Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 113

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 113 Archive 114 Archive 115 → Archive 120

Feedback requested

Since I'm not a regular DYK nominator or reviewer, I would appreciate some feedback from a very experienced reviewer who knows the rules inside and out. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the fact that someone wrote something in itself a justification to use it as a hook?

See Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. The author of the Cronica Walliae wrote a number of things. A few of these are considered today to by mythical or, in the case of King Arthur's alleged grave, a medieval hoax. I'd suggested an alternative hook which was accepted, then rejected when the author of the article. User:Doug Coldwell, removed the text (now reinserted by me and slightly edited by him). He's now added several other alternative hooks, most of which push supposed voyages of the legendary Prince Madoc to America, a subject upon which Llwyd, who wrote the Cronica, noted " it is a tale which in the retelling ‘the commen people do use in distance of place and leingth of tyme rather to augment than to dyminish’. Coldwell and User:7&6=thirteen argue that there should be no suggestion in the hook that there is any doubt about the voyage on what seems to be the grounds that only what Llywd actually wrote should be included, User:Elaqueate and I disagree. Is there any precedent or common practice for this sort of issue? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought it a cleaner hook. Hard to suggest that it has been the subject of debate is hard to fit into 200 characters. That hooks are sometimes misleading (or a diversion) has been used as a criterion for their hookiness. Do you have a suggestion, as this has been the subject of innumerable debates. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
How about something like "Did you know...the Cronica Walliae popularised a legend that the Welsh discovered America in about 1170, a tale used to justify English encroachments on the territory of Spanish America?" __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It gives more context, demonstrates significance, and shows how scholars perceive it today.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That is one of the alternate hooks already - as I submitted it as ALT7 for User:Elaqueate.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Now did delivering fresh drinking water to water-poor nations promote world peace, is another question. BUT the fact that he said (wrote) this, set the precedent that DYKs can be based on this premise.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Historiography supports User:Doug Coldwell's hypothesis. Who said what, when and why does matter. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless you are arguing that all previous hooks are good, one example doesn't show you are right. Who said what, when and why matters at times, but not for everything everyone said, and some things need to be presented in context. NOR applies here as does NPOV. A hook has to meet our policies. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Another example is Preparation (principle). Robert Louis Stevenson said that politics is a profession for which no preparation is necessary = and was the basis for the DYK. I think maybe there would be a few politicians that would disagree with this, however that is another issue. This shows this is the policy.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Bottomline is the fact that someone wrote something = there is no OR or POV.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
So the standard for hooks are that they must either 1) Be established facts, 2) Be definite facts, or 3) Be any type of claim anyone has ever said, even if it's a mistake, fraud, lie, error, or anything at all. The standard has to be better than this. Otherwise we're making the "established fact" standard absolutely redundant and powerless. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is ridiculous. Why would anyone think that it was remotely appropriate to word a hook in a way that misled our readers into thinking that there was historical evidence that a figure from folklore discovered America? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth - Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that Humphrey Llwyd isn't a remotely reliable source for history, your comment is completely and utterly irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Professor Ieuan M. Williams and the University of Wales thought that he was and published a 290 page book to show that. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to claim that Prof Williams considers Llwyd's account of Madoc to be historically accurate, you will have to provide a better source than a Google Books link that shows no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Did delivering fresh drinking water to water-poor nations promote world peace? I don't know, however someone wrote this and it was the basis for a DYK that received 30,000 views that had no objection of the fact of the utterance.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That many people are likely to see the claim, and many people are likely to not click through to see any further historical context, are incredibly good reasons, all by themselves, to not include the claim by itself, or in a potentially misleading way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Robert Louis Stevenson said that politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary seems to be a quote most people agree was said with this 3,000,000 Google search result. = a premise for a DYK. However a few politicians might disagree with the quote. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That might be a good example of an IAR exception, as it's a famous fictional writer making an obvious humorous over-generalization about politics. A claim from an obscure Elizabethan manuscript, labelled historical, certainly isn't the same type of thing. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Bottomline is that the policy is that the fact that someone wrote something in itself is a justification to use it as a hook.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a platform for the promotion of pseudohistorical fairy tales. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Queue: admin instructions

@TParis, JohnCD, and Waggers: We've been having issues with late updates to the DYK section on the main page recently, due to a lack of admin attention. One of the problems highlighted was that people didn't know what to do for the queue update. After scrounging around I found some instructions, but they haven't been updated since DYKUpdateBot was introduced. So I've tried to put together a general to-do list below:

Shortcut
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}

Administrators are the final and most important check in between anything and the Main Page, and DYK is no exception. This page will tell you what you need to look out for when putting anything on DYK, and then tell you how to queue a prep, which is how most things make their way onto DYK. There are also a few sets of manual instructions, in case you need to step in for a bot or script that isn't working right. If this is your first time queueing a prep or doing some other admin function at DYK, and it looks daunting: don't worry, it really isn't. The actual instructions for the move are only four steps. If any of the other stuff goes wrong, there are plenty of people who'll catch it.

Required checks

Any boldlinked article, hook, or image that you are placing on (or queueing for) the Main Page must go through these checks. They can be performed before or after the technical steps have been completed, depending on whether you want to take precautions against edit conflicting with other admins or erroneously putting something on the Main Page. Most admins promote to queue before undertaking the checks to prevent edit conflicts. Many of the admin checks listed below are repeats of checks required at earlier points in the process of review and promotion; these are specified because some workers at DYK may be new or inexperienced here.

If you can't fix a concern yourself, bring it to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, providing a link to the nom template, the formatted hook, and pings to nominator/reviewer/promoter in your question. You can also switch the problematic hook with one from another preparation area and perform the same checks on the new hook. You are required to check ...

Helpful if you have time

Automatic instructions

Updates to the Main Page and the protection of images are handled automatically by bots on English Wikipedia and Commons, respectively.

Moving a prep to queue

If you have WP:PSHAW installed on your common.js page, you can execute the move semi-automatically:

  1. Navigate to the prep you wish to promote.
  2. Under the "more" tab, select "PSHAW".
  3. Click "Move to queue".
  4. Reload both the prep and the queue to verify that the move was performed correctly.

Manual instructions

Posting an update to the Main Page

  1. If anything going on the Main Page is not from a queue that has been stamped by an administrator, perform the required checks on it.
  2. Update Template:Did you know from the current queue by copying/pasting the hooks code from the top through <noinclude>.
  3. Purge the cache of the Main Page to make sure the new entries appear. (Instructions there.)
  4. Reset the DYK time. (Instructions there.) Note that the timestamp you will paste is the current time, indicating that you just posted the update – not the time for the next update.
  5. Increment the next queue pointer. Reset it to 1 rather than increasing to 8.
  6. Copy the previous set of hooks (not the new set just promoted to the front page) to the archive. Be sure to copy the final revision of the set (it should be the last diff on the T:DYK page before your update), and place the timestamp of the DYK update you just made above it. Please include the picture/file.
  7. Check if the previous picture/file was temporarily uploaded from Commons for display on the Main Page, and delete it from En if so.
  8. On the local description page of the picture/file for the previous set of hooks, add {{DYKfile|27 April|2024|type=image}} (occasionally replacing image with video where appropriate). Note that, like the archives, this will create a one-day misalignment between the date on the file page and the date it actually appeared in DYK.
  9. If you have time, please give out the credits for the hooks just promoted by opening the version of the queue that the main page was updated from, and using the "give" and "tag" links in the credits section, then following instructions. (These are most easily done with three windows open.)
  10. Replace the queue you just promoted hooks from with {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}.
  11. Congrats, you've done it! If you have time, move a prep to queue :)

Replacing a hook on the Main Page

  1. If the new hook is not from a queue that has been stamped by an administrator, perform the required checks on it.
  2. Navigate to Template:Did you know and replace the old hook with the new one.
  3. Preview the edit. Make sure that the formatting of the set is preserved, in that the new hook begins with a bullet and there is a space between the ellipsis and the first word. Then save the page.
  4. Congrats, you've done it! The previous section will tell you how to give out credits for the new hook :)

Moving a prep to queue

Please watchlist User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, where the bot reports errors that prevent it from posting the next Queue to the main page. Sample warning of missing hooks, Sample coding error message
  1. Open the prep for editing, and open the same-numbered queue for editing. Perform all checks listed above.
  2. You need to remove {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} from the top of the target Queue, and replace it with {{DYKbotdo|~~~}}.
  3. Copy and paste the entire contents of the prep into the queue.
  4. Make sure <!--Hooks--> is at the top beneath {{DYKbox}} but above the image. <!--HooksEnd--> is on the line just after the last hook.
  5. Preview (!), then save.
  6. Go back to the prep template; clear all the text; copy the complete contents of Template:Did you know/Clear into it; save.
  7. Edit the prep counter to bump it to the next prep set to be moved to queue.

Protecting an image

If KrinkleBot is up

  1. Perform all relevant image checks.
  2. Add the unprotected image to Main Page/Commons media protection. Wait until it shows up at commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en before posting to the Main Page.

If KrinkleBot is down

  1. Double-check the image hasn't already been vandalized. Perform all relevant image checks.
  2. On Commons, download the file to your computer.
  3. Back at English Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload and upload the image with the same filename. In the description field add {{c-uploaded}} and the source and license information. After clicking "Upload file", you'll get a warning the image already exists, and will need to confirm by clicking "Ignore warning and save file anyway".
  4. Check if the cascading protection has kicked in. You can do this by clicking "Edit" on the English Wikipedia file page, where you should hopefully see an editnotice telling you that the page is fully protected. If not, please protect the image manually – set protection expiry to after the image is slated to leave the Main Page.
  5. Congrats, you've done it! After the image comes off the Main Page, it's best to go back and delete the temporary file :)

Troubleshooting

Admins are urged to put User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors on their watchlist. If there is an error delaying the update, this bot will have in its edit summary exactly what the problem is. For instance, if {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} has been missed in the promoting from prep to queue, the update bot's edit summary will state the error and say which queue is involved. Or, if it's a missing botdo template, the edit summary will say "Queue (number) is not tagged with DYKbotdo".

Footnotes

  1. ^ If you do not see the image there, it has not yet been protected on Commons. Errors should be reported to the operators of KrinkleBot, including if it has not updated for several hours after a queue move.

