Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 132

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125 ← Archive 130 Archive 131 Archive 132 Archive 133 Archive 134 Archive 135

Re-wording hooks after they have been promoted

Hello everyone. I was very confused to get a DYK notification on my talk page that included a DYK that was worded differently from the ones that were reviewed. I did a bit of digging and then wrongly accused a editor of changing it when they moved it across to the queueing system. I then went about looking for somewhere else to complain to and came across this page. A magical place where all the post-promotion editing appears to be debated (this was when I realised my earlier mistake). Given that I had no clue these discussions were going on, I was not surprised to see that neither I or the editor who reviewed my DYK in the first were not pinged.

Could I suggest, out of common courtesy or simply to make the workload less for the small number of editors who work this page, that the nominators and reviewers of problematic DYKs get pinged before any rewording takes place? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Per our standard rules: A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. Users are encouraged to contact nominators when hook issues arise, but it isn't compulsory, nothing would ever get done around here if we had to have a discussion about every hook tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Gaia Octavia Agrippa I completely agree with you. How long could it possibly take to ping an editor when someone is typing their issues with a given hook? Two seconds, tops? But, then, we also seem to have some who don't link the article or nomination either. So, they complain, and everybody else has to do extra work to find the nomination in question. What are you gonna do? None of us control anybody but our own selves, so it would seem to be a good idea to put this talk page on your watch list. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Also put T:DYKQ on your watchlist, so you can watch your hook as it progresses from the prep sets to the queues. If you disagree with a change, you can post your comment here. Be aware that once a hook reaches the main page, it may also be changed if readers write in disagreeing with it. Wikipedia is very much a collaborative process; no one owns what they write. Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
As Maile has said, it takes seconds to ping the nominator and reviewer of a hook. I've added the pages to my watchlist. Part of the problem is how many editors know of this pages existence? It seems to be a small number of editors who are doing all the work here. It makes sense that the nominator and review are pinged about these changes as they know the hook and the article/references in question better than anyone else (or at least they should if they've reviewed it properly). It would save a lot of work on your guys' behalf. It would also stop errors like those introduced to my latest DYK: a gazetteer is in no way a "basic guide" as that suggests some kind of simple textbook, it's like saying a French dictionary is a basic guide to French literature! I know Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which is why it is even more annoying that there seems to be concerted effort to hide this page away and to keep the post-promoted editing in the hands of a few editors. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
As for Gatoclass's comment, "nothing would ever get done around here if we had to have a discussion about every hook tweak", surely that is exactly what is happening on this page? Except that process is slowed down because the only people involved have to acquainted themselves with the hook/article involved. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
You're right, Gaia Octavia Agrippa there are a very small number of editors keeping DYK going. If you'd like to join us, jump right in! The more you get involved in the project, the more you'll see the soft spots. Often the nominator and the reviewer don't "know the hook and the article/references in question better than anyone else", for a fresh pair of eyes often ferrets out the mistakes in interpreting the source and even untrue citations (see this recent example). I was tangentially involved in the rewriting of your gazetteer hook. I suggested paraphrasing the source rather than using the whole quote from the newspaper. The fact that I didn't ping you wasn't deliberate; often it takes days (or weeks) for page creators to get back to a simple review, so it falls on the ones who regularly patrol the DYK project to make the fixes. Yoninah (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It may be that some editors wander off and do other things, but if they are not pinged they are never given the chance to be involved! If there's a problem with a source being miss-used/confused then it is up to the original reviewer to find that out. Perhaps new reviewers should have their work reviewed for the first 2-5 attempts? I've seen myself that some reviewers are no where near thorough enough. Surely that's then up to the promoter to re-open the review rather than promote it and bring the editing to this mysterious page? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (sigh) I renew my modest proposal that nom pages not be closed when the hook is moved to prep, but rather left open. The nom page is the best place to have further discussion of potential problems, since all the prior discussion is there already, and presumably it's on the watchlist of the various interested parties. The bot could close the nom page when the hook appears on the main page, at the same time it puts the little congratulation box on the nominator's/creator's talk page. If what's-his-name or what's-her-name who takes care of the bot is willing to do that, is there anydownside to this? EEng 17:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that "what's-his-name" is Shubinator who runs the DYKUpdateBot. Actually, that's not a bad idea if it works with the overall flow of how things are supposed to work. BlueMoonset might ought to have some input in the mechanics of how that flow works.— Maile (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't like the proposal at all! How am I supposed to know if a page has been selected already? We will wind up promoting the same hook multiple times. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion's closure isn't an intrinsic element of denoting a hook's promotion. A different type of tagging could be used instead. —David Levy 22:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, instead of closing the nom page the promoter just adds at the bottom, "ALT2 to Prep4, but without the image. ~~~~". As already mentioned, when the hook makes its main-page appearance, then the bot closes the nom page. EEng 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
One downside that we're experiencing right now is that the nominations page cannot handle the number of open nominations as it is. If we delay closure by another few days, it will be worse. Another is that closing the page shouldn't be done by bot: for example, it's not going to know of any comments that should go into the "2" field. (On the other hand, it might be smart enough to realize that there is text below the line where the comment says not text should be added.) There has been a proposal to move approved nominations to a separate page, in which case leaving them open wouldn't overload the regular nominations page, but it hasn't gone anywhere, perhaps because of the downside of moving hooks back and forth any time something changes on a nomination, and the necessity of creating a new page and a new bot to do such moving, plus the necessary revisions to DYKHousekeepingBot, which would need to be recoded to handle gathering data from two different pages. But a basic downside is that you get more eyes on a problem when it's raised here; post-promotion issues are more likely to get the necessary eyes on this page than on the original nomination/review page, which might only be seen by the nominator, reviewer, and promoter: is that really enough? If we need to reopen a nomination page because of issues with the hook and/or the article, it isn't that hard to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Another is that closing the page shouldn't be done by bot: for example, it's not going to know of any comments that should go into the "2" field.
The idea, if I'm not mistaken, is to separate the hook's promotion from the discussion's closure. The insertion of such comments would remain part of the former.
I like the idea, but I suggest that the discussion remain open until the hook is removed from the main page (i.e., when the next set appears). —David Levy 22:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer that too, but I suspect it would be much more trouble to implement -- the bot does all this other stuff as the hook moves onto the main page, so it should be relatively easy to tinker with the nom page at the same time. EEng 07:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how much effort would be required to delay the bot's actual edit by one set, but I do know that it could include conditional code that causes the closure to take effect after a predetermined duration (24 hours, under DYK's current schedule). —David Levy 12:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe this shines a light on one of the fundamental issues at DYK, that of the quality of reviews. Right now, I'd estimate that I'm picking up something like one "pull"-worthy issue per set promoted to the queue every day. I'm not just talking about a bit of a re-word, I'm talking about "pull that nomination right back to the pool" kind of thing. Hooks are apparently reviewed, accepted, promoted and then shuffled to the main page, but the problem is that the first three stages seem to be failing, hence the last-minute changes before they're shuffled to the main page. While the OP is concerned with last minute changes (and I agree that the arcane methodology of templates, transclusions etc make it almost impossible to track a nomination from nom to main page), they are inevitable given that we have such a low threshold on quality control. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem with the "hook tweaks" is that they don't go through the same checks, so they require extra care. In assembling a prep area, some tweaks are inevitable, such as removing the "(pictured)" from some hooks, but I won't go beyond that. I've had hooks of my own made incorrect by well-meaning copy editing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Coupla points:
(a) I suspect we're having the problem with the giant concatenated nompage being too big (i.e. exceeding parser limits on # of calls, total output size, whatever) because the review bot thingee adds so much text. Some relief would be gained by making its results less verbose.
(b) Would someone who knows something about Mediawiki (I know nothing but generalities) post a query at an appropriate place on Mediawiki re whether there's some magic word that can be used to override the parser limits?
(c) I don't think it's necessarily an advantage to have every question on a promoted hook come to Talk:DYK right off. Start by taking questions back to the nom page (optionally removing the hook from prep, depending on the seriousness of the issue), at which point at least four people will be involved via their watchlists: creator/nominator, reviewer, promoter, and whoever questioned it. That's enough eyes for a start; once in a while a post might be make to Talk:DYK asking for more eyes on the discussion.
EEng 21:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I don't see that as a "problem", that's just the way it works, if someone see a serious issue missed by the various review stages prior to promotion to the main page, fixing first and talking about it later is the optimal approach for the reader. It may upset the nominator etc, but that's really not relevant. Everything we do here is released "under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", so getting too sniffy about the content of various items that hit the main page is almost irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, who are you responding to? EEng 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hawkeye, hence the indentation. Your mixture of indentation is a little offputting to me I'm afraid... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I endorse Gaia Octavia Agrippa's complaint. It is quite outrageous that reviewed hooks are being second-guessed without proper consultation with the original author(s) and reviewer(s). Such action is doubly disruptive because it is apt to introduce error, as in this case, and it gives offense to the editors who have done the heavy lifting and so know the topic best. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    Then may I humbly suggest you raise an RFC to remove the instruction from the rules allowing copyediting of hooks without discussion, because until such a time that the clause is removed, the copyediting can (and should) continue. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
We don't need an RFC for this, because it is quite simply a terrible idea. It would lead either to a tsunami of substandard hooks making it to the main page as quality controllers simply stop bothering to make appropriate tweaks, or alternatively, the end of DYK as we know it due to an exodus of quality controllers from the process altogether. DYK could certainly use some reforms but the last thing we need to be doing is adding still more red tape to discourage the tiny number of people who work to keep this process running. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a good idea, all I meant was that simply complaining about an existing allowance will result in nothing, no change. Often as not it's better to make practical changes rather than hypothesise about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem, my comment wasn't actually directed to you but to Andrew. Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Consultation and consensus isn't red tape; it's basic common sense and courtesy. Consider a fresh example below – the section headed Prep 5 (Ahn). This doesn't seem to contain any links of any sort. It doesn't link to any of:
  1. The prep page
  2. The article in question
  3. The nomination
  4. The author(s)
  5. The reviewer(s)
  6. The prep builder(s)
This is so unhelpful that it seems like deliberate obfuscation. If links to the editors involved were included then the item would get more attention. What's wrong with that? Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
A fresh example of what exactly? Do you mean a fresh example of a poor article that has been promoted with a possibly erroneous hook? Or something else? I'm confused. I read the article, I found some issues, so I raised them at the talk page. I'm shocked and deeply upset that you would accuse me of deliberate obfuscation. It's pretty obvious which hook it's referring to and the Prep area is noted in the heading of the section. Honestly, if people spent more time fixing the issues that are raised rather than complaining about the issue of issues being raised and resolved, we'd have more issued resolved and fewer errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
A fresh example of what the original poster was complaining about – starting discussion about a DYK article/hook without pinging the nominators and reviewers. Andrew D. (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I fear you're conflating issues, but that's understandable, this is a very confusing place! The OP was actually talking about Re-wording hooks after they have been promoted. This isn't a "fresh example" of that at all... Good luck with your quest, but I'm still deeply shocked and upset that you assumed such bad faith in claiming I was deliberately obfuscating issues. Could you expand on that? I don't see how anything I wrote "obfuscated" anything. I was very plain with my language and the direction to the issue at hand. Can you please expand on what I "obfuscated"? (For the avoidance of doubt, obfuscate means make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. I don't think I did any of those things. My points were very clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson:, I see you've edited this very page without the courtesy of replying to my request. Please respond so that we can all follow up on your suggestions. In particular I'd like to investigate the accusations of obfuscation that you have levelled at me. It's very important that this is clarified, as you know. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse the complaints. There are a small group doup doing this, by no means all notable for the quality of their suggested "improvements". Eeng's suggestion of keeping the nom open is a good idea - people have that watch-listed. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 24 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through October 24. Because so many hooks are waiting for promotion such that there isn't room to transclude them all on the nominations page, I've limited the number I'm offering here. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Possibly irrelevant observation

As somebody that knows nothing about transclusion, templates etc, I wonder if there is any significance in the fact that when a nomination is promoted and gets archived, the archived page concerned, like this one, has a stray pair of "}}" at the foot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has corrected a few of these, it's not all the templates. It has something to do with the original creation of the template. Look at the very last line of that template on the day it was created, what what is right to the left of the "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.". On the nomination you linked, the only code that is before it is the }} This also happened on Juanita Musson. Now look at the bottom line of Charles E. King. Do you see the {{-}}that is missing to the left of the }} on the template you linked? So what should happen when a template is closed by a promoter, {{-}}}} should change to /div> and "noinclude" . Why that happens when a template is created, I don't know. Perhaps some individuals are creating a template from scratch (copy and paste?) rather than go through the pre-set process on the Nominations page. I'm only guessing, but the error does seem to happen when the templates are created, and it's not everybody's template that happens to. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What Cwmhiraeth mentions happened to me 3 times yesterday while building prep sets. So should I delete the stray }} at the bottom of the page after closing the nomination? Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't just delete it. There are two different things you could do: (1) When closing a template, before you click "Show preview" or "Save changes", look at the bottom. If the {{-}} is missing before the }}, add it. That should work. (2) If you already closed and notice the stray }}, please follow what I did on Junita Musson. Remove the }} and replace it with the "noinclude" coding. — Maile (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I've just looked, and the {{-}} is absent in many of the nominations I've created (Timothy N. Philpot and e-baby, for example), and I create them from the box on t:tdyk by adding the article name and clicking to start the page. In these two cases, I am absolutely certain there was no copy-and-paste process in creation, I used the pre-set process. Not sure how this is happening, but the it is happening with the nom page pre-set process too. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
So we have a bug somewhere in that process. I wonder what changed that made this start happening, or made it happen more often? — Maile (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I created the nomination for the aromatization article in May, again by the nomination page method. This diff shows the close with promotion to prep where the {{-}} was missing but the close seems complete. Could it be that the close used not need the {{-}}? Also, could the issue be browser-related, explaining its non-uniformity? EdChem (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
So it seems to not be necessary. I do wonder what hiccup in our process causes this. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea, maybe there is a change that has made it necessary. I don't have the knowledge to figure out what is wrong, but am pointing to evidence that I hope is useful for others. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 why should I have to manually change the </div> to </noinclude> on every template that I close? This certainly seems like a bug. Here I tried to pre-empt the problem by deleting the extra }} before closing the nomination, and it wouldn't close. So here I didn't do anything, and the </div> inserted itself between the four }}}}, leaving us with a stray }} at the bottom of the page. Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah I didn't tell you to replace the /div with /noinclude. You asked if you should delete the stray }} if it was there after you closed. I told you to replace the }} with the /noinclude. Yes, there obviously is a bug, as mentioned in conversation above with EdChem. But I do not know what the bug is. — Maile (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: OK, thanks. But what if I don't delete the stray }}? It's happening every time and getting pretty bothersome. Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, Yoninah asks what happens if they don't delete the stray }} on a malformed close? Do you know if it does any harm? Also, I think we have a bug, because it happens more frequently. But I don't know who originally programmed the process we use. There seem to be so many steps from creating the template to eventually closing it, that there is likely more than one person involved in how that evolved. How do we input a bug report, and how do we word it? — Maile (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
And a P.S. I just closed Peter Reulein, which seems to have all the correct coding when it was set up. Yet, when I closed it, the "no include" was absent, but that didn't show up on a Preview before saving. So I had to re-open the template, delete the extra }} and insert the the "no include" to get it closed out properly. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oops, this was a mistake I made when editing {{DYK bottom}} back on October 29. Fixed. (The issue with the missing noincludes and stray }}, not the missing {{-}} Pppery 22:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for telling us. I think I may have mentioned previously that before you mess with a DYK template, you should post here. In any event, that template is now protected so that only admins can edit it. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile, for protecting that page. Major trouting to Pppery, who caused a great deal of confusion and not a little damage with that highly unfortunate edit. Note to EdChem (and anyone else interested): the {{-}} is added before the final }} on nominations with images, to make sure the image doesn't overflow the bottom of the nomination when transcluded onto the nominations page. It's basically irrelevant to the close. Yoninah, it's important to replace the stray braces at the bottom with the /noinclude tag so that the initial noinclude at the top of the just-closed nomination doesn't keep running on the nominations page. I believe that it will hide up to the next already hidden nomination, since the next /noinclude tag it sees will cancel the original noinclude. So it's important that we track down every template closed between Pppery's initial edit at 17:49 on October 29 through it's reversal at 22:14 on November 2, and fix the closure, so any unclosed but "disappeared" nominations will show up again on the nominations page. I'll see what I can do, now that I know the time frame we're talking about. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: thanks for the explanation, that is useful to know. I realised it would have to be before the final pair of braces, but I didn't realise what it did. As I am adding an image to an existing nom at the moment, I'll know to change the end to {{-}}}}, which I would not have done otherwise. I wonder if this piece of information is worth documenting somewhere for when an image is added to an existing nomination. (No, I don't mean a new guideline or anything like that.) Maybe an edit filter flagging a warning in the case where an image is added and the {{-}} is missing, if it's worth the effort? EdChem (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, I don't think it's worth it: given how long the average nomination is now, what with sources and all the rest, it's going to be the very rare nomination that isn't taller than any included image. The worst that could happen is that an image might overflow into the next nomination by a little bit; in the unlikely event that it happens and someone doesn't like the aesthetics, they'll fix it.
I should probably mention that I think I've fixed all of the problematic closes that hadn't already been taken care of (most of them) due to the template error; if anyone sees any problems remaining (be sure to refresh the nominations page first!), please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset FYI, I have now watch-listed all DYK templates I could find. It's possible there are more, and many of which I did find do not seem to be requisite to the flow of the overall process. Nevertheless, it now seems to be a good idea to pay attention to the background templates. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean the problem with nominations reverting to wikilinks has been fixed? I see that some noms are still not showing up in full on the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The nominations page view is not related to what Pppery did on the template. The nom page issue is all in the thread above this, and we still need to make a decision about what to do. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2016 (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) 22:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue - Prep 2 has only 7 approved hooks

