Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 143

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140 Archive 141 Archive 142 Archive 143 Archive 144 Archive 145 → Archive 150

Northfield Allotments

This hook is an example of "creep". A learned professor stated that "records show those allotments date back to 1832, making them almost certainly the oldest in the capital still in use" and the article goes along with this. The Evening Standard baldly claimed that they are the oldest allotments in London. Does the Evening Standard know better than the professor? Did the journalist research the subject? I doubt it. @Andrew Davidson: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The professor is an authority on the subject. Elsewhere, we see it reported that the oldest allotments in all of England were founded in 1809. The date in this case is 1832 and so that seems a reasonable claim for just the London area. There's a rival claimant in Walthamstow but their date is later – 1834. There's some old allotments in Loughton going back to 1813. That's not in London, but being on the outskirts, you get into the tricky matter of defining London's geography exactly. I am content with the professor's judgement on this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the professors words included "still in use" I think we should add them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • How about -
  • More is not necessarily better – see WP:LIGHTBULB. This talk page is primarily for general DYK issues and so specific nominations should only be escalated here if the standard nomination discussion process isn't working. For example, The Mad Pooper nomination has been stalled for 10 days but, if no-one picks that up, it will eventually get highlighted as an old nomination and then get more attention. Both myself and the nominator seem quite relaxed about letting the process take its course and so there's no need to escalate yet. Andrew D. (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nobody said more was better. Let's just stick to the question at hand, it's not really significant where the discussion is held, just that the hook was passed probably incorrectly so needs work. Whether that happens here or somewhere else is immaterial to getting the best results for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I brought it here to illustrate how easily a statement with some reservations is turned into a statement of fact, and to illustrate how a local newspaper is not a reliable source for first/oldest/youngest type claims. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Guardian states as a plain fact that "Northfields is the longest-surviving allotment space in London, having been established in 1832." The Guardian started in Manchester but now has an international readership and its Cities section is global, covering cities in other continents such as New York and Santiago. I reckon that the original hook is fine. Its use of the present tense indicates that the allotments are still in use and so extra words are not needed to belabour the point. Andrew D. (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OK then. The Guardian is a much more satisfactory source, but you did not use it in the article to support the hook fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Dull hook. Some allotment somewhere has to be the oldest. Not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with TRM. I thought that before the discussion even started. And for non-Brits, what's an allotment, anyway? Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It wasn't until I read the allotment article that I understood what the Northfield Allotments were: an area of land set aside for residents of the area to garden. This is barely mentioned in Northfield Allotments, and completely ignored by the approved hook. This won't be interesting to anyone who isn't from a country that understands what is meant by "allotment" in this context, and it's still not very interesting to me now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite, so my alternative suggestion full of obscure words like "acre", "rood" and "perch", and moving this to the quirky space, might actually be of interest. Allotments are actually not at all interesting to 99.999% of British readers either. Classic "article at DYK for the sake of it". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That statistic is out by several orders of magnitude. Over 1% of UK households have an allotment and there's a large waiting list across the country – see here for some stats. "Gardening is one of the most popular pastimes in the developed world" and so the suggestion that we should spurn this type of topic seems absurd. North Americans may have some trouble understanding as they use different words for the concept, such as "community garden", but that's just the usual WP:ENGVAR issue. They are not going to find archaic words like "rood" and "perch" any easier. Andrew D. (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This North American has trouble understanding the concept of needing permission to grow vegetables on land that is already yours (by ownership or lease). Do you really need permission for a backyard garden where you live? --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Khajidha: No - where did you get the idea that permission is needed? The point about allotments is that they are for people who either have no backyard, or the one that they do have is too small for what they want to do with it. Essentially, it is your backyard, except that it's not adjacent to your home but can be some distance (perhaps a mile or two) away. Most towns and villages have one or more allotment sites: a field that is divided into smaller plots, usually rectangular and of consistent size. Renting an allotment is like renting a house or garage - you put your name on the waiting list, and when one comes available and you're at the top of the list, you get a chance to rent that allotment for a regular fee. Like backyards, what you do with the land once you have rented it is largely up to you - most people grow vegetables; fruit and flowers are also popular; but some put up a chicken run or pig pen. You can grass it over and sit there on fine days; one person I know has an allotment so that they have an excuse to get away from their spouse for a few hours whenever necessary. Unlike backyards though, rules do exist concerning what you can do with an allotment, and they vary according to the local authority; those for the town where I live are here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The idea was to actually make the hook interesting rather than just "X is the oldest thing" which there is one of for absolutely everything. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Aren't there also allotments (I'm thinking Bristol, rather than London) that date back to the 17th century. They were tied to some of the almshouses. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No very conclusive arguments here so I am thinking of promoting the approved hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Cwmhiraeth you've promoted a hook which is not supported by the article. So I'll note that at errors in due course I suppose unless we reflect what's actually claimed in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have amended the hook. Though "roods" and "perches" may be outdated, the "acre" is a unit of area still used in many parts of the world. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The results on the day for that set were:
DYK for 27 November 2017
Hook Pageviews
Elizabeth M. Bryan
4,718
Northfield Allotments
4,062
Papyrocranus afer
3,089
Es ist genug
2,742
Reginald Appleby
1,768
Ourida Chouaki
1,237
Archibald Wager
806
Laureus World Sports Award for Comeback of the Year
728

So we see that, despite all the huffing and puffing above, the original hook concept for the allotments did fine and outscored the picture hook. The wooden spoon instead went to the Laureus World Sports Award for Comeback of the Year. Props to Sophie whose interesting hook about twins got the quirky spot and the most views. Well done! Andrew D. (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Inactive admin

I wasn't sure where or how to report this, but Chamal, an admin listed as participating in DYK reviews, hasn't edited since Jan 2016. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? is there a DYK informational page that needs to be corrected? Admins, like editors, come and go, as real life allows them to be here (or not). If you are talking about Chamal N, he has not been an admin since Feb 2017, due to inactivity. If you were thinking of inactivity re Wikipedia overall, Wikipedia Bureaucrats monitor admin inactivity and deal with it accordingly. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I think L3X1 is referring to Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_participants, a page that hasn't changed much over the years I think. I guess it could be misleading for newcomers, never really thought about it though. Alex Shih (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I also noticed that page recently and found many names out of date. This would be confusing for a DYK newbie who needs help. Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
List of participants on Wikipedia are compiled by editors adding their own names. If they become inactive, nobody is responsible for monitoring and maintaining those lists. It's the same thing on all the projects. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. But in this case, I think it's better if we maintain the accuracy of the page, maybe similar to the format of AfC, for instance, if we would like portray ourselves as an active project. Alex Shih (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe blank the list and put a notice here for users interested in adding their names to it. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Or I can go through and remove desysopped admins and users who haven't edited in over 18 months. I believe a list of involved/active users for the program is good and helpful, however, as many people don't have the hoverlinks .js bit which allows me to quickly see who is active and who isn't, the list needs to be watched for accuracy. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I've done some trimming of the various lists on the page. In any event, as I mentioned to Yoninah when the topic came up on my talk page, I think a wholesale blanking of any of those lists is not the way to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

We have 34 older nominations that need reviewing, this time going through November 18. Right now we have a total of 254 nominations, of which 124 (nearly half of them) have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 23:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Problems with Elizabeth Marshall (pharmacist)

I have with difficulty promoted this article to Prep 2. The problems here don't refer to the article but to the nomination template which seems to have an extra space in it. So we have this version which is blank and this version which I have promoted and archived. However, Prep 2 now contains a red link for the subpage parameter for the hook. Can somebody with appropriate expertise please sort this out? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any expertise but moved it to the normal (first version) name. Does that help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems to have sorted out the problem. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearer instructions for what constitutes an "error" for the main page

I've noticed recently that people often go to WP:ERRORS to note things which aren't actually "errors". For instance "comedy bit" was changed "comedy segment" since bit was apparently "not encyclopedic language" [1], but tell that to Britannica [2] mixing in such recurring comedy bits as “Audience Hygiene,” “Classic Films Dubbed by Children,” and “Clutch Cargo,”. I also saw someone complain to WP:ERRORS about a dialectal difference in spelling [3]. This was later reverted to the original, Canadian spelling, but it seems like people are too quick to change the wording of hooks for completely trivial things.

What is an error? Is it actually something which is false or misleading? Or just any sort of stylistic choice which a reader happens to disagree with. I think people should think more before changing hooks. And I also don't think the records of these changes should be removed [4] while the hook in question is still up.

Maybe there's been a consensus for this already; I'm still somewhat new to the DYK process. But clearer instructions for what constitute an "error" would be better so reviewers and promoters know to pay attention to "encyclopedic language" -- whatever that is. Umimmak (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, "Errors" is a very elastic term and people post there whenever there is something on the mainpage that they think is wrong, but they can't change themselves because of the mainpage protection. It may be a factual error or a trivial change in grammar, punctuation or phraseology. Ideally, people will look carefully at the hooks when they are in the prep sets, where any editor can make alterations, and sort out any problems there, so that the hooks are "perfect" when they get to the mainpage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC).

A technical issue...

...that may already be known, but: the way the Nominations page is framed (frames! In 2017 on the Internet! Aaargh!) the notification pulldown menues don't work, becuase they go behind the nominations pane. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1 (Vi Lyles)

"... that Vi Lyles is the first African-American woman to be Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina?" Except that when this hook hits the Main Page, she won't yet be mayor; she's being inaugurated at 7pm local time tomorrow, about 24 hours after the hook goes live. So anyone clicking on the linked Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina tomorrow will find that the mayor is, correctly, Jennifer Roberts. Prep/Queue 2 will go live at pretty much the exact moment the inauguration ceremony is starting, so if no-one objects in the next hour or so, I'm going to kick this to Prep 3 and swap something from there into Queue 1. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(Nominator) Absolutely, push it back a day, two days, however long you want. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, done - swapped with Mary Munson Runge which works well because she is another African American to have been the first to achieve a position. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  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) 22:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Sokari Ekine

@Dumelow: @Gerda Arendt:
The article only mentions a mailing list, not an email list. But overall, the hook seems very weak. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
See: The hook was weaker before. Dumelow claimed that the time is early for an email-list. I suggested to add "Nigerian activist". I have almost no time until later tomorrow. - Very generally: it would help to add a link to the nom, and mention the article title in the header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it's reasonable to assume that people reading here know that Prep 3 means look at Prep 3. Beyond that, it's completely simple to find the nomination based on the words in the hook. Perhaps, Gerda, you get too many pings to make sense of these bland notifications! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I got a ping, but for later replies, I'll see "prep 3", and will not remember if I had something in prep 3. Well, sometimes I have something in every prep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but most of us who dare to list an issue here are really trying hard to keep the quality of the main page up, not trying to remember all the arcane templates etc that DYK mandates. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Template added to header. Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I clarified it to include electronic in the article. I thought it a sufficiently early date for an internet mailing list to be unusual. However if the consensus is that the hook is not interesting enough then I am happy for the nomination to be dropped. All the best - Dumelow (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Two problems. Firstly it only works as a hook if the reader knows that 1995 is early for an e-mailing list. Secondly 1995 is not actually even close to being early for an e-mailing list - which predate the web and/or internet. You would need to be heading into the 80's for an email list to be considered unusual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that for Nigeria, + being on women's rights. Also, the hook doesn't claim "early", but factually states the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
No evidence she was in Nigeria at that time (with the lack of sourcing on her age its entirely possible she was in the UK or the US given her history) and the source doesn't clarify it. And without a claim of early its not hooky. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Repeating: the original hook was even less "hooky". What do you propose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
ALT: ... that Nigerian activist and blogger Sokari Ekine has written about the struggles of women against state forces and oil companies in the militarised and environmentally damaged Niger Delta? Yoninah (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Yoninah, sorry for delay in replying I have been away. Your proposed ALT is fine for me - Dumelow (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Need some second opinions from the old hands

Over here at Template:Did you know nominations/Mishmar HaEmek, there is a new GA that originally repeated some phrasing too closely. The nominator cleaned it up and fixed the other problems, and I passed it. The older reviewer, however, returned and wrinkled their nose at a few remaining prepositional phrases. Adjusting them seems like needless, unhelpful, and offputting makework to me given how much effort has already gone into the article... but, yknow, that's just, like, my opinion, man. Am I being too lenient? Could some of y'all go over and look at it and let us know what you think? The earwig analysis is already linked in the conversation. — LlywelynII 23:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Just reading the most recent example Nikkimaria has posted makes it clear that there is close paraphrasing remaining in the article; if you think that her post doesn't show it, then I believe you are being too lenient. My experience over the years is that if Nikkimaria finds something (or several somethings) she considers close paraphrasing, it turns out to be close paraphrasing; indeed, when I'm unsure, I'll typically ask her opinion. Note that Earwig numbers or its declaration of "unlikely" is far from definitive—as has been noted on this page more than once including by the developer—and using it as any sort of evidence with regard to close paraphrasing is not a proper use of the tool. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Eats anything

Does this hook at prep 6 go too far in sacrificing accuracy to get attention? ... that the Zanzibar butterflyfish (pictured) feeds on coral polyps, whereas the Japanese butterflyfish will eat anything? Omnivores don't eat tanks, lava, black holes, gamma rays ... Art LaPella (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

How about saying "...will eat nearly anything" or "...almost anything". Personaly i feel it is overthinking the "anything" bit a little, but there are simple fixes for it... so why not make it a little more precise. 91.49.69.65 (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • So much for hookiness. @Cwmhiraeth: do you want to split the nomination and write something hooky for each of them? Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if flipping it will make it a bit hookier? ... that the Japanese butterflyfish is omnivorous, but the Zanzibar butterflyfish (pictured) only feeds on coral polyps? I.e., put the emphasis in the specialist feeding. Umimmak (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That looks like a good solution to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree that (even a linked) "omnivorous" is good. How about "will eat about everything" or "is less selective ..." or whatever fits. I believe that the main fact in a hook should not be something that requires a link for those who don't know a term, rather generally so. KISS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1

  • ... that Ireland national rugby union team player Claire McLaughlin, a certified physician, gained the nickname "McSwaplin" owing to her swapping medical shifts in order to play rugby?

When Claire McLaughlin was passed, the hook said "Doctor Claire McLaughlin" but that has been changed to "a qualified physician". I believe the originally approved wording should be used as it is more hooky to use doctor rather than physician, plus it breaks up the hook a bit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed it because bolding "Doctor" in her name looked odd to me. Even if we wrote: ... that Ireland national rugby union team player Dr. Claire McLaughlin gained the nickname "McSwaplin" owing to her swapping medical shifts in order to play rugby? it looks odd. It looks like she was a doctor first and then became a rugby international player. As I am not familiar with the sport, I welcome further input on the hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That is correct, hence why I think it looks better to use the simple and more understandable doctor rather than physician. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: OK, I'm open to changing it back. But could I write the bolded subject link as Dr. Claire McLaughlin rather than Doctor Claire McLaughlin? Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I would be OK with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: Thank you. I'll make the change. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for December 9

I just noticed that MLS Cup 2017 wasn't placed into the queue for December 9, the day I requested it run. Could it be swapped in, given that the cup itself is being played that day (around 21:00 UTC)? SounderBruce 04:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nobody had moved the hook to the Special occasion holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My nomination was approved, now what?