The actual draft can be found here. If anyone wants to add to or make corrections, feel free. I'd appreciate it if a regular DYK admin, @Crisco 1492, Casliber, and HJ Mitchell: could once over this before it's posted over at T:DYK/Q and WP:AN. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that's so quick and uncomplicated I can hardly believe we have have trouble getting those lazy admins to do it. EEng (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's also highly problematic, because it's pre-bot and the intro and some of the steps are inappropriate since what's really wanted is to move a set from prep to queue. I've struck the 12-hour wait, since that's irrelevant, and made some other quick adjustments; queues can be loaded at any time, and the bot moves them when the time is right (which could be right away if the main page is overdue for an update). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, can only work with what I have. I've tried to hack redundant stuff off the old guide, though I'm not familiar with it all so I might miss some. If you want to simplify it further, go on ahead. Each prep actually has instructions at the bottom but I take it that's just too confusing. Fuebaey (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've always found it an exceptionally simple process. It is just extremely time-consuming to re-check all the article comply with all the guidelines. Harrias talk 15:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Any objections to the current draft? Else I'll try and find someone to post it somewhere for reference. Fuebaey (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Over two-thirds of them have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 3 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 25 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 10 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 87 nominations are approved, leaving 209 of 296 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over six weeks:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 19:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyu Media (second opinion needed)

Hey—wanted to get a second opinion on whether "creating" or "expanding" applies when recreating an article from scratch after an article has been speedy deleted as G11. I did not work on the article before its deletion, and when I saw it was deleted, I wrote it as if I were creating it from nothing. What is the precedent for this? (Discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Nyu Media. Note that the G11 history is visible in the page history now because there was a request to restore the talk page history.) czar ⨹ 16:16, 26 December 2014 (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) 22:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Couple of comments

Just a couple of comments:

Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Only 113? Seems like at least a zillion. EEng (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, Have you listed here? Everybody puts their own on it.— Maile (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Maile66: Yeah, I put myself there when I first reached 25 almost a year ago. --Jakob (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Jakob is "angling" for a 100 DYK medal. I'm happy to provide it! Yoninah (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
He'll get there easily if this "stream" of nominations continues. Yuk yuk yuk! EEng (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A real MOS fix to fix a previous "fix"

In Queue 4, the quotation marks around "Braveheart" should not be bold, per WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Additional markup. This was correct in the nomination, but was changed in Prep 4 with the ironic edit summary "mos fix". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it right now? Harrias talk 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Little Black Creek on Main Page

I'll confess that I might've slightly misread a source in the Little Black Creek article. The hook is saying that the creek contributes 11.43 cubic feet per second, but the source Average discharge from the Jeddo Tunnel amounts to 2.463 cfsm, or 1.591 mgd/mi2. Using drainage areas and an unitized approach, the subbasins of Black Creek, Little Black Creek, Cranberry Creek, and Hazle Creek contribute an annual average 30.66 c fs (39 percent), 11.43 cfs (14 percent), 16.31 cfs (26 percent), and 21.01 cfs (21 percent), respectively. is referring to the Little Black Creek coal basin, not the Little Black Creek drainage basin. Similar, but not quite the same thing, I think. (I could be misinterpreting this time instead of the original time; if you want to see for yourself, the source is here) This doesn't need to be pulled to be fixed, but the hook should be tweaked to something like ... that Little Black Creek is not a perennial stream, but the Little Black Creek Coal Basin contributes 11.43 cubic feet of water per second to the Jeddo Tunnel? --Jakob (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed to fix Queue 6 Gatorade hook

... that Robert Cade led the research team that formulated Gatorade which has significant medical applications to treat patient dehydration?

needs a bit of ce:

... that Robert Cade led the research team that formulated Gatorade, which has significant medical application in the treatment of dehydration?

EEng (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Is application single definitely right in that context? It sounds a bit odd to me, but I'm unsure. Harrias talk 09:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I think EEng is correct. I could be wrong, but I think the former would have been correct if it read: ...which has had significant medical applications... I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hook in Queue 5

I'm a little unsure on the grammar in one of the hooks in queue 5. I think the first half, although slightly confusing, is fine. The second half, I'm not sure if "chancellor" should be capitalised, should have the definite article, or what!

Help would be well received! Harrias talk 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

PNG to JPG on queue 6

I just learned that PNG doesn't display as well as a thumbnail, so I have uploaded a JPEG of the image for the fork-marked lemur in queue 6. Could someone please swap them out? Hopefully that will also release the auto-protection from the PNG so that I can add the template {{PNG with JPEG version}} on Commons. Sorry for the trouble. – Maky « talk » 19:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Allen3 talk 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Informal tracking of the stats

Unhide to see a few months' history of available hooks and backlog size

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/nom stats

Did you know ... that from a high in the mid-300s, our backlog has now dropped below 200? 08:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Over 60% of them have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 3 that have been waiting for over two months; the second has 6 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the third has 17 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 66 nominations are approved, leaving 203 of 269 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over two months:

Over six weeks:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 04:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I was attempting to review the Oct 27th Jane Doe nomination, but all I got was a redirect page so could not do so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The nomination page was moved a month ago, breaking it. I've now fixed it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have now completed the review and struck it in the list above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination ? procedure for new nomination

Nailsea Glassworks was nominated by another editor at Template:Did you know nominations/Nailsea Glassworks on 1 Jan. Due to the requirement for a QPQ even if the nominator didn't create the article, he has withdrawn the nomination. It is still within the 5 days and I would like to nominate it myself (including a QPQ). Should I add this to the existing nomination or should this be closed/archived and a new nomination started?— Rod talk 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Leave it there and do a QPQ. Harrias talk 13:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's some terrible advice

Here's a bot message I received today:

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Belleville and North Hastings Railway at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 3:37 am, Today (UTC−5)

So to start with, we offer no instructions on how to properly complete the nom. We do, however, offer a bizarrely technical way to kill it. We're pointing out that they haven't followed instructions, and the offer a solution that is almost as difficult. And considering the drop-off in participation, is this advice we even want to be giving?

But the real point: why is it that we have a bot that notices and informs me about the problem, but don't have a bot that just goes ahead and fixes it?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

At least part of the reason there isn't a bot that would automatically fix it is that the nomination itself does not contain the date that the article should be placed under. As such a bot would not not where to place it in the nominations page. the bot also points to where you should look for how to actually list the nomination, so I don't actually see any problems with it.--Kevmin § 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Another good opportunity to suggest that we just list noms under the date of nomination, instead of this stupid "date article was created or expansion began or GA status approved" nonsense, which can't be more than 7 days different anyway. When scanning the noms for problems, it would be really nice if all the new stuff appeared at the bottom so I could easily tell which ones I haven't looked at yet, instead of trying to find new noms scattered here and there among older nominations of the last seven days. EEng (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If a nomination is listed under the date nominated, there is no immediate evidence that it was nominated too late. If it's under the date create/expanded/GAed, then it's immediately apparent when a nomination is late. (The reviewer should of course confirm the dates, but it's quite clear what's late and what isn't at first glance.) Let's leave the date system as it is now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That assumes the nominator puts it under the right date. The article history needs to be checked anyway for timeliness, and there's no meaningful benefit to such an "early warning of late nomination" mechanism, for the preservation of which the instructions have to use boldface and verbal emphasis to make people understand this counterintuitive wrinkle:
In the current nominations section find the subsection for the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination.
It's just one more unnecessary thing that doesn't work the way a normal person would expect. In fact, if we filed noms under "date nominated" then a bot could put them where they belong automatically, eliminating one more manual step. EEng (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A non-trivial and easily forgotten manual step, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So do you support organizing the nom page by date of nomination, instead of date of creation/etc? EEng (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
If that fixes the problem, definitely. Are there any downsides? I don't see any being raised, but maybe we should make an official call to be sure we don't miss anything. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2015 (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) 10:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Donbass Association

The article on the main page now was based on Russia's state news and an unreliable Swedish online source, which was labeled previously as associated with the anti-immigrant Sverigdemokraterna. I don't know whether that online source was so biased, but it was junk. The two reliable sources were editorials, not news reports, that mentioned "an apparently marginal group" (read "a club of antifascist kids") had put up posters in passing, before mentioning Russia's actions in the Baltic. I don't know why Wikipedia is promoting such an organization? Can I write an article about my library's movie nights, which have a few participants watching a DVD every other week? ^09:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.148.228 (talk)

I'll repeat myself here. The group is notable in the context of Russian-Swedish relations, the anti-Russian sentiment found in much of Swedish politics, the clash between left and right, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. It has received enough media coverage. The sources possibly being biased is quite clearly shown in the original article. I am removing your contributions to the article due to them being disruptive. Stamboliyski (talk)

Close paraphrasing in Q3

Could someone please pull Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Burkina_Faso_coups, now in Queue 3? There are some close paraphrasing issues that should be resolved before this runs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Hook pulled and a replacement has been added to the queue while the problematic nomination has been returned to the nominations page. @Nikkimaria:, please update Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Burkina_Faso_coups with your concerns as soon as practical to prevent another promoter from moving it to the preps before the issues you spotted are dealt with. --Allen3 talk 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion needed - Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nayanars

I'd like a second opinion on this review. In short: this is a multi-article hook where some content is repeated across multiple articles; as a result, once that content is excluded, several fall short of the 1500-character minimum. The nominator proposes that the characters fpr the repeated content be included in the calculation for one of the shortest articles, as opposed to the one in which it first appeared; I think it should be counted in its original location and excluded from the others. Supplementary rule A5 would seem to further complicate the situation, requiring much greater expansion, so additional thoughts would be appreciated. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the nominator. Here are the articles in question: Vayilar (created 8 Dec, 2944 B), Sadaya Nayanar (created 13 Dec, 2011 B). Both articles were created for the multi-article DYK. The repeated content (utmost 1000 B) is written by me first on wikipedia and appears first in the first created article in the series Vayilar. A5 was created so people don't copy paste from other wikipedia articles written by others and claim 5x for it or create new articles by compiling multiple wikipedia articles. Here both Vayilar as well as Sadaya Nayanar are created by me for this DYK, within the span of 4 days. I am just suggesting the repeating content be counted in the calculation of the shortest article Sadaya Nayanar and other articles be calculated disregarding the repeated material as per A5. I am expanding the other articles. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If it were two articles, maybe not an issue. But 38 is... well, yeah. I agree wholeheartedly with Nikki. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Supp. rule A5 is basically designed for article splits, requiring an expansion, rather than merely the split text plus 1,500 characters or whatever. Without getting into too much of the nitty-gritty, I think if you, Nikkimaria, judge the the replicated text to be an article split, then we should call for the 5x expansion rules to be applied, otherwise we should just disregard the duplicated text in any character counts. Though good look verifying all of that! Harrias talk 17:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
We've recently passed some (new) Sigma war game articles with a copied background section and ~1,500 additional characters, but there was a Pennsylvania creek split a month back that was rejected for not being x5. My take here is treat each Hindu saint as separate articles and ignore the duplicated text, though I'd start with the first one written as the base. Kudos to the nom for the attempt. Fuebaey (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been ignoring the copied text for terms of counting length (if it were split, it would have to be at least 5x the copied text as well, which is a no go). It's only fair that there be sufficient article prose for all the articles to meet the criteria without the copied text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As per this discussion, I have expanded all necessary articles. So even if the repeated content is not counted in character length, it is above 1500 characters. Thanks for your comments. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing now that the previous set has been archived. Many of these nominations have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 3 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 13 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 23 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 85 nominations are approved, leaving 199 of 284 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over six weeks:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2015 (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) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (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) 02:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lord's Slope DYK

I was looking at the Did you know of today, and one of them seems somewhat misleading, stating that "the Lord's Slope affects cricketers but not archers." This is barely supported by the only source used in the article to proof this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/archery/9408398.stm . Here, British archer Alison Williamson states the following:

"We're shooting across the slope and it isn't that noticeable ... I think they'll build up the ground next to the target, so it will appear visually level to the archers ... I'll be looking at the wind patterns at the stadium, that's really important in archery."

I really have no idea how Did you know works - I don't even know where the suggestion of this article was archived. I just thought I'd throw this out here, for what it's worth, because it struck me as odd that the words of one archer, especially when they possibly built up the ground to counter the slope's effect, is used as a source for a statement on the front page. I wonder how much a slope actually does matter in archery now... ~Mable (chat) 09:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: You are in the right place. The original review is in Template:Did you know nominations/Lord's Slope. Pinging @The C of E:, @Bcp67: and @EEng: (since we're all dumping on him today by the look of it). For hooks on the main page right now, reporting to WP:ERRORS can get a faster result. I see your point about presenting opinion as fact, but I'll let those involved in the review comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I should note that I since edited the article to say "British archer Alison Williamson states that..." instead of "some archers state that..."
Should I move this discussion to WP:ERRORS? ~Mable (chat) 09:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The archer said that the slope wasn't noticeable to them however in cricket, it does affect the style of play. So the hook is accurate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I think just a link to this discussion from WP:ERRORS will attract the right attention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec -- what's that mean?) Well, I wasn't a reviewer, just a kibitzer, but I'm used to the dumping so carry on. Right now we're 5 hours overdue for the DYK update, so I think the best way to handle this is simply for an admin (paging Crisco 1492) to populate a queue, which probably would take about as long as trying to modify/resolve/pull/consider/arbitrate this hook. After that this is a matter for normal article editing. I agree with CofE that the quote is arguably consistent with the idea that The Slope (actually, I have no visual concept of what any of this is talking about -- some kind of strange games played in a quaint foreign country, I gather?) doesn't affect archers -- she says, "It isn't that noticeable". Well, 90% consistent, anyway. EEng (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2015 (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) 10:41, 15 January 2015 (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) 19:36, 17 January 2015 (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) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the hook fact permitted to be cited in the lead?

