Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 150

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145 ← Archive 148 Archive 149 Archive 150 Archive 151 Archive 152 → Archive 155

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

This isn't actually an issue with the article, but with the hook. It calls Rao India's prime minister. Except: 1. he's dead, and 2. he's no longer PM (he was many years ago, though). The hook might be confusing for those who are unfamiliar with Indian politics, as it might imply that Rao and not Modi is India's incumbent PM. Could there be a way to rephrase this hook to emphasize that Rao is not the incumbent? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah and The Rambling Man: In addition, I also have concerns about the hook interest: most people outside of India (including myself) are probably unaware of what the Jallianwala Bagh massacre is in the first place, so those who don't know it may not be able to appreciate the comparison. Perhaps a more internationally appropriate hook could be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is better(former Indian Prime Minister). The concern of international audience is genuine but I am unable to think of a simple way to to explain Jallianwala Bagh massacre in that line. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 11:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Narutolovehinata5. It's like comparing apples to oranges when you've never seen a fruit. The hook should be returned to the noms page and rewritten. Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've pulled it from prep, discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    The Prime Minister of the largest democracy compared [incident] to a massacre of a 1000 people by British troops? If that's not interesting to a broad audience, I'm a bit concerned about the audience. If it's just a question of making this factoid clear, we could add a descriptor to the massacre: ...the Jallianwallahbagh massacre, in which several hundred protesters were killed by British troops?" That just makes it wordier, though, and would require more not-directly-relevant material to be added to the article. Vanamonde (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was previously referred to in Britain as the Amritsar massacre. However (as in yesterday's TheGuardian.com- "British government ordered to open Amritsar massacre files") the term now refers to the Golden Temple assault of 1984. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added two alternative hooks now, please see if they are any better. Thanks! --Gian ❯❯ Talk 08:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Unilateral hook change

So in the next queue, we have a hook which was variously discussed (at the nomination even above, on this very page) and consensus was formed around a specific hook. That hook was then changed, without discussion, by Gatoclass who has deemed it necessary to assert a personal preference (which has not been discussed anywhere I can see) over a general consensus of a number of editors, with a misleading edit summary of "tweak for accuracy" (instead of, say, "complete hook revision". I suggest the original hook be restored immediately and that Gatoclass be reminded to stop making such edits as they are disruptive and completely unbecoming of an admin who should not be making such unilateral late decisions and who, if changing the hook which had so much discussion here, should have at least pinged the various individuals involved before locking in his personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TRM here @Gatoclass:, I'm not happy with this unilateral change and would rather the original (or the original original) be put back please. It does seem rather unacceptable to me to do it without even giving me the courtesy of a ping or dropping me a message. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed the above discussion when I promoted that set last night. Regardless, I still think a tweak was necessary. The original hook was ... that Tony Christie asked whether this was the way to The World Cup and then declared it "crap"? The problem with it is that it is inaccurate and misleading as it appears to state that Christie declared the World Cup crap, when in fact he was referring to the song he made about it (not directly mentioned in the hook). I'm fine with hooks that innocuously mislead with double meanings, so long as the hook can be read either way without grammatical contortions. I don't believe that is the case here as in order to extract the hidden meaning, you have to read the hook to mean - not that he declared the World Cup, or even the way to the Cup, crap - but that "he declared his asking crap", which is a very awkward construction at best. Other than that, I still think my tweak was an improvement, but if there's a consensus among independent users that the untweaked hook was better (I take TRM's opposition with a large grain of salt as he appears to reflexively oppose almost everything I do here) I have no objection to it being changed back. Paging Cwmhiraeth, Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset, Yoninah, Black Kite, Narutolovehinata5 who all participated in the earlier discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass Put the original hook back. The point was it was hooky, and just fine, so fix it now, back to the consensus-based version, and if there's a consensus in favour of your own personal version, then you can change it back once again. In the mean time, stop the continual filibustering. And stop making unilateral decisions, locking your own decisions down, and then disappearing. Highly disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and you can't take my opinion with a "large grain of salt" simply because you have abused your position here and I've called you out on it. As noted, where were you when the large discussion happened over the hook? The "independent users" you noted also didn't include the originator of the hook, your approach here is completely wrong. It will not continue. Fix the hook back now and wait for a consensus for your own personal version. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Gatoclass' version is better than the approved version and advocate leaving the hook as it is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's realistically only an iota of the problem here. I will, in due course, be preparing a case against Gatoclass, and this misdemeanour alone contains a series of issues that can no longer be overlooked. The correct course of action, as we all know here, would have been to remove the hook back to noms where Gatoclass' personal choice could have been discussed. The incorrect course of action was to re-write it, load it into a queue where it became protected and then disappear until it'd been on the main page for several hours. All this without any notification of anyone involved, despite the lengthy discussion at both the nom and this talk page. Astonishing misuse of position. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I will, in due course, be preparing a case against Gatoclass ...
Make my day.
BTW, your "correct course of action" wasn't an option in this case as the hook was date sensitive, so it couldn't just be pulled, which is what I would normally have done in such a situation. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thankfully your illegitimate and rude actions have been undone. And yes, you'll get your time in lights in due course, don't you worry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I see that neither you nor the nominator had the courtesy in your posts at ERRORS to refer back to this discussion where they could read my rationale for the change, so little wonder you got the change you wanted. Regardless, it's of no consequence to me either way, so long as the hook is not going to get challenged or pulled for lacking the kind of mathematical precision that is often insisted upon at ERRORS these days. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't the change I wanted, it was the right thing to do, and if you can't see that, things are even worse than I thought. Unlike your unilateral actions and abuse of the tools to protect your actions and then disappearing so nothing can be done. This is just the latest example of this kind of behaviour. For now, I'm done here as we have the correct result despite the tampering. For the future, good luck, you're going to need it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"your "correct course of action" wasn't an option in this case as the hook was date sensitive, so it couldn't just be pulled, which is what I would normally have done in such a situation. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)" Really? If you would normally pull a hook, then it shouldn't matter if it was time-sensitive or not, especially if (like here) the same hook could be run at a "time-sensitive" slot again in a few days time at the second or third appearance of the English team at the WC. It's better to have the right hook at the wrong time, than to have the wrong hook at the right time. Fram (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that Fram, I think the vast majority of supposed date-sensitive hooks are not very date-sensitive at all, but if I'd pulled the hook it probably would have started an even bigger shitstorm and I have limited tolerance for that kind of thing. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Not doing the right thing because it would perhaps have started a shitstorm (in this case I can see at most one person trying to raise a fuss if it hadn't run on that specific date though) is not really the best way to proceed probably. Fram (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "not doing the right thing". In this case I saw a less disruptive option that I still considered legitimate and took that instead. Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Boulez

Pierre Boulez is now in prep without image. Really, for an article of that quality (not by me)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I asked another editor to promote it, but s/he declined. I can't do it because I did the review. Could another editor promote this to an image slot? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I have moved him to Prep 3, and promoted another biographical article to re-fill Prep 1. I moved him so there would not be two head-and-shoulders images in a row. I would not normally select a black and white image of a man for the lead myself; I guess I should be paying more attention to the quality of the article and less to that of the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Hawkeye7. Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I was not asked on this occasion, but I would not have acceded to this request as we have so many other worthy image-slot nominations. I would certainly not have given an image slot to US Navy Rear Admiral Alma M. Grocki, currently in Prep 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
When I build prep sets, I'm not looking to put the "worthiest" article in the image slot, but a clear, interesting image that shows up well at thumbnail size. Both Boulez and Grocki qualified, in my opinion. We had so few image nominations at the time, and especially person images, that that's why I was hoping Boulez would make the image slot too. Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, all. Black and white, why not if it shows a person's period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Drift whale

This nomination has fallen into a crack and been forgotten. We are at a stalemate. Somebody bold and new needs to take a look. 7&6=thirteen 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been a misunderstanding of the rules governing how hooks are to be cited. I've quoted the rules and re-green ticked the nomination as good to go. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2018–19 RFU Championship

Requesting a second review here since the nomination's about two months old now and has been unable to progress. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

@Red Phoenix: @Philroc:
This is a GA. Surely something more hooky could be found in it. Yoninah (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah try this:
... that Sega Technical Institute developed games involving a dick, a chameleon and a green dog? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well if you're saying that STI didn't develop those games then the target article is wrong and should be fixed. Ordinarily, the non-bold links aren't subject to the same quality control (ahem) as the main article. But sure, bump it back to noms. Better that than run a shoddy hook and potentially incorrect article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ... that Klinger is the namesake of the Klinger Award, given annually to a horse, individual or organization that best demonstrates the values of honor and service?
@Chetsford: @AHeneen:
Since this is not appearing in the image slot, it needs to be clearer that Klinger is a horse, and possibly that he is a US military horse. Yoninah (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How about this ALT?
Chetsford (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I like the alt better, but the lack of links for Washington International Horse Show and the Klinger Award may be a problem for some DYK editors. Is it possible to expand the article a bit with his duties? Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah - that makes sense, I can see it would be an issue. The article currently notes he works as a Wheel Horse and has even been given leadership responsibilities as the Section Horse, would that be sufficient for an alt? e.g. ...
I was also thinking this might work ...
LMK what you think. I don't mind taking a crack at expanding the article but it was a bit of effort to even get it this long as horses, despite their flamboyant reputation, tend to be media averse. Chetsford (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How about:
That hook seems better for a general audience since I doubt most people (myself included) know what a Section Horse or a Wheel Horse are. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Works for me! Chetsford (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: Mette Ivie Harrison

... that Mormon novelist Mette Ivie Harrison attributes part of her success in writing to her autism, which forces her to closely analyze human behavior?

Gandhi (BYU), Rachel Helps (BYU), Nihonjoe Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth

This DYK has been discussed quite extensively in Template:Did you know nominations/Mette Ivie Harrison. The current hook reads fine and the article is in fair shape after the diligent work by the WiR editors from BYU and others; however, I still have a few concerns, so I've moved this article to Prep 2 for the time being to invite a few more looks from other editors. To highlight the relatively minor concerns:

  • I removed the mention of her podcast and Tumblr activities, as they are entirely based on self-published source and is within the scope of "unduly self-serving", I think. The usage of these self-published sources in the rest of the article should be policy compliant, but I'd like to double check.
  • While not explicitly required by WP:MOS-BIBLIO, I think it would be the better practice to provide where the information was compiled from for the bibliography section, as I don't think it is necessary that easy to find for this subject.
  • For the current hook, Rachel's addition about how her autism relates to her writing in the main article is certainly helpful, but I think this part can be trimmed as well. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reading the hook without the context of the previous discussions, it seems to me that the "Mormon" qualifier is not ideal. I do not think a person's religion should be mentioned unless it is the subject of the hook, which it isn't in this case. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Mormon qualifier was presumably added because the originally proposed hooks focused on her work as a Mormon writer, and it appears she's best known for that (full disclosure: I was the one who suggested the autism hook). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: The bibliographic information is quite easy to find if you enter the title of the work and the author's name. I've added some references to that section, but others may decide to add more. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih: Hi, I'm actually not sure when I can use WorldCat as a source, but it had the other books, so I added in-line citations to WorldCat for those. Regarding the autism section, I had added more detail so I could write a catchy hook. I removed the sentence about how she felt about not being able to cry. The "Mormon" qualifier isn't vital but it does provide some context for her writing. The Bishop's Wife received many reviews and is about a Mormon woman interacting with other Mormons to solve a murder. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

#3 on the all-time non-lead hook list!

  • ... that Oregon rancher Bill Brown, known as the "Horse King of the West", often wrote checks on newspaper margins and soup can labels—which bankers would cash without question?
Can you believe this got 184,000 hits in a 24-hour cycle? What's your secret, Orygun? Yoninah (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It was featured in a few popular Reddit threads. Fram (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 – Ivan the Terrible

@Violetriga: @Surtsicna: @Cwmhiraeth:
I'm surprised this article is being featured in the image slot. It is barely start-class. There's a nice lead and then a controversy section. No discussion of the painting itself. Certainly some description of paint or technique needs to be added here before it's featured on the main page. Surtsicna did mention this in the review, but gave it the tick anyway. (Why?) An IP added that there is more information on this painting in the articles on the Russian and French Wikipedias, but nothing was done about that either. I suggest moving this back to the noms page so the page creator can work on it more. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are inventing a rule for DYK that does not exist. Sure, the article could be expanded, but there is discussion of the painting itself in the first two, well-referenced paragraphs. If those paragraphs were made into a section, a short lead could be added. I would do it myself but I expect Violetriga will respond here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm referring to Rule D7: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. The talk page has a stub-class rating, which should not be there in a promoted article. Yoninah (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand your POV and it would be lovely to expand it further. I'd give it a go translating from French sources but even FR wiki uses predominantly Russian source material which I'd struggle with. Biased me says that the article should be okay as is because it describes the painting and does give information about it. Importantly the controversy, the reason it is notable outside of Russia, is there and fully referenced. violet/riga [talk] 23:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the article is comprehensive enough; however, I think the layout is a little odd as the de facto lead section is not a summary of article content, but rather half the content itself, so I think something should probably be done about that. I might add that one or two statements in the article are a little puzzling and could use some clarification; it's in the queue now so I might do a little copyediting before it gets to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's adequate. It's certainly a cracking painting, having seen the original, though not what you'd want on the living room wall. The studies and other version should be mentioned, and indeed shown - all in the French article. The subject & treatment rather speak for themselves, imo, & not too much needs to be said in a basic treatment. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me whether we call this a problem of comprehensiveness or of structure, but this is weird. The painting is described only in the lead, and the body consists purely of controversy? If this was about a politician, this would be an NPOV fail, too. Let's just fix it instead. I'd do it myself if I knew the first thing about the subject. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have pulled the article for now as in attempting to reorganize it I realized that it was probably going to require some research as to whether or not the event depicted is an actual historical event or a legend (as nationalists apparently claim). If the issue can be resolved quickly, it can be returned to the same queue, otherwise, it can be returned at a later time. In the meantime, I have removed the bot permission for that set. Gatoclass (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

question about review process

I realize this is not a fast-moving process and no matter what it will take some time for a nomination to make it to the main page, but I have a question about what to do when someone doing a QPQ review does a review where they identify an issue they feel should be fixed, and the nominator attempts to fix the problem as says as much at the nomination, waits three days for a reply, tries pinging the reviewing user (who is otherwise active) and waits another two days with no reply of any kind? And does this still count a them satisfying QPQ when they apparently won’t follow up on their review? Asking for a friend.... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not personally accept as a QPQ a review which raised issues but did not follow through on them. I don't know if it's in the rules, but I don't think it needs to be; this is common sense. I would be quite willing to disallow the user's nomination until the review is completed. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I count a review for qpq that looks at all criteria, regardless if the issues will get fixed or not. I don't count a review that - for example - just says it's too short, but nothing else. - I need a review for Kirchner, see above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"regardless if the issues will get fixed or not" That depends on why they're not fixed, right? If the nominator ignores them, sure, that's a complete review; but if the nominator fixes issues raised by a reviewer, and a reviewer then disappears, that's a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I went to where they were claiming QPQ based on their review of my nom and mentioned that I felt they only half did it, that finally got their attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4

Right now Queue 4 has only seven hooks and no image. I know the intended hook was pulled, but is the seven-hook no-image set on purpose? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I'm confused: all the queues seem to be empty (I'll try to fill one, BTW) and all of the preps have images...what am I not seeing here? Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I was referring to Queue 4 (not Queue 5 as I originally said, my mistake). I just checked and it only has seven prepared hooks instead of the usual eight. And I just purged it too. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Got it. I'm going to leave that to Gatoclass, since they pulled the image hook, but if they're not back online in a few hours feel free to ping me. Vanamonde (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ye Olde Stubbies

I was told eons ago by a veteran of this project, and many others projects all the way up to FA, that the article class is intended for the projects whose banners are on the article's talk page. And that each project has its own standards of what those ratings mean to those given projects. A-class, Good Article and Featured are specific review processes, and only GA has meaning here because it's a qualifier for nominations.