I am making a DYK nomination for the first time. My nomination of FVB Mice was approved (see here Template:Did you know nominations/FVB Mice). What do I need to do now, if anything? Do I need to eventually promote it, and put it in a queue or will that be done automatically or by other editors? Is there anything else needed from me? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, I'm new to this whole process. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, your part is done (though do keep watch on the nomination page). A DYK organizer will eventually slot the successful nom into one of the upcoming sets, and you should receive talk page notification when that set goes live. The only issue that may come up is that other sets of eyes may review the nomination to make sure it is all good and you may be asked for additional clarification there, but this is an exceptional step. --Masem (t) 01:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! Makes sense! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

We have 33 older nominations that need reviewing, this time including those through November 22. Right now we have a total of 265 nominations, of which 129 (nearly half of them) have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones over a month old.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved a template

I am sorry that I moved Template:Did you know nominations/Willi Gundlach 2 to Template:Did you know nominations/Willi Gundlach. I thought I fixed all links, but when you want to review, the wrong one comes up. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be fixed now, Gerda Arendt. You may need to "purge" the DYK nominations page to get the fixed version if it takes you back to the "2" page (the link is near the top of the DYK nominations page). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  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) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area and others

They're gone now, but earlier today, I noticed that San Francisco Bay Area and a few other previously-featured DYKs were on the DYK section. Was this a glitch, or did it have to do with the sudden death of San Francisco's mayor? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That i can actually answer. It was not a glitch and had nothing to do with the sudden death either. Two of yesterdays original DYK hooks were removed for lack of quality and the featured article had no picture to go with it. So the main page was quite unbalanced with too few items on the left hand side. So to keep it balanced and looking even several old DYK hooks were run again, or recycled as some call it. Happens quite often actually, but not very often do so many old hooks have to be used again. Those that were used again were chosen by the admin that fixed the issue with the note "I have recycled three DYKs from the past six weeks or so that I thought were particularly "hook" worthy (personal opinion, of course).". Hope that helps even if i do not have a registered account, haha. 91.49.94.126 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

We have 31 older nominations that need reviewing, this time including all those that are no longer current (through December 7). Right now we have a total of 260 nominations, of which 172 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two that are over a month old.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

SMS Marie

Not to beat a dead horse as it was dealt with and is over with but how can a factual error like the one in the "SMS Marie" hook make it onto the main page? Obviously everyone makes mistakes but that hook stated something that was not even said in the article. Just to mention the issue, the hook said "... that SMS Marie (pictured) was the first warship built in Hamburg?" while nowhere in the article that was claimed at all(the article mentioned "the first time that a Hamburg shipbuilder received a contract for a warship of the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)."). I hope it will not be totally out of place to ask for some more diligence because it seems rather odd that something that was never even claimed in an article was made into a hook and made it onto the main page. I also looked at the nominations page and seen the reviewer say they would assume good faith in the offline sources, obviously fair, but i cannot stress this enough: the claim was not made in the article at all. How can something like that happen? 91.49.87.145 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and i forgot to mention that it of course also was not true. There have been other warships built in the city. The oldest i could find after a short search was launched some 212 years prior. So it was not just a little off. 91.49.87.145 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Every page of Wikipedia has the general disclaimer in its fine print and that states, "Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." It thus emphasises that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here." That includes the main page and WP:ERROR is fairly active as issues are noticed every day.
So far as the DYK process is concerned, one failing was not to check and enforce rule 3b, "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." The reviewer accepted the fact with an AGF about the source. Presumably, they didn't feel able to check this because the main source, Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, was offline and in the German language. This AGF waiver doesn't seem to appear in the DYK rules. Perhaps there should be some guidelines for AGF because skimping in this way is obviously going to be error-prone because there's then no check that:
  1. The hook fact is stated correctly, without transcription errors
  2. That the translation is accurate
  3. That there is no close paraphrase or copyvio.
The OP is incorrect in saying that "it was dealt with and is over with". The article still states the fact incorrectly in its lead, "the first warship built in the city". And the article is still marked as as a GA. I suppose that the article got a free pass at DYK because it's graded as a GA. But look at the GA review which was perfunctory, "I will be instant passing this, as it meets all criteria". Such an assessment seems worthless because nothing is being checked carefully. Perhaps we should reconsider the special treatment given to GAs at DYK.
The people involved should be notified in such cases so that they get the opportunity to comment and address the issue. They include:
author: Parsecboy
GA reviewer: Iazyges
DYK nominator: 7&6=thirteen
DYK reviewer: The Bushranger
hook puller: Fram
Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The AGF guideline is in WP:DYKR. The "skimping" (your term) is because otherwise you would have to exclude offline sources, which isn't happening. That said, it probably should have said/should say "first Imperial German warship built...", if the OP's assertion is correct, I'll allow that, yeah. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If there is a AGF rule for hook sources, it should be abolished. If you want to put a fact on the Main Page, make sure that it's online verifiable by most other users (not necessarily with an English source, but with an accessible source). Too often we've had errors because of such AGF (too often also because of other reasons, but let's not go into that now). GA review sadly too often is totally inadequate as well, but the DYK rules specifically state that reviews shouldn't rely on the GA status but should happen as with any other article (barring the expansion / newness rules of course). Fram (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Weighing in to explain the instant pass: all the criteria were met, although I still provided some prose suggestions. I will admit that I benefitted from prior knowledge that it was not the first warship ever built there, and as such inserted a mental [Imperial German] in front of it. However, the average reader would not know this, and could easily be misled, so it is good that it was caught. On a side note Andrew D., I disagree your statement that I did not carefully check the article. I did in fact check the article carefully, and left a listing of all criteria and if it passed or failed (although obviously as it was instant passed it met all, and the application of the list was therefore somewhat redundant) and merely skipped over the "First warship" because it made sense to me in context; although as I've previously mentioned it is logical that a layman would not have done the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you want to keep a lot of FAs off of the front page, too, then. Wikipedia does not require online sources. Full stop. Yes, we can and should do better, but that doesn't involve making a "we don't require online sources except" rule. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't require articles to be longer than 1500 characters either, or many other requirements imposed to get to DYK, GA or FA. Your "full stop" is a non sequitur. There is no reason at all why stricter rules can't be imposed for the Main Page than for what is allowed in articles (you don't even need sources in articles, but we require them for DYK, so perhaps you want to abolish that rule as well?) Fram (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You do realise that Featured Articles don't require online sources, right? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:DYKR states "If the article is entirely or substantially sourced to offline, foreign-language or paywalled sources, verify the basic facts..." This indicates that some fact-checking is still required. It would be sensible to verify the hook fact in particular. If a foreign-language/offline source is the only option, then a quotation from it might be required to support this verification. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Reiherstieg Schiffswerfte & Maschinenfabrik says "In the 1880s, Reiherstieg built SMS Sophie, the first warship built in Hamburg for the German Navy." That seems to be another error which still requires correction. Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not an error. There was no German Navy before 1871, as there was no Germany before 1871, remember. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's an error because SMS Sophie was built in Danzig, not Hamburg. Andrew D. (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
An easy fix. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
So... is there anything to prevent such an incredibly easy to catch error in the future? I find AGF with offline sources acceptable, not that it would matter to anyone. But in this case, it was so incredibly easy to verify that the fact in the hook was plain false. It was not sourced in the lead but only in a different paragraph where the claim of being the first warship built, full stop, was not made at all. I just don't get it. I am honestly not sure what to make of the lack of diligence and effort put into getting this onto the the main page. A five second search on the topic could have verified it as false. My intention in asking was certainly not to rub anyones nose in it, we all make mistakes. But if this can happen there is quite obviously something wrong with the system itself. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Basically, it's to mea-culpa, apologise for a goof, and to resolve to do better, which I shall. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It happens, let's see if others show the same level of contrition or just pursue pointed reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Very big of you i must say. I hope my nagging wasn't too annoying, haha. Everyone makes mistakes and as long as one tries to take something away from it, it is all good. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Xmas hook..

if we are lacking in Xmas hooks..I did Template:Did you know nominations/Anoplognathus aureus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We have 6 already but it would be great if we could get all 8 hooks Christmas related on that day. The Royal C (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I am also writing a Christmas themed article and should have it ready in a day or two. If I have time, I might do a second in case we need a little more variety, so we should have at least 8 Christmas themed hooks on the day. Gatoclass (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In the context: I have three hooks about hymns approved, which ideally should be on different days. I moved one (Advent) to 23 December wishes (Der Morgenstern ist aufgedrungen), only to find that the prep is full. Suggestion: Swap it with Wolfgang Röhrig (now in Q6) who - with an abundance of great music - would be good for a start in 2018 on 1 Jan, or could match the planned TFA on 9 Jan. The other two hymns are now hoped for 24 Dec and Jan 6. "Morgenstern" could go to both these dates, but then what with the other? Sorry for writing too much ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, could you please list all your advent/Christmas hooks here so we know what nominations you are talking about? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so because the only problem is placement of Morgenstern, the other three are in Special occasions. But if it helps:
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Gerda Arendt, I meant could you list the nominations please, not the articles. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I could but they are all transcluded to Special occasion holding area, best for comparison with the others noms for the time period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
That's fine then, thanks Gerda :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  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) 22:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Late Christmas nomination

I have written a new Christmas-related article, and would appreciate it if it was reviewed in a timely manner. The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Wombat Divine.

I am still hopeful of completing a second Christmas-related article over the next couple of days and will post a link here if I manage to do so. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made a preliminary review of the article; however, as I proposed my own hook, another reviewer is needed to check this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done Hook approved and moved to Special Occasion holding area for Christmas Day. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

We have 16 older nominations that need reviewing, this time including all those that are no longer current (through December 15). Right now we have a total of 282 nominations, of which 227 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two that are over a month old.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Backlog of hooks?

We've got a lot of approved hooks from November that haven't been prepped yet. Anyone else want to prep them? As an aside, Yunchi is my hook and I reviewed Kang In-soo so it would be nice for both to be prepped before the end of the year. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: it's not a question of being tardy about promoting, but about balancing prep sets. There are similar categories here, and hooks by the same nominator are spread out across sets. Be patient. Eventually everything will be promoted. Yoninah (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing instructions

Yesterday, I went to submit an article for DYK, but came unstuck at the instructions, which suggest it should be categorised by "the date on which the article was created or on which expansion began, not the date on which you make the nomination". Naturally I put it under the date it was expanded, as that was the later of the two, though BlueMoonset kindly corrected it, suggesting it wasn't right. Perhaps the instruction text needs to be reviewed and reworked, so as to be clearer about which date category nominations should go to, particularly when an article is recently GA promoted? Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Bungle, I've just made an edit to the nominations page that adds mention of placing GAs; please let me know whether it is sufficiently clear. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
If me simply raising the concern is sufficient enough to change the DYK policy, then I won't argue with that. It may well be de facto that this is the case, so having it formally written isn't necessarily going to cause any issues that I see (and can always be reviewed if concerns surface). It may need amending in the instructions part too further up on the page. Would this equally apply to an article that has gone through a peer review process, or even FA? Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it just applies to newly promoted Good Articles, which were added to new articles and newly expanded existing articles as being eligible for DYK a couple of years back. No policy has been changed here, just the explanation of a previously made change (which I've also now inserted further up; thanks for pointing that out). Peer review is unrelated to DYK, and featured articles already have their own spot on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Christ, just file each nom under the date nominated and be done with it. This fussing about the date is another relic from 15 years ago. EEng 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mindanao mountain rat

The hook is not in the article, which doesn't mention the protected area, or do mentions in the references count? Can I write a DYK article and just point out an article mentions the hook? --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5C (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion

At the moment there are 261 DYK nominations of which 172 have been approved. With eight hooks in a single set per day, it will take 21 days to promote all the approved hooks. Under normal circumstances the supply of newly submitted hooks is around eight and roughly balances those moved to prep, but the WiR World Contest in November, and other factors, swelled the number of submissions dramatically during that month and increased the backlog.

We could increase to two sets per day, and reduce the backlog that way, but I would like to propose that we reduce the number of approved hooks gradually by changing to having nine hooks per set. This would tend to balance the front page better as it is often overlong on the right hand side as compared to the left. A particularly short set of hooks could even have ten hooks, rather than reusing old hooks when balancing the main page. What do folks think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support nine to ten, - it often looks unbalanced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should ever feature more than eight hooks in a set. IMO, six is the ideal number, but for a number of practical reasons we usually feature more. 260 nominations isn't a huge amount, especially now that they are split over two pages, and one extra hook per day will make little impact on any backlog in any case. I'd much prefer to go to a 12-hour cycle for a few weeks to get rid of any backlog, but IMO we probably don't need to think about that until the number has gone above 300. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to hear from David Levy on whether nine hooks (or even ten) is a good size for balancing the main page given the expansions to On this day; looking at the page now, we have eight hooks and a few blank lines as compared to the right side. Gatoclass, we are long past the day that a six-hook set is feasible simply in terms of main-page balance; right now we're frequently getting old hooks inserted to lengthen our section when we have many short hooks in a set of eight, or hooks are pulled. I can definitely see the point that the more hooks in a set, the less attention is paid to each one, but I don't know what we can do about it under the current circumstances. I'd certainly prefer all-new hooks to new plus reruns, and I definitely prefer snappy hooks to some of the lengthier ones.
My worry about two sets a day, even though it's the only way we'll get the backlog down, is that we're barely keeping up with getting one set per day, and we'd run out in three or four days unless we step up prep creation and the admins step up the rate of promotion—it's been quite a while since the backlog notice at the top of the Queues page was turned off for longer than a day or two. If we could get three or four queues filled at a time with at least as many preps, then we might stand a chance of sustaining a 12-hour cycle for a couple of weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I saw that gap on the main page today, admittedly I haven't been watching the main page much lately so don't know if this is a common phenomenon. If it is, would there be a way to change the percentage of mainpage space devoted to each project? Because I notice that for the two on the left (TFA and DYK) they seem to be getting about three fifths of the page.
With regard to the promotion rate, I don't believe nine hooks will make much of an impact on any backlog as I said, and with regard to the reported shortage of participation, I think people do tend to turn up when they are needed - and a 12-hour rate would only be needed for a relatively short period anyhow. But as I said, I'm not sure we are quite at the stage that we need to go to two sets a day in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: Under the current circumstances, an increase to nine or ten hooks per set seems prudent.
From the perspective of overall main page maintenance, larger DYK sets generally allow things to run more smoothly than multiple updates per day do. (Most of the other sections are updated daily, so is's easier to keep the content relatively cohesive and non-redundant when it's temporally synchronized.)
In this particular instance, it appears to make more sense from a DYK-specific perspective as well. —David Levy 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been active in set promotion in recent weeks, but I have been intending to return to the job. However, verification of even eight hooks at a time is a very laborious job that I can just about manage, nine or ten hooks per set would probably be a deal breaker for me. I also think, though, that more than eight hooks just makes the section too cluttered. A couple of decent hooks will redeem an eight hook set, but when you go to nine or ten, it makes for too many mediocre hooks and too much information. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gatoclass that anything more than eight hooks just appears too cluttered, and too laborious to verify each hook. What about reducing the width of TFA-DYK/ITN-OTD columns back to 50%/50% (right now it's at 55%/45%, kind of related to what Gatoclass is saying above), and run 6-hook sets (at 50% width, 6-hook set is enough to balance the current Main Page) twice a day (so that backlog will gradually decrease as opposed to rapidly disintegrate)? Just some different thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