I'd appreciate more comments on this three month old nomination - Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers. I wasn't going to drag this on since the nominator popped up again, but there seems to be a larger argument brewing. This is the original hook, with links to the articles in question:

... that the Italian cruisers Umbria, Lombardia, Etruria, Liguria, Elba and Puglia all belonged to the Regioni class?

I added one reference to pre-existing sentences in lead of each of the seven articles to verify the hook fact. The reviewer called for the reference to be moved to the body of the article instead. Because I couldn't find another standardised statement across the articles and as this isn't a DYK requirement, I called for a second opinion. BlueMoonset and LlywelynII gave differing viewpoints. To slightly complicate matters, the nominator attempted to add a hook statement to the body that the original creator has objected to the wording of. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • An opinion was given that, if an edit violates good article criteria, it no longer meets good article standard. Although I don't know much about GA criteria, I respect the fact that GAs should meet them. However, I also think that if anyone disagrees with the GA standard for these articles that they open a GA reassessment case instead of rehashing it out in a different forum. If the problem overlaps DYK criteria then that would be reason to not accept this nomination, but Manual of Style/Lead is not one of them. The latter does not prohibit citations in the lead.
Off topic alternative solutions
Ignoring the GA status of these articles, the earliest of these articles was created on the 3rd October (5th, 5th, 5th, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 15th respectively). Given the 13th October nomination date, could there be a case to go "it's only 1-3 days late" so treat them as new articles and not worry about where the verifying hook citation is placed?
There is some disagreement to how many ships actually constitute this class. As a compromise, if the lead citation is opposed, would citing the class in the infobox be an acceptable solution for both the article and DYK? This removes the question of the number of ships in the class and cites the hook without adding any extraneous text.
Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a mess of different topics, most of which should be addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers. [ edit: additional discussion on that point here ]
Concerning the topical points:
A) Should we violate GA criteria in order to meed DYK criteria?
No. We shouldn't do that.
B) Did this particular edit ever actually violate GA criteria?
This should be addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers (but, no, it didn't.)
C) Should a potential violation of GA criteria be a reason to derail a DYK that otherwise meets all of our criteria?
No. We shouldn't introduce errors, mistakes, or problems as a matter of policy but it's also entirely beside the point. If the articles passed the GA process and they meet all of our criteria, they're perfectly good to go. There is no reason or good that comes out of our second-guessing the GA reviewer or half-assing our own GA reassessment.
My 2¢. — LlywelynII 23:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps DYK has not heard of WP:LEADCITE. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Restrictive/non-restrictive

In "...that the barnacle, Pyrgoma anglicum, is often found living parasitically inside the sunset cup coral (pictured)?"

The commas ought to be removed in order to make the clause restrictive. Currently the punctuation supports the unfortunate meaning "the one barnacle that exists, namely..." Flipping Mackerel (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, if you've seen one barnacle you've seen 'em all. Leave it to a mackerel to notice an error involving the (or a) barnacle. EEng (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed, but in future please post this in WP:ERRORS if the hook is already on the main page, as per the notice at the top of this page. Harrias talk 10:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Was this a hypothetical question? The nomination mentioned seems to be this one but the commas mentioned as needing to be removed were not in the nomination or its history. Also, the name of the barnacle in question is Megatrema anglicum and Pyrgoma anglicum is a synonym and was not used in the nominated hook. All very mysterious. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Try this Fuebaey (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I see where it came from now. it was added here as ALT1 by Girona7 when reviewing the nomination and I didn't notice that the barnacle's scientific name was wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no... Did I mess up the name? I apologize if so! :( Girona7 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I was unobservant too! :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2015 (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) 13:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Right isn't right

Currently in Prep 5 is a hook nominated by Jakec: "... that Shingle Mill Run is the only named tributary of West Branch Fishing Creek to enter it from the right?"

To me, this doesn't make any sense. You're standing out there and see that it enters from the right. But if you turn around... amazingly, now it enters from the left! The "right" should probably be changed to "east", but I wouldn't want to do that without checking the source. This was approved a week ago by EEng, and according to his comment on the nomination, the source is a map, but I can't check because apparently since then the source's domain name has expired. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mandarax: See wikt:right bank and wikt:left bank. I meant to link that term, but I forgot. I'll do it right now. --Jakob (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's much better! Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur. EEng (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jakec and EEng: That said, if the domain isn't renewed before this is due to go live, we'll have to pull it as the hook can not be verified for promotion from the prep area to the queue. It might be worth looking for another source, or preparing an alternative hook, just in case. Harrias talk 07:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think that's a bit over-fussy (you ought to take my and Jakec's word for it) but at worst, we should just put the nom on ice and ask Jakec to let us know when the site is online again. EEng (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@EEng and Harrias:  Done I've replaced the deadlink with a live one. --Jakob (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK "rules"

What happens if a DYK nom does not meet the 5x expansion requirement at time of submission? Is there a time-frame within which it needs to be expanded? If it is not done within the 5 day requirement (which the rules state), does the clock reset? Or does the DYK nomination get a fail, requiring resubmission after another 5x expansion or GA promotion? This came up on the review of Template:Did you know nominations/We Bare Bears. I don't want to give it a pass, if it is going to anger the DYK gods. Gaff (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI the rules have been changed to 7 days between creation/expansion and nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In this case, I don't see a problem. The article was clearly expanded, and was only a little short. If the article was nowhere near, and it looked like it was an early nomination to "game" the system and let the nominator have more time to expand, then I would say that would be a fail. Harrias talk 20:39, 18 January 2015 (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) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the old list archived, I've compiled a new set of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing. We've made good progress: only seven have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 2 that have been waiting for over two months, the second has 5 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 35 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 73 nominations are approved, leaving 203 of 276 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over two months:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 01:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Playing fast and loose?

To editor Crisco 1492: Why is the version of my George Zentmyer hook currently on the Main Page not the same as the approved version I wrote? I'm not pleased. I don't recall reading anything about editors changing hooks as they see fit. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I didn't edit any of the hooks. However, I should note that copyediting has been allowed for years. What changes were made? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • My wording "has a type of avocado tree named after him" was changed to "has an avocado cultivar named after him" by Cwmhiraeth in Prep6. @Cwmhiraeth: I don't appreciate changes to my wording. What gives? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I changed the wording because the previous wording was unsatisfactory. He didn't have a tree named after him, nor is a "type of tree" a good expression, he had a cultivar named after him. The avacado is Persea americana. This is the species name and has nothing to do with George A. Zentmyer. It was a rootstock cultivar that was named after him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the article so yes, I know. I deliberately simplified it. If you don't like my hook the least you could do is let me know. Had I chosen to stick with the more specific wording I'd've wikified the word cultivar. In the future, please recall that editors like me are unaccustomed to your intervention. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hooks are routinely modified post-approval as they move to prep, or once in prep or Q, with surprisingly little pushback or argument. I do it all the time, to an extent I would have through unimaginable a year ago. Apparently most editors (let's call them "relaxed" editors) simply aren't that interested in the fine details of wording and mechanics, and are content to allow those of us who do care ("fussy" editors) to adjust as we see fit. But friction arises when the nominator is himself a "fussy" and another "fussy" comes along and tinkers. Even counting absolutely necessary grammar and usage fixes, there are too many adjustments post-nom to be pinging everyone all the time, so like it or not if you're a "fussy" you just have to keep an eye on the hook as it passes from nom to prep to Q.
I recall looking at this particular hook in prep, and wondering about the wording, but I would never have made a change such as the one mentioned here, if for no other reason than I know that all this cultivar - variety - species - etc stuff is highly technical and I don't understand it. Even if I thought I understood, in this case I'd probably open a discussion instead of just making the change, unless the article and the sources both were absolutely clear that the hook is wrong, and I think I see why the confusion crept in in the first place. It might be different if the subject were, say, math or CS. EEng (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. It's too bad you can't ping people from an edit summary in order to draw their attention to a particular edit you're making. That would be perfect for these situations.
I appreciate the explanation. I'd recommend adding a sentence about these post-approval modifications in the nomination page. I did 18 DYKs prior to this one and they were never changed (because I check them on the main page) hence my belief that wording gets ironed out in the nomination. For people like me that are wedded to their words, this practice is another alienating aspect of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Your hooks have probably escaped modification because you're a "fussy" editor who gets it right the first time -- no grammar boners. If, though, you're wedded to your words (I am as well -- TRUST ME) you're gonna have to keep that marriage alive by keeping an eye on your spouse and defending it against interlopers -- surely you know nothing in WP is "hands off" -- quite the opposite. EEng (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things about Prep 1

We have the "fact":

Does it bother anyone else that "Je suis Charlie" is not a hashtag? I personally would prefer:

Also, there are two of my own hooks in the article which both relate to elections in Taunton, which given the balance that we strive for, seems a bit of overkill, should we swap one into another prep? Harrias talk 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph source that verifies the hook doesn't use #, but arguing about it here is silly, so I'll go with consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article on an early Trans person in colonial Jamestowne (possible DYK for LGBT history)

Hello, I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years, and edited extensively, but the rigamorale of the DYK process baffles me so I don't ever even attempt to work with it. That said, I ran across an article while reviewing for AFC (where I've reviewed thousands of articles in the last few years), and one that was so unusual I was sure it was a hoax until I checked GoogleBooks and found serious academic mention.

The new article Thomas(ine) Hall covers a person in Colonial Virginia's Jamestowne who's entire gender identity was a matter of legal and social dispute. Really interesting article showing the longevity of Trans issues in the US. I'm not formally submitting this for DYK since the process seems so arcane, but mentioning this in case anyone finds it worth nominating. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the DYK nomination process is now simpler than it used to be. In any event, I will nominate the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Meh, you still have to do two things to make it work, and one of them is trivially easy to do wrong or simply forget. I find it particularly amusing that the instructions for step two appear on the page for step one, but disappear when you complete page one. The process should, and could, be far more automated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Two DYK?