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: Prep 2 is next to go to Queue, and a hook was pulled. So we have an incomplete set. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Just remove the spare one and go with seven. Right now it's clear that the quality control is so weak we shouldn't rush another hook in for the sake of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done I added another bio. Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Promoting articles which feature template for deletion notices

Just a quick question, do we normally promote articles with big notices across the top such as ‹ The template below (Infobox country Olympics) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.› that we currently have in Prep 5 for the Rhodesia at the Olympics article? Or would it be better to push it down the queues until such a time the big deletion notice is removed or resolved? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It depends if the template is directly being discussed in response to its use on that article. I sometimes find TfD messages randomly turn up on some article, including FAs, that happened to transclude it months or years previously by a completely unrelated editor, only for another one to start a discussion on it owing to some use somewhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to let that notice slide as it's not about a problem with the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Fix needed

Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Sky Metalwala was requested to be run on November 6, a date that is fast approaching and a date for which the prep is full. Could an experienced DYK user to a bit of rejigging so the request is met. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and did it. I did not initially realise that a space was left in the prep for this hook. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 (tank steering)

... that Porsche's Elefant tank destroyer (pictured) used an electric steering transmission system similar to a diesel-electric train?

I already made a couple of fixes to this, e.g. making the name of the vehicle italicised per the article and correcting the title in the caption. However, this is an easter egg link, in so far as "electric steering transmission" which covers a very general and broad topic is piped to "tank steering systems" which is a very specific application. This should be resolved before heading to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What puzzles me about this is that although there appears to be a discussion of the fact that the hook image does not appear in the article and is given a tick because that has been solved, I don't see the image of the Elefant in the Tank steering systems article, where it is required to be to be eligible for use in this nomination, though it is in the Elefant's own article. Given both of these issues, I'm pulling the hook and pointing to this discussion on the nomination page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Good shout, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 (iris)

... that no conservation measures are in place to protect the critically endangered Iris cedreti, endemic to Lebanon?

The article states In Lebanon, no conservation measures are in place to protect this species.[1] A reserve at Jabal El Makmel of 400 hectares was created between 2006 and 2007 to stop grazing and the natural regeneration of the forest. It benefited trees of Juniperus excelsa and Acer tauricolum, as well as the iris.[22]

So, per the second sentence, a reserve was created in the 2000s which "benefited ... the iris". So I'm not sure if this is just a poorly written hook, bad information, or the article's prose has undue causality. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List clearly states that no conservation measures are in place. The reserve indirectly benefited the iris, but was not an official conservation measure. Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay so the word "official" is missing because conservation measures are in place i.e. the reserve that was created in the 2000s. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done Added "official". Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

The hook approved by Cwmhiraeth correctly says that athletes from over 50 countries who had a prior doping offence were allowed to compete at the 2016 Summer Olympics? while the hook as it appears in the prep area has morphed into that athletes with a prior doping offence from more than 50 countries were allowed to compete at the 2016 Summer Olympics?.
Are we sure one needs to register doping offenses from more than 50 countries to participate in the Olympics?
LavaBaron (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. But here's the original nom List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence. — Maile (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems unlikely the Olympics would require athletes to accumulate doping offenses from a certain number of countries as a condition of participation. I'd suggest amending this to the form it was approved in the nomination by Cwmhiraeth: ... that athletes from over 50 countries who had a prior doping offence were allowed to compete at the 2016 Summer Olympics? LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Well it should be "more than", not "over", and the initial listing could be it was the countries that had the prior doping offences (e.g. Russia), not the individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Is that in the MoS? The AP removed that distinction more than (or over) two years ago [1]; I wasn't aware we had clung to it?
The way it's currently worded presents that an athlete needed to be part of a globe-spanning international doping ring operating in dozens of countries in order to participate in the Olympics. The way it was originally worded, in the version approved, presents the more likely scenario that more than 50 countries were represented by athletes who had prior doping offenses. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Well by all means restore the version promoted, it makes little difference; it's clear that either way round can be deliberately misinterpreted by those with playful minds. Of the numerous recent issues with preps and queues, this is certainly a minor one. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
First, I didn't mean to steal anyone's schtick and I apologize if my observation was seen as doing so. Second, if there are no objections I'll amend it but would like to give others the opportunity to weigh-in first in case there are contrary opinions. Thank you, however, for your fast feedback. LavaBaron (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if there's no difference between over and more than, I'd suggest you leave it as "more than" since inevitably the same discussion will be held at ERRORS by those who don't simply subscribe to AP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Not really what the discussion is about, but thanks, I guess. LavaBaron (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The main purpose of reviewing hooks before they get to the main page is to reduce ERRORS reports. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Difference noted. LavaBaron (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Penistone Hill Country Park DYK

Hi, all. I nominated an article (Penistone Hill Country Park) with two hooks on the 24 October 2016. It seems to have disappeared. A bot came along and wagged its metal finger at me chidingly for some perceived errors (which I think (IMHO) were incorrect). I responded with a comment to the template (which is here).

Now, I cannot find it on the DYK nominations page and I also conducted a 'Find' search on the page to no avail. Its probably something that I've done (in which case I apologise profusely). But what has happened? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I did try purging the page, but this did not solve the problem. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, you transcluded it properly and it's there on the noms page at the end of the October 24 hooks which are not displaying due to the length of templates on the page. As soon as earlier nominations are promoted, it will appear again. Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Happy days. Thank you and regards. 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)The joy of all things (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 (Battle of Kharis)

... that in the Battle of Kharistan in 737, the Umayyads caught the Turgesh khagan off guard with only a fraction of his army, and secured a victory that saved Arab rule in Central Asia?

I found it extremely difficult to find the hook explicitly referenced in this article. There's a mention of 50,000 troops, then there's a mention of 4,000 troops, this has become "only a fraction" (which of course means anywhere between nothing and 100%, and more....) and the "off guard" comment seems to have been derived from "surprised" perhaps? In any case I would expect such a POV treatment to be in quotations and respected as such in the target article. And is "saved Arab rule" directly equivalent to "forestalling the collapse of Arab rule"? I'm not so sure, but this hook makes such an assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone got any comment here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I have a comment. Looks good to me. The article uses Suluk's title khagan, and his name, interchangeably, which might cause confusion but that should be rectified by a deep reading of the article which should be the method by which we hope our readers engage with WP. The Blankenship and Gibb texts seem to validate the hook, though I can only access one of the two. I think we should reserve quotation marks for quotes; I can't find the term "off guard" in the one text to which I have access so we should avoid suggesting it was directly invoked by book-ending it with quotes. The Gibb quote box satisfies me that "saved Arab rule" can be synonymized with "forestalled the collapse of Arab rule" and that this is a reasonable accommodation of a complexly worded sentence to avoid COPYVIO. Overall, IMO, looks like a fine nom by User:Cplakidas and a good promotion by User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Maile66. Great job, everyone! LavaBaron (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 (Heterelmis stephani)

The lead states It is endemic to Arizona in the United States, where it occurs in the ... and then goes on to say it hasn't "occured" for 20 years and has been deemed as "assumed extinct". Indeed, the hook is based on this. Yet reading the opening sentences of the lead would appear to contradict that position. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The hook is also rather weak. We've run plenty of extinct bug hooks that were more hooky than this. Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that being discovered/described (whichever it is) in 1969 and declared extinct in 2016 could make a pretty good hook. Should we pull it back while the article is amended and a more interesting hook is devised? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but also the lead needs to be adjusted to prevent it being so misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a rather minor issue and certainly playful minds could read the lede in any manner. However, I'm surprised you chose not to raise an objection to the fact that the article says the species was first described in 1969 which is cited [2] to a source [3] that doesn't give any date as to when it was first described. In my opinion, when we we raise issues with articles we should focus on the most pressing matters first and delve into the cotton candy side of things once the more serious issues have been resolved. LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You're surprised? I don't know why. I have enough time in the day to read the hook and read the article. Sometimes, if I'm lucky, I get to check the sources too. It feels often that I'm the first reviewer to do all of these. By all means focus on "more pressing matters" and allow the rest of us to "delve into the cotton candy side of things", yet another personal attack. We all bring something to the party, but oddly I haven't seen your reviews of the prep areas or queues shed any light on anything other than this. I'm not sure if that's because you're not doing it or because everything you review is perfect. Either way, please stop with the attacks and allow everyone to co-exist. If you continue to level (even veiled) personal attacks against me, I will file a report at ANI. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "I will file a report at ANI" - Well that went south quickly. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It was a direct result of the numerous personal attacks (veiled or otherwise) you levelled at me for simply discussing hooks here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • So, anyway, what should we do about the 1969 claim in the article? I've done a semi-thorough search and can't locate a RS that confirms it was originally described in 1969. Remove? Keep? LavaBaron (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Obviously the item should be pulled and reworked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I've just added a "citation needed" tag for now. Probably better to provide the opportunity for insertion of a source, particularly if it happens to exist offline and was just an oversight by the editor, than have a lot of back-and-forth text revisions. I'm betting this was just a simple error in an otherwise great article that can be easily corrected with nothing more dramatic than a smile and a ping! LavaBaron (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
User:LavaBaron: The 1969 date was there in two of the sources. I thought it was also in the citation at the end of the following sentence, but apparently not. All fixed now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs)
Brilliant, thank you! The sources say it was discovered in 1969, but it seems it might not have been described until 1972; am I reading this incorrectly? LavaBaron (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
User:LavaBaron Yes, discovered in 1969. May have been described formally in a scientific paper 1969-1972, but I'm not really sure. The most frequently cited published description is 1972, so I changed the article to say discovered in '69, formally described in '72. MB 23:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

typo misstake

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/West_Afrixcan_Ebola_virus_epidemic made a typo mistake should be West African Ebola virus epidemic, how to fix? (template wont show b/c of it [4]) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa Leave it as is. We don't move/rename templates, so it's fine with the typo in it. It won't hurt a thing. What is important is the content in the template. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In this very rare case I moved the template because the content in the template did not have the typo that the name did. I have no idea how that happened—it shouldn't be possible if the "Create nomination" box on the nominations page is used—so it could be that Ozzie10aaaa created the template from scratch. I believe everything is fixed now. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa it could possibly be a few more weeks. We are currently running one set of 8 hooks every 24 hours. There are currently 5 sets already sitting in line for the main page, so the next 5 days are already set up. And as I write this, our nominations page has 75 approved hooks waiting to be put in a set. People who move hooks to Prep for the main page set try to use the oldest approved ones first. But another factor in preparing sets is that there is a good variety in the set, so it's not completely about how old or how new the approval is. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66:...[5][6] apparently it was taken off? (it was under October 31)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Ozzie10aaaa: It's still there, but the visual transclusion is causing it (and others) not to show up like they should. Once more nominations are promoted to the prep area, this could clear the page enough so you can once again see your nomination. If you click on the Edit button for the date of October 31, you can see the template is still in there. It's just a visual glitch that should clear soon. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (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) 22:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 (Ned Justeen Azemia)

Just for the record, the "hook" awaiting our reading public in an hour which states:

that hurdler Ned Justeen Azemia was the youngest member of the Seychelles team at the 2016 Summer Olympics?

