clue on what is happening? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The bot seems to have got stuck. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks to Materialscientist! Seems like he has manually updated it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Bots are down

The DYKUpdateBot, which does the automated updates of the main page, is down. Shubinator, the bot's owner, believes that there was an API change that is causing problems, and he doesn't know how long this will take to track down and fix, though he'll be looking into it further later today. The same problem affects the DYKHousekeepingBot, which updates the Count of DYK Hooks table on the queue, nominations, and approved pages and also notifies editors if they fail to transclude their DYK nomination templates on the nominations page.

We may need an admin to check daily just after 05:00 UTC to see whether the bot has done an update, and do a manual update if it hasn't. Materialscientist, would it be possible for you to do this until Shubinator has the bots running again? Thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Both bots should be up and running again. Thanks everyone for chipping in during the downtime! Shubinator (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shubinator: Nice! Thank you. Alex Shih ^Talk 17:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Need an early response

My hook was given on 27 September. Can I expect an early review? I will be preoccupied from this week and won't be attending to Wikipedia for much long. If someone else can take responsibility, that would also be nice.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking briefly at the article, the Military history of Bangladesh, I can see that it has several paragraphs which contain no citations. That will have to be remedied before the nomination can proceed. Actually, I think the nomination will fail because the article has not been expanded fivefold. It was already a substantial article before your expansion, but was 5966 B immediately before your expansion, while it is now 14 kB, an expansion of about 2.4 times. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay. I would like to withdraw my nomination then.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Alex Shih ^Talk 03:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This hook seems very promotional

In Prep 2:

... that America's Got Talent winner Grace VanderWaal, now 13 years old, announced the release date of her first full-length album, Just the Beginning, composed of her original songs?

@Pgallert: @Adityavagarwal:. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Would it not be treated as a fact (I felt the same way while reviewing it, but I was trying to think of any other way of stating the same hook, but was not able to come up with much of a difference, so I thought it could be treated as a fact)? Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's too promotional. It's also not "hooky". If it had been something to do with someone so young actually winning the contest in the first place, then fair enough, but who cares if she is then releasing an album? All talent show winners do that, it's part of the deal. I'd be tempted to pull it if it can't be reconfigured in a more hooky manner (for example, one thing that stands out in the article for me is that's she's sold out a 13-city tour to promote the album, which must be some sort of a record for a 13-year-old). Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that a 13-city tour for Just the Beginning, a November 2017 album release by 13-year-old America's Got Talent winner Grace VanderWaal, sold out in September? Yoninah (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Black Kite True that! Yeah, that would be a nice hook, about the 13-city tour. Yoninah that is an awesome one! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ALT2: ... that Just the Beginning, 13-year-old America's Got Talent winner Grace VanderWaal's upcoming first full-length album, is composed entirely of her original songs? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd go with ALT1. I think it's more interesting, plus some of the songs on the album were collaborations with others. Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BlueMoonset Won't that still be promotional? It is still about the album, like the original hook. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, the promotional part of that hook was primarily "announced the release date of her first full-length album", which is pure publicity-release headline material. That said, I have no particular preference for ALT2, though the collaborations issue could be finessed easily enough if the fact that she wrote or co-wrote every song on the album is deemed more interesting than the sold-out tour. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Gotcha! Yeah, both ALT1 and ALT2 are fine. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have implemented this by substituting ALT1 for the promotional hook, already in prep 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Forrest's pika

@Adityavagarwal: The nomination page for the Forrest's pika nomination is blank, thereby making it difficult for me to promote! It seems that somebody has made the error of "moving" a nomination page, thus mucking up the template. Could some kind person sort this out? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Yeah! :P I first made the page "forrest's pika" with a small f. Later, I moved it to Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Forrest's_pika with a capital F. Unfortunately, seems like it creates some error for DYK (similar to my error of small vs capital a in the later moved page of Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Alpine_pika). Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Should be fine now. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex Shih! I have now learned how to fix it, and should be able to fix any such issue in the future. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is never a need to move a nomination page, even if you mis-spelt the name or added or subtracted additional articles to the hook. The name is irrelevant, it just needs to be unique. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I later realized the independence of the nom page with the DYK process. Apologies for all the trouble caused! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Can people make some effort to get at least the sentences supporting the hook up to scratch? We now have on the main page "* ... that Jane Frances Winn was one of the first female journalists to cover women's golf events?" In the article, this hook is related to the lines

"She was a pioneer Golf Writer, editor for the Women's Sports because she was one of the few newspaper women in the 1900s to be familiar with the game. She covered the principal Women's golf events:"

What's with the capitalization? "She was a golf writer, editor for women's sports, the principal women's golf events" are what one would expect normally. @Elisa.rolle, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:, you all must have looked at this line when promoting the hook, and none of you saw any problem with this? Fram (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I expected some major cleanup, and understand that it's one capitalization? Can't help thinking that you might have silently fixed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the article could do with general cleanup, but 5 capitalization errors in the 1 1/2 lines about the hook struck me as particularly weird. Fram (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Capital nouns are so normal for a German speaker that I am probably not good in noticing a mistake, + I often don't know capital or not. I am used to "Fifth Symphony", but a hook was changed to "second piano concerto". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot that for a native German this may indeed be a problem (just like I certainly make some errors because they sound or look "right" in Dutch). Fram (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yttralox (pulled from main page)

... that Yttralox, the first transparent ceramic, was accidentally discovered in the course of fuel cell research in the mid-1960s?

The claim is supported by a source, but even the other linked article, Transparent ceramics, doesn't support this. Lucalox, a "transparent polycrystalline alumina ceramic"acording to "Ceramic Materials: Science and Engineering" was developed in 1961. Fram (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And of course, technically glass is often seen as a ceramic as well, and if not then things like Pyroceram from the 1950s are. Fram (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Could not this hook have just been changed to

... that Yttralox, a transparent ceramic, was accidentally discovered in the course of fuel cell research in the mid-1960s? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Any admin could replace the revised version of the hook on the main page, where it could still run for another 10 hours. This would have the benefit of balancing the main page, where the DYK section is quite short as a result. (It was the fourth hook in the set prior to its removal in this edit.) Pinging Alex Shih, Cas Liber, Maile66, or even Fram to restore the hook with the new wording, if you're satisfied with its accuracy, which replaces "the first" with "a". Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced the hook with the revised version, which I do believe addresses the issue that is being raised. Alex Shih ^Talk 18:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween

Are there slots available for Halloween specials? I have this hook in mind: "...New York vigilantes were awarded by officials for eradicating vermin on the streets of the city?" ☆ Bri (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Awarded" or "rewarded"? It makes no sense as written.--Khajidha (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Members of Ryders Alley Trencher-fed Society received awards from New York City Council. The hook is a joke of course, but is that OK for Halloween? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: I don't think there is anything in the rules that prevents you from submitting a date request for 31 October, but I don't see a strong reason to support. Alex Shih ^Talk 22:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess it would be peculiar if there were just one Halloween joke. Thought it was worth checking at least. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

31 October is this year celebrating 500 years of Reformation. We could fill all slots with (so far unwritten) articles around that unusual event. The TFA will be Ninety-five Theses. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the explosion of scary clown sightings, I was going to have go at one of the It articles (probably the miniseries featuring Tim Curry), so I guess I'd better get my skates on. Or, alternatively, I could just give 2016 clown sightings a spit and polish, which mainly just needs trimming recentism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Image rules: must already be in the article

I wonder if more leeway could be granted regarding the existence of the DYK image in the article. I'm quite sure that using a smaller crop for the DYK thumbnail is already acceptable. What about different images that similarly show the same subject? One might look better at 120x133px, while the other more clearly shows the subject at full size in the article. Should it be okay to use the different versions for DYK and in the article? (This question stems from the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Thai royal funeral.)

That said, is it even necessary to require that a similar image appears in the article? With 1,500 characters as the minimum, DYK articles can be quite short, and not be able to support more than one or two images. If, say, a biographical article has a non-free image of the person in the infobox, which takes up almost all of the article's vertical space, should we allow the chance for a picture of the person's work (which can't yet be squeezed into the article) to be used for DYK? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Crops of licensed free pictures that appear in the article are indeed perfectly fine. However, if the image doesn't appear in the article, it isn't eligible—this issue comes up from time to time, and so far the consensus has been to retain this rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree, otherwise it seems like someone is using it to use an image that is not an integral part of the article, when DYK is all about showcasing the works done to an individual article and sometimes the pictures that come with them. I think the only exception I know of was on April Fools Day when United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton ran with an image not in the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, points taken. What do you think, though, about the specific nom I mentioned? As said in the nomination page, I'd probably switch the image into the article just so it satisfies the DYK criteria, but then I'd have to change it back, since it's not really great at full size. Does anyone see this as a problem? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Little cuckoo-dove?

@Cwmhiraeth: I think the DYK of the barred cuckoo-dove has the little cuckoo-dove in bold. This is because it is a double hook. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made the necessary alterations to the bolding and the credits in the prep area, but the nomination is quite unclear as to what was being nominated and the review doesn't really refer to two articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the little cuckoo-dove article was reviewed on the nomination template, so I'm pulling it from prep. There have been other issues with reviews by this editor, such as a QPQ said to be done and that nomination approved two days before any QPQ was submitted, so absent a proper review here for the second article, this cannot be promoted at the present time. (That there won't be cuckoo-dove hooks two days in a row is just a fortunate accident.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks a lot Cwmhiraeth and BlueMoonset! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hook

Please could somebody promote the special occasion hook for October 9th to Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth is it ready? Were your queries adequately addressed? Perhaps you could restore the tick and I'll promote it. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have done so, but really they were suggestions rather than requirements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Promoted. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Animal husbandry

Today's entry "... that songs and books for children often depict happy farm animals in attractive countryside, glossing over the realities of impersonal, mechanized activities involved in modern intensive farming?" Is extremely biased. How did this get approved? The original nomination was much more neutral and factual than propaganda. Natureium (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It should have run with the image, which would have verified the first part of the hook. Yoninah (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So, you still don't get the issues with this hook and why it was pulled with the image in the first place? Incredible. An image from 100 years ago can hardly verify a hook about modern intensive farming. That's like saying that Morte d'Arthur glosses over the horrors of trench warfare and nuclear bombing. Without the image, the hook was simply too biased (based on information from a loibby group, not a neutral source); with the image, it was simply unacceptably wrong. Fram (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I meant that the image of happy pigs would have explained the first part of the hook; without it, the whole hook looks like it has an ax to grind. Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And with it it looks as if the hook has an axe to grind, and as if enwiki has no knowledge of anachronisms. Fram (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

But even without any help from Miss Tiggy-Winkle, this 1963 book and this 1970 book suggest that things have not been quite so clear cut for some time? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Incredibly sad news

Special:Diff/803966431. Alex Shih ^Talk 20:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sad, indeed. He will be remembered, not only for promoting the most controversial hook I reviewed (and threatened to be desysopped for it). He was precious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if he had any drafts/projects underway. We will finish them. That's the best tribute we can give. bd2412 T 21:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(Here is one). bd2412 T 21:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
(Here are many more). bd2412 T 21:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Anybody to light the candles, like these? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We have lost one of our own here at DYK. Allen3 regularly monitored many DYK processes, and would typically be the one to manually update the main page and do the notifications when the DYKUpdateBot went down; he was one of the few active DYK admins still around from the day when it was all manual updates. He has been missed this year; now we know why, and it is indeed incredibly sad. Thanks for passing on the news, Alex Shih. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Candles are up now, but the talk page archived (don't know why), - plenty of room to place that there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I archived his old discussions because they were just that - old discussions. In my experience, the talk pages of departed Wikipedians become a place to leave condolences, so I tidied it up in case that comes about. bd2412 T 22:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

How very sad ... and so relatively young ... his death leaves a gaping, glaring hole in our community. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Allen3 was a very fine member of our community. I always appreciated how efficiently and un-dramatically he promoted and updated the queues. I had been wondering where he was, and am sorry to hear this news. Allen3, you are missed. Yoninah (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is sad news indeed. I'll never forget him for promoting that great Easter hook that I had written and will always be grateful to him for it. RIP. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned that incident also, above ;) - His defense had so much character. - seriously: put these thoughts on his talk, not here only to be archived! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is sad, he was a decent and helpful person and an asset to DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I was sad when I heard of Allen3's death. I appreciated Allen3's work about Arizona Territory-the territorial governors and territorial legislature. My prayers and sympathy to Allen3's family-thank youRFD (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan

'Did you know... that despite being urged to do so, William Jennings Bryan refused to drop his free silver plank when he ran for U.S. President in 1900?'
What is a free silver plank, and where can I get one? :) (Just noting that one could have been phrased slightly better...) Robofish (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I also thought this was quite a strange usage of the word "plank", but this article explains what it was all about, including stating "Bryan did touch on other planks from the Democratic platform, but it was the free coinage of silver that he pushed most." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly an engvar issue as it is quite normal to speak of 'planks' in a party platform in US English and would be assumed to be that usage when speaking of elections. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a UK English speaker and am quite familiar with the use of "planks" of party policy. How it translates outside US/UK I am not sure. Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Replacing the pic

@Cwmhiraeth: I don't know if I can request to replace the picture of Nakhl Gardani hook with this newer and much better one. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

For an image to appear in DYK, it needs to be present in the article, which is why I added the image you originally proposed to the article. Now I like the image currently in Prep 1 because it looks good at thumbnail size, standing out as it does against the sky. I'm not sure what you prefer about the one you are now proposing, but I find it less interesting at thumbnail size. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Present image

Proposed image

I agree with Cwmhiraeth. The coloring on the second image also looks off. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah: My aim was to use a pic with more energy and population. The ritual is carried out mainly in Yazd and my proposed image was from there. Anyway, there are some other free photos here. How about the following ones:

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

I'll add any of which you agree with. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I still think the original image is good, and it gives the impression that lots of people are present. The last image also shows lots of people, but the first image just seems clearer and with better composition at thumbnail size. Yoninah (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, let's see what Cwmhiraeth thinks about it. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Yoninah that the original image is the best at thumbnail size, your proposal2 is rather dark but proposal 3 is rather impressive with its large crowds of people and if it would make you happier we could go with that one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! This is not a matter of being happy, I was aiming to present a better pic. Given your opinions, I think we'd better go with what you suggested. Probably many others think as you did. Though I think the larger crowds are more attractive. I can insert them somewhere in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Cary Moon

"... that Seattle mayoral candidate Cary Moon qualified for the general election by a margin of 1,170 votes?"

I'm not sure this is interesting at all. Is it that the margin is considered significant in some way? All candidates will have qualified by some margin... Apparently the gap wasn't even small enough to trigger a mandatory recount. And I'm not sure also which "general election" this refers to, isn't it a mayoral election? It's probably more interesting to note that she apparently spent nearly $100,000 of her own "wealth" during the campaign while simultaneously campaigning for "income equality". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Yoninah, SounderBruce. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This hook fails the rule at WP:DYKHOOK that "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates". The Seattle mayoral election, 2017 runs from 18 October to 7 November, so we can't run it. Pulling it and failing the nomination. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh well that rather trumps my concern, although should the hook then run retrospectively, my issue should still be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bencherlite, for reminding me of that rule. I moved the hook back to the Approved page, to be reconsidered after the election, and also mentioned TRM's excellent suggestion for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Two alcohol-related hooks in Prep 3

I was looking over Prep 3, and found there are two Canadian alcohol related hooks (first one is from one of my DYKs):

... that the earliest record of the Toronto cocktail is from 1922, when the city of Toronto was under prohibition?
.. that until 1968, a list of some 5,000 people, referred to as the "Indian List" due to the automatic inclusion of indigenous people, was prohibited from buying liquor from BC Liquor Stores?

Perhaps one of these should be exchanged with an entry from another Prep area. Mind matrix 20:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I moved yours to prep 5, hope it's okay. Alex Shih ^Talk 00:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I figured one of the two would be moved. It's all good. Mind matrix 13:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Rolling Stones

I don't want to lower the tone too much on this nicely worded Rolling Stones DYK and I hate to do this, but I have noticed that this had already appeared on OTD in 2014 thus wasn't eligible. <puts tin helmet on>. The Royal C (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice catch. I propose a meal of {{trout}} for Casliber and Cwmhiraeth who failed to see that and to keep the article on the Main Page regardless per WP:BECAUSETHEHOOKISBLOODYBRILLIANT.

Regards So Why 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where does it say appearing in OTD renders the article ineligible? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: 1. e. 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.. To be honest though, this rule makes little sense if the article was rewritten/revamped. Alex Shih ^Talk 12:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(facepalm) I missed that...ok I stand corrected...still, it was a cool hook, eh? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

...which is why I vote we allow it this time. Alex is right though, the rule seems to clash with the idea of showcasing new good articles. IIRC, that part was meant to avoid the same article appearing on the Main Page twice within a short amount of time. So maybe we can change it to only apply if the previous appearance was less than X months ago? Regards So Why 12:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's now possible to show a FA again after 5 years, - we could introduce such a thing here, too. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the issue is being discussed in a suitable page? I don't think it's a good idea to let the article go, when there's no consensus on the just suggested change. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Mistakes happen and the letter of the violated rule might fit the case but the spirit clearly doesn't. The point was to prevent multiple appearances within a short time frame, not within multiple years. Regards So Why 14:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that rule was probably a holdover from the earlier days and was, as SoWhy, pointed out intended to stop short-term repeats. I would say 2 years/18 months would be enough to add to the rule as its only a minority that would be good enough for OTD then subsequently qualify for DYK, it wouldn't be too disruptive. I'm glad we kept the hook on the page because I like that style there and hope we can do more soon. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing the hook to remain on the main page (SoWhy, Alex Shih, The C of E) hopefully the wording mentioned above gets updated at some point. I did not realize that it was disqualified, if I had I would not have nominated and, as such, apologize for the unintended hassle. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It happens from time to time, DYK has a lot of holdover rules that sometimes make no sense which is why everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But that's not to detract from the fact you did a good job on the hook @TheSandDoctor: as it made its way into the most-viewed non-lead hooks on WP:DYKSTATS. Besides, I'm not one for demanding the yanking of hooks off the mainpage on a technicality, especially not when it was so good and would have unbalanced the page without it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@The C of E: I didn't realize that it had charted so highly, that's cool. I realize that you do not have the permission to yank hooks (as you are not an admin), I just pinged you as you were involved in this discussion. I'm glad that you liked the hook, I took inspiration in writing it from the first (ever) DYK hook about a pencil sharpener and that Stones one was one of many (hooks) I suggested. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: well, if the first-ever DYK hook was your inspiration, I'd say DYK has come a very long way! Your Rolling Stones hook is the best ever! Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Advert tag on the main page

I don't know if standards have changed, but this (Optima Signature) is the second time in a little over three weeks (Plated (meal kits) - Sept 19) that I have had a DYK nom tagged with {{advert}} while it is on the main page. Can someone look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, having looked at the article, I think the tag is fair. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Well, why did you let it go on the main page without resolving the issue? More importantly, what content do you find unencyclopedic for a luxury building?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger and Nikkimaria: I've made some changes, would you take another look to see if it's better now? Alex Shih ^Talk 02:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I consider it less informative to the reader to remove the word "luxury" from the lead sentence, but if that is what gives rise to the tag, do what you have to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But I guess with the image, finance, and building description, "luxury" is probably reflected without even mentioning it. I've removed the maintenance tag now. Alex Shih ^Talk 02:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Some luxury buildings have the word in the lead sentence. The first building I lookeed at was Waldorf Astoria New York, which has it. Using the word accurately can not be the justification for the advert tag.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Other uses in the main sentence include The Pierre, while some use the term five-star such as Grand Hôtel (Stockholm). I don't understand the point of removing the word luxury.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to compare a skyscraper that was opened four months ago to historical buildings completed in 1893/1930/1874 respectively. My understanding is that once the luxury components of Optima Signature receives more significant coverage, it would be less controversial to put more weight on the "luxury". That's just my thoughts. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The entire article reads like a commercial estate agents brochure. The building is a new build residential high-rise. That's the extent of it. Has it won awards? Is the building itself notable in some way? Did people die horribly in its construction? Is it the site of a dimensional portal through which Gozer the Gozerian is going to cross over? It doesn't need overly puffery wording to be an ad. It just needs to read like an advertisement, and that article reads like it was written by someone who is trying to sell me a place to live. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for November 11

Template:Did you know nominations/Liliuokalani for November 11 (100th date of the Queen's death) is in mid-review, nominated by @Mark Miller and KAVEBEAR: and me. @Gerda Arendt: is doing a review, but I think she would like a different kind of hook. I would be happy with whatever my two co-nominators agreed on for a hook. But please feel free to offer other hooks on the template. The article is also currently undergoing FAC. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

More precisely: I'd prefer a hook about her life, not death, - anybody welcome. We have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Though technically 11 November is Remembrance Day in the Commonwealth so it wouldn't be too out of place to have a hook involving death. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against memory that day, and' I'd even approve the proposed hook about the ceremony when she died, but would prefer a hook that said something about a great woman's life, or position, or whatever, - just not the only thing we say about her is that she died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Along the lines of what The C of E posted above, November 11 is also Veterans Day in the United States, an official federal holiday with a lot of ceremony. I understand what you're saying @Gerda Arendt:, and I'm open to a different hook if one comes up. But if we don't mention in the hook that it's 100 years from that date, how would the reader know we're commemorating that event? A centennial commemoration of anything is a big deal. — Maile (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to interest the reader in the person, or do you want the reader to know that you have a specific reason to do so? - You could still say that L, who died 100 years ago, did so-and-so. I prefer to celebrate birthdays ;) - also say a third time that I can approve a hook that says nothing about her personality if you so wish. - Getting ready for 500 years (of the Reformation) you may want to take a look at Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm not ignoring your comment above. It's just that nothing comes to mind. That's why I asked here for others to suggest hooks. It's mighty quiet around DYK these days. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

We still have plenty of time, while my idea for October 17 was approved too late, or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You are a person of infinite patience. I can focus on something simple like her date of death, or other dates. But my head is so saturated with the history of Hawaii and multiple articles I've created/edited that all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle ... that coming up with something simple isn't working for me here. And we don't want the obvious that the general populace would already know, like she was the last monarch, she was the one who was in power when the kingdom was overthrown, etc. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK's should be viewable from Mobiles too

Currently, Mobile view of Wikipedia's Main Page doesn't show the Did you know section. I think this should be shown as a large number of readers visit Wikipedia from mobiles and tablets, I-pads etc and DYK's aren't being exposed to them. Also, some topics may share interests with mobile readers, like an Apple smartphone hook, which recieves less views on Computers but more from Mobiles and Tablets. What do you guys think about this ? Request a passing administrator to implement this if enough users agree. 31.215.114.79 (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've copied this message over to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Edward P. Evans Hall

Hi. Would anyone like to nominate Edward P. Evans Hall for DYK please?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Hi, as a registered user, you're also invited to nominate your own article for DYK! I took a look at the article and see that it is still stub-class. I removed an unnecessary quote describing the nuts and bolts of the building, so it needs more text and description from independent sources to bring it up to start-class, when it can be nominated for DYK. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s has well over five DYK credits, and would have to provide a quid pro quo review if nominating their own article. The last couple of times someone else did the nomination for them; I haven't checked back any further. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Anonimo Gaddiano

I'm not very happy about this being closed as "ineligible" by a rather new reviewer. It was effectively all written within 5 days, but I was busy and there was a delay in nominating it, making it late by 2 days if treated as new, or if treated as an expansion of the first start, by 1 day. I noted the problem when submitting on October 4th; the reviewer added a "comment" within 15 minutes confirming the dates. We tend to be lenient in such cases in my experience.

Unfortunately the co-nom, who had started the article by translating the Italian WP version, has not been very happy with my expanding and correcting his original piece, and then raised some wholly spurious points, which had already been dealt with at article talk. Reviewers understandably kept away while this was going on, but by the 18th, with nothing new for 10 days, I assumed it was all over, and added a note to say so. The co-nom then popped up again, repeating points already dealt with. I pointed this out to him. The editor who had commented then returned after 14 days, and closed the nom 16 minutes after my comment to the co-nom. I can't help thinking this has more to do with getting the lengthening discussion off the page than the actual timing issue. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Without having looked at the article in detail, I agree that this nomination should not be rejected on date of nomination grounds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I see why the article was bulked up in such haste. Wikipedia Careerism. Interesting. Perhaps there's some room here for policy revision. Rome was not built in a day, it is often said, and neither is responsible history built in five. Even God took seven.

Going forward, I will look at Wikipedia's DYK listings in a new light. Fb2ts (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

7 days is indeed what the rules allow, but the expansion was effectively done in 5. The nom has been reactivated; many thanks for the comments there and above! Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook

There is currently a discussion in Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream about a suitable hook for this nomination. The C of E, who nominated it, prefers his original hook, which uses "Nigger" and variants thereof three times, and in bold text; TonyTheTiger didn't see anything wrong with it. Both original reviewer Owlsmcgee and myself have proposed alternatives, neither of which have satisfied The C of E, though I disagree with him on whether ALT1, which I proposed and eschews the word, is hooky enough for DYK. The competing merits of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, and WP:Offensive material have been advanced, and an ALT2 has been proposed if the original hook is not approved.

