Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 152

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145 ← Archive 150 Archive 151 Archive 152 Archive 153 Archive 154 Archive 155

Frosta AG - Queue 4

I've promoted this to a queue, but I just found that the source used for the hook is from this website. It does not inspire much confidence; can someone see if I've missed something, and it is in fact reliable? @Ultracobalt, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth: Vanamonde (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It might be wise to remove the "first company in Europe" claim but I think the rest is satisfactory, and is backed up by the company's website providing the company's history:
  • Yes, probably a good idea. If we're unhappy about the source, though, I'm not too keen on basing the hook on it at all; if it is such a big company, there should be secondary sourcing available, right? Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with the change above, I think the original hook was more along the lines of the first frozen food company in Europe, but the current hook is easier to read. The info on removing additives are backed up by secondary sources 12 Die Ziet and 13 Greenpeace Magazine, but naturally those are in German. Cmwhiraeth moved the valves ref closer to the claim in good faith and because that was the English version. Hope that helps. Ultracobalt (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ultracobalt: That's good: but could you please duplicate those sources where those facts are mentioned? Vanamonde (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done. And a little jockeying of text for clarity. For reference, the fact mention "first in the industry" (in German) occurs at the bottom of the 3rd paragraph in Die Ziet
Thanks. I've tweaked the hook per Cwmhiraeth above. To be honest, even with the secondary source, a claim like "the first in Europe" is pretty extreme, and likely incorrect, so it's best left out. Vanamonde (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a small note, the source above is not by "Die Zeit" at all. It is from a small monthly business magazine called "Brand eins". So it is highly misleading to claim it is by "Die Zeit". There is some partnership between the two but that should not be used to fluff up a source by using the name of the big reputable newspaper and not the actual publication. "Brand eins" is only featured sometimes but has otherwise nothing to do with the newspaper as far as i could see. Not saying the source is not reliable but it is not from whom it was claimed to be here. 31.150.99.112 (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about eligibility

Is Brooklyn Naval Hospital eligible for DYK? I think it probably isn't, because of a couple of moments of extreme stupidity on my part, but want to ask anyway . I had redirected the Hospital article to the Navy Yard article a couple weeks ago. Not that it really matters, the previous version was one sentence long. Then yesterday, expanded the section about the hospital on the Brooklyn Navy Yard instead of in the Naval Hospital's page. It was only today that I split the section about the Naval Hospital in its own article.

Almost all of the edits to the Hospital section of the Navy Yard page occurred in the past few days. This was the condition of the Navy Yard page's Hospital section 3 days ago before I expanded it; the prose part of the Hospital section was less than 1,000 bytes at the time, compared to nearly 8,000 bytes in the Hospital article right now. I was the only editor between that point and today. I think I would have been fine if I had done the expansion in my user sandbox, or even restored the article two days ago and added the text there. But I didn't, and now I want to know if this potentially disqualifies the Naval Hospital article from DYK. epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It sounds eligible to me Epicgenius, what makes you think it might not be? Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I made almost all of these edits to the Brooklyn Navy Yard article, not the Brooklyn Naval Hospital article. I then split the Brooklyn Naval Hospital article from the Brooklyn Navy Yard article. I think the DYK criteria were supposed to be the other way around (split, and then expand). epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Epicgenius, the relevant rule here is supplementary rule A5, which states: If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. You've done that, so your article is eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: OK, thanks. I thought I messed big time, but I didn't know about rule A5. epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Transport of Białystok children

Requesting expedited review for a special occasion date of 7 October, when the children were murdered. Thank you! Catrìona (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: I've reviewed this article. Let me know what you think about my comments. epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Episode lists

Hey folks! What are the rules on episode lists in DYK articles on TV shows? I'm talking about things like this.

I assumed that basic information about TV episodes (air date, cast, etc) would be treated like a plot summary per D2 and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations, which is to say that they don't need citations because it's assumed that you're taking the information straight from the episode. (Seems a bit strange to add dozens of citations to "Episode Name, Publisher, Date," which is the exact information already contained in these tables.) Still, I've been challenged on this point, and I'd like to have it clarified. Note that I haven't linked the article I nominated for DYK because it's still in flux as a new user edits it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6 (Freudenthal)

The wording "distinguished the skin conditions ... from ..." does not seem correct. One is being distinguished from the other. It should at least be "skin condition ... from ..." but would sound better as "distinguished between the skin conditions ... and ...". Jmar67 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
No more comments? OK, fixed using the second suggestion. Art LaPella (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"A commander" grammar

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this (there's no talk page dedicated to the specific queue, and the nom is closed after promotion). Gatoclass, you tweaked the General Frisbie hook to say the ship was demoted to "a" Commander. That seems a bit weird to me. Given that Commander is a name in this case, the grammar doesn't fit. Even if it were a human General, wouldn't you still say "demoted to Commander" rather than "demoted to a Commander"? I'd rather drop the 'a'. › Mortee talk 18:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think either "demoted to Commander" or "demoted to a Commander" would be grammatically correct, but in this case Commander is a proper name not a rank and is accordingly italicized, so I think the indefinite article is needed to emphasize the pun, otherwise it is somewhat confusing to read. Certainly, I had to read it twice before I was sure of the intended meaning, which indicates to me a degree of inelegance in the original wording, so I still think it reads better with the tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a real shame this wasn't given more time and better treatment, and a run at the quirky slot. It's a great start to a hook, and a decent article. I enjoyed reading about its calamitous exploits, its demotion and its ultimate fate, and think it could be have been far more successful as a genuinely quirky entry. But all that notwithstanding, it actually wasn't demoted to "a Commander", it was demoted to Commander. There was only one Commander so the indefinite article makes it clunky and detracts from the hook manifestly. A very disappointing outcome for a great article and possibly great hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to think you will surprise me one day by actually agreeing with a position I take. Other than that, lots of things could be named "Commander" so I find your logic less than persuasive. I am inclined to agree however, that the hook would have been more suitable as a quirky, but since you think it's an interesting article, it should also make a good lead. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
But just for the record, the Annual List of Merchant Vessels of the United States for 1918 lists two steamboats, four motor vessels, a motor patrol boat and two barges all with the name Commander - and that's for just one year. So clearly there have been plenty of vessels with the same name. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
So why aren't you just called "Rambling Man"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Well it's a moot point really because it's based on Lemon Jelly's song, but that's actually called "Ramblin' Man", and as far as I can recall, at no point in the piece does anyone refer to him as "The Rambling Man". Still, gotta keep on ramblin'... have to. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Dwight Agnew

Honestly, I don't see how this is hooky. Many naval officers were and still are stationed at Pearl Harbor, and I don't think families being in the Navy or even being stationed in the same place is that uncommon either. Surely something more interesting could be said here? Maybe something about his actual military career? Pinging nominator Chetsford and reviwer Edwardx. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

How about:
Chetsford (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The original hook seemed okay to me, and no worse that much of what gets through at DYK. But the new ALT looks good, although I would like to see a cite right after the hook fact in the article, not just at the end of the paragraph. Edwardx (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Edwardx and Chetsford: Are you fine with ALT1 being promoted instead, or would you prefer the original hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It could probably do without the comma, at least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I am happy with either hook. Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald J. Shurer

Requesting expedited review for a special occasion date of 1 October, day of the award ceremony. Thanks. MB 00:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed and ready for promotion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Moved to special holding area. I will probably promote it to prep 2 tomorrow if it's not done by then. Alex Shih (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I promoted it. @MB: don't you have a free US Army image for him? Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I couldn't find an image I was sure about. There are photos here which is a US Army website, but I'm not certain if there is any copyright and don't know who the photographer was. MB 23:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
That's too bad you can't find an official head shot. Thanks anyway. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@MB: The photos credited to US Army in the captions are PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, Photo now added to article. I'm not sure if you meant you would add it to the hook if there was one... MB 01:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I had every intention of doing so. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Non-science

As neither of the nomination's two reviewers have been able to respond to replies to their respective concerns, a new reviewer (ideally one who has not previously participated in the discussion) is kindly asked to finish the review. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Renee Powell

I started improving this article with Megalibrarygirl on 18 September, when it looked like this (1315 characters). As I now write, the article looks like this (6589 characters). However, the article was larger in size before we started the expansion, and was trimmed by other editors. Does this still count as a 5x expansion? (I'm not nominating it just yet because it's only barely 5x and some copyediting may tip it just back under). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I would go with the last stable version in this case, which should be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Considering that the material trimmed was a flagrant violation of NOTPROMO, I would ignore it altogether, just as we ignore removals that were in violation of copyright. So this would meet the criteria, at least as I write this. Vanamonde (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Ergo Sum disagrees with you lot. Under normal circumstances, I'd say "well you can't win 'em all" and close it; however, the DYK was filed mainly as a courtesy in response to this Editor assistance requests thread by somebody who wanted to expand the article, but didn't know how (so we did it). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I had not seen this discussion before my assessment. I will go back and review it again. Ergo Sum 23:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries, it was a very marginal case for 5x, hence why I came here first before filing the nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Just another comment agreeing that this does meet the 5x expansion, going from 1315 to 6636 prose characters (6575 being the magic number). The previous amount, 1315, had been basically stable for over a year, ignoring intraday fluctuations. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree as well. WP:DYK offers little guidance in that regard, however, I think common sense dictates that starting point for the expansion should be the last version that was encyclopedic. Regards SoWhy 07:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hook removed from Queue 4

Template:Did you know nominations/Working with Lemons @Cunard, Argento Surfer, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and Alex Shih:

  • ... that Working with Lemons spent $5.49 making their first YouTube video in March 2014, and eight months later their videos were earning $7,000 or more a month?

Then who created all these videos on their channel between 2008 and 2014[1]? Same channel, same persons (like Robbie Bagley)... Fram (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Aw geez. That's all on me. Not sure how I made that mistake. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem. It's not all on you anyway (a few others should have checked it as well), and the main thing is that it gets spotted before it hits the main page. We all make mistakes, you at least admit it when it happens. Fram (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few days ago; here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through September 8. Right now we have a total of 280 nominations, of which 132 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones remaining from early August.