Is it possible that two unrelated DYK is nominated by the same user simultaneously. Please {{ping}} me when replied, thanks.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, did you remember to ping FrB.TG? EEng (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't forget, I thought if you have a question you should be interested enough to watch the page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, unless the person specifically asks you to ping... EEng (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There's hope for the world after all

It's all too easy to dismiss the planet as being filled with a bunch of sex crazed 15-seconders, but once in a while you see hopeful signs otherwise. How else to interpret the fact that some boring article on an obscure radar system got more hits than one with an image of one of the world's most famous hotties? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to pour cold water on your optimism, but apparently many more people directly clicked through to the hottie instead of the company she worked for. The world is still hopeless, after all. :) -Zanhe (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh noes! Back to building the fallout shelter then. And speaking of, everyone should take a good look at the chart on page 13 of this uplifting little tome. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A bit of <bleep>ing swearing on the front page

I'm a little bit concerned about Template:Did you know nominations/Fuck It, We'll Do It Live? It's not the first time a nomination with this opening word has happened, and this time round, it's been accepted under the DYK criteria, although not queued yet. While procedure has been followed correctly, I have this nasty feeling, possibly with Jimbo's last Wikimania speech in the back of my mind, that putting "Fuck" on the front page will not go down well. What do others think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's anything to be worried about. It's not as if this will be the lead hook or something. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay. The problem I have is not with the word itself, but rather being WP:BOOMERANGed back by complaints about it, since I'm the nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fucking Hell, that was on the main page? What Shit Brook would allow Fugging swearing on the front page? :) Its not the first time there has been swear words on the front page and it probably won't be the last. It's nothing to worry about, a few Fs and Ss aren't going to damage Wikipedia due to WP:NOTCENSORED and all that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuck me, I've been over-reacting to this. Bollocks to it then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you did a great fucking job, Ritchie333. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

... and let's not forget the "Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties" part ;) - We have an article on bollocks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on timing

I've typically stayed away from DYK for various reasons but dived in with a recent article. As someone new to it, I still can't figure out how the timing works. A recent article is clear for DYK (2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final) and it is hard to see if it is going through the process or if I need to click a couple extra buttons or something. No big deal in the grand scheme of things but I imagine others would be frustrated (I'm secretly hoping it is delayed a couple weeks for the net round of the wikicup).Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, it is approved, but waiting for promotion to a prep area. I would be surprised if it lasts as long as two weeks, more likely it will be selected in the next few days, and run later this week. Harrias talk 08:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Template:Did you know nominations/Sessue Hayakawa: Silent Cinema and Transnational Stardom was approved on 11 January but hasn't been promoted to any prep area.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Harrias! Does this question come up sometimes? If so it might be worth putting a note somewhere. There is a lot of information and I poked around without finding anything. Of course, I could have completely missed it and will feel silly once I realize it.Cptnono (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comma in Q6

Now in Queue 6, I see a comma missing behind Cardiff (hook 3), and don't understand the one after Jesus in the quirky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've altered the wording in hook 3 slightly so that it reads better (in my opinion anyway), and removed the comma in the final hook. Harrias talk 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Top Totty DYK

I've just been told that Top Totty has been moved into the prep areas. This is wrong as it is an april fools day hook and was in the april fools day area and shouldn't be running now. Can someone please remove it from the prep areas and put it back for april fools day? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Or at least wait for Easter. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I have reverted and put it back into the AFD holding area myself. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean DYK. :) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No, AFD is short for April Fools Day. There's a separate nominations page for that day. --Jakob (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Can Wikipedia just delete a whole day like that?! Scandalous. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop writing so small, I can barely hear you. Harrias talk 01:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has those 3 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 33 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 102 nominations are approved, leaving 222 of 324 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 03:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Prep areas

Do you have to be an administrator to move hooks to the prep areas? I'd be happy to lend a hand, but am not an administrator. MeegsC (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, building sets in the prep areas can be done by anyone. Harrias talk 19:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
MeegsC, it's great that you want to do this. You'll want to read over the WP:DYKSG#Rules of thumb for preparing updates and T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook for useful information on the process. Also, be sure to check the approved nomination to be sure the reviewer didn't miss anything important, and the hook facts check out as being in the article and in the inline cited sources. For example, we've had two lead hooks lately where the image in the nomination wasn't in the article; only images from the article are eligible, and they must be free. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Prep 4 needs a new lead hook

The image is not used in the article String Quartets, Op. 50 (Haydn) as per DYK rule, and is of a person quite tangential to the topic. Need to either move it to a non-lead slot or use the image of Haydn, which is used in the article. -Zanhe (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the hook to the second slot of Prep 5. Someone can pick a new lead hook from the dozens currently approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've restored the hook to the lead position after the image was added to the article and an explanation was left on my talk page. -Zanhe (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Just mentioning something which is quite tangential to this topic ... that previously existing image in the article is not Haydn, but King Frederick William II of Prussia. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. The caption of the image was a bit misleading; I've changed it. -Zanhe (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Prep 6 lead hook

Sorry, I have somehow managed to overlook for the last few weeks that the hook for Dog Island Lighthouse has lost a bit of its hookiness. What happened was that a newish reviewer edited the hook, instead of providing an Alt hook. I then provided the original hook as Alt1 and gave an explanation why I thought that was a better hook. This was agreed, but then Alt1 got crossed out, and not the original hook; instead, the original hook was further reworded. My mistake for not spotting this; it happened some weeks ago. Can I please request that somebody swaps it over to Alt1; there's no difference in hook fact behind any of the variations. I could do it myself, but thought it better to request somebody else to do it: Schwede66 02:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change the hook, the nomination should go back to the nomination area, since the first hook fact ("marine engineer for New Zealand") doesn't appear in all the articles. Do you want me to return it to the nom area? Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
In principle I would support that, but that would give me the chance to sneak Jaywick and its picture to the top on the same prep set, so I'll stay out of the way of this and leave it up to the rest of you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Yoninah: No. We had the discussion in the nomination already ("Question to anybody here - do all the hook facts need to be confirmed in all three articles? I'm asking because Balfour's drowning has nothing to do with Dog Island or its lighthouse, so it would be totally out of place in those articles.") and you yourself responded: "I have since seen other editors waive this requirement, especially for multiple hooks such as this, where the facts don't fit into every article." So why do you want to relitigate this now? Or do you feel that the drowning doesn't have to be mentioned in all three articles, but the fact that he was a marine engineer should be stated? Schwede66 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Past practice has only required a hook fact to be present in one article for multi-article hooks. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 94#Hook-fact in multi-hooks for a past discussion on this concern. --Allen3 talk 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think the marine engineer part should be stated in the other articles, or else readers will be looking all over the place trying to figure out who's the marine engineer. That title could easily be added to his name in Dog Island Lighthouse and Dog Island, New Zealand, and then I'm fine with ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done Never mind, I added the title and cited it in the other 2 articles, and replaced the hook in Prep 6 before it gets promoted to the queue. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, team! Schwede66 00:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Prep 6

"... that email letters about Angelina Jolie and mentioning films set in the pre-civil rights era to President Obama are among leaked confidential data belonging to Sony Pictures Entertainment?" I couldn't understand it without reading the article. Does the email about Angelina Jolie also mention films? (No, it isn't the same email, and it doesn't just mention films, it's about mentioning films.) Does it mean Obama in his youth before civil rights? If I'm not the only person who had that problem, you could add a few words, but it's already the longest hook. Or you could remove a phrase somewhere. Art LaPella (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • George Ho, I pulled the Sony Pictures hook from the Prep. Sorry about that. It didn't make sense to me, either. And it might have been moved up to a Queue before you had time to correct it. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Browser wars

@Astro interest:, @Jakob:, @HalfGig: Prep 4 currently says "Did you know ... that Thomas Reardon invented Internet Explorer?" I didn't, and I don't think Eric Sink, long time blogger and former Spyglass, Inc. developer who could (and, indeed, has) lay claim to have written the software that turned up as IE 1.0 ([1]) does either. And it seems the source used just says Reardon was the program manager for IE 3.0, some way down the line. Should we pull this hook, or can people think of an alternative? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It says he was on the original development. I think the hook is ok but I also don't object anyone else changing it. HalfGig talk 22:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The term "program manager" means something very specific here - it's Microsoft jargon for somebody who writes the functional specification and guides the long-term direction of a product. That doesn't really correspond with the layman's view of what "inventing" something is. And when I know and can verify a counter-claim for somebody else "inventing" it, things become a big cloudy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The source says that Reardon was the one person development team behind IE. I took that to mean that he was the one who invented it. --Jakob (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I also feel it has a quirky nature without being false. HalfGig talk 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The hook should be pulled immediately. Saying anyone "invented" IE is simply wrong. Microsoft licensed the code of the Mosaic browser in 1995, and developed IE based on the Mosaic technology. See the Mosaic article and Windows IT Pro. Reardon is merely the first Microsoft programmer, later program manager, to work on the project. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Look on the bright side. Six months ago nonsense like this was getting on MP several times a week. EEng (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Zahne already pulled it. It was in prep 4 so that needs a new hook now. HalfGig talk 14:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. This is a claim I have seen from some sources (and IE3.0 was very different from IE1.0 or IE2.0). However, I would not object to changing the hook to something like:
This is directly corroborated by the MIT Tech Review source. Astro interest (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest was for a time -- makes it sound more like an interim status. EEng (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Astro interest, your ALT hook sounds fine, as is EEng's suggestion. Please add it to the nomination page. -Zanhe (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I've pulled this from the prep area, as the hook fact didn't appear at all in the article. Both the editor who approved the article, and the editor who promoted it to the prep area should have picked this up, it's a pretty fundamental flaw. Harrias talk 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore Nagarathnamma in Queue 4

There appears to be a serious spelling error in the hook and article for Bangalore Nagarathnamma, which claims she was a "consort artist". Unsure what exactly what this term means, I investigated further. The supporting source, available here, uses the term "concert artist" while both the article and hook employ a different term despite the use of quote marks highlighting the words. --Allen3 talk 16:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've double checked what you've said, and agreed, so I changed the article and the hook to "concert". To be honest, I dislike the entire wording of the hook, and don't like the use of so many quotes on the main page without attribution, but that is just my own opinion. Harrias talk 21:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot wrong here, since we're on the subject. The article says that something or someone "catapulted her into a concert artist" in Madras, and I think most readers will want to know whether any injuries resulted from this unorthodox encounter. Beyond that, the claim that she was the "first female artist to pay income tax" needs to be qualified -- is this worldwide, or just India, and whose claim is this? EEng (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't really read the rest of the article. Given that this is scheduled to run in just under two hours, should we be looking at replacing it? Harrias talk 22:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally when Person A finds one error, then Person B finds two more right off, it suggests the reviewer may have been having a bad day. Best to swap it out and recheck at leisure. EEng (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Pulled and replaced with Template:Did you know nominations/Preity Zinta filmography, which has left Prep 6 short again! Harrias talk 22:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

My DYK Hook

One of my hooks that I nominated was accepted and asked to be moved into the queue. It was never moved and I was wondering the reasoning behind this. The hook I nominated is here Template:Did you know nominations/Broadway Limited. Eurodyne (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We currently have a large backlog of approved hooks—88 at the moment, which is lower than in recent days. Given that we use only 14 approved hooks per day, it will take a while before all of them will be promoted, and it's fairly random what the order will be, including future approvals. Sometimes it's quick, sometimes it's quite slow. Please be patient; it will be promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Eurodyne: there's no reason. No one has gotten around to promoting it yet. At the moment all the prep areas are full. It will probably be promoted soon, once the preps need to be filled again. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
So it won't grow stale? Eurodyne (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Eurodyne: I had the same worry on my first DYK, but no, it won't. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
What we really need is for an administrator to move things from prep into the queue; that's been the holdup of late. MeegsC (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I've promoted prep 5, but both prep 6 and prep 1 have my hooks in them; the rules don't prohibit me moving those prep areas into queues, but I'd rather another admin did it if possible. But if things start to back up, or look like going into backlog, I'll do so. Harrias talk 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Eurodyne: I've promoted your hook to Prep 6. -Zanhe (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis

I remember something like that a synopsis in an article about a book or opera doesn't need inline citation. Is it right, and is there a guideline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: MOS:PLOT: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary".
Also clarified at WP:DYKSG#D2: "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding ... plot summaries". 23W 23:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2015 (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) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (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) 10:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ernest Cashel

This nom for Ernest Cashel has been good to go for some time. He was hanged on 2 February, so there is an ALT that uses that fact to good effect. I'd like to see this get lead position some time tomorrow, 2 Feb. Can we get this prepped ASAP? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortuately the sets for Feb 2 are already in Q. However, since we've decided to have 8/set now, this could be added to Q6, if you don't mind dropping the image. If your answer is yes, recommend you ping Crisco and one or two other admins, since an admin is needed to do this. EEng (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As the author, I don't mind losing the pic, as it is kind of faded anyway. Looking at the timing, Queue #1 would put it solidly on Feb 2 in Calgary's timezone (GMT-7) where he's most famous. It would just be coming off the page then in Queue 6. Pinging Casliber and Allen3 as the ones who seem to be working the recent queues. CrowCaw 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Calgary? How did Australia get into it?? EEng (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The other Calgary? CrowCaw 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. ;) EEng (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, hang on, I'm on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Added to Q1 now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work everyone! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Indeed, thanks to all! CrowCaw 23:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK subpage deletion discussion