Do we know by what rate the number of hooks is increasing each day? If there really was a sudden influx of hooks, but now each day fewer than eight hooks get suggested/promoted, then the backlog will clear itself. That is, it's only something one needs to worry about if the average number of new hooks continues to be more than eight a day. I see on the Errors page that people really care about the balance of the Main Page, and this had led to admins recycling old hooks [5] or deleting OTDs [6]. Both of these seem less than ideal. Due to DYKs featuring "new content", I'm not sure it's feasible to have a cache of emergency hooks that can be used when someone thinks the ratio is off, but it might be worth thinking about. (Personally I don't really think most people care if one column is a bit shorter than the other.) Umimmak (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment DYK is the "fun" part of the main page, it needs to flex its output to match the mature sections, i.e TFA, ITN and OTD. Limiting it to eight hooks when it's clear that every single day it's the short portion of the main page seems a little short-sighted. Increasing to nine hooks per set is trivial and would really help with the main page balance. We're not seeing a huge amount of rejection of DYKs right now through errors (well done everyone!!) so I see no good reason to limit the set to eight right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I would suggest increasing the turnaround to 2 sets a day simply because in about 16 days, the WikiCup starts up again and we are going to have a big influx of nominations coming in January so I would strongly recommend we beat the rush and make the switch now so we can chip away at the backlog before the WikiCup comes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Well the WikiCup can wait. The pursuit for points using DYK as a soft touch is well known by now. We'd be better off stalling those nominations until proper quality control is provided. The previous commentator has created a number of bogus content forks, we need to be very cautious advocating such. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
TRM, as I recall, not so long ago you were arguing passionately and at length in favour of the opposite view. What's changed? Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I was arguing passionately and at length in favour of not proving proper quality control? I missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to the debate about the number of hooks. I'm sure you have argued strongly in the past that we should not meddle with the number, but keep it consistent, so it's a surprise to see you apparently taking a different view now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't recall doing that either. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else? All of my concerns have always related to quality control, so actually the number of hooks is somewhat irrelevant if the number of errors is being kept down. I am 100% certain that I have expressed support for changing set sizes or cadence of sets in the recent past, so maybe you should go and dig up some diffs if it's so important to you that you felt a need to bring it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the split down the mainpage was not midline. My preference would be to make the page 50/50 in size as it looks funny to me. My vote would be rejig the split and go to 2 hooks a day till christmas. And then go back to 24 hours as we only have seven approved hooks currently. And keep at 24 hours thru Jan until we get a feel for the quality of stuff coming via wikicup. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean 2 sets a day....? If we're now down to votes, I'd got for a set of 10, once per day, until the backlog is reduced somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Alex Shih and Casliber that if a "short" DYK section has become common, the best solution would be to alter the width of the project columns to a proportion closer to 50:50 - assuming this is achievable technically - as it's 55:45 now. I'm not sure we would need to go to full 50:50 - 52:48 might be about right - but regardless, this would be a much better solution IMO than cramming in extra hooks to try and eliminate the gap. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of comparison, 52:48, 6 hooks, 52:48, 8 hooks, 50:50, 6 hooks, 55:45, 10 hooks. Allow me to summarize: the task here appears to be 1) Eliminate the backlog 2) Find a long term solution. 12 hours for 8-hook set proves to be very short term solution, as evidenced in the revision history ([7]). My concern with going for 10-hook set permanently is that it puts undue weight on DYK (see above for example). Neither do I think we should go back to two 8-hook sets per day or maintain the status quo, as it has been proved problematic. Alex Shih (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that it would take a full-fledged RfC to make changes in the proportions of the main page. We certainly can't do it unilaterally; even if it were to pass at RfC—I have my doubts—it would not solve our immediate problem, which is a high and growing number of hooks, including an approved backlog as I type this of 24.5 days (196 hooks), and a total of 275 nominations. (By contrast, July's 20-day stretch at two per day began with a 20-day backlog of 160 approved hooks, and September's 10-day stretch with 161 approved.) DYK has historically switched the number of sets per day as a way to regulate the backlog: two to three back when I started (and up to four during the 2012 Olympics), and more recently between one and two, something I find far less alarming than Alex Shih. Our nomination/approval rate is higher than can be supported by promoting only eight hooks a day, so we have to go to a higher burn rate, at least occasionally. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a higher burn rate is necessary, but I agree with Johnbod that it won't do any harm to leave it until sometime in January, Christmas is a busy period for most people so it really isn't a good time to be switching to two sets a day. As for column proportions, certainly it isn't something DYK could do unilaterally but I'm not sure it would require an RFC. In fact, I have been thinking that it might even be something we could consider manipulating on a day-to-day basis, as it's very doubtful anyone would even notice and it would probably be the most elegant method of balancing the main page. Certainly a lot better than constantly manipulating the number of hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the flow of nominations and approvals slow down (like all other editing) over the holiday period? I suggest we review the situation in early January. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod's suggestion seems sensible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah...not fussed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Those of us favoring increasing the number of hooks - including myself, I think keeping the 24h-schedule is sensible to allow all hooks to be seen by people around the world - can admit that an increase by one or two hooks per day will help lower the backlog but take more time, so we should use these days of less noms and approvals to burn off some of the currently approved hooks. Even assuming that no new hooks are approved for two weeks due to Xmas and stuff, the current backlog would allow 20 days of DYK with 10 hooks per day or 22 days with 9 hooks per day. So I would suggest we start using more hooks immediately. We can always reduce the number of hooks again after all. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's very simple, just nudge the number of hooks up to nine or ten. No need to redesign the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Adding an extra hook per day won't even make a dint in any backlog, it's a pointless exercise. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I think what that proposal is suggesting, is that it's better than doing nothing and continue to let the backlog grow, which is fair. Although I remain unconvinced that overtly long list of hooks is the best solution. More time consuming to build, with less readability in my opinion. Let's see if we can have more input. Alex Shih (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Adding an extra hook per day won't even make a dint in any backlog this is patently untrue. It can only help, especially over Xmas when activity is traditionally very low for a week or so. You're not going to change the layout of the main page in short order, and going two sets a day is highly dangerous when few editors will be around to quality control over Xmas. So take the compromise and go to nine or ten hooks per set until the new year. Solutions, not problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Just to clarify, do you not think 9/10 hook sets would put too much weight on DYK/decrease the readability? Or is it simply because since we have been recycling old hooks to balance the Main Page anyway, the solution for now is to go for more hooks per set (fair point)? And this is going to be a temporary solution, correct? Alex Shih (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Increasing hooks/set will have two benefits: balancing the main page and getting through the backlog slowly but more quickly than currently. You'll never get an RFC to adjust the main page concluded within a couple of months, so either you have be practical and do what is (a) possible and safe (increasing hooks per set), or (b) practical and do what is possible and dangerous (go to two sets of 8 hooks per day), or (c) you do nothing until any main page balancing RFC concludes, by which time the backlog will probably be in excess of 300 hooks. I'd opt for (a) any time, and see no issue with readability. Perhaps when sets are collated, a mixture of hook lengths should be considered too in order to provide a little "whitespace" around the shorter hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If extra length is needed, what about allowing two in the set to have a picture?70.67.222.124 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Balancing the Main Page is only one reason to expand the set. More pictures would not solve the backlog-problem. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

One extra hook per day isn't going to make a scratch on the backlog, the only way to reduce a backlog effectively is to increase the number of sets per day which is the solution we have always adopted. Going to two sets a day has the added advantage of reducing the backlog very quickly so that things can get back to normal in the fastest possible time. But as has already been pointed out, there is no hurry to go to two sets a day, it can wait until well after Christmas, when people will have more time to attend to the queues. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Add two hooks per day. The rest of the main page can sustain that. That's a 25% increase in throughput. Plus, getting through the "backlog" isn't the only issue at hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
There isn't room for two extra hooks. Yesterday the lefthand column was actually longer than the right, today there would be room at most for one additional hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Because we're continually dropping ITN items and/or OTD items to make up for the shortfall in DYK. There's almost always room for two extra hooks. E.g. today.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well there's another possible option to consider - dropping an ITN or OTD item to balance the page. It certainly makes more sense than adding additional DYK hooks. But if there's "almost always" room for two extra DYK hooks, then we definitely should be looking at adjusting the column widths IMO. But again, that would be an issue better discussed after the Christmas break. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Not really, the main page is about quality items, both of which are assured at OTD and ITN (to a degree), and it's quite unreasonable to limit their entries just because you "don't like" the idea of having ten hooks per set. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, we could debate this until the cows come home, but I don't have time right now as I'm trying to complete an article or two for Christmas so again, I suggest we leave this until after the Christmas break. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well I suggest we don't, I suggest we increase the number of hooks per set to ten to solve one problem and part-solve another. If you wait until after Xmas to launch an RFC, it won't have any impact on this project and its backlog and the imbalance of the main page until February. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Adding an extra two hooks per day will have little impact on the backlog by February either, but it will reduce the quality and attractiveness of the DYK section. But since as I said I have other things to attend to right now, I will endeavour to leave the last word at this point to you, since you always seem to insist upon it anyhow. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
No, we've had to add one or two more hooks about 50% of the time at the moment, and of course it will help stem the increase in the bcklog. I think you missed that point, we're going to have to do it manually with recyled hooks for the next two months if we don't increase new hooks per set to 9 or 10 in any case, so you're advocating re-using old hooks (which we've received a number of complaints about).... Or do nothing until February at which point your backlog will be 100 hooks more, and we'll still have been triaging the main page daily. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are already adding recycled hooks from time to time, I guess it doesn't make any difference whether it's a recycled hook or a new one. My point is that while this may be acceptable as a temporary solution, we would still do well to look for a more elegant longterm solution as sets in excess of eight hooks are unattractive as well as being harder to build, balance and verify. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely it's better to pre-empt the problem that is known and exists now by using new hooks which would (a) reduce complaints about "I've seen that DYK before" and (b) reduce the increase in the backlog? Your longterm solution is all very dandy but won't be implementable until February at the earliest. These are problems we have had for some weeks/months (not including the backlog!) and ones we can ameliorate by increasing set hook size to nine or ten per day. I see no evidence at all that sets of nine or ten are "harder to build" (we usually have three or four preps waiting at any one time, that could just as easily be two or three preps), and there's no evidence that nine or ten hooks are "unattractive", not one reader has complained about that. Readers, however, have complained about recyled hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I see no evidence at all that sets of nine or ten are "harder to build" - you wouldn't, because you've never built one.
Building good, balanced sets gets exponentially more difficult the more hooks you have to select. Six hooks is probably the ideal, seven or eight is doable. After that, it gets increasingly difficult to find hooks on topics not already covered by one or more hooks in the set. Also, longer sets needs more good quality hooks. In my experience, you need a minimum of two good hooks in an eight-hook set, a nine hook set however requires a minimum of three good hooks, which is another problem because it increases the burn rate of quality hooks. If you have less than three good hooks in a nine hook set, the weakness of the other hooks becomes much more apparent, to the point that when reading through the set you find yourself thinking, "why am I bothering with this crap?" Good set building is an art and the more hooks you add, the harder it is to achieve an acceptable level of quality. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with those who say that increasing the number of hooks would tend to make DYK cluttered. It already has more entries than ITN and OTD and this indicates that it's the hooks in those sections that need some pruning. And, if we still end up with some white space, this isn't a big deal. Currently, there are much larger blocks of white space around the blurb for the POTD. Andrew D. (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh well leave it as it is, let the backlog grow, allow old hooks to be recycled, deal with the complaints. Way to go. (And here comes the WikiCup!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, not even two weeks later, and in our slowest period, the backlog is now nearly 250 hooks, so bravo to those content to sit and watch it expand out of control. And hey, in better news, WikiCup starts in less than five days, so that's really going to help! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Two articles in less than 24 hours, hook not in article

Now that we've established felsic greenstones are a matter of grammar, isn't the hook required to beat least mentioned in the article? Last two sets each had an article where readers couldn't find the hook.

How can a reviewer verify that the hook is referenced, if the hook isn't in the article?

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see nothing ever changes here at DYK. It's comforting, like a warm puppy. Is beat least mentioned anything like road less travelled? EEng 13:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
A little, perhaps, but without any puppies. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Other things that never changes at DYK are the lack of responsibility and the excuses. See above : so what if the article says the exact opposite geology from one paragraph to the next, that's just bad grammar. If you chase off the subject matter experts, it doesn't increase your knowledge that your errors are not pointed out. One geologist reading those articles from top to bottom could have put a stop to this. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you. Geesh. EEng 15:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
And I was extrapolating upon your agreement. Not sure what "Geesh" is about. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Carry on. EEng 19:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Racist hook

In addition to not being in the article - what is this?

that Ghanaian engineer Benjamin Asante is one of a few black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court?

Why is this a "did you know" type comment? Not only is the colour of his skin not mentioned in the article, it uses weasel words ("a few") and is probably original research to boot. And moreover - what does the colour of his skin have to do with the article? Is the author implying that black people aren't capable of giving expert testimony? Why mention it? 174.0.48.147 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This quote is plagiarized from the gentleman's biography on a Ghanaian business site. US Americans do tend to celebrate firsts by Black Americans, but it may be deemed less appropriate elsewhere. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
You're right, the article does not mention the colour of his skin and I'd be very surprised if it did, given that he is Ghanaian. Likewise, I fail to see how it is at all notable in the context of giving expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "one of a few black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court" is such an utterly stupidly narrow achievement as to border on parody. I know! Let's have a category: Categor:Black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court or Category:Black oil and gas pipeline engineers who have given expert testimony before the United States Supreme Court on Tuesdays in May. EEng 16:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Any DYK that relies upon person of skin colour (not white) doing something considered (by the ignorant) to be a white activity is going to sound racist to those of us who don't live in a socially backward society. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the foregoing, it is ambiguous, as "black oil" looks to be modifying "oil". Alanscottwalker (talk)
It has been pointed out on the article's talk page that the US Supreme Court is an appelate court, so no witnesses testify there. William Avery (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah right, so skin colour may be the least of our problems here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, the court does have some original jurisdiction but even then it would generally appoint a special master to take the actual testimony. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess pinging the nominator, approver or promoter would be a good idea? Crosstemplejay, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The relevant text was pulled from the article 14 hours ago (it no longer makes the claim about testifying before Supreme Court; the source, the company that has made Mr. Asante its acting CEO, reads He is one of few black Oil and Gas engineers to have testified as an expert pipeline engineer before the US Supreme High Court, and gets the name of the court wrong). What might be more useful is pinging a few admins, since a report was posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors at around the time the article text was pulled, yet the hook is still on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Well one of the three I just pinged is an admin, and I reiterated a request for help at WP:ERRORS in an attempt to actually do something about this rather than just sit around having a moaning festival. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This hook is legally nonsensical. The United States Supreme Court is an appellate court, which only hears arguments from counsel. It does not hear testimony from witnesses at all (except in the exceedingly rare instance of a boundary dispute between U.S. states, which would not be relevant here). bd2412 T 17:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    Another good reason to ping those involved in writing and approving the hook. Perhaps such "complex" legal hooks need to be checked by an expert before they get all the way to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@BD2412: Have you removed it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pulled as demonstrably incorrect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Only took from 8:44 this morning. One really would expect better. But thanks for getting the error off the main page nontheless. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • DYK: The gift that keeps on giving. EEng 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
And the WikiCup has not even started. Will be hilarious soon. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Funny as a heart attack. I don't suppose anyone wants to join me in once again calling for junking of the "newness" nonsense in favor of running GAs instead? EEng 20:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
That rock group formed in London in 1970 might make a fine GA. 20:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Should have noted the sarcasm there on my part. Sorry for that... But even taking factoids out of good articles can lead to the same issues if reviews are simply quid pro quo with people reviewing things they have no clue about simply because they have to for getting their own nominations onto the main page. It is obviously totally fine to have no idea about some subjects but then reviewing them inevitably leads to quality issues. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
At least GAs aren't selected specifically for being brand new, with little time for problems to be noticed and corrected. EEng 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, my point just was that it would take more than just replacing new articles with good articles. The whole process, ruleset, reviews etc probably should get nuked and built up again from the ground up. I mean, i totally agree with you in principle that it would be much better, not just from an error perspective but more importantly a reader one as well(who wants to read articles of barely any substance after all). But just switching it in the current structure is bound to lead to the same issues, just with better articles(which in itself would still be better of course). 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, much needs changing, but switching to GAs would help. And it would reduce throughput, slowing things down, which would also help. And finally, imagine if all this reviewing effort went into GAs (which are terribly backlogged) instead of this "new content" nonsense! EEng 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, i guess small steps would better than nothing. And just think how much more points people could get for the WikiCup with good articles!!(sarcasm, haha)I still sadly cannot see any change like that happening, even if it would be a much better reader experience. As i said, who wants to read articles barely better than stubs. Good articles at least have some meat to it. And that is who Wikipedia is made for after all, readers. It does not exist to stroke the egos of a few people with DYK credits. 91.49.74.59 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Annual Top 50 Report DYK hook

Hello. I, along with many other editors, have spent the last few days compiling an annual version of the Top 25 Report. An in-progress build can be seen here. When completed, the report, consisting of the fifty most viewed Wikipedia articles of the year, accompanied by commentary, will be moved into WP space. Per the discussion here, we have decided to attempt to put a main-page link to the complete report up on New Year's Day. Furthermore, we reached the conclusion that DYK would be the most suitable place to put such a link, with a listing like "Did you know that in 2017, the most read Wikipedia article was Deaths in 2017?".