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) 04:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues with Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Domna

Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Domna @Векочел, KAVEBEAR, and Cwmhiraeth:

Now in prep 5: "* ... that Roman empress Julia Domna helped philosophy flourish in Rome and was involved in many building projects? "

This is based on some lines in the article: "One of her biggest achievements in her tenure is supporting philosophy and helping it grow, as Julia used her power and authority to protect philosophers and she helped philosophy to flourish in Rome after emperors such as Nero banished and presecuted it."[2]

and

"The empress was also involved in many building projects, most notably the aedes Vestae after the fire of Commodus in 192 destroyed areas of the temple and the home, or Atrium, of the Vestal Virgins; based on numismatic evidence, historical authors, and a laconic inscription found in situ, most scholars agree that Julia funded restorations to the site during Septimius Severus's reign."[3]

Really? Philosophy had flourished in Rome quite a bit between the time of Nero (died in 68) and Domna (came to power in 193). Rome had seen people like Pompeia Plotina: she died in 121 or 122), emperor Antoninus Pius(ruled 138-161) who "bestowed honours and financial rewards upon the teachers of rhetoric and philosophy.", and especially Marcus Aurelius, emperor from 161 to 180, whose article lead states "Among Roman Emperors, he has been called "The Philosopher". He was a practitioner of Stoicism, and his personal philosophical writings, which later came to be called Meditations, are a significant source of the modern understanding of ancient Stoic philosophy. They are considered by many commentators to be one of the greatest works of philosophy." Basically, the problems philosophers had under Nero had long, long been gone and forgotten by the time Julia Domna became empress consort. She had, like nearly every empress consort (or very wealthy aristocratic woman in Rome at the time) a circle of philosophers she supported, but this was nothing exceptional or really important. See e.g. Guy de la Bédoyère, "Domina: The Women Who Made Imperial Rome": "To what extent Domna's philosophical group amounted to anything of significance remains unresolved"

Which leaves us with her "many building projects". The articles gives one example, the Vestal Virgins temple and atrium, where "most scholars agree" and so on. Again, really? The source for that statement literally says: "While some scholars have proposed that Julia Domna's medallions commemorate the restoration of the Temple of Vesta by the empress, Melanie Grudow Sobocinski pointed out that the Aedes Vesta burned down in 191, whereas Julia Domna's use of Vestal iconography does not occur until 207. Either the reconstruction of the Aedes Vestae took more than 15 years, or Julia Doman had a different motivation[...]". So some (not "most") scholars made a claim, but evidence suggests otherwise. At least according to the source used to verify the article and DYK hook...

The building claim is probably true (but perhaps somewhat overstated, and in need of better sourcing and more examples); the philosophy claim is severely overstated in the hook, and even more so in the article with the "Nero" link, as if she was partly or mostly responsible for the rise of philosophy in Rome after being prosecuted and largely absent for 130 years or so. Her role in the history of Roman philosophy or philosophy in the Roman empire is likely extremely small and nothing like the claims made in the article. Fram (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is not really a DYK problem but an article problem. The proposed hook reflects the information in the article but you are doubting the accuracy of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth suitably admonished
The second part of the hook is not verifiable in the source given (which is a hook problem), the first part of the hook is not supported by other sources (which is an article problem). In any case, once the correctness of the article is in doubt (and even more so when the hook directly relies on that part of the article), it becomes a DYK problem as well. If I or anyone else were to rewrite that part of the article to be more correct, the DYK hook would need to be pulled as well. I dropped a note with lengthy explanation here instead of directly pulling it, but if the reaction of the DYK promotor, i.e. burying the head in the sand, would turn out to be the common DYK reaction, I could have saved considerable time by just removing it from the preps in the first place. Fram (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we could try "... that Roman empress Julia Domna helped philosophy flourish in Rome and may have been involved in Roman building projects?" Векочел (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The image, much like most DYKs, is close, but not right. The head is neither buried, nor is it likely to be buried in sand. Tsk tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
As the ostrich burying its head is a myth, an actual photo of the practice is tricky and this was the best I could find on Commons. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
You mean like this?
Well, just a two-second search revealed a better source image. Art imitating life and all that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Article corrected, hook listed at WP:ERRORS. Fram (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrator needed

Queue 4, due to go live in four hours time, is one hook short. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Let us know when it's done so we can check it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-bio hook should be inserted into the third slot. Feel free to take from any prep set and we'll refill the prep set. Yoninah (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, nobody was available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Too late now, just run with seven, reduces the chances of an error being spotted! Plus it nicely balances the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
And another 7-hook set today. Perhaps the project should consider going down to one set every two days with the obvious problems in quality that are prevalent at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Queue promotion needed ASAP

Hello. Right now all the preps (but one) are full, but there are no preps moved to queue yet. Ideally, at least two or three should be moved into Queue as soon as possible. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

QPQ

Are there any rules or conventions about using reviews from several months back for a QPQ? As in, let's say I wander by and review a DYK nom in May without posting my own nom at the time. Then in October I post a nom and link to the DYK from May as my QPQ. Is that kosher, or would it be frowned upon because of the age of the original review? I looked but didn't see anything in the rules or supplementary rules (although I could well have missed it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's allowed: in fact, people (such as myself) do it all the time. For QPQ, it doesn't matter if the DYK you reviewed took place one day before or one year before your DYK nomination, what matters is that such a review is done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure and I realized I'd never run into it that I could remember. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

I did not find Template:Did you know nominations/Pensionado Act at the page Template talk:Did you know/Approved, specifically the hold section for Filipino American History Month. The diff says it went to Prep 2, and not held for 1 October. Why? @Yoninah:, please explain.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times, Queue 2 will be posted on 1 Oct GMT, so it appears everything will be fine.—Bagumba (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is in Queue 2 which is due to move to the main page on October 1st. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba and Cwmhiraeth: thanks for assuaging my concern. Thanks for everyone's hard work.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

For 4 October

Template:Did you know nominations/Schlosstheater Schönbrunn - I realized only when I expanded today that 4 October would be the best day for it to appear. Any chance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks to Serial Number 54129 for the quick review! Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, both!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
So what is a "name day"? And wouldn't it be useful to mention the emperor's name? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
At the least, make it a link. MB 19:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, "name day" is so common for me. - The theatre was his wife's idea (who is linked), - do we really have to give his name also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
ps: no surprise, his name is Franz, it's Francis of Assisi's day, also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It might be common for Germans but not necessarily for an international audience. With that said, the proposed hook works provided "name day" is linked, as MB said. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Special occasion date 13 October

Requesting expedited review of Template:Did you know nominations/Caiazzo massacre for 13 October special occasion date (the 75th anniversary). Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Doing, will finish once Earwigs is back online. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: Pastrami sandwich

@Sky Harbor: @Casliber:

The hook fact is not mentioned in the article. And how many readers know who Nora Ephron is? This fact seems much more hooky:

... that the No. 19 pastrami on rye at Langer's Deli in Los Angeles has been called "the Marilyn Monroe of pastrami sandwiches"? Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: For clarification, the hook fact is mentioned in the article ("its pastrami has been deemed by some as being the best in the world"), and the source used has Ephron as the author. With that said, your proposal does seem to be more interesting, so I'm approving it and subbing it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. But it's not. The whole fact, including Ephron's name, needs to be in the article, not inferred from a byline in the references list. Yoninah (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep area 1

Unfortunately, I can see several problems with this hook. Firstly, this hook is too long and seems to lack focus: what is the main subject of the article: Mysz-Gmeiner performing with the Berlin Philharmonic, or her having a Lieder dedicated to her? Secondly, I am going to be frank here: this hook does not appeal to a broad audience as it seems to target mainly classical music fans rather than regular Wikipedia readers who may or may not be familiar with the topic matter. A reader might ask: "what's the importance of performing with the Berlin Philharmoni?c" or "who is Max Reger, and how is he important?". A new hook is probably needed here, one that appeals to the widest audience possible. Pinging nominator Gerda Arendt, reviewers @Boud and Cwmhiraeth:, and promoter Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hate U Give for date request?

While I'm here, can I ask for a more experienced DYK reviewer to have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hate U Give and offer an opinion about the request for a special occasion hold? The DYK is for the book and the date request is for the wide release of the film of the book. The film does have a separate article but I'm not sure if that's enough distance to not fall afoul of rule D2 about commercial release dates. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if DR2 is even considered much these days: I've done quite a few special date requests that involve commercial release dates without issue (though in those cases, the DYK subject was a person and the date request was merely a release date of something the DYK subject did), and I've seen similar such cases done by other nominators. Perhaps some discussion or clarification is needed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, see, that's why I wanted DYK regulars to weigh in - I wasn't sure how big of a deal it would be and I didn't want to do something stupid. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The date request is fine. I've moved it to the special occasion holding area. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks much! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago; here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through September 17. Right now we have a total of 274 nominations, of which 134 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six remaining from August.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

qpq check

For fun (and because I don't trust my counting) I checked my own, and saw that the tool adds both creation and nomination credits. Would it be hard to separate them, getting the group totals also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Special occasion dates 14 and 16 October

Requesting approval of alternate hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Biblioteca della Comunità Israelitica (14 Oct) and expedited review of Template:Did you know nominations/Raid of the Ghetto of Rome (16 Oct)—both 75th anniversaries. Thanks in advance! Catrìona (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the in-depth scholarship Catrìona has brought to these Holocaust-era articles, I do not think we should be running them so frequently, lest they turn into another "rivers of Pennsylvania" series. We just ran lead hooks on this subject on September 30 and October 7. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. A lot of Catrìona's work is getting a crazy amount of views, so our readers are definitely finding the hooks interesting. As long as we don't run more than one Holocaust-related hook per day, I'm fine with it. We also don't want to discourage Catrìona from writing Holocaust-related articles altogether if that's what she wants to do. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Considering in past months we (mostly) had no problem having successive hooks on classical music and opera, I don't see how having regular hooks on the Holocaust is a problem as long as it's at most once a day. And in this case, the request is two days apart as opposed to every other day. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, both of these articles were written by Turismond. They also don't need to be lead hooks; the image for Raid of the Ghetto of Rome could be dropped, and the Biblioteca one doesn't have a proposed image. Catrìona (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for a quick review of a nomination

Hello. I'm requesting a prompt review of one of my nominations as I had requested a special occasion date of October 21, which is just over two weeks away. As such, a quick check is appreciated. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Today's hook set

  • ... that the No. 19 pastrami on rye at Langer's Deli (pictured) in Los Angeles has been called "the Marilyn Monroe of pastrami sandwiches"?