is bordering on the least hooky hook ever. Yes, that's right, nominate a DYK, wait three months and eventually someone will claim it to be interesting. Which this, patently, is not. 99% of our audience will never have heard of the Seychelles, and 99% of those who have will not give a damn about the record for the "youngest Olympian" from that country, unless they were 9 or 59. One para of this article which has been promoted includes extensive discourse into the official rules of the IAAF, to whit: ... due to IAAF rule 168.7(a), which states an athlete shall be disqualified if his foot or leg is, at the instant of clearance, beside the hurdle (on either side) or below the horizontal plane of the top of the hurdle. Really? Then there's the puff... Azemia raced in heat two and ran a time of 55.72 seconds.[8] He was 6.39 seconds slower than the heat winner, Nicholas Bett of Kenya.[8] Azemia's time was the second-slowest by any athlete in the heat round of the competition, with only Aymar Oboba Fleury of the Republic of the Congo slower.[8] With only the top eight progressing to the final, 16th-fastest Azemia was eliminated. can be summarised as Azemia failed to qualify. Just in case you weren't sure, we have Azemia's time was 0.97 seconds slower than the slowest athlete to progress to the next round and, therefore, he was eliminated. That sentence is obversely causal. Or something like that. Seriously, are these articles being inflated to just match the DYK character count criterion? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. This hook has been in Prep 3 for three days. You've edited in Prep 3 since it was placed there. And you didn't notice this hook until 29 minutes after it was moved to Queue? Hmmmmm.....hmmmmmm..... — Maile (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, lots of "hmmmms" etc., but I'm not sure how your input improves our articles and our readers' experience on the main page. You could check my edits, I've been busy over the last couple of days and so detailed reviews have been delayed. Or are you assuming some kind of bad faith? I'm not sure either way what your point is. If you agree that there's an issue, please indicate it. If you disagree and think the article is just fine, as is the hook, please indicate it. Please focus on the issue, thanks! Finally, if you think I'm doing something wrong, please notify Arbcom, or any other "uninvolved" admin, as they have the right to block me on sight if it's deemed that I am belittling anyone. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
What a shame such a bloated article with so much irrelevant information has been promoted to the main page, especially when we know we can do much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree the article is overly detailed, but at 3000-plus characters it's twice as long as it needs to be for a DYK submission and even with a substantial trim it would probably have still been eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I found the hook absolutely fascinating! When I read it I thought "interesting - how old was he, exactly?" and it compelled me to click through to the article. Interest-level is subjective, not sure how to resolve this very, very, very minor question unless we add a nom criteria that requires reviewers check with TRM to see how interesting he finds a hook before promoting it. LavaBaron (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to personalise this. I'm as entitled to discuss any hook here as any other contributors. If interest is subjective, why do we have a DYK rule which states The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.? Perhaps we need to remove that rule if hooks are being promoted without paying heed to it. Or if, as you appear to assert, it cannot be judged. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not personalizing it, I'm just observing that if three different editors (me, the nom, and the reviewer) found it interesting and one (you) has thus far found it not to be interesting there is no way I imagine we can resolve the problem you've presented other than add a positive requirement you sign-off on the interest level of each hook. While I agree that would be a rather odd requirement to introduce, by complaining without offering a constructive solution you force us into binary decisionmaking: (a) ignore your intercession, or, (b) introduce a bizarre requirement. If there is an alternate, and more realistic, method you've ideated, you should boldly propose it and not wait for us to approach on bended knee for your counsel. If you have no alternate idea then we need to pack up and move on, I'm afraid; we can't fix what is unfixable. LavaBaron (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid by suggesting we add a nom criteria that requires reviewers check with TRM to see how interesting he finds a hook before promoting it you are personalising it, ad absurdum. To deny that seems absurd. I'm not proposing anything new, I'm simply asking that we either comply with the DYK rules or we re-write the DYK rules. Objectively, there is no way that "A was the youngest athlete representing B at C" is interesting to a broad audience. Every single country in every single contest ever held had a "youngest" competitor. And an "oldest" too. Surely that's obvious? Once again, using tone such as wait for us to approach on bended knee for your counsel is unnecessarily combative and personal, bordering on personal attack. Please, dial it down a couple of notches, you're not helping progress the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's work to keep an active and vibrant discussion, but one that doesn't involve calling each other "absurd." Thanks. To your other point, I find the hook interesting, so does the nom, reviewer, and promoter. You don't. And that's okay. But sometimes it's best to choose which battles are worth fighting rather than going all in, every time. Right? LavaBaron (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
No, no battle is worth leaving. Every poor hook that goes to the main page is a shambles given the arcane but laborious route it takes through DYK. For dull or erroneous hooks to make to the main page is shameful. The hook is patently and abundantly "so what", as noted above that every single contest every held has a "youngest" competitor. If he was three years old, that would be genuinely interesting, but he wasn't so it wasn't. It's okay that we disagree, but what's not okay is to personalise discussions and to make personal attacks, a continuation of which will result in further action. P.S. to be clear, I certainly didn't call you absurd, I called your argument to add a nom criteria that requires reviewers check with TRM ad absurdum. The two are very different, as I'm sure you're aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Is DYK a "battle"? Yikes! LavaBaron (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I was reflecting the terminology you used. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd also be interested in opinions from Fram and EEng as they both appear to sit on the "interesting" side of the fence, i.e. if you can't find anything broadly interesting in an article, it doesn't get posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's true I've been urging more attention to the "interesting" rule, I wouldn't balk at this. The very fact that many readers won't quite remember what Achilles Chinchilla Sarsaparilla Seychelles is, that's part of what might get them to click. Maybe I'm just in a nice mood today. EEng 19:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers for that. Noted. I guess I'm used to dealing with people who actually have heard of the Seychelles. I forgot that 99% of our readers perhaps don't even know where Spain is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a consensus has been established that the hook is interesting and this thread can be closed now. LavaBaron (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Bearing in mind how many dull nominations we get, this one is not quite uninteresting enough. Very close, but not quite. Looking at some other nominations in the pipeline, with regard to "interesting, we have several marginal ant ones and a Liberian athlete. We do need to raise our game on "interesting". Edwardx (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Strongly agree. LavaBaron (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The hook in question wasn't the worst ever; it wasn't even the worst on the day. We have a standard measure for the success of hooks – the number of views that the article gets. On that day, the wooden spoon went to Peter Reulein which only got 703 views, while Ned Justeen Azemia got 1320. The hook was:
... that Peter Reulein composed the oratorio Laudato si‘ for five soloists, choirs, organ and orchestra to be premiered in Limburg Cathedral?
Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nom list broken?

All the recent noms on the main page are not transcludng for me. The template text is in the page. Maury Markowitz (talk)

Already discussed a number of times; there are too many transclusions to the point that the page is exceeding the post-expand include size. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz we are also currently having a discussion about how to resolve the issue. Please see Transclusions on nomination page suggested solution. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nom list broken?

All the recent noms on the main page are not transcludng for me. The template text is in the page. Maury Markowitz (talk)

Already discussed a number of times; there are too many transclusions to the point that the page is exceeding the post-expand include size. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz we are also currently having a discussion about how to resolve the issue. Please see Transclusions on nomination page suggested solution. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 hook just changed by nominator

The final hook in Prep 1 was just changed: "... that Josh White is the first U.S. Marine to compete in a NASCAR national series race since 1966?" was modified by adding "since 1966" to the hook by the nominator, ZappaOMati. Apparently, information has surfaced about Larry Frank, who raced back then and was a Marine. (Or an ex-Marine; White is on Ready Reserve duty.)

Even ignoring the fact that nominators should not be changing the facts in already promoted hooks, I'm a bit dubious about the source supporting it; the relevant text seems to be "first Marine to become a NASCAR national touring series driver", and it's in a press release from Jennifer Jo Cobb Racing, who White is driving for. What makes them reliable when it comes to NASCAR firsts, especially if they appear not to have known about Larry Frank? Who else might they not have known about, perhaps someone more recent than 1966?

The original nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Josh White (racing driver). This is a special request for November 10, the 241st anniversary of the Marine Corps. I've pulled the hook, but I'm posting this here in case someone wants to review the sourcing to see whether its good enough to support this hook, enough so that we're sure there aren't any other NASCAR Marines in the past half century. Alternatively, of course, another hook could be proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Apologies for the inconvenience, I didn't even know Frank was to be considered until I saw a (at the time unsourced) edit about it. After doing a little research, the Charleston Gazette-Mail (which should be a more reliable source) seems to say the same about White being the first. I would assume Frank is the first NASCAR driver to have experience as a Marine, but White is the first active Marine to run a NASCAR national series race? Zappa24Mati 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 ("official" or official "Jun ware")

... that flowerpots for the Ming emperors were made in official Jun ware?

@Johnbod: A minor point, I'm sure, and no need to attack me for it, but to an outsider, it's unclear that there's a sub-category of Jun ware called "official Jun" ware or "official" Jun ware. So the quote marks seem important. However, the article isn't consistent itself with the use of the terminology so just putting this here to ask an expert to assist. At the least, I would suggest "official" be placed in quotes in the hook, but it might be that it needs to be "official Jun" ware.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it isn't. I don't see any need for quotes in either place, certainly not splitting the article name. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Then the article needs to be addressed to remove the quotes. Particularly if your concern is real, i.e. ... as "official Jun" wares ... needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
No it doesn't. In running text "as "official Jun" wares", once, is fine. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that still doesn't resolve the issue above or below, but I can see I'm wasting my time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I've done a slight rejig. You must have missed the bit in the lead that goes: "The consensus that seems to be emerging, driven largely by the interpretation of excavations at kiln sites, divides Jun wares into two groups: a large group of relatively popular wares made in simple shapes from the Northern Song to (at lower quality) the Yuan, and a much rarer group of official Jun wares made at a single site (Juntai) for the imperial palaces in the Yuan and early Ming periods." The point below is resolved; a query, based on "I imagine", was raised, & I've explained that this wasn't the case, and the imagining was wrong. You don't say what you mean by "the article isn't consistent itself with the use of the terminology". To be clear, most sources don't use "", or only once, but this is initially needed to make it clear this is a term, translated from the Chinese, not just a description. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The point I would have made about this hook is that it gives the impression that it was a policy during the Ming Dynasty to make flowerpots from Jun ware, whereas I imagine that some flowerpots were made in this way while others were not. (I did not dare to change the hook to express this!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
They seem to have had a monopoly on pots for the palaces, or at least the ones on display in the gardens. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (Angola)

... that Angola are due to host the Lusophony Games in 2021?

@Yellow Dingo: Firstly, shouldn't that be "Angola is"? Secondly, the link to Angola is an easter egg, actually taking you to Angola at the Lusophony Games. I think these both need to be addressed, perhaps by linking Angola the country, and using "due to host" as the target link for the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Done both. Thanks The Rambling Man. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Angola at the Lusophony Games @Yellow Dingo, Joseph2302, and Cwmhiraeth:

I pulled this, as this is unverifiable. It is sourced to [7] Topendsports, a one-person website from Robert Wood of unknown reliability (it seems to be somewhat known for fitness and sports health related issues, but not really for the announcement of major international sporting events). I can't find the fact on the official Lusophony games site[8], nor via Google News[9][10]. I don't claim that the hook is incorrect, just that it is surprisingly hard to verify it and that no reliable, relevant sources seem to have mentioned this, which is very suspicious. Fram (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the hook should just be re-worked to include, say, the gold medal tally from the 2014 games in Goa? Not particularly interesting but reliably sourced... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
That discussion can be had at the reopened DYK template. Article needs correcting and thorough check, DYK needs new hook and review. Fram (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate that, it was just a suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump Foundation

... that Vince and Linda McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment were the largest donors to the Donald J. Trump Foundation from 2004 to 2014? [11]

With the election out of the way, US politics-related nominations waiting in the special holding area can be promoted. I have promoted the Donald J. Trump Foundation article to Prep 3 and am mentioning it here for your consideration in case there are any issues with it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There are several potentially dangerous uncited claims and there's no lead, on a quick thirty-second read. Otherwise I'm sure it's sparkling. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, the template substitution didn't work when you did the promotion. Whether you pull it or finish the promotion, it's an easy fix for you to make. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth hopefully all the issues with regard to unreferenced claims and probably libellous statements will be resolved before this gets promoted to the main page, right? Or is this an example of an article where you didn't think it necessary to read anything but the hook? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is a clown, but this article is so full of "possiblies", "may haves", "it is suggested that", and "allegedly" that it needs to be nowhere near the main page. Oh, and it's got a whacking great orange maintenance tag on the top. Pull it. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done Pulled from prep. But I'm not sure what happened here. I undid the promotion, then noticed that a squiggly bracket was missing at the beginning of the template and tried to replace it, only to have the template look like I promoted it. Could someone help here, please? Yoninah (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. BencherliteTalk 00:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the nomination template back to the main list at its original date in September, so it will be visible there while the issues are worked on. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I do find your comments objectionable and unnecessary. I moved the nomination to prep and listed it here because I thought it might have problems not despite its problems. I was fully expecting it not to proceed to the queue without further work. I thought you and I were meant to be on the same side? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
All I can say is that if you had read the article, you would never have promoted it in that condition. It should have been booted right back to nominations. Or if you did read the article and promoted it regardless, you should stop doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

Cwmhiraeth, some notes on the first three hooks just promoted into Prep 4. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks

Several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I have added a reference to the text of the play to address the synopsis point you tagged, TRM.
  • Regarding the 'most produced', I have seen the claim on the Six Dance Lessons website but thought I had seen it elsewhere too - meant to get back to that a while back, thanks for the reminder. I have also seen claims like "widely produced", so it may need a re-wording with a reference. It could just be dropped, too - the list of places of production shows it has had wide production. EdChem (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • PS: These are the cumulative changes you made. I don't take issue with any of them, but, just so I understand, are any of them individually or are they collectively in your view sufficient to prevent the article appearing on the main page, or needing to be removed at ERRORS? I have no problem addressing the two cn's, one is already done and the other I had forgotten about, but I'm unclear whether your posting here is because you see them as needing resolution before moving through the queue, or are they raised more as part of your ongoing conversation with Cwmhiraeth? EdChem (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi EdChem, thanks for your updates to the article! Well, according to the DYK rules, specifically 3b, we shouldn't be posting items with any reasonable [citation needed] tags. So in that sense, I would say the article shouldn't go on the main page until that time. Ideally these are picked up before the articles are promoted to a prep or queue, but that's not happening at the moment. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder, TRM, I had forgotten about 3b. As the author, I felt the article was main page worthy but with a specific rule on this point my feeling is not relevant – glad I watch articles I have at DYK and would have addressed the request for references anyway. I suppose that the post here struck me as more harsh than seemed necessary, but then I had a difficult day and that has fed into my impression. I appreciate the work you do in checking preps and queues and can see that tagging and leaving time for the submitter to act is problematic with the time frame of the queues and the fact that standards vary so much between submitters (and reviewers). Your tagging and my addressing will improve the article, which is good. I am not sure that expecting Cwmhiraeth to make the changes and taggings in this case is a reasonable expectation for prepping sets, however – to me, the solution lies with better reviewing, though how we achieve that is a perennial problem. As an example, I think the work I did at the Scott Simplot nomination improved the article and that a recent suggestion has improved the hook, but I don't know that the submitter would see it that way! Also, requests here at WT:DYK for help in the review stage generate little response (at least, that's my experience), maybe because pre-prep the issues are non-urgent. We (as in the broad DYK community) really need to figure out how to address our macro issues because this case-by-case addressing of issues shouldn't be necessary. EdChem (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No worries. I can't spend time working my way through all the open noms, my key plan is to prevent issues getting onto the main page. Given that DYK has two or three "quality gates" before queues are promoted to the main page, I'm still surprised to see that in twenty minutes I can find issues with half a promoted prep. And I hadn't even looked at the other half... 17:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you think that promoting a hook to a prep area gives me an obligation to correct any issues or quibbles you may make, you had better think again. If you believe that a fact in the article needs a citation, deal with it yourself. The practice of putting a "citation needed" tag on an article and then saying it is not ready for the front page, per 3b, is dreadful. I hesitate to say what I think about people who tag articles, but such people don't come high in my regard! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I do not think it is fair to expect the prep promotion to look for every potential citation required, but if I were to add a hook to prep I would check the article for overall main page worthiness. This is not any comment on what you do or do not do, just a comment on my philosophy. I do agree with TRM, though, that we have a serious problem with variable standards of what is ticked as ready for promotion. I have seen too many examples of an issue caught in prep where I look and think if I had done the review, there is no way I would have given a tick. EdChem (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, like Cwmhiraeth, I usually look to fix a referencing issue before adding a tag, but for any article where I was the editor, feel free to let me know if you see something and I'll try to address it. I take pride in the quality of my work, and am always happy to get useful feedback. We may disagree at times but I respect your dedication and share your overall goals for high-quality content. EdChem (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Cwmhiraeth Please re-read 3b of the DYK rules. If you're skipping rules (as you have admitted to doing, e.g. with regard to bare URLs, and often) then you should stop building preps. You're creating work for others who have to double-check your promotions. I'm really not too worried how "high in [your] regard" I come, but your continual and seemingly deliberate dereliction of observation of the DYK rules when building these sets is hardly good grounds to criticise those of us who have to follow in your footsteps and find all the issues you and the others have missed. Only three out of the top three in this set needed work. And a fourth pulled... Not a great hit rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I hate drive-by tagging myself (in fact I've just had a massive rant about it at Talk:Main Page), but on the other hand there is a tipping point between an article that needs quite a few more citations, and one that could be fixed in ten seconds by finding a cite or just simply removing the unsourced sentence. Though sometimes that does, of course, depend on how vital that piece of text is, whether it's genuinely contentious, whether it's a BLP issue .... etc. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree but DYK has its rules and this article failed to meet one of the criteria, but was added to a prep set regardless. A little like (but nowhere near as bad as) the Trump hook lower down on this page. We shouldn't be putting articles into preps or queues if they're in such appalling states. Granted, this one was a few citations short, and most of them not massively important, but claims like It has become one of the most-produced plays in the world. absolutely must be referenced. That reviewers, promoters etc missed this is simply appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This article did not have a "citation needed" or any other tag on it when I promoted it to Prep. The tag was added afterwards by TRM. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all get that, but I actually read the whole article. I guess, from your note and your promotion, you didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Disclosure: I have edited the hook for this nomination. I believe this tweak is minor and entirely non-controversial, but as the hook is discussed here and as I am the creator / nominator, I feel it is appropriate for me to post and to say my change can be reverted, of course, if anyone sees my change as problematic. EdChem (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I've done some more tweaking, here is the cumulative diff. Does this address all your concerns sufficiently? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: yes, thanks. I know some people find it objectionable to receive comments so late in the DYK day, but I tend to review preps and queues as my focus is on what's about to hit the main page. I'm continually shocked by the lack of quality going there from DYK, so I hope you understand why my comments have arrived in such a timeframe. If I could, I'd (re-)review every DYK, but that would be a lot of work on top of ensuring admins and promoting editors are actually doing a decent job. Right now that's in doubt, or at least the whole process is malfunctioning such that we can get a prep set with issues in 50% of the hooks that need addressing..... 22:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I totally understand about the time frame, you are checking when things hit the preps as that is when they become urgent, I have no problem with that. You can also rely on anything I nominate or review getting quick attention from me. I like to think that I don't miss much when I review and that my writing is of a high quality, so I want to address things I miss and I appreciate the work you are doing. I can't promise to agree with you on every issue, though, because I sometimes see the severity of the issues differently. With this article, for example, both your cn's were places where citations were desirable, and the second was one I had forgotten about returning to, but the article was not flawed (IMO) in a way that an inaccurate hook or an inadequate article would have been. Perhaps you disagree, but my impression is ERRORS would not have acted on it, perhaps beyond removing the sentence you place the second cn on (which would have been justifiable).
I also think we have a serious problem with inadequate reviewing, though sadly I don't believe that your work is leading to a long-term improvement in standards. Finding issues on a case-by-case basis is valuable and necessary, don't get me wrong, but it does not lead to improvements for the future unless editors reflect on their own actions and make an effort to improve reviewing. At present, I don't think most do respond to or reflect on issues in as constructive a way as is needed. I have encountered defensive responses when I review, at times, and you are certainly receiving very defensive reactions at times, which is unhelpful. Consequently, I don't see the present approach as being effective in getting to the overall issue, though of course it does address individual cases as they arise. I'm happy to have a longer conversation with you about this, if you'd like - maybe at one of our talk pages? EdChem (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Alliance List

The blurb says "that seeking to challenge both Fatah and Hamas, five left-wing factions united to jointly contest the 2016 Palestinian local elections?" but the 2016 election links to a 2017 election page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. They formed an alliance to fight the 2016 elections but these got postponed. Do you have a problem with that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It's confusing that the reader is redirected to 2017 elections, and the hook is misleading in that it can be interpreted that these elections are in 2016 and may actually already have taken place. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The article actually says that the elections have been postponed indefinitely, and the article the link now redirects to (Palestinian local elections, 2017) says that "... they are now expected in 2017". In other words, they might actually not take place at all. The hook needs to reflect this (or a new hook needs to be found). Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the link in the hook and added the part about the postponement Yoninah (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert Scull

The blurb says "... that Robert Scull auction in 1973 of 50 Pop art works from his collection was viewed ..." – this appears to be missing a word, or two, and is it grammatically sound? I can't parse it... Plus "cashing in" is hardly encyclopedic, if it's a quote, that's fine, but it should be in quote marks. And the article says it was "mostly" Pop Art, not all Pop Art. And why the odd capitalisation of Pop art? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I rephrased this hook before you posted here. I normally copy the exact approved hook to the prep area and make any tweaks I think necessary as a separate edit afterwards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The rephrase is marginally better but doesn't address the "mainly pop art" i.e. not all 50 works were pop art, nor does it address the less-than-encycopledic use of "cashing in", this should be in quote marks as it is a direct copy of the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
"nouveaux riches cashing in" was lifted from The New York Times. I put it in quotes both here and in the article. Yoninah (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that not all 50 works were pop art hasn't been fixed..... Sorry to harp on but there were so many flaws with this nomination, I'm surprised it was promoted to a prep set. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is still not fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Egypt at the 1906 Intercalated Games

The blurb talks about an athlete who is so non-notable that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Can I therefore enquire as to how this would be of interest to "a broad audience"? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Returned to noms page. Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this hook is fine. Your broad audience probably has little memory of 1906! Its interesting that one athlete could compete at this level in two different sports. I propose to reinstate this hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It was commonplace for athletes to represent their nations in multiple sports. That this individual is entirely non-notable makes this even less remarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
And just FYI, it's a tiny bit odd that the article claims to be about Egypt when it's about the Khedivate of Egypt. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
For an example of how common this is, please see List of English cricket and football players. It's just about England football and cricket representatives, but it gives a good idea as to how common this kind of thing was. It also demonstrates how many actually notable individuals have done it (in two sports in a single country), unlike the subject of this dubious hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you do something useful like proposing a better hook then? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I find nothing really of interest in that article. So in my opinion it should just be failed. And I reject your hostile notion that I'm not doing something useful. I'm serving our readers b quality-controlling the output of the reviews at DYK, including those which you are sanctioning for main page inclusion. That most of my suggestions are upheld, and even that some of those suggestions result in hooks being pulled, should tell you something. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I have to agree with TRM. There's nothing wrong with the article per se, but I simply can't find anything resembling an interesting hook. This is the problem with the thousands of "X at the 9999 Sport Event" articles; they're simply bare facts. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

... that eloquent Holbrook, sociable Humble, denomination-hopping Miller, and troubled Pilling ...

Nowhere in the Joseph Miller article does it state he was "denomination-hopping". It neither mentions "denomination" nor "hopping". It states he created a storm when he went from " Congregational minister" to " Anglican priest", but "hopping"? I realise this is supposed to be the "quirky" hook but we should still try to retain a level of encyclopedic expression. In fact, the descriptions for each of these clergy need to be in quotes, and sourced, otherwise it's pure OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The promoted hook was ALT2; ALT3 is the same except for the change of "denomination-hopping" to "ex-Congregationalist", which would certainly address the primary point above. Pinging Storye book, who should be able to shed some light here. A quick look finds "eloquent" in one of the quotes in the Holbrook article so it certainly could be quoted here, but "sociable" is not sourced in Humble nor is "troubled" in Pilling; also, the Pilling article can't seem to decide whether he stayed as vicar of St. Mark until 1921 or until his death in 1926. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, just seen this, I'll sort it out in the next half hour. Pilling was still vicar when he died - it's on his death certificate. I'll add that in (thought I already had). The verb "endeared" is a quote for Humble, so I believe we can use the adjective "endearing". Pilling was frankly a disastrous vicar, giving nothing for nearly twenty years, in an area of great poverty. It is clear to anyone reading the article, which is all sourced, that he was a troubled man - but there is no quotable word available. We don't know whether he was mad or bad, or a victim of local people who didn't like his Non-Yorkshire accent or his low-class origins when previous vicars were from privileged backgrounds. So in the article I used the same technique as the contemporary newspapers, which printed the facts and let you work it out. I vote we leave "troubled" in, because it's obvious from the facts. (If you like we could use "plot"-fearing because he told the church commission that he was afraid of "plots".) Miller just needs a switch to ALT3. Holbrook just needs quotation marks for "eloquent" and a citation in the header. Storye book (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • All cites, quotes, etc. have now been added to articles as I suggested above, with some alterations for the sake of accuracy. Storye book (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Storye book. This hook is now in Queue 4 so an admin is needed if one of the new hooks is to be used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. Sorry for the delay in replying again - I'm not always near my computer. As of this minute, the hook has not been changed in Queue 4 - so am I supposed to alert an admin? - or have they already seen this discussion? I am happy with any of the ALTs - so for me, it's just a matter of checking that everyone's happy. Storye book (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for taking my concerns seriously, your work to improve the hook and articles is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Calling any admin—Cas Liber, Maile, or a passing admin—to replace the hook, now in the quirky slot of Queue 4, with ALT5. (I've struck ALT4 because "troubled" is not in the article, and I don't want this pulled from the main page after all this work.) We need this done in less than two hours, since it hits the main page that soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done I'd love to know what "plottings" were - sounds intriguing - since the source is subscription. But I put ALT5 in the queue. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all, good work fixing it up! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki-code error on nominations page

There is some code error on the nominations page. From section 3.2.5 i.e. Articles created/expanded on November 8, the nominations are not transcluded by just linked to the page. Please someone resolve this, I was not unable to find the error. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 08:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Please refer to Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution, and feel free to add your comments. We have been aware of this problem since September. It's not a coding problem. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Help withdrawing a nomination

I was creating a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Sombra (Overwatch) and, before I intended to hit save, I went to recheck the rules blah blah blah, realized the article is too old (over seven days, moved to mainspace the 2nd, that was like 9 days ago), so I go to close the tab, hit enter instead of backspace on this unfamiliar keyboard, Safari submits text form, creates page. TL;DR, I don't want to pursue the nom, but I'm not sure what to do with the page. I ask nom for speedy, but I don't know if that's the proper way to handle this. How should I go about withdrawing this? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you got almost everything wrapped up for withdrawal; I've deleted the nomination as the remaining work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Unexpanded on T:TDYK

The last few days of nominations on T:TDYK are appearing unexpanded to me — I see a strung-together list of the names of the subpages instead of the contents of the subpages. {{DYKsubpage}} hasn't been changed recently, and the subpages themselves appear normal. Anyone have any ideas what's going on? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein See #Wiki-code error on nominations page. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 4

For some reason, the lead image was cropped. Why? The original image shows them waltzing (and not carousing in a bar, for example). Could an administrator restore the original image before this goes live in a few hours? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who cropped it, but I think it's better. The original image is three-quarters background scenery with two tiny people in the middle. The original was a nice image, but not at the reduced size it takes for the main page. Of course, someone else might have a totally different viewpoint. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Template

There's an extra template floating around called Template:Did you know nominations/Z.A. Ahmed, which the page creator turned into a redirect for Template:Did you know nominations/Z.A. Ahmed (Indian politician). Now, when you click on the template that says Template:Did you know nominations/Z.A. Ahmed (Indian politician) which is transcluded on the noms page under November 6 noms, you get Template:Did you know nominations/Z.A. Ahmed. Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem, Yoninah. I've adjusted the contents of the "Indian politician" template so it should go to that template only. (This is one reason why people should not rename DYK nomination template pages.) If some friendly admin would like to delete Template:Did you know nominations/Z.A. Ahmed, since it's an unnecessary redirect, that would be nice; otherwise, it can sit there as something no one's going to need to access. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

C6 appears to have never actually been a rule, yet it continues to be applied

In an effort to fill out the entries for Destination: Universe!, I wrote two articles and posted them to DYK. I made what I think were interesting hooks about the plots, only to have both be rejected by something called C6. I read C6 and was surprised, it seems to be a rather odd rule that is utterly arbitrary. So I looked into the history.

I found, to my dismay, that it was created without prior discussion by a single editor, who then used it as a reason to reject many hooks. There was no discussion of the rule before it was created (using search, which is not exactly exhaustive, I admit). The editor apparently created a new rule for their own use and then applied it as they saw fit. This so utterly flies in the face of everything that I believe the Wikipedia stands for that it takes my breath away.

A month or so later, this thread comes up, where everyone involved expresses their surprise that it even exists - even Gato had not seen it (and that says something!). Now at this point, one would imagine that such an edit would be considered disruptive and RVed. But that did not happen. What happened instead is a wonderful example of the Iron Law in action.

The next discussion I can find comes up a year and a half later, in this discussion. By this time this made-up rule is simply accepted as "real". The thread wanders off topic, but there appears to be wide consensus that it should not be interpreted in the way it is, that this was intended to prevent fictional works from being presented as if they were real. Gato first makes this point, and numerous editors all agree with it, going so far as to propose changes to make this clear. In spite of their being what appears to be some consensus on that change, nothing happens, the original rule remains as-is. Once again, at no point does the issue that this rule should never have been added even mentioned.

The issue next comes up that October, when a number of editors express their dissatisfaction with the application of this rule, with very clear consensus stating that it is being misapplied and the editor's actions are contrary to that consensus. Once again, the fact that the rule was never agreed to in the first place does not come up. Instead it drags off into a (failed?) attempt to have the editor banned from (non-review) DYKs in order to prevent this non-consensus view of the rule being applied.

Now here we are 7 years later. Today the "rule" is simply accepted, and applied in precisely the fashion that was clearly against consensus. This is such a wonderful example of the bureaucratic love of rules that it makes me smile as I write this. Rules, even fake ones, tend to become real in bureaucracies. And it's not like this was in the wild-west days of the early Wikipedia, by 2009 the process for these sorts of things was well developed, and simply not followed.

For strictly procedural reasons, I believe the argument can be made that it should be stricken as it was never agreed to. But there was wide agreement that fictional hooks should identify themselves as such, and I can get definitely behind that.

So...

Proposal: Change C6 to read "Hooks about fictional works need to identify themselves as such."

This would mean that:

"Hamlet says the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would not meet C6, while:

"In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the titular character speaks the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would. Whereas today's application demands some sort of convoluted hook:

"Charlie Chaplin recites the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be' as king Shahdov".