I thought it made sense to bring this before the entire DYK community now for consensus in this case, rather than have it come here after much back and forth, as seems almost inevitable. Thank you for your comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no hook without using the names of the places. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify. It is not that I don't see anything wrong with it. I believe that there have been precedents set in the past for the "N" word appearing on the main page. The use here is for the purpose of engaging the main page viewers' attention, which is the goal of the DYK hook. Given that we have permitted all kinds of offensive topics on the main page, I find the suggested use of the N word no different whether it be once or thrice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're asking the wrong question here. We're not bothered about whether something is offensive; NOTCENSORED covers that. The question is whether we are departing from neutral encyclopedic language to enhance understanding of the topic, or for some other reason. In this case, I think the use of the N-word contributes substantively to understanding the topic, which is about historical racism. I'm less sure about the original hook as it stands, because while repeating the N-word thrice makes the hook hookier, it does so via shock value, which in my mind is not an appropriate goal. So I'd be okay with, for instance, ALT2 proposed by the nominator, which is explicit about the issue, but does not repeat the word thrice to jar the reader into clicking on it. Just my 2c, feel free to ignore me. Vanamonde (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I actually think the proposed alt which doesn't explicitly mention the N-word is "hookier". Giving the old names might already tell the casual reader everything they want to know, but giving only the new names and the reason for the renaming will encourage people to click on the articles to find out if the offensive word is in fact the one they expect. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I realise that some may find the original rather strong, which is why I proposed ALT2 which tones it down a lot but still keeps the crux of the original hook by explicitly stating what the word was instead of the vague language of proposed alt1. The thing is, if these were written a year ago or if I had done them one at a time as individual nominations, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we would have been having a conversation about that hook if you'd proposed it with the same wording a year ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not a suicide pact. This is a terrible idea, and no matter the intent, will come across as a childish attempt to repeat a slur. bd2412 T 01:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The proposed hook will unnecessarily offend people without an offsetting encyclopedic purpose, risks adverse publicity bringing the project into disrepute, and should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to produce a list of previous hooks that used the N word? I think I recall some sort of book or manual and maybe another use or two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Run, Nigger, Run ran as such on DYK, so there is precident. Not to mention all the other swear words we've used as hooks before. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Except the song hook a) used the word once, in the clearly-marked title, b) was not about something that has been retitled, and c) was not about something that had raised controversy for its title. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose this nonsense. Come on, people. I would support if these were the actual names of the articles, but they are not, so there's no legitimate or encyclopedic reason to put them on the front page. The principle of least astonishment should apply here. Some people's desire for an exciting, attention getting, titillating hook is not sufficient. The n-word should not be employed to grab the reader's attention, that's crass and tacky. ALT1 provides sufficient information for a summary, and the articles can provide more information. Gamaliel (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

They were the original names and we have run hooks before which have included the original names for things. This is no different to then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I also advise that the proposed hook not be used. Above all else, it's tacky. Any encyclopedic benefit that it brings over ALT1 is marginal, and it does risk bringing the project into disrepute. Per Wikipedia:Offensive material, let's follow the principle of "least astonishment". Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, and that's reflected by the fact that we include the former names in their respective articles for completeness. NOTCENSORED is not, however, a free pass to use a route we know will offend readers when we know there's a perfectly good alternative that wouldn't. Mz7 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be used. It displays an eagerness to repeat a slur, to offend for no good reason. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that ALT1 is more hooky, intrigues the reader to find out what the actual context is, which is beyond the slur itself. Putting too much emphasis on the slur is hardly neutral. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I am with Alex for ALT1, besides even if the first proposed hook were marginally encyclopedic, which it is not, ALT1 would still be a preferred suitable alternative per WP:GFFENSE. Moreover nothing in NOTCENSORED or DYK rules require us to run the first proposed hook, as that would be forced speech, the antithesis of free speech -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't there a suggestion once for a variant main page on which 'good articles which may cause discomfort or more' (very medical, the G....ec..t Lane entry, terms now considered offensive) can be posted (ie people #actively choose# to go there)? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

People "actively choose" to come here. If they do so under the mistaken impression that this is some sort of "sunshine, unicorns, and rainbows" happy town where nothing is ever upsetting is not our concern. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems hardly worth it. We have one page, where we decide to waste this time putting it together, that's enough - we don't need more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: As much as I despise racism, I'm genuinely disturbed by the amount of rationalizations for censorship that I'm seeing here. Abyssal (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- If the proposal was to remove the offensive term from the article, that would be censorship. These are rationalizations for good editing. bd2412 T 19:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
ALT1 is actually more hooky than the original, regardless of any NOTCENSORED nonsense. Do we need to assume that our readers need to be spoonfed? No, we want them to investigate our articles. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. bd2412 T 20:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
ALT1 is definitely preferable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a breeching experiment and no more, and as such, deserves no reason to be on the main page. Censorship doesn't come into play here, the intent is to get away with as much as one can, without regard for one's target audience. For that reason, it shouldn't be done. This is self-evidently "let's see how much we can get away with". If one knows the likely outcome of an action, and proceeds anyways, one desired that outcome as the primary motive. Since it is evident that the outcome is expected, the motive is that outcome, and where the motive is to shock, the use of the word is not encyclopedic. --Jayron32 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not true. It was three intertwined areas with interesting names that I thought would work well if they ran as one. I chose the former names as I thought they made the hook more hooky in accordance with DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  - Hanlon's razor. bd2412 T 20:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I support ALT1. It serves as a disclaimer for itself without censoring the underlying content. Additionally (while the decision should not rest on this consideration), I imagine that DYK generators scrape Wikipedia DYK for content, and many of those scrapers may be intended to be strictly family-friendly (again, do not let that consideration determine our decision, because that is the fault of the developer for expecting an uncensored site to produce strictly "family-friendly" content). Gmarmstrong (talk)
I strongly prefer ALT1, and find the original to be in very poor taste. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Given that all three articles are currently at AfD, this nomination can't be used at all at the moment anyway. Indeed, if the discussions go as they are at the moment, all three are likely to be merged, so this won't be running. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

While Wikipedia itself is not censored (but sets criteria for notability etc) slightly different criteria will apply to the main page - some topics do make people feel uncomfortable in a school/workspace/public library etc context/while they are having 'drink and crumbly biscuit breaks.'

There are a number of articles which reach the criteria for appearing on the main page but which fall into the above categories: the question is how to reconcile 'examples of WP good practice' with 'what viewers do not wish to be seen reading in public contexts' (and some may make them feel uncomfortable in all contexts).

Attitudes change - use of the n word is now seen in a negative light (but the persons who became 'Viking berserkers' or 'involved religious enthusiasts' would now be seen negatively)

The question is actually - how should these aspects be reconciled? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

IAR and the centennial of Liliuokalani's death (Nov. 11, 2017)

Gerda Arendt is giving me a virtual poking in the ribs :-) to get off my duff and ask about this. November 11, 2017 is the centennial of Liliuokalani's death, arguably the most important historical figure in Hawaiian history. Her article recently passed GA and is up for FA. It's been nominated for Did you know nominations/Liliuokalani, but turns out that the article has appeared on the main page before, more than once. In fact, a lot. So, the first IAR I'm inquiring about, is if we can put the rules aside to recognize this important date by going ahead with the DYK on her article. If that is not workable, I already have two slightly older articles of people closely associated with her that I never put up for DYK. Joseph O. Carter was created on October 7, so it's not too far out of range for IAR. Julius A. Palmer Jr. was created September 25, 2017, which puts it a little more out of the standard range. Please give feedback so we might find a way for DYK to recognize the Nov. 11 date, and for Gerda to stop poking me with that stick. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! — Maile (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We put death dates in OTD, don't we -- why should it not go there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

My question was whether or not we can get DYK to recognize the date. The article has been at OTD 6 times. — Maile (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, OTD reruns articles - when it wants - I was just wondering, since OTD's main purpose is anniversary dates, why that would not be sufficient? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we just do away with all DYK holding areas, since it essentially duplicates the the purpose of OTD? — Maile (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about DYK-nominated articles that were deleted

If for example an article that was a DYK nominee was deleted (thus meaning the nomination failed), then was later recreated, is it allowed to renominate the recreated article for DYK, or is this prohibited? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason why an article that was unsuccessful at the first attempt at DYK should not be nominated again. This sometimes happens when an article is too small the first time round, and goes on to qualify as a newly promoted GA. Or such an article might qualify if it later had a five-fold expansion. If you tell us what article you are referring to, we can advise you as to whether it is likely to qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: In this case, it would be Minori Suzuki. I originally created the article last year, nominated it for DYK, it was approved, and while waiting to be prepped, it was nominated for deletion. The result of the deletion discussion (after I made a suggestion there) was for it to be userfied to my userspace. A deletion review this March did not result in a consensus to recreate the article, but a second deletion review this month permitted the page to be recreated. As such, earlier today, I moved it back to the namespace.

My question is: would me moving the article back to the mainspace today count under the "moved to mainspace" criterion of DYK, or as the article was originally created last year but was removed from mainspace, it no longer counts? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would qualify. It failed first time for a technical reason and should be given a second chance in my opinion. We'll see if anybody else has a view on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it would, we do have precidence for it happening with London Irish Amateur where something similar happened. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Old DYK cleanup issue

Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign is still listed in Category:Pending DYK nominations, although it is not pending as the article was deleted (redirected) in April 2017. I believe it should be changed to Category:Failed DYK nominations from April 2017. MB 02:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've closed it as "rejected", which has changed the category as that's part of closing a DYK nomination template. (It was March 2017, not April 2017.) The nomination should have been closed at the time of the merge/redirect/delete/whatever, but for some reason wasn't. Interesting that this should show up as another article by the same editor is at AfD after a controversial nomination here. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Untranscluded nominations

There are a number of nominations in the Pending DYK nominations category that were created by students as part of a college course this past spring: these are ones where the newness requirements were met, but the nomination was never transcluded on the DYK Nominations page as required. In the past, we have allowed DYK editors to take these on, fix up the hooks and the articles, and complete the nomination process, listing them under the date the nomination was finally transcluded (but noting the history on the nomination template). Since the class ended in May, the editors have long since vanished. The hooks are usually misformatted. Here are the templates and a brief explanation of where they stand:

Template:Did you know nominations/Bonesetter: expanded in March 2017 (nominator hasn't edited since the end of that month), article has a verification template on it that was placed in January 2013 but there have been improvements since and it might be good enough for DYK if the expansion took care of the issue; was 708 prose characters prior to expansion and 3751 by March 10 (5x expansion), the date the nomination template was created Added refs and re-nominated. Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/William Smellie (obstetrician): nomination created March 12 and was 5x expanded; valid hook would be needed, plus source for Legacy section; last WP edit by either of the two creators was August 24 Fixed up and renominated. Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Holmesburg Prison: nomination created April 21 and was 5x expanded by two editors; last WP edit by either was May 6. (Note: This article is citing a 1998 book which is not available in Google Preview. I noted on the talk page a 2013 edition which may need to be consulted for page numbers. I formatted the refs, but that's all I'm doing for this. I think it needs a lot of fact-checking against the sources.) Yoninah (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
~~Template:Did you know nominations/Big-fish-little-pond effect: nomination created April 27 and was 5x expanded; last WP edit by creator was May 2~~ I'm adopting this one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Mouse Embryonic Fibroblast: nomination opened July 25 for newly created 1656-character article; article last edited August 14, nominator has about half a dozen edits since then, the latest September 27. Template will need to be edited to reflect correct article name

If you take one of these on, please strike it from the above list. Any that are still unclaimed at the end of October will be deleted. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

WugBot update

Important bits are in bold; if you read nothing else, read those. If you're a close watcher of the edit history, you may soon notice some changes to WugBot's edit summary which is reflective of some major changes to the code. For those who don't know or don't remember, WugBot moves approved nominations to the approved page (and currently removes closed nominations, more on that in a bit).

Firstly, the code has largely been rewritten and while I've been testing the current version, I can't catch every bug before it goes live so, as always, if the bot is doing something it should not be, please leave me a message on my talk page or email me. I don't edit much at the moment, but I'm still around and respond to both readily.