So, uh, if its picture is shown, then why is it in the last slot instead of the first? Shouldn't it have been swapped out with another hook then? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have responded partially at WP:ERRORS ([4]). Despite of the clear wording in WP:DYKIMG, I don't particularly have a problem with occasional image not being in the first slot (especially when it's a last minute change, like in this case), as ITN routinely does the same thing. But I agree the better practice would have been to load the image hook from the next set; it's easier, less problematic and less confusing this way. Alex Shih (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Even worse when no caption accompanies the orphaned image, as noted at WP:ERRORS2. Basics. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Or even a caption with an unnecessary wikilink now! Goodness me... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Very odd graphics juxtaposition indeed. Sca (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Alex Shih. Even if it was last-minute, administrators should know to put an image in the top slot. BTW I intentionally moved this hook out of the image slot in the first place because the image is so dark, distant, and uninteresting at thumbnail size. Surely the administrator who moved it back here saw that. Definitely pillage from the prepared prep sets next time. Yoninah (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, let’s not all get hate on for admins forced into last minute changes because of the shoddy job done by reviewers and set builders. Deal with the cause, don’t criticise one of the side effects. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic
My question is, who the heck cares about the No. 19 pastrami on rye at Langer's Deli in L.A.? – Sca (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
You'll find out at least how many people care, when you look at pageviews tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should start selling pop-up ads on the basis of DYK-engendered page views. "Munch with MM at Langer's," etc. Sca (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that old drum. No, it's just fine in that regard. We often feature consumer goods and consumer organisations on the main page. A little like your various beefs with the MOS, there's nothing wrong with it. It'd be more productive (for you) to seek out changes in policy/guideline rather than keep repeating the same complaints which inevitably have the same results (i.e. a waste of time for all concerned). DYK has many, many problems, this kind of thing probably doesn't qualify for the top 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I acknowledge and bewail my manifold sins and wickedness. Have mercy upon me, most merciful TRM – and take note that I'm not pinging you. Sca (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
As you should. Just trying to save us all a bunch of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I guess that's why you expended 86 words on your "Old Drum" lecture. – Sca (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Since that only took me about 40 seconds to type, it's not a big commitment. It seems some people need to have the facts reiterated to them a few times. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Is that your last pontification on the subject? Sca (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Have you picked up the salient points yet, or do they need to be repeated? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Is that your last snark on the subject? Sca (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)(UTC)

Once you’ve picked up the major items, sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS2

WP:ERRORS2 is a redirect to The Rambling Man's user space. And I notice in the "Suggestion" section above, that TRM repeatedly refers to it as if it is something other than just his user page. If this is where editors should go to review and remedy errors, then let the DYK people say so by agreement and link it at Main Page Errors.

The edit summary over the main page swap, by admin Amakuru two hours before it went on the main page, refers to WP:ERRORS2, as also linked by The Rambling Man above. However, WP:ERROR2 is a redirect to The Rambling Man's user space. So, is that now how the main page is now edited, swapped, by something posted in somebody's user space? Is that user space now officially an error page of DYK? — Maile (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope this is a rhetorical question. The Rambling Man's personal error page is a violation of user page policy per Wikipedia:User_pages#User_pages_that_look_like_project_pages, but it is in the realm of IAR in which I would personally simply leave it as it is. Alex Shih (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It is not a rhetorical question. This talk page we're on, and WP:ERRORS exist for input by the community. A hook was pulled based on somebody's posting on their user page. Did the nominator and reviewer know that was there? Did the community at large have any input on the pull? This is a situation that needs to be answered by the DYK community. Not my viewpoint, nor yours, but the community as a whole needs to have a say in this because it affects the project directly. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I was effectively banned from using ERRORS so I note the vast array of issues (particularly coming from this project on a daily basis) in my user space. It happens that a few concerned individuals take those into account and do something about them. It is, in no way, positioned as a "user page that looks likes a project page", and the fact that we have just hit our 500th error fixed (in around 74 days) is just serendipitous. That other editors (dozens of them) have contributed, all for the betterment of Wikipedia, should be applauded and recognised. Also note, the shortcuts etc were all added by other editors, including a handful of admins, not me. Which is probably why Alex is keen to exercise what he thinks is IAR, even though there's no R to I here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The hook was pulled because it was factually inaccurate, and was about to go on the main page. Where I found out that information is irrelevant to that. And as for input by the DYK community, the hook is not yet dead, it's just back at DYKN. If the reviewer and nominator, or indeed those complaining here, were to rewrite the hook so it's actually true, then it can be promoted back up to a queue.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a situation that needs to be answered by the DYK community. not at all, errors that impact the main page are nothing specifically to do with the DYK community, they need to be dealt with swiftly and then whoever wants to pick up the fallout is welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I always felt that WP:ERRORS2 kind of defeated the purpose of TRM's self-imposed topic ban from WP:ERRORS, as it simply meant that he would move his efforts elsewhere as opposed from refraining from the activities that led to the discussion which resulted in him leaving WP:ERRORS altogether. There has to be a better way to handle this situation, perhaps some kind of compromise could be reached here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. It’s in my user space and is simply a record of all the garbage that makes it way to the main page. That other, concerned editors fix things up from there is just a lovely bonus. That it’s an order of magnitude more effective than the other place is, well, just what most of us expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Without getting too much into the rights and wrongs of the situation, as far as I could tell the "self-imposed topic ban" was simply pre-empting the imminent imposition of an actual topic ban, or at least a severe curtailing of how much TRM was allowed to write at WP:ERRORS. And at the end of the day ERRORS2 is simply a way of communicating a list of errors, which admins are free to act on or not to act on as they see fit. The error list could be taken off-wiki entirely, and posted on Twitter or TRM's personal webpage and still serve the same function.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    ERRORS2 seems to me almost like a fifth column operating within DYK. When TRM was pointing out hook errors here at WT:DYK and at ERRORS, his tone was rather caustic and dismissive. I like the more straightforward approach he's taken at his so-called ERRORS2. But it is still unofficial, and the admins who patrol the main page are acting on posts posted there rather than at ERRORS. Something needs to be formalized here at DYK so all hook nominators, reviewers, and contributors know about it. Yoninah (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's the whole point though, there's nothing to formalize. It's just a list which TRM adds to as and when he finds errors. Admins could choose to ignore the errors posted there, but IMHO that would be verging on WP:POINT given that most of the entries are completely blatant and unambiguous errors. And if you want more hook nominators, reviewers and contributors to know about it then feel free to tell them.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, nothing to do with DYK at all, just my hobby, albeit a hobby which benefits our readers immeasurably. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
nothing to do with DYK at all? Then why do you have an orange box at the top that reads:
"WP:ERRORS is dead, long live ERRORS"
The real Main Page errors can be found here. Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
What does that have to do with DYK? The notice in my user space. You’re not making any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
DYK errors are supposed to be discussed and acted upon at ERRORS. Nowhere in the rules does it say anything about ERRORS2. I think it's great what you're doing, and in such a non-combative way too, but you've got a userspace masquerading as a project page because administrators are working there and not at ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, no masquerading at all, you’re just making that up. What I report in my own user space is entirely up to me. If others do something about it, it’s entirely up to them. I don’t control them. And no, DYK errors can be discussed anywhere, whatever made you think otherwise? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see the problem. If TRM was simply posting on his talk page in "normal" paragraphs every day and listing the numerous errors that make their way to the Main Page, there'd be nothing wrong. Because he's prettified the page a bit and put some headers and stats on it, it's suddenly an issue? Personally, if I've got time I look at ERRORS and ERRORS2. @Maile66: says "A hook was pulled based on somebody's posting on their user page. Did the nominator and reviewer know that was there? Did the community at large have any input on the pull?". Personally, I couldn't care less where an error is posted, if I see it I may try to fix it. Are you saying that only errors addressed at WP:ERRORS should be addressed, and the rest should degrade the Main Page? I'm sure you're not. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Admins are allowed to fix errors on the main page at our discretion. ERRORS, as I see it, is primarily a place for people to bring mistakes to the attention of people who can fix them. It's only occasionally the case that a suggestion is contentious, and even then the consensus-building is extremely informal. As such, Amakuru (or whoever) could make changes based on reading about mistakes on reddit, if they so choose; at the same time, the restrictions on what people can have in their userspace are minimal. In some, if TRM wishes to post errors at a less visible venue, that's his affair, and if admins want to read that page and act on it it's their affair, unless and until a formal t-ban is enacted (which is highly unlikely). If someone wants to try to enforce this guideline via MfD they can try, but I doubt such a discussion would be anything but a waste of time. Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    So in the meantime, better for you all to watch WP:TRM and see if anything of note to you pops up there! Cheers, I think we're done here! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple DYK nominations in process by newly checkuser-blocked sockpuppet: how to proceed?

Sagecandor has just been checkuser-blocked as a sockpuppet of Cirt, who had been "topic-banned from political biographies since 2011" according to the sockpuppet case opened and closed earlier today.

This is relevant here because Sagecandor currently has six active DYK nominations; two have been approved, and four are as yet unreviewed. The nominations are all related to Mark Judge in some way (Judge is currently in the news due to fallout from the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the U.S., and Sagecandor has edited the Kavanaugh article and articles related to the nomination): the article on Judge and those on five of Judge's published books.

The obvious questions: what do we do with the nominations? Do we close them all? Do we continue with the approved ones and close the rest? Do we let all of them proceed? Here are the nominations:

Approved:
Awaiting review:

Sagecandor has also reviewed and approved six DYK nominations (QPQs); is there any reason to request a second review of these six, or is it enough that the promoters to prep give them a thorough once-over as part of the normal promotion process? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Subsequent note: the four awaiting review have been nominated for Speedy deletion by Wumbolo, who also nominated the second of the approved nominations at Miscellany for Deletion since reviewed nominations cannot be speedied. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Sagecandor's reviews of DYK noms should be removed if and only if they are in violation of his topic ban, i.e. have a lot to do with religious or political biographical material. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 16:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm agreed with wumbolo. Remove the noms, whatever stage they're at (even the approved ones), iff they're religious or political in nature. Request second reviews for any of Sagecandor's reviews which relate to religion or politics. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Pace, I have reversed the tagging.Although within the "letter of the law", I feel the spirit of DYK is communal, so they should be left for a discussion here. Incidentally, G5 does (I believe, or at least it is accepted practice to) allow for sock edits to be taken responsibility for, so I suggest editors are given the opportunity here to do so. Without prejudice of course to retagging, if a general desire to clean the Augean stables of Cirt's stuff emerges. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe they should be closed. DYK doesn't need them, and the articles don't need DYK. DYK apperance on the frontpage is essentially just a bonus motivation for article creators and GA-nominators, and a topic banned user has no need for that. --Pudeo (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Close all we don't encourage banned users in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What TRM said. The allow for sock edits to be taken responsibility for language was for those situations like Ottava Rima where the banned editor had made an obviously positive contribution and removing it would be perverse, and was never intended to allow disruptive editors a back door into Wikipedia administrative (small a) processes. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close all per WP:DENY. It won't do the encyclopedia much harm to keep these off the front page, and we don't want to recognize the contributions of socks. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close all - Mark Judge has survived an AfD, but the books he's written are hardly notable and should probably be deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close all. If other users are interested in picking up articles and bringing them to DYK on their own initiative, they are welcome to do so; but I see no purpose served in keeping these nominations open. Vanamonde (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment WOW so we're actually going to FAIL SOMETHING HERE!!!!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Closing all seems the correct way for sock-only creations but Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Judge (writer) is credited to the sock and E.M.Gregory and it seems unfair to punish that user for Cirt's socking. Regards SoWhy 19:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    @SoWhy: If E.M.Gregory is willing to take complete responsibility for that, sure. Vanamonde (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close all the ones attributed only to the sock, and leave the one other one open as per the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As a start, I've closed the open nominations that are only attributed to Sagecandor. Alex Shih (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Per unanimous consensus, all nominations have been rejected except Mark Judge. -Zanhe (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • With apologies. I was just pinged. I had seen this discussion but had not realized that my input was needed. The fact is that while I not infrequently start articles on topics in the news, I really don't do much AfD. I am not even certain what "take complete responsibility for" means in this context. I will say that the article, after heavily partisan editing by both sides, and quite a lot of responsible editing in addition, is in reasonably good shape.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: With "taking responsibility" it was probably meant that do you wish to adopt the nomination from Sagecandor for it to appear on the front page in the Did you know... -section, or do you wish it to be cancelled like the rest of his nominations because of his topic ban? --Pudeo (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Question related to reviews by said sockpuppet