Are the template subpages supposed to be nominated at TfD or MfD, or are there applicable speedy deletion rationales? Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 30#Template:Did you know nominations/Mouna Ragam. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 12:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Why bother deleting it? Just close it as failed. EEng (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It should not be deleted, but closed in the normal DYK manner. Another possibility is to have the person who took the article to GA status, Thamizhan1994, take over the nomination and be responsible for it once it does get reviewed. Thamizhan1994, are you interested, or should we close it? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, on further investigation, the Template:Did you know nominations/Mouna Ragam nomination was never added to the T:TDYK page per instructions, and the nominator didn't do anything when the DYKHousekeepingBot placed a talk-page note about the problem. If Thamizhan1994 is interested in pursuing the nomination, I'll add to it T:TDYK so people can see it needs reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, glad it can be fixed up and reviewed! —PC-XT+ 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

USS Callao

I've worked on the USS Callao (IX-205) article, is the expansion enough for DYK? Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A check of the article history shows that the article had 1798 characters of readable prose on June 5, 2014 (the edit before you began your work). Currently the article has 4627 characters of readable prose, roughly a 2.6x expansion. DYK rules require a 5x expansion for an article to qualify. The other option is to take the article through the GA process. --Allen3 talk 09:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Allen3:, thanks for that. Not a problem that it hasn't been expanded enough, just that I had a cracking hook in mind. Oh well, some things aren't meant to be. It's nowhere near GA class though. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Do previous main page appearances prohibit DYK nomination?

The article Magna Carta has just passed GA so would be eligible for nomination here as I can't see it as having previously appeared as DYK; however it has been on the main page as an "On this day" anniversary (June 15) five times in the last ten years. Would it be appropriate to nominate it here or not?— Rod talk 08:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The rules only prohibit bolded ITN articles; that said, they were primarily written before GA-class articles were eligible, so prominent OTD articles were unlikely to be an issue. Personally, I think that a bold OTD article should be considered equivalent to a bold ITN article and therefore make it ineligible, but I'm open to discussion. Harrias talk 10:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks I thought that might be the situation so I will not nominate it, we will just have to see if we can get it to be TFA on 15 June.— Rod talk 10:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
[ec] Just for the record, I agree that they're ineligible. I believe the intent of rule was to exclude any article which had previously appeared as a bold link on the Main Page, and at the time, the only conceivable place where a new article could have appeared was ITN. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense to me as well, that bolded OTD links count as a main page appearance that would preclude a subsequent DYK appearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is any opposition, I will update the rules to reflect this? Harrias talk 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you summarize the entirety of the rules (with respect to disqualification for DYK), as we are now being asked to endorse them, so we can all be sure we're talking about the same thing? EEng (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No, because lots of things can disqualify a DYK. But specifically, I am referring to adding a bold entry in OTD to the ITN rule. Harrias talk 22:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess I meant, Can you summarize the entirety of the rules (with respect to the various ways MP appearance can disqualify an article for DYK), as we are now being asked to endorse them? Surely that should be possible. EEng (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries: what it used to say was "e) Articles that have been featured (bold link) in a blurb on the main page's In the news section are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)" What I just changed it to, on the basis of this discussion, is "e) Articles that have been featured (bold link) in a blurb on the main page's On this day or In the news section are ineligible. (Articles linked at OTD or ITN not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)" Harrias talk 07:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. EEng (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it fair to say the rule is one bolded MP appearance per article, with the exception that an article can be TFA regardless of previous appearances? EEng (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think so: a previous DYK would be appropriate for ITN or OTD if relevant in my opinion, but part of the ethos of DYK is "newness", and previous appearances on the MP detract somewhat from that. Harrias talk 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was muddled. EEng (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl hook

Hey all, I just finished writing this hook if anyone wants to add it for later today. There's no rush, but it would fit really will since the end of the day for GMT will be right before the game for Americans (and inversely, the beginning of the day will be halfway through the game). There's no rush or anything on the hook, but I found it yesterday and decided to create it since it fits another Super Bowl club I wrote about four years ago. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Rutherford, same-day nominations don't have a chance; you're supposed to allow at least five days. Indeed, as I write this, the main page already has the set that will be there during the start of the Super Bowl, and the next set has been long since been filled and promoted to prep and then queue. You'll need to rewrite the hook, since it would only work being posted today, and that's not going to happen. It wouldn't have been able to run anyway, since there's nothing in the article stating that they were set to photograph today's game, and even going forward you'd need to confirm in the article that all four were actually there if you want to mention their attendance at XLIX in the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not that we want to discourage you or anything... EEng (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (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) 11:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 7 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 31 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 72 nominations are approved, leaving 233 of 305 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Manot Cave

"Much obliged, old fruit."

I find the DYK instructions perplexing. I'd appreciate it if someone familiar with them could nominate this article on my behalf or explain to me what needs to be done to improve it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged, old fruit. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Old fruit? Um... EEng (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Done deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for DYK nomination – Inclusive Church

Hi. I am not yet an autoconfirmed editor of Wikipedia, but I have just created an article that I think would make a decent DYK entry. Apparently I'm not allowed to propose it, so could someone propose it for me?

The article is Inclusive Church. I suggest the hook be "... that Inclusive Church advocates for the full inclusion of all people in the church regardless of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation?"

Many thanks to whoever can help with this.

Relentlessly (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that this has been self-nominated. I don't know where the notion that a user must be autoconfirmed in order to nominate came from; I know of no such rule, even in the section pointed to by the "not allowed to propose it" link provided above. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It was present until yesterday by Fuhghettaboutit, who suggested it was fine to go ahead and self-nominate. Sorry: I should have made a comment here to that effect. Relentlessly (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I wonder why that was there; maybe someone erroneously thought that autoconfirmed status was required to create a template. In any case, Relentlessly, welcome to Wikipedia and to DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Prep 6

I'm unhappy with the Pius Walder hook in the last slot, which has what I think is an inappropriate Easter-egg link at the end:

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There might possibly be an excuse if the film was mentioned in a real way in the linked article, but it isn't there at all. The link should be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I unlinked. EEng (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

International Women's Day

When are we allowed hooks about sheep?

International Women's Day is March 8. It would be great to do as we've done in previous years, and have all of the day's hooks about women. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, just so long as the rest of the year, all the hooks can be about men. EEng (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm up for this Mandarax but I suspect we may have issues as the project may find it difficult to process the volume of articles that were created last year. However given the lower numbers we could still try and ensure that over 50% of all people mentioned were female. The good news is that I can see a lot of new articles each day which are being published by projects that are biased towards female subjects. Unfortunately these are not being nominated for DYK. Victuallers (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. He's only talking about 1 day, 2x8=16 hooks. We could probably pull that from the approved hooks awaiting promotion right now. What's the problem? EEng (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You may have missed that the day is the tip of a month of activity. Last year there was 175 articles at DYK during that month out of just under 350 new articles. Its not a big problem but it was good to see that women got an equal show on the main page for one month and few people noticed. Progress I think. Obviously we should have that not just on one day, or just on one month but mostly every year. Victuallers (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's a month, but Mandarax's proposal was for a single day. If people nominate a lot of "female" articles during the month, that has nothing to do with Mandarax's proposal. However, to the extent there are a lot of women-related nominations during the month, we might explicitly reverse our usual "balance" heuristic and encourage prep builders to use as much of them as possible during the month. EEng (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: I didn't really see it as a proposal, but rather as a reminder of our usual observance, for people to start getting their articles together. We often get more submissions than will fit in the available slots, and that's especially likely with two rather than three sets. Ones that don't fit can, as usual, be distributed throughout March (Women's History Month). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • See below, March is Women's History Month, so I created that there. I do suggest having a special holding area for this day too (I think I'll set it up, in fact). Could focus on articles about women outside the USA that day, perhaps. There will be plenty, I am sure, and will be a good thing to address the systemic bias issues that have caused so much drama this year. Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we would focus on non-US women for International Women's Day. Let's not exclude any deserving female subjects because of geography. The hooks for IWD should truly have an international mix, including the usual balance of US and non-US hooks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

Hi all, saw that a special occasion holding area had yet to be created for Women's History Month (March) so I created it. Hope that was OK. Also, whose responsibility is it to move articles into that area? Can I do it with ones I review or is there some special wikignome tasked with the job? Just wondering. Montanabw(talk) 03:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, you can do it yourself after you review it. And thank you for setting up the WHM holding area. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Death during consensual sex

Template:Did you know nominations/Death during consensual sex

  • was approved, with the hook: ... that when President Félix Faure died receiving fellatio, his penis had to be surgically removed from his mistress's locked jaw?
  • The article actually says "Eyewitnesses stated he was in a state of partial undress when he died and Steinheil had lockjaw, necessitating the surgical removal of Faure's penis from her mouth. This version is disputed by some historians."
  • There's also this: http://www.english.rfi.fr/node/79115

Are we happy that this "hook" is factual, and accurate? Seems a bit speculative to me, and, given the subject matter, it might be embarrassing if not based on solid fact. Begoon talk 03:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Umm, this was promoted two years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok - my mistake. I saw it discussed elsewhere, and I didn't check the dates. Still, it did make me wonder about what we permit as hooks. I'll get my coat. --slinks off, blushing... Begoon talk 03:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Pervert. EEng (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
[2] Begoon talk 05:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion needed

For simplicity, and to avoid confusion, comment above in WP:DYKSG#D2. Harrias talk 14:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi all, User:LlywelynII and I are having a disagreement regarding the minimum referencing requirements involving two separate nominations and four articles. The main discussion is at Template:Did you know nominations/Chongming Island, and a similar one at Template:Did you know nominations/Yonglongsha. Please feel free to chime in or even take over the reviews. Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See discussion above at #WP:DYKSG#D2. — LlywelynII 00:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 5

I'd really rather have Pikes Creek and Harveys Creek separate (though I'm glad to have Harveys Creek remain as a non-bolded link in the Pikes Creek hook). The Pikes Creek hook is only sort of interesting, whereas my Harveys Creek hooks were very good, so it would be nice to see one of the Harveys Creek hooks on the main page. --Jakob (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor technical problem

If you add an image but don't add a caption, you get an error message in the template. But if you edit that to fix it, you don't get what you typed in, of course. What you do get is confusing: 

<!--Insert caption text here-->]]<br /><span style="color:red">Add caption text! <!--Add caption text to the left where it says "<!-Insert caption text here->", and then remove this red message.--></span>

Note that it tells you to look for "Insert caption text here", but that appears in two places, and goes on to tell you to remove the red message, which isn't actually red. Surely there is a better solution here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I don't think anyone can tell what you're saying. EEng (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Move to 3 sets per day?