Secondly, SoWhy on my talk page pointed out that WugBot's edit conflict handling recently did not work. I've tried to fix that, but for a number of reasons (most obviously the difficulty of actually making edit conflicts to test the code), can't guarantee there won't be future errors like this. That said, I've taken steps to reduce the likelihood of it happening, most importantly I've cut the time between checking for conflicts and writing the page down from about 30 seconds in v0.8.3 (the previous version that ran on the nom page) to below 5 seconds in the current v0.11.0 (sometimes under 1 second, if pywikibot doesn't throttle the request). The important takeaway, if you make an edit within one minute of WugBot (it runs every odd-numbered hour), double check to make sure nothing got messed up. That someone edits the page in the four seconds WugBot is writing the page is unlikely (it seems to have only happened once in almost a year), but something to be aware of. I'll continue trying to cut down that time and look into improving it.

Thirdly, this new rewrite adds an option for the bot to leave or remove closed nominations (see an example here and here). So far the bot has been removing closed nominations, mostly because the old code wasn't written in a way that would allow for closed nominations to be left on the page. Closed nominations are rare, and so the bot removing them is rare, but this was, and may still be, a point of contention on how the bot should operate, and now that the code works and allows for both, I think a discussion would be productive: essentially, should the bot remove closed nominations or leave them for a human to remove? I've set the current version to continue the status quo, but if there's consensus for changing that it can easily be done.

Anyway, you should notice almost no difference between how this new version and the old version function, but know that there have been major back end changes so if you notice something that seems to be a bug please do not hesitate to let me know. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

An inauspicious start. The bot is down for the time being and hopefully will be up in the next few hours. If not, I'll restart the previous version while I sort out why it deleted 4kb of noms. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've tracked down the location the problem occurs in the code, but have yet to figure out how to solve it. In the mean time, I've set it back to 0.8.3 and hopefully can get it fixed with some more sleep. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are talking about the bot removing nominations marked with the symbol

, I think that should be a decision left to humans. Anybody could add this to a nomination, perhaps because they intended to use

. Human discretion is needed to see whether there really are unsurmountable problems with the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you talk about noms returned from prep, I think they should go back to the "awaiting" area, to be seen, but don't know if by bot or human. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, Gerda Arendt, I'm sure that Wugapodes is talking about the bot removing nominations that have been closed after being approved or rejected—that is, the DYKsubpage template has been substituted as part of either a promotion to prep or a final rejection. WugBot is only supposed to remove nominations once they've closed; it moves ticked nominations (that is, ones where the latest nomination is a tick) from the nominations page to the approved nomination page, but doesn't do anything specific with other icons. I'm not quite sure why Wugapodes says this is rare, because eight noms are closed as part of building an eight-hook prep set; it's the nominations that are rejected that are comparatively rare. As for noms removed from prep, it is currently up to the person pulling the nom to add it back to the nominations page when they do so—this was an issue even back when nominations were removed manually once a day had no more open noms left (everything had been closed). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, it's rare that a nomination on the nomination page is closed without having been moved to the approved page. If it is on the approved page and is closed, the bot does not remove it; the bot does nothing on the approved page except add approved nominations to the bottom. If it's on the nomination page and is closed, the bot can either remove it (the current, and uncommon case, as can be seen from v8.3's numerous 0 closed noms removed edit summaries) or it can leave them on the nomination page for a human to eventually deal with. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I read through the older code again and this is in fact not how it works, it does remove closed nominations from the approved page. However, to address what "closed" means for the bot, it's if the nomination has been archived. Specifically, the bot looks to see if the "Please do not modify" archive text has been included. It's not based upon icons, but the intentional closure and archiving. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lascar (volcano) removed from Main Page

Lascar (volcano) was the leading article on the main page. It was promoted as a GA, but it is far from GA quality, so I have removed it. The GA review was done by @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: on 10 October 2017. The user made their first edit on 19 September 2017, and hasn't created a single article. Perhaps they need a lot more experience before they start nominating articles for GA.

Template:Did you know nominations/Lascar (volcano) @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Peacemaker67, BlueMoonset, and Cwmhiraeth:

Some examples of things you wouldn't expect in a GA:

"is 5,641 metres, 5,592 metres, 5,450 metres, or 5,641 metres high."
"The new town of Talabre is 17 square kilometres (6.6 sq mi) west of Lascar."
"As of 2002, Cattle breeding was the principal economic activity in Talabre." Capitalization errors
"Precipitation at Lascar is about 50–100 millimetres per year (0.062–0.125 in/Ms)" Ms?
"After 8,500 years ago"
"that generate eruption columns several 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) high."
"The long-term magma supply rate of Lascar is about 0.08 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.00061 cu mi/Gs)" Gs? Fram (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict; I wrote these while the next two replies were posted)

"Around 7250 BCE,[140] or 9,200 and 9,100 years ago,"

In the lead, we get "Major eruptions of Lascar occurred 26,500, 26,450 ± 500,[...]" but the body doesn't seem to make it clear anywhere whether these were two and not one eruption.

This is from a very, very cursory reading of the article, and shows the GA to have been highly inadequate. I'll remove the GA status and a new review by a more experienced or thorough reviewer will be needed. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Thanks Fram! I apologize for my note on your talk page, the concerns here are valid and I will also go through the article again to see if I can address some of the concerns. Alex Shih ^Talk 09:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mea culpa re: checking the GA review, this was my first DYK QPQ, and I clearly did not check it well enough. I'll endeavour to be more careful in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem (both of you). We tend to AGF and believe in reviews other post, that's natural. And the article isn't a disaster, far from it, so it's not as if the first two lines already indicate that this can never be a real GA (believe me, I have seen some terrible GAs, this one is far from those). Fram (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bleh. This isn't the first time I've tripped over such (comparatively minor) text issues. I guess that writing large amounts of text in a short timespan leads to such things falling in. Recently I do always make a cleaning pass after expanding an article, but I had not done so on Lascar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, these issues are normal, I even have then in the much shorter articles I write; it is hard to see all errors in text one has written themselves, one tend to gloss over them after a while. But a decent GA review would find most of them (like the many strange conversions), and if they haven't noticed those, how good is the remainder of their review (e.g. about sourcing?). The problem was not that I didn't trust you or your facts, but that I didn't trust the GA review, based on the actual problems one can find rather easily in the text. And of course, if it isn't a GA, then it can't be a DYK based on its GA status... Fram (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at fixing a few issues, but the whole thing needs a thorough copy edit for grammar. It's a very "translation-ese" form of English right now, very stilted phrasing in places combined with overly informal wording in others. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Laureus nominations

I've gone on a content creation/improvement spree, and one unusual side effect is the creation of perhaps six DYK nominations. In a bid to avoid boring the pants off our readers, could those of you who promote sets be cautious about running these hooks too close together? I'm in no rush at all, one a week would be ample. For avoidance of doubt it's usually Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah doing the promotions, and the noms I'm talking about are:

Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I had noticed with pleasure your activities in this area and was thinking that creativity outweighs controversy every time! Spreading these hooks out over a few weeks seems a good idea, especially as several of them are likely to be picture hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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) 22:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Karl Hoblitzelle

Hello. Would anyone like to nominate Karl Hoblitzelle for DYK please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you already have a number of DYKs to your credit, why don't you nominate the article yourself? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Would I not need to assess another nomination? The guidelines for this were next to null last time I checked.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes you would. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This was pointed out at Edward P. Evans Hall above. Zigzig20s doesn't seem to want to perform a quid pro quo review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

It has been a long time since one of these lists was posted, but we have 10 older nominations that need reviewing—the ones that are no longer within the seven days during which a new nomination can be made, plus one newer one that had been reviewed and approved, but now need a new reviewer's attention after some issues were found and corrected. Right now we have a total of 115 nominations, of which 43 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

~~October 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above (nothing to do, merge request pending)~~
~~October 9: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Johns, Ontario~~
~~October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Immigration Museum of the State of São Paulo (two articles)~~
~~October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Kia Steave-Dickerson~~
~~October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Phantom Blood~~
~~October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Myktybek Abdyldayev~~
~~October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Meinen Jesum laß ich nicht~~
~~October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Chorale~~
~~October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Khufiyya~~
~~October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Nathan~~

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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 October 2017 (UTC)

31 October

I am surprised that a thread concerning Halloween was already archived. This year, the day marks 500 years of the Reformation. How many hooks that day for Halloween, how many for Reformation? I hope that Template:Did you know nominations/Gott sei gelobet und gebenedeiet can be the lead hook that day. Article and hook, by the example of a hymn, summarize that the Reformation took a lot from the tradition, and that its achievements arrived in the Catholic church. I will start an article today which I think will grow to my suggestion #2, Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, about the sun of justice rising in our time, also a hymn which was written centuries ago but is relevant today. What do others think and offer?

I have two suggestions with an image, which I hope can be shown before rather than after the "birthday", because the day will more or less complete the year of celebrations: Template:Did you know nominations/Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende (unless you prefer the image of a woman to another one of Luther) and Template:Did you know nominations/Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost. Suggestion without image: Template:Did you know nominations/Es spricht der Unweisen Mund wohl, two more articles are written but not yet nominated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I also have Template:Did you know nominations/Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above for that date with a suggestion of using Martin Luther as the picture. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of 31 October, if you want something other than Halloween and Reformation, I could offer Template:Did you know nominations/Ines Rau, seeing as 31 October is the day the Playboy featuring her goes on sale. Regards So Why 06:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In the archived thread, I mentioned my favourite for the day: Template:Did you know nominations/Sonne der Gerechtigkeit~~, needs a review, sorry, it's longish~~. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Yoninah! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have the halloween card in the image slot on October 31st because that day's Featured article is also about the Reformation, and OTD is sure to be covering it too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think 500 years is rare and might show, while Halloween is every year. In case you want more reformation, I made one intentionally without image: Template:Did you know nominations/Kreuzkirche, Hanover ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6: Cynthia B. Lee, Cranston Public Library

... that Cynthia B. Lee, a lecturer of computer science at Stanford, "ladysplained" why she found the Google memo offensive?

@Rachel Helps (BYU), Aoba47, and Cwmhiraeth: I have a minor concern about this hook, since it is based on this source which appears to be contributed by the subject herself. This may raise some concerns about whether the phrasing can possibly be neutral, any thoughts? Alex Shih (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Ideally, it would be preferable to have a hook supported by a source that is separate from the subject (i.e. a reliable and third-party source). Something from one of these sources, 1, 2, or 3, could be good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The article in Vox explained her point of view. It was published on 11 August 2017, so we are not relying on her for this fact and I see no problem with this hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Maybe I am missing something. Is the Vox article not written by Cynthia B. Lee herself, as it is being written in first person? Alex Shih (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: She is female and explained her feminine point of view in the article. Isn't that what the hook says? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that many readers who aren't au fait with current gender politics may not know what "ladysplaining" actually is. Let's face it, mansplaining is a neologism in itself, and "ladysplaining" isn't even mentioned in that article. If you Google it, you get the Vox article and a pile of blogs and social media. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

May I propose slight rephrasing of ALT2 that was based on the Daily Wire source instead? ALT3 ... that computer science lecturer Cynthia B. Lee promoted the use of gender-neutral language across her department at Stanford University? Alex Shih (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

... that Cranston Public Library delivered 4,657 items to its homebound customers in 2016?