WP:STUB makes it very clear that deciding what is a stub is a matter of individual perspective. Just as any first-time editor can rate an article a stub, so they can also remove the stub rating. The DYK reviewing guide says In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.

But ... what is the definition of a stub: WP:STUBDEF Over the years, different editors have followed different rules of thumb to help them decide when an article is likely to be a stub. Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub, or that the threshold for another article may be 250 words. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text.

The DYK supplemental rules say D11: If there is a stub tag, it should normally be removed if the article is long enough for DYK Somebody a long time ago put that in the supplemental rules. Years ago, I asked on this talk page about how to handle stubs. Somebody said to just remove the stub.

Really and truly, that stub tag has no real-time meaning at DYK. If the nomination meets all the basic qualifications, that's the DYK priority. And quite frankly, I've seen a lot of nominations - a LOT - that have that stub rating, nobody says anything, and the nomination comes and goes on the main page without a big whoop.

Many projects are dead, or on their last legs. Why is DYK bothering about something that is those projects' responsibilities to assess?

What matters is if a DYK nomination meets the guidelines set out. A stub tag is virtually meaningless to this project, since the stub guidelines themselves are vague. Why don't we just eliminate the stub references in the DYK guidelines? Why are we going through the motions on something that has no value to us in practical terms?— Maile (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing the reference to stubs in the rules. The stub tag is very subjective and the 1500 B limit is quite sufficient for DYK purposes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, eliminate it. If we need any rule of that sort it should be "articles need to have a lead", but that's also very rarely a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Support removal per above. -Zanhe (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two ways an article can be denoted a stub. One is indeed the rating at a WikiProject, which has been discussed above. The other is when a stub template (or more than one) is placed on the article page, and there I think it is clearly problematic. Per WP:DYKSG#D7, an article should be reasonably complete, and a stub template on the article page itself militates against that. I always thought that D11 made the article tagging as a stub an explicit thing that should be looked on with askance, much like other templates that indicate an article still needs work. I think an article with a valid stub template on the article page should probably not be appearing on the main page through DYK, and if it isn't valid, it should be removed. I'm not particularly exercised about talk-page stub class. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I also agree it should be removed. I've seen many a nomination get delayed on the technicality that the talk page has a stub tag on it (which frankly, the nominator could remove themselves but do not). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
BlueMoonset thank you for mentioning the other way an article gets tagged as a stub, with that little template on article. But there again, it's often placed there by somebody who created the article at inception, or somebody comes along later in time and decides to stick one on there (whether they know what they're doing or not). If somebody later is improving the article, that front-page template should come off in the process. But its being on there is not in itself an indication the article has not met DYK criteria. It's just one more tag littering Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Maile, the same could be said of other templates, which may or may not still be relevant, but which nevertheless are considered bars to promotion to the main page. No one much cares for what's on the talk page, but if the article says it's a stub, I don't think it should be promoted while that claim is in the article, and if it isn't a stub, then remove the template before promoting it. Let's clean up article litter before promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • When I see a stub tag where it was just forgotten to change when expanding (9 of 10 cases that I see such a thing), I simpy change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There have been a number of times over the years where I completely forgot to remove the stub rating or stub tag on an article I had just expanded. I say remove the stub requirement as wholly redundant to the other DYK criteria.--Kevmin § 15:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Birthday 25 June

Template:Did you know nominations/Volker David Kirchner - sorry for being late, I thought I'd just expand, got hooked, and it's now 5 times longer and fit for DYK, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Review done. Ready for promotion to Prep 6 for June 25. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Now in prep, more thanks. Next with a birthday is Template:Did you know nominations/Claus Wisser, 30 June ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
You star, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 – No hook here

@GreenMeansGo: @Kosack: @Narutolovehinata5:
Who is Tommy Orange? Without having a link to his name, this hook is totally out of context. It would be better to add more description to increase hook interest:
ALT1: ... that the title of There There, a novel about Native American life in Oakland, California, mirrors Gertrude Stein's description of the city as "There is no there there"? Yoninah (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Orange is only non-notable because he hasn't published his second book yet. Once he has overcome BLP1E he's a slam dunk with the coverage that's already out there on him. This hook is fine also. (I just really like the book and figured I'd get it on the main page.) I would maybe substitute a novel about urban Indians in Oakland, since that's the more particular cultural experience the book is exploring, as distinct from those who have strong ties to reservation life. GMGtalk 13:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll make the change in prep. Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for your input. Often hard to tell how something comes off to the unfamiliar when you've become thoroughly familiar yourself. GMGtalk 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the new hook is better, but I also think we do our readers a disservice by imagining that they can't figure out that from the first hook that Tommy Orange is a first-time novelist. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You can talk about any author's debut novel, even if they have gone on to write hundreds of others. The original hook does not make it clear that this is (so far) his only novel . --Khajidha (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It also doesn't make it clear that he has an MFA, nor that he actually lives in Angels Camp rather than Oakland. Do we need to say these things in a DYK hook? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
No, but combined with the lack of a link on his name this lack of clarification leaves the reader very confused.--Khajidha (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago; here is an updated list with all 36 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 16. Right now we have a total of 176 nominations, of which 65 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the seven from February, March, and April.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A DYK liaison for WikiJournals

Hello, Would anyone be interested in helping out with writing the occasional DYK for newly-published WikiJournal articles? They are externally peer-reviewed articles that are dual published as both a version or record in the journal, and used to update the Wikipedia page. The page is sometimes entirely new (e.g. pfemp1 or gene structure) or sometimes an update of an existing article (e.g. Lysine or Radiocarbon dating). It would be amazing if we could have some help in writing DYKs for them when they are published and integrated into Wikipedia. Any interest from this group? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how DYK works; its purpose is to draw attention to the expansion of Wikipedia, and as such only includes new articles, articles newly-promoted to GA status and articles expanded by a factor of 5, not for general "articles I find interesting", so something like this expansion from 1202 to 1709 words would never qualify. For the new articles which do qualify, I'm not sure what the point of some help in writing DYKs for them would be, since the author of the article is almost always the best placed person to find a potential hook; if even the person who wrote the article, who presumably is interested in the topic, can't find something interesting to say about it, then it's not reasonable for them to expect anybody else to. (If this request is an elliptical way of requesting that Wikijournal contributors be exempted from the usual QPQ requirements because they're So Damn Important, then needless to say I oppose that. Our wiki, our rules, and those particular rules are there for a reason.) ‑ Iridescent 08:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, this wasn't and roundabout way to have articles written via WikiJournals "exempted from the usual QPQ requirements". It was a request for assistance if anyone in involved in this group happened to find it interesting. As with all things in Wikipedia, there it is always useful to have additional help (e.g. neither pfemp1 nor gene structure were put forward for a DYK, because all edits in involved were too busy). Additionally, some authors are not experienced Wikipedians and can find some of DYK confusing. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 – Too graphic

@Gog the Mild: @Zanhe:
This hook seems unnecessarily graphic. Can we substitute "violated" or "abused" for "raped"? Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The hooks itself seems awkward sentence structure. How about: — Maile (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that over 400 female Red Guards were shot, and some sexually violated, after being captured during the 1918 Finnish Civil War?
While rape is sexual abuse, sexual abuse is not necessarily rape. The article states 'raped'. I'm pretty sure a word in common usage across all media can be read without people fainting. Violated/abused here would be euphemisms. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: WP:CENSOR? If I get a vote then I would rather leave it out than use a euphemism, and one which might suggest that the women were "merely" abused - a bit of a catch all for sexual misconduct. Hmm. How about: ALT1 ... that the female Red Guards taken prisoner during the 1918 Finnish Civil War were badly mistreated, with over 400 being executed? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Only in death: Edit conflict; I posted the above without seeing Death's comment, which I agree with. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
And one more alt below. — Maile (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that female Red Guards captured during the 1918 Finnish Civil War were forced to provide sexual favors for food, endured rape, and hundreds of them were executed?
They were "subjected to sexual favors"? Huh?! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Corrected. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While we should not be intentionally provocative, war rape is a common theme during these violent times, personally I think it's far more graphic to try to tone down the usage of rape by describing them literally (especially with euphemisms, as mentioned above). I do think there are better hooks available, since female prisoners of war are frequently subjects of sexual violence, so it isn't really surprising. My suggestion would be (based on the combination of same sources and the article) ALT3 ... that the indiscriminate killing of 218 women suspected to be female Red Guards during the 1918 Finnish Civil War were motivated by the idea of racial purity? Alex Shih (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Alex Shih and his ALT3. The raping before execution is not at all uncommon in the history of the world. Yoninah (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, rape as a weapon of war is unfortunately neither new nor rare. We should not tone it down but rather call it what it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Beeblebrox. We should not tone down the severity of war crimes with euphemisms. See also WP:Euphemism. -Zanhe (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hook needs to be pulled from Queue 6 in the next 90 minutes

Unfortunately, the fourth hook, featuring Lucy McBath, needs to be pulled from the queue and held until at least July 26. As the hook notes, Lucy is a candidate for congress, and the runoff election is on July 24, so we'll be within the 30-day period before the election that we're not supposed to run hooks about political candidates at DYK.

Another hook will need to swapped in for it; a bio from Prep 2 or Prep 3 might be a good idea, but not the Petronius Maximus one, since we already have an ancient Roman in Queue 6. Pinging a few admins, since there isn't much time: Maile, Alex Shih, Vanamonde, Cas Liber, if one of you can take care of this before it hits the main page, that would be great. Many thanks.

Once the McBath hook is removed from prep, it can be added to the special occasion hooks section at the bottom of the Approved page, under a new "July 26 or later" header. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done I swapped it out with the Saša Broz hook from prep 4, which seemed really interesting. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, as it turns out, that hook about about the granddaughter of Yugoslavia's president, is well-timed since OTD tells us June 25 is statehood day for two states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
For future reference, does this sort of edit merely involve cutting and pasting the hooks from one place to the other or is there other bookkeeping that also needs to be done? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein, you have to cut/paste both the hooks in the Hooks section and the related DYKmakes/DYKnoms in the Credits section. I swapped hooks in Preps 3 and 4 several hours ago: these are the Prep 3 and Prep 4 edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein in this particular case, because one nomination was put back under approved (but not promoted) nominations, there is an additional step. You have to revert the nomination template, as here (revert), to the edit right before it was promoted. Then place the template in the appropriate place on the Approved page, as this edit (to Approved page). — Maile (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