So I just noticed that two of the articles I nominated, Brooklyn Naval Hospital and Hunter Island (Bronx), were reviewed and approved by Sagecandor. Do they now need a re-review? epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is something the original post asks, and something I addressed when stating my opinion (Request second reviews for any of Sagecandor's reviews which relate to religion or politics. – so for yours there would be no problem). The pile on "Close all"s have ignored this point entirely. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that we have no evidence of errors in Sagecandor's editing, I see no reason to disallow the reviews. When I heard about this case, I went back and looked at a number of reviews he had performed: they seemed to check out. Sagecandor was a prolific reviewer, and disallowing his reviews would mean delisting a very large number of GAs, for instance. So unless evidence of problematic reviewing is found, my !vote would be for leaving things as is. Vanamonde (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, let's be practical. Stet. I'm not sure I understand the idea of delisting GAs because someone is banned, that's a non sequitur for me (if I get indef blocked/banned, would my hundreds of GAs be delisted, my thousands of reviews be nullified, etc?) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I'm not saying we should delist them. I'm saying if we discount DYK reviews because the editor turned out to be socking, we should be disregarding all of their reviews for the same reason, and that includes a good many GA reviews. Therefore, unless we find something wrong with the reviews, we should leave them be. Vanamonde (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well no, as we all know, DYK reviews differ in quality from all other reviews in Wikipedia. If we found issues with DYK reviews, that doesn't mean similar issues would be prevalent elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh come on. A sockpuppet performs bad DYK reviews and good GA reviews? You're making no sense, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No, because anyone can perform a QPQ and get away with it, because there's no sanction for any bad reviews. And they have to be performed to get one's own DYKs onto the main page so there's a vested interest in getting anything just reviewed. There's no such obligation or temptation for GA reviews. That, I'm afraid, is the nub of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I get that you're more attached to the GA review process, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no sanction for terrible GA reviews, informal QPQs are offered frequently (you did so a few days ago, for instance) and some completely unsuitable articles have passed GAN (and, on occasion, been subsequently flagged at DYK for failing basic policies). Oh, and anyone can disallow a review for not performing the requisite checks; I have done so myself. There's no such option at GAN. Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I confirmed the first, don't have time for more. Had to look up 20 citations today to please ERRORS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, to comply with the DYK rules which were overlooked once again when one of your articles was promoted to a queue. It's not to "please ERRORS" by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
With a bit more time, I confirmed the other also. Read Harry Kupfer today, and say something on the talk about what goes to a lead and what not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
ps: intended or not: Kupfer - the first from Esat Germany invited to Bayreuth - seems the perfect topic for our holiday of national unity today, - if planned, thanks to the planner! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Color me puzzled. The articles is actually pretty good: well-sourced, NPOV, expanded and revised by many editors both before and after the puppet was blocked. The hook is good. The page was reviewed for DKY by an highly-experienced editor. And the page continues to draw thousands of hits a day even after the end of the nomination battle. Looks to me it make a good DKY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Working Definition of Antisemitism

This has been stuck for several weeks now even though the RfC that was holding back the nomination has already been closed. A new reviewer is requested to finish reviewing the nomination. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that once a hook is approved, it isn't altered. Unless there is an obvious error, I don't see why the co-ordinators here feel it necessary to constantly tamper with the hooks. This is an example of what I'm talking about [[5]]. Firstly, if people want to know Velters Cornewall Berkeley's nationality, or when the event occurred, they can click the link and read the article. This is after all the purpose of Did You Know, is it not? Secondly, and more importantly, mistakes were introduced. Berkeley wasn't even at the Battle of Cape St Vincent, and the affair happened several days after and some distance away. The hook went to the main page with these errors.--Ykraps (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Even the tweaked hook needed further tweaking per WP:ERRORS2. The QPQ and promotion process here is continually letting editors and readers down. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
That's not an error, that's just semantics. You have inferred from that, that all his peers were infuriated but it could just as easily mean two. And indeed, when you read the article as you're supposed to, this becomes clear.--Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually that’s called a clarification, and a reduction in misleading readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
When you next tell your kids to put their shoes on, be sure to clarify that you mean a single pair and that they're to go on their feet.--Ykraps (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
When you next write a hook, try to remember that most of our audience need help putting their shoes on. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Is that then why you appear to support these additions, because you think our audience should be given every minor detail? Because to me, that seems counter-productive to the purpose of DYK.--Ykraps (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I actually do support not misleading the readers, and what you probably considered minor may well not be to those not so close to the article and details in question. Glad you corrected your there/their faux pas! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
There would be no need to make alterations to the approved hooks if nominators and reviewers examined them more critically in the first place to make sure they were accurate and comprehensible. I often need to make alterations when I promote nominations to Prep and TRM is adept at picking up the errors missed by others. Greater care is required all round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
What possible reason could there have been for altering the hook in this case?--Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
My edit that you cited was simply a followup to a previous edit by a different editor. The original hook seemed fine to me as I scrolled through the prep sets, but when I saw this addition, I reread the article and didn't see any mention of the new hook content. So I put in what I understood the article was saying. It's a good idea in general for nominators to watchlist Template:Did you know/Queue so they can watch their hook advance through the preps and queues, and if anything untoward happens, to comment on it either here or at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Or, of course, WP:ERRORS2 where much more comprehensive attention is paid to the myriad issues that pass through this project on a daily basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we are suggesting things... How about... if someone gives a green light during a review and there are obvious errors, DYK rules not being followed and so on, they lose their qpq credit? Rewarding people for doing a bad job with reviews seems to make no sense at all. 91.97.240.54 (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

In this case the additions made the hook factually wrong. The article makes clear the engagement was after the Battle of Cape Vincent, not during it. Might be helpful if hooks that are proposed to be altered at any stage (including post-approval) are removed from the queue and the changes flagged with the nominator, rather than just changed without that input and sent on their way. If that severely reduces the number of DYK's on the main page then so be it - better we have fewer but accurate items than more inaccurate ones. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I do of course realise that 'fixing' the hook got messed up in this case. But how often does that happen in contrast to how often the actual review is flawed or completely disregards DYK rules etc.? I mean, go ahead and pull hooks with issues from queues and preps to fix them without time limit to get it right together with the nominator. But why should a reviewer get a qpq credit when doing a bad job, no matter if it gets fixed after. The reviewer rubber stamped it, so should be held accountable for obvious and large issues and not get rewarded for it. Either do a proper review or not get a qpq credit. 91.97.240.54 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that all the good work done, fixing spelling mistakes and making sure people follow the rules, makes up for changing a hook to something that is factually incorrect? And where do you get the idea that the reviewer rubber stamped it?--Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
No i am not suggesting any of that. I was not even talking about your hook in particular, which indeed was messed up in a way that it should not have been. But one should also realise just how bad the qpq review process works and how many errors get by(multiple issues pretty much every day, both big and small). Nothing should ever be changed to be incorrect, just as nothing, or at least A LOT less, should get past the review process which is factually incorrect or otherwise not in line with project or even basic Wikipedia rules. All i was suggesting is that a bad review not give qpq credit because it makes no sense to reward sloppy review work. I just piggybacked on the title of this section, "suggestion". 91.97.240.54 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been accosted on my userpage by Yoninah for being the origin of this by adding incorrect information myself, so I guess I'll defend my edit. I disliked that the original hook had no reference point in history. I understood from the article text that the engagement was not part of the Battle of Cape St Vincent, which is why I used the name of the entire war instead, adding the text during the Anglo-Spanish War to the hook, and I still believe that is an entirely correct statement. I guess Yoninah surmised that because Anglo-Spanish War doesn't appear in the text of Velters Cornewall Berkeley, it can't be allowed in the hook. (The lead paragraph actually uses the somewhat wider-scope French Revolutionary Wars.) They then replaced it with the incorrect statement on their own volition. If the standard is to not alter hooks in the prep areas (beyond copy-editing) without a discussion on this talk page, I'll respect that in future edits. Modulus12 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm interested in why you felt the need to give the hook some reference point in history. I thought the purpose of DYK was to get as many people as possible to read new material. If you had to read the article to satisfy your curiosity, that's a good thing, isn't it?--Ykraps (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't come here to point fingers. I can see who did what and why. I came here to try and get some agreement on when editors should stop pissing about with the hooks, or discuss a way of preventing this happening again. So far, only Euryalus has attempted to find a solution. Secondly, I wanted to try and understand why there can't be an element of mystery in the hook; why does it have to be spelled out which war he fought in, whose side he was on, when it happened etc.--Ykraps (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hookiness is definitely achieved by not spelling out everything in the hook. We expect readers to click on the bolded link to learn more. Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Yet here is another example.[[6]] Here the word 'war' is changed to 'war of the fifth coalition' because the editor in question didn't think he should have to read the article to find that out. Why? Surely that's the point. The original wording wasn't wrong and changing it only made the hook less interesting.--Ykraps (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't doing anything that other hooks haven't done before. Plenty of them have "unnecessary" amounts of detail that "ruin the mystery," because they weren't attempting to be mysterious. Modulus12 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So does this last-minute edit by Amakuru cross the line into "pissing about with the hooks"? It's not error-correcting, but just a vague hook made more specific at the behest of a certain userpage. Should admins be allowed to unilaterally (without talk-page discussion) add information to a hook about to go on the Main Page? (Shouldn't we be preserving the "mystery" of why he's "the best"? Think of all the clicks we'll lose!) Modulus12 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I would say that that is correcting an error because first top-100 hundred, doesn't mean only top-100. What I am talking about is unnecessary additions such as mentioning someone's nationality, when it is irrelevant.[[[7]] But I do think there could've been a discussion about it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
No, my "certain userpage" does not "behest" anyone to do anything. Quite wrong, and you should stick to the facts in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Behest can't be used as a verb. Your userpage is certainly written with the intent that administrators will act on it, just like when I post errors at WP:ERRORS, where I am expecting an administrator to act on it. And I was only mentioning you for context; I did clearly note that it was Amakuru who made the actual change. Why do we need (SA) if it's not used in the hook or elsewhere again? Funnily enough, when I tried to remove this under the exact same reasoning as you in the prep queues a day or two ago, I was reverted and beaten back for not gaining a talk-page consensus first. And, while I entirely agree that your suggestions craft a better hook, your request to "correct" Rose Connor has to be way too far into the "pissing about with the hooks" territory: "I don't like what this says, so delete what I don't like and add something I do like." (And it was fulfilled by Fish and karate.) If we can't piss around in the prep queues, why are unilateral deletions and additions allowed at the last minute? Modulus12 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, you're missing the point. My user page is writ, as I have said numerous times, for my benefit. If admins wish to contribute, that's fine, but entirely up to them. If they don't, I have no recourse, so what's the beef? In any case, as you've already seen, ERRORS is pretty much second fiddle now to ERRORS2, as most of the trivia brought up at ERRORS is already noted by me, or is of little consequence. As you have decided to personalise this issue, I suggest you piss about with someone else who cares to answer you. I think Americans refer to it as "butt hurt". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. The Rose Connor hook was just about the worst I've seen in a month or two. We're not just "pissing about" with hooks, we're thinking of our readers too you know. Well, some of us are. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no beef with you. "A certain userpage" may have been a little impertinent, but I only brought you up as part of clarifying the provenance of the edit. Modulus12 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It didn't need provenance, it was fixing one of the worst hooks in living memory. Why you felt it needed clarifying is utterly mystifying. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Behest can't be used as a verb - I think you may be missing the point a little bit there . As for the pissing about with the hooks, I personally don't always act on the suggestions made at WP:TRM. Things like "the hook is too boring" or "reword it this way to make more hooky" aren't true errors, so I pass them by. Other admins may act on them, I don't know, but if they're improving the main page, and ensuring hooks meet the DYK rules then it's probably not a bad thing. The case you mention above was an actual error, because the hook said something different from the source, so I did change that one. As for whether you are allowed to "piss around" with the hooks before they reach the protected queue, I'd have thought that was legitimate, and your constructive changes shouldn't have been reverted, but that's a separate argument that you'd have to take up with the DYK powers.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Your edit was just the most convenient at hand that I thought conveyed the idea that some admins are willing to make fundamental changes to the facts that the nominator proposed for the hook and which passed through the DYK process. I don't know what the rules should be, but I think they should apply equally to admins and non-admins both in the prep queues and in the last-minute changes to the main queue. Modulus12 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No, we charge our admins with (among other things) the responsibility of keeping the main page free of crap and errors. And that includes the often terrifyingly bad stuff that's passed through this project. That it's modified at the last minute should be applauded as it's always in an attempt to keep the main page from embarrassing the project. You'd be better off spending your time working out why so many poorly reviewed DYKs make it all the way to queues, instead of complaining about the treatment they get when they're moments from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: A daughter and a woman