@Dlestre19, Megalibrarygirl, 78.26, and Cwmhiraeth: Sorry to add, another minor concern about another hook in this prep set. I fail to see how this fact is interesting to a broad audience, particularly when the context is not really explained in the article I think (it's only mentioned in one sentence at Cranston Public Library#Homebound services, and this section sounds slightly promotional with offers free homebound services in my opinion). Any suggestions? Alex Shih (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot of books delivered to houses by a library, I thought it was interesting. I don't find the section promotional (that's what libraries do, offer services, there's no financial incentive for the provider, I'm not coming up with alternative phrasing) but I've been known to be wrong before. There were several alternative hooks proposed here, do you feel any of them are better? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@78.26: Thank you for the response. To be honest, ALT5 was probably the better hook indeed, although I personally would rephrase slightly. What do you think about ALT6 ...that Cranston Public Library delivered 4,657 items to homebound residents of Cranston, Rhode Island, in 2016 alone? Alex Shih (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Fine by me! It reads well and is indeed catchier. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Minori Suzuki

Thanks for approving the article for DYK. I notice that it has now gone up for prep. I'm not sure if this is still feasible or if it's still allowed since I forgot to mention this on the nomination page, but would it be okay for me to request that the hook go up on November 3? The approved hook mentions her character Freyja Wion, and November 3 happens to be Freyja's birthday, so I was thinking that it would be nice if the hook would go up on that day if possible. It's alright if this cannot be done anymore, it's just a suggestion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it to Prep 6 which should be on the main page on November 3rd. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

A complete horror show

The DYK process is too long, difficult, onerous and discouraging. It needs to be streamlined. No wonder there is such a backlog and it takes so much to get through--most editors are totally discouraged! How do we fix this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: As much as I share your frustration, it would be helpful if you can do a search of past discussions (as this topic comes up frequently) and avoid making general statements like "most editors are totally discouraged".^{[citation needed]} Alex Shih (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you want someone to hold your hand in the process? Next month, I'll be available. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment but like Gerad, always happy to help as long as the article is well written and hook genuinely interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s requested above that Karl Hoblitzelle be nominated for them; the article was expanded starting October 24, meaning that it needs to be nominated by October 31. The help that may be needed could have to do with the reviewing process or just supplying the QPQ review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah and I have already been trying to help Zigzig20s with a QPQ review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I tried to explain in my first note here that it's not personal. It's the process we need to reform, not Zigzig20s. Can anyone hear me?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I can hear you but you need to be explicit about what you think is fundamentally wrong with the current system, and then make suggestions on how to improve those fundamental issues. Unfortunately people tend to react badly to those who aren't willing to make suggestions to change things for the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I ended my first note here with "How do we fix this please?", which suggests I want input from the community to streamline it. But for one, we could make the review process as easy as the review process for RDs.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween and Reformation Day

October 31st is both Halloween and the 500th anniversary of the Reformation as celebrated by Reformation Day. So what balance do we want to strike for our DYK set on that day between religious and secular themes? If all the hooks in the special holding area for October 31st were added to Prep 3, there would be six religious hooks, one Halloween hook and one other hook. The Reformation is the subject of the TFA on that day, and will also be mentioned on OTD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I favour having the Template:Did you know nominations/Halloween card hook in the image slot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We had the same question further up, same answer: Reformation 500 years is rare, Halloween is every year. My favourite image would be Luther (the TFA is about his theses, no recognizable image for the average reader), next a 20th century hymnal cover. If only two hooks for reformation, those two, please. I'd like to see the present lead hook, focused on death, some other day. If more Reformation hooks are wanted: a 1330 church ~~(needs a review),~~ and hymns 1 2 3, in my order ;)

I think it would make a change from all the scary stuff that would be around on All Hallow's Eve for just one year to have a predominant celebration of the 500th anniversary of one of the most momentous things to have happened in the history of the world, where we're still seeing the impact it had today. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so, too. I moved Luther into the lead slot with Template:Did you know nominations/Gott sei gelobet und gebenedeiet. I can move or leave Template:Did you know nominations/Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende in this set. To my mind, 4 hooks (half the set) could be devoted to Reformation Day. The Halloween postcards hook could be placed in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My choice for 3 more reformation would be:

Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, sun of justice in our time, good (hi)story
Kreuzkirche, Hanover, church history 1330 to now
Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, a song not by Luther, of encouragement --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Plus Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above, is a hymn by Luther and later translated, is another created for Reformation day that is currently needing review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda I promoted #3 and left you a question on the wording of #2. I reviewed #1, so someone else will have to promote it. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied for the wording, and thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No. 2 promoted. Yoninah (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@The C of E: Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above has a merge tag. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Which has been untouched since it was added. Quite frankly, I would argue that there is no-consensus for it to be merged based on that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The merge tag has been up for all of five days, and there seems to be some merit for it. (On top of Fram's tagging, Gerda Arendt said in the DYK review that a merge request should be expected two weeks before the article was tagged.) I think the nomination has to wait until the merge discussion concludes, even if that isn't until after October 31, which seems likely. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3

I promoted Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende to the image slot, on the condition that someone can lighten up the image at thumbnail size. Pinging @David Levy: for help here. Otherwise, the hook can be moved down to a regular slot. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah: Lightening the image shouldn't be a problem, but I'm concerned that its sourcing is unclear. The photographer/uploader is specified, but no information about the actual painting is provided. It might be old enough to be out of copyright, but this mustn't be presumed. —David Levy 23:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If in doubt, I suggest - as much as I like women to be pictured - to rather show Luther on the day we remember 500 years Reformation. Or, if that seems too boring/provoking, the other suggested image, connecting history at least to the 20th century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, let's go back to Luther. I'll switch the image. Meanwhile, David Levy, could you decide whether to nominate the Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende image for deletion? I'm not at all expert in these things. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I"m going to try contacting the uploader first. —David Levy 20:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't see my own noms

I got a ping about one of my noms, but I cannot find it in the list. It was on Oct 16, but when I click on that item I see other ones but not the one I'm looking for. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? It's on the different page for approved noms. - Very generally: when you don't know where something is, you go left and click on "What links here". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that one, but it's not supposed to approved - that's why I went looking for it. Further, have you tried "what links here" on the nom page? It is useless. Or are you referring to some other page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on the nom page, - you get a few including the "approved" page. If you think the nom doesn't belong there (it get's there when approved, and doesn't get back automatically when questions come afterwards) you can manually move it back. What I do (see my user page): keep a link to the nom, until it appears, - then it doesn't matter where it is. When I review, I watchlist the nom, and then it also doesn't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please move it back. Now that it's in the prep it doesn't seem to be getting looked at. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I did it, but thought you could have done it just as easily, no? It's now under 14, 15 was already empty, shouldn't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Carpentier

... that after Neil Armstrong returned from the Moon, he lived for three weeks with William Carpentier? Chetsford, Yoninah, Mindmatrix

Is thi really the best we can do with the Carpentier article? He ~~flew~~ was flight surgeon on Apollos 11 and 13! He won the Presidential medal of honour! His nickname was "world famous physicist"! All that from just the lead... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Plus, I never really get the idea of these hooks whose subject isn't the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, he didn't actually fly on an Apollo, he was the flight surgeon (i.e. in Mission Control), but nevertheless, yeah, the hook should really be about him, not someone else. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Corrected...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that Dr. William Carpentier, the flight surgeon for Apollo 11 and Apollo 13, was registered on the Air Force One manifest as WFP – "World Famous Physician"? Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

MUCH better. Thanks Yoninah. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, The Rambling Man, Yoninah, etc., for taking care of this so expertly. I'm sorry I didn't get this ping before now. If I can take this opportunity to selfishly solicit for a related review, I just submitted a DYK for the other quarantined non-astronaut - John Hirasaki (Template:Did you know nominations/John Hirasaki). The article is in an embryonic state and I probably won't get to finishing it for a couple weeks but wanted to get the DYK in before the time limit expired. Chetsford (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3

Should be "more than", not "over". Can we stop promoting from prep to queue so quickly, this hook wasn't even in the prep set this morning when I looked, and now it's protected. More haste, less speed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also " that in 2011 Myktybek Abdyldayev" needs a comma after 2011. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, Ach lieben Christen seid getrost is a redirect target in the queue set. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, we need to change the William Carpentier hook, per discussion above. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

All done Alex Shih (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Ach lieben Christen seid getrost article was moved from Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost after the latter had been promoted to Queue 3; it has now been fixed, but it was correctly done at the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but it doesn't address the issue over promoting prep sets too quickly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Ach lieben Christen seid getrost move: admitted, the comma was introduced at a later time, to clarify that it doesn't mean "Ach lieben Christen" the same way you'd say "Ach Gott" (Ah God), adressing God with a sigh. In the other case, the sigh is not related to the Christians, but to the situation, only then are the Christians addressed. Slight difference in meaning, which - as it seems - was already done at Bach's time. I don't see why we had to move to a version before clarification, confusing readers why Bach's cantata has a different name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Promoter needed

Could someone please promote Template:Did you know nominations/Sonne der Gerechtigkeit to the reserved slot in Prep 3? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I chose the other hook there, which is about a hymn by Luther from the first Reformation hymnal. "Sonne der Gerechtigkeit" has a very tenuous connection to the 500-year-old Reformation, having been created in 1930 from 18th- and 19th-century texts; the article doesn't even mention the Reformation and Luther. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As said on Yoninah's talk: isn't the reformation an ongoing process? The hymn chosen now is rarely sung (never heard it, only created for completeness), while the other has consequences in history (1932, 1980s). - On top of having now two Luther hooks in one set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the 500th anniversary of a specific event by a specific person supposed to go into such general and (to my eye) highly tangential things hundreds of years later that might or might not be said to be due to the reformation? I don't see it, and I doubt many people would have. We had far more than two Sinatra hooks on his hundredth birthday; having two that mention Luther on the 500th anniversary here doesn't strike me as out of line for such a major special occasion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Trying again: it's a certain day on which we remember a movement (not one incidence in history) that is influential even today. If you think "Sonne der Gerechtigkeit" is not related to the Reformation (while I think the article illustrates its thinking and - also political - influence better than any of the other 4 hooks, in a nutshell): could you use it instead of one of the 3 not-date-related articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The hook for Sonne der Gerechtigkeit is also much hookier than Ach, lieben Christen seid getrost, the last hymn mentioned in the set. Yoninah (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we becoming an anime fanzine?

I notice in the thread above that User:Narutolovehinata5 requested that his/her hook for Minori Suzuki be placed in Prep 6 because that's Suzuki's birthday. O-kay. Now I see that Konomi Suzuki has been placed in Prep 2 because Narutolovehinata5 wants to honor her birthday. Just as we are spacing out other hooks on the same subject, I would like to move the second anime hook to a later prep set. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't get this whole birthday thing—unless it's a significant anniversary of a high profile figure like Sinatra's centenary I'm fairly certain no reader ever notices—but if one gets moved, make Konomi be the one that's kept; the request for Minori Suzuki isn't to honor her birthday, but the fictional birthday of a character she voiced in a cartoon, which I'm totally certain no reader will notice. ‑ Iridescent 21:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, considering how close the two would go up, I wouldn't mind Minori's hook being moved to a different date. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

... that Monterey Bay Aquarium was the first public aquarium to exhibit a living kelp forest, which is nearly three stories tall?

@Rhinopias: @Gerda Arendt:

Problem #1: There are three "first" hooks in this prep set.

Problem #2: The article doesn't mention anything about being three stories high.

I suggest going back to the first hook suggestion on the DYK nomination template:

... that Monterey Bay Aquarium is the only public aquarium that has successfully exhibited a great white shark for more than 16 days?

It seems that hook was rejected because of the discussion over the image, but IMO the hook is great on its own. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read the nom (about focus on environment, not individual species), and drop the three stories if you have to. It's true though, I saw it myself, but of course I'm not a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I read it. I moved the hook and the kelp forest image to Prep 4. I think it works better with the image. If the three stories are ever sourced, we could add it back to the hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I found the source, too! Adding back "three stories". We're good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry—I was busy all of yesterday so I missed this. Thanks, Yoninah. The article mentions 28 feet and the three stories is mentioned in its sources, I just figured that's better than writing the height in feet and didn't think about that not being converted in the article! – Rhinopias (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Jones S. Hamilton

Hi. Would anyone like to nominate, "DYK that Jones S. Hamilton's mansion is the namesake of Belhaven University?" please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated it, but as you are capable of writing a good, well-referenced and well-formatted article, I'm sure you can master the skill of nominating it for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

... that Robert "Big Mojo" Elem got his mojo workin' after studying under masters Robert Nighthawk and young Ike Turner?