The purpose of such a connection is completely lost on me, and apparently most of the people who considered it in the past. So lets get this fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: per diff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Just delete the arcane rule. It's not as if it makes any difference, particularly if the hook was featured as the "quirky" last hook is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes lets strike off the rule. From after this discussion it should no longer apply. But it was applied in the past, so we should not make it disappear without trace. Strike it and note that it is historical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that the rule should be stricken if there was no proper consensus for it. And I agree that we should not be prejudiced against fiction, just because it's fiction. But there is an issue in that fiction is often written to be exciting and surprising and that makes it too easy to use its hooks. I'm not sure that we want our hooks to be such obvious plot twists or spoilers. For example, "Did You Know ... that Ramsay Bolton is killed by ********** in HBO's Game of Thrones?" We should try to do more than just steal the story's thunder.
By the way, I noticed the difficulty that Maury Markowitz was having with those nominations and that got me started on something similar. I already have a good hook in mind ... that the Black Destroyer was the start of science fiction's Golden Age and inspired other works including Alien? Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! So it seems there's not even consensus for a "make it clear its fiction?". I'm happy with that too. I'm not sure who wrote the "I agree..." part (Andrew?) but perhaps then the real concern here is "No spoilers in the hooks", but perhaps that might end up being abused too. I'm up for its consideration though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree with TRM, it doesnt have any use at all, except as a reason for DragonflySixtyseven to decline noms. There is no reason to maintain any part of C6 in my opinion. In regards to "spoilers", we are writing about things that have already happened so I see no reason to try to avoid the possibility of a spoiler.--Kevmin § 00:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I imagine part of the reason people thought C6 was reasonable is that you avoid hooks that are "in-universe", and also ones that depend entirely on an unsourced plot section. One of my hooks several years back was rejected because it dealt with events in a television episode, and I came up with what turned out to be a far more effective hook once I had to bring the real world into it. All of the rules are supposed to have described a consensus at the time, either the way things were done or after a question came up and the consensus was codified, such as the article-for-article QPQ. I'm surprised to hear that this wasn't created based on how things were already being done or by consensus, in part because it makes a certain sense. Will hooks that are completely fictional need to be explicitly supported by a source other than the work in question, or will it not be possible to check those hooks any more short of reading/viewing/hearing the work in question? If the latter, I'd be concerned about uncheckable hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Such hooks would have to be cited and confirmable, as per the other rules. Preferably by a secondary source writing about that "fictional fact". Uncited plot sections could not supply DYK hooks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
        Which would apply in my two hooks, BTW, but I'm fine with that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so there is a very clear consensus to kill C6 outright (which, frankly, surprises me while lightening my heart). What is the process for actually doing that? I saw a suggestion to leave in a note about it being historical and that seems like a good idea. So do I simply remove it and renumber the C series and put a note somewhere, or leave it in a strikeout? Does there need to me a longer process, or are we good to go with this SNOW as it is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Either remove it or strike it with an edit summary referencing this conversation. Don't renumber the other rules though, that can cause confusion (see for example WP:CSD, when criteria A4 and A6 disappeared years ago we didn't renumber all the others because people had got used to referring to them). Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to argue in favor of the rule. Articles on fiction are supposed to be more than plot summaries; they are supposed to indicate the real-world significance and importance of the topic. Likewise, hooks about fiction should make sense to people who have not read/seen/gained familiarity with the topic. Things like the hook that Andrew Davidson mentions above, about the story setting off the new golden age of sci-fi - that indicates real world significance. That gets me interested in reading both the article, and the book it's about. A mere summation of a plot point, like, "Did you know that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's son?" does nothing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    I believe you are confusing two issues. The demand for real-world significance is true same for any article - to establish notability. It has nothing to do with articles about fiction. The second issue is about hooks, and there is nothing anywhere about having to establish notability in the hook.
    As to the claim that it would make for better hooks... really? Anyone can write a bad hook about any topic. Here's one: "...that Robert Watt moved to London?" That meets every rule, would you say we should use it? Or contrariwise, what possible reason should we not be able to use "...that the evil antagonist from Star Wars, Darth Vader, turns out to be the father of the hero, Luke Skywalker?" That seems like a great hook, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Addition: Further on the last point - there's nothing to say that it's the 3rd party interest that won't be the better hook. For instance, in "Black Destroyer" I would argue that this is the case - it's both the topic of a lawsuit about Alien and the marker for the Golden Age. Either of those is more interesting than the relatively simplistic story, IMHO. But now consider the contrary case, "A Can of Paint" is not interesting because someone made a movie out of it, so why should that be the hook? For that matter, why do we need Robert Forward to simply recount the original plot point of "Far Centaurus" that makes a perfectly good hook on its own? In this case, there's not even any difference, we just put someone else's name on it. "The best hook" is a decision made on an article-by-article basis, and having a rule just for this one article type is pretty much the definition of arbitrary. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm somewhat torn on this issue, but hooks are supposed to be interesting, which usually means, that they highlight something unusual, unexpected, out of the ordinary. But when it comes to a work of fiction, it's expected that weird things will happen, so arguably, highlighting fictional events fails the hook interest requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am missing the logic here - you seem to be saying that something could not not interesting because it is expected to be interesting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I've never been totally comfortable with this rule myself. However, what it has done is prevent a small avalanche of subpar hooks making it to the main page - hooks along the lines of "Did you know that in PlatformGameW spriteX runs around bashing a whole bunch of Ys with weaponZ?" I mean, you know what they say about there being only a very limited number of plots in fiction, with most of them just being variations on a theme. So, while I'm not totally opposed to the notion of permitting fictional events in hooks, I am inclined to the view that the "interest" bar has to be set higher if you don't want to be deluged by examples such as the one above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so C6 still goes in its current form. Is there any reason for me not to do that now?
But we still have the open issue of tools to kill bad hooks. I'm all for it, with two provisos, it doesn't single out a particular type of article, and doesn't make certain hooks illegal even if they are good. It's that last part that is the real problem here, C6 kills off more good hooks than bad. I'm not sure what such a bar would look like, but I'm certainly open to any ideas along those lines. In fact, it would seem such a discussion is long overdue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should be removing C6 unless or until we find something better with which to replace it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
C6 is clearly in violation of policies we had in place when it was written, and you're the only remaining holdout on what is otherwise a very clear consensus above. I'm happy to start a new discussion on what should replace it, I'll even stickhandle the entire process, but unless you actually have that suggestion right now then I'm going to strike unless you have a procedural opposition you would like to raise. There are hooks that are being held up for no reason, we need to move this along. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No, not the only one. We've lived with C6 as a rule for half a dozen years or more and people have been able to come up with reasonably interesting hooks in that time; I do think there should be some restriction on the use of completely fictional, in-universe hooks. If it's fictional, we certainly have an obligation to make that clear. (I'm not sure whether April Fool's would affect this obligation or not.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
One of the most fundamental aspects of DYK is that hooks must be real-world facts. This is always the case, even for April Fools' Day. In that sense, C6 might be considered redundant. But we still need the rule, to explicitly state that; if it were removed, some people might see that as a giant loophole allowing any kind of fictional pseudofact. The real issue is interpretation of "involve the real world in some way". I have always interpreted it very literally. If a hook says that in the novel X, y happened, that does involve the real world in some way, because it's stating what was written in a book that exists in the real world. Maury, regarding your hooks which prompted this discussion: while I have great respect for both of the editors involved, I disagree with their interpretation of C6 as a reason for rejecting them. I would support altering (or appending something to) C6 to explicitly state that it's simply intended to prohibit hooks which are completely fictional. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If someone writes a hook that is part of the plot, I fail to see how that is not a real world fact. For instance "in the book Gizifia, X says Y" is clearly a fact and can be reffed. Is that not what you're saying? And BM, I agree completely that all-fictional hooks should indicate that, which "in the book Gizifa" clearly does. And while it's true many good hooks have been written in spite of the clearly illegal C6, it is also the case that one can write very many good hooks without it as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Second Review, Otherwise Promoted

notification made - if there are any concerns they can be addressed at the nomination LavaBaron (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (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.

I have cleared this hook based on a lay evaluation of it. This is fair warning that if you object to it, do so before it's promoted; otherwise, this note provides a record for any future TBAN proposal that it was promoted by an editor exercising the qualifications required of DYK reviewers which do not require the reviewer to have any understanding of accounting. LavaBaron (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dont worry, any future TBAN proposal will have more than enough evidence due to your entirely justified previous ban restrictions and your constant whining about it. RE the current proposed hook, it is both boring and reads like an advertisement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
First, I've never been TBAN'ed; it is entirely inappropriate to make false accusations against other editors. Second, if you have a policy objection to NA's hook, raise it in the nomination. Don't just do a drive-by mud-slinging against other editors. Since you've never submitted a DYK it's unlcear why you're here other than to complain. This was a simple, GF public notice, not an invitation for you to dance the Look At Me waltz. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2016 (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.

If you don't feel qualified to accurately judge a DYK, don't review it and let someone else handle it. "I don't know enough about it so I'll just AGF promote it" is not the right way to deal with this. Closing a discussion you started in a very WP:POINTy manner because you don't like the feedback you get also doesn't reflect very well on yourself. It won't help in any case, as people can simply continue posting to the topic of course. But thanks for giving another example of why such a future TBAN proposal may well be necessary. Fram (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram. First, I am fully qualified to conduct lay evaluations of all DYKs and my review met the standards of what can be expected of a layperson; no section of WP requires subject-matter expertise as a condition of participation. My comment was a GF notice to solicit additional feedback without unnecessarily holding-up an otherwise excellent nom and nothing more; we should all feel free to seek additional input on our reviews without fear of being attacked for doing so.
Second, the thread was closed because the purpose of the thread (public notification) had been achieved; no other reason. By commenting here you have indicated you were aware of the nomination prior to its main page appearance.
Third, we should really use the discussion board for discussion of functional matters, not firing-off "zingers" like "thanks for giving another example of why such a future ..." etc. I appreciate your dedication to DYK. - LavaBaron (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
On the third point, the instructions and edit notice are in direct opposition with your opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. LavaBaron (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, I know what can be expected of your reviews, thanks. My post was not about the rules, it was about what was best for Wikipedia. If you don't feel certain about your review, to the point that you post some kind of notification here, then it would have been much, much better if you had not promoted the article but just commented. What is allowed and what is wise are often completely different things, and the bare fact that you were allowed to promote this DYK doesn't make it wise. "Unnecessarily holding up an otherwise excellent nom" is a bullshit reason, there is no deadline and not reviewing an article is not a problem. If there would be some fixed time limit for a review, then you might have had a point. As it stands, you didn't have one, you made one, and couldn't stand criticism of it.
As for "we should not be not firing-off "zingers" like ...", perhaps start with not dismissing the comments of someone who (if your claim is correct) has never submitted a DYK, as that is not relevant to their criticism. People don't get more or less rights on this page based on the number of DYKs they have submitted, promoted, ... Fram (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Just an observation: in the time it took you to write that you could have given a second review of the nom while it's still pre-prep. LavaBaron (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Or perhaps I don't review nominations I don't feel sure about? Fram (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've stricken my support for this very good nomination for account safety. While I'm confident in it I, like any person, can never be 100-percent certain in the verifiability of any fact and any assertion in the social sciences can ultimately find a basis for a legitimate challenge if there is a determined, singular, and unyielding effort to do so simply for the sake of playing Negan with editors. With all due respect, you could have ignored this thread if you had no input in the nom, or you could have entertained it by cheerily and pleasantly offering a review if you did. I know you don't believe it but I really do appreciate what it is you're trying to do; I just wish you could try to do it a little more gently and with a few less, of what sometimes come across, as displays of plumage. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There's no plumage, just a passion for keeping nonsense and errors off the main page. Despite the plethora of linguistic pea-cocking in the above post, the point is that you don't need to review things you know nothing about, no-one does, leave it to someone who knows better. Just stick to things you think you know rather than things you know you don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Clover lover (removed from Queue)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hypera nigrirostris @Cwmhiraeth, Yellow Dingo, and Yoninah:

Pulled from Queue2. Flower heads (Pseudanthium) only can be found on some specific families of plants, and clover (family Fabaceae) is not one of them. Clover has an indeterminate inflorescence of papilionaceous flowers. Fram (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Red clover flower head with many florets
Hmm. A flower head is a commonly used expression. In the case of clover, each flower head consists of many individual flowers. It is only you who has chosen to equate "flower head" with Pseudanthium, neither article or hook does so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Only me? Flower head was not created by me. Fram (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Try this definition, which actually gives clover as an example. "A dense, compact cluster of small flowers that appear to be a single flower, as of a dandelion or clover." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
So some definitions include clover, and some definitions exclude clover. Wuoldn't it be much better to go with what the source you used said and use a term that is not ambiguous? Fram (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the sentence in the article by replacing "flower-heads" by "inflorescences", so perhaps you would like to replace the hook in Queue 2, making the same word change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Fram (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a guideline for "firsts"?

Hi, I know that you've discussed how "first x to do y" hooks don't focus on the person's achievements and are sometimes boring (at least [12]).

How would you feel about adding a hook guideline to the Supplementary Guidelines along the lines of "Hooks should focus on a subject's achievements and not their race or gender. When focusing on a subject who was the first to do something, make sure it is the only notable material about them." I took some of the wording from Wikipedia:Writing about women, and I think the issue doesn't just apply to women. At the same time, I don't want to make it even more difficult to write hooks. We're not outlawing "firsts" hooks, but we're helping people who might be new to DYK have more of a chance of knowing there is an issue with them if we include it in the supplementary guidelines. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Though I don't quite understand what you mean by "make sure it [what?] is the only notable material about them", it sounds too rigid. "First Jewish/Black/Catholic Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court" (for example) would be excellent hooks. (BTW, notability is the test only for whether an article should exist; it's not the test for what goes in the article, once the article subject has passed the notability test -- see WP:NNC.) EEng 19:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with EEng; while "first person from Macclesfield to win a flyweight boxing title" type hooks are uninteresting and inappropriate since readers can't be expected to care, there are plenty of people whose notability derives from being the first member of a particular group to do something. Valentina Tereshkova is notable for being the first woman in space, not for being the twelfth human in space. ‑ Iridescent 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, maybe it's not a good idea, since "firsts" are fine hooks in many circumstances. For now I'll direct my students to read the general guidelines about writing about women to encourage them to find other kinds of hooks. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With about 100 nominations currently awaiting promotion and around 240 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order, and some aren't transcluded at all.

The following are 12 nominations that were approved at least two weeks ago, and some much longer than that. Since we're promoting 56 per week, these 12 have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the hooks don't have to wait much longer than they already have.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to compete to break a record

Template:Did you know nominations/Odile Ahouanwanou @Yellow Dingo, Canadian Paul, and Yoninah:

Pulled from prep 3. Small problem with the hook: she didn't even compete in the 2012 Summer Olympics heptathlon... Fram (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Sorry, I mean the "100 metres hurdles", which would be correct. I fail to se how you couldn't spend thirty seconds to correct this simple error that was probably caused by an accident. Please reinstate hook with change. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
And I fail to understand how three people who are supposed to check one single sentence managed to miss this. Oh, I see, you are the same editor who claimed that Angola will organise the 2021 Lusophony Games, based on one unreliable source, and failed to notice (or care) that no reliable sources (like, e.g., the organiser of the Lusophony Games) even mentioned this fact. Please take a lot more care when you contribute DYK hooks. Fram (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Human error. Everyone was looking for the record, the nationality, the name and the times, assuming the rest was correct. Why did nobody notice a ship door was open? Why did the police open the wrong gate and kill a bunch of football fans? I have restored the hook with the correct information per the IAAF source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
"Human error". Thanks for that enlightening bit of information, I would never have guessed. "Assuming the rest was correct". The times weren't even in the hook, so no idea why "everyone was looking for" them. So you have proposed, reviewed and promoted the Alt2 hook? Good going. Can't be worse than the result the three-person system produced. Fram (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it could be worse, User:Ritchie333, if you suggested, in the hook, that she wore fake breasts. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hook claim with primary source?