@Ivar the Boneful:@Cwmhiraeth:

The wording of this hook is strange; the daughter and the woman refers to the same person. I suggest rewriting it as follows, including the woman's name as also suggested by Gerda Arendt:
ALT1: ... that in 1903, Selina Siggins, daughter of an illiterate Irish immigrant, became the first woman to stand for the Australian House of Representatives? Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I like ALT1 better too, since her age is not exactly needed, and more inline with the norms of a standard hook. Alex Shih (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Subbed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That hook is factually incorrect, as she was known as Selina Anderson at the time of her first candidacy. I think her age is interesting enough to be part of the hook. As I said in the nomination, I'm not sure whether the bolding should fall on "first woman" (which might imply we're linking to a list of women candidates) or "25-year-old daughter of an illiterate Irish immigrant" (which is quite long). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

What about a pipelink then? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Such as:- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: Emil Mattiesen

@Gerda Arendt:@West Virginian:

I don't understand the wordiness of this hook ("published musical compositions such as song collections" as opposed to "published songs and ballads"?). I do understand you're trying to draw a contrast between his musical and parapsychology work, but it would help if you "show" it, not just "say" it, like:

ALT1: ... that musician and composer Emil Mattiesen also published books on parapsychology, one of which listed several phenomena that seem to prove empirically that the soul lives on after death? Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind, but "song collections" are lost for a very general musician and composer, - what do readers think then? Symphonies? Piano sonatas? - His article was written because he was one of the people (like Reger and Strauss) who composed for Lula Mysz-Gmeiner and performed with her. Also psyche = breath is needed for singing. Any way we could be a bit more precise about his music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: do you mean you want to write:
ALT2: ... that Emil Mattiesen, a composer of Lieder, chamber and organ music, also wrote books on parapsychology? Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine. I don't care too much about chamber and organ ;)
ALT3: ... that Emil Mattiesen published his song collections and books on parapsychology? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm sorry, your hook doesn't read right grammatically. It sounds like he published song collections on parapsychology. If you're fine saying he composed Lieder, do you want to say:
ALT2a: ... that Emil Mattiesen, a composer of Lieder, also wrote books on parapsychology?
However, those who don't know what Lieder is won't understand the compare-and-contrast with parapsychology. That's why I added a few musical descriptions after Lieder. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
And I said fine to ALT2, no? Past midnight ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Since better known as a writer, why not

ALT4: ... that Emil Mattiesen not only wrote books on parapsychology but was also a composer of art songs?

"Lieder" is too technical for the hook. Jmar67 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why it's linked. Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The hook needs to present a clear contrast without asking the user to first find out what "Lieder" means. We don't have to pretend that "Lieder" are so special that they need to be mentioned in the hook. The fact that Matthiesen was also musically notable is what counts. That's an interesting combination. Jmar67 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is built on the possibility to link what you don't know. Lied is the standard term in English for an art song in German, as mélodie is for an art song in French. Most people who don't know that will not enjoy the article anyway. Keep simple, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I was trying to simplify. Also, the term "lieder" in the article is lowercase. The lead of that article refers to the alternative "art song" for English usage. The appeal of this hook will be for parapsychology, however. Jmar67 (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
As long as Gerda Arendt concurs, I support ALT4 as it strikes a balance by mitigating all the concerns expressed here. I completed the original DYK review of the article and hook, and find that this too meets all Wikipedia and DYK criteria. Thank you to everyone who worked to strengthen this hook, and thank you to Gerda for another phenomenal article! — West Virginian (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I think it suggests the wrong chronology, he first wrote music, then the papapsy books. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrow's DYK: query about last hook

At WP:TRM it has been reported that the hook at Template:Did you know/Queue/1 about East Sutherland Gaelic doesn't make much sense, and I would tend to agree - it's not clear from that short passage why some text is quoted, or really what it's all about. Furthermore, I think the fact about it having Jessie Ross as its one and only speaker, which was the first suggested hook at Template:Did you know nominations/East Sutherland Gaelic, is more interesting. @Cwmhiraeth: @Yoninah: @Catrìona: @Daniel Case: as the noms and reviewers involved with this, do you mind if we change it to something like ... that East Sutherland Gaelic has just one remaining speaker?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection to "... that East Sutherland Gaelic has just one remaining native speaker?" adding the word native for clarification. Catrìona (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: OK thanks, I've changed it to that now. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Catrìona thank you, that's a much more impactful hook. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I thought the first hook was much more impactful:
  • Agreed. Wording it that way implies that she is, and she isn't. Like DYK "that Warwick Armstrong was nicknamed The Big Ship", correctly implies that Warwick Armstrong is notable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, that was the reason I omitted her name when I suggested above that we use that version of the hook. It would immediately leave readers wondering who this Jessie Ross is. There might be a way to word it such that her name is put into the mix without implying that we should have heard of her, but I think it's fine as it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"... that East Sutherland Gaelic has just one remaining native speaker?" is fine, but please don't use the name "Jennie Ross" in the hook because, as I pointed out in the review, the name is very likely wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Empty queues

Eight hours to go, nothing populated for tomorrow's main page, tick tock, chop chop! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over fifteen hour ago; here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through September 27. Right now we have a total of 304 nominations, of which 150 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one that remains from August and the five from early September.

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) 17:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Wheels Up

A third opinion is requested here on whether or not the Advert tag added to the article still applies. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Shortcut to nomination?

Is there a shortcut for going to the nomination for a particular page? I have had to enter "Template:Did you know nominations/(page name)", which is cumbersome. Even if the nom is in my watch list, it doesn't appear there (using mobile version) and I have to call it up manually. Jmar67 (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any way unfortunately, other than the fact that you could shorten it slightly by using "T" instead of "Template". Subpages of pages with a redirect don't automatically become subpages of the redirect itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
For "my" articles, you have a link on my user page. For any article, I go left, click on "What links here", then scroll to the bottom, - normally it's the very last item. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That is a good technique, which you may have mentioned before but which didn't get my attention. I avoid the desktop version whenever possible because it is somewhat awkward on a mobile phone. Jmar67 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Why aren't the nominations held at the relevant page and linked to from a central page? That is, the DYK nominations page would have a list of all articles currently being discussed linking to "Talk:Article/DYK nomination"? With a further link on the article's main talk page saying "This article has been nominated for DYK, to participate in the discussion CLICK HERE".--Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:DYK checklist has enhanced error checking

There is a new version of the module underlying this template that now checks the status field, and displays an error if anything but one of the valid values is entered.

The problem has been that instead of using the correct alphabetic values, some people have been putting icons into the status field. The icon isn't displayed, since that isn't how the template works, and worse, if the purpose had been to approve the nomination, it doesn't show as approved and the bot that moves approved nominations to the Approved page can't tell that it is passed, and won't move it.

The error message for an incorrect status value is posted in bold red and reads: Invalid status [invalid text in quotes] - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again". To make the message go away, just use one of those five correct values listed. Note that they are case-sensitive, and the exact letter, mark, or word must be used; for example, "n" is not valid, nor is "yes" or "Y". The complete documentation for the template is available at Template:DYK checklist/doc. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is an abbreviation used for yes but not for no, maybe, or again? Seems like it should be one way for all or both ways acceptable for all, but not this mixture. --Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: Feuerstein

@Gerda Arendt: "Münster" is not sufficiently well known to stand alone. Propose adding "Germany" (unlinked) at end. Jmar67 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a link to the church (which was on DYK recently) and to Münster, and both mention Germany. It doesn't matter where in the world that is. The artist worked all over Germany. I was included among the nationalists rather recently, and still suffer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. Münster is linked. Perhaps the name of the country will be the degree of mystery to get people to click on the hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel strongly that Germany should be mentioned in the hook to provide a frame of reference. And now I would even prefer to replace "Münster" with "Germany". The church link is sufficient otherwise. Jmar67 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bockenheimer Depot

Template:Did you know nominations/Bockenheimer Depot - The reviewer left it at the discretion of the promoter, I'd expect the promoter would take one or the other of the hooks. Instead, a different one came up (Prep 4) which has no approval, of course. I don't like it, because the building is not just "a theatre" but a stage for the German Opera which has been the leading one in several years includig 2017, which I tried to say implicitely by mentioning a specific German premiere of an international work. Can we take that? I also believe a picture would say more than 1000 words what kind of building that is, 1900s with modern addition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda. But since we have a special occasion image hook for that day, and there are no more open prep sets, I'm returning this to the Approved nominations page for promotion on a different day. Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Opener (baseball)