WIR

Maria Bengtsson (soprano) was postponed for July, because we seem to have to many people in the image slot. Please consider to bring her back, perhaps postponing Beethoven instead, because June is the month that Women in Red promote singers, - not July ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Beethoven is in Prep 6, which runs on July 1. Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Missed that, sorry. Any other swap possible? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd propose to swap out Carl Rash from P2 for her. Personally, I don't find his hook interesting enough for lead hook anyway. Regards SoWhy 12:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Swapped out Carl Rash for Maria Bengtsson. Maria's is really a striking image, along with a well-written hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but "that a reviewer found Maria Bengtsson (pictured) believable and expressive" is in no way interesting at all. Not even in the in-universe hook. It's simply dull. Yes, the picture is appealing, and after all, I'm sure the WiR project just want main page exposure because of images of attractive women, but the hook is junk I'm afraid. It should be pulled pending something more robust that WiR would be proud of. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you suggest to say instead of "appeared as Arabella"? The critic was quite verbose, and I picked something that was short, - we have to appeal to the general reader, right? "Glanzvoller Mittelpunkt der Gesangsolisten war unweigerlich Maria Bengtsson als glaubwürdige ausdrucksstarke Arabella. Höhensicher und souverän gestaltete die Debütantin die Partie mit mädchenhafter Attitüde, aristokratisch im Erscheinungsbild in dezenter Gestik prägte sie ihre Auftritte und verschmolz in wunderbarer Gesangslinie zu überzeugendem Profil der Figur. In bester Diktion führte Bengtsson ihren geschmeidigen Sopran durch alle Register, erwies sich als ideale Strauss-Interpretin mit schlanker Mittellage und herrlichen Piani. Dank ihres warmen farbenreichen Timbres, der fein-nuancierten Zwischentöne avancierte die Sängerin nicht nur vokal auch optisch zur bezaubernd- subtilen Arabella-Identifikation." (Google translate: The brilliant centerpiece of the vocal soloists was inevitably Maria Bengtsson as a credible expressive Arabella. Highly confident and confident, the debutante designed the game with a girlish attitude, aristocratic in appearance in subtle gestures, she coined her performances and merged in a wonderful vocal line to convincing profile of the figure. In the best of diction Bengtsson led her lithe soprano through all registers, proved to be an ideal Strauss interpreter with a slender middle register and splendid piani. Thanks to her warm, colorful timbre and finely nuanced nuances, the vocalist not only became vocally but also optically attractive to the subtle Arabella identification.) - Finely nuanced nuances. Enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just saying the original hook was really not hooky for a broad audience. If you'd like to suggest alt hooks, that's cool. I'm not able to right now, as I'm in a hotel room in Donauworth. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
My problem is that I could do it in German but not so well in English, because when you translate that stuff, it looses. Help, anybody? Trying,
ALT1: ... that when Maria Bengtsson (pictured) appeared as Arabella for the first time she was regarded as an ideal Strauss performer?
Mentioning any of the many details (of acting and singing) seems unfair to the others you then don't mention ;) - What's "Zwischentöne", btw? All these greys between black and white. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the original: perhaps there's a better word for "glaubwürdig" ("credible" or something I don't know), and for "ausdrucksstark" (lit. "strong in expressiveness", - while expressive would be "ausdrucksvoll", - "stark" should be stronger). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Swedish operatic soprano Maria Bengtsson (pictured) specializes in roles by German composer Richard Strauss, including the title role in Daphne and Arabella? Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
A suggestion: If this is going to delay the promotion of Prep 2, we could swap the image hook with the one in Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah Do it. I was just thinking of pinging you. As long as Maria Bengtsson makes it by the end of the week, that should meet Gerda's wishes. And Gerda Arendt, were you really asking the English translation of Zwischentöne? I looked on some translation services, which more or less translate it as being "subtle nuances". — Maile (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Reply to Yoninah: Both the Marschallin and the Countess in Cappriccio are more interesting human beings than the mythological (rarely performed) Daphne, also it doesn't say how exceptionally well she performs them all. (I saw her in Wiesbaden, and support the critic's view.) For my taste, just change "believable" to "credible" in what we have. To bed.
And to Maile: "nuances" is what Google translate supplies, but "in-between tones" is an image much closer to music, but possibly without an equivalent in English. To bed, really. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Moved to Prep 3. We have 24 hours to iron this out :) Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: why do you want to change "believable" to "credible"? I don't think it flows as well. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't want, I chose "believable" of the options. Until TRM complained. I don't know these nuances of language, need help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"bezaubernd-subtile Arabella-Identifikation" works in German, but what would it be in English? "enchanting-subtle Arabella-identification" sounds wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
ALT3: ... when Maria Bengtsson (pictured) appeared in the title role of Arabella for the first time, a reviewer wrote that she proved to be an ideal Strauss singer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
A drive-by suggestion. ALT4: . . . that the voice of Maria Bengtsson (pictured) has been described as flexible, warm and rich in colours? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Very nice, Gog the Mild. It goes with the warm and rich colors of her cardigan. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's something that could be said about many. Could we get Arabella back in there, for the ideal Strauss interpreter. No need to mention the composer if you don't like him ;) - With one title you suggest soprano and opera, - "voice" could be even a speaker's, or any singing genre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Running out of time here, due to hit the main page in about eight hours, and nothing has changed. I suggest this is removed to noms while a suitable replacement hook is discussed and agreed upon. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Plus Prep 3 now has two very similar hooks side-by-side.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
We have 3 ALTs here, and you say nothing has changed. - We have one in prep which you find boring, but you seem to be the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the hook we have is fine. I moved the 2 other music hooks out of Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
What a shame. The hook is dull as dishwater and will rely on the image for hits. Pity. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's a crummy hook. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find a better one when the sources are in German and one doesn't speak the language, but one alternative might be:
* ... that soprano Maria Bengtsson (pictured) was described as the ideal Strauss interpeter following her recent debut in the title role of Arabella? Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Quintessential is probably a better translation of the essence, Gatoclasss; go with that. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Good attempt but now were already over halfway through its run, it's not really worthwhile. The real shame of it comes from the fact this was not simply put back to nominations for further discussion. There's no rush, and it seems that at least two other hooks were swapped out at the last minute, so next time let's just do the sensible thing and delay posting until we come up with a hooky hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is late, but better late than never, I substituted it already. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the big problem was that this didn't tell us any actual facts about her, but only the opinion of a critic. Whoop te doo. There are thousands of singers, actors, painters, etc that are praised by one critic and derided by another and judged as mediocre by a third. Why should anyone care that this woman was praised by this guy? --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. And actually, what if all the other reviewers had said she was terrible and an embarrassment? The opinion of a single reviewer is really not main page material in any shape. Still, the picture will draw in pageviews, I'm not certain that's how WiR want to increase the views. It should have been pulled rather than pushed through. Where's the rush??? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry; I was out today, - don't like the phrasing of the changed hook for two reasons: ... that soprano Maria Bengtsson (pictured) was described as the quintessential Strauss interpreter following her recent debut in the title role of Arabella? - "quintessential" isn't a word I know well enough, and debut is normally understood as debut ever, while this was just the first performance of that role. Learning. "Der neue Merker" is the most critical (and specialised) paper I know, - with some time I'll find what they normally write about singers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Compare: [1] same piece, different staging, listing meticulously what's missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

others

We have more singers open for review and apearing soon, including Druet from February, + Kasper (links above, under "oldest", + Wulkopf, and I will add more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

next: Template:Did you know nominations/Petra Schmidt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK symbols

I've been having difficulty distinguishing the symbols used in reviewing. This was discussed a few years ago (archive link) as an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue, but nothing seems to have been done about it. I would like to suggest that the symbols be accompanied by text, and possibly to change the symbols or colours. A lot of alternative symbols can be found at Template:Done#See also and Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.

  • {{subst:DYKtick}} "No problems, ready for DYK"
    • Suggest: Ready (or alt: Accepted, Approved, Verified)
  • {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} "Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline or paywalled hook reference accepted in good faith"
    • Suggest: ReadyAGF
  • {{subst:DYK?}} "DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed."
    • Suggest: Query
  • {{subst:DYK?no}} "DYK eligibility requires additional work."
    • Suggest: Needs work or Needs work
  • {{subst:DYKno}} "Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible."
    • Suggest: Denied or Unlikely or Not approved

I didn't want to go too negative with the last one, or too specific as a review might fail for a number of reasons. However, "denied" is a more definitive answer than the others.

It seems that a bot uses the symbols to keep tallies, so that should be addressed before any changes might be made to the symbols. For my own situation, the addition of text would be more useful. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Did_you_know/2017_reform_proposals#(P8)_Discussion, sorry! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How to check QPQ

I want to start reviewing but I'm baffled about how to check QPQ. The Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide only mentions QPQ once, linking to supplemental rule WP:DYKSG#H4 which explains how to count multiple-article hooks but not how to check. The Onepage mentions QPQ once and suggests to "look for edits giving DYK credit on the nominator's talk page" which frankly sounds exhausting.

Wikipedia:Did you know#gen 5 says to check credits at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, which lists the number of nominations only. The QPQ check tool also seems to list only the editor's nominations (I didn't find any documentation if it has other features). So how do you see the total number or reviews an editor has made to compare? Or if we check only the "Reviewed" line in the nomination, how do we know that review has only been claimed for this one nomination? And in the case multiple editors worked on the review, who is the primary reviewer who gets the debit?

Any help would be appreciated. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Part of your answer is to open the review they claim as a QPQ. In your Toolbox (left hand margin on your screen), click "What Links Here". it will show you any place that template is linked. Example: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Train_Track_Park_(Jerusalem) that I used as a QPQ on Liliuokalani and no place else. Had I decided to try and use it a second time as a QPQ, you would see an additional DYK template linked on the "What Links Here" page. — Maile (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Also I suggest checking for the completeness of the review. Some reviewers unfortunately claim QPQ after doing an initial review and then never responded to follow-ups, it'd be helpful if this is called out when the QPQ is claimed. HaEr48 (talk)
Ah, that's brilliant (and should have been obvious), and pretty easy to spot since it should only link to one other template. I don't have a checklist in front of me but the review looks thorough. I imagine there's a bit of a learning curve for new reviewers; I use Earwig but I'll have to familiarize myself with a few more reviewing tools.
There's no entry for QPQ at Wikipedia:Did you know/Glossary. Would it be alright to add something like, "QPQ – quid pro quo, a credit system which requires nominators to review one article hook for every article hook approved after the first five." – Reidgreg (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
My reading of the rules is that it is after the first four. "... people who have made fewer than five DYK nominations are not required to do another review." Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that some noms (Railway Surgery, Captain Cook State Recreation Area) don't wikilink to their review but use a full URL/external link (linking to the page history or a diff of the review). Since there is no direct link, it doesn't show up on What links here. On further investigation, two editors are claiming Template:Did you know nominations/Workplace robotics safety as their review (one for Anarchism in Puerto Rico and the other for Railway Surgery). It has a single bolded link in the hook. I'm a newbie at this, but I suspect the Railway Surgery one should be disqualified for QPQ; this editor did a little verification when WRS was pulled from the queue, while the other editor did the full review. I will note this on the nom for Railway Surgery. Is it okay for me to replace such diff links to direct links to the templates? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: the nomination you linked to has 2 editors as reviewers because the first one did a review and approved it, but the hook was pulled from the main page. Then a second editor re-reviewed the article and gave it another approval tick. Both editors should be credited with a QPQ. This often happens in our longer threads at WP:DYKN, where editor after editor will approve the nomination, followed by editor after editor questioning it. In answer to your second point, yes, if you could insert direct links to the templates rather than to the URLs, it would be helpful for other editors who want to check if the nominator has used his QPQ more than once. Yoninah (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Re-pinging @Reidgreg: for my response above. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Fine by me. I saw some discussion about not crediting drive-by reviewing and in this case it looked like the second editor verified that it was OK rather than doing a complete review. If it had been sent back for major work then, presumably, the first reviewer wouldn't have done a thorough job. On the other hand if it gets put on hold for some reason and a full review has to be done again, that sounds like more of a reason for crediting multiple reviewers (as with the longer threads you mention). I suppose that also comes into play if the reviewer nominates an alt hook which then requires another editor to review it. Hmmm, this can get complicated. Will fix those two links. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Preps 3 and 4

Right now Preps 3 and 4 have buildings as their respective images. Technically only Prep 4 is about a building, but is it a good idea to have two consecutive hooks featuring structures as images? Maybe one or the other could be moved to a free prep once there's on available? Courtesy ping to Cwmhiraeth who filled in Prep 4. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't realise that when filling Prep 4. I suggest we move the church as Gerda has another hook in that set anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I moved the 2nd one a few preps down. Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about eligibility

The article Gowanus Canal was just listed as a GA. It has never appeared on DYK before. However, it is also a former GA (delisted in January 2017). Is it still eligible for DYK if it's a recently promoted GA, but also had the GA status in the past? epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Epicgenius right off hand, I would say the 2005 one doesn't count in this case, and neither does the 2008 reassessment. Neither are close to what is considered GA assessment these days.
1) There does not appear to be a GA review for its September 14, 2005 ranking (assuming that date is even correct), but the linked version to the article on that date shows no inline citations whatsoever. Zero.
2) Quadell who is an admin, and looks like was one then, added the GA template in December 2005
3) The 2008 reassessment where it was kept is Talk:Gowanus Canal/GA1, and that's not much of a review at all. The linked version on the reassessment date shows a few inline citations added, but not adequate.
It would seem that the first time the GA review was done effectively was the one it just passed. I would be OK if this were nominated at DYK. But others may have different opinions. BlueMoonset you deal a lot with GA. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The guidelines simply state that the article was, within the past seven days, promoted to good article status. I don't think it matters whether the article had been a GA in the past and was delisted for some reason, or has never before held that status, the key is the recent listing as a GA. So I believe it can be nominated for DYK at this time, provided it hasn't been featured on the main page before, at ITN or OTD. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66 and BlueMoonset: Thanks for your comments. I suppose that if the rules don't say anything about GA renominations, I'll nominate it now. epicgenius (talk)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago; here is an updated list with 36 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 21. Right now we have a total of 172 nominations, of which 56 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six still remaining from February, March, and April.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'd say this discussion has gone long enough. Unfortunately, this RfC is generally lacking for consensus on the wide range of issues covered, but the same arguments have been repeated many times by now, and further beating the horse will not illuminate anything else. Thus, the two main results are:
  1. There is consensus that DYK hooks should not be excessively sensational or gratuitous.
  2. There is no consensus for any overarching ban on hooks that feature murder, riots, war, or any other potentially "sensitive" issue.

There were a large number of secondary issues that were discussed in this RfC that are worth noting but did not receive enough attention to be properly called consensuses.

  • There was substantial discussion about whether DYK is merely a trivia section or something larger that sometimes include trivia. There was not enough discussion to be able to draw any consensus out of that discussion which did transpire, but this point is central to the nature of DYK. There should probably be another RfC to clarify what generally DYK is and/or aspires to be.
  • There was also much discussion about whether WP:NOTCENSORED applies to DYK hooks, on the grounds that refraining from picking a hook is not the same as omitting information from an article, so good taste should be exercised therein. There was no consensus in this RfC on that point. As closer, the argument itself strikes me as a valid one, if not one I myself necessarily agree with. However, the current reading of WP:NOTCENSORED does not lend itself to being limited in scope: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so" and "Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content" both read as applying universally, as "content" does not inherently limit itself to "article content." If supporters of the above argument wish to pursue it further, I would encourage them to start an RfC to amend the policy at the village pump.
  • There was no consensus that the original decision to pull the hook that started this discussion was erroneous. A relatively lightly discussed but generally sensible position that emerged from this RfC is that such pulls really should not happen, as general quality issues with hooks, including perceived poor taste, should be discussed when the hook is initially being considered. ERRORS is not a forum for last-minute objections.
  • The issue of whether hooks should cover suspects not presently convicted of the crimes they stand accused of was raised and latched on to by some editors. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the argument that WP:BLP and the existing rules regarding negative coverage of living people in hooks should adequately cover this, but it wasn't heavily discussed and may warrant further conservation.
Overall, aside from some early issues with bludgeoning, this RfC maintained a fairly high standard of decorum, which I find pleasantly surprising in light of the strong opinions it is obvious that many participants have about this issue. A thank you to all participants for not making this any more difficult than it needed to be, and I hope this closure sheds some light on the matters therein contained. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 06:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is going on was previously at ERRORS (permalink to final version) about whether hooks reporting murders, riots, etc., should be featured on the main page. The hook in question, which was pulled, was:

  • ... that a newlywed man was killed and his wife seriously injured in February after opening a parcel bomb that looked like a wedding gift?
  • We need to build consensus on this point, rather than have administrators feel free to pull hooks they don't like. Please add your comments here. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I proposed the hook in question, and I still stand by it. It is not "jokey" or "light", as another editor suggested. We have had plenty of hooks that reported murders, riots, etc., and we have printed even more grisly stuff that happened hundreds of years ago. We cannot make a blanket statement that we will never report murders and riots. Readers who are familiar with current events might even wonder why Wikipedia isn't featuring them on the main page. I feel that as long as we can write a non-sensational, straightforward hook, even about a gory subject, the hook should run. If we can't come up with something positive to say (which has happened in the past), the article shouldn't be featured. Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As I said at ERRORS, DYK is not a trivia section. If we can provide an interesting fact that is serious and educational, we should feature it. We've no reason to stay away from content that some readers might find upsetting just because this is DYK, when similar material is routinely featured elsewhere on the main page. That presupposes that DYK is for light-hearted material. I see no reason it should be that way, and no consensus for it either. We can extend basic courtesy to our readers in that we shouldn't use hooks for shock value (the N-word hooks from a while back come to mind) but this isn't one of those. Vanamonde (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
How is DYK not a trivia section? Some company building an organ in a random german town is not trivia? Or how is who performed the first heart transplant in a specific country not trivia either? To be honest, pretty much every hook on the main page right now is trivia. And going even further, isn't t he whole point of DYK being a trivia section by... pulling random trivia out of nominated articles? 91.96.210.216 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Simply because we have always featured hooks of serious/significant import, and see no reason to stop simply because many other hooks are about interesting but less significant details. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
So pulling random trivia out of articles does not make DYK a trivia section. Seems odd, but if you say so. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to ignore the serious material DYK has previously featured, that is entirely your problem, not mine. Vanamonde (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
What does serious or lighthearted material have to do with it being trivia? There certainly are serious topics, the heart transplant for example. But who had first performed such an operation in a specific country, india in this case, is pure trivia. It is not about the subject matter but the nature of DYK. Highlighting articles by using trvia found in the article. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
From our sister project: Trivia, noun. "insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information." As I have now said three times, we have frequently featured items of significance. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
trivia (ˈtrɪviə ; trivˈēə)2. little-known, insignificant facts Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition 91.96.210.216 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
So we have each been using a different definition of the term. No wonder this did not go well, haha 91.96.210.216 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. "our sister project" is not a reliable source, after all, I thought we all knew that. I would stick with the one which actual has some heritage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Here just for convenience. Also to find there is "Definition of trivia for English Language Learners(not that anyone here is an english learner of course, but to illustrate my previous point): unimportant facts or details: facts about people, events, etc., that are not well-known". That describes DYK pretty good. Mind, those unimportant facts and details can of course be quite interesting nontheless. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
To expand a tiny bit, in the same link there also is a definition of trivia for kids which states ": interesting facts that are not well-known " which to me reads like the basic principle of finding an interesting hook in any given acticle. The hook then contains 'unimportant facts or details' and/or 'facts about people, events, etc., that are not well-known' like a company fulfilling a contract in a random location, that remains of an extinct animal were only found in one location, a military man being present in battles(in other words doing his job) or being the first in ones field to have done something locally, just as random examples from today(but could be expanded to the vast majority of hooks). So, i really cannot see any other way of describing DYK than trivia. Do you? I am genuinely curious. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@91.96.210.216: you are taking this RfC in a totally different direction than the way it's intended. If you have something specific to say about banning hooks about murders, deaths, riots, etc., please do so. If you'd like to discuss why DYK should be viewed as trivia, please start a different thread. Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I was simply questioning a statement made by Vanamonde and pointing out, with a source, why believed that statement to not be true. But fair enough anyway, i will not take this any further. I would still be curious about an answer though, here or in another section.(by the way, pings do not work for IP's) 91.96.210.216 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's important to establish that DYK is viewed by our readers as a trivia section, and to that end we should not expect to see hooks (which, after all, are entirely chosen and verified by a couple of people) that deliberately upset. You can select any number of hooks from any given article, why deliberately select one which is upsetting to brothers/sisters/mothers/fathers/sons/daughters of the subject? Is it for the pageviews I wonder? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Vanamonde93. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, DYK should not reject hooks just because they may upset some readers, although we need to ensure that facts are presented in a straightforward, non-sensational manner. -Zanhe (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTCENSORED has to be king here. We cannot just pick and choose what we feature just because we may find the subject matter distasteful. IF it is making jokes about death, then possibly one could argue it may not be best to go but that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. But as long as the hook is factual and sourced inline in the article, we should not allow personal opinions to get in the way as I often find that controversial hooks always attract the extra-level of scrutiny that is never afforded to other hooks just because people don't like the subject matter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, arguing WP:NOTCENSORED is utter bollocks when it comes to dealing with sensitive issues that can be completely avoided. DYK is a trivia section. It is recognised universally as such (regardless of what the DYK regulars assert) and we should therefore strive to avoid unnecessarily upsetting individuals or relatives of individuals. You can pick any hook you like from any article you like, it doesn't have to be the one with the least sensitivity and which generates the most anguish, just a for a handful of page views. Sometimes I wonder if any of you realise that human beings read Wikipedia and are directly affected by this kind of clickbait garbage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm really unconvinced that we should be using any hook about a crime where the perpetrator hasn't been convicted yet, like this one. Ditto for the upcoming 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides one. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be concerned too if the hook mentioned the suspect(s), but this hook only mentions the victims, and the facts about their death/injury are incontrovertible. -Zanhe (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really the point. The articles do mention the suspects. I'd be a lot happier if articles like this were highlighted after the legal process. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: I can see the argument you're making, but I can't see why it's DYK-specific. If we're comfortable featuring unresolved crimes at ITN, why not here? Conversely, if they're a problem here, surely we should do something about ITN, which has wider exposure anyway thanks to mobile view? Much of the controversy over the Toronto van attack blurb was about fidelity to sources vs BLP for a crime without a conviction. Vanamonde (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I realize that, but obviously with ITN we are inevitably going to have to feature crimes that have just happened when they're world news. At DYK, we have the choice. I have absolutely no problem with DYK hooks about crimes, as long as they're not sensationalized or simply click-bait, but I'm uncomfortable with choosing to highlight ongoing cases. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I can respect that, even if I don't necessarily agree. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While Wikipedia may be uncensored, is it really worth it potentially offending real people that read Wikipedia just to highlight and get clicks on some article? For the hook in question, imagine the widow or other relatives of the man killed casually looking at Wikipedia and seeing their tragedy mentioned. Is showcasing any article really worth potentially causing real emotional pain to people involved or even victim of such situations? And before someone says that all of those things are also in the media, that is true(and they do make a right spectacle out of tragedy) that usually dies down very fast and in this case over i assume. For crimes in general it probably would be best until legal matters are resolved as Black Kite said. For riots... now that is hard to say in my opinion as severety, circumstance, damage etc. can wildly vary as well as there not being single criminal proceedings. This is not about censorship but common courtesy and common sense to a degree and simply being humane. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The article only sources facts from existing reports by respectable media outlets. The victims' relatives have surely already seen tons of coverage about their loss, and we all know how tabloids cover sensational crimes. As long as our article and DYK hook represent the known facts in a neutral, non-sensational manner, there's no reason to believe they would be offended. -Zanhe (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
As i said above, that media coverage is over and all this is is an uncomfortable reminder on their way back to every day life, as far as possible. And they perhaps would not be offended, but i am certain they would not be happy to see it either. A different example, living in Germany there currently is a murder of a young girl in the media. Do you think it would be ethical post that on the main page in six months? How do you think her relatives would react to seeing it here? And is anything that is achieved by posting it on the main page worth it? 91.96.210.216 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no compelling reason that DKY should be treated differently from any of the other 4 major sections of the Main Page, all of which have featured murders, deaths, and other "shocking" things any number of times. This feels like an attempt to castrate the project through a death of a thousand cuts.--Kevmin § 00:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Of course there is. Hooks can be selected about any aspect of an article, why focus on those which would be unnecessarily upsetting for friends and families? Please demonstrate where TFA and OTD have featured articles about people who have been killed within the past three months? ITN is a news report and tends to fixate on the numbers, rather than "the newlyweds", and by its nature will feature some reference to disasters, deaths etc, but in a clinical, non-hyped, non-pageview-grabbing fashion. DYK is doing it for the clicks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:ERRORS is for the reporting of errors; not a forum for censorship. It is especially unsuitable for discussions because it is so ephemeral. There is no general prohibition on having such items on the main page and ITN routinely lists deaths and disasters. DYK is a miscellany and we commonly expect there to be a mix of different types of item so as to provide variety. That item should not have been pulled. Andrew D. (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    No, it was a good pull, based on being sensitive those who would be close to those killed or injured. Sensationalising recent deaths is completely unnecessary at DYK. Just pick another hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What is actually being gained by posting these types of hooks? I see the argument of censorship by several DYK regulars above... but is not posting stories like this really censorship? You could, if you wanted to, drape the main page in swastikas and celebrate Hitlers birthday by making a theme day. Would anyone who is against that also be censoring DYK? Or would it just be upsetting to people and simply not a good idea? To me, most of this just reads like pride and not wanting outsiders to interfere. By the way, as this RFC relates to the main page, was there any effort made to advertise this discussion anywhere as to get some 'neutral' input? 37.138.76.71 (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC) By the way, i am the same person as the IP above, just as an FYI 37.138.76.71 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and in answer to your question "what is actually being gained by posting these types of hooks?", well it's that lurid quest for pageviews isn't it? It's an unashamed quest to provide clickbait. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • TRM stop with the disparaging and belittling broadbrush comments, eg "clickbait garbage peddler". YOUR personal venom against this project is not acceptable behavior.--Kevmin § 11:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Then please tell me Kevmin, what is being gained by posting these types of hooks? Or what would be lost by not doing so? Why is it so important to you that we post, as a potential example, the murder of a child a couple months after it happened? 37.138.76.71 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll tell you what "unacceptable behaviour" is Kevmin, it's making light of the recent deaths of two specific individuals just for pageviews. It is, in fact, disgusting and despicable and completely avoidable. I'm struggling to see why so many people find these recent deaths so appealing that they want them featured on the main page of an encyclopedia. Sickening. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • NOTCENSORED is not king here. NOTCENSORED is never king, because NOTCENSORED is always contextual. What might be king, regarding this particular hook but also a more general guiding light, is WP:BLP. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC) {originally signed at 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC) with a dodgy number of tildes)
@User:The C of E, re ^^^ —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Last time I checked, NOTCENSORED was a Wikipedia policy which governs the rules under which we operate which is something we ought to be standing by, particuarly here where often the controversial hooks do get tampered with solely based on the whim of someone who disliked the subject matter despite the fact in accordance with DYK rules, the hook may be fully compliant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, your persistent mention of NOTCENSORED with the relatively misguided interpretation needs to stop, especially when the second sentence of that very section explicitly mentions "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view)". "Compliance with DYK rules" has no bearings here; the argument here is about where do we draw the line on what should we feature at DYK that is consistent with the expectations of our readers. If you would like to argue that our readers should be interested to read about what could be potentially sensationalist hooks at DYK, then please make an argument about that. Like Black Kite said, it's getting tiresome to hear the non-argument of NOTCENSORED when the discussion has nothing to do with censorship. Alex Shih (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have asked on the talk page of Alex Shih if this could be added to 'centralized discussions' to perhaps get a broader perspective. Having dreadful hooks that may hurt real, living people in Wikipedias name should at least gain consensus by as broad a base as possible and not just by one single project. Just mentioning it for the sake of openness. 37.138.76.71 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I am of the opinion that DYK needs to differentiate itself from ITN; Personally I think DYK should only feature murder, riots etc. hooks only when the subject has wider social impact/historical significance, but I would not support a blanket ban of all murder hooks outright. In any case though, can we start an actual RfC on this to garner wider community attention? Alex Shih (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Good pull, but I would not overall ban recent murders/riots etc from DYK. Had the hook had some distinguishable fact, perhaps involving the investigative work or the case's social significance, I would be more eager to include. But this version does not present any of that. It pointlessly highlights the deaths of two people. And for what? Pageviews? Aren't we a little better than that and can't we find another topic from the millions out there?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Just to note, banning all murders makes no sense either. If a murder or other crime happened a long time ago and no one directly affected is still alive, there is no issue. In my opinion, there just is an issue when mother/father/daughter/son etc. can see their tragedy casually mentioned on Wikipedias main page while browsing the web. 37.138.76.71 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, and that's really the whole point. It has literally nothing to do with "NOTCENSORED", it has to do with sensitivity and encyclopedic values. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And while were at it, those people who routinely trot out NOTCENSORED when at any time someone suggests that something might not be suitable for Wikipedia - it's really bloody tiresome. It's like watching Twitter, where the left are yelling "fascist" at anyone they disagree with, whilst the right are flinging back "libtard" and "SJW". It's completely pointless and it doesn't help your argument. Wikipedia is not a rulesocracy and sometimes there is a genuine reason why we don't look good if we're showing certain things, especially on the Main Page; indeed, there are probably occasional exceptions to nearly everything in WP:NOT. Give it a rest and use an actual argument, please. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While there is absolutely nothing wrong with hooks about murder and other iniquities in my view, I am not at all keen on featuring hooks or articles about unsolved crimes that include information about suspects or people not yet convicted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    "While there is absolutely nothing wrong with hooks about murder and other iniquities" you condone featuring hooks about very recently murdered individuals in the pursuit of pageviews? Because I'm struggling to see any encyclopedic value in such hooks at all. As to your latter point, of course we don't feature hooks relating to individuals not convicted of crimes. That's already a principle encompassed by BLP and DYK's own rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I "condone" such hooks, but I think they are acceptable providing they don't, for example, include gratuitously grisly or sensational details. I haven't seen anything in BLP or the DYK ruleset that prohibits such hooks, perhaps you could quote the passage or passages you see as relevant? Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
What a strange thing to say. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was already in there, would we? But your position is clear enough. The hook pulled was far too gratuitous and completely unnecessarily insensitive. I'm really saddened to see so many people who are completely missing the point. And all just for pageviews. Truly sickening. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not responsible for what people choose to write about or nominate. We have a set of rules, and if a nomination conforms, it is eligible. I can't disqualify articles based on my own personal preferences. Gatoclass (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well thankfully we have admins who have common sense and who can see past your approach to help reduce the truly negative impact these kind of lurid clickbait hooks have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
"Anyone who defends their edits by citing WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't have the first clue." While that is somewhat exaggerated, I really don't see how NOTCENSORED is relevant here. DYK doesn't (or at least shouldn't) just reprint random facts from new articles. They should be carefully selected. At least that's how DYK used to work. Gatoclass is more involved with the project than I, so I'll have to defer to his judgement as to how it works now. But if DYK has devolved to the point that there is no editorial oversight and hooks are just added according to rules and process, it might be time to either make some changes or shut this thing down.
All of that isn't to say that I think it's simple. Recent murders are one thing, but what about wars and genocide? There have always been plenty of hooks about those. Recent wars (say, last 100 years) are just as likely to elicit heavy emotional responses as recent murders. I don't know where one would draw the line, but to say there is no line seems tantamount to abdicating any kind of responsibility for what is put on the main page.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say there shouldn't be editorial oversight. I already said we shouldn't feature hooks which highlight grisly or sensational details, and also said that I personally am uncomfortable with articles which touch upon ongoing criminal legal matters. I personally have vetoed substantial numbers of the former, and at least objected to some of the latter. My point was simply that one cannot arbitrarily impose one's personal preferences on the process, there has to be a consistent approach so that nominators understand in advance what is and is not acceptable. But at this point it seems in relation to this particular issue that there is no clear consensus on what that approach should be. Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Not yet convicted" is a nonissue, so long as the article is BLP compliant by making clear that any suspects are only suspects alleged to have committed the crime. Obviously if the article contains BLP violations we should never put it on the main page (and should for that matter fix it right away), but criminal suspects absolutely can be written about in a BLP-compliant way. As far as the rest, Wikipedia is not censored, even when people may dislike some of the content they see here. We should absolutely never keep something off the main page (or anything else) because we dislike the article content or some people might find it upsetting. I do agree that we should stay within reasonable bounds of good taste, however, and not use "jokey" hooks about recent serious crimes. (Ancient ones are different; we can use humorous hooks about those if we want.) But we should provide information about them to our readers. That's the entire point of writing this project. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    I agree with you in general, although NOTCENSORED does not apply to DYK where hooks can be chosen at will from the article. NOTCENSORED applies in general to articles, and no-one is suggesting that articles linked from DYK should be censored, simply that hooks on the main page in the jokey section shouldn't be lurid and clickbaity to the point where it may cause offence to people actually involved. It's pretty straightforward, just apply some common sense and sensitivity, but from the looks of this discussion, those of us who wish to apply that approach are in the minority. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a thing where people have different views of the mission of WP, and so have different views on hooks like this. I view WP as an educational resource - a place where people come, in order to learn. The goal is to provide them with "accepted knowledge", working in a community of pseudonymous people. I also hold very strongly to WP:NOTNEWS; i very much dislike the parts of WP that get turned into "breaking news" where people are here trying to record the events and to shape the meaning of those events... when the meaning is very, very very far from "accepted knowledge". Anyway. That's how I view WP.
In that view, DYK's should be "come hither" hooks beckoning people to go read the article and learn something. The goal is to spur learning. (If anything gets pulled out of this RfC, I hope it is clarification on what DYK is for - why the community has this section on the front page. Something clearly related to the mission of WP; hooks should be judged based on how well they accord with that.)
From my particular perspective this hook is basically trashy tabloid gossip. I do completely understand that for people who view WP as a newspaper, this is just one more grisly fact like many others shown on the TV news every night, and has every "right" to be featured on the front page. Unsurprisingly, I also don't think the article that is being "hooked" should be in WP; there is nothing there of enduring encyclopedic interest. It is a terrible story for sure. But the page seems to exist because the story "rivited" India for a while. So yeah, tabloid stuff. Not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer editors are following the NOTNEWS principle. That brief "riveting" in India, to enough editors, is all that is needed to keep such articles despite whatever policy or guideline is against it. And with plenty online news sources repeating the exact same story, the "easily passes GNG" excuse can be gotten away with at AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes I know. The more important thing (to me) is that the hook should further WP's mission; DYK should not get tunnel vision and just be hook-y for the sake of being hooky. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly right. This kind of hook is of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Those in the DYK project who deem this kind of hook acceptable need realise that they've diverged too far from the main principles of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the uncensored inclusion of murder and other serious topics at DYK. The purpose of DYK is not to provide innocuous entertainment, jokes, humor, or fun, it is to showcase good articles and to spur learning. DYK hooks are often lighthearted or humorous because they're hooks. They're meant to pique the reader's interest in the articles themselves. It is not because DYK is meant to be a joke. NOTCENSORED applies everywhere, and the point is literally that we don't care about being sensitive, or offending reader's sensibilities, we just care about whether the content policies are met. The fact that an admin, one I normally respect, has imposed their own morality/sensitivity to censor the main page of Wikipedia is nothing short of shocking and appalling. For shame. Swarm ♠ 03:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. NOTCENSORED means we don't censor our articles. NOTCENSORED does not mean we deliberately cherry-pick insensitive and upsetting material for the quirky part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    I understand the point you are making, I'm just not sure what exactly you're basing it on. Is there some sort of precedent somewhere that DYK is to be treated differently than the rest of the project and that policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SHIT don't apply there? Is there anything that mandates that DYK must maintain an air of purity and innocence? The most specific policy guidance I'm aware of on this issue is WP:GRATUITOUS, which essentially boils down to "offensive content shouldn't be included or excluded simply on the basis of it being offensive". So, I get it, it's offensive, but it's inclusion was based on its corresponding encyclopedic and educational value. It was not "deliberately cherry-picked" simply to offend readers. Its removal, on the other hand, was based solely on the fact that someone found it offensive, which, in my view, is a straightforward breach of policy guidance in order to censor a part of a project that is not censored as a matter of policy. Swarm ♠ 20:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • NOTCENSORED allows us to include material that some people may find offensive, but it does not require us to do, and it is obviously not incompatible with DYK's prohibition on items that are negative towards living people that goes beyond BLP. It is therefore not particularly useful to this discussion. The key point for me is that WP:ERRORS is for the reporting of errors, not for the post-hoc imposition of standards (however widely held those standards may be within the community) so my view is that once a hook has been approved for the main page it should not be pulled for any reason other than being incorrect or on actual (not theoretically potential) BLP or copyright grounds. This leads though to the question about what should be approved, and I see absolutely no benefit to the project in restricting the topic of DYKs beyond what they currently are so the hook should have been pulled. If you think a hook trivialises a crime or the suffering of victims of serious crime, then you should discus this with other editors when it is being proposed. If consensus agrees with you then it wont be used unless it can be rephrased, if consensus is not with you then you just have to accept that in the same way you do everywhere else on Wikipedia. So, to sum up, I Oppose restricting DKY hooks, oppose pulling hooks for anything that is not an error and Some people not liking a hook is not an error. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of sense in what Thryduulf says and I am in wholehearted agreement with him, especially in his bolded conclusions: "Oppose restricting DKY hooks, oppose pulling hooks for anything that is not an error and Some people not liking a hook is not an error." When a hook is on the main page, it is too late to start discussing whether it is an uninteresting hook and something better could be found. These things are not ERRORS. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    Being allowed and able to do something still does not always make it a good idea though. You could, if you wanted to, make a theme day for Hitlers birthday for example, but is that a good idea? You could post the article of a child murdered six months ago, but is it a good idea? Should people keep an eye on all nominations to be allowed to give input? When it hits the main page is just the moment the vast majority of people see it and will voice their disapproval. It just enforces the notion of a walled garden that does not value the input of anyone not involved in the process and completely dismisses anything they would have to say about a topic just because they had no idea there even was such a nomination/discussion. 85.16.160.94 (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It should be allowed, but it's a bad idea which should be avoided. The RFC implied that someone used admin tool belt as an imprimatur / authority to make a content decision. If so, that was not right. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The recent serial killer hook mentioned above was my nom, and as someone on the receiving end of such so-called censorship I'm very glad that a reviewer discouraged my original hook about dismembered bodies in garden planter boxes. It may have gotten more clicks but it wouldn't have been worth it. I feel it's more about sensitivity than censorship. I'm not saying there should be a ban on crimes, but that they should be considered on a case-by-case basis and that the admins should be free to send back any that are felt to be gruesome or offensive – and that reviewers should try to encourage alternative hooks. Sometimes you just have to Ignore All Rules and do what's decent. I Support editorial choice and support being decent human beings. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And I'm the idiot that reviewed the recent serial killer hook and approved "... killed several men and hidden their dismembered bodies in garden planter boxes". Thankfully there was an admin with both some common sense and some common decency to block it. (They also stayed with the nom to come up with a good alternative hook.) It seems obvious to me - now - that sensationalist hooks should not be published which are clearly likely to distress people closely related to or involved in recent events.
    That said, I recently nominated a hook from an article which referred to incidents of mass rapes 100 years ago. This caused some discussion further down this page, on the grounds of being "too graphic". I am not insisting that DYK accept the "sensationalist" version which came out of the review. (I suggested an alternative which did not mention the rapes.) If there is a policy which avoids overt sensationalism or material which may offend then fair enough. (Which is not necessarily to say that I would agree with it, but that is another issue.) I was distressed at some of the bowlderised alternatives suggested: "sexually violated"; "forced to provide sexual favors"; "Can we substitute "violated" or "abused" for "raped"?". Really? A rose by any other name... It seems to me that we either avoid some distressing areas of real life or we don't. This may involve simply not featuring some articles - pick your own shudderingly gory historical event. But attempting to pretty up hooks which do not meet policy is probably not a useful way to go. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Non-science