Now in Queue3 (not pulled!). Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Diggler @Brandt Luke Zorn, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah:

The sentence in the article about this hook is "Particularly, Diggler correctly predicted more outcomes than the models used by Silver's FiveThirtyEight, a prominent data-journalism and statistics blog owned by ESPN." This is sourced to [13], but that website is written by the same people who created Carl Diggler. Aren't we supposed to source such claims (dubious as they may be, which is another point of contention) from reliable independent sources, not from self-serving ones? Fram (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It depends. Its basically maths. So a website which makes 20 predictions, of which 16 turn out to be correct, compared to another website which makes 30 predictions of which 12 turn out to be correct, can be easily sourced to both primary sources to say 'Site A had more correct predictions than source B'. It verges on OR and may hit UNDUE for inclusion in an article, you would want a reliable secondary source doing the maths to demonstrate its notability or reason for inclusion. But as a basic fact checking, primary sources are useable. Personally I wouldnt include such a factoid in an article unless another independant source has mentioned it, but when it comes to articles heavy on statistics, some leeway is given when comparing that sort of thing. (If of course, you only have a link to the subsequent 'We were right!' gloating, rather than the original predictions themselves, no it shouldnt be used at all). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
In this case, If I understand it correctly, the situation is comparable to the follwoing: X predicted 200 outcomes, and had 160 outcomes right (80%). Y predicted 150 outcomes, and had 120 outcomes right (also 80%). But X then says that Y only had 120 of X's 200 outcomes right (60%), which makes them less successful... Fram (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thats the sort of thing you want a reliable independant source to comment on. From Primary sources like that the most you want to go is 'Both had 80% of their predictions correct'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Fram (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
You're right, Fram. And I'm the one who added that cite because there wasn't one to support the hook fact. I used the source cited at the end of the paragraph, and noted that it was a primary source. I guess I shouldn't have been so eager to promote the hook, and should have requested better referencing. Go ahead and pull it. Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Will do! Fram (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not think it is a problem for a hook to depend on a primary or not independent source (and they are not synonymous, either) as that has nothing to do with reliability. That source seems a little like a self-published source, though, and that raises some questions about reliability when the group isn't well known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin please replace the pulled hook in Queue 3? I'd like to suggest the quirky hook in Prep 5, since it's fairly long and the rest of the hooks in Queue 3 are on the short side. (Pinging Maile and Cas Liber, in the hopes that one or the other is available, but any admin who sees this is welcome to move in a new quirky hook from prep.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue with proposed image - input sought

Alansohn nominated the article on politician Thomas J. Shusted for DYK – nomination here. I have given the hook a tick but Kevmin objects to the proposed image. The image is of an 1868 re-creation of the Hadrosaurus dinosaur which has been made the state dinosaur of New Jersey (the topic of the hook). Kevmin's objection is that the image shows a bipedal dinosaur, now known to be incorrect. An alternative image showing only 38 bones has been suggested. Alansohn has added a caption indicating the 1868 image is inaccurate, which I have trimmed and approved. Input from other editors is requested. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • My contention is that unless the article was about the restoration itself, then the hook should not be using an inaccurate image. It would be like using long identified inaccurate image of an American Bison in a hook related to current issues with the species. It wouldn't be done--Kevmin § 21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

withdraw nomination

This is another thread which is not actually producing any gain for DYK or Wikipedia in general. I would suggest two things: (a) stop repeating such behaviour as next time or some other time this will result in someone being banned from the site and (b) spend the time making points more productively, i.e. reviewing nominations or checking preps and queues. We have enough problems with quality there to warrant a full-time job, so any spare time freed up by avoiding this kind of "debate" is welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2016 (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.

I'm concerned with the dark direction this nomination has taken and would like to withdraw it. LavaBaron (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


Nothing to be gained
  • @LavaBaron: Obviously I didn't find the ALT1 proposal to be offensive, but I did recognise that others might, hence my calling for input. As the submitter, I think you could have struck ALT1 and stated you saw it as inappropriate. I think most reviewers would respect the submitter's view and give it great weight, unless there was strong reason to over-ride it. I don't think you needed to withdraw this to make the use of ALT1 highly unlikely. Iridescent posted agreeing with you, so it was going to have difficulty getting consensus to support. I know we clashed over this nomination, but it was not personal and I want you to be aware that I would not have accepted you striking the ALT. EEng might have taken a similar view, I don't know. If you wanted to reinstate the nomination with ALT1 struck, I would support a re-opening. EdChem (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I would support the reopening if Alt1 was Revision Deleted but I don't want to be attached to a nomination in which a sophomoric statement that is designed to humiliate and denigrate others is simply subject to a strike-out that anyone can still see and be victimized by. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • LavaBaron, you've really gotta start getting a clue. I (who proposed ALT1 – though originally as a gag) am gay, and I believe Martinevans123 is as well (though I'm not sure – but if he's not he should be), so your talk of the nom taking a "dark direction", and ALT1 being "vile", is hyperbolic, to put it charitably. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, and I doubt it would have been the approved hook, but it's neither dark nor vile. You make yourself ridiculous in a lot of ways, but never so much as when you're on your high horse. The last time you got me to laugh so much was when you somehow inferred I'm a "Trump supporter". EEng 18:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup, what EEng said. I opposed ALT1 on the grounds that there are people who would consider it offensive and there's no point needlessly annoying people for no benefit, but there's no possible way it could be considered "vile" or "dark", just "mildly inappropriate for a BLP". You really need to get out of the habit of issuing Sombre Pronouncements every time someone does something with which you don't agree—all it does is make you look self-important and alienate the very people who ought to be supporting you. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • How very dare you!! "Just because a man polishes his shoes and can describe every outfit Lesley Judd wore 73-thro-78...." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. Lava, I think you and EdChem have made the best job you can of Scott Simplot and if you don't want to nominate for DYK, it's your call. I should know better than to listen to that dark and devious EEng!!
  • I could really care less whom you sleep with EEng, your Alt1 was offensive, repugnant, and juvenile and I don't want my name attached to a nomination in which it's treated as a "tee hee!", milk-spitting-out-of-your-nose, moment. The fact you publicly declare that you're part of the group it hatefully targeted doesn't excuse it one bit. Why exactly are you at DYK? You neither submit nor review noms, you just post this type of puerile nonsense thinking it's cute, or charming (DYK isn't a clubhouse or hangout, it's a workspace). And, when you get called to the floor for your lack of basic common sense in what you post, you respond by lashing out, yelling "you're ridiculous" and trying to push-off the blame for this shocking display of hate on others. After all the many blocks that have been slapped on you for disruption, it seems you not only haven't learned but feel emboldened to push the envelope further still. Disgusting. LavaBaron (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
"Get off your horse and drink your milk..." --Marion Morrison
Wow, DYK really brings us all together doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess, LB, that you're still not getting the part where everyone keeps telling you to get a clue, and that ALT1 isn't offensive, hateful, vile, repugant, dark, or other synonyms. Members of a group allegedly being "targeted" are certainly in a good position to comment on what is or isn't offensive, so please – get off our side. As to "juvenile": of course ALT1 is juvenile, but juvenile can be amusing (and clickworthy) exactly for its juvenility; if readers spit beverages out of their noses on reading a hook, then I've done my job as a hooker well. (And please don't now say I'm being offensive to hookers.)
What am I doing at DYK? Well, contrary to what you say I've made dozens of nominations over the last few years, and done many scores of reviews – fewer than you in both categories, of course, but then some value quality over quantity. I've also made (I am astounded to discover on checking just now) over 3000 comments on individual nominations, usually in the form of an adjustment to a hook or the suggestion of a new hook (which more than occasionally becomes the one to actually appear on the main page); 1200 adjustements to hooks in prep; plus posts to this very page too numerous to count. And despite my puerile sensibilities I'm periodically asked to visit a nom to find something hooky that can be featured; I'm not aware of anyone ever asking you to do that.
Finally, if you thought you'd embarrass me by bringing up my various blocks, you must have missed the box on my user page –
This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!).
– not to mention such threads as Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers, Review of EEng's indefinite block, User_talk:EEng#Unblocked and so on. Please, don't get in a battle of wits with me – you're way too easy and it makes me feel kind of guitly. EEng 20:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's end this now before it gets to ANI. Any nominator can request to withdraw their nomination for any reason. What has ensued here is harassment. Let it go and get over it. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I asked Maile to modify this comment as the description of "harassment" could be taken as applying to any / all in this thread. I do not believe I have harassed LavaBaron or anyone else, nor do I agree with LavaBaron's characterisation of the ALT1 proposal. Maile declined to make any change, though he did indicate that the term "harassment" was not directed towards me. I agree that prolonging this thread is unhelpful, though I posted originally in good faith to offer LavaBaron an option for continuing the nomination with the ALT struck, which he has declined – which he was and is totally free to do. I'm sorry that I am bending the rules by posting this, but I feel the need to record both my belief that I have not engaged in harassment and Maile's confirmation that the descriptor was not directed at me. EdChem (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, as long as you opened this up, no I wasn't referring to EdChem. It was the post about the horse that was the tipping point. At the very least, that post was uncivil, and LavaBaron had posted (and removed) about it by mistake on my talk page. Things looked to be going downhill from that point. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Taxing (pulled from Main Page)

  • ... that in response to tax increases proposed by Minister of Energy Juan José Aranguren, Argentinians mounted noisy protests with bugles and cacerolazos?

Template:Did you know nominations/Juan José Aranguren @Cambalachero, GiantSnowman, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:

Pulled from the Main Page. The source[14] (which doesn't even mention Aranguren) discusses tariff increases, not tax increases. Apparently the government reduced subsidies for energy companies, but allowed (or mandated?) them to increase their tariffs so that their income stayed the same. This met with protest, but it doesn't seem to be about tax increases (and like I said, the article doesn't say who proposed this, only that the government implemented it, without even mentioning Aranguren, although he is most likely involved in it). Fram (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Both "Impuesto" and "tarifa" in Spanish means "tax" in English, as far as I was aware.? GiantSnowman 08:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
PS pulling from the main page for a slightly inaccurate translation of a foreign language seems like a massive over-reaction to me. GiantSnowman 08:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Impuesto, yes. Tarifa, no. That's not a "slightly inaccurate translation", that's getting the basics wrong. Tarifa is fare, charge, rate, tariff, price... but not taxes. Not understanding the basics of what you write about seems like a massive problem to me. Fram (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not just change it to "that in response to state subsidy changes proposed by Energe Minister Juan José Aranguren, Argentinians mounted noisy protests with bugles and cacerolazos?" Fram, could you please refresh yourself with WP:AVOIDYOU, thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. "Writing an article without understanding the sources seems like a massive problem to me." Better? Fram (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I would personally go for something like "The user may mistakenly read an intent or proposal from the Minister of Energy that he did not actually make". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
But the problem is not with the reader... How is my statement any worse than, let's say something hypothetical like "pulling from the main page seems like a massive over-reaction to me." Fram (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Because it is an over-reaction - slight mis-translation requires correcting, not pulling. GiantSnowman 21:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, and for the avoidance of doubt, the original hook wasn't adequately sourced. Cwmhiraeth did her best to find some other vaguely corroborating sources, but sadly this hook shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. We must not tolerate errors on the main page, even if they are just down to "slight mis-translation". The whole purpose of all the quality gates that DYK mandates is to stop these "slight" errors. Better now to work on fixing the errors rather than criticising those who don't want to see those errors on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Meh, I was subject to a TBAN proposal for converting metric to imperial measures incorrectly in DYK. Translation errors seem like they may be an executable offense. LavaBaron (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, that's nonsense. Apples and pears. A mere conversion error is somewhat excusable, but a linguistic misinterpretation via the poor use of Google Translate resulting in a fake hook, that's not acceptable. You should know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
"I was subject to a TBAN proposal for converting metric to imperial measures incorrectly in DYK." @Lavabaron: please enlighten us which villain did this to you and where. Or, better yet, keep your self-pitying revisionist history off this page. Fram (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Are sources and references still required in hook nominations?

Until a few days ago, the DYK nomination template included the text "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook". This now appears to have been removed. Is this still a requirement and if so, is it captured in the rules anywhere? Prioryman (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Prioryman It was never a requirement, but was/is a voluntary test run. That was added to the template by EEng, the editor who originated the test run. It seems to have been removed by Mr. Stradivarius, and what you have linked is his explanation of why he removed it. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK then. I'd thought it had actually been implemented as a requirement due to its presence in the template. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I find the process of linking/quoting the source in the template to be extremely useful in doing reviews, or even when scrolling down the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I think a separate "sourcing" item in the template would be good. I've been using the comment section, partly because I thought the source after the hook was aesthetically undesirable and partly as the bot had some issues with hook lengths. If there is consensus that the provision of sourcing was valuable and thus the experiment was a success, the approach / change should be regularised in a suitable way. EdChem (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm hoping our resident eagle-eyes, The Rambling Man and Fram (and anyone else, of course) will confirm that they found that noms providing hook sourcing explicitly were less error-prone, less trouble to double-check, and/or less difficult to remedy when trouble was found. EEng 18:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    I agree that it's much better to have the source in the nom. But I would dispute that, at least, I'm not eagle-eyed. Most of the issues I pick up are scant and obvious to most with a mere sniff of appreciation of the DYK rules. Sadly that makes little difference, we're still adjusting and pulling hooks from queues and preps on a daily basis. EEng's suggestion at least helps a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Given that WP:DYKRULES#Eligibility criteria 3 says that the fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited inline in the article, surely it's not necessary to duplicate the source in the nomination. Nominators and reviewers ought to be checking that inline cite (along with the other criteria) as part of the process anyway.
"Strongly encouraging" the nominator to cite the source in the DYK nomination does not necessarily mean that an inline cite appears in the article. [15] is an example of my adding an inline cite to an article after that article's DYK nomination was posted with the reference in the nomination. (Related discussion: User talk:Prioryman#DYK_rules require a source for hooks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 00:41 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I removed that text after reading Template talk:NewDYKnomination#Add support for Source and Reference in the template, where one user said that they found it confusing. (I agree with them.) I also agree with the original poster in that thread that it would be a good idea to create a |source= parameter or similar in {{newDYKnomination}} (and |ALT1source=, |ALT2source=, etc.). I'm happy to add these to Module:NewDYKnomination, but I'm not sure how the sources should be formatted. Is there an agreed way to format sources in nominations, or at least a de facto standard? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

One thing we want to be careful of is to have them give links for sources rather than templates; I think the use of the cite template has been a factor in our exceeding the template transclusion limit on the nominations page. So whatever documentation or examples we give, we should discourage template use. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I modified the nom preload text to discourage the use of templates. EEng 15:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Since source-in-nom was my pet idea, I'm not happy about the current implementation, awkward and experimental though it was, having been removed from the preload template without any alternative being ready. But I'll contain my egotistical resentment on the assumption something will be provided soon.
I want to clarify one thing, though: it is absolutely essential to the whole concept that the bits of the source supporting the hook be quoted (not just cited or linked) directly in the nom, because a big proportion of slip-ups seem to be due to careless translation of what the source precisely says into what finally ends up in the hook. Not only does direct quoting make it easier for many eyes to check the hook against the source, I've personally found that the discipline of distilling the source into excerpts for the nom page forces a close reading which has caused me to make subtle corrections and improvements to the hook I was proposing. EEng 05:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right that having that text in the template was better than nothing, so I've reverted for now. When we come to a consensus on what to do I can add it to the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the nomination template looks alarmingly cluttered, and might put off some first time nominators. I suggest you remove the sourcing instructions for ALT1 to reduce the clutter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried to make it more readable. Feel free to revert or tweak if it makes things worse. Fram (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Fram's version is less intimidating and looks better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It has been reverted as I only added it in one template, and it needs to be done in two (the template I did, but also a Lua module). As I haven't edited in Lua before, I'll leave it to someone else for the moment. Fram (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd certainly be opposed to insisting on direct quoting. This is easy in many or most cases, just cut and paste from an online sources, but in other cases would involve an unreasonable amount of typing from books, which in many cases the reviewer can read online. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
While I personally like the source quotes in the nom template, I would oppose it being mandatory. First-time nominators have enough to navigate without throwing in anything extra. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Taxing (pulled from Main Page)

  • ... that in response to tax increases proposed by Minister of Energy Juan José Aranguren, Argentinians mounted noisy protests with bugles and cacerolazos?