Could this be promoted in the next 2 weeks (by October 27 at least) while the playoffs and World Series are going on? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What about timing this to October 23, the first scheduled game of the World Series? By the way since this is a relatively new phenomenon, I think a more generalised hook can be suggested? Alex Shih (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That sounds interesting. @Muboshgu: what do you suggest? Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
To elaborate on what I was saying, I think the approved hook is a bit technical for non-baseball enthusiast. I would personally go for something like ... that the "opener" strategy was employed in the opening game of the 2018 American League postseason? Source: [8] Alex Shih (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Reliever Ted Power began a game in the 1990 National League Championship Series. Is he the first playoff opener? If he's not, another interesting hook would be explaining why so. Otherwise, Liam Hendriks was called the first playoff opener during this years playoffs.[9]—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we can retroactively call Ted Power a "opener" in that game when the term did not exist, for the same reason that we would not call Bruce Sutter the first closer in the modern sense to win a Cy Young Award. I agree that explaining why would be interesting too, I imagine it would be something like ... that the idea of "opener" has only been put into practice during the 2018 Major League Baseball season? Source: [10] Alex Shih (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm moving this discussion to Template:Did you know nominations/Opener (baseball) so we can continue fine-tuning the hook there. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash

Just wondering about whether this nomination is technically new enough. It was created eight days before its nomination, but the real time period between the first (non-hidden) edit and the time of nomination is around 7 days 10 hours. I'm pretty sure this qualifies since it's no more than 7 days old, including additional hours. I wanted to get another opinion on this, because one of my own nominations a year ago was proposed a few hours past the 7-day deadline and was still passed. epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Considering the added time was very close anyway, and few really take into account the extra hours, I think that this could have just been allowed anyway per WP:IAR. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6

There is a special occasion hook for October 17th, Ana María Campos, that needs inserting into Queue 6. The request is that the words “190 years ago today” be added to the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


There is another hook in the special holding area, Landing of the first Filipinos, that is due to be included in Prep 1, but that one has not yet got a tick for the precise wording of the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: For Landing of the first Filipinos, ALT7 has already been given a tick, and while not formally ticked, ALT8 was also approved by the reviewer. I suppose either of the two can be promoted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I promoted the October 18 date request to Prep 1. But I am unable to work with the October 17 date request, as that prep has already been promoted to Queue 6. Could an administrator bring it back? Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Vanamonde93:, @Alex Shih:, @Maile66:, @Casliber: for help here. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
On it. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I just realized there's no flaming hurry, as this queue only appears 24 hours from now. I will make the swap before then, but since we have time, I wonder what folks think of using the image, which is fairly unusual for DYK? The current image is Radamel Falcao, which is an underwhelming image (and an underwhelming hook, to be quite honest). We need to swap one hook out anyhow. Yoninah, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: both images are too dark IMO. Can someone lighten the Campos statue image? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I've done that: take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: thanks, that looks a lot better. The hook that was approved for this nomination was not so hooky for a lead slot, but I have been in touch with the nominator, and he suggests this alt:
Ana María Monument, in a square and street both named after her in Maracaibo
Ana María Monument, in a square and street both named after her in Maracaibo
I believe that it would be just as effective without mentioning that she died 190 years ago:
ALT2: ... that Ana María Campos was one of the heroines of the Venezuelan War of Independence (monument pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I promoted this but am just getting around to posting here. I've gone with an amalgam of the proposed hooks, which to my mind is very interesting. Gerda: We're mentioning the 190 years because it's a special occasion hook in which the date is not self-evident. Further suggestions are, however, welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Current hook... that Ana María Campos, who died 190 years ago today as a result of injuries from torture, is celebrated (monument pictured) as a heroine of the Venezuelan War of Independence?
Nothing wrong, I just try to be concise, and not to "celebrate" death, especially if cruel. I remember Tatiana von Metternich when we ran a hook on the 5th anniversary of her death, but without mentioning it, instead some of the great things she did when alive, with a pic of the palace she turned into a concert venue, not the one of her grave that I took. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I don't mind leaving out the "190 years ago today" either. But the new hook about the torture actually connects to something that the statue seems to signify, which is not covered in the article at all. The statue seems to depict her riding on a donkey, naked from the waist up, which was part of her torture. It's too bad this was not mentioned in the article or added to the hook. At this late hour, I think you should just go with the ALT2 and if readers notice she's topless, maybe they could add it to the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Gerda Arendt: I think the point about not celebrating death is a valid one, but in this case her death has contributed significantly to her notability; she's seen as a martyr in Venezuela. Moreover, the nominator wants the phrase there, and I'm willing to respect that. Otherwise, the only change I've made is to shift the "heroine" descriptor from Wikipedia's voice to the POV of her compatriots, which is necessary, I think. Unless I see further strong arguments here, I'm going to leave this as is. Yoninah's point about what the statue depicts is interesting, but she's right in that it isn't in the article, so I don't think we can change anything there. Vanamonde (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: OK. Thanks for your work. Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I found a source describing the statue and put it in the article, but it's zero hour now. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

not a valid user name?

In Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Sibella Brown, I'm getting:

"RoySmith>" is not a valid user name; check for bad characters

My template-fu is not strong enough to find what I did wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Fixed, maybe? I'm no expert, but I mucked around and something seemed to click. Vanamonde (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that fixed it, thanks. I wonder what the original problem was? That text isn't what I actually entered, so I assume it's the result of some transclusion/subst magic. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's nothing mysterious. When you were replacing the commented out section at the author parameter with your name in {{newDYKnomination}}, chances are you inadvertently left the ">" from "-->" in the original space and it was substituted as it is, generating the error message. Alex Shih (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about struck hooks

Just a question: if a hook is struck by a reviewer in a nomination, is the nominator allowed to unstrike the hook if they disagree, or is unstricking a struck hook frowned upon? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it, if the nominator disagrees with the reviewer's decision. And if they can't reach an agreement, either one can call for a second reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I do see something wrong with unstriking if the reviewer finds a problem with it, such as lack of interest. A second reviewer can of course be called for, or an appeal made here, but the hook should not be reinstated unless subsequent reviewers decide it was good after all, something that is infrequently the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: Palace

  • ... that Schloss Weilburg, a Baroque garden palace, contains a Renaissance palace (pictured) which consists of four wings around a courtyard?
@Gerda Arendt: @HLHJ:
This hook really is not hooky, more like an architectural lesson for kids. It's also unclear why a palace contains a palace. Isn't there something interesting to say about Schloss Weilburg? Yoninah (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, I think we might start to need a few more eyes on this kind of hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Please read the nomination. There are not many of the kind, most Baroque builders demolished what they found, these just had not enough money. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
ps: we can drop the description as the rare thing should be pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
But the point is the hook isn't hooky because people don't read the nomination. And if the hook isn't interesting, they won't read the article either. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
How is keeping something 200 years older not hooky? Do we really have to explain? Link Baroque and Renaissance? Say that it's rare? Yoninah, you found Psalm 269 quirky, don't you realize that this is similar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
* ... that Schloss Weilburg, a Baroque garden palace, contains a Renaissance palace (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's just me, where I come from 200 year old things are completely commonplace. My old fireplace surround was 150 years old, and I owned it. The house I lived in was 130 years old (not rare, thousands of them in the same town, thousands of towns with the same...). It's just not hooky, especially when you have to explain the timeline. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I read the article to try to suggest a hook, but I'm drawing a blank. It's a little hard following the timeline (maybe it's late), but it seems they built Baroque buildings around a Renaissance palace and called the former buildings a palace, too. Perhaps a hook could be built around the different uses of the Baroque buildings. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Starting over: you can have different uses of Baroque buildings many places, but that the very centre of a Baroque place is Renaissance is here (and to my knowldge only here, although Fram will probably find a few others). I love the image and would like to use it. Call it a confession. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not really following. What's the hook? More importantly, what's the hook that will engage our readers who have no concept of the timelines of baroque and renaissance, and for those readers who have 150-year-old front door knockers? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Modified ALT3:
1655 engraving by Merian
1655 engraving by Merian
... that Schloss Weilburg, a Baroque garden palace from the 18th century, contains a Renaissance palace from the 16th century (historic engraving pictured)? - I hope the image will engage our readers, even if my words are clumsy. (forgot to sign, but who else) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a pretty basic hook, but it's better than the original. But it's still not clear how a palace contains a palace. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Schloss means the whole complex, how can that be translated and or explained if palace doesn't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If Gerda Arendt is attached to the image, but not too attached to the hook, we could pick another hook about the Ren. palace. I think the old palace was renovated to make it more defensible in the 1660s, the story behind that might be interesting if we can source it. How about the circumstances around the creation of that image? The perspective has been carefully chosen to make the palace look more regular. We could also write a hook about the let's-collect-Europe attitude to styles (Gothic bits, Dutch dormers, Venetian columned arcade, one might be able to dig out a few more). HLHJ (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, HLHJ. I'm moving the hook to Prep 5 while this discussion plays out. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No prob. My fault, I approved the hook. On the query, they just carried on building around the old palace; the Baroque palace is a maze of buildings in extensive gardens, some of them fully detached form one another. It's not obvious from the hook image, but the images in the article should make it clear, if not exactly obvious. HLHJ (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble giving a suggestion here as well, but I think the contrasting styles (i.e. the parts about Gothic, Dutch, Venetian elements etc.) could work as a hook. The problem would be how to word it. @Gerda Arendt: Do you have any ideas? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT4... that Schloss Weilburg, a 18th-century Baroque garden palace, was built around a 16th-century Renaissance palace (1655 engraving pictured), which contains adaptations of Gothic, Dutch, and Venetian styles?
ALT5... that Schloss Weilburg's Renaissance palace (1655 engraving pictured) contains adaptations of Gothic, Dutch and Venetian styles, and is now surrounded by a French-style Baroque garden palace over ten times its size?
...not sure if either of these will appeal... For background, the Baroque renovators cheerfully demolished over half the town, including the town walls, rebuilding the bits that did not become gardens, and put in a really expensive new water system to accommodate the increased water consumption, and used so much wood that the German article states that the Fuerst had to change the forestry regulations, which changed the forestry practices of the entire area. And they had money left over for a church built in an exciting and elaborate style that some modern structural engineers are having fun re-waterproofing. Given the "Expense? What expense?" attitude, I'm sort of surprised that they kept the old palace; I presume they liked the history.
Note that English distinguishes a palace (primarily residential) from a castle (primarily defensive); in this case the Baroque palace was built with no thought of defense, while the Renaissance palace seems to me to be sufficiently un-defense-oriented to be called a palace, but this is a judgment call, as the German-language sources use "Schloss". HLHJ (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the thought is in the right place, but those hooks feel too complicated to be what the DYK rules call "snappy". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is something short and snappy to consider: MB 03:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT6... that the kitchens of the Schloss Weilburg's Renaissance palace (1655 engraving pictured) were previously the palace stables?
ALT6 is snappy, memorable, and ingenious. Well bethought, but let's get Gerda Arendt's view. HLHJ (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you should all stop bullying Gerda, forget about "interesting to a broad audience", and go back to the notion that DYK showcases an article that an editor has crafted. I don't suppose Gerda cares two hoots about how many people read the article but she wants to draw in those readers who are interested, like she is, in the palace's architecture. The hook should be the nominator's choice, or at least acceptable to the nominator, and not a baton to be squeezed out of the text and passed around by everyone else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I heartily agree; I also note that we have a section above complaining about something very similar indeed. This suggests that the very culture of DYK needs overhauling. Possibly with an towards making some of the fundamental tenets noted below...slightly less funda, and certainly less mental :) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. We could of course say something about some kitchen (sarcasm). The thing special about this place is that, although some Baroque Duke tried to have something like Versailles, we - thank goodness - still have a mostly intact 4-wing Ren palace, which - thank goodness - was pictured by Merian in a way modern photography can't do. Wordsmiths? I tried to keep it simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    You mean just drop one of the fundamental tenets of DYK for this specific editor? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry Cwmhiraeth feels I'm bullying the nominator. I just don't see how talking about four wings around a courtyard is going to interest anybody, especially in a lead hook slot. With all the talk in this thread about the practice of historic demolitions in the town and elsewhere, perhaps a short, sourced background could be added to the article about why the preservation of this palace is unusual. That would make a good lead hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, Gerda proposed a hook about incorporating a Renaissance palace into a Baroque palace and that seemed interesting to me. I like the idea that someone who has written/expanded an article can choose a suitable hook, and I don't like the idea of putting a block on a hook's progress just because somebody at a late stage thinks the hook is uninteresting. Perhaps it won't get quite so many hits, but what does that matter? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
ALT6: ... that Schloss Weilburg consists of a 16th-century Renaissance palace (depicted on an engraving), expanded around 200 years later by several buildings, including orangeries and a church, and a formal garden in seven terraces? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Striking, wrong number anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