@Derek R Bullamore: @TheGracefulSlick: @Narutolovehinata5:

This hook wording is unencyclopedic. In the template discussion, the reviewer linked his/her comment to Got My Mojo Working, but that's by a different artist. I think we need a new hook here. Yoninah (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Robert "Big Mojo" Elem's energetic on-stage persona underpinned his lengthy performing career? Source: "... as a showman, he possesses an energy that makes other performers half his age look like they're sitting down." Robert "Big Mojo" Elem by Cub Koda - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: @Narutolovehinata5: @Yoninah:

I was playing along with the pun but if an alternative is required, I approve Derek's hook.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Derek R Bullamore, TheGracefulSlick, if you want to use ALT1, then the source and the information from that quote will need to be added to the article before it can be approved, because it isn't there now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

IMO, ALT1 sounds self-promotional. Yoninah (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if anyone else concurs. Bear in mind that Elem died in 1997 (so any promotion is twenty years too late), and the text was based on what music journalist(s) said about him, not his own publicity. I may be too close to the article (as its creator) to be totally unbiased, and am 50/50 whether it makes the DYK grade or not. I will not spend more time trying to compose another 'hook'. Maybe others will. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that although Robert "Big Mojo" Elem enjoyed a career of nearly fifty years, he recorded only one album? Although I think Derek's suggestion is fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (... well I assume he enjoyed it anyway) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I am also fine with Derek's suggestion, but I can see how it could be technically seem as promotional. I'll suggest an (less than ideal) alternative of ALT1: ALT1.2 ... that Robert "Big Mojo" Elem is noted for his energetic showmanship in the Chicago blues scene throughout his performing career? Alex Shih (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you could provide an inline cite for "more than forty years" in the article, we could write:

ALT3: ... that though Robert "Big Mojo" Elem was a fixture on the Chicago blues scene for ~~nearly fifty~~ over forty years, he recorded only one album? Yoninah (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot we weren't allowed to do sums. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we cross out "nearly fifty years" and just replace with "throughout his performing career"? Alex Shih (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Then there won't be much left to call it a hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but I am struggling to find a source that would substantiate the "more than forty years" claim. I cannot even seem to locate where "1948" is being mentioned in the sources. The notable starting point of becoming a fixture in Chicago blues scene seems to be the first collaboration with Freddie King in 1956. What about replacing "more than forty years" with "from 1956 to 1994" (which would technically be supported by multiple inline citations)? Alex Shih (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih, where do you find "1994" in a source? The page creator put his career as lasting until his 1997 death in the infobox. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I was over-reading into The Blues Encyclopedia and hallucinated an "until" somewhere, sorry. 1997 should be fine (somewhat backed by this too). The "1948" is seemingly based on the first source (by his 20th birthday...), not sure if it's wise to use that. Alex Shih (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: OK, thanks, let's go with "over 40 years", as it says in the lead. I'd like to replace the hook with ALT3, but you've already promoted Prep 2 to the queues for some reason. Could you change it in Queue 2, please? Yoninah (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not guilty, but replaced the blurb with ALT3 just now, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: sorry for the mix-up. Thanks for making the switch. Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

... that the Aussie Rollers won the 2017 Asia-Oceania Wheelchair Basketball Championships, while the Aussie Gliders came second?

@Hawkeye7: @Graeme Bartlett:

Why are we referring to the teams as "Aussie" and not "Australian"? Yoninah (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Aussie is a diminutive form, to match the endearing/informal Gliders or Rollers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just ditch "Aussie", it's completely unnecessary, especially if this is intended to be somehow "quirky". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not need it in the hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, deleting. Yoninah (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This is done now I take it? @Yoninah: still need me to move queue 2 back? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Yes, this was done before the promotion to Queue 2. An administrator fixed the second problematic hook in Queue 2. We're all set now, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok cool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:DYKSTATS from before 2016

It seems like http://stats.grok.se is now dead. Thus, stats for old DYKs seem to have disappeared. Is there a source for pageviews for articles from before 2016?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The raw data is at https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/. Andrew D. (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Chrysler Building

I just examined the Chrysler Building article with the DYK Check tool and realized that it is almost eligible for fivefold expansion (it's a few characters short). However, the tool lists the article as having already been on DYK because Template:Did you know nominations/Petrodollar recycling mentions the building in the hook. There's also a minor issue with another website reverse-copying this article's text, which causes the copyvio tool to flag violations, but that can be discussed later.

TL;DR: My question is, is the "Chrysler Building" article eligible for DYK? epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Any given link can be on DYK as often as you want. Only the bolded article in the hook is featured on DYK, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That is true. However, Chrysler Building has appeared twice as a bold link in a blurb for On this day, in 2011 and 2014, and that renders the article ineligible for DYK, even though DYKcheck does not flag this as an issue. Sorry for the bad news. Incidentally, I have removed the DYK template on the Chrysler Building's talk page—it was added by the nominator, not the DYK bot (which knows not to add non-bold article links), and it should not have been. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I should have mentioned the OTD appearances as well when I asked this question. epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Promoters needed

Since both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on these hooks, we need someone else to promote them:

~~Template:Did you know nominations/Far West, Austin, Texas~~
~~Template:Did you know nominations/Grupo Garza Ponce~~
~~Template:Did you know nominations/William Smellie (obstetrician)~~
~~Template:Did you know nominations/Central Province, Zambia~~
~~Template:Did you know nominations/Wrangell Bombardment~~
Template:Did you know nominations/Chō Kōran
Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Harold Holt
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe streamline the process and we will struggle less. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: You need to drop the stick and make an actual proposal. And stop using "we" when expressing personal opinions. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I believe there is a problem but don't know how to fix it. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Just unstruck the Central Province, Zambia nomination, since it is once again eligible for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Added another one. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving this down the page in case it gets archived. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It has been my habit to build a prep set each day, and I like to promote the older nominations first. However, this has become increasingly more difficult because of the accumulation of hooks in which I am involved, as reviewer, nominator or hook suggester. Currently there are hardly any hooks from before October 29th available for me to promote and that's more than half the approved nominations. Please could some other people do some prep building to help clear this backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've promoted all of the remaining ones. If there are any more approved ones that need to be promoted, please list them here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Here are a few that need promoting: - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

~~October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Colorado potato beetle~~ – saving for an image slot; amazing picture! Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
~~October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Phantom Blood~~
~~October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Psolus chitonoides~~
~~October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Campo troupial – reviewer requested image slot. Yoninah (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)~~
October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Axinaea sclerophylla
~~October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Bassettia pallida~~
~~October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Tidepool sculpin~~
~~October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Sonic Colors~~
~~October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Greater flowerpiercer~~
~~October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Acropora aculeus~~

Considering one of them (the Phantom Blood one) is my nomination, I think I'll have to pass on this set. Sorry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Added nomination dates to the list; the list is now the oldest ten nominations reviewed or created by Cwmhireath, so two more recent ones were removed for the moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the majority are all nature hooks, they are going to have to be spaced out, set by set. It will take some time to get through this list. Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that at a time when masonry bridges were widely being replaced by metal truss bridges, the limestone West Sixth Street Bridge in Austin, Texas, replaced an older iron footbridge?

@Bryanrutherford0: @Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:

Sorry, I fail to understand why this is hooky, or why it is in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's unusual, but not really quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The point is that in America, in the late 1800s, the general trend was toward older, handmade stone bridges being torn out and replaced by new, factory-built metal truss bridges; it's unusual that this handmade stone bridge instead replaced an existing (though smaller) manufactured metal truss bridge.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is interesting for the reason given by Bryanrutherford0, and it is only in the quirky spot because I didn't find anything quirkier. Feel free to move it elsewhere if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. But I am confused by the passive sentence structure and also what seems to be 4 kinds of construction: masonry (could be brick), metal, limestone, iron. Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It also seemed odd that it is one of the state's oldest masonry bridges, which means that most of the masonry ones are newer—despite stone being replaced by metal way back then. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem With Apu

Would a copyright expert take a look at the picture and provide advice. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Aquarium and Slovenian railway referendum, 2017

These articles were the first and third DYK articles on the main page yesterday (archive link), and are still there today, as the ninth and tenth. I'm assuming this is an error? --Usernameunique (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not an error, but an effort to make the layout of the main page more balanced when ITN and OTD are extra long, I believe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

David Levy, have the ITN and OTD sections generally expanded in size, and if so, should DYK be trying to keep up by increasing the number of hooks in a set to more than the eight we use currently? Please advise. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really, sometimes it's particularly noticeable if the TFA has no image. It's all dependent on blurb size, the number of items has remained roughly the same. Adding older DYKs to balance the page seems like a reasonable solution, rather than removing items from ITN or OTD. After all, some people may have missed the DYKs the first time round. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OTD almost always sticks to five items. ITN is more variable/adjustable (though as The Rambling Man noted, padding DYK with recycled hooks can be preferable to trimming ITN, particularly when the latter's recent turnover has been high).

In terms of impact on the main page's overall maintenance, it's helpful when DYK enacts a once-daily update schedule, ideally at 00:00 UTC (which appears to be the current arrangement), as this enables direct coordination with most of the other sections and reduces the number of variables.

In other words, if a future backlog necessitates either more hooks per set or more updates per day, the former would be appreciated. —David Levy 07:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@David Levy: the DYK prep builders put a lot of effort into balancing sets, alternating bios and non-bios, and especially putting a quirky hook at the end of the set. I noticed that the 2 extra hooks were simply tacked on at the end. Neither was quirky. In future, could you perhaps insert the rerunning hooks somewhere in the middle of the set? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: the preview for the forthcoming day's main page is available for 24 hours and although ITN might change a little, the rest is pretty settled, so the DYK promoting admins should check in each day before and ensure that the DYK section isn't causing a problem for the rest of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I don't know who reran those hooks (perhaps check the history and ping him/her).

When padding DYK, I search recent sets for hooks whose subjects (and any relevance to specific countries) differ from those in the current set (and from each other, if adding more than one) as much as possible, which I insert somewhere above the quirky hook at the end. —David Levy 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Following up, I see that Jenks24 performed the edit in response to a report at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. —David Levy 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As this lop-sided condition occurs reasonably frequently, it might be worth indoctrinating the guidance of what to add and where to add it somewhere appropriate for admins who aren't completely familiar with the arcane machinations of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

TRM, that is a good suggestion. I'll try to make a suggestion on this page for consensus. Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Every time I've done this in the past I've just picked a hook (or hooks) that I found interesting from previous set. But if more specific guidance is written up I'd be happy to follow it in future. Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The lopsided condition could perhaps also be improved if the right side wasn't designed as more narrow than the left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that we need only 2 guidelines for editors adding additional hooks to the DYK section once it's on the main page:

When adding hooks to fill out the DYK section, insert them before the last hook. The last hook is considered "quirky" and has been chosen to end off the set on an upbeat note.
When adding hooks, do not put a bio next to another bio, or two hooks on the same theme next to each other. (In the incident described above, the Monterey Bay Aquarium hook was inserted next to a cutthroat eels hook; both are nature-themed hooks.) Yoninah (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
When adding hooks, do not put hooks next to each other that deal with the same country. For example, a US location next to a US bio. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

I thought that Template:Did you know nominations/Nun laßt uns Gott dem Herren was a good contribution to Thanksgiving, 23 Nov. If we have too many of them, leave it where it is in prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, we don't have anything in the special occasions area for Thanksgiving. I'm moving it over there. Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Another anniversary-related expedited hook review request ...

I haven't had one of these for a couple of months, so you know they were bound to return ...

This time it's my nomination for Dardeen family homicides. November 17, this Friday, is the 30th anniversary of the killings and I would like it if the hook can be in the set for that date. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Reviewed and promoted. Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Help

Why isn't this template closing? (I promoted it to Prep 3). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it was a coding error on a ping, prior to the close. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Should recently promoted featured lists be eligible for nomination?

Just like recently promoted GAs? As long as they meet the other criteria (e.g. prose, hook, copyvio etc etc)? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say no, as long as WP:TFL exists; if there's a backlog building of FLs waiting their turn, it would make more sense to increase the frequency of TFL. ‑ Iridescent 10:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, this was DYK's generous agreement to allow GAs to be somehow featured on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a backlog, well yes, there are probably about 2500 decent FLs waiting, and with more than two being promoted each week, the backlog cannot get smaller. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And it does prejudice against FL, even at best seven per week could be featured while in theory (currently) 56 GAs could be featured each week. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

What was actually agreed in the RFC was "a limit of 1 or 2 GAs per set". I am sure you're as shocked as I am to see DYK disregarding a decision when it doesn't suit them. (While it's no secret that I'd like to see TFA, TFL and DYK all shown the door, if we're going to keep the main page in its current form I'd have no issue with TFL having the same "run every day, and be willing to re-run things which were TFL a long time ago if the pot looks to be running dry" setup that currently operates at TFA.) ‑ Iridescent 10:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I still think there's scope to include "newly promoted" FLs here as long as they meet the criteria, but I'll see if there's any appetite at FL for increasing the rate on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd have no issues with TFL running more frequently, at least until the backlog comes down. Not so keen on "has reached FL status" being added to the DYK criteria. A new list can still be featured, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Problem With Apu

Review completed. This might be a more successful DYK appearance if were done sooner rather than later. Apparently the film is about to be released. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

But should Wikipedia be involved in advertising about-to-be-released films? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) A legitimate policy and editorial question. Release date November 19, 2017. I don't think this is advertising. It is simply an article that is linked to a current event, and that makes the article more relevant to our readers. But I don't have stock in this, and you can bury or ignore it. It will appear as a DYK sooner or later, and you might then say it is promotion of the DVD. Timing here is mainly adventitious factor. Kind of like gun control, which cannot ever be discussed because it is too close to the latest tragic event. IRDGAS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Too many "firsts"