Template:Did you know nominations/Juan José Aranguren @Cambalachero, GiantSnowman, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:

Pulled from the Main Page. The source[16] (which doesn't even mention Aranguren) discusses tariff increases, not tax increases. Apparently the government reduced subsidies for energy companies, but allowed (or mandated?) them to increase their tariffs so that their income stayed the same. This met with protest, but it doesn't seem to be about tax increases (and like I said, the article doesn't say who proposed this, only that the government implemented it, without even mentioning Aranguren, although he is most likely involved in it). Fram (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Both "Impuesto" and "tarifa" in Spanish means "tax" in English, as far as I was aware.? GiantSnowman 08:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
PS pulling from the main page for a slightly inaccurate translation of a foreign language seems like a massive over-reaction to me. GiantSnowman 08:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Impuesto, yes. Tarifa, no. That's not a "slightly inaccurate translation", that's getting the basics wrong. Tarifa is fare, charge, rate, tariff, price... but not taxes. Not understanding the basics of what you write about seems like a massive problem to me. Fram (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not just change it to "that in response to state subsidy changes proposed by Energe Minister Juan José Aranguren, Argentinians mounted noisy protests with bugles and cacerolazos?" Fram, could you please refresh yourself with WP:AVOIDYOU, thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. "Writing an article without understanding the sources seems like a massive problem to me." Better? Fram (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I would personally go for something like "The user may mistakenly read an intent or proposal from the Minister of Energy that he did not actually make". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
But the problem is not with the reader... How is my statement any worse than, let's say something hypothetical like "pulling from the main page seems like a massive over-reaction to me." Fram (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Because it is an over-reaction - slight mis-translation requires correcting, not pulling. GiantSnowman 21:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, and for the avoidance of doubt, the original hook wasn't adequately sourced. Cwmhiraeth did her best to find some other vaguely corroborating sources, but sadly this hook shouldn't have been promoted in the first place. We must not tolerate errors on the main page, even if they are just down to "slight mis-translation". The whole purpose of all the quality gates that DYK mandates is to stop these "slight" errors. Better now to work on fixing the errors rather than criticising those who don't want to see those errors on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Meh, I was subject to a TBAN proposal for converting metric to imperial measures incorrectly in DYK. Translation errors seem like they may be an executable offense. LavaBaron (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, that's nonsense. Apples and pears. A mere conversion error is somewhat excusable, but a linguistic misinterpretation via the poor use of Google Translate resulting in a fake hook, that's not acceptable. You should know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
"I was subject to a TBAN proposal for converting metric to imperial measures incorrectly in DYK." @Lavabaron: please enlighten us which villain did this to you and where. Or, better yet, keep your self-pitying revisionist history off this page. Fram (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Are sources and references still required in hook nominations?

Until a few days ago, the DYK nomination template included the text "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook". This now appears to have been removed. Is this still a requirement and if so, is it captured in the rules anywhere? Prioryman (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Prioryman It was never a requirement, but was/is a voluntary test run. That was added to the template by EEng, the editor who originated the test run. It seems to have been removed by Mr. Stradivarius, and what you have linked is his explanation of why he removed it. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK then. I'd thought it had actually been implemented as a requirement due to its presence in the template. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I find the process of linking/quoting the source in the template to be extremely useful in doing reviews, or even when scrolling down the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I think a separate "sourcing" item in the template would be good. I've been using the comment section, partly because I thought the source after the hook was aesthetically undesirable and partly as the bot had some issues with hook lengths. If there is consensus that the provision of sourcing was valuable and thus the experiment was a success, the approach / change should be regularised in a suitable way. EdChem (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm hoping our resident eagle-eyes, The Rambling Man and Fram (and anyone else, of course) will confirm that they found that noms providing hook sourcing explicitly were less error-prone, less trouble to double-check, and/or less difficult to remedy when trouble was found. EEng 18:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    I agree that it's much better to have the source in the nom. But I would dispute that, at least, I'm not eagle-eyed. Most of the issues I pick up are scant and obvious to most with a mere sniff of appreciation of the DYK rules. Sadly that makes little difference, we're still adjusting and pulling hooks from queues and preps on a daily basis. EEng's suggestion at least helps a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Given that WP:DYKRULES#Eligibility criteria 3 says that the fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited inline in the article, surely it's not necessary to duplicate the source in the nomination. Nominators and reviewers ought to be checking that inline cite (along with the other criteria) as part of the process anyway.
"Strongly encouraging" the nominator to cite the source in the DYK nomination does not necessarily mean that an inline cite appears in the article. [17] is an example of my adding an inline cite to an article after that article's DYK nomination was posted with the reference in the nomination. (Related discussion: User talk:Prioryman#DYK_rules require a source for hooks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 00:41 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I removed that text after reading Template talk:NewDYKnomination#Add support for Source and Reference in the template, where one user said that they found it confusing. (I agree with them.) I also agree with the original poster in that thread that it would be a good idea to create a |source= parameter or similar in {{newDYKnomination}} (and |ALT1source=, |ALT2source=, etc.). I'm happy to add these to Module:NewDYKnomination, but I'm not sure how the sources should be formatted. Is there an agreed way to format sources in nominations, or at least a de facto standard? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

One thing we want to be careful of is to have them give links for sources rather than templates; I think the use of the cite template has been a factor in our exceeding the template transclusion limit on the nominations page. So whatever documentation or examples we give, we should discourage template use. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I modified the nom preload text to discourage the use of templates. EEng 15:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Since source-in-nom was my pet idea, I'm not happy about the current implementation, awkward and experimental though it was, having been removed from the preload template without any alternative being ready. But I'll contain my egotistical resentment on the assumption something will be provided soon.
I want to clarify one thing, though: it is absolutely essential to the whole concept that the bits of the source supporting the hook be quoted (not just cited or linked) directly in the nom, because a big proportion of slip-ups seem to be due to careless translation of what the source precisely says into what finally ends up in the hook. Not only does direct quoting make it easier for many eyes to check the hook against the source, I've personally found that the discipline of distilling the source into excerpts for the nom page forces a close reading which has caused me to make subtle corrections and improvements to the hook I was proposing. EEng 05:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right that having that text in the template was better than nothing, so I've reverted for now. When we come to a consensus on what to do I can add it to the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the nomination template looks alarmingly cluttered, and might put off some first time nominators. I suggest you remove the sourcing instructions for ALT1 to reduce the clutter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried to make it more readable. Feel free to revert or tweak if it makes things worse. Fram (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Fram's version is less intimidating and looks better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It has been reverted as I only added it in one template, and it needs to be done in two (the template I did, but also a Lua module). As I haven't edited in Lua before, I'll leave it to someone else for the moment. Fram (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd certainly be opposed to insisting on direct quoting. This is easy in many or most cases, just cut and paste from an online sources, but in other cases would involve an unreasonable amount of typing from books, which in many cases the reviewer can read online. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
While I personally like the source quotes in the nom template, I would oppose it being mandatory. First-time nominators have enough to navigate without throwing in anything extra. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (Chamber Pop)

Some issues here, which means it needs to be pulled.

  • The hook is sourced to [18], which says that chamber pop was "virtually denying the very existence of grunge, electronica, and other concurrent musical movements." It does not say that the genre "rejected the simplicity of grunge" but instead that it was "a reaction to the lo-fi aesthetic dominant throughout much of the 1990s" which is not the same thing at all.
  • Secondly, the opening paragraph is practically a straight lift from the above link - it's obvious plagiarism, and I'm about to tag it as such. And it passed GA two weeks ago in the same state. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This was pulled from prep a few hours ago and the nomination reopened. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2 (Monique Luiz)

"... that Monique Luiz, star of the famous 1964 political advertisement Daisy, did not see the spot for herself until 2000?"

  • What spot? What does this mean? Is "spot" a slang word for an advertisement? Can we have this rewritten so most people will understand it? Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The lead hook in Queue 2 also needs the word (pictured) added. Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added (pictured). Changed "the spot" to "it". Not all audiences understand that "spot" is shortened from "television spot advertisement". — Maile (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on

User:Jionunez did such a terse review of my hooks that they forgot a signature, a hook, a review of the image's copyright status, &c. &c. The other nomination they have pending claimed a QPQ that was actually a review by an entirely different person. Kindly keep an eye on their nominations and make sure my notes on their current submissions aren't simply removed. — LlywelynII 07:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I'm sorry about my poor review on your DYK nomination. Additionally, I am sorry about not properly reviewing the Hannah Dadds article. I am new to the DYK process, and had a lot of trouble piecing together exactly what the process is for submitting and reviewing nominations. I had no idea that a "review" needed to be posted as a comment to the nomination itself. This is why the Hannah Dadds review was performed by another individual; I went to the page and checked for DYK quality, but did not know that I take additional steps. This is also why my review of your nomination was so "slapdash" as you put it. I was unaware that there was a checklist that I had to go through when reviewing, and post my review in a specific manner. I would honestly have appreciated if had brought this to my attention and allowed me to correct my mistakes before reporting me. I tried to gain as much information as I could about the entire DYK process, but apparently I do not have as good an understanding of the process as I believed. Jionunez (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, we all make mistakes. By LlywelynII mentioning it here (you needn't think of yourself as having been "reported") you're ensured of there being plenty of people who will guide you. DYK a very confusing place, even by Wikipedia standards. EEng 08:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably worth point out for Jionunez and others, that Jionunez hasn't made 5 DYK nominations yet, and so isn't actually required to do a QPQ, as only require them once you've had over 5 nominations. So he's actually been doing extra work. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@EEng and Joseph2302: Thank you for the clarification and support. I went back and posted a better review of LlywelynII's nomination, and will be crossing out my claim of reviewing Hannah Dadds from my first nomination. I'm glad to know this thread is mainly for assistance. Jionunez (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Jionunez, this thread is mainly for backbiting and fingerpointing, but now and then we take a break to help someone. EEng 17:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Jionunez Meh... Everybody is on a learning curve. Radley (company) was my first review, and you can see that I was clueless. Each time you do a review, you learn a little something else you should cover. We have old-timers here who still miss things. As evidenced by those long threads of lots of editors disagreeing with (or correcting) each other. It's a process. No harm, no foul on what you did. Good luck with future DYK nominations and reviews. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jionunez: Eh, there can be some lazy sods. Sorry to have come in guns blazing when you're just new. =) Welcome and thank you for your contributions and time. — LlywelynII 16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
LlywelynII It's totally alright. I understand where you were coming from, and I'll definitely be more careful when doing things on Wikipedia that I'm unfamiliar with. Jionunez (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 and Queue 4

This lead hook in Prep 6 refers to an event that took place exactly 50 years ago on November 23 to 25. Why is it running two days after the anniversary? I suggest swapping it with the lead hook presently in Queue 4, scheduled to run on November 25, and rewriting the hook as follows:
... that three days of smog in New York City 50 years ago today increased public awareness of air pollution (pictured) and led to the passage of the 1967 Air Quality Act? Yoninah (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It was in the special holding area for November 23 and was already too late when I noticed it today and added it to prep, so I had to amend the hook. It could well be moved into the queue as you suggest for appearance tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Dang it, I was going to do a Queen related hook for John Deacon on 24 November (exactly 25 years since Freddie Mercury's death), then realised that's today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrator action needed, please. Yoninah (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Only problem now is that it's unclear that the picture doesn't actually represent the smog discussed in the hook... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I would delete the year in the caption and just say "Smog in New York City". Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could switch the first and third hooks – the picture for the third hook is at Template:Did you know nominations/Ge ware. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect nomination template name

I made a nomination and created "Did you know nominations/Elm Ridge Cemetery" instead of "Did you know nominations/Elm Ridge Cemetery, North Brunswick". Should I correct this with a Move of the template to the correct name? MB 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I patched the nom template. The name of the template doesn't matter, and it should not be moved. (If it were moved, it would have to be further patched.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

November 25-26 nominations

Something is wrong with the formatting here, but I can't see just what. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Are you perhaps seeing the phenomenon Transclusions that we've been experiencing since September? It went away for a few days, but I noticed today that the bottom rung of the nominations page is once again not transcluding correctly. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 - Americans vs. kabaddi

The hook should actually link kabaddi as it's unlikely that most of the viewing public knows about it. In the UK, we watched it on one of our four television channels about 20 years ago so it's pretty familiar stuff for our eclectic sports taste. We can't assume that's true for the rest of the English-speaking world. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for post into queue for holiday

Queue 4 currently coincides with World AIDS Day on December 1. I just revied Template:Did you know nominations/Bobbi Campbell about a well-known HIV/AIDS activist. I think the article is good to go and would be great to post on that day, but I do not know about the queue process. Can someone consider posting this there? I saw the instructions - I could follow and post myself, but I was wondering if I should do that or just let a regular publisher here sort that in the usual way. Thanks OwenBlacker for expanding the article in time for this holiday. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: The December 1 queue has not yet been built; this request corresponds to a slot in Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The hook is now approved and waiting in the December 1 special occasion holding area for promotion to Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It is done, promoted to Prep 4. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Maile! Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Realism

Template:Did you know nominations/Equus (film) @Cwmhiraeth, Ribbet32, and Rachel Helps (BYU):

  • ... that the 1977 film Equus featured real horses rather than the masked men seen in the original play, but Roger Ebert said this was less realistic?

The template had a good discussion about the exact wording of the hook, and agreed upon

  • ... that several critics felt more realistic depictions of horses and violence in the 1977 film version of Equus detracted from the spirit of the play?