...just because somebody at a late stage thinks the hook is uninteresting. sorry, them's the rules. If you don't like the DYK rule about broad interest, please seek to change it or remove it entirely. Certainly don't complain when it's being enforced. As for "at a late stage", well as you well know, QPQ means just one or two people look at a hook before it's in the queue for the main page. And QPQ encourages individuals to pass reviews to ensure their own hooks get passed too. You should be thankful that people are working on these issues at a late stage in order to preserve the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of funny to call it at a late stage. Who else has evaluated the hook other than the nominator, reviewer, and promoter? Isn't the whole point of having a bunch of prep sets filled in advance to allow more eyes to evaluate the hook? And we all know what happens when the hook reaches the queues; now all the administrators suddenly see it and begin tweaking it to their liking. Yoninah (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
TRM, my father always used to say "Constant dripping weareth away stone." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I need to keep reminding you to recall the DYK rules. Eventually it will get through, so your father was spot on there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I proved again and again that I am open to wording changes to hooks that may be clumsy and even wrong due to my lack of English. What I don't like is the notion that I ruin the integrity of the Main page, as I didn't like to be counted among nationalists (also yesterday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It's simply a question of whether we enforce the DYK rules unilaterally or not. If we don't, which is being advocated by some here, we should change the rules. If we do, we need to enforce them to maintain the main page integrity, whether it's due to poorly-worded hooks or articles which simply aren't of sufficient quality. It's nothing personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The bit that comes across as insulting is "integrity". You will have to convince me that a poorly worded or boring hook touches the "integrity" of the page (as a BLP violation would, or a copyright violation). But perhaps that's another of my shortcomings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't have to convince anyone of anything. I'm working exclusively around here to ensure that hooks meet the basic tenets of DYK and the myriad rules. If articles and/or hooks fail to meet them, I will flag it up. Simple as that, nothing insulting, nothing personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I appreciate your dedication to the rules of DYK, and your disavowal of insult and personally-based conflict. DYK needs both. Impartiality is a hard row to hoe, and persuading people not to feel insulted is a difficult social skill, especially over a plain-text communication channel (and the rules are plain-text, too). I hope I'm succeeding at it here, and that people will tell me when I fail, or when I misinterpret them. Gerda Arendt, I'm sure that The Rambling Man does not consider your behaviour to be dishonest, or your hook to be inaccurate (nor do I, nor anyone). And if Walter Görlitz were to believe that anyone wishing to wikilink the word "Estonia" in the article Arvo Pärt is a genocidal right-wing extremist, I would say that he was more to be pitied than scorned. Your interests are not boring banal ones that everyone shares, but that's a good thing for Wikipedia, and I have every sympathy with it. We're all idiosyncratic here.
As humans, we tend to overestimate other people's hostility to us, even with the much richer cues of in-person interaction.[11] It's horribly easy to write messages that come off more hostile than they were intended. I seem to have done it here, and I apologize. I should have been more patient and not WP:Bludgeoned the discussion. Spending some more time thinking about my replies would have done them no harm.
Returning to our sheep, several people find the four-wing-courtyard line boring. Gerda is OK with dropping it (she requested that it be dropped at the top of this discussion, and it's also in the nom), but she wants a hook about the Renaissance palace. A building incorporating 200-year-older elements is not very unusual, although a Baroque Versailles-mimic palace with a well-preserved Renaissance palace at its heart is. How about something like this?
ALT7: ... that at Schloss Weilburg, a smaller 1500s palace (depicted in engraving) is now surrounded by Versailles-style orangeries, a church-cum-city-hall, extensive stables, and a seven-terraced garden of 3.8 hectares?
That really is multiple orangeries. For when one just isn't enough. I'd like to give some impression of the church, as it is notably impressive, but I can't figure out a concise way to do so. Perhaps it is obvious from context? Comments? HLHJ (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time! I obviouly wasn't clear that I don't mind having a hook discussed, again, and again, and another, again, and again, but I don't like the term integrity being used, as if a boring hook, or one with a language mistake, touched the integrity of the Main page. So: I suggested ALT6, and no reply, and in ALT7, I don't understand "small". It's only small in comparison. As for the church, it's quite unusual that it's under one roof with the town hall. I am no fan of any sizes in figures, because they need "convert". So, a good start. I tried to keep it simple, and like modified ALT3 best. If others like ALT7, I won't protest, and formatted it for the purpose. Someone will have to do the hectares ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Modified ALT7 accordingly; I think you're right about dimensions, sadly, and I'm not sure if "smaller" is needed at all. MB has converted the figures in the article.
ALT8: ... that at Schloss Weilburg, an 18th-century Baroque garden palace contains a 16th-century Renaissance palace (historic engraving pictured)?
ALT9: ... that at Schloss Weilburg, a Versailles-style 18th-century Baroque garden palace contains an eclectic 16th-century Renaissance palace (historic engraving pictured)?
I think the old palace's architecture can safely be called eclectic, and it's concise and hooky. The articles Palace of Versailles, Baroque architecture, and Renaissance architecture in Central and Eastern Europe might give context if needed. We could leave out the word "garden", and call the Renaissance palace a quadrangle or courtyard if it is confusing as-is. HLHJ (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been reading carefully enough again, Gerda Arendt. Your ALT6 (we seem regrettably to have two ALT6s) has some English which sounds slightly off to me; "expanded by several buildings" and "garden in seven terraces". As fixes, "...the addition of several buildings" and "seven-terraced garden" would work, although the bit about buildings still sounds a bit strange. The first "and" can be dropped. My ALT7 suggestion was derived from your ALT6, but could be closer. Yoninah's comment on ALT3, "still not clear how a palace contains a palace" could be resolved by using the colloquial phrase "palace complex" for the sprawling Baroque palace, and "palace" for the contiguous Renaissance building. Discussion seems as though it might have stalled here. I'm not sure how to move on; should we sweep all the hook suggestions into the nomination template (as was done for the European pilchard), and agree on one to offer for promotion? HLHJ (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the lesson ;) - Both ALT8 and ALT9 are fine with me, ALT8 preferred. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I may make you fix my far worse German at some point :). Glad this is sorted, I was feeling bad about it dragging on. HLHJ (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Being moderately new at DYK, I've found reviewers' comments on my hooks really helpful, and I hope to learn to give similar comments. I am learning to judge the degree to which one should pressure a nominator on matters of judgment, and may err; obviously there is some range of views in community standards on this topic, which seems unavoidable. We may also have a source translation problem; the sources use "vierflügeligen Renaissanceschloss" and "Vierseitanlage" as a description of the old palace, which suggests that "four-winged" is a concrete descriptive concept in German in a way that it isn't in English (unless we count courtyard or quad). On proposed hooks, we'd need "in an engraving". Separately, "some Baroque Duke tried to have something like Versailles" made me laugh, and is actually sourcable. Versailles knock-off, with a Renaissance court smack in the middle. HLHJ (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I like that the short version made it, look. Design by a missed friend, banned six years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
9,188 views, no vandalism. I feel much better. Should this discussion perhaps be archived to the nomination talk? Header: much ado about nothing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Super League XXIV

As the nominator and I are unable to come into an agreement on how interesting the propose hook is, a new reviewer is requested to take a look at the hook and review it. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor is requested to complete the review; particularly on which among ALT2, ALT3, or ALT4 should be used (for disclosure: the nominator wants ALT4 which he proposed, while previous reviewers are leaning towards ALT2 and ALT3). Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6: Radamel Falcao