Hello, this nomination has been ongoing since April, and despite me requesting for a second review a month ago, there has been no new review and the nomination has reached a stalemate. A prompt review here, preferably from an editor who has not previously been involved in the discussion, is very much appreciated. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Lonsdale Belt nomination

Good afternoon, i nominated the Lonsdale Belt Article for DYK a few months back, but it wasn't expanded enough. Today it was promoted to GA status, so can it now be reconsidered for DYK please? Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Okeeffemarc As long as it's nominated within 7 days of becoming a GA, then yes it's eligible. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Joseph2302 It was promoted today. Do you know how to re-activate the template? It just says to get consensus on this page in the instructions. Regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Okeeffemarc Just start a new discussion, for example at "Lonsdale Belt 2". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 got you! cheers Okeeffemarc (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Jahrhundertring

We have one word for a unique event, Jahrhundertring. A hook (Prep 1) pipes it to "centenary production of Wagner's Ring Cycle". If we have to do that - which I doubt - please add "at the Bayreuth Festival", because it could be a centenary production anywhere, not The centenary production. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. I piped the link because, as on a previous hook, an editor expressed unfamiliarity with the German tearm. Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I wonder what we have links for. It was pictured DYK, and mentioned several other times. - However, I should probably enjoy the clumsiness because the long blue link seems to attract readers, see Pierre Boulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

About Tammie Jo Shults DYK credit

I just noticed Tammie Jo Shults is on the front page. I contributed some of the initial text in a parallel draft combined in this merge. Should I go somewhere to ask for DYK credit on this one for myself and other creators of Draft:Tammie Jo Shults: Pmaccabe, Deansfa, Bohbye? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also if anybody cares, "tactical fighter pilot" would make a Naval Aviator cringe. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Bri I just placed a DYK credit on your talk page, as well as the other three editors you mentioned above. Those credits are posted by a bot, which takes its information off the DYK nomination page. So, it all depends on how the nominator fills out the form when they make the nomination. I am so proud of Tammie Jo Shults on the main page, considering it was one of those articles that got slapped for AFD as "non notable" as soon as it was created, and ultimately saved by a team effort from WP:WIR. Great job by all concerned! — Maile (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Chequers Ring

@Yoninah: are you around? Queue 3 is the next queue for the main page. Template:Did you know nominations/Chequers Ring is the lead hook in Prep 3 to be promoted to Queue 3. Checking the image, it's not on Commons but only on Wikipedia. The review template says, "the image seems suitably licensed". But when I looked at it with intent of copying it to Commons, all it says is that it's an original image by an editor who hasn't been around since 2011. Shouldn't there be information other than the uploader's statement? I don't know what to do with this one, so any other admin can feel free to promote Prep 3 to Queue 3. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that a higher-resolution copy of the same image, dated one year earlier in 2008, is available on [2] (and that access to the object to take such a high-quality image is likely to be highly controlled) I find the submitter's 2009 claim that it is his own image to be highly dubious. Please do not allow this onto the main page. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: I moved Chequers Ring down to Prep 1 where we can deal with it later. I moved a different hook up into Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: everything should be fine on the newer hook. I see the current image is protected on Commons. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, such a shame. The image was indeed of a high quality and essential for both the hook and the article. I suppose the miniature portraits at least should be fine (as a photographic reproduction of an old painting). Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: could you please take care of the licensing before this goes on the main page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I do not know what to do about it. I cannot determine if the photo is a copyvio or not. I found it at Talk:Portraiture of Elizabeth I of England and did not doubt the licensing. I do not see this photo at the link mentioned above. What do you suggest? Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
When I visit that link it's the huge banner image across the top of the page. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I also see that banner image. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, embarrassing. I see it now. If we are sure it's the same picture, the only solution I can think of is replacing the photograph of the ring itself with photographs of the miniature portraits. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
If it was taken by the same uploader, it's probably not freely licensed. I think you should delete both images at Commons. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I mean, photographs of the portraits only, without the ring. That should be okay, right? "Photographic reproduction of an old painting." Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: can you advise us here? Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Surtsicna, some days, it seems like, "Hello? Anybody here? Hello?" Nobody seems to be answering you here. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting cropping the existing images to just show the portraits? I'm not sure that would work, because it would still need a licensing statement, which you couldn't provide from that source. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Under US law, reproductions of 2D works (such as the portraits only) don't result in a copyright for the reproduction. That means the only copyright tag needed would be for the portraits themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The portraits on the ring do not appear to be 2d works. (Also, we should probably abide by British law for photos taken in Britain.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
If we host an image locally US status is all we care about, but you may be right about the 2D/3D aspect - hard for me to assess at that size. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Re what to do with the image files: Yoninah wrote "I think you should delete both images at Commons", but they're not on commons, they're here, so we can deal with them ourselves. Any opinions whether we should handle them as a copyvio speedy or something slower? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
If y'all aren't aware of this, Nikkimaria has a user page written with FA image reviews in mind. However, some of what's there is useful for DYK also. Please see Nikkimaria/Passing an image review - Non-free. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect both images are © Chequers Estate. See this. The ring has been exhibited several times in recent years, so perhaps a free image is available? 213.205.198.220 (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  • When Prep 6 was moved into the queue in the nick of time to fulfil this polite bot request, the prep set was not cleared appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies, that was my fault. I noticed that when the main page ticked over at midnight UTC, there was no DYK loaded in queue 6. I moved it over and must of forgot to clear the prep. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Well, I could have fixed the prep set I suppose, but I didn't know how to move it to the bottom of the page and update which prepset was to be used next. We aren't all as knowledgeable as you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Wally Schirra

Hello, this nomination has been ongoing for more than a month now. The nominator has not responded to various pings and comments and has been mostly inactive since late May, only making two edits this month. However, given the subject matter and the fact that the issues are relatively easy to address, it would be a shame to reject the nomination. As such, I'm requesting another editor, preferably one with an interest in astronomy, to adopt the nomination. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

A comment was made on the nomination for the lead hook about the image needing to be lightened. Could someone take care of that? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Masayoshi Ōishi

Thanks for promoting the article. However, the hook that was promoted was inaccurate: He didn't sing "Yōkoso Japari Park e", he wrote it. I could correct it myself, but I'm hesitant since it's my own hook, so could the hook please be fixed? Thanks. Pinging Yoninah who promoted the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerda hooks