We have a lot more women biographies being nominated, thanks to WP:Women in Red. But most of these hooks emphasize how the woman did something "first". It is tedious to run "first" after "first", and also detracts from the rest of the woman's accomplishments. Thanks to all nominators for writing more interesting hooks. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a point of notability. But we go back to this discussion we've had before on this talk page. Notability is not necessarily a one-time event. After these women became "the first" whatever it was, they then went on to full careers and did notable things. i.e., wouldn't it be a shame if a DYK on Patsy Mink had the hook, " ... was the first Asian American woman elected to Congress." missing an opportunity for a hook, " ... co-authored Title X which prohibited sex discrimination in school activities" Maybe this should be discussed at Women in Red, because I think they're attracting new editors all the time. BTW, I also see this on DYK in regards to men's articles, so it's not necessarily gender-specific. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I must say I have been very pleased to see so many women included in the DYKs over the past few months. We have frequently had over 40 a month, i.e. more than one per day. I think one of the problems with the "firsts" is that it is not always easy to justify the inclusion of women's biographies on Wikipedia. In some quarters, there has been encouragement to justify the inclusion of a woman's biography on the basis of her being the first to do this or that. There are even lists of women's first in various areas. But perhaps you, Yoninah, as someone who often reviews DYK submissions, could suggest how their presentation could be made more attractive in specific cases, coming up with new ALTs.--Ipigott (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue error

I'm sorry, I failed to notice an inaccuracy in the caption of Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3 (now the next in the queue). The photo may not show prisms. They may be prism-less lenses. It would be easy to tell if one looked at them from underneath... My original caption was "Light shines up from inside the hollow sidewalk", and I avoided specifying prism/lens and reflection/refraction in the hook. Other possible accurate captions:

Purple sidewalk "jewels" (term rarely used by sources, but generic)
Purple sidewalk skylight
Walking over a sidewalk skylight
Walking over a hollow sidewalk
Skylight for a hollow sidewalk

And I think the "which" in the hook is nonrestrictive, so it needs a comma just before it. Apologies for not noticing this sooner. HLHJ (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

HLHJ, the hook currently says "jewels" but the word doesn't appear in the article itself. Gatoclass (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, Gatoclass, I found a source and mentioned it. The scare quotes may not be necessary, either, but they're just glass. HLHJ (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

HLHJ, does the image now show prisms, or is that an issue that still needs to be addressed? Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the image may or may not show prisms. I have no way to tell; the photographer (not me) did not have access to the underside. The image definitely shows a pavement light, with purple-solarized glass set into a sidewalk to let sunlight into the space below, so it definitely illustrates the article. I have no good substitute for it, so I'd suggest modifying the text, even just prims->jewels. And I've just noticed that the term "hollow sidewalk" isn't mentioned and cited in the article, either, I will fix that now. HLHJ (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry about this, but I think I'm going to have to pull the hook for now as it has too many outstanding issues. I am also concerned about the image licence. I think the issues can be ironed out but it's better done before the hook goes to the main page, otherwise it might end up getting pulled then. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the image license is definitely OK. The photographer had previously posted it on her blog, which is full of her own photos, but she then also uploaded it to Commons. I contacted her through her blog and she even knows that it's up for DYK.

The only outstanding issues are the missing comma in the hook (trivial) and the use of the word "prisms" in the image caption (possibly inaccurate).

I've sourced the terms "jewels" and "hollow sidewalk" in the article. Please let me know if there's anything else you want me to do. I have no objection to you pulling it if that's the easiest way to fix the problem. HLHJ (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

HLHJ, I think you should get an OTRS ticket if you have gotten permission from the author, otherwise it's unverified. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the author uploaded it to Commons personally, as her own work. OTRS has a backlog of 70 days. The image here was cropped by me from her original, for impact at a small size. HLHJ (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed both hook and caption at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavement light. I do not think that there are any remaining problems. HLHJ (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, you're going to be really annoyed with me now, but I've just had a close look at the uncropped image, and based on the ridges you can see in the bottom right, and the tripling of the point light sources below, I'm satisfied that these are sidewalk prisms, of the "multi" style, which means that the photographer is probably just stepping perpendicular to the run of the road. This is also highly probable given that the photo was taken in Vancouver (where you'd expect this sort of prism). So the original caption would be fine. I'm sorry for creating all this fuss over a comma. HLHJ (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3 unfinished

Somebody will have to finish Queue 3 (next in line) as I don't have time. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My fault (see section above). If I can help, please let me know. HLHJ (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Gerda Arendt and Cwmhiraeth because there's only three hours to go now. At a minimum we could swap Queue 3 and Queue 4, thus giving ourselves an extra 24hrs. HLHJ (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

I moved the lead hook from Prep 3 up to Queue 3. Seemed to be the least disruptive move. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to Maile for sorting this out. HLHJ (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4 image of Isaac T. Stoddard

The lead hook image of Isaac T. Stoddard needs to be cleaned up. The image looks like it was taken through a mesh screen. And if you look at it closely in Commons, the bottom half has some kind of writing in white...from about where his necktie is, all the way down. Is this a reflection through a window, maybe? Can anyone clean this up before it goes to the main page tomorrow? — Maile (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at that image in the book it comes from, most of the images appearing in the book have some version of the mesh screen, and a number of them have the backward writing; those may have been due to the image sources they had available. Because this is perhaps the last article we'll see at DYK from Allen3, I'd hate for the image not to be featured, even if it isn't ideal; I'm not sure what kind of clean-up could be done at this late date. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - "SS Andaste"

Well, besides the poor formatting of the hook itself, it turns out that the SS Andante wasn't actually a "whaleback", the article clearly states "The Andaste, and her sister ship the Choctaw, had an unusual design. They were straight-back steel freighters, similar to whalebacks, but they had straight sides and a conventional bow." Fix required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Your argument assumes facts not in evidence. The hook itself says: "a hybrid Whaleback" which is accurate and supported by the sources. 20:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the source and what it says: Stonehouse, Frederick (2006). Haunted Lake Michigan. Lake Superior Port Cities, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-942235-72-2. The steamers Andaste and Choctaw were both built by the Cleveland Shipbuilding Company on the banks of the Cuyahoga River in 1892. Their unique design often has been described as a "semi-whaleback," straight-back steel freighters similar to a whaleback but with straight sides and a conventional bow. Both were 266 feet long with 900 horsepower engines and a capacity of 3,000 tons of ore. They plied the Lake Superior iron trade, running between northern ore docks and southern steel mills without incident until the parent company went bankrupt in 1898 and soon after were acquired by the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so they weren't "similar to whalebacks", they were whalebacks. Perhaps the article needs re-phrasing. At least I fixed up the poor hook formatting, so that's something. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

TRM, please fix it to your liking. Personally, I am fine with the way it was proposed. Not surprising, I suppose, since i was my creation. But you are obviously viewing it from a different perspective, and I am not affronted by that. And I don't want to niff-naw about fly specks. To mix my metaphors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And I too corrected a spelling error that had crept in. And that was because you expressed concerns. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

With one hand I giveth, with the other I take away... sorry about that typo. Yes, it's okay, I suppose it's open to a little bit of interpretation. I guess my senses had been heightened by the incorrect naming format, so I gave the article more of a look than I'd normally do, it seems apparent that some of the promoters aren't actually checking the hooks against the articles, especially when it comes to respecting the title formatting. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not questioning your sensibilities. You are keeping us all honest.

I also changed the statement about the hybridism to a note, so that it isn't buried at the end of the citations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Other promoters needed

Since both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on these hooks, could someone else promote them please:

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: @Yoninah: Chō Kōran is

Done. As for Disappearance of Harold Holt, I'm not sure if it will still be allowed under the supplementary rules, but I would suggest that if it's allowed, that it be moved to the special holding area and go up on December 17 (the date of Holt's disappearance). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: which supplementary rule are you referring to? The December 17 date sounds like a great idea. Yoninah (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The one about special requests generally only being allowed if the date requested is within five weeks of the nomination date, though said criterion apparently only applies if there's a backlog of hooks, and I've seen it ignored before. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Oh. I thought you were referring to something that was wrong with the hook. Well, at this point, I think we can invoke WP:IAR and move it to December 17.

BTW why is everyone now quoting a 5-week rule? I thought it was 6 weeks. Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly sure; for some reason, I couldn't even find the rule in the supplementary rules page when I checked earlier. Considering it's been frequently ignored for some time now (there's a hook going up on December 25, which is a week after the six-week thing), I wonder if it would be time to abolish that rule or make it more lenient, but that's a topic for another time. In any case, @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: I have moved the Holt hook to the special holding area. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's six weeks from date of approval not date of nomination, and special occasions such as Christmas Day and April Fool's Day are exceptions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, could someone with new-page patrol rights review Asuka Ōkura? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The special occasion instructions have been at the beginning of the special occasion section for many years now, and it's always said six weeks from nomination. I have no idea why five weeks keeps getting mentioned; it isn't accurate. Six weeks has been allowed to expand sometimes either through IAR for a particularly compelling case (but then maybe to eight weeks or so), or if a nomination has waited so long for review that it seems reasonable to allow up to six weeks from approval. The only formal exception to six weeks is for April Fool's Day; Christmas Day is not a listed exception. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6 police drama

"... that HolbyBlue was the first British police drama to be created since the September 11 attacks?"

Template:Did you know nominations/HolbyBlue @ElectrodeandtheAnode, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah:

HolbyBlue was first released in 2007. Wire in the Blood is from November 2002, Blue Murder (UK TV series) is from May 2003, as is Murder Investigation Team (TV series). The Last Detective is from February 2003. There probably were more series in 2004, 2005 and 2006 as well. Am I misunderstanding something or is this hook rather incorrect? Fram (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you checked that. The source for the hook was a quote by someone non-notable. I did check for other sources, but couldn't find them. Please pull the hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, pulled. Fram (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please add a replacement, non-bio hook between the first two (bio) hooks in Queue 6, to bring the queue back up to eight hooks? Perhaps the YMCA Press hook in the second slot in Prep 3? (I haven't checked it, so there may be a better choice.) This will need to be done in the next hour, before Queue 6 is promoted to the main page. Pinging Maile, Cas Liber, and Alex Shih, in the hopes that one of them will see this before then. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Done but it was easier for me to check the sourcing on 42nd Street Shuttle, so that's the one I moved. — Maile (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

... that Maeve Liston played junior Gaelic football before becoming a rugby union player?

@The C of E: @Dumelow:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what is hooky about this hook. The article barely scrapes by the 1500-character limit; perhaps more could be added to come up with a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, they are rather different sports. If someone changed from golf to tennis would you find that more interesting? There is going to be a great surge in women's biography hooks over the next few weeks because of the Women in Red Contest, and many of them will have less-than-exciting hooks. So be prepared! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't wait. I added a link to Gaelic football; maybe that helps. Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not interesting, nor is it a big leap from Gaelic football to rugby union, despite what is claimed above. Both are team ball sports, both involve kicking and passing etc. The hook fails the basic "interesting" criterion. We need to be strong in the face of an onslaught of mediocre Women in Red candidates. If they're not interesting, we should have the guts to say so and look for something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, is she even notable? Sources are very flimsy, mainly stats from the teams. Is the team she plays for professional or is that league professional (thus passing WP:NRU#2)? I suspect it isn't. How many times has she played for this team - I've no idea because the stats in the article are blank. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more I think my suspicions to be correct - I've raised this at Wikiproject Rugby union. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's under the 1st point of RU/N, played for a high performance union at any time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And there's the problem - there's no proof that she's actually played in the Premier 15s because there's no appearance data in the article. The tournament only started in September and I can't find a Bristol Ladies starting team-sheet with her name on it. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

She hasn't (yet) played in the Premier 15s[2]
WP:RU/N is a local guide, nor part of WP:NSPORTS, so not commonly accepted
Even within WP:RU/N, it says about "high performance unions" (point 1 of the RUN): "Women do not have this criterion."