However, as the link will be to WP space, this listing would be unorthodox. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the eccentricities of nominating a hook. Thus, I just wish to place some tentative feelers out at this stage to gauge the feelings of regular contributors here to this idea. Thanks - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless it meets the DYK criteria, we should not be making any special exceptions. We have precedence for declining such a suggestion as we had a once suggestion that one of our most regular contributors get their own hook to celebrate reaching over 1,000 credits, but decided against it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking "What a good idea!". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Even if we do disregard the qualifying procedures (which I am against us doing as I stated above), the report in its current form has rather a lot of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues with it. For example on President Trump it talks about the recent tax bill negatively as well as talking about a recent politician being an "accused child molester" (thought they had innocent until proven guilty over there) as one point (With the US further down having similar issues). Second you have something about The Queen with an unnecessary link to the IRA in it. Then you have "Bollywood is weird", I doubt our Indian editors would agree with that. The list goes on and on. Personally I do not think that we should be making an exception for something that in its current form, we would never have passed in that state had it come through the usual channels. The Royal C (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Royal C:, @The C of E:: The Top 25 Report contains commentary, the purpose of which is to be humourous and informative. As such, especially considering its placement in WP space, NPOV, unless especially egregious, is overlooked (at least in my view as a compiler and commentary author). I will add the humour tag to the report as a whole to address this and illuminate readers unfamiliar with the report to the humourous intent of the commentary. BLP's are still problematic, of course, as they can constitute slander or libel. However, none of the issues raised by you constitute a BLP violation - the word accused explicitly respects the innocent until proven guilty rule, while the link to the IRA has no implications for her highness (the write-up on her is positive) but rather on dispelling the myth that every Irish person despises royalty. (I've removed it out of courtesy). The US is not a person, and criticising it is not bias, so it does not violate either NPOV or BLP. Claiming that Bollywood is weird is an opinion, and is therefore an integral part of commentary. Most of the issues can be addressed as either opinion (entitled as it commentary), or humour (entitled as it is a key aspect of the report). I hope this alleviates your concerns. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that some of this "commentary" that is meant to be "humorous" is offensive to some and has no place on the main page. MB 18:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@MB: - such as? If I wrote some material which you justifiably find offensive, I may be willing to edit it. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
It is really not acceptable for The C of E to be participating in this discussion under two different accounts/identities, The C of E and The Royal C. It isn't the first time this has happened in DYK discussions, but it needs to be last. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with BlueMoonset. Even though the account is disclosed and the comment identifies itself, it is not obvious and misleads. Alex Shih (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in particular as it appears to have confused at least commentator here who has pinged both accounts in one reply. There's simply no need for this misuse of multiple accounts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I had spotted it (pinged both to see which head of the Hydra would retaliate), and I also think that it is wholly unfair. It is an effective way to instantly double one's clout in terms of consensus, and while declared, is another form of sockpuppetry. The only reason that I can think of for switching so frequently between accounts is that it is a ploy designed to deceive, and so should be rooted out. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I assure you there was no intent to deceive nor "double clout". I was merely using my account for work computers/mobile devices to respond and I clearly declared who I was. It seems I made a mistake in doing so, I apologise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

From the discussion you linked above, the report was to be "neutral and informative". Now you are saying it doesn't have to be neutral because it is meant to be humorous. I don't accept that there is a place for anything non-neutral to be linked from main page or anywhere in article space nor have I ever seen any policy that would allow it. MB 01:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The report will include a link to the raw data, the basis for the report we are working on, but that's not nearly as much fun. If the DYK regulars don't see this as a good fit, I understand that, but I think it will be interesting to people in a DYK kind of way. Are there other suggestions on how we can make it visible to readers? Thank you,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps an article in the Signpost? –FlyingAce✈hello 00:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In the past I have supported DYK and commentary at Top-25, but I do not think the two go together, and would oppose because of the decidedly not NPOV nature of the top list commentary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I also oppose as per Alanscottwalker's reasoning; the list, while interesting, contains vast amounts of non-encyclopedic editorializing, personal commentary, and references to the author him/herself that makes it appear as if it's one person's work (e.g. Now, I am a [sic] Irishman, so we have a complicated relationship with the neighbours and I'm not a horror fan, but I saw all the scary movies in this report.). Also, some of the analytical statements are OR (e.g. This one was still good, but lacked a certain oomph. in reference to a film called "Guardians of the Galaxy II"). It might make better sense to post this to Reddit, maybe, or on a userpage. Chetsford (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Eoarchean geology what!? and Pressure-temperature-time path

The opening sentence of this article, or just the opening phrase, doesn't make sense. These are terranes, rocks, they're not "geologies!"

This DYK has created its very own neologism, "Eoarchean geology," and uses the awkward phrase "geology are" to talk about rocks rather than the science. What is this article about? The opening statement isn't cited in any of the references, because all the sources use "rock" and "terrane" and synonyms of "rock formation" to describe Eoarchean rocks and use the term "geology" to describe the science of geology, as geologists and English speakers use these terms. Heck, as Wikipedia uses these terms! As everyone besides Wikipedia DYK uses these terms, as all the Wikipedia articles use these terms. If the opening statement is not even English, and not in any of its sources, how can this article be approved for a DYK?

--2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a good topic for Wikipedia, so it would be nice to correct it and see it on the main page alongside the usual lame puns, but it's going to fail verification in almost every sentence. I haven't made it through the introduction and I'm finding major factual contradictions between what the article says and what the sources say.

This article should probably be moved out of main space instead of having every citation tagged with a failed verification template. IMO. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

From the OED:
geology, n.
b. The rocks, structures, processes, etc., with which this science is concerned; esp. those of a specified locality or region.
  • 1795 T. Jefferson Let. 14 Oct. in Papers (2000) XXVIII. 505 Our geology is untouched... Your views of it would have been precious to us.
  • 1816 M. Keating Trav. (1817) I. 38 The geology as well as the botany of the Pyrenees ought to repay all the patience..of the enthusiasts in those sciences.
  • 1833 C. Darwin Let. 11 Apr. (1985) I. 307 The geology of this part of Tierra del was, as indeed every place is, to me very interesting.::*
  • 1886 C. Scott Pract. Sheep-farming 122 A study of the botany and geology of a sheep-walk is one of the first steps to successful herding.
  • 1930 Pop. Sci. Monthly June 26/2 Knowledge of the geology of the Antarctic was increased by study of the Queen Maud Range.
  • 1970 Nature 28 Feb. 782/1 Swamps, sandy savannas and bush have made ground-based studies of the underlying geology difficult.
  • 1977 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 15 Sept. 8/4 By suggestible I mean that she considers both the surface and the geology of the admired writer.
  • 1991 S. Winchester Pacific (1992) 402 One of the 600-ft cliffs with which geology had blessed the place.
  • 2008 New Mexico Mag. Feb. 41 The unusual geology of Ojito lends it an ambience at times disconcerting and otherworldly.
It may be clearer to rewrite it to align with what is perhaps the more common definition, but it's not the editor's "very own neologism". The sources use "geology" to refer to the physical rocks etc., e.g.: The first evidence of an extensive older component in the geology of the Godthåbsfjord area (Fig. 1) came from field mapping in the late 1960s and The geology of the Nuvvuagittuq belt and surrounding gneisses has been reviewed elsewhere. And one also sees In Section 2, we briefly review the Eoarchean geology of SW Greenland (doi:10.1016/j.gca.2007.07.019) referring to the physical rocks etc. Plenty of Wikipedia articles use "geology" in this way as well. The geology of the Appalachians dates back to more than 480 million years ago doesn't mean the study dates back that far, just the rocks etc. See also The geology of Europe is varied and complex, and gives rise to the wide variety of landscapes found across the continent, from the Scottish Highlands to the rolling plains of Hungary. The article Eoarchean geology is not about the field of study but rather the objects of study for that field and the opening sentence should reflect that. Umimmak (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, all these sources use the term in the manner I suggest is standard. I'm not sure anyone is going to disagree with my usage issue, as it's such an unusual twist of English, so I don't see the value in quoting a dozen sources to support my argument, but, thank you. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:F842:9971:6DAD:1A87 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Graeme Bartlett, who nominated the article for DYK, and Cwmhiraeth, who reviewed it, so they are aware of this discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This article, which is in the queue to go on the front page is also going to be a problem; it links to igneous rocks and other words improperly, and the material in the article is not from the sources. Pressure-temperature-time path. I think these may be language barrier issues, but this article should not be on the front page without a thorough English language and geology review. Why was it approved as is? No one appears to have read for context. Both articles are encyclopedic topics, but they don't need to be in main space as is. Please review your geology better. This has been an issue in the past with geology DYK articles. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:59 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

People here seem to be adding extra DYK requirements. English grammar problems are not a disqualification for DYK. Anyway it is better to have it fixed. I do not see any issue with the coverage for "Eoarchean geology" article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: English grammar problems are certainly an issue for articles that will appear on the main page. Another of your nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Numerical modeling (geology), was indecipherable to anyone but a geology major. A different nomination, Vitamin C, in contrast, has a lot of scientific terminology but is a pleasure to read. Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The grammar is not the problem, until it changes the meaning. The Eoarchean article is about rocks, specific rocks of an era. And, by definition, metamorphic rocks do not begin in igneous melts. Someone with a background in geology will know that without assigning it to a grammatical error, and that is what is needed with these articles. This is why I like to wait until the articles are on the main page, non-DYK editors fix things, DYK editors only bother to take insult and defend their lack of domain knowledge. I'll go back to the old way. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:59 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The person that wrote the article is a 4th year geology student. So don't assume that the writer is ignorant of the topic. I still maintain that "xxx geology" where xxx is a time period is a valid use of the term "geology". In the case of "Eoarchean geology" the term is little used. Another alternative "Eoarchean terranes" is not used much either. But "Eoarchean rocks" is used quite a bit. So we could rename this article to that name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A rename won't take care of the felsic greenstones. The rule for geology students is the same as for other Wikipedia editors. The student put unverifiable information (it's wrong) in the article, for whatever reason; it needs edited to correct it. Two other geology articles written by these students (there's a class list; see article talk page) have at least 3 sources each that do not include the information cited. I don't know what's going on, but these are not good articles as they currently stand. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Image cleanup

I have submitted a Graphics Lab request to clean up the image currently in Prep 1. While the hook could run with the image as is, I think it would be preferable to delay it, if necessary, until the job is complete. Similar requests have sometimes been handled within a day, so a delay may not be necessary. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It's done already! Many thanks to Begoon for taking care of this so quickly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
That's incredible speed, thanks Begoon! And always nice to see the name of Mandarax. Alex Shih (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Winter Olympics

Just an FYI, the 2018 Winter Olympics are coming up from 9-25 February. This will probably lead to an increase in the number of special occasion hooks- lots of people will create articles with hooks to run in this timeframe? Can we set up a Winter Olympics holding area like we did for the 2016 Summer Olympics? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I support this idea. If no one else opposes, I am inclined to start a separate page as holding area for Winter Olympics once we start getting approved nominations. BlueMoonset, may I ask how this was done in 2016, and if there are any potential concerns? Alex Shih (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Alex Shih, my recollection is that we've had the Olympics as part of the regular Special Occasions section; it's much easier when all the hooks are in one place, and prevents situations where the Olympics or the non-Olympics special hooks are overlooked because of too many pages to check for the same date. I invite Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah to correct me if I'm misremembering 2016; I do know that it was Special Occasions all the way in 2012, and am pretty sure it was the same in 2014. This is the first Olympics where the Special Occasions section is on the Approved page; said page didn't exist in 2016. I'd imagine there's a Winter Paralympics following after the Winter Olympic, so you'll probably want to set up a section for that as well. We do typically allow the hooks to be a bit early for these events; if any athlete articles were approved next week but the events were very late in the period, we'd still hold them, and the same for Paralympians. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what has happened in the past, but I think it would be more convenient for prep builders if the Olympic hooks were kept in the regular Special Occasions section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, as long as prep creators remember to look for Special Occasion hooks when promoting. During the 2016 Summer Olympics, I recall a lot of late rejigging of hooks to accommodate forgotten Special Occasion hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • So it's decided: the regular special instead of a special special. EEng 07:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Regular special sounds good to me. Alex Shih (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup

This is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2018 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, only twenty-five users have signed up to take part in the competition. Interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I suggest we add a rule to the effect that any editor competing for the WikiCup be barred from making new DYK nominations until the WikiCup competition is over. EEng 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Or at the very least deduct points for bad reviews that result in pulled articles as well as for getting ones own articles pulled? Not quite as harsh and perhaps an incentive to take more care when nominating and reviewing articles. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed new rule barring WikiCup participants from nominating at DYK. I do think the WikiCup—if they haven't already—should consider penalizing for pulled articles and clearly problematic reviews, even beyond disqualifying the points for the promoted-and-later-pulled DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Quality control was among the points raised during the feedback session for the 2017 Wikicup. I think it's fair to say that the judges are on board with stricter quality control, and that is pretty much the sole reason I have joined the panel. Our standards for acceptable DYK articles may be different, but I'm fairly certain that anything failing to meet a core policy is not going to receive points this year (or at any rate, the judges will make every effort to ensure that this is the case). Vanamonde (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, we'll tell WikiCup we won't ban their participants from DYK if they institute a rule penalizing 2X points for hooks that make it into prep and get pulled, 3X if it gets to Q and gets pulled, and 4X if it gets to main page and gets pulled. I've been away from DYK for I-don't-know-how-long and I can still remember the nauseated feeling I got every time I saw a nomination from a Wikicup participant (certain reliable editors excepted, I rush to note). EEng 17:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, I don't think there is any evidence that participation in the WikiCup means a lowering of standards for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
What would be the stance on content forks if i may ask? What will happen if new articles end up as redirects after being obvious content forks, or not even that. (Wrigley Field Ivy or Fucking(sign) come to mind there as random examples. Not recent but just two "articles" that come to mind) Is there any position on penalising or disregarding points for that? 91.49.92.131 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder how an IP that only started editing today could have knowledge of those discussions that happened early last year...? Could we have a WP:SOCK here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Ever heard of a variable IP? My IP changes pretty much evey single day at least once. And given that i am located in germany, every day is a blank day. But funny enough that the one who created the content forks i mentioned tries to discredit me. Go on to SPI if you will, i have nothing to hide. Otherwise i would apreciate if you could strike your unsupported aspertion against me. As long as i can edit as an IP, i will do so. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
To add, i never had an account. I don't need an account to follow things, which i have for several years now. I don't need an account to be critical of things or have an opinion. I don't need an account to be a contributor etc. The only thing i have done is very slowly getting tired of a lot of the BS stat chasing going on in this venue so i voice my opinion more. I follow numerous other venues as well, from ANI to the burocrats page to arbcom etc. I am so tired of being accused of being a sock but because that happens regularly i just out of pride will not make an account. I am a human even if i dont have an account so treat me as such... Ah a good little rant makes one feel right better, haha 91.49.92.131 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
As a final note, you can even see comments by me from yesterday under a bit different IP. But yes, only started to edit today only to spite you personally because if is most convinient for you *roll eyes*... Absolutely tired of the sock nonsense. Yet every time i hear it the less likely it is i will ever make an account. When i am made a right James Hunt for no reason, i will not take it with a smile and conform. I am sadly way too proud and such baseless accusations speak way more about the one making them than they do about me... And now i am done with that nonsense. I am still curious about my quesrtion before i was rudely inetrrupted. Is there anything discouraging content forks? 91.49.92.131 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, your opinion counts. As for unnecessary content forks, I have a few users edits to check out over the course of this "competition", past performance indicates that individuals will create spin-off articles of just about anything, just to gain some points for the cup. And leave all the clearing up to after the event. Another good reason to penalise WikiCup entrants for failures to meet requirements or even to try and pull the wool over our eyes with pseudo-articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I do admit that sometimes I've created content forks like Terraced houses in the United Kingdom simply because I'd rather have a decent article on a topic I can research reasonably well, against a half-assed article on a larger topic that I'd struggle to get up to the same level. Oh, "When i am made a right James Hunt for no reason" - that slang's out of date, these days you say "When I am made a right Jeremy" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I will make a note of it, haha. I understand that it may be somewhat hard to find a decent balance with some articles, or that it may even be better to spin off something. But some forks are just so useless and obvious stat chasing(like not even ending up as redirects to the original article)... I would be very happy to be wrong and see no useless content forks, no drop in quality and so on. Only thing is to wait and see what happens. 91.49.73.14 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think pulling the points is enough. One article I had to trash off the main page as a WikiCup DYK still stayed in the points count for the creator even after being stubified to nothing for a copyvio (like the racist hook above) and the rewrite being removed as incomprehensible (another geology article, Wikipedians should stop being hostile to experts). The school contributing the contradictory geology articles not supported by their references should have their articles removed from the competition. Even a high school geology student would know not to promote an article with felsic greenstone terranes. BTW, why is that article still sitting waiting to be promoted to the main page? --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:5561:F9B0:6E3:FE16 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    That is more an issue of the quid pro quo review process. People review things they have no clue about because they kind of have to for their own nominations. Then assume good faith with whatever is presented (a fine idea in principle of course but still problematic). There really isn't anything to prevent such things, especially with topics more towards sciences. But that is a basic structural problem of DYK which would take fundamental reforms to fix. Runs far deeper than the WikiCup. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Death penalty for reviewers. EEng 21:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
To reiterate, there is no tangible drop in quality from WikiCup contestants. That's official, from one of the WikiCup judges. So we have nothing to be concerned about. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset well since it's already tagged, it should be removed from any set/queue, so I suggest you do that rather than hound the IP who has already made a clear case for its removal. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man, if you'd bothered to check, as I did, you'd have seen that the nomination is on the Approved page, but has yet to be promoted. It seems to me that the IP is best suited for making the case—on the review page—for why the approval should be withdrawn, and what the issues are. I will supersede the tick in the interim, to avoid a potential promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course, and my best to you for your diligence. But hounding the IP about where they post comments is entirely unnecessary. DYK is such an arcane process, posting concerns about any of it anywhere on Wikipedia is entirely valid and should be encouraged, not dismissed in the manner in which you adopted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't post on the nomination templates pages because I've been yelled at for doing so; told that the template was closed, and I couldn't post there, been hounded by the promoter, by a group of three article writers (that was funny, they were eventually told to knock it off); been told I have to rewrite the plagiarized hook, if I point out it uses 11/12 of the same words in the same order (although unlike the plagiarized racist hook, it was at least in the Wikipedia article), and been ignored when I do post on the nomination page. In fact, Wikipedia still has an article with the geography of the United State rewritten, because I was supposed to post on the template talk page, not the closed template page, and Wikipedia editors like arguing with suspected subject experts far more than writing an encyclopedia, no matter what stupidity that leaves in the encyclopedia. I tagged the Eoarchean geology article; and I wrote on the talk page of a couple others, and my comments have been ignored. I'm not sure if GB simply doesn't understand geology, which may be the case, or is purposefully missing the point; the title is not the problem, every sentence of the text is. The article should not contain information that is contradictory to basic geology, and if it does, it should be supported in the article with references and discussion, and it should be consistent within the article, or the inconsistency explained. I am not a geology subject matter expert, but even I see contradictions in all of the articles written by the class, contradictions just in the Wikipedia articles, such as the Eoarchean article. I think it might be a language problem, but, when I go to the sources to try to clarify what the article is saying, the sources don't contain the information, and I can't correct the geology articles without reading the sources, and if the information is not in them, I don't have time to do the research to correct it. Most of the misinformation I see could be caught by someone with a high school geology class; but they have to be read by that someone. You can't just say, the grammar is okay, therefore the information must be right. It's not. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:C4D5:E5D4:7351:D02B (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Here we are again, doing anything but editing and correcting the errors. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:C4D5:E5D4:7351:D02B (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It's because IPs are all treated like complete shit. Voice your views as an admin, and your judgement is never questioned as you are perfect. (please note, this comment may contain traces of sarcasm.) As for what to do, I would say that anyone who brings article quality into disrepute (whether it be a pulled DYK hook, GA reassessment or report on ERRORS) that is justified should be disqualified. The whole purpose of the cup is to have fun improving articles, not bauble collecting. I'm not inclined to improve the geology articles simply as that isn't my area of expertise and feel I would cause more harm than good. (See Dunning–Kruger effect) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 – Kirsty McGuinness

  • Hook - " ... that Kirsty McGuinness plays for both the historically mostly Catholic Antrim GAA and the historically mostly Protestant Northern Ireland women's national football team?"
  • Article - "This differed [sic] from men's sport where there are traditionally sectarian divides between the historically majority Protestant association football and historically majority Roman Catholic GAA, which is no longer commonplace in women's sport in Northern Ireland"
  • Source for the hook here even flatly contradicts the hook with the quote ""Sectarianism has never been a problem in women's football. All the clubs I have ever known have always had a great blend of Protestants and Catholics."
  • In other words, the article doesn't claim that the NI women's national team has been "historically Protestant" and the source doesn't back it up either. Also, the article says "Some of our girls come to our training with their Antrim gear on and go to Antrim training with their Linfield shirts on." which suggests that playing women's GAA and football isn't even unusual, which renders the hook immediately non-hooky. Pinging @The C of E, Yoninah, and Usernameunique:. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I realise that my opinion is pretty meaningless but... if there is doubt just pull it before it gets onto the mainpage and replace with another? Can always be fixed, clarified etc and added again, no? Better to be on the safe side in the end. Or are there some arcane rules i am missing that would not allow that to happen? 91.49.74.59 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you're right, I can (and will) do that, even if it's just swapping it with one from a later queue just to allow for more opinions and/or fixes. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I've swapped it back to Prep 5 so it won't go live until tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the hook to Prep 3 so there's no risk of it being promoted to queue before this issue is dealt with. There's no reason to rush things. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I had mentioned that the sports are usually divided on religious lines, it is only recently through the women's game that that barrier has been broken down. This hook was designed to show that by featuring a person who has played both GAA and football at representative level, which in itself is an interesting fact. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, it might be interesting if it were clear to the average reader that these are actually two different sports with different rules. I didn't realize it myself until just now, by following a number of wikilinks, that Gaelic football is not merely some sort of Irish league that plays standard football/soccer, but a different game. There needs to be clarity regarding this, both in the article and in the hook. I'll let Black Kite comment on whether your response above answers their concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved out again while waiting for Black Kite to respond; now in Prep 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem remains though - the "fact" that the Northern Ireland women's football (as opposed to the men's game) formerly had a sectarian background is not sourced - indeed the source contains a quote that actually contradicts it. It does need to be sourced, the hook can't exist without it. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above, I've pulled the hook from prep, and will be reopening it on the nominations page shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/West Wind Aviation Flight 280

This hook originally said everyone survived. One person actually died, albeit a couple of weeks later, but from his injuries sustained in the crash. I made an attempt to rectify the hook, and I understand things changed since the hook was accepted, but it should not have been placed in a prep set without being properly checked. I would advocate removing it from the prep until a snappier hook can be created. 97198, Yoninah, Dingruogu. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The news source said everyone survived the crash, and that's true. Adding "initially survived" looks really odd. We're not Reuters, running a play-by-play analysis of what happened to each passenger afterwards. I say to leave the hook as is. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
No, everyone did not survive the crash. Someone died a couple of weeks later. If we took a snapshot of every disaster at the point at which it happened yet ignored all the critical injuries, and left our articles as such, we'd not only be doing our readers a disservice, we wouldn't actually be compiling an encyclopedia. Someone died directly as a result of the crash who was actually on the plane. To say everyone survived is nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The hook may have been fine when approved, but events overtook it and at the time it was promoted it was simply wrong: someone had died, just not right away. The addition of "initially" makes it very odd, and unless something significantly better is posted here soon, I think it should probably be pulled while a new hook is proposed and approved. In the meantime, I'm moving the hook out to Prep 6 since it's in the next set up for promotion to queue, and it shouldn't be promoted in its current condition. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
What about this:
Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 04:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that some passengers left the crash site of West Wind Aviation Flight 280 to get help for those still trapped in the aircraft?Yoninah (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about either hook, but I think ALT1 seems too routine (plane crashes tend to have at least one fatality), and ALT2 could be considered a given since survivors do tend to look for help if they survive (see the famous Andes plane crash, for example). Maybe a different hook needs to be suggested. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that local residents followed the cries of trapped passengers to find the crash site of West Wind Aviation Flight 280 and aid in rescue efforts? Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems a bit on the long side, but I guess that could work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 looks good to me. Thanks for your ALTs and comments. Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 14:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Could someone switch the hook in Prep 1 with ALT3? Pinging @Cwmhiraeth:, @BlueMoonset:, @97198:. Yoninah (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. The ALT3 hook checks out with the article and its sources, and is now what's in Prep 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

George Boris Townsend

Template:Did you know nominations/George Boris Townsend, please see the question about missing refs for the early life section, article written by an AfC writer and nominated by someone who liked it. Ideas? - I know the feeling, failing to find sources for early life. Can we accept some or all, AGF? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The DYK requirement is for at least one citation per paragraph. There already was one in the paragraph you are referring to and I have added another one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. My single cite actually documented the event only and not the subject's involvement in it; your addition was quite welcome. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2

Public toilets, Stoke Road, Bristol
Public toilets, Stoke Road, Bristol

I'm uncertain about the placement of the (pictured) in the lead hook. Right now it reads:

  • ... that Bristol "loo lady" Victoria Hughes (public toilets pictured) provided tea and sympathy to local prostitutes?
I tried changing it around to add the British "the" and came up with:
... that Victoria Hughes, the Bristol "loo lady" (public toilets pictured), provided tea and sympathy to local prostitutes?
But the phrasing of the original hook seems punchier. Suggestions welcome. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I think your version is superior. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Strictly speaking using British English it should be "the Bristol loo lady....". Apart from that, I think original is acceptable grammatically and I agree it is more punchier to have the loo at the front. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
No, that's wrong. The article quote is "loo lady", not "the Bristol loo lady". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
What about "... that Bristol "loo lady" Victoria Hughes (workplace pictured) provided tea and sympathy to local prostitutes? The nature of the workplace is evident from the picture. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Better! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, Philafrenzy's proposal is best suggestion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Philafrenzy, this hook is getting funnier by the minute. I'll make the change you suggest. Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
"The nature of the workplace is evident from the picture." Not to me it isn't. At least not from JUST the picture. The caption helps.--Khajidha (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So... do we have a backlog or not?

The [[last]] [[two]] nominations I've reviewed have both been untimely (week→month late) and at least one has already pinned their hopes on D9 which explicitly says we should be lenient in such cases if there's not a backlog. Should we just shut down those two nominations (they should've known better)? should we pull the "backlog" banner down (line doesn't seem all that long)? or is this one of those color alert situations where we never take the banner down but should we never pay attention to it either? — LlywelynII 09:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a backlog (246 approved hooks, at the current utilisation rate, that's a whole month of hook spare!!). I would either follow the guidelines (i.e. fail untimely nominations) or seek to adjust the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not a fan of the seven days rule to be honest, but if we are consistently being lenient with the rule, then perhaps it is the time to adjust the guidelines indeed. Alex Shih (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
We need s cutoff line somewhere and, if 7 days still gets us enough hooks to operate, it's fine with me. We can move it around to fit the line we've got. For my part, I don't mind a bit of wiggle room but we should be mostly consistent so people don't take it too personally. — LlywelynII 10:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree. And we're just about to start the WikiCup, so added to the complete reluctance to actually do anything about the already massive backlog, the last thing that's needed is even more hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you can eliminate considering articles where the hook isn't actually in the article. Two such made the main page in the last few days. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, that would be optimal. Especially with the advent of WikiCup (see below) where the project will be inundated with low quality grabs for points. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is any evidence that participation in the WikiCup means a lowering of standards for DYK. Nor is there the rush for DYK points you mention. In 2017, the 160 first round entrants averaged fewer than one DYK each in the two months of the round. Why don't you come and join the fun Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Lower quality than the (plagiarized) racist hook not even in its article (above) or the confused contradictory abuse of jargon of the approved Eoarchean geology that its supporter calls bad grammar? I hope Cwhiraeth is correct and they can't get worse. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9D (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It certainly won't be better either though. And probably a little more combative when it comes to actually getting articles onto the main page, as that is what gives points. But then again, i would be happy to be proven wrong. We will have to wait and see i guess. 91.49.92.131 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • See my proposal in the next section. EEng 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, one of the hooks in question was an April Fools' Day request, which has no newness requirement beyond having been created/expanded/GAed since the previous April 1. The other is unfortunately quite late, having been expanded starting on November 8. Even with the D9 rule, we've never been that lenient even with a new submitter—a few days late, maybe even a week, sure, but not a month and a half. When it's that late, we urge them to resubmit should the article ever be made a GA, which seems a distinct possibility in this case, and to nominate (much) earlier next time. As to the backlog banner, it was put up by someone a number of months ago; I very much doubt they had any notion of the use of "backlog" in the supplementary rules under D9. Since there's always some sort of backlog, in part by design, I don't see its need. However, D9 specifically says "large backlog"; by any definition, over 200 nominations is large, so the Isabella of Aragon nomination would not have qualified for an exception beyond the typical leniency given DYK newcomers. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have commented out the backlog template on the main nominations page; we always need to have at least some unreviewed nominations available for QPQ reviews, and all of the available unreviewed noms are in the Current nominations section, hence not backlogged/old. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing nominations is broken in mobile?