Right now the current DYK set on the main page, as well as Preps 6, 1, and 2 have hooks by @Gerda Arendt:. She also has a hook up for Prep 4 (though since it's been space out from the rest, this is not really an issue). Perhaps we can space out the Prep 1 and Prep 2 hooks? It seems weird to have multiple hooks back-to-back. Nothing against Gerda as she's done a great job in DYK, but perhaps it might be better to spread out her hooks? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If Gerda nominated one article each day, it would be logical to run them at the rate of one article per set. One of the articles you mention is a church and the other two opera singers. It would certainly be better to spread out the opera singers a bit more, and I will move one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry to be a problem. I write an article per day, and go for DYK, and when there's a singers' drive, it may a few singers in a row. Please spread similar topics out! Perhaps run one of "my" hooks each day, - we have a backlog ;) - Thank goodness the opera singer from February is now in prep ;) - Today, we have a singer whom I heard, at the strange place. Nice video of reheasal, if you have the time. Her name translates to master of the stable, the place to slaughterhouse, if you need something quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to penalize an editor for participating in an editathon. WP:Women in Red ran a Singers and Songwriters editathon in June, which was right up Gerda's alley, so it's natural that we have an abundance of singing hooks right now. It's better to say that we'll spread out the singing hooks, not the nominator credits. However, that will be a little difficult this month, since we do have so many singing hooks. I suggest running two singing hooks a set until we clear the backlog. As always, each nominator can appear in only one set. Yoninah (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Not an issue for me. DYK is about the hooks not the user. Even if they're all hooks about women, what's the issue? Up to half the hooks can be BLPs anyway, and so it's not like we're unbalancing DYK. Considering we ran 10 coffee hooks in about 15 days, and a wrestling hook almost every day for a month before, there's no issue with running similar articles on different days. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Like Yoninah implied, as long as each nominator appear only once per set, I don't see much issues. Alex Shih (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Why can't the same nominator have more than one hook in the same set? I've had two in the same set before (twice, I think). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Joseph2302 I must not have been checking those sets ;) Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe there is any rule about not having more than one hook per set crediting the same editor. It is the variety of hooks that matters not the variety of creators, and as Joseph2302 says, it happens occasionally and no harm is done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If there's not an actual rule against it, then why make up that rule? As long as the hooks are sufficiently different, should be fine. In my case, one was about a British building and the other about a Spanish Football administrator, so no reason why these two hooks shouldn't run at the same time. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's be quite clear. Yoninah wrote "As always, each nominator can appear in only one set." I think she meant creator, however there is NO rule that limits the number of times an article nominator or creator can appear in any one set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Piposh

I can't find anything about the Piposh or its nomination on this page, but the nomination was removed from Prep 5 in this edit by EEng early yesterday. I can't see any evidence that it was moved to another prep, and the nomination page remains closed as approved by Yoninah and there isn't anything here on the DYK talk page indicating that it was removed because it had problems.

I've just restored it to another prep set (Prep 3); if it should be removed and the nomination reopened, someone who knows why should do that instead and remove it from Prep 3. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • What I was trying to do was followup this [3] with this [4], but somehow I must have grabbed the wrong version so that it came out this [5]. Sorry! I've fixed it now, I think. That makes its presence in Prep 3 a duplicate, so I've removed it from there. Someone better double check me though. EEng 06:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That part looks okay, but the Michael IV the Paphlagonian nomination that had ended up back in Prep 5 (it had been moved to Prep 1, and then deleted as a duplicate when it showed up again in Prep 5) got orphaned; I've just put it in Prep 4. I think we're all set now, with Piposh and Michael each appearing exactly once in the prep sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry again for any confusion. EEng 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 Telfair Hodgson - less than 6 hours to main page

@Zigzig20s:, @Narutolovehinata5: @Yoninah: This is due for the Main page in less than 6 hours. Lead hook DYK Telfair Hodgson.

The term confederate is a general term that means many things to many people. As worded, it begs the question, "a confederate veteran of what?" It is misused here. If he was a veteran of the Confederate States of America, it does not necessarily mean the military - anybody who lived there was a veteran of the Confederacy - and the CSA had more than one branch of its military. Might I suggest a slight re-wording of the article, in accordance with the source. This man was not only a veteran of the Confederate States Army, but he was also a chaplain in service to the troops. The article makes it look like his religious studies came at a different time. So, perhaps a rewording to:

If you use it, you need to reword the article to make that clear. And because I will have had an involvement in that hook, somebody else needs to promote the set to Queue. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

He served both as a soldier and a chaplain. He served in the CSA, yes. How about:
The phrase "Confederate veteran" means a veteran of the CSA during the American Civil War, but our readers (who may be based in Africa or Asia) may not know this. Thank you for pointing that out.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but weren't there thousands of Confederate veterans? What is so remarkable about this one to make it a hook? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Because there's literally nothing interesting about him, I'd guess. With suitable apologies, I'll go a little bit further - is he even notable at all? The only three sources that are actually about him are obituaries in local newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Notch it up as another DYK which should simply be failed on the basic principle that is summarily ignored (i.e. "interesting to a broad audience"). As both editors and admins completely ignore this, indeed actively edit against it, it's time to call the spade a spade here and remove the criterion altogether. DYK passes hooks which are erroneous, banal, commonplace and of little interest to a wide audience. Honesty needs to be indoctrinated now, DYK is not about interesting our general audience, it's about a factory line of hooks from regulars who aren't bothered about interest. That's actually true. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't being a vice chancellor be a claim to notability though, according to WP:NPROF? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It's hooky because it is still considered controversial for universities to have ties to the Confederacy.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it? How does our general audience know that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Look at the controversy over campus buildings for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I asked about our "general audience", not a US-centric audience. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no explanation as to why this would be "interesting" anywhere in the hook. If one would have to be involved in the american culture war to understand the hook, it is not good enough for an international audience. This is about as 'bad' as the hook about the first opening of a church(of a particular denomination) in a borough of a city. How many tens of thousands of confederate veterans were there? This exact hook could be used for thousands of people and is incredibly generic. This should never have made it this far as it clearly is not in line with DYK's own rules, not that anyone cares about that. Need the qpq after all... Just scrap the rule if you don't care about following it. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Conflict edit] Yes of course!!!!!!! But it is highly subjective. For example today, I couldn't care less about Charles Bassey but I'm sure some people might.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
IP address: You only have one edit (this one). That is weird.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] To your point though, tens of thousands of Confederate veterans were not the vice chancellors of the University of the South. I suspect many people will care--we will see what the viewing statistics are.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, your noting that is a red herring. What the IP has said is perfectly valid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
So once again we're ignoring the basic principle of DYK to be interesting to a broad audience. This should be a FAIL. Pull it per the basic rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
TRM: You may not think it is interesting, but many people might. We will see if that's the case with the viewing statistics. I obviously find it fascinating.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it needs explaining here means that it fails the basic rules of DYK. Sure, you might get a bunch of hits from the yanks but that's hardly a "broad audience" per the requirements. Standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: That IP is part of a range that posts at Main Page/Errors adding their voice about one thing or another. See Here. Been going on for a while. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
May i ask what difference that makes? Yes i have commented on errors, yes i have commented in the "rfc" about the murder/crime etc thing above. But... what does it matter? Just curious really. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind. I see why you mentioned it. Not the first time i get called an SPA, won't be the last time either. Just happens when your IP changes every day and you live in Germany. Every day is a day without prior edits. You learn to live with being called a single purpose account lol. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In other words, an IP who is concerned with the general level of detritus offered by this project. Couldn't agree more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
TRM: That is highly subjective. I, too, could've made a fuss about Charles Bassey on this talkpage, as I find him absolutely boring. (The only sport I care about is polo.) The bottom line is that only viewing statistics can really tell us if the topic is interesting to a wide audience or not. I think Hodgson is. We will see if I'm correct.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
So you think a hook that says nothing more than that Telfair Hodgeson being a Confederate veteran is fascinating? This is not about the suject matter after all, but ONLY about the hook as written. The one with no explanation that could be used exactly like that for thousands of other confederate veterans. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Conflict edit] Yes, the historical ties of the University of the South to the Confederacy are fascinating. Hodgson is part of that history.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
To "not" a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That is not what i asked and what we are talking about. We are talking about a single person in isolation and a broadl interesting hook. The hook says nothing about the history of southern universities, bar of course him having been the vice chancellor of one of them. It does not talk at all about the ties either, unless of course you say being a veteran means "ties" by default. If so the entire country has military ties after wold war 2. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) It's not about your personal opinion. We already acknowledge that US-centric hooks will get hits. That's not a metric for DYK. We are talking about a "broad audience" (per the rules) and the US is not a "broad audience". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

So in conclusion, pull this back to nominations to find a hook that's interesting to a "broad audience" and if necessary, fail it as having nothing of interest to a broad audience. Time to start making that rule work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

We are not an anti-American website. Of course our American readers are part of the broad audience. We can and do post non-US-related DYKs too.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You keep missing the point. The hook is not interesting to a broad audience. To the US fine. But that's not a broad audience. Make it more "accessible" and you have a point. Right now, you don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You are not listening either. How do you know that a reader from Singapore or Lima won't be interested? You don't know. There is no way for you to know. Maybe you are not interested in the topic, but I suspect they will be interested.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me add that as an American and as an editor interested in academic biography I find both the article and the hook quite boring. I think he is (borderline) notable, but that's not enough for DYK. There should be something interesting and attention-catching to say about the subject, and I don't see it here. In particular it is utterly unsurprising that a man of his time from Virginia should serve in the Confederate army. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
As I explained before, many people are interested in the historical ties of universities to the Confederacy. He is part of that history. That is very interesting to many people. We wouldn't care about him if he had just served in the CSA and done nothing else with his life. As vice chancellor (and philosophy/theology professor), he taught and shaped the minds of many young adults.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
But you do not make that connection in the hook. And for anyone not familiar with the topic, it just does not mean anything. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I'm sorry, that is self-evident. University administrators shape their institutions and thus the students who attend those institutions. If some readers don't know what the CSA is, they will be able to click on the Wikilink. But most people do know what it is, especially with the renewal of interest in recent years.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
And it is also self evident that that is seen as negative today? This is not about the broader topic, the deeper meaning and all that good stuff. It is only about the words in the hook itself. There were tens of thousands of veterans, some of which worked at universities after. What makes that combination notable is not in the hook. That he shaped the minds of young people, i guess sort of in the hook even very indirectly but then again, it says nothing about why that could be considered problematic. Going even further, it does not even say that it COULD be problematic. You need so much information not in the hook to understand what the 'interesting' part about this is supposed to be. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Every old-enough university in the south had administrators who served the Confederacy. It does nothing to set him or his institution apart from the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That history has been largely sanitized. But feel free suggest more DYKs about other Confederate veterans at Ole Miss, Bama, etc... That does not negate this DYK though.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The article does not make the case that his Confederate service in any way shaped his educational work, and your stubborn repetition of this point makes me think that this hook (besides being too boring for DYK) is also intended to violate WP:SYNTH. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • PULLLLLLLL before it's too late. This is becoming a nightmarish recurring joke now. The utter ignorance of "interesting to a broad audience" combined with actual article issues means we need to do far better here. I'll happily take this to errors if necessary but it'd be better for the project if I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, he was also the managing director of The Sewanee Review. Would this be an ALTBLURB that you'd prefer?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting we "fix" this issue here. Pull the nom back so we have more than a couple of hours to fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to fix? The article is referenced and looks good. Maybe you think The Sewanee Review is not interesting to a wider audience?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Returned to noms page for further work. I agree with David Eppstein that we could say this hook fact about most people from Virginia in that era. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Jerry's final thought: don't be afraid to fail a nomination because it's boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Very hurtful.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
No, very pragmatic. The continual "no-fail" approach of DYK reviews means we end up with a conveyer belt of hooks that are not interesting to a broad audience. It has been said many times before that if no genuine hooky hooks can be derived from an article then it should not be featured on the main page. I am not the originator of this thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

How about saying that he enlisted as a private, got promoted to the staff of general Wheeler(surely due to his brother, but still) and ended the war as an ordained priest? That seems rather diverse. Just an idea anyway. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggested an ALTBLURB, but I am still very hurt to have been told that my articles are "boring" apparently. That is so subjective. For example today I am bored by Oscar Parkes, List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers, Lion's Choice and Constantine Dalassenos. Shall we pull them all? And four out of seven are US-centric and thus apparently not interesting to a "broad audience" (which excludes our American readers for reasons unknown). Shall we pull them too?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Zigzig20s contacted me for a second opinion, and I feel Telfair Hodgson is a well-written bio. Zigzig20s certainly could have made the article less "boring" by peppering it with "legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading..." and so forth, but then it wouldn't be nearly as encyclopedic. The hook is interesting too, and will get readers thinking. "Confederate" has become a dirty word of late; interesting that Hodgson reached such a distinguished position, and remained there so long. (Czesław Miłosz worked for a while as a janitor). Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: no one is talking about a boring article, just a "boring" hook. If a consensus of editors believes that a hook is not "hooky", let's drop the stick already and come up with a hook that is. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. After talking with TRM and Yoninah, I see this as an opportunity to clarify and improve the DYK requirements. The "wide audience" is really confusing.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived nearly two hours ago; here is an updated list with 35 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 28. Right now we have a total of 165 nominations, of which 56 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the seven remaining from March and April.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about hook interest

I could help, but apparently I create "boring" articles for DYK, so I am not feeling too hot about DYKs now...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think its the hook rather than the article that may be lacking in interest. I shouldn't take too much notice if I were you, just try to find the most interesting fact that you can for the hook and nominate your article anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's also the responsibility of reviewers to uphold the rules of DYK, including the "interesting to a broad audience" caveat which appears to be summarily ignored by many here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Why aren't we pulling the four DYKs (see above) that I find boring today (not interesting to a "wide audience" as you would put it)? Why was I victimized two days ago?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. If you find DYKs boring you should mention it somewhere so something can be done about it. I don't know who's "victimizing" you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have an issue with an altblurb if it makes for a better main page. I thought you said the article was boring but apparently it was just the hook. That's fine. But I think we need clarity on the "wide audience", if it is supposed to exclude our US readers as you appeared to be suggesting two days ago, and if so why. I am not asking just for myself, but I think everyone at DYK should be clear on this. How do we define "wide audience" if not by expectations of viewing statistics? Or shall we drop this requirement as you seemed to be suggesting?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Amongst the many problems with QPQ is the fact that one guy nominates something he finds interesting, and these days someone else who is keen on getting their own hook reviewed and passed to the main page does the perfunctory check of the objective criteria and passes the nomination. I.e. the "interest" is checked literally by one person and one person only before it then makes it as far as the main page. This is hardly a barometer of a "broad audience", so sometimes when a hook gets close or onto the main page, it's got more eyes on it and a consensus can form to suggest the hook is actually not interesting to a "broad audience" (of the readers of English language Wikipedia). That's what happens. If, as has been suggested in the past, we actually voted for the best hooks each set then this particular byproduct of the wonky QPQ process would be less likely to result in poor hooks getting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Heads up: July 15 special date request