So we have statistics and sources which aren't independent, then one two-line article from a local radio, and an article from a student newspaper. That's about it? If there's nothing else, then she indeed isn't notable. Fram (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet it starts off with "he or she" so it makes it clear from the start that it applies to all. If you believe its a contradiction, then take it to WP:RU and we can get clarified consensus there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a contradiction. "These rules apply to men or women: 1, 2, 3 (note: 1 only applies to men)" is awkward, but not contradictory, and when you have a note (on a specific rule) indicating that the general rule doesn't apply there, then that note takes precedence. Fram (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If she hasn't played a game then she doesn't clear the bar of notability, because the rest of the article certainly doesn't show that she passes WP:GNG. This criterion is exactly the same for WP:NFOOTY and other local projects. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone that isn't me pull this, please? Otherwise - since the article hasn't been improved - we're going to end up with an article at AfD. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Pulled. Yoninah (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe Newcomb

DYK Edgar Allen Poe Newcomb - Is this hook allowed outside of April Fool's Day? — Maile (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but why not save it for April Fools? Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah April Fools was my first idea with the hook (it was almost too easy to come up with, given the name). I actually had it as a comment on the nom template. Then I decided that's 5 months away, and I just wanted this sooner, so I thought maybe it could be a quirky hook. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, IMO it could run as a quirky. Yoninah (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the hook is false, it needs to be reworded and used somehow otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hardly if his name actually is "Edgar Allen Poe". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Edgar Allen Poe Newcomb to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

It has been several weeks since one of these lists was posted, and there are currently 24 older nominations that need reviewing—all those that are no longer within the seven days during which a new nomination can be made. Right now we have a total of 224 nominations, of which 112 (half of them) have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

~~October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/St Stephen's Church, Ealing~~
~~October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Sickinger~~
~~October 28: Template:Did you know nominations/HolbyBlue~~
October 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Bush (artist)
~~October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mad Pooper~~
~~October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Almasbek Akmatov~~
November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Bhogeshwari Phukanani
November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Magdalena Wolińska-Riedi
~~November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Tarak Sinha~~
~~November 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Pragmatic Sanction of 1712~~
~~November 7: Template:Did you know nominations/May 1, 2015 Jalisco attacks~~
November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Northeast Arm Iron Range
~~November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Cataclysm: The Ultimates' Last Stand~~
~~November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Collaborative practice agreement~~
~~November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Justin Fairfax~~
~~November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Ai Kayano~~
~~November 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Spring Creek Park~~
November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Lebanon–Saudi Arabia dispute
~~November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah~~
November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Nüwa Imperial Palace
~~November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Marcus Beck~~
~~November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Up from the Cradle of Jazz~~
~~November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Célia Posser~~
November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Muriel
~~November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Johann Balthasar König~~
~~November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Aonidiella citrina (two articles)~~
~~November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Bergen Tunnels~~
~~November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Femi Claudius Cole~~
November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Kang In-soo
~~November 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Manal Cali~~

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

End of the church year

Sunday 26 Nov is the last Sunday of this church year, when many remember the dead. I wrote an article for the occasion but got it approved only now: Template:Did you know nominations/Es ist genug. This would be good with the image which David Levy kindly cropped, of music that made music history. Best on Sunday, possible until Friday. Thank you for consideration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: You know more about this particular topic than me, but is this really the case in anywhere other than Germany (i.e., will this mean anything to the 98% of en-wikipedia's readers who aren't in Germany who will just be confused as to why we're running it a month late)? While Wikipedia is not a reliable source, on topics pertaining to Christian liturgy it's usually fairly accurate as there are enough regular churchgoers among the editors that mistakes are corrected quickly, and our own All Souls' Day article is explicit in stating that the concept of Totensonntag is a recent Prussian invention and hasn't spread outside Germany. Advent Sunday is certainly a common observance, but in virtually every Western Christian church with which I'm familiar other than some very hardline Presbyterian groups that consider all festivals other than Easter to be papist abominations, the day on which the dead is remembered is November 2 and there's no link between Advent and mourning. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As an Anglican, I can tell you that Iridecent is correct that All Soul's Day is the day of remembering the dead and has nothing to do with Advent, which is about the preparation for the birth of Jesus. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I am sorry not to know about customs other than Germany, where it used to be (Protestant that is) Totensonntag (Sunday of the dead), renamed but not successfully so Ewigkeitssonntag (Sunday of Eternity). A day when, in church, all names of those who died in a congregation that year will be read, and their relatives received an invitation to attend, when also - out of church - musical Requiem performances are more frequent than any other day in the year Germany Sweden Belgium Finland Netherlands more. - I would like to prevent this topic during Advent, when (in all churches I know) a New Year starts, - therefore, please, before Friday, and the sooner the better, the first Christmas markets opened already, but will be closed on Sunday, out of respect for the day, example, see "Am Totensonntag, 26. November, bleibt der Weihnachtsmarkt geschlossen." - A frustrated "Es ist genug" (It is enough), btw, can be good any day, it's from the prophet who felt he failed, and his life was useless and should end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Done I promoted it to November 26. Gerda, please check if I wrote the caption correctly. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, - I changed it a bit, as not only the beginning of the melody, but also Bach's setting is pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

The third hook currently on the main page says that this disaster occurred in 1985, which isn't true. It happened on the night of 2-3 December 1984. This needs to be corrected. --Skr15081997 (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I reported it at "Errors" and the year has been changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that Bach's setting (pictured) of the chorale "Es ist genug" ("It is enough"), with a melody beginning with a [unique] whole-tone sequence, was quoted with variations in Alban Berg's Violin Concerto?

@Gerda Arendt:

I'd just like to note that the article Violin Concerto is tagged for unclear references. We usually don't link to articles that have tags like this on the main page. Besides, I wonder what this additional fact does for the hook? It would seem to me to be more hooky just to mention the whole-tone sequence, which would attract musical and non-musical readers alike. How about writing, as in the article lead:

ALT1: ... that Bach's setting (pictured) of the chorale "Es ist genug" ("It is enough") begins with an unusual sequence of four whole notes? Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and changing the hook before it's promoted to a queue. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please change it back, or pull it, or rewrite the article. Intro of article: ""Es ist genug" ("It is enough") is a German Lutheran hymn, with lyrics by Franz Joachim Burmeister, written in 1662.[1] The melody was written by Johann Rudolf Ahle who collaborated with the poet. It begins with an unusual sequence of four whole notes.[2]" Your claim: "Bach's setting [...] begins with an unusual sequence of four whole notes" So, was it Ahles melody that starts with the sequence (hook incorrect), or Bach's setting only (article incorrect)? Or both, in which case the hook incorrectly suggests that this sequence is Bach's idea? Fram (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm changing it back. We're still waiting for @Gerda Arendt: to weigh in here. Yoninah (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The article about the violin concerto is tagged, but is a substantial article about one of the most important works of 20th century music. I question the tag, but am not brave enough to remove it. (I hate these tags, but that is probably of no importance. Look at Duruflé's Requiem, for example. I promise to look at both articles today.) - The quotation by Berg is THE fact that makes the hymn still part of music history, as it's poet's article says (in the German version). (I'd say it would be forgotten otherwise, like hundreds of others.) Berg/Bach should be the hook fact, not anything else. Thank you for changing it back. ALT1 (here) also doesn't work - as Fram noted - because it's the melody already which begins with the four whole notes, not Bach's setting which simply follows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the current hook is much better though, and the article still is very confusing. It starts with "The melody was written by Johann Rudolf Ahle who collaborated with the poet. It begins with an unusual sequence of four whole notes.[2]", but it seems that the source is not about the Ahle melody but about the Bach setting, and which starts with four whole tones, not four whole notes. Do we have any evidence that the Ahle composition started with either four whole notes or tones, or was this a Bach invention / addition? If it is by Ahle, then the whole tone article needs to be changed to reflect this as well, a it now credits this to Bach. If it is due to Bach, then the hook article needs to be rewritten. And if we don't know, then we should reflect this in the article and probably go with another hook as well. Fram (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Starting in the end: the melody is by Ahle. Bach wrote hundreds of harmonization of given hymns, he didn't write his own. (I corrected the same thing in FA Messiah: Nicolai, not Bach, wrote melody of Wachet auf which Handel sort of quoted in Hallelujah.) - If I wrote "whole notes" it was a careless mistake that I didn't mean, and we have now a rather clumsy description of the first note and three rising intervals, - I wonder if "whole-tone phrase" might be better, as in the image which shows it clearly. I believe that even someone not reading music can see the first top notes going upwards and the last one having a marking making it unusual. - The top line is the melody, the notes below show what Bach added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I earlier changed the wikilink in the article to a more appropriate one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Whole-tone sequences are hardly "unique"; I've changed the word to the article's choice, "unusual". No comment on the other issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I find this hook technical and confusing for someone that's musically challenged like I am. Would it be better if Bach's setting is labeled in the image? As I was wondering if non-musical people are supposed to know what setting means in musical notations. Alex Shih (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A whole-tone sequence was unusual at the time of writing the hymn which is the topic, but I agree to removing "unique". - I try to avoid these extra links but we could link to Bach's harmonisations or to setting (music). Both seem not to help to make understand that an old hymn was advanced at its time and was "immortalized" (wording from one of the sources) by Berg's work that he composed in memory of the 17-year old "angel", and which became his own Requiem, because he died before the premiere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We could also link variations if it helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The wording in the cantata article is: "The melody of the closing chorale, originally ascribed to Johann Rudolph Ahle, begins with an unusual sequence of four notes progressing by steps of major seconds (whole tones), together spanning the interval of a tritone.", but I 'm afraid that it's even more technical. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my head is spinning. I still think the hook is talking about two things at the same time, which I don't really mind myself, but I am not sure about other people. Could we have something like ALT2 ... that parts of Bach's setting (pictured) in Es ist genug has been quoted directly in Alban Berg's Violin Concerto? ...? Or is this too boring/inaccurate of a hook? Alex Shih (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about your head! ALT2 doesn't work, more sorry, Its a setting not in Es ist genug but of Es ist genug in a cantata (which was not mentioned to not complicate it further), and we need the whole tone phrase/sequence/whatever because it's that which made the thing interesting for Berg who thought in Reihen in his twelve-tone technique world. It's a unique history (I think this time I used the word correctly): from a sequence in a hymn of the 17th century via Bach's 1723 four-part setting to Berg's "immortalization" in the 20th century, who used Bach's setting completely, not only Ahle's melody. It's also Bach's setting which is pictured, containing the melody, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've promoted the prep set, we'll see how it goes. Alex Shih (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you with Bach's complete setting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's now on the Main page, and I corrected several of the articles mentioned above, giving credit to Ahle, not only Bach. Please watch and check, I am busy for most of today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - a non-notable plateau has an average height

"... that the Shan Plateau in eastern Myanmar averages 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) high?" Cwmhiraeth, Graeme Bartlett, Zanhe

I haven't complained about these kind of hooks for a while, so I feel a little justified in moaning here. In totality, the hook is "so what?", and in detail, the fact that the plateau about which the hook is based is not even the target of the hook is strikingly weak. Both alts mentioned at the nom were vastly superior in terms of "hooks". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The other couple of hooks to choose from were superior, such as Burma is the source of good rubies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a discrepancy in the wording of the hook versus the way it's written in the article, which is:

ALT1a: ... that Myanmar produces some of the world's finest rubies? Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of Myanmar

It would be really helpful if you could provide a link to the nomination template when making these observations so that anyone can easily follow this discussion. You have a point, but only one of the hooks appears to have been approved. There are going to be a large number of geology hooks over the next few weeks and I thought it good to start moving them through the system, and nice for the students too while, they are still on their course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you can use control+F (or command+F) as there won't be a large number of "Shan Plateau" hooks in Prep 1, will there? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable plateau? LOL. I happen to have visited this "non-notable plateau" a few years ago, and it happens to have one of the most beautiful places on earth and some of the most interesting tribal markets. -Zanhe (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So non-notable that it's not even linked, that's the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

While notability is not a criteria for hookiness much less interestingness, I think this is a rather boring factoid. If it's correct, ALT1a is a much better hook. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The point I'm (trying but failing) to make is that the hook's subject is the "Shan Plateau" which isn't linked and isn't the target. Plus the hook is dull. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added another source to the article and ALT1a should be alright now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I'll promote it now. Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviews "to follow"

Hi all. I am aware I have a lot of entries on the review page at the moment with reviews listed as "to follow". This is due to the amount of articles I am generating as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. The contest ends on 30 November and I should then have time to go through and provide the QPQ reviews, though it may take me a little while to do so - please rest assured that they will be done! Apologies for any inconvenience - Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - rumours about something

"... that there were rumors that the comic book Cataclysm: The Ultimates' Last Stand would end the Ultimate Marvel imprint?" Cwmhiraeth, Cambalachero, The C of E

And? Aren't there rumours about just about everything? This can't be the best hook available for this article, especially as it's not actually interesting. In fact, to an outsider, you could probably take a guess at this "rumour" just from the title of the comic book. Plus, it's not a comic book, it's five comic books.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was a rumor that generated reactions from the creators, not the usual rumor that goes unnoticed. The confusion is because, although the story is not the "last stand" of the Ultimate Marvel universe, it is the last stand of The Ultimates (a super group within the franchise). Of course, the source does not say that, so neither can we; it's simply something that you realize after reading the story. I added a clarification that it's a comic book crossover. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)