With over 300 hooks in waiting, nearly 100 approved, and near full queues it would seem to be a good time to up things to 3 sets per day. Thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • oppose Until there is six-sigma avoidance of errors, we should go to 1 set a day from 2. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I was just waiting for this, since the wikicup started up again we have had a large influx and it is best to speed it up a bit because otherwise come February, the talk page will be bombarded with people demanding their hooks run quickly. For example Template:Did you know nominations/Shankill United Predators F.C. has been green ticked and been waiting for promotion since 5th of Jan. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time This is perhaps a good time for me to trot out the nom stats I've been keeping for the last few months (though in early January I got lazy, though now I guess I'll start again):
The two numbers on each line of the stats are AAA, UUU:
  • AAA is the approved reserve, the total of: hooks in Q + hooks in Prep + approved nominations not yet promoted to prep. With the current reserve of 138, and running 14 hooks/day, the average time from approval to main-page appearance is 138/14 = 10 days -- that's a while, but not excessive.
  • UUU is the unapproved backlog: The number of noms on the big board, minus the number of those which are approved.
The current values are AAA=138, UUU=235.
  • First the backlog: it was almost 350 when we eliminated the QPQ exception for non-self-noms, on Nov 21 2014. Immediately the backlog began a steady drop until it reached just about 200, where it sort of stalled. Then about 2 weeks ago it began to grow again, to where it stands now at about 235.
  • Approved reserve: It has at times been as low as zero, but in the months before Nov 21 it fluctuated between about 50 and 100. Since Nov 21, as the backlog dropped the reserve has began a definite climb with lots of wiggle) to where it's now about 140.
From this I conclude that the rule change was a very, very good idea.
Where we are right now is where we ought to be:
  • Qs are full, preps are full -- hooks spend lots of time in prep + Q, giving plenty of time for many eyes to look them over. This is a big reason errors are down so much compared to 6 months ago.
  • Plenty of hooks waiting for promotion -- easy to put balanced prep sets together.
We would be foolish to do anything to disturb this situation, until we truly have a surfeit of approved hooks. Here's the protocol I've been advocating for some time:
  • The normal state is 14 hooks (i.e. 2 sets of 7) per day
  • The moment the approved reserve rises from 149 to 150, go to 21 hooks per day; when the reserve drops to 100 again (which should take about 7 days) return to 14 hooks/day.
  • The moment the approved reserve drops from 50 to 49, go to 7 hooks per day; when the reserve rises to 100 again (which should take about 7 days) return to 14 hooks/day.
So I advise that we stay at 14 hooks/day unless and until the approved reserve hits 150. Sometimes an approved hook gets consistently overlooked for some reason (buried among large complex discussions, etc.) and individual cases like that can be pointed out at T:DYK. It's not a reason to accelerate our burn rate. EEng (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC) It wouldn't hurt to recommend a practice, when building sets, to really try to start with the oldest approved hook -- this is easily seen on the 'scoreboard'.
  • Oppose there is no rush, no deadline, it's better to keep the quality high than focus on the churn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose: WP:TLDR, but it looks like EEng (talk · contribs) has some statistics to back up what I felt anyway, that we should stick with the current format for a while longer. Harrias talk 21:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm always happy when people just agree with me from the start without worrying about reasons -- saves time that way. EEng (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EEng's arguments. In past 3 days, less than 10 nominations/per day have being made, insufficient even for 2 set a day. --User:Vigyani 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hold per EEng's stats. I like the algorithm so we can review when numbers change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative: 2 x 8

  • Comment do we have to choose between two sets and three sets per day? How about making smaller adjustments like increasing from 7 hooks to 8 per set? -Zanhe (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal - I propose that the number of hooks per set be increased to eight, as suggested by Zanhe, thereby giving a modest reduction in approved nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
On the whole I'd rather have a few larger sets on display longer, over a larger number of smaller sets rotating more frequently, but presumably there's some limit to how much MP real estate we're allowed. Anyone know the story on this? EEng (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I like Cwmhiraeth's proposal. As I look at the Main Page now on a 1280x1024 display, provided the TFA blurb is normally the size it is now, we could probably put two more hooks in the DYK area. To counteract real estate issues, we could drop the required hook size say from 200 down to 150 characters? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Even with the current hook length, eight isn't a problem, it's a number we've used before, including most of 2012. Harrias talk 13:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support relying on Harrias' assurances. EEng (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - acceptable alternative. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good idea!--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Even one extra per set will help some. MeegsC (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Done Okay, I've changed it to eight hook from prep 1. Harrias talk 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I did it for all the filled preps as well; there are a few empty hooks now, but the next prep to go to queue has all eight hook slots filled. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you a convicted criminal whose community service is to do all the shitwork at DYK forever? EEng (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Bookwheel

Queue 5:

... that the bookwheel (pictured) was one of the earliest devices that allowed a person to read multiple books in one location?

This should be reworded to make it clear that this was a fanciful invention:

... that the bookwheel (pictured) was a fanciful invention for dealing with the proliferation of heavy books?

EEng (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

While it was fanciful in the sense of being imaginative, I would think of a "fanciful invention" as an imaginary one that never existed, such as a Star Trek transporter. That is not the case here. The (pictured) should probably be changed, since that specific one was never built. Perhaps something like (design illustrated)? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
AFAICT from the sources, the first time it was actually built was 1986, in conscious homage to such a quaint idea of yore. That doesn't remove it from the realm of the fanciful. (If there's something else I'm missing that suggests it was actually built for practical use, not as an historical exercise, my apologies.) EEng (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Was it like a DYK for books? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
In the sense of "a device generally for walking or running while staying in the same place"? Absolutely. EEng (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, "fanciful" could be seen as appropriate, but I feel that "fanciful invention" may have the connotation of being a fantasy device which could never exist in the real world. Most of the sources on the subject seem to be pretty fuzzy, but the 1986 construction does not appear to be the first. The article says: "While other people would go on to build bookwheels based on Ramelli's design, Ramelli did not in fact ever construct his own." The source for that says that Ramelli's design "was replicated by succeeding generations of engineers, artists, and book-lovers". A source not in the article tells of a Princeton history professor whose home office has one which is "a replica of a device used by early modern academics". According to Technology and the Early Modern Self, "this type of reading wheel may have been used by the secretaries or poor scholars who were employed by aristocrats to study and excerpt the classics for them", and "a similar device was in use in Italy much earlier" than 1588. Maybe the nominator will have some input. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still skeptical that anyone actually would have built such a thing (except maybe some deranged prince -- they were always doing crazy stuff) but you've convinced me that the weight of the sources is such that we shouldn't deny that idea e.g. with fanciful. The word invention is neutral on whether it was actually built, thus

... that the bookwheel (pictured) was an invention for dealing with the proliferation of heavy books?

How about that? EEng (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking me, it seems fine. (But I don't care much; I've barely skimmed the article, and only got involved because, while it certainly is a fanciful invention in a sense, I didn't like that such a description could be interpreted the other way. Too bad Geethree hasn't been around for a few days.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:55, 15 February 2015 (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) 22:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit needed in Q4

Could someone change "the renovation of the nuclear weapon arsenal of the USA" to one of "the renovation of the US nuclear weapon arsenal" or "the renovation of the nuclear weapon arsenal of the US"? Probably the former would be better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, for that matter it should be nuclear weapons arsenal. Or (better) simply nuclear arsenal. EEng (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bleu Horses

I was attempting to promote the latest prep area to a queue but the image bearing hook from Template:Did you know nominations/Bleu Horses has am image with a freedom of panorama problem. We cannot count photos of sculptures as free. They can be fair use, but still then can't be used as DYK images. SO prep 2 needs a new lead hook, and Bleu Horses needs to be replaced in a spot with no image. (I am not a person that knows how to build a prep area) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I - reviewer - don't know enough about image licenses. The hook could easily go to some quirky space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
FIne. Run it without the image. I am addressing the issue at commons, I think the statues are public domain, but I'd have to check with the artist to be sure. Will take too long for DYK, so just run it without the photo. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

A second opinion is needed at this nomination. To summarise; A (journalist) was abducted on 2015-01-02; A's body was found on 2015-01-24; Another journalist was murdered on 2015-01-04; a suspect alleged that A was murdered on the day he was abducted. The proposed hook "... that Moisés Sánchez Cerezo was the first journalist killed in Mexico in 2015?" I am sensitive to the criticism aired on this page over the last few months about the use of the word "first" in hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hook should not be puzzle

... that disappointment led to the creation of Retox?

Retox, Botox... IMO readers must easily see the context. DYK is not a puzzle page. Even on April 1 the anchors are.. er... unorthodox, but the context is always clear. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's fine -- the similarity to Botox may or may not garner clicks -- that's a calculated risk on the hooker's part. My problem with it is the link leads to a dab. EEng (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The version that appeared on the main page had the proper dab.[3] --Allen3 talk 04:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
re "calculated risk"? Are you saying that a confusing hook is the purpose of the hooker? Staszek Lem (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of a hook is to attract attention and get readers to click on the link to the featured article. The fact that you started this discussion shows the hook was successful in attracting attention. The page view statistics system has been experiencing problems, so it is difficult to say how well the hook has been satisfying the second half of its job. --Allen3 talk 04:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Initially I was going to write, but then hesitated, but now here you go: in fact I was annoyed, both when looking at the hook (I have better time to use than to click random links), and later after clicking at it. And the fact that I started this discussion means this hook wasted my time and continues wasting it. I'd rather go fix some typos instead. I.e., "reading wikipedia, what a waste of time!" - was the reaction. And it attracted the attention of me as wikipedian. Next time you make the hoook with a big nbumer fo tyops, surely it will catch my attention :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait... this already appeared??? NEXT! EEng (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to fill the queues?

I notice that all the queues are empty and all the prep sets are full. I'm not an admin so I can't move anything from a prep to a queue, but why is it always so last minute to fill the queue sets and why can't they fill ALL of them if the prep sets are all full. What is the reason for this constant backlog and panicked bot messages? Montanabw(talk) 17:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The arduous nature of having to recheck eight articles against the DYK criteria? Or laziness. One of the two. Harrias talk 17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmph. Where's the checklist and can only admins fill the queues? Montanabw(talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The checklist for what to check when promoting from prep areas to queues? WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG. Harrias talk 21:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Gotta be an admin to move prep --> Q, because that's the last point of human intervention before MP. To build a prep, you can be anyone. EEng (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've promoted a couple of the preps into queues, but the next one has one of my own hooks, so I'd rather leave that for another admin. It'll get us through another day, at any rate! Harrias talk 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Sisyphus. EEng (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Tell me about it. This whole site is like that. There will always be more red links. (But I do want to write an article about Driving in India.) Harrias talk 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been debating an RfA, but with 8 years and 70,000 edits, I have baggage, haters and assorted dramahz certain to ensue. But at least no blocks. A few trout slaps. What do you all think of me trying for an RfA? Am I doomed? Montanabw(talk) 02:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't fall for it! It's a trap! EEng (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The specific article

Regarding the article at the top of this discussion (Chongming Island), it has far too few citations. There has to be a certain minimum requirement for citations at DYK, and in my view this article is well below. Manxruler (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As I predicted earlier in this discussion, we're already descending into evaluating noms by the number of citations instead of their quality and appropriateness. (Having said that I agree it does appear there are some gaps in this article's citing e.g. at the end of sections. A cite's span should not cross a section boundary.) EEng (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list having just been archived, I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 6 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 34 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 77 nominations are approved, leaving 237 of 314 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the dates in the two groups don't make sense? EEng (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I cut out a sentence this time that should have remained. As has been the case in these lists for many months now, those in the first group have been waiting for a review for over a month, either because they've never been reviewed, or because it's been over a month since a new review was requested. The seemingly older ones have all had activity in the past month. I've added a short phrase to help clarify, but could go back to the former wording if it isn't. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Eyre (1910 film)

Unless someone can tell me what I'm missing, this hook (now in Queue 6) ...

... that Jane Eyre is a 1910 American silent short drama, the first American and second worldwide film adaptation of the novel?