It has been discussed here at WT:DYK that having missed out on posting a significant number of hooks for the first day of the FIFA World Cup, a special effort has been made by SounderBruce and Kosack to mark July 15, the date of the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final, with a whole set of association football hooks. Right now we have 6 special occasion hooks for that date. If anyone would like to prepare additional hooks to fill out the set, it would be appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think it undesirable to have a full set of soccer hooks on that day. When we concentrate on one group of readers, we exclude the rest of the population. Not everyone is interested in football and the hooks concerned would get more individual attention if they were spread out over several days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how this is different from a regular holiday hook set. Given that one-seventh of the world watched the last World Cup final alone (and 3.2 billion for the tournament overall), I think it's safe to say that there will be substantial interest. SounderBruce 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
We can also add Template:Did you know nominations/Go England to that list assuming England get there, (which they should do!). It would be great if we could have an all-football related hook set for the day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: forgive my ignorance, but when are we going to know if England is in? The July 14 prep set is full, but things could be moved... Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Around 9pm BST tomorrow hopefully. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just nominated Adrian Alston for a DYK with a hook that has a World Cup connection. If it gets reviewed in time, could be another one for inclusion. Kosack (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have just approved Adrian Alston. It would make a good hook for 15 July. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Kosack (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Special occasion hook approved for Prep 2

Template:Did you know nominations/Trent Alexander-Arnold has been approved for Prep 2 (July 15) and is waiting for promotion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

But what are we going to do about the last slot in Prep 2? Does anyone want to quickly write something about France or Croatia? Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's what we have on the awaiting-approval and approved pages:
Template:Did you know nominations/Adrian Alston (I think this is best because it's about a World Cup event)
Template:Did you know nominations/Such is Life: The Troubled Times of Ben Cousins
Template:Did you know nominations/Trézéguet (Egyptian footballer) (but we already have a "nickname" hook in Prep 2)
Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The Alston hook would indeed work best. The second one, however, is about Australian rules football, which is a few mutations removed from the World Cup's game. I might whip up something for Croatia that could run in the event of their win. SounderBruce 04:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll promote Alston. Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

We did it! An all-football line-up for the World Cup final! Thanks to Kosack and SounderBruce for all their effort. Now, if only we could build respectable prep sets for other special occasions! Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Eid al-Adha is next month so it would be really nice if we could get at least some Islam-related hooks for then. Maybe the people at WP:ISLAM can help us over here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 image

Is anyone going to do something about lightening the image? If not, I think we should move a different image into the lead slot. Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Lightened it two times, and cropped it a bit. This is about as good as it's going to get, because you can't see all the detail when reduced that much. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. But do you think it's too light now? With the crop, would the version on 00:28, 12 July 2018 show up well? Yoninah (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Re-ping @Maile66:
It's a matter of preference, I guess. I looked at the one you mentioned when it showed in Prep 1. To my eyes, it was not much different than the original version. That's why I lightened it one more time. The building actually has a lot of detail that you don't see with any darker image. I'm getting ready to sign off for today, so maybe someone else could weigh in on this. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
On my Macbook Pro the green of the hill is clearly distinguishable from the grey of the building, even at thumbnail sizes, and some detail of both the hillside and the building is visible. I think it's light enough. Any lighter risks washing out the clouds and the steam from the stack. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah just guessing here on why you might see it as too light. Would it be because you see the sky and and smokestacks as so much lighter, with the sun at the top making it so much lighter in that area? Here's my assessment, because it's not an image that is easy to balance. As is, the top is much lighter, but at the bottom the building is light enough you can actually see some detail. On the darker image you mention, the top is less light, but the building is so dark it's just a block of dark color when reduced for DYK. I don't have the technical capability to make any other kind of adjustments. But if editors here think it's too light now, we could crop and upload the older darker version. I just think it would take eyes other than my own to decide which would be best on the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Maile66, there really isn't much you can do with a picture shot straight into the sun. I see other editors agree with your choice. The lighter version shows up the green grass against the gray buildings, so I think we should stick with that. Thanks again for your help, Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Roland Mouret

How could Roland Mouret be a DYK in 2008 if the article looks so bad now?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see in the edit history that the article was rubbished a while back. Might require a bold edit. But this isn't the right place to ask about this--feel free to remove this topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

I'm aware that this hook got some discussion before it got to this wording, but isn't this hook somewhat... BLP-ish? Specifically WP:BLPCRIME? Pinging nominator Jytdog, reviewer Bri, and promoter Cwmhiraeth. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the whole article is about the activities of the company and its founders. I think the hook is OK because it is a fact that his name is on the "most wanted list". It is not an assumption that he is guilty of a crime for which he has not been convicted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
i think it is OK; happy to discuss alternatives. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I moved the hook to Prep 6 (it was the 5th U.S.-based hook in the set). I wrote out Food and Drug Administration and also linked to FDA Most Wanted Fugitives list. The one on the list was convicted in a South African court, so perhaps it's okay to use the wording in this hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bots are down; main page hasn't been updated

Both DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot are currently down. The former being down means that the main page wasn't updated at 00:00. Per the bot owner, Shubinator, at User talk:Shubinator#DYKHousekeepingBot down, he's just now looking into why the bots aren't able to write (they can read just fine).

If he's able to solve the problem quickly, the bots will be working again. If not, then a manual update (which requires an admin) will probably be required. I'd like to suggest that any admin coordinate with Shubinator so we don't end up with the bot and an admin doing an update at the same time. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I've root-caused the issue and manually executed DYKHousekeepingBot. I'll also manually spin DYKUpdateBot in a few minutes, so no need for another admin to step in. For the curious, I'll update my talk page with the root cause after everything's pushed out, which may take an hour or two. Thanks BlueMoonset! Shubinator (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone set the next update time to 0:00 utc? Otherwise it would take two weeks to be on time again. 91.97.249.18 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Shubinator told me about another parameter that we can set to increase the amount of time we drift back toward 00:00 from 15 minutes up to whatever we want. For example, we could have drifts of two or three hours (or more) if we wanted when doing one set every 24 hours, and change it to one or two hours (or 90 minutes) when doing one set every 12 hours. I had thought that 15 minutes was a fixed number, but it turns out to be one that can be adjusted. Thoughts on how long we should drift? (I think it's better if we don't have to rely on manual resets by admins.) Note that drifting goes two ways: we're either going backward to get back to 00:00 if we're less than halfway to the next changeover, or forward if we're over halfway there. Should the number be different depending on which way we're drifting? (It can be.) What do people think? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Well it should be at least an hour, but beyond that, I'm not sure. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Why not set it up so it always updates at 0:00 then? It just looks odd to always see DYK lag behind the rest of the main page. Does it really make that big a difference if someone loses a couple of hours main page exposure? Plus, if it does not update when it is supposed to, the time on the main page for the previous days hooks is longer... So, for any regular contributor it should just even out over time with time lost and gained through hickups. Just my thought on the matter anyway. 91.97.249.18 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree, just set the update the 00:00 UTC so that it updates with the rest of the main page. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The update cycles fluctuate, depending on backlog. Not all cycles on DYK main page are 24 hours. If there is a backlog of approved nominations, they run multiple sets within 24 hours. It's meant to be flexible, not set indefinitely. And the clock issue aside, the problem is the bot that does all the work - moves the new set to the main page, archives the outgoing set, and puts notices on all articles and nominator's talk pages. The clock is a minor issue, and is triggered by the bot. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that but at the moment we are running a 24 hour cycle, so it should update at midnight. When we go back to a 12 hour cycle, make the updates at midday and midnight. It is frustrating to see DYK lag behind the rest of the main page. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It still goes back to the bot, that resets the clock when an update is late. If there is no set in Queue, which is manually done by an admin, there is nothing for the bot to put on the main page. Sometimes there's an argument going on over here, that something in the lead queue needs to be fixed before it can go on the main page. There are lots of reasons why DYK gets on the main page late. Therefore, it doesn't matter how the clock is set .. if there is nothing yet in the Queue to go on the main page. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ianblair23, If an update is late by five and a half hours and we're doing two updates a day, it hardly seems fair for one set to run only six and a half hours in order to immediately get back to noon and midnight. There's a problem if people are so very frustrated by DYK being temporarily out of synch with the main page that they're willing to penalize people who've worked very hard on their articles and see their time cut to the bone. We can surely be more equitable than that, and move in a steady, graduated fashion back to midnight updates. (The whole point of this thread was to find a quicker way to get back to midnight without having to whack many hours off of the set that was promoted late.) I would be opposed to rewriting the bot to ignore how long a set has been on the main page and update at those set times as you propose. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This happened back in June, resetting the time back to midnight was discussed and performed. I simply suggest we do it again rather than taking weeks to eventually drift back in sync. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a problem if people ignore DYK being constantly out of sync with the rest of the main page. So, DYK is not for the reader after all but the contributors who are being "penalized" by having "their" articles and "their" time cut? And that by human error of DYK admins most of the time, no?(no offense of course, just seems that that is the most common source of issues regarding update time) I know you cut the time not long ago by over 12 hours, as Ian noted. I brought that up back then. So... why not set it to a comfortable margin of going back 8 hours a day back to 0:00 if delayed the previous day, anything longer than that and there really were serious issues. Why the hesitance to at least try to ALYWAYS be on time with the rest of the main page? So someone loses some time on the main page, and? At the same time someone gained time with old hooks still on the main page? Isn't that unfair also? 91.248.67.152 (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it now goes without saying that DYK is for the user and not the readers. Fix the synchronisation issues, and stop dithering about with drifting timings etc. It's embarrassing and completely out of tempo with all other sections of the main page with regular updates (i.e. EVERY SINGLE SECTION except ITN). There is literally no defence for not just resetting the clock every time this kind of thing happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, i don't want to criticize or belittle anyones work on articles or DYK sets and the like, blame anyone for hickups or take anything away from people and so on. I just believe that no one is due anything relating to the main page. If things go wrong, then it is plain bad luck if ones time gets cut shorter or good luck if ones time got extended. It may suck but that is just how it is. And as i said before, any regular will also be on the side of hooks which were on the main page for too long. In my opinion, being in sync with the rest of the main page just looks cleaner and more professional. So if that can easily be achieved, which it can it seems, why not do it? 91.248.67.152 (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and one last thing. "If an update is late by five and a half hours and we're doing two updates a day..." Given how error prone 2 sets a day are, not checking DYK for error reports or even if it has gone live for such an amount of time by any admin seems a tad irresponsible. Also "it doesn't matter how the clock is set .. if there is nothing yet in the Queue to go on the main page." seems rather obvious. We should just assume that the bare minimum to keep DYK running has been done. 91.248.67.152 (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
In the past, when the bot was down, a set could run on the main page for more than 12 hours. Why don't we do that with the next set, and then start up again at 00:00? Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like everyone agrees a 2-hour drift would be better than the current 15-minute drift, so I've gone ahead and adjusted User:DYKUpdateBot/ResyncDrift to 2 hours. Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Strange

Catriona took the time to review Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener, and I also made some comments. The next day, the template was deleted by the nominator, User:Serial Number 54129, who has not responded to my question on his talk page, and now any record of the nomination has been wiped clean. Is this acceptable behavior? Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah Stranger than you think. Technically, to preserve the reviewer's count, it should have been rejected by request of the nominator, and coded "no" instead of "yes" on the template. Instead, they tagged it with CSD, and RHaworth deleted it according to that tag. I just undeleted it, which worked that far. But when I tried to reject it through the normal DYK "no" on the template, it wouldn't work. A little further searching showed that after originally creating the nomination template, Serial Number 54129 then moved the template to a new name. When that move happened, much of the template coding that responds to a reject was lost. But even replacing that, something else went awry when that moved happened, and it won't close correctly. Now I've put it back in deleted status, until someone here can figure out how to do a DYK reject on the moved template. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I restored Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener, the CSD deleted version of the template. The original template was Template:Did you know nominations/John/Eleanor Rykener. Hopefully, someone here can figure out how to make it close correctly. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. But what is going on? Does Serial Number 54129 want to withdraw this, or proceed with the DYK? Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess I caused the trouble, because the former template name didn't work, because of the second slash. I wanted to comment, and was asked if I wanted to create Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Rykener. If someone can fix that mistake, we can go along with the first name, but otherwise it has to be a different name. See the talk of SN, who I am sure wants to proceed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt it's not you. These are all actions triggered by Serial Number 54129. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, on the blue-link template, please look at Page/History, then click on the version created 10.09 13 July 2018. You will see the "Withdrawn as out of process.. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" CSD tag. What that means, only the nominator can say — Maile (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: What Gerda Arendt means is that she originally drew to my attention the fact that Template:Did you know nominations/John/Eleanor Rykener was an executable failure due to the use of a slash in the title as well as in the template. Since the template "thinks" that /John/ is part of the template and not the article title, attempting to open the page just took one to Eleanor Rykener which, of course, does not, and did not exist. Thus I had to create a redirect for John-Eleanor—i.e. without the slash—and use the slashless redirect title as the title for the DYK template, and make the page link correctly. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 the bottom line is ... do you still want this as DYK? If so, we will just leave the resurrected template linked above, and Yoninah (or someone) can promote it accordingly. — Maile (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Kayrat Ryskulbekov

I am unable to promote this nomination to a prep set because I can't access the template on the approved nominations page because of complications from the template having been moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I've fixed the template; you should be able to access it now from the Approved page, or directly at Template:Did you know nominations/Kayrat Ryskulbekov. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you. There is another template problem with regard to June 29 on the approved nominations page. There is some stray text on the page under Women Disobey but which appeared under the Cass A. Cline hook before I promoted that one. Meanwhile, I have promoted the next hook on the page, Six-String Soldiers, but am unable to archive it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, the problem seems to have been with Six-String Soldiers; the DYK checklist template used by the reviewer did not include the required closing braces that every template needs, so the main DYK template could not be substituted: there weren't enough closing braces remaining for the outer template. I added in the missing braces and that allowed the template to close; I made sure that the next edit fixed the "promoted by" credit to be you rather than me (and the time of promotion corrected). Everything else looks okay to me, but if you see something off in the other nearby nominations, by all means let me know and I'll look again. (Usually, that stray text starting with the opening braces, which shows up at the bottom of the previous nomination's space, means that the nomination following is missing a pair of closing braces somewhere.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - another issue

  • ... that the 63rd Street Line, a three-station subway line in New York City, was initially described as a "tunnel to nowhere" because it had no connections to other subway lines in the borough of Queens?