I don't know why but for some reason, when I try editing a DYK nomination page on mobile, it just won't load: it will show the loading icon then just be stuck there. Oddly enough, I don't have the same problem with other pages. Anyone else have this issue? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding noms

Why do nominations for 1 January get added to bottom of section while for all other dates they go to top? JennyOz (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@JennyOz: What do you mean? It seems to be functioning normally. Alex Shih (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
JennyOz is correct. The instructions for adding your newly nominated hook for January 1st specify adding it at the bottom of the list while those for other days specify doing so at the top. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I see, I've totally misunderstood the question, sorry. I have fixed the instruction for January 1st. I have never really thought about this, did new nominations always start at the top, or did the consensus ever changed at some point? For now, the default (by the bot) is top, so the instruction shouldn't be changed arbitrarily. Alex Shih (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Alex, I was wondering why first day of year would be different. JennyOz (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It isn't supposed to be different, JennyOz. For some reason, Kevmin changed the existing header for this date (which had said "TOP" like the rest of them) when adding his nomination, which shouldn't have been done without consensus, since the DYK process has been adding at the top since as long as I've been around. I'm sorry you were confused by this inappropriate change; thank you for noticing it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The question is WHY do the new noms get added at the top of sections in the first place? It makes not logical sense at all, given that its bass-ackwards to chronological order of reading, and most people will start at the bottom of the page and work upwards.--Kevmin § 14:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you've just answered your question. When people start at the bottom and work upwards, within each date they see the more senior submissions (waiting longest) first, and the newest ones at the top. So this gives those waiting longer a little bit of an edge in terms of being chosen, which seems only fair. Although I suspect that many people who haven't yet done a QPQ when they submit their review will look either up or down from where they've just placed their own nomination and grab the first unreviewed nomination they find. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Its not in effect an edge at all, as reviewers (typically) are going to review noms on subjects they comfortable with, and scroll until they hit one, so "an edge" is not a factor at all, it just results in a total lack of chronological flow. The page Oldest to newest top to bottom is the precedent set by the month and days, so within the days it should be followed as well, rather then suddenly shifting to the diametric opposite.--Kevmin § 18:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Shimon Lavi

I'm not sure that the hook for Shimon Lavi ( Template:Did you know nominations/Shimon Lavi now in Prep Area 3), should be allowed as it is. It claims that Lavi "composed the most popular kabbalistic hymn in the world". The sources do not say exactly this, they say "it became the most popular cabbalistic hymn." No mention of "in the world" (which is anyway WP:PEACOCK) afa I can see, or any comment on the hymn's current status, except that it is still sung by some Eastern Jewish communities. The hook implies that it is still "the most popular...." etc. but there is no evidence for this. Better, perhaps, to say that he "composed the most popular kabbalistic hymn of his era."Smerus (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

After pulling and reading both sources "of this era" appears to be a safer choice as while "in the world" is certainly implied in both sources it is not explicitly stated. Mifter (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"of his era" ? :-)-- Smerus (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Chiming in: "his era" sounds a bit large, no? Gielen era in Frankfurt yes, a term appearing in sources, but is there a Lavi era? How about "his period" or "at the time"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think "of his era" is acceptable as colloquial English, but "of his time" or "of his period" if you prefer. --Smerus (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, learning. What would be the English term for German "Ära", like the 10 years that Gielen shaped the Frankfurt Opera, in a way lasting to today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say either "the Gielen years" or "the Gielen era". Best --Smerus (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, how do we change the wording of the Shimon Lavi hook now that it is in the prep area? --Smerus (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Anybody uninvolved can just change it there, citing this discussion in the edit summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, anything in the prep area can be boldly edited by anyone uninvolved. As Gerda was one of the three editors involved in this hook, the optional courtesy has been already addressed also. Alex Shih (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, now done ("of his time") -- Smerus (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, as the page/hook creator, I should have been pinged for this discussion. But no matter, I was offline for Shabbat. The hymn is not "still sung by some Eastern Jewish communities", but is sung by every Jewish community, Ashkenazi and Sephardi alike, on Lag BaOmer. This is clearly written in the Hebrew source; I also cited the Encyclopaedia Judaica article written by Gershom Scholem, which says:

His poem "Bar Yoḥai Nimshaḥta Ashrekha" in honor of Simeon b. Yoḥai the alleged author of the Zohar has become the most popular kabbalistic poem and is still sung by Oriental Jews on the Sabbath eve and on *Lag ba-Omer, at the tomb of Bar Yoḥai in Meron, in Galilee. Many kabbalists imitated this song, which was also adopted by the Ḥasidim.

The hymn certainly spread beyond "his time" and the original hook wording should be restored. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

OK let's take it from the top. He created a hymn which, on the evidence of Scholem, "has become the most popular kabbalistic poem, and is still sung...etc." That evidences that it is the most popular kabbalistic poem and that Oriental Jews still sing it. That is not evidence that it is "the most popular kabbalistic hymn in the world". Poems are anthologised, and not necessarily sung as hymns. The phrase "in the world" is otiose, and infringes WP:PEACOCK - either the thing is the most famous whatever, or it isn't, "in the world" adds nothing and shouldn't be there. If the hymn is sung by every congregation on Lag b'Omer (once every Hebrew year) - as the other source says (but Scholem doesn't) - that also fails as evidence that "it is the most popular" of its sort, "in the world" or otherwise. It doesn't even prove that it is the most sung kabbalistic hymn. I therefore maintain that the wording as I have changed it is impregnable by WP standards, and is a better option for DYK. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your new wording is incorrect and should not appear on the main page. Please return the hook to the noms page and I will suggest a different hook about the person himself. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Pulled per request of nominator, given apparent issues with original hook and its revision; nomination is open again and will need a new hook proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I suggested a new hook and it has been approved. This could be slotted back into Prep 3 now. Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The approved hook is now in Prep 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Switching back to 12 hours?

It's been a while since we did 12 hour sets ([8]), is it about time that we switch back for a while (as long as it is being proceeded cautiously)? My proposal about adjusting Main Page columns is not receiving much attention ([9]), and we already have discussed thoroughly about the disagreement over the effectiveness and sustainability of 10-hook sets. Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We need far more prepared preps and queues before we can make the switch: if we don't have at least six full queues and preps (and two or more of them queues)—three full days worth—we'll be running to catch up, and the less time we have to scrutinize sets, the more likely there are to be errors. I'm not against two sets per day, but we need to be ready for it. As I type this, we have only one queue and two full preps filled; that's nowhere near enough. We will also need to be aware of what special occasion hooks are coming up; Prep 4 currently has one for Epiphany (Jan. 6), which may have to be moved if we start 12 hour sets before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
What about running 7-hook sets every 12 hours? I don't understand the calculations, but almost all the nominations have been approved. (On the other hand, many of these reviews need further work.) Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose moving to 12 hour hooks, unless we have all the preps filled. Every time we move to 12 hour hooks, the preps don't get filled up, so the DYK update to main page always gets delayed. Much better to have 24 hour hooks changing at 00:00 UTC every day than 12 hour hooks changing at random times, so hooks can stay anywhere between 11 and 18 hours. Especially as DYK activity seems low at the moment, I guess there's fewer admins around to make sure the sets go on Main Page. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I think we need to maintain 8-hook sets for main page balance, and I don't see the speed in prep-set creation improving much by reducing the number of hooks by one. Joseph2302, the usual problem with two sets a day is not so much that the preps aren't filled (though it can happen, which is why I suggested not starting until we build a solid backlog), but that admins aren't around often enough to keep enough queues filled by promoting them from prep. If a few admins would make a commitment to keeping enough queues filled so that doesn't happen—the admin who started this thread, Alex Shih, might well be one who could do so—then this stands a chance. A problem we sometimes have is when all six preps are filled and we can't assemble more sets, but the queues are empty (or mostly so). I can't recall the last time we didn't have a backlog of unfilled queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
In previous discussions, I think it has been established when the queue is on the line, admins tend to show up to promote them. To be honest, I really think Template Editors should be able to edit over cascading protection, this was discussed in WP:VPR few months ago, which would potentially solve the concerns surrounding the queue area. As Main Page columns are unlikely to be adjusted soon, 8 hooks is necessary to maintain the Main Page balance. If there is a consensus here, I am more than willing to recruit some admin/editor help to fill up both the queue and prep areas. Alex Shih (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The number of submissions seems to have stabilised at about eight a day and the backlog of approved hooks is currently 244. If we were to change to two sets per day for a week or more, we could reduce the backlog to a more reasonable size. I think the prep set builders could keep up, as long as admins are available to move prep sets into queues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I was actually about to make a similar suggestion after looking at part of our backlog of approved hooks. If there is a need I should be around for at least the next couple of weeks to help with prep promotion. Mifter (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We have two special occasion hooks for Epiphany in Queue 4; if we do switch to two sets a day, let's not do it until after they've run. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Epiphany has passed and the prep sets are mostly full, so it would seem to be a suitable time to initiate the twelve hourly cycle. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Switching to two sets daily just after 00:00 would make sense. The number of nominations has been rising faster since 2018 began—we already have 76 from the first seven days of January, an average of about 11 a day, and all those days are still accumulating new nominations. We need to start reducing the backlog, and we have eight queues and preps (four days worth) ready to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 - hook is plainly illogical

Hook: "... that pro-diversity organizational messages are threatening to Whites and may contribute to the resistance to diversity efforts in organizations"?

  • Obvious points about the hook
  • Such messages are clearly not threatening to all white people, only those who feel threatened by them (the article uses text such as "they may be resisting the diversity messages" or "evidence suggests that ...")
  • "Diversity" means far more than racial diversity, it also includes gender diversity (as the article even says!) - why would white women feel threatened by a gender based pro-diversity message? They wouldn't.
  • Ditto for, say, pro-diversity messages based on, say, sexual orientation or anything else other than race.
  • The article
  • Unsourced controversial statements - i.e. "Whites higher in need to belong will view multiculturalism less favorably."
  • Synthesis: "For example, research suggests that White Americans who strongly identify with their ethnic group are more likely to respond to multiculturalism with increased social dominance orientation and prejudice. However, among those Whites who did not strongly identify with their ethnic group, colorblindness was associated with increased group-based biases." Think about that and what it's saying about all white people...

Pinging: @Makotanaka, Usernameunique, and Cwmhiraeth:. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

All in all it's a horrible hook; there must be something better in the article that doesn't have crap like "threatening to Whites".... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure, since the entire article reads like a research paper; unsurprising since it appears to be a student project. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Classic case of "failure is not an option" at DYK then. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Pulled - awful hook. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Need to add an eighth hook to Queue 1

A hook needs to be moved from one of the prep sets to Queue 1 so that queue has eight filled slots; it's down to seven after the above pulled hook. If it can be taken from one of the later preps, then the earlier ones can be promoted to queue sooner rather than later. Pinging Cas Liber, Maile, Alex Shih, and Mifter, in the hopes one of you can do this soon.

Also needed in Queue 1 is to remove the secondary wikilink from Ruth Ellis. The article itself is tagged for neutrality and other issues, and part of the review of Template:Did you know nominations/Cherry Marshall included deliberately removing the wikilink to the problematic article about Ellis, and having the bold link to the Cherry Marshall article be the sole link in the hook. A suggestion at Errors by Spike that the link be added was implemented by Black Kite, so I thought they should be notified that the link will be going away and why. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced the pulled hook with another non-bio hook from Queue 2 and corrected the credits, and promoted 1 non-bio hook from Prep 3 to replace the hook in Queue 2. Ruth Ellis de-linked. Alex Shih (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Why are we de-linking non-bold items? Linking it potentially helps the reader and potentially spurs someone to improve the article. If we're applying rigorous quality control to even non-bold linked articles, we'll never link anything. This kind of bureaucracy gone mad is precisely why I no longer get involved with DYK. It has lost all sight of it purpose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't see TFA _not_ linking to other articles in its blurb, and quality is of paramount concern to that part of the Wikipedia. That DYK should somehow apply some kind of quality control to the non-target articles by delinking them for that reason alone seems, well, ironic at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. To be honest, I didn't think too much about de-linking, (was under the impression it was a general practice), but then I couldn't find anything about this in the supplementary rules. I will wait for response from BlueMoonset. Alex Shih (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Most chat here about delinking non-target articles is to attempt to drive more traffic to the target articles. I don't think that serves our readers particularly well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't find them right now, but there have been discussions here before that have resulted in delinking articles due to not wishing to link to them from the main page because they had significant issues. I brought it up here because the issue had been discussed during the nomination's review and the link removed then. If the Ellis article hadn't been templated like that, I'd think you'd want to link to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am not uniformly against delinking if the article is obviously bad somehow (CVIO, BLP, Egregious NPOV/Promo) but having looked at the article talk page and the nom discussion, I would support relinking (as I can't tell what the problem really is - ie. not obvious/not egregious). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No, no meaningful discussion related to the quality of non-target articles. It was all about the pageviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see much POV or weasel words in the Ruth Ellis article, frankly. It's not the greatest, but it's OK. Also, the hook is useless without the link - either people click on the Ellis link, or they click on the main link and then on the Ellis link - there's not really any difference. The main target isn't the important one here. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've reverted myself per consensus here, thanks all. Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've removed the tags from the Ellis article as no reason was given for adding them in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI the subject article Cherry Marshall isn't even mentioned in the Ruth Ellis article. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant. Why would you expect there to be a one to (at least) one relationship between any article on Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, my feeling is that we have bluelinks in DYK hooks just like any other piece of text - so I would keep a bluelink to Ellis in the above case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, as I've mentioned about four times today, TFA summarily blue link many non-target articles in their daily blurb, some of which are of poor quality. Is DYK trying to make some kind of moral stance by vetting all non-target blue links "for quality"?? More time should be spent on the actual targets. We link in blurbs for the benefit our readers, and we don't deliberately unlink just to increase pageviews on target articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Late Request for MLK Day

Martin Luther King Day is coming up in the United States on January 15. Since the DyK for East Holmes Academy relates to racial discrimination, it would be nice if it could run on that day.