Looking at the source[19], the agreed upon hook seems to be much more correct than the version Cwmhiraeth promoted (the Alt1). Ebert didn't say that it was less realistic, but the realism of the horses (and other things) distract from the internal reality of the play, i.e. two types of reality which can't live together. What Ebert says is that the realism of the movie hampers the suspension of disbelief, not that the movie was less realistic. The reviewer explicitly stated "I'm not sure if the "reality of the play" and "the play's realism" are interchangeable; I understand that it sounds "hookier" to use a contradiction, but I prefer something more straightforward", after which the nominator and reviewer agreed on another (better) hook. I don't get why Cwmhiraeth changed the hook back on his own, it seems to go beyond the small tweaks expected from promotors. If Cwmhiraeth thought the hook wasn't good or correct, they should have raised that at the nomination, not simply promoted what they saw as superior. We are now stuck with a rather dubious hook on the main page thanks to this. Fram (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking back at this nomination and the discussion that went on there, it was not clear which hook should be promoted. I did not promote ALT3 because it mentioned "several critics" whereas the article mentioned just one. I used my judgement and promoted the hook I thought best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
So, the hook that got the tick was not correct according to you. Then don't promote the article but continue the discussion instead, mention the problem with Alt3, even indicate why you prefer Alt1 if you believed that one to be correct. I'll pull the hook now instead. Fram (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I know you love pulling hooks, but why not just substitute
  • ... that the 1977 film Equus featured real horses rather than the masked men seen in the original play, but Roger Ebert said that this detracted from the play's "reality"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't love pulling hooks. I'm perfectly happy on days when no hooks need pulling. I don't pull hooks that don't need pulling. You, on the other hand, promote hooks that shouldn't have been promoted, so perhaps keep the personal comments to yourself next time. The time and place to discuss what the best hook could be was at the nomination, which you bypassed to implement your own favourite. Fram (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Or, how about:
  • ... that the more realistic depictions of horses and violence in the 1977 film version of Equus was described as detracting from the spirit of the play?
I think a replacement is appropriate, rather than just pulling the hook. EdChem (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
It has been on the front page long enough, rushing now to get some hook, anything, the first hook that comes along, to the main page is unnecessary. Fram (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if it wasn't clear which hook I was approving; I'll be more specific in the future. Since I had read through more of the criticism on the other pages to verify the sources, I knew that more than one critic had criticized the realism of the movie, but perhaps that wasn't obvious from the "critical reception" section. I added a line to clarify in that section, so "that several critics felt more realistic depictions of horses and violence in the 1977 film version of Equus detracted from the spirit of the play?" should be good to go. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry this happened. My original Alt 1 was "less real", rather than realistic, I attempted to compromise with commenting editors throughout the process. User:Cwmhiraeth's first substitute sounds best to me if it were to be replaced. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Special area suggestion - U.S. presidential inauguration

closed by OP LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2016 (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.

I suggest a January 20 special holding area for the U.S. presidential inauguration. I apologize, in advance, to everyone whom this will undoubtedly offend. I realize it is very geo-targeted, however, given the breadth and scope of international media coverage of the U.S. presidential election I feel it is a topic of wide interest where, for instance, the inauguration of the president of Estonia might not be. Given that there may be some passionate opinions in both directions, I felt it would be appropriate to get a greater sense of the community, ergo this thread.

We have several DYK nominations already that would be appropriate for this, and more surely to come, including:

LavaBaron (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support as OP LavaBaron (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the biggest fan, to be honest. As has been frequently notes elsewhere, Wikipedia has a problem with being wester-centric, and I see this as just aggravating that. Holidays that are primarily western are, at least, not exclusively western: but a presidential inauguration (not even an election, which has global ramifications!) is too far for me. Vanamonde (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point, you have me convinced. I retract the suggestion. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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 1 - "little games"

I find it odd that we use just a single newspaper source to claim this. I know factually it's correct, but it's just one writer making that claim, there's no evidence that it was called "little games" by any other source. In fact, interestingly enough ref 5 in that article contains the statement ... the "Wheelchair Games" closed ... which would seem much less patronising in my mind. Pinging Drchriswilliams and Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Herald article from April 1970 (months ahead of the event) was the only article that I found to use the phrase "little games". It looks like there was a Scotsman article on 27 July 1970 which talked about the preceding Commonwealth games being "big brother" [20]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed the hook for the alternative approved hook

which I then amended to

Prep 3 - Heterelmis stephani

The over-riding emotion is "so what", particularly as the Latin name gives no clue at all to what we're dealing with. Is it a blue whale or a micro-organism? At the very least I'd suggest replacing the Latin name with the common name. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

New article: Shooting of Benjamin Marconi

I've come across the article on the shooting of Benjamin Marconi, created a few days ago and eligible for DYK (assuming there is no ITN nomination). It's at AfD at present, but I think it will survive. As a crime story with a living suspect, I wonder about its suitability for DYK and for potential hooks, like:

  • ... that police officer Benjamin Marconi was shot and killed while sitting in his car writing a parking ticket?
  • ... that after a black suspect was arrested for the shooting death of white police officer Benjamin Marconi, a Texas County Judge posted on Facebook that it is "Time for a tree and a rope..."?

These wordings avoid the name of the suspect and the judge, but are they likely to run into "unduly negative" territory? There might be an alternative in:

Opinions welcome, including from Parsley Man, E.M.Gregory, and Chief Red Eagle as the three main editors / contributors to this article. EdChem (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Also wondering about something like:

or

Trying to decide whether to nominate as one hook or two since there are now two eligible articles. Input, please. EdChem (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd imagine that any mention of the Facebook comment will be ineligible due to the unduly negative criterion. I'm not sure how you can combine the two articles in a single hook without having to focus on the negative territory, so I'd imagine that separate DYK nominations is the way to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, BlueMoonset. Do you think mentioning the post without the quote would be seen as unduly negative, maybe something like "a comment seen as alluding to lynching", which is supportable in RS? EdChem (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

FDT

I have recently expanded out FDT (song) (to avoid unnecessary surprise, the "D" stands for "Donald", the "T" stands for "Trump", you can guess the rest), and in principle it meets the criteria of a new DYK nomination, with a possible hook "... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT"?" However, given the recent brouhaha over all things Trump at [21], I would really like to gain a consensus here before going ahead with it. Your thoughts, please? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No objection against featuring this article at DYK (suposing it passes a standard review). However, that hook smells of promotional attention grabbing (the claim may be true, but may equally be a "look how dangerous we are" ploy to get attention) and we shouldn't contribute to this. Something more neutral and independently verifiable would be better. Fram (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. That's a strong claim and needs a strong source, which these ones do not seem to be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Threesie, do you fancy a role as "wiki-editor-in-residence-at-an-Ecuadorian-Enbassy-of-your-choice", perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And here for a moment I thought FDT was about sending your mom flowers on Mother's Day. As the editor proudly targeted at the AE discussion, I have no hesitation about this. I'll make the nomination myself. Rolling Stone is definitely a reliable source for the artist's claim, which is all the hook presents. However, on reading the sources I would extend the hook thus:
... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT (Fuck Donald Trump)", and two of its lines were partially blanked on the song's album release?
EEng 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I stopped short of that for the simple reason that I think writing "Fuck Donald Trump" in bold on the main page is probably as risky as trying to cross the US-Mexico border with no passport, wearing a T-shirt that says "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
When that clue-challenged admin took me to AE I worried not at all, because I have faith in the intelligence and fundamental good sense of the community as a whole – faith which was, I am happy to report, overwhelmingly validated. I feel the same way here, both with respect to my fellow editors here at Wikipedia, and my fellow citizens here in the United States. It's the name of the song. EEng 19:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
... and we certainly wouldn't want the front page flooded with disappointed political historians of Senegal, would we? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh, only it's not the name of the song. It's what the name of the song stands for but there's no reason for needless profanity on the front page when the artist was too much of a tool to use the long-form name himself. Just leave it as a surprise for those who click through or (at most) add American-style punctuation F.D.T. to make it clear that there's something they might want to see but we're not showing them yet.
Absolutely you should move forward if you want to promote your hard work on an article, though. — LlywelynII 07:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake -- I was mis-lead by the lead (how ironic). And I did no work on the article -- I'm just the hooker. I've modified to suit:
... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT" (standing for "Fuck Donald Trump") and two of its lines were partially blanked on the song's album release?
Ritchie333, is the article ready for nomination? EEng 08:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
EEng I haven't created a nom myself but the article is now long enough to qualify for one, so go for it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
... add American style punctuation? Those good folks over at MOS:PUNCT would get a real wake-up call. Harry never got any, and neither did the Foos (... although those nice village boys did.) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Martinevans123, I know you're just having fun but the good folks over at MOS:PUNCT know all about what I'm talking about even if the editors of your linked articles didn't. (Although from what I can tell, the Foos didn't use periods themselves, so no reason for us to add them.) — LlywelynII 17:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
So, YG used periods?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Template:Did_you_know_nominations/FDT_(song), and BTW once again I find that the discipline of distilling the source into quotes, to support the hook directly on the nom page, has led to a more precisely accurate hook. EEng 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sick to death of Americans and Brits surreptitiously taking political pot shots at their adversaries in the "Did you know..." section. November 25th featured a quote calling a pro-Brexit Vote Leave group "post-truth politics", today's complains about Republicans siphoning votes by running as Green Party candidate, and now some idiots think it's a good idea to put "Fuck Donald Trump" on the front page.
That's enough, grow up. There are better places to make an ideological stand than posturing on the front page of Wikipedia. How would you like it if I and some of my like-minded, fellow Canadians started placing obvious ideological trolls relating to Canadian issues here. What if we started featuring articles on third rate songs like "Fuck Rona Ambrose/Justin Trudeau/Tom Mulcair", or featuring quotes calling pro-separation Bloc Quebecois members "Dirty, lying liars"? We'd seem pretty pathetic, wouldn't we. Philip72 (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hook Input - J. W. Lonoaea

Nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/J. W. Lonoaea

Kavebear has proposed two possible hooks for this article, and LavaBaron has approved the first. Kavebear prefers the second, and I think it is a good candidate for the quirky spot, but am concerned it might be seen as misleading. The basic facts are: Lonoaea was a Hawaiian legislator who voted with the majority in the House in choosing between two candidates for monarch. A King was elected over a Queen (widow of a former King). The Queen's supporters rioted, targeting legislators who supported the now-King. 13 were injured, Lonoaea the only one to die. The proposed quirky hook is:

Is this acceptable? I'd like some outside views before approving it. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My view is that, since you've made eight edits to the article over a two-day period, you probably shouldn't be approving it. If someone else wants to, however, I'm sure that's fine. LavaBaron (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Disapproval noted. I would accept EdChem's suggestion as common sense, and a good attempt at trying to improve the DYK project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, our DYK rules state that a person who has written an article can't review it; changing the rules requires a wide consensus, not a unilateral declaration of "common sense." EdChem has (as of this timestamp) made nine contributions over two days to the article and appears to be continuing to edit it. You, however, are free to okay the Alt-1 hook if you fancy. Not a problem at all! LavaBaron (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, I will not approve ALT1 since you object. An objective observer would see that my edits are (a) copy edits which do not change the meaning but improve the language and (b) adding references so that the facts in hook ALT0 (which you approved) and ALT1 were actually directly cited. DYK reviewers doing minor corrections is not uncommon, FYI. Before I made any edits, the article looked like this and neither ALT is even close to cited. I checked if KAVEBEAR objected to my reviewing in light of my copyedits, and he did not. By the time you gave the tick (to an unspecified ALT) and wrote Hook is immediately and correctly cited in article to Alexander's "A Brief History of the Hawaiian People," the article had only the statement Lonoaea died cited, and that due to re-drafting I had done and without access to the reference you cited (perhaps Google Books shows you more than a snippet, but it does not for me), and it was only with subsequent changes I made that ALT0 was actually referenced in the lede. In other words, your review of ALT0 was wrong about a basic DYK criterion. I could have pointed this out at the time, but instead fixed the problem because KAVEBEAR should not be inconvenienced for your mistakes. Now, you might note that I asked for outside views, so do you have some contribution relevant to the DYK community commenting on the acceptability of ALT1? EdChem (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh good lord, same old tactics eh Lav?  MPJ-DK  04:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I have completed the review and posted my comments on the template. Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Obeying the rules? Yeah, same old. (Though, I admit, I am intrigued that those who are such unbending sticklers for every obscure sub-rule and tertiary corollary at DYK are usually the first ones to green light short-cuts and "common sense" exemptions for themselves and their friends.) LavaBaron (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Great - thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And back to the topic. As noted above, I think the proposed is a reasonable "quirky" hook. And remember, one and all, let's stay on-message now, even if we do know big words or use superfluity to attempt grandiosity over our fellow editors. Less is more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if someone were to fix the citations in the article so Alt-1 was actually and correctly sourced, it would be a great hook. Just grand! LavaBaron (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Muhajir

... that the Sindh Mohajir Punjabi Pathan Muttahida Mahaz was the first political party in Pakistan to use the term 'Muhajir' in a political context?

I'm sorry, I simply don't get this, or why it's particularly notable or interesting "to a broad audience". Perhaps the nominator Soman or the promoters KAVEBEAR and Cwmhiraeth could shed some light on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well as I understand it, the term "Muhajir" originally denoted an immigrant associated with the movement of people from Mecca to Medina. The hook refers to the fact that the term is now used in Pakistan for people who relocated from India, and that the MPPM were the first to use the term in this way. Perhaps you can suggest a better way of expressing the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. During the Partition of India millions of Muslims migrated to Pakistan, mainly Urdu speakers. Initially they were known in Pakistan only as Urdu speakers or North Indians. The Mujahirs themselves preferred to identify themselves simply as Pakistanis. The notable fact here is that with MPPM the term 'Muhajir' was used to denote a ethnic identity in a political context, as tensions between Muhajirs and Sindhis simmered in Pakistan. In the 1980s the Muhajir revival turned violent and became a major feature in contemporary Pakistani politics. --Soman (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so it means something to our Pakistani readers. Fair enough, but clearly fails the "broad audience" test which many are overlooking these days. If this kind of thing continues I'll advocate we remove that DYK rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, in the context of hook-i-ness evaluation, I let "intriguing" stand in for "interesting" where applicable. In this case, I'd click exactly because I don't know what Muhajir means (though apparently it's politically significant) and I'd want to find out. EEng 04:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The hooks in Queue 5 are now on the front page, but the queue has not been cleared. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Cleared. Vanamonde (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Can some admin please update Template:Did you know/Queue/Next from 5 to 6, since Queue 6 is the next queue to be promoted? Also, Queue 5 should be completely empty of everything except a single line, {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}, like the other empty queues are. (Queues are not cleared the same way Preps are.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Done, I think. Thanks for the note, I'm still new to the admin side of things :) Do you know why this happened? Aren't these steps usually handled by the bot? Vanamonde (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Vanamonde, yes, the cleanup is supposed to be handled by the bot and generally all goes according to plan, but sometimes the bot chokes during these steps, or during the step immediately prior to cleanup. Fortunately, the bot's usually able to restart itself with the next promotion, but in the meantime, human intervention is required to empty the queue and/or update the number to the next queue in line. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I see, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2016 (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) 22:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Template mislabeled

Template:Did you know nominations/ Dong Yuanfeng under the November 30 nominations was created with an extra space after the slash. A blank page comes up when you click on "Review or comment" under the nomination on the WP:DYKN list. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I moved it to the title without the space. I think the issue is automatic space trimming in unnamed parameters. It was also acting like it was on the DYKN list when you were actually on the nom page itself. Pppery 00:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_132&oldid=1137408733"