This hook is currently in Prep 1, but there is an ongoing move request for the 63rd Street Lines page. Can the hook be temporarily removed from Prep 1 until the move request is closed? Pinging @Cwmhiraeth: who moved the hook there. (Note: I nominated this hook.) epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw the move discussion and thought it was no bar to the DYK progressing. I can move the hook out of prep if you wish or someone could actually do the move as there seems to be a consensus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I have no objection to either outcome. I just assumed that it might be bad practice to have the bolded link be a redirect. epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Women Disobey

I am really disappointed you were unable to use a photo with this DYK. That would have been my first DYK nom with a photo. Any way I can convince you to opt for ALT 1 or 2. I know the first photo was not really good. Which is why I proposed the alternative.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC) BTW, I am willing to tie in Occupy ICE if that helps.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I understand your desire for a lead spot, but showing one woman at a demonstration that involved hundreds looks a little strange. Please keep nominating hooks with images and I'm sure you'll make the top spot soon. BTW I left a note on the talk page of the article saying that this protest should be added to Occupy ICE. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Protestors during Women Disobey
Protestors during Women Disobey
There are other photos available like File:Protest Against ICE in DC (cropped).jpg which a great view of the protests with the Capitol building in the background as they walk towards it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs I'm sorry, it is really hard to see the Capitol building in the thumbnail image. If you really feel so strongly about it, perhaps you could post a request at WT:DYK. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: But the Capitol is not even the focus of the hook. I only said that to describe the overall value of the image. It is an added bonus if the reader clicks on the image. The focus is the protestors and their message. Even at this size I can read the message on the poster.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the hook for commentors convenience:
The photo is nice and very well composed, however, I have to agree with Yoninah. At the very small scale images appear in the DYK on the main page many that are otherwise visually appealing are perhaps not entirely suited for the lead spot. Looking at all the images currently prepped, and all those that have run in July, they are - with one or two exceptions - all of a single object that is easily decipherable, versus a great quantity of objects. And, even though our attention is drawn to the sign as a central element, it is a placard whose lettering would be illegible at this size. Presented with the choice between this image, and the image of Rene Strange that was prepped, I think the Strange image was the correct choice. Chetsford (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

  • ... that when Michael Hofstetter conducted Verdi's Il trovatore with period instruments, a reviewer wrote that his phrasing and dynamics "propel the opera with real excitement"?
  • ... that one critic felt that the shipping simulation game Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan lacked "pizazz"?

@Gerda Arendt: @Nomader:

Aside from the fact that we have two hooks in this set which quote reviews, I don't think these are effective hooks. Reviews only express the opinion of one reviewer; they certainly don't give the whole picture. Could we write something different for each of these articles? Yoninah (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Michael Hofstetter:

Well, responsible for the first, we could of course stop after period instruments, because that's unusual. However, they are often considered boring, so I thought it was a noteworthy contrast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Michael Hofstetter conducted Verdi's Il trovatore with period instruments?
Boring no? Here's another review of the same, here another of a different opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that's boring. It could even say "with period instruments such as X and Y." Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
X and Y would be nothing about him, + it's not about specific instruments, but violins, percussion etc. from Verdi's period, played in the style of that period. Do we have to link period instruments? (another article with a tag, sadly) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As an uninvolved editor, I think the original hook is interesting and catchy as it is. With that said, I think an alternate hook that could be proposed here is that he was nominated multiple times for "Conductor of the Year", though right now the article isn't clear as to which body gives said award. With that said, Gerda Arendt there's a small typo in the article: I see "Wagners" instead of "Wagner's" in the body. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The "nominated" thing can be said about many, - I'd not go for it even if he been awarded the honour. It's by Opernwelt. The period Verdi is rather rare. I'll fix the mistake. You could have done that, no? ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and ending the hook with "period instruments", no link. Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with:

  • ALT2: ... that conductor Michael Hofstetter is regarded as an expert in historically informed performance?

or

- ALT3 would be better if somebody wrote an article for Liebe und Eifersucht of course. I haven't checked the sourcing for either proposed hook, but they are the statements that caught my eye when I looked over the article. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We have hundreds of these experts of HIP, mostly for baroque, but usually not Verdi. We just had the Liebe und Eifersucht, with a soprano. Actually, the red link in her article "made" this one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
When I added ALT2, I originally had "historically informed performance" linked and thought the link would justify the hook. However, then I noticed the linked article is tagged for a bunch of issues, so I unlinked the phrase, but I agree that without the link the hook is a bit of a dud, so I've struck it. I don't know what you mean by "we just had Liebe und Eifersucht", do you mean it was recently featured in a DYK hook? That isn't necessarily a disqualifier, though if the hook was added very recently we could leave it a few days before featuring the above. Gatoclass (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
14 June: ... that soprano Christina Gerstberger recorded the role of Lisida in E. T. A. Hoffmann's Liebe und Eifersucht in a performance at the Ludwigsburg Festival?
Even a few days later: why should we mention the same obscure opera twice, at all? I may eventually write its article, which would make a third time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, because nobody will notice it's been mentioned twice; secondly, because we are struggling to find an alternative hook to the original, which has been challenged as uninteresting. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It was not found uninteresting, but "one critic's view". The critic's view was removed in prep, so why keep arguing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
If you need a rare opera, it could be Salieri's Les Danaïdes [6] which I'd add to his article if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean, to replace Liebe und Eifersucht in the hook? That sounds like a good solution if you could do that Gerda. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that conductor Michael Hofstetter has performed and recorded rarely played operas at the Ludwigsburg Festival, including Salieri's Les Danaïdes? - I guess some readers - even not opera goers - may remember the movie Amadeus where Salieri was pictured as possibly having poisoned Mozart. - Remind me of writing about the other opera on Hofstetter's DYK day. I failed for Gerstberger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT4 is verified and cited inline. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan:

  • There were two alternatives that I listed, but they were kind of boring as hell in hindsight. Let me see if I can wrangle up a better one (the one with the quote from the reviewer is really the best one I've got right now). Nomader (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nomader. I returned the hook to the noms page so there will be more time to work on it. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday; here is an updated list with all of the 38 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 11. Right now we have a total of 161 nominations, of which 64 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four still remaining from March, April and May.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Saving Light

I've pulled this per discussion at main-page errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Espresso Addict. I'd just like to make sure I did the right thing now. The ERRORS discussion started when this hook was in the queue, and the hook was finally pulled from the set 46 minutes after it went live on the main page. I returned the hook to the noms page to request a new hook, and also removed the DYK credit from the article. Can we remove the DYK credits from the DYK Archive and from the editor's talk page as well? Yoninah (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not yet in the archive. editor's yes, for consistency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 tweaks

In the 4th hook of Queue 1, Guinness Book of World Records should be italicized and changed to Guinness Book of Records, which is the non-US title used in 1989. It's the title used in the article's English source (although it's misspelled there).

Also, in the 7th hook, I'd recommend a comma after "died". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As the nominator I would disagree with the suggested additional comma in the 7th hook, but I don't really care. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Mandarax on the comma, and I would also spell out "23 million" rather than all those zeroes. I'm posting this at ERRORS for a quicker response. Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election

A new review of this DYK nomination, preferably from someone with little-to-no interest in U.S. politics, is requested. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, I was just on my way here to post the same request! The discussion there has gone way out of control and is in need of a look by someone uninvolved. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
True. @MelanieN: I think you need to reply to Lionelt there as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I have commented there. Lionelt won't like it, but then he's causing many of the issues (he's not the only one, obviously). Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI - A thread has been opened about this nomination at WP:ANI. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Wilmot-Sitwell

Copying this discussion to this page for a wider view. Here is the original hook:- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the reviewer was right and the best hook is Alt 1 "beautiful but utterly useless" which would go well in the last spot. Could you move it please, or hold over until that spot is available? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: You should ask Cwmhiraeth since she was the one who swapped the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Philafrenzy (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: I changed the hook rather than returning the article to the nominations page because Peter Wilmot-Sitwell died last month (thus the article is almost a BLP) and I thought the hook was unduly negative. Looking at the article, I could see he was a considerable figure in the city and to have a hook stating he was "beautiful but utterly useless" seemed entirely wrong to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be fine. It's not intended to be negative. He was the source of the phrase and was making a joke at his own expense. The Times headed their obit "Self-deprecating gentleman banker...". It's also about a group of people, not just him. Anyone clicking on it would quickly see that he wasn't useless at all. I can't say whether he was beautiful in his youth! It would fit perfectly at the end, where a joke is expected, unlike the one there at the moment. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with the arguments put forward by Philafrenzy. This appears to be yet another instance where a perfectly good hook has been replaced with one which is arguably not "interesting to a broad audience", per WP:DYKRULES. Edwardx (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The "beautiful but useless" hook is inaccurate because the quote is in reference to the stockbroker when he was a new recruit, not to stockbrokers like him in general. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It is not inaccurate, merely imprecise. Many of our hooks lack precision, yet excessive precision can often mean long and dull hooks. This is the dichotomy we face when crafting hooks. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that when he was made partner in a stockbrokerage firm at age 25, Peter Wilmot-Sitwell was described as "beautiful but utterly useless"? Yoninah (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
He described himself as such, though; it didn't come from someone else. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
How about, ALT1a: ... that aged 25, stockbroker Peter Wilmot-Sitwell described himself as "beautiful but utterly useless"? Edwardx (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Alt1b ...that according to Peter Wilmot-Sitwell, young well-connected stockbrokers in his firm were known as "orchids" because they were "beautiful but utterly useless". Philafrenzy (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
1b looks viable. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
With the addition of a question mark I'd agree that ALT1b seems workable. If there are no further objections I'll swap it into the queue in a little while. Vanamonde (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Alt1b fine with me too. Edwardx (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Vanamonde93:, @Gatoclass: but it should be in the last spot due to its humorous content. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes we have more humorous hooks than quirky slots. In this case, there's a quirkier hook already occupying the slot. Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
" that Liebe und Eifersucht (Love and Jealousy), an 1807 opera with libretto and music by E. T. A. Hoffmann, premiered in 2008?" That appears to be a straightforward hook. In fact, just saying when it premiered really says nothing of interest at all. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
That it was 201 years later is certainly quirky. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I missed the years. So wouldn't that be better as "an 1807 opera.... didn't premier until 2008?" Philafrenzy (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The fair use image should be removed. He's barely one month dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan

I have pulled this hook from the queue as I think the hook is substandard. The hook was originally:

TRM objected to this on the grounds that it violates C6, which states that a hook must involve the real world in some way (I considered pulling it myself on the same grounds, but given that a recent RFC on the issue ended rather indecisively, I'm not sure about the current status of that rule). Fish and karate, responding to TRM's objection, tweaked the hook to say:

- While this addresses the issue raised by TRM, the fact that a computer game was "developed in America and set in China" is not at all unusual or interesting, you could say the same thing about hundreds of computer games. While I appreciate Fish's attempt to resolve the issue, adding an uninteresting fact to an already iffy hook hardly qualifies as an improvement, so I've pulled the hook for further discussion. In the meantime, I will look around for an alternative nomination to complete the set. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note here when the new hook is added so we can all go and check it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, I didn't think it was that interesting either. Fish+Karate 14:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Added one. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It amazes me that you think Darwin catching and eating a fish is more boring than the release of a computer game simultaneously on multiple platforms. That's as common as muck. What a terrible "hook". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you please point me to where in either of the two references provided, the hook itself is verified? Particularly as our article on Dungeons 2 clearly states It was released on April 24, 2015 for Microsoft Windows, OS X and SteamOS.[8] The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't terrifically keen on the hook myself, but I went through a stack of hooks on the approved nominations page and couldn't find a suitable one. But to avoid further debate, I will look for a replacement - I was just doing that in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Well that hook needs to be rejected at the nomination as well, based on the new information. I'll just make a note of this for statistical purposes of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Gatoglass: The hook said it was the first to be released on five different platforms at the same time. Dungeons was released on three platforms. Dungeons 2 was released on three platforms and then one another a year later. So the hook was correct. This verifies it (upper right corner lists the platforms and the release date). As for boring, I'm not really disputing that. I personally prefer ALT0, ALT1 or ALT3 but the reviewers struck them for some reason. Maybe someone can take another look? Regards SoWhy 18:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to ping Gatoclass of course. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The hook that was in the protected queue was different. Presumably somebody thought they'd modify the hook, change its meaning and render it incorrect. Which is a shame. And a waste of a lot of others' time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hook substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion (sorry was away for work!), mentioned in the other one that I really didn't have many alternate hooks here. Only other suggestion I could think of here:
    • ALT4: ... that Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan keeps track of player's stats using battery save RAM? (IGN source, last paragraph)
    • ALT5: ... that Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan features no skill or action-based sequences even though the player can fight pirates? (IGN source, last paragraph)
I'm pretty out of alternatives after that. If I had access to the Nintendo Power review, I'd look there for something as well (I'm pretty sure this is the only trading simulation game for the Game Boy Advance but I'll be damned if I can find a source that says it outright-- that would be the best hook). Nomader (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Also just a note, the "set in China" part is actually wrong-- the game starts out in just China, but over time you can sail across the whole world to London and trade there as well. As for the C6 note-- I'd argue that ALT5 above would meet the criteria as "skill and action-based sequences" involve real-life input from a player. Could imagine that line of reasoning might be controversial though. Nomader (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Neither ALTs 4 or 5 sound unusual to me and therefore lack interest IMO. How about:
The fact is that the reviewer used that expression and his meaning is clear even if grammar mavens might question the usage. I think the hook is fine, but if you want to make an issue of it, one could just paraphrase the comment instead. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I think what's fundamental here is what is actually meant by "relatively unique" here? Just because one reviewer made a bogus claim, what does it actually mean? The hook is meaningless (and erroneous). The article should be failed, it clearly can't provide anything of broad interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It's obvious that he meant "unusual", probably "highly unusual", but definitely the former, so you could just substitute that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Although "atypical" would probably be a better word. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes yes, but in what sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
In the "gaming experience" sense. But if you want something more specific:
Getting better! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I can do better than that. I think that's a pretty decent hook now, although it may need a little addition to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass here, I think it's the best that we'd be able to get it. Nomader (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that can be improved upon a bit:

I think that this is great, we'll need to expand the article with a line about its uniqueness (IGN and GS review should cover it here) but I'm good with this. Nomader (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Moved discussion back to Template:Did you know nominations/Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan. Nomader (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_150&oldid=1085471571"