I realize that my request is a little late, but this is my first time through the DYK process. Billhpike (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is in the "Special holding area" for January 15th and should appear on that day. I was going to move it there but someone had already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

12-hour cycle

When are we switching to the 12-hour cycle? Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Soon, I hope. The prep sets are well-filled in readiness! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I reserved a slot in Prep 6 for the Special Occasion hook for January 11 (Pacific Time Zone). Could someone please promote it there? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I don't think I can do that because the hook and article state that the day is a "holiday" when all the sources appear to refer to it only as a "civic observance". Certainly, it seems that it's not a day off for students but rather a day when particular things are taught. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'd like to add your comment to the nomination template. Meanwhile, I made a mistake and the date request is for January 16, so I'll revert my edits to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Gatoclass, for catching this. You are correct, it is a civic observance. Our article on civic observances is titled (probably incorrectly) civic holiday and, in writing the article, I forgot to apply the piping in the link so that "civic observance" would link to the incorrectly-named "civic holiday"; instead all that was entered was "civic holiday". I'll change it in the article and the DYK. Chetsford (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Lining up queues and preps

The numbering of the queues and preps is somehow out of whack. The queues are presently numbered from Queue 5 to Queue 4, while the preps are numbered from Prep 1 to Prep 6. The Local Update Times follow the queue numbering, leaving out the last 2 prep sets on the page. It's hard to keep track of when preps are going to go live. Could an administrator help here please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now? Alex Shih (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I don't think so. The Queues are ordered from 1 to 6 but the Preps are ordered from 3 to 2. The bottom 2 prep sets, #1 and #2, are waiting to be filled, but the Local Update Times doesn't include them. Perhaps we could do as in the past, and expand the Local Update Times section to include more queues or prep sets? Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The table is correct, and is as it always has been. Currently, we have Queues 1 and 2 filled; Preps 3 through 6 will go into Queues 3 through 6, so those times can be used to predict when those will be promoted to the main page. To calculate anything beyond that, when we're at two sets per day, add three days to the existing dates: for example, since Queue 1 is scheduled to be promoted at 00:00 12 January UTC, when the currently empty Prep 1 is filled and becomes Queue 1, it will be scheduled for promotion at 00:00 15 January UTC, and so on. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Local Update Times typically shows the six queues only, in order of expected promotion; it automatically expands to add all six preps when the six queues are all filled with hooks, but contracts back down to the six queues as soon as one queue is promoted to the main page and emptied out. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Overabundance of Ghana politician hooks

A heads up to prep builders: We have a lot of Ghana politician hooks. Please try to space them out so they won't run every day (or twice a day, on our new 12-hour schedule). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Zeus" hook

Currently in prep 3: ... that the United States Navy considered using Zeus to arm a battleship?

@The Bushranger:

I would like to pull this one for use as an April Fool's hook if there are no objections. Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the hook could be even April-Fools-ier, like ... that Zeus was against aircrafts? or ... that the United States Navy considered using Zeus to help them in battle? Regards SoWhy 14:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no problem with pulling the hook and save for April 1st. Alex Shih (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Come to that, the quirky in prep 6 also looks like a potential candidate for April Fools:

I'd like to start accumulating a few potential AF hooks because it's not that far away, we currently only have three, and IMO the earlier we start the better the pool to choose from. Any unused hooks can always go back into the main pool of course. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So long as The Bushranger is fine with waiting until April 1 for the hook(s) to appear, I think it would work well, although we probably don't want to overdo the number of naval hooks in this style (James Longstreet being another). If The Bushranger doesn't want to wait, then we should run them as currently scheduled. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The more quirky (and good) hooks like this we can save for April 1 the better, otherwise we end up with the usual juvenile nonsense that we've endured previously... Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I've pulled and replaced the hook as the prep will be promoted to queue soon; haven't inserted them to the April Fool's page yet though. Alex Shih (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I just took care of reopening the Zeus template and adding it to the April Fool's Day page. The pelican hook is not yet done. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pelican hook just removed from prep, and is being placed on the April 1 page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cristina Pasaroiu

Currently in the quirky slot in Q3:

  • ... that soprano Cristina Pasaroiu played Manon in boots, even in bed with her lover, because she broke her foot in rehearsal for Massenet's opera in Wiesbaden?

I'm thinking this would be better just as:

- because that creates curiosity as to why she wore boots in bed, while the additional info eliminates the curiosity factor.

Pinging Gerda Arendt for comment. Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I also agree. Thanks, Gatoclass. Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping to get a comment from Gerda, but since we are running out of time and consensus seems to be in favour, I have made the change. Gatoclass (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Fine. I'm on vacation. The extra information is how tough a woman she is, to play after an accident, but if you think we don't need to know that ... - I saw her, and urge you to do the same if you can! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6

Queue 6

"... that the Lilac Fire in Southern California grew from a small brush fire to 4,100 acres (17 km2) in one day?"

So what? Is this awe-inspiring? Interesting? Fast? Slow?

Why does anyone care? What is, "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw me in to read the article" that is actually in the article. Does the article discuss Russ unusual, highlighted in the main page, tears of spread? Mention it? It seems slow for a Santa Ana driven wildfire. What hampered it?

4100 acres? In one day? Is that a lot? Superlative? Fast? Unusual?

So what.

--2600:1700:FB00:9C00:C592:B90E:9EA2:4411 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I asked a question on the article's talk page about this, I was unconvinced that a fire that was 0% contained would remain at exactly the same surface area for another day. It isn't the best hook either, but I was concerned with how that kind of sudden growth then complete seizure of expansion could occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
That's probably due to the topography and location compared to the fires further north. I lived there for a couple of years. Still, the hook raises only questions, and claims a superlative with no sources or elaboration. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:C592:B90E:9EA2:4411 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably? But I would like an actual evidence-based answer as to how a fire can be 0% contained and yet not grow for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that matters to the point I'm raising that the hook's hookiness is not explained, or elaborated, is this fast, is this a big deal, is this slow, who cares. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:2978:7D0F:9883:51A4 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well it does matter, is the article factually accurate? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no indication in any of the sources or at Cal Fire links that the info is not accurate. The hook is not hooky. --19:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB00:9C00:45F9:9E58:7EA9:E0C6 (talk)
Does anyone actually want to answer my question, rather than repeat that the hook isn't hooky please? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Let's see,

"Is the information accurate?" "There's no information in the sources that it is not."
"Why didn't the fire spread, that seems odd to me?" "There's no information in the sources or at Cal Fire about why it didn't spread or that not spreading is odd."
"Please answer my question." "Let me get going on some original research and primary sources (interviews) to 1. prove this is unusual, and 2. get you an answer pronto."

Sincerely yours, the IP at --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:87 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone actually want to answer my question, rather than repeat that the hook isn't hooky please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
That is an answer. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:5528:DE9F:F753:50F9 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone actually want to answer my question, rather than repeat that the hook isn't hooky please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Air temperature and wind I suspect could greatly alter a fire's expansion over different days. Also, teh 4100 figure is first reached in the evening and then remains at that the next morning. The wildfire article says that fires burn slower at night too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There you go, it expanded at night, contracted during the day, consumed all the fuel, surrounded by freeways, an answer. Let's cite WT:DYK and get this answer into the article.
Next question, please! --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:5530:E828:9AE8:E747 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - caption

(a) it's too long, and (b) it's a fragment so it shouldn't have a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed, removed period. Feel free to mess with it further, I'm logging off soon. Vanamonde (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - "5-storey house"

Should be five-storey... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - "nearly 36"

... that the 5th-century Tigawa temple (pictured) is the only survivor of nearly 36 Hindu temples at the site that were quarried for building stone during a 19th-century construction project?

So, is it 35 then? Ms Sarah Welch, Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, the article opens with " about 36", then goes on to say "over 36 temples" and then "more than 36 temples"... not sure how on earth "nearly 36" was arrived at, agreed upon and promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The source has "no less than 36" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: When there is uncertainty, "over 36" is close enough to "about 36" and no less than 36. Most of the site was destroyed by the quarrying, the actual count is uncertain. We can't add more certainty or consistency than what is in the sources. What wording would you suggest? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the "nearly" in the hook..should be "about" or "over" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
How about "around 36"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I will be fine with "around", "over" or "about". Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that "nearly" nearly made it to the main page is not great by any means. I've also made one or two other fixes in that set. For my money, it should be "about" or "around" but not "over" as that is odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It's now in Queue 6 and that much more difficult to change. Pinging Cas Liber, Maile, and Alex Shih, in the hopes that one of you can change "nearly" to "around" or "about". If one of you could also promote Prep 6 to Queue 1, I'll see what I can do to get the preps and queues synched up again after the recent out-of-order promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
changed now. Will look at syncing now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok all aligned now. Preps 3 and 4 part-filled so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - "Gulf War I" etc

... that Lt. Gen. D. R. Soni, chief of the Southern Command of the Indian Army, was a military observer in Iraq and Kuwait after Gulf War I?"

Firstly, there's a wholly unreferenced section in here (how did that make it to a queue?) and secondly, can we please avoid making artificial titles like "Gulf War I"? It was the "Gulf War", and more precisely, Soni was an observer during the United Nations Iraq–Kuwait Observation Mission. Cwmhiraeth, Gbawden, Wolfman1606, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Adamgerber80. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man The medals section is based on his portrait here ([10]) and was added by me. Gulf War 1 was used from the reference and it happens to be an alternate name for Gulf War and even mentioned on the page. I did not nominate the page for DYK so am unclear on how some aspects of it got through. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved this hook to Prep 4 (and replaced it with one from there), so that this discussion can continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the awards section is unverifiable. The nomenclature used for "Gulf War I" is crass and unencyclopedic. I'll leave it to others to decide on how to fix this particular nugget. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Adamgerber80: Removed the section of awards and medals. Adam, you can't use an image as a source to identify the medals. You can use UNIKOM in the hook, I've made necessary changes in the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - statues of saints

that the late-Gothic church St. Moritz in Halle (Saale) features stone sculptures, including a statue of the patron saint?

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that literally tens of thousands of churches have stone sculptures and statues of their own patron saint. I'm not seeing this as at all interesting to our audience. Gerda Arendt, Usernameunique, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but decided on balance that it could probably squeak through. I would not object to a better hook though if anybody has a suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It turns out the alt hook is better, so I substituted it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The image that went with the hook showed the statue, but I promoted the hook without the image because I didn't think it was good enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The hook was boring I'm afraid, not interesting to a broad audience, and probably not interesting to anyone who has any awareness of a church and its surroundings. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What of those who don't? I'm sure plenty of athiests, muslims, Jews etc might not have any awareness and could find it interesting? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I doubt it. And I think your comment is utterly patronising, Jews, atheists and muslims all generally have an understanding of the arcane workings of the tragic history of Christian churches, the profligate waste of money on big shows, thanks goodness the hook has been changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
For once I agree entirely with TRM here. For a Roman Catholic church, it would be more noteworthy if the church didn't have a statue of its patron saint, and virtually every English-speaking reader, regardless of their background, will be aware of that. Indeed, the RCC fondness for statues is so well-known that "Do Catholics worship statues" is one of the FAQs on catholic.com. ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Boom. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that if there is any sort of building (not just a church) named after a particular person (not just a saint), the presence of a statue or painting of such person would be pretty much expected by anyone. --Khajidha (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2

There's an unexplained apostrophe in the name of Joseph Jongen in the fourth hook.

"Canadian" need not be linked in the fifth hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done. Alex Shih (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Could an admin please say "his Mass", instead of just "Mass" which could be anybody's? - Sorry, I'm on vacation, saw it only now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/My Favorite Thing Is Monsters

I'd appreciate feedback on this review. The article's plot summary section has been tagged since it's empty. Can we just delete the section and promote the hook? The article otherwise is well developed. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#D7's example would indicate not, though a short synopsis should suffice for now. It is a very interesting article, and would be a shame if a bit more couldn't be added in the next little while. I've posted to the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a synopsis is a necessary element. The New Yorker source alone probably has enough information for creating a brief synopsis. Gatoclass (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - a 12-year-old "gave up playing"

... that before turning professional, footballer Callum Hendry gave up playing for a year following the death of his mother?

I'm not sure that the decisions or otherwise of a 12-year-old footballer, especially one who is stil alive and this being a present personal and very strong pain, and especially given there could be other things noted, should be a hook here. Playing on the tragedy is not becoming of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't think it was hooky at all, but the page creator convinced me. Pinging @Kosack:. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The fact that a player could have given up playing for such a long period of time and still made it to the professional game seemed unusual to me, especially in the modern age where players are coached so intensely from an early age. Playing on tragedy was certainly not my intention. Kosack (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps tweaking the hook to remove the mention of Hendry's mother?
EdChem (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The hook always centred on the football part so either one of those is fine with me. Kosack (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It's already been promoted to Queue 4, so an administrator will have to change it. Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3 - John Heisman

"... that John Heisman, the namesake of the Heisman Trophy awarded annually to the best college football player, was instrumental in legalizing the forward pass?"

  • It might just be me, but it seems wrong to say that the person is the namesake of the trophy, it sounds like he was named after the trophy. Even our article says "A namesake is a person named after another, or more broadly, a thing (such as a company, place, ship, building, or concept) named after a person".
Your second version is hookier Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Or even swap the order of the links:
Shorter and less convoluted, IMO. EdChem (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Could an administrator change it in Queue 3 please? I like Black Kite's second hook, because it emphasizes the subject. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I gave the hook a tweak that is sort-of a combination of some of the above hooks. I think "best college football player" must be included or it isn't clear what sport is being referenced, otherwise I've followed the last suggested alt by EdChem. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

Currently in prep 5:

Why the coyness about the album? It makes it look clickbaity. Why not simply be specific:

Pinging Ritchie333. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Having looked a bit closer at this one, I'm not even sure the hook is accurate as the source doesn't specifically state that this location was used as the recording studio for the album, tracks for the album appear to have been recorded at different places according to the 21 article and the given source only says that a couple of Angel Studio technicians worked on the album, which isn't the same thing. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook as I couldn't verify it to my satisfaction. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Adele: The Biography says "No less than eleven separate studios would be involved. They were AIR Studios, Angel Studios, Eastcote Studios ..." So how about the following. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3 (next) - Erroneous claim

Per WP:MPE, the last hook in Queue 3 is erroneous. Cragside had domestic electric lighting three years earlier that James Hood Wright's residence. Suggest this hook is pulled and replaced. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
What happens to the nom? Can a new hook be found for it? Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think Black Kite is working on something. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, so the hook was sourced by two citations, one which said ""The first private residence to be lighted by Edison lamps was that of J. Hood Wright, New York." - which may be correct, as Cragside was illuminated by arc lamps, although incandescent ones were installed in Cragside in 1880, whether they were Edison-type I don't know. So that might be correct, or not. The second citation says that Wright's was ""The first electric light from a power plant in a residence..." which is correct, as Cragside was powered by an external hydroelectric source. However, clearly Wright's residence was not the first powered by electric light. It certainly could be altered to say that it was the first powered by a power source on the premises (and I've changed the article to reflect this), whether that's hooky enough, I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Black Kite. I am planning to log off shortly, so somebody else will have to look at this. Gatoclass (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: a different nomination's hook has been placed in Queue 3 to fill the open spot, and the nomination for this hook, Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Recording Studios, has been reopened; further discussion is happening there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you meant to put that in the section above? This section is about Template:Did you know nominations/James Hood Wright. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies. This was meant to go here, but I copied from the wrong template to make the link, hence the confusing post (I had both of them open since I was trying to trace whether they needed to be added back onto the DYK nominations or approved pages). Both of the pages had already been reopened by the time I posted the above. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6 issues

  • "by Mlle. Hähnel " this is inaccessible to most of our readers who will assume that's two sentences, and not "madamoiselle Hahnel".
  • " to create The Fair Melusine (pictured)?", well no, what's pictured is a painting by Jean d'Arras, so this is unnecessarily confusing.
  • "few andesitic shield volcanos in " see WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • "developed SLC radar in their" this is a mess, first the target article is a redirect, next the real target is actually mixed up, the title is "Searchlight Control radar" but the article starts "Search Light Control, SLC for short" - did anyone check this, the article appears to have been moved a couple of weeks ago...
  • " during the November 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état?" we don't need "November" here unless there was another 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'etat. Plus it looks particularly odd having the unlinked "November" next to the linked article.
  • Claire Eccles - her article states "With the signing, she became the first woman to play in the WCL.[9]", the reference is a pre-announcement that she would sign, not confirmation that had signed. Moreover, her signing did make her the first woman to play in the WCL, that may have been "On June 8, Eccles made her HarbourCats debut ....".