... needs revision. What the source says is "The first known film of Jane Eyre came out as a silent Italian movie in 1909 ... In 1915 alone, there were at least seven different movie productions of "Jane Eyre" internationally", which doesn't tell us that this was the second production worldwide, nor that it was the first American production. EEng (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Earth calling Crisco 1492. Three hours to go (not that earth will stop revolving if this goes to MP). EEng (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hook for February 19

I created Death of Elisa Lam and then nominated it in the hope that it can run on February 19 (next Thursday, the second anniversary of the day her body was found in the rooftop water tank of the Cecil Hotel); I think it will get a lot of clicks that way. Since we seem to be having such a slow time lately getting things reviewed, I am mentioning it here in the hope that someone will review it in time (there has been some discussion about this difficulty already in the nomination).

So, anyone up for it? Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and approved it, but I have also suggested an alternative hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Please could somebody move this approved hook into a suitable prep area for it to appear on the main page on February 19th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
+1. Prep area 5 or 6 might be best as it will be on the main page on the requested date in North American time, which would be most appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There is still a chance to get this into Queue 6. Please? I did everything I could, and Cwmhiraeth was helpful as well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

More Than 1 Hook For An Article

Is it okay to have more than one hook nominated for one article? Eurodyne (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes Eurodyne. You can nominate alternate hooks for an article, using ALT1, ALT2 etc. as done in Template:Did you know nominations/Vincenzo Pipino. However, only 1 hook will be featured on the main page, if the article passes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, I mean if one hook for Dog is approved and put on the main page, can I nominate a different hook for the same article? Eurodyne (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
An article that has previously been featured at DYK is no longer eligible (Eligibility criteria 1e). --Allen3 talk 11:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I in DYK nom template breaks code

User:ONUnicorn's signature has a "|" in it. Everything after the | did not appear. [4] Can someone please fix this? --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed my signature. The problem was that I was using a displayed | instead of |. I don't think that was a problem a zillion years ago when I first started using that signature. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:ONUnicorn. But IMO "|" should be escaped in the DYK nom template code, if that is possible. --Redtigerxyz Talk 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunate hook now on MP

... that the gum produced by the gum karaya is used as a laxative and an aphrodisiac?

Not at the same time, one hopes. EEng (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"My understanding" -- how coy. EEng (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And why link aphrodisiac, but not laxative? Personally, I'd say both are equally common terms and neither should be linked. Edwardx (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Or we could use Allen3's idea and link thus: a laxative and an aphrodisiac. Maybe the aphrodisiac effect is indirect -- a side effect of the laxative effect? EEng (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Or Big Leg of Forest Lady EEng (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Error in Queue 5

Template:Did you know nominations/2014 oil spill on Sundarbans is not yet closed; I don't know how or why the hook appeared without re-review. --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed, and replaced with hook from prep. Harrias talk 07:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Queue 1

Re the hook for Brahma Upanishad, the word "similarly" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "similar". Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2015 (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) 10:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dumas Brothel

Resolved

I intended for the above DYK to be the lead hook. However, the DYK promoter moved it to the last hook on Prep 5. Could someone perhaps start Prep 1 or 2 with it. I should have noted that on the DYK page. Noted for the future. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done: while the picture isn't the best, the hook is definitely deserving of the lead spot. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, G S Palmer. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK finally gives proper respect to hookers. EEng (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC
Ha! --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

IAR for Manot Cave?

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Manot Cave on Feb 3. On Feb 4, Manot 1 was created by Chhandama (talk · contribs), the author of Manot Cave, but nobody picked that one up. I would feel like making an exception to the 'nominate within 5 days' rule to create a double hook, even though Chhandama is not a DYK newbie. Please let me know what you think. --Pgallert (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice double hook and we should grab the opportunity. (BTW, we changed 5 days to 7 days last year sometime.) EEng (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Inclusive Church

@ AJona1992 Allen3 Relentlessly I saw this article just got promoted. In my view the hook may appear promotional, as may to a certain degree the article itself. It is almost exclusively sourced to primary sources/non-reliable sources and the notability of the church may be questionable. Iselilja (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Iselilja, for this feedback. This was my first article on Wikipedia, so perhaps I didn't quite get the sourcing right. I think it appears promotional rather than necessarily being so – I'm not particularly a fan of the organisation, but happen to know something about it and included every source I could find. I can try to find something else, but probably not for a little while, perhaps a couple of weeks. Could it be put on hold for that time? Also, could you possibly explain a little more about the rules regarding primary sources – I thought they'd be fine for documenting the internal aspects of an organisation, but perhaps I've got that wrong? (It's probably best to have that conversation on my talk page rather than here.) Many thanks again. Relentlessly (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Relentlessly. I certainly understand that it can be difficult for a newcomer to get all the general policies and the specific policies for DYKs right in the beginning (or later for that case, there is always something to learn). Yes, we can use primary sources for some basic facts on internal affairs, but they should be an addition to reliable sources, independent of the article's subject. What worries me with this article is the general lack of independent, reliable sources, I think I only see one such source,this. Articles based mainly on primary sources and other promotional sources tend to appear rather promotional. Of specific concern regarding DYK is that the hook fact appears to be sourced to Open Charities, which can not be seen as an indenpendent source. Iselilja (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll do my best to do some research, e.g. into the Church Times archives, over the next couple of weeks. Can we agree to put the nomination on hold? (Someone else will have to do that; I don't know how.) Relentlessly (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Relentlessly, thanks. We can definitely put the nomination on hold. It's unfortunate that the article was promoted in the first place with a review that only says "Source confirms DYK hook." This is clearly inadequate: the review should mention everything that was checked: size, newness, article sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, and so on. Given the issues raised above by Isejelia, Relentlessly's request for the nomination to be put on hold, and the inadequate review, I'm removing the nomination from prep and return it to the review stage. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset. Relentlessly (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • After reading this, I read the article. The review aside, I think the article would be helped if Relentlessly could narrow down some details on the organization. "the church" is real vague and could apply to anything. What is their religious dogma? Do they align themselves with the dogma of an existing faith? Who is in charge, and how is it funded? Where exactly was it founded (actual geographical location)? It says it has trustees and publishes books, which would indicate it must have its headquarters somewhere. Do the members meet in a fixed building, or are they a fellowship that meets whenever and wherever they can? See what I mean? We know they believe everybody is equal, but then what?— Maile (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well I do apologize that my review was deemed "inadequate", the source did confirm the hook so that's why I gave it an okay. I haven't review DYKs in a long time (about two or so years) and back then saying that the source confirms the hook was alright. But I understand how more stricter rules were put in place, as the article in question will be on the main page and should model what a Wikipedia article the community would want to represent as a good starting point. Good luck to Relentlessly on bringing the article up to date with sources. Best, jona(talk) 22:56, 17 February 2015 (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) 22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 8 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 31 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, only 41 nominations are approved, leaving 250 of 291 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to 2x7/day

Proposal withdrawn -- see below. EEng (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we switched from 2x7/day to 2x8/day seventeen days ago, our approved reserved has dropped from 143 to 80[see below], and recently has been dropping precipitously. I have long counseled using 100 as our target for the approved reserve, and at current rates we'll be down to 50 in about three to five days, and that's dangerously low. I recommend we return to 2x7 (leaving preps already built alone). EEng (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. The nominations page has bumped into the Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size several times over the last few week. Just because we are finally getting a tiny bit of breathing room is not a valid reason to slam on the brakes and reverse course.
    2. Activities related to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 113#International Women's Day and Women's History Month have artificially reduced the number of approved hooks available for set building. This change will reverse in less than a week when all the hooks moved to the special occasion holding area start being moved into the prep areas.
    3. The next round of Wikipedia:WikiCup starts March 1. If past years are any indication, expect an uptick in the rate of nominations to start about the same time.
You are worried about what will happen in three to five days, but that is the point in time when we can realistically expect an increase in the rate on nominations and not the decrease you foresee. --Allen3 talk 02:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(1) If there's a technical problem, fix the technical problem. We don't distort content or procedures because some counter has overflowed.
(2) You're absolutely right about this -- I hadn't realized that approved noms in the special-occasion area fall off out of the counts on the big scoreboard. Normally there are none to just a few there at most, but right now there are 17, so the correct size of the approved reserve is actually 97.
(3) Let's see what happens.
I was mistaken and withdraw my proposal. EEng (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Location in Q5

Now in Queue 5: Christchurch (New Zealand) Town Council, - really? I had to read twice to find out that it possibly means the town council of Christchurch, New Zealand, and don't think any link is needed for town council, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Technical change request: add special-occasion holding area to scoreboard

Can some technowizard add a line at the bottom of the scoreboard giving the number of approved hooks in the special-occasion holding area(s)? I realize this may not be trivial but perhaps it can happen someday. EEng (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Brode

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Brode was promoted by Victuallers at 10:57 21 February 2014 (UTC) but never ran. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just added the hook to Prep 4. 97198 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It ran a year and a day ago. Please see Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February; it's the third hook in the set marked "00:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)". It looks like it was first loaded into prep, then moved right away into a queue (I'm guessing it needed a slot filled). Did either of you check the February 2014 archive? Searching on "Brode" there took me a few seconds only... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, my bad – I read 2014 as 2015. Thanks for picking that up. 97198 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Me too. But there is no entry on the article talk page, and I was never sent a notification. Can you issue me one for my records? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, both the article talk page and your talk page have been updated; I found another hook in the same set to use as the basis for your note, including the original comment and timestamp by Victuallers, who set up the queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't want to do it myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2015 (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) 10:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Done (belatedly). I'm at work at the moment though, so can't do the rest. If they aren't done in a couple of hours, feel free to ping me here and I'll make sure to do the next one at least! Harrias talk 17:20, 2 March 2015 (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) 03:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy (broadly speaking) on maintenance tags on articles linked to from Main Page

Today, the article Ali Akbar Aboutorabi Fard appeared on the DYK section of the Main Page, but it had had a maintenance tag ({{lead rewrite}}) on it since December 2014. I remember reading somewhere that articles linked to should not have maintenance tags at all (though the first reviewer stated that it was okay because it didn't indicate that the article violated a core policy or anything) - the article did (and still does, after the lede was fixed) need some copyediting for grammar as well, though I'm not going to invest time in it because I have other priorities at the moment. So, is it okay to have a tag like the one it did, and if so how did it get through? ansh666 05:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Longtime denizens of this page will not be surprised at the following short rant from me. The idea that DYK articles should be tag-free is ridiculous. We cannot and should not be demanding that new content pose as perfect content. This is DYK, not TFA. Insisting that there be no [clarification needed] or even the odd non-contentious [citation needed] does nothing but encourage the sweeping of problems under the rug. We should frankly acknowledge that DYK articles are works in progress. EEng (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
*eyebrow raise* I was not suggesting that. But maintenance tags which are highly visible at the top of pages - I thought those were to be avoided? ansh666 05:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a problem if the DYK section on MP said something like, "Wikepedia's newest content‍—‌works in progress which you can help improve! [Click here to find out how, etc etc]". EEng (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be no orange-level tags or higher. I could have sworn that was in WP:DYKSG... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, that was the page I was looking for. I think D6/7 are the most applicable here, but it passes both. Thanks for the link. ansh666 06:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

Hello DYK folks. Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... (there are many alternate titles) -- as in, more women editors and more women's biographies. The proposal mentions the increase in the number of women's biographies which appear at DYK? during WikiWomen's History Month so I'm drawing your attention to the proposal. I haven't done a statistical review on the number of women's biographies vs. men's biographies appearing at DYK, month by month, over the course of a year. Has anyone done a statistical review on this? Is anyone interested in doing one? As I am a long-term contributor to DYK, I can safely assume you know how supportive I am of DYK. I also want you to know that I am not in favor of, nor would I support curtailing the number of men's biographies in order to reach a 50%/50% balance with women's biographies. What I am interested in is (a) creating more women's biographies, and (b) increasing the number of women's biographies which get nominated at DYK. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Chongming Island

From here:

Regarding the article at the top of this discussion (Chongming Island), it has far too few citations... Manxruler
...it does appear there are some gaps in this article's citing... EEng

The hell you say. Even before the mindless addition of repeated cites to each section, the actual information was sourced or not legitimately questionable. (E.g., no cite in the #Location section, but nothing that couldn't be verified by looking at the map to its right.) What actual, questionable information is there that in all good faith needs further sourcing? If you're being serious, that's great, but mention specifics on the DYK submission or the article's talk page so the article can be improved. (And thank you for your time and care.) If you're not, y'know... hesh up. — LlywelynII 02:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's a section that ends As it is usually only about 1.5 km (0.93 mi) wide, however, its area is only around 36.8 km2 (14.2 sq mi), and I hardly see how that can go uncited. With the exception of that kind of thing (i.e. a cite's span shouldn't continue from one section into another) I'm completely behind you. Please don't yell at me as you'll find I'm likely the only one here who is. EEng (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't yelling, but point taken. That's available via link but, again, point taken. I'll move that cite over. — LlywelynII 11:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Typo in Queue 6 -- admin needed

The final hook in Queue 6 has an extraneous asterisk after the bullet. The source starts "* * ...", and should start "* ..." instead. Can an admin please fix this? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Allen3 talk 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Character count vs bytes in Dr pda/prosesize

The article length criteria specify that eligible canditates must be "1,500 characters of prose" in length. I have the User:Dr pda/prosesize script installed to check page sizes. Of the output values it gives, the prose size is given in bytes. For some reason, I had simply assumed that Bytes=characters. Is that correct or not? Regardless of the answer, a footnote should be added in eligibility criteria 2d: "...measured using this script (most accurate) or this one[insert footnote] or this tool." ("this one"=User:Dr pda/prosesize script).

The problem arose when I failed this nomination (assuming bytes=characters) which the script said was 1479 B (248 words) "readable prose size", but the nominator contends the article has 1901 characters (both measures refer to the same revision). I'm fairly new to DYK and would appreciate a second opinion of that nominee; besides differing character count, the article also has some padding with irrelevant prose that I think was intended to reach the size limit (but skimming the supplementary criteria, I can't determine if there's any applicable criteria for this). AHeneen (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you are right. The article was too short; the nominator counted the text in the Products section, but because that was formatted as a list, it was (correctly) not included in the script's count. Harrias talk 07:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have always copy and pasted to Javascript and that usually sorts out any issues as that will give you a clear character count. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's better to use DYKcheck or the prosesize tool listed before, because they know what DYK considers prose characters, which are all that count. Your Javascript tool is likely to count lists and blockquotes and other things that are not counted as prose. DYKcheck also knows to check for things that would render a nominated article ineligible, like previous appearances in DYK or ITN or the like, and looks for 5x expansions as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

100 years after the sinking of the RMS Lusitania

I think Sinking of the RMS Lusitania is eligible at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 7, and there is Curly Turkey's The Sinking of the Lusitania which is a Featured Article, but is DYK doing anything for the centenary? May I propose Marie Depage? (Before someone complains, yes, no doubt I will need to add some footnotes.)

Or is that overkill? -- Ferma (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Beyond posting here, as you've done, to maybe get people thinking about it in case they have any article ideas (or articles they can bring to GA in time -- good luck given the GA backlog!) I don't think there's anything in particular to do. Hooks appropriate for May 7 should be so noted when making the nom. EEng (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Since special occasion hooks are supposed to be nominated between five days and six weeks before the desired date, the article shouldn't be completed too soon; a March 26 nomination date (one month from now) is the earliest to aim for given a May 7 run date, which means initial creation/expansion/GA no earlier than March 19. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

the article shouldn't be completed too soon. Oh, too late. Too bad. -- Ferma (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Does an appearance on "On this day..." disqualify an article from a DYK appearance? If so, then this article can't run, as it was listed back in 2013 in that MP section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@3family6: the article being discussed for DYK here isn't Sinking of the RMS Lusitania, which appeared in 2013, but Marie Depage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was just created the day before yesterday. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And yes, an OTD appearance does disqualify a DYK, per rule 1E of the DYK eligibility criteria. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Congratulations! Your DYK has been approved!

The previous list is about to be archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 17 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 20 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 34 nominations are approved, leaving 243 of 277 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion request for Template:Did you know nominations/Fenestraja plutonia

Hello, I have just completed my first review and would like a more experienced reviewer to offer a second opinion at the above DYK nomination, if this isn't too much trouble. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

Done, and nomination approved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC).

Minor queue tweak

In the last hook of Queue 5, "thoroughbred" should be "Thoroughbred". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of insanity was it give a particular breed of thoroughbred horses the name Thoroughbred. EEng (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
They're bred to be thorough/thoroughly bred. Nothing odd about it. [Edit: Oh, I see the confusion. No, he's talking about thoroughbred horses. There are some people—including our article—that bizarrely capitalize the term, but it's just talking about the entire thoroughbred breed.]
Man should go read he article on the horses he's talking about, though. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lower-case thoroughbred. In fact, thoroughbred is more correct and preferred by every style guide outside the United States and every major style guide that thinks about it inside the US. The only concern is whether that adjective is being used to describe other breeds. (It shouldn't be.) — LlywelynII 11:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Pardon if I'm showing my ignorance, but what I gathered after looking around a bit is that thoroughbred means something like purebred, while Thoroughbred is a particular breed. Thus (it would seem) you might have a thoroughbred Thoroughbred. But I'd be happy to be set straight on this. EEng (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hook for March 18

I had written two hooks for Disappearance of Leah Roberts tied to March 18 being the 15th anniversary of when her car was found (which isn't quite the day she disappeared, but it turned the case from a routine missing=persons case into a real headscratcher). So I'm brining it to attention here in the hope that someone will see and review it so we can have it on March 18, and avoid the failure to have Death of Elisa Lam run on the two-year anniversary of her body being discovered. Anyone? Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 12 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 25 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 47 nominations are approved, leaving 258 of 305 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 03:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, if we've reviewed them and found them ok, do we need to do anything? Just checking before I break the process ;) Mdann52 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:DYK#DYK rules

Can someone please explain what this means?

(As a guideline, an expansion of fivefold or more is acceptable; the decision on whether an expanded article is appropriate for the template will depend on the updating administrator's judgment).

In particular, why is this particular bit of judgment, among the many exercised routinely here at DYK, being called out so loudly in the middle of a summary statement? Why is there nothing like it stated at WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria?

And how is anyone but a pretty experiences Wikipedian supposed to know what "appropriate for the template" means?

EEng (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping we might hear from Rjanag, who added this parenthetical sentence to the rules back in the August 2011 revamp, and would certainly know what is meant by it. I've been assuming this is the 5x equivalent of WP:DYKSG#D7, though from the old days before the current automated process was introduced. The terminology almost certainly needs updating if this is still relevant, and perhaps it ought to be moved elsewhere if it isn't already covered. My guess at "appropriate for the template" is "appropriate for promotion", with "the template" referring to what is now a prep or a queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If no one can explain what this sentence means, I propose we delete it. EEng (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Going once... EEng (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This was added back in the day because a lot of people were under the [incorrect] impression that expanding text fivefold automatically entitled them to a DYK no matter what. This was not the case---an article might fail because of other criteria, or the fivefold expansion might not be acceptable (for example, consensus at the time was that expanding a film article fivefold by adding a huge and detailed Plot section was just bloating, not improvement). Since this was a perennial issue, we decided to call it out explicitly. I don't know what current consensus about this issue is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My recommendation, then, is that per WP:CREEP we take this opportunity to simply drop this text. If the "5X plot bloat" problem returns we can add some provision to the Rules, or the Supplementary Rules, or the Unwritten Rules, or the Unknowable Rules, or any of the several other rulesets we have here, on that point. EEng (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Going twice... EEng (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Going three times.... I'm going to remove the text if no one says anything. EEng (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I think at the current time no one thinks that 5x expansion is an automatic DYK, just that it's one of the criteria. If someone tried to claim that, they wouldn't get very far. I think the 5x plot bloat would come under supplemental D13, notably the especially if the attempt does not address the underlying purpose of improving the hook and article part, since adding nothing but plot such that it's now over 80% of the article's prose does not significantly improve the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, so can I take out the bit quoted at the top of this section? EEng (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to remove - it looks like there is consensus to at this point. Thank you for bringing this confusing bit up for discussion. Mamyles (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK to promote cleanup?

Star Trek: Borg, a recent DYK, was placed on the front page with an article size of 6.9KB in a version dated February 21. It was expanded from a 1.6KB version from February 6. However, prior to that, it was over 7KB.

This is essentially cleanup (and it's since been un-cleaned up). If you add a few paragraphs to an existing article, no promotion. If you first delete everything, and then add a few paragraphs, the front page awaits? I don't think this type of expansion should be getting promoted. - hahnchen 17:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The DYK rules would agree with you. It shouldn't have been approved to appear on DYK. Harrias talk 17:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If DYKcheck had been used, this would have been flagged for the reviewer as an inadequate expansion. Unfortunately, the reviewer on this one, The C of E, does not use DYKcheck (as noted in the section just above this one), and if he did look at the history, didn't note that the article had been gutted only 15 days before its expansion. If these cuts had been made a few months earlier, then it wouldn't be an issue, but a fortnight should have been a red flag. Under the circumstances, I think we should ask The C of E to commit to using DYKcheck going forward so errors of this sort don't recur. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should remove the "Character count" tool from the DYK toolbox. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of anything other than DYKcheck.
I disagree that cuts made a few months ago wouldn't be an issue. If that were the case, there would be nothing to prevent users or their sockpuppets from trimming any article, then returning a few months later to expand it for an easy DYK. I've seen people slash an article down to a stub and then try to claim an expansion from that point; more savvy users could certainly accomplish the same thing more stealthily over a period of time. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Can someone point me to that rule? Not that I disagree with the underlying problem, but from what I can tell we have two different editors (one involved in video games and the other a Star Trek contributor) coincidentally editing the same article within two weeks of each other. I think it's unfair to penalise a nomination based on someone's assumption - that editors are somehow sock/meatpuppeting their way onto the main page - without showing whether they actually did collude with each other. Fuebaey (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, the rules as written seem to suggest this is fine. Everything says that it is the version directly prior to expansion that is relevant, nothing at all says that previous revisions need to be considered. Which goes against everything I thought. @Crisco 1492, BlueMoonset, and Mandarax:, am I missing something? Harrias talk 18:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Playing the devil's advocate, how is this automatically a bad thing? If someone takes an article which is entirely unreferenced, gets rid of the unreferenced content and rewrites it so that it's an exemplary article (but isn't any longer than the previous version), isn't that an entirely positive thing that we should actually encourage? Prioryman (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. And is there anything to suggest that this danger-of-gaming-to-garner-more-DYK-credits is an actual threat to Fairness And World Peace, of just a theoretical one? If someone wants to go about cutting articles so that they can come back months later to puff them back up, let them; they'll burn in hell. EEng (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't a bad thing, it just isn't what DYK showcases. That said, see my comment above. Harrias talk 18:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's my understanding that, if the cuts were made by someone else, we generally haven't worried about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Our expanded articles require fivefold expansion and 1500 words in length. Our BLP DYKs are required to be newly sourced, and then doubled in length to at least 1500 words. Our completely new articles only need to be 1500 words long. It's easier for completely new articles to make DYK because the process is designed to showcase completely new articles. I don't think that blanking old content should reduce the DYK criteria regardless who did it. - hahnchen 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2015

  • "newly-coined" doesn't need the dash; newly is already an adverb so "newly coined" suffices. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
He's right in this case, but for the record this isn't simply because newly is an adverb: the hyphen is omitted when the adverb ends in -ly or is very‍—‌with other adverbs (e.g. well) it remains. EEng (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_113&oldid=1136061615"