More haste, less speed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, moving to errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Updates broke

It seems the queue is broken, as the last set has been on the page for 15 hours? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just posted a note to Shubinator's talk page; the bot that moves the queue to the main page is down, and the other DYK-related bot, which updates the chart with how many noms, total and approved, remain for each day, was last updated at 15:22, which gives us an idea of when the bots died, probably due to a server hiccup. We'll have to wait until Shubinator sees this; in the meantime, I've asked Materialscientist whether they might do a manual update, but they don't seem to be around much at the moment. Perhaps Gatoclass knows how to do a manual update? Or some other admin? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm around, I'll give it a shot. Please check to see I don't frack something up. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde. There's a handy checklist at Template:Did you know/Clear#Posting the new update with all the steps for a manual update, though I'm guessing you've already found it, since it's also at the bottom of every Queue and Prep page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I've done everything, I think. If you could look over my edits, I'd be grateful. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde, thanks. What you've done looks good. The NextUpate/Time is indeed supposed to use the time you actually do the update, so you did it correctly. There is one more aspect in terms of credits, however. You added credits to the nominator/creator pages, but you didn't add them to the article talk pages. One example from the last automated set is here, so you can see what it's supposed to look like. The bot also apparently adds a notice to the image file page, as in this edit, but it's always the last thing it attempts, because of all the steps, that's the one most likely to fail. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I've tagged the article talk pages. I think the bot would usually drift the next update time to the nearest 15, so in this case I have manually drifted the time back to 04:00. I've also added a instruction for crediting image file page; I've always thought this was optional, as the instruction wasn't there. Alex Shih (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, both. I'll keep that in mind next time. I wonder if somebody who knows the intricacies of this process could update the admin instructions, both for manual updates and for queue promotions, to reflect the fact that image protection is now done by the bot? Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to report that Shubinator has restarted the bots; the next update should be made automatically at 16:00. In the meantime, the DYKHousekeepingBot is updating the noms table and doing its other tasks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks to all! Vanamonde93, are you talking about KrinkleBot? I'm under the impression that ever since cascading protection was introduced, image protection was never manually done. When there are no queues, promoting any queues at that moment still require you to locally upload the file because it takes several minutes (?) for the bot to detect the image is now on Main Page, I think. Alex Shih (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: yes, I believe that is the case, it's just that the admin instructions do not reflect the current situation. For people like me, who don't deal with images often, it's confusing. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 08:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the next queue has about six error reports that I brought up here yesterday and now have copied to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - A. de Herz

that in 1919, Romanian playwright and journalist A. de Herz was court-martialled for alleged collaboration with the Central Powers?

The article doesn't actually explicitly state that, indeed it mentions de Herz as a collaborator with Constantin Tănase for example. Dahn, Cwmhiraeth, Usernameunique The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • From the article: "In February–March 1919, Herz was court-martialled, with 22 other "collaborationist" journalists, by the Second Army.[97]". Dahn (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, the article mentions his collaborations with more than one entity. That's what I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    The article has a long number of paragraphs above that clarifying exactly what he was prosecuted for, in much detail. Also, this does not merely refer to a collaboration, but to a kind of collaboration, namely the kind people are actually prosecuted for. The notion that he would, or indeed could, have been prosecuted for writing plays with the entity of Constantin Tănase or "other kinds" of collaboration, and that people would actually be confused on that point, is quite... surprising, I have to say. Dahn (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Be surprised by all means, and don't get confused, I'm _not_ confused, simply trying to uphold the requirements of DYK, the hook should be explicitly cited inline. It isn't. With whom these "collaborators" collaborated is not explicitly mentioned in that sentence which is the basis for the hook. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    I won't "fix", because after seven paragraphs of text in which the text discusses Herz's Germanophilia, and with absolutely no possibility that he could have been tried for any other form of collaboration, that would be highly redundant, and so anything but a "fix". For the record (and don't get confused): I'm not saying you are confused, I'm saying you claim others would get confused, and yet you seem to be the only one seeing the possibility for confusion here. Dahn (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, see you at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. Try arguing that point there. Dahn (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    What, the point of compliance with DYK rules? Sure thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Evidently, there is no such requirement in the DYK rules. The DYK rules specify that the fact should be cited and verified by the citation: namely, that the citation should say Herz was court-martialled for collaboration with the Central Powers (which it does); there is no requirement for the text of the article to be voiced identically with the hook, just that they should say the same thing. In this case, it is clear from the context of the text that it was the Central Powers, and any reader will certainly know as much by that point in the text (just like they will know that it was WWI). Note also that the cited portion of the text does not say Herz was a Romanian, yet the hook does--should I go and add in the cited portion that "Herz, a Romanian, was court-martialed"? And we don't also repeat that he was a playwright: why not ask me to add this tidbit there as well, seeing as you believe all the hook should be mirrored in that one portion of the text? But yes, I'm done discussing this point here. Dahn (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Ironic that you wrote about 300 times as much text as you would have needed to to fix the issue! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    Do please understand that I d not consider your preferences a "fix". Dahn (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, your wall of text has made that clear enough. See you at ERRORS! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Harris DeVane

... that peanut farmer Harris DeVane attempted to make his NASCAR Winston Cup Series debut in the 1998 NAPA 500? The Bushranger, Yoninah, Usernameunique

It's a shame this has been conflated with another target (1998 NAPA 500) because his "attempting to make his debut" is far from interesting, whereas, " he led only the last 100 yards (91 m) of the race, moving from third to first to beat Andy Hillenburg and Frank Kimmel by 0.023 seconds" combined with his peanut farming background would make as splendid DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This is especially true when a really cool DYK for the 1998 NAPA 500 would incorporate "During the race two additional red flags for rain caused delays of 6 hours and 39 minutes.[10] The delays resulted in the race being the first night race held at the speedway." somehow... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd originally considered the DeVane suggested hook, but decided to go for a "two-fer" as I actually wasn't sure it was good enough (given it's ARCA, which is like fourth down on the tree of professional stock-car racing). If you think these would be better off seperated, though, @The Rambling Man:, you have my permission to split the hook. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Better, definitely cool with the second. As for the first, why not include the tidbit about peanut farming, so what about:
@The Rambling Man: Dur, I did mean to work that in, thanks for catching it. That looks good from my creator's side. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Just caught - should remove "former". He was still a peanut farmer at the time - racing was his hobby (and the car was sponsored by the Georgia Peanut farmers' association). AFAIK he still is but good luck finding a RS for that! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Thank you, The Rambling Man. The ALT1a hook is verified and cited inline; I deleted "former" and added "the last 100 yards". I'll replace the one in the prep set with ALT1a. Meanwhile, I'm reopening the nomination for the new (and approved) ALT2 hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Peak (Oregon)

@Ceranthor:

This article hook says it is an andesitic volcano, but the article says it is "basaltic andesite" 11 times, and andesite only once. The article links to the former's Wikipedia article to inform the reader that they're not the same.

So, which is it? Is the hook as written, sourced? Is the rest of the article that counteracts the hook sourced?

Anyone can write anything.

Too bad it winds up saying nothing. Or contradicting itself.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:68 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources that I can see unambiguously say "basaltic andesite". It looks like the other two volcanoes erupted basaltic andesite and andesite, this one however only basaltic andesite, so it's the hook that is misleading. Pinging Ceranthor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
See also WP:ERRORS - there's lots of other shield volcanoes in that range that are andesitic. fish&karate 12:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh!! You read the source!! What a pleasant surprise. Thank you. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Hildreth source states that Basaltic andesite greatly exceeds basalt along this reach, but products still more evolved are especially sparse. Much of the upper part of Diamond Peak and adjacent Crater Butt are andesitic ... so that would seem on the face of it to confirm that this is one of the few specifically andesitic volcanoes in the region Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Page 88 of the same source also states that few of the numerous mafic shields in the Cascades grade into andesite. The few known to do so are Mount Defiance, Diamond Peak, Mount Bailey, Devils Peak and Prospect Peak. So it looks to me as if the hook is correct. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - just seeing this now. Gatoclass, thanks for addressing what the source says. ceranthor 16:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
So, the hook is correct, but the article is wrong in calling it basaltic andesite in a dozen places? How does that fix anything. If the article is total trash, and inconsistent with the hook, having a "correct hook" doesn't make it main page material. This is an encyclopedia. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:1570:E327:8FA4:3283 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It has apparently been verified by an admin, so that is the end of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
🤣 Under the admins-as-gods theory of writing an encyclopedia. Too bad they couldn't read the contradictory geology any better than the mortals. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:1570:E327:8FA4:3283 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If the article is wrong (and as I am not a geologist, I could not spot it), why not fix it? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the point here is that there's been sufficient debate over the veracity of both the hook and the article to have had it pulled, but no. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The hook is wrong, fails verification, and is no longer even in the article. Why not fix it? It can't be edited. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:BB (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If it's that bad, then as the one who checked it, by all means, pull. <shrugs> - The Bushranger One ping only 20:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the issue is whether a volcano that has erupted mainly basaltic andesite (which is a mafic rock) but also plain andesite (both statements supported by the article) should be called "andesitic" as the current hook claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not just call it what the source calls it? The cited source calls the volcano mafic and basaltic andesitic. After it calls it that, the source list andesitic volcanoes; but the list of andesitic volcanoes doesn't include Diamond Peak. why does our main page have a list of andesitic volcanoes that isn't the same as the list in the source. Isn't it the encyclopedic way to just use the source? Then there's no need to debate. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:CC71:F778:484D:A6CD (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, someone please just pull the article from the main page. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:1570:E327:8FA4:3283 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

All this fuss over a quibble. This issue, such as it was, could have been fixed simply by tweaking the hook to say it was "one of the few shield volcanoes in the Range with andesitic elements." No need for walls of text, just a little common sense. Hopefully we can have a little more next time. Gatoclass (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Except the source doesn't say that, either. We've already devoted those dreaded walls of text to a failure of the article creator/promoter to use what the source actually says without your now adding another, your very own, original tweak. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not going to waste any more time debating this since it's off the main page anyhow. What I will say 2600 is that I've noticed you contributing to a number of discussions regarding geology hooks - do you have any expertise in this area? Because certainly, it's a topic area lay people can find pretty difficult to understand. If so, is there any chance we could persuade you to scan the approved nominations page now and again for geology-related hooks? The earlier we can identify issues with hooks in this topic area, the better. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I routinely edit geology and paleontology articles from a bot list of new articles and sometimes DYK queues and prep.
But there's not much I can do at DYK sand every try is exhausting; DYK participants don't like to lose their checkmarks, even if the hook is not verified, no longer in the article, and seen nowhere in the source. The Diamond Peak editor didn't understand geology well enough to write about it, but, also, and more important, not well enough to understand his mistakes when pointed out by others.
I wouldn't recommend promoting his future articles, though. -2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8A (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems to have been a lot of fuss about nothing. To understand the issue, see the following template. Igneous rocks are classified by the amount of silicon dioxide that they contain. It's a continuous spectrum and the difference between andesite and basaltic andesite is just a matter of a few percent which doesn't seem to be a big deal -- like arguing about shades of grey. If 2600 is an expert then they are likely to care about this more than than our general readership, which will be largely indifferent to such fine distinctions. Anyway, we should not give any special privileges to 2600 unless and until they register an account. Andrew D. (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't give "special privileges" to anyone, whether they register an account or not. If the general readership are indifferent to such fine distinctions, why include such fine distinctions (correctly or otherwise) in a DYK hook? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • And, here's Randy, "I'm no expert, but I don't think what the literature says matters and Wikipedia shouldn't care either." lol --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8A (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 - "described from California?"

Why isn't it "described in California" per the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The source actually states "from" and the nominator presumably decided to follow suit, but I agree that "from" looks a little odd and is arguably ambiguous so I changed it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I gave it another tweak to hopefully make things a bit clearer. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, the article said "in". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You asked why the hook used "from" instead of "in" like the article. So I altered the hook to make the meaning more clear. If you don't like the change, feel free to suggest an alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
No, whatever, the point I was making was that the hook should have reflected the article. Never mind. More haste less speed from everyone. Since we went to two sets we're seeing no end of issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 - promotions with bare URLs

Tajemnica Statuetki was promoted all the way to Queue 1 with no fewer than ten bare URLs, contrary to DYK supplementary rule D3. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a lot has been added to the article since it was approved. I'll pull it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This is extremely unfair. I put an extraordinary amount of effort into this article and it deserves a chance to be featured on the main page. Now a few hours before it's scheduled a bit of copyediting leads to this? May I instead suggest that it is moved down the queue for a few days to give me some time to fix up the citations to allow the article to pass this "rule D3"?--Coin945 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Coin945, the hook is being pulled precisely so that the issues can be resolved before it is featured. When the problems are addressed, it can go back into the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I also put a lot of effort into fixing it up so it was going to be even better, and then realised it violated one of the DYK rules; sorry but it shouldn't have been placed in the queue, the promoting admin missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: Another editor and I are fixing up all the bare URLs so your comment appears to be null and void. Please check out the article and judge for yourself. If it's all clear, I expect the article to appear on the main page as previously scheduled. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
No, the comment wasn't and still isn't "null and void". I'm sorry your article was prematurely promoted and sent to a queue. It wasn't ready, even back when it was initially given the green tick. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Drop a note here when you're done, I will leave the gap in the Queue 1 set unfilled for now so we might be able to restore it quickly. However, I'm pretty tired and am about to take a break, in case I don't return in a timely manner I will remove the bot permission from that set so that it doesn't inadvertently load in an incomplete state. If I'm not back in a few hours, you should be able to find somebody else to complete the set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:, I greatly appreciate your commitment to the process. Keep up the good work. However, the fact of the matter is that the article was approved, and you had a chance to comment on its acceptance for a luxurious amount of time. Choosing to act at the 11th hour has caused some unnecessary stress on my end and some uncertainty as to what will happen with the next DYK batch. I think you have a great work ethic and philosophy and I applaud you, but I think the timing could have been better. In any case I believe I have resolved the stated issue and I am now going to bed so as I said above I expect things to run smoothly tomorrow. @Gatoclass:, have a good break, and I am sorry that this unfortunate happening has temporarily cast the lineup of the next DYK queue in a state of limbo. Thank you to all involved for such a lovely discussion. :D--Coin945 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't blame me, blame the multiple failures in the so-called "DYK review process". The first time I even saw that hook was when it was in a protected queue. It shouldn't have been passed two weeks back. The timing couldn't have been any better, stopping this from going to the main page with such a fundamental issue. I'm glad you've fixed the issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it to the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_143&oldid=1115504024"