@The Rambling Man: @Runningibis:
I'm a little confused by the wording here. The bolded link is sending you to List of international goals scored by Radamel Falcao, but the piped link is talking about national matches, not international matches. Also, the first paragraph of the article and the charts indicate that Falcao has scored in 32 international matches, but the hook is crediting him with only 31. Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, this is a modified version of ALT1: ... that of the 31 national matches in which Radamel Falcao (pictured) has scored, Colombia have lost just twice? which, once the "(pictured)" was removed, had two consecutive links, and also a grammatical error. I agree that the "national matches" is odd. Also, unless I'm missing something, he's scored 32 goals in 2829 games. The 32nd goal seems to have come while this hook was being processed, but the 31 matches wasn't correct anyhow. Vanamonde (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the table, he's scored 32 goals in 29 different matches. This hook is incorrect, and in fact was never correct. And isn't written anywhere in the article or sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That wasn’t the hook I proposed. Hunt down and question the individual who modified it; cheers. The Rambling Man (talk)
Actually, though it was suggested by someone else, it's a hook you modified, on an article you nominated, and the grammatical error in which you left intact even while modifying the wording. And the original hook was boring enough to cause a passing editor to propose another, and for another (me) to swap it for the original. Vanamonde (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, is that an attempt to absolve yourself from the blame for posting an erroneous hook? You messed this up, put it back the way it was. To score your first World Cup finals goal after 75 appearances is notable enough, and your tinkering has fucked the whole thing up. Learn from that please, don’t do it again. Your substitution was deeply flawed and I recommend you don’t repeat it ever again. Replace the original hook and move onto something else please. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh nonsense. It was not his 75th world cup match, it was his 75th match overall. Far less interesting than many "boring" hooks in your tally of errors. I suggest if you're copy-editing a hook on your own nomination, you make sure it's grammatically and factually correct. Vanamonde (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It was his 75th appearance for his country. It was his first World Cup finals goal. The shit you badly promoted was bollocks. Please improve your performance or stop trying. You messed this one up properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Please suggest a more interesting hook, that one is dull as ditchwater. Else I'm rolling with the corrected version of the ALT, as it's still a lot more interesting. Vanamonde (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with that hook at all. To play 75 international matches (and score 29 goals) before scoring in a World Cup Finals is certainly unusual. One could, of course, make it clearer that it's an unusual thing ("... that Radamel Falcao played 75 games for Columbia, scoring 29 goals, before finally scoring in a World Cup Finals match?" or something similar), but there's nothing wrong with it per se. And you can't use the ALT, because it's not mentioned or sourced in the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: A few points: first, no one except a die-hard football fan would care. I've watched more football than most, and I can't see why that's interesting. He scored in his second world cup game, not unusual for a striker at all. That he had 74 caps before playing in the world cup has nothing to do with the subject matter of this article, and is also only unusual because Columbia actually qualified for the 2014 World Cup (Essam El-Hadary, for instance, had 150+ caps before making his world cup debut. And that's just off the top of my head, there's a bunch of others who've played many more than Falcao before a World Cup debut). Third, the ALT would be covered by the stats in the table, and is permissible per WP:CALC. But if you want to find another hook, I'm happy to reopen the nomination. Vanamonde (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
So pointed. Just restore the hook and stop introducing errors. And then attempting to blame those errors on others. Truly dismal. The hook is relevant to the article and is interesting, just as interesting as, ooh, say some unknown American being given some Division I "offer" in "eighth grade", whatever that all means. You're the one who misused the ALT, you're the one who introduced the error, once you've apologised and restored the hook, we can all move on. Now, chop chop. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not restoring this, and since I've pulled the hook a unilateral restoration would not be appropriate. If you don't like the ALT, as I said before, you can offer a different hook on the nomination page, or try to reach a consensus here. Vanamonde (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No, just fail it. You're on your own by removing it, and then you messed up by promoting something inaccurate that someone else created. I'm done wasting time with people like you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you seriously ignoring the fact that you copyedited that hook, and that by doing so you are clearly giving your consent for it to appear on your nomination? I would much rather find an interesting hook acceptable to everyone here. If you wish to rage quit instead (and there's a huge irony in that reaction to a hook being pulled, something you recommend for other's nominations frequently), there are plenty of others who would be willing to collaborate to find such a hook. Vanamonde (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Just do what I said, fail it. I did no such thing as "give consent", that's a non-concept here and as an admin you really ought to know that. I'm not precious about DYK nominations, if something's not good enough (for you, alone), just fail it. There are an infinite number of better things to be doing that arguing with you about this. You implemented your personal preference, in the face of others suggesting you shouldn't, and now you're too proud to fix the mess you made. Absolutely pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That's just silly. Nitpick my words all you like, if you nominate something you're responsible for seeing it through, including for modifications to content that others may make. I've reopened the nomination, and opened a discussion below. Vanamonde (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Your words, your problem. And it was sitting in prep just fine until you waded in and screwed it all up, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Factually incorrect. It was in a queue, ready to go on the main page, with an uninteresting hook. Vanamonde (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to correct: And it was sitting in queue just fine until you waded in and screwed it all up, remember? Factually spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's try this again

  • I have pulled this back to the nominations page. As it's a featured list, it would be a pity if we didn't feature it. I still think the ALT hook (now that's the numbers and grammar have been fixed) is interesting, and it's verifiable per WP:CALC. If others disagree, I am happy to hear further suggestions. Yoninah: you flagged the issues with the ALT: are you happy with the modification? Vanamonde (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that of the 29 international matches in which Radamel Falcao (pictured) has scored, Colombia have lost just 2?
I've withdrawn the nomination. As there's only one individual here making a point to claim a dull hook yet everyone else who has commented has been fine with it, I'm not dancing to that abusive tune. This section can be archived now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Your way or the highway? Okay, that's your prerogative, to an extent. Vanamonde (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually if you bothered reading the options of anyone but you, you’ll see that it’s your highway that we were forced down. Your personal decision against everyone else, and then you messed up, and now you pointedly refuse to fix your disaster. Shameful. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Everyone =\= you and one other person. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
You don’t get it do you? Not at all. And it’s clear you haven’t read the other comments. I don’t think you should contribute any further here, it’s not looking good for you at all. Your way or the highway pal. Autonomous decision-making followed by a complete mess. A proud moment indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
And I'll help your comprehension. The nomination was suggested, passed, promoted and defended above, so that's four different editors. You unilaterally imposed your personal will, and very badly too. 4–1. Does that clear things up for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Theater Bremen

Theater Bremen (Queue 4) has a piped link which I find confusing. I go pretty much for unpiped names if at all possible. It's possibly my fault, because I said "state theatre" for the theatre of Bremen (state). I am willing to drop that in the article as well if needed. Please find some other way of avoiding the repetition, or live with the repetition as in the approved hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's frankly unnecessary. Bremen is Bremen, there's no need to disambiguate it in this hook, it completely destroys the flow and looks ridiculous. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I changed it. I agree with Gerda Arendt, piping it seemed to change the meaning of the hook. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
And why did the perfectly apt "productions" get changed to "programs"? Really?? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
There's actually at least eight other Bremen municipalities in the world, and two Bremen townships. So, just for future reference, hooks can include any random city in the world, and there's no need to identify the country? Should we remove every country name from hooks where it follows a city that is the primary topic for its name, no matter how obscure said city is? Modulus12 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to go hook, line, and sinker in most of these, especially when the place is linked (and the city is also linked). That's the point of wikilinks and the point of DYK "concision". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about four hours ago; here is an updated list with 34 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 4. Right now we have a total of 330 nominations, of which 145 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one that remains from August and the four from the first half of September.

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) 05:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Since this is the first DYKN I've reviewed, I would appreciate a second opinion on the hook in this nomination:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Well for a start ...to lift Iran "humanitarian... makes no sense whatsoever. Personally, since the hook doesn't actually attempt to state whether it was either binding or interim at all, I think it is strictly accurate. ——SerialNumber54129 18:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
From the context of the article ...to lift Iran "humanitarian goods and civil aviation" sanctions means that sanctions were about "humanitarian goods and civil aviation"; i.e. they were barring the importation of such goods into Iran. But I agree that the way it was constructed was confusing. How about: "...to lift some sanctions against Iran over humanitarian concerns". This is a bit vague, but shorter.
Compare with NYT: In a rebuke to the Trump administration, the International Court of Justice ordered the United States on Wednesday to ease some sanctions against Iran, including those related to the supply of humanitarian goods and the safety of civil aviation. [12] --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
True; but t should reflect the source used. Which is Aljazeera, and also uses the word "some"  :) The important thing, regardless of the phrasing you end up with (and your suggestion is fine), is that the hook reflects the source, and the source is explicit in its qualification—so yes, "some" definitely needs to be added. Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 18:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: thank you for the feedback; that was helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: what are your thought on this suggested revision? If you go this route, then I would recommend using NYT as the source for the hook / in the article, to make sure it matches the DYK nom. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6

"Citizendium - the encyclopedia Wikipedia could have been!"

I don't see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. From a search, it appears that the Paul Calf character is somewhat well-known in the United Kingdom. But this is the English Wikipedia, not the United Kingdom Wikipedia, and it's very likely that most of the world would not only know what Calf is, but are unlikely to be unfamiliar with Coogan. This isn't on the level as say Monty Python which has worldwide recognition. Can a better hook be suggested here? Pinging @Simon Adler, Ritchie333, Theroadislong, Martinevans123, and Yoninah:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've moved the hook down to Prep 3 while the issues are being sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I said the same in the nomination, but it seems a piece to showcase Coogan, whom I also don't know. I learned years ago that a hook should not be built on names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
So why are we happy to put up DYKs of people and things I've never heard of all of the time? Bag o' shite. There is the ALT1 still in the nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
We showcase people, when they are the bold thing, introducing them. But I'd prefer a hook that doesn't tell a reader how ignorant he or she is not to know Coogan, whom everybody is supposed to know. Sorry for no witty reply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I often see things at DYK that I'm pretty sure no-one is meant to know. I mean, even the stuff that's not bold. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, the show certainly wasn't a showcase for Coogan. But perhaps it was mostly a local British show for local British people. How about "*... that Jonathan Ross in Saturday Zoo (1993) was described as "humour-resistant Teflon"?" I assume those damn Yankees do have Teflon? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. but tend to agree with "Bag o' shite Threesie" here. I mean I thought DYK was supposed to be about things one hadn't heard of??
@Narutolovehinata5: Why do you have a bronze star on your user page? ——SerialNumber54129 08:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
To answer this question: it refers to an FAC from a few years back where I helped out with responding to some of the feedback.
p.p.s. " DKY .... that people call me and Threesie the "Stan & Ollie" of Wikipedia?" Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
True story this, in the early 1980s I was getting a train from Waterloo to Mitcham Junction ... long story why I was going there which I won't bore you with as you don't look intelligent enough to understand. Anyway, I sat down and who should be next to me but Gordon Burns off the Krypton Factor. So, being the sort of social animal I like to be (but in a very non-sexual way I'll have you know) I decided to make a bit of "celebrity small talk". Now, it turns out not only had he not done the assault course himself, but also he didn't know who I was! Crazy. They won't tell you things like that down at the Trowse Newton Working Men's Club you know. Alan Partridge (talk) (cont) 08:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
...and I said, "Don't be blue, Peter!". Needless to say, I had the last laugh. ——SerialNumber54129 08:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Humour-resistant teflon is an arresting enough line for any DYK. An alternative..DYK that Saturday Zoo featured a calf named Paul? I have no idea what the majority of DYK's are on about usually, till I click them. The title gives it away. 'Did you know'. The feature is supposed to be a learning experience, often trivial, but it gets readers to click and maybe read the material. Simon Adler (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think what Martin suggested (i.e. the Teflon hook) works best because of its universality: i.e. it's an easy to understand hook compared to the Coogan one, regardless of where a reader is from (of course, provided that the reader is familiar with Teflon, which probably a lot of people are at least). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
A shame we can't find a good source for "Penn & Teller made their first UK TV appearance, in 1993, on Saturday Zoo, hosted by Jonathan Ross"? See Talk:Saturday Zoo. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I just found it Martin [[13]] an Independent review from 93. Simon Adler (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Nice one, Simon. I do hope those Americans have heard of Penn & Teller. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Chortle Simon Adler (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Added to article. So it looks like we are good to go on the Penn and Teller angle too. Simon Adler (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Penn & Teller are rather well-known even outside America so I think that could also work as a hook. @Martinevans123 and Simon Adler: please formally propose your ALTs below. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (- what he said ↑). +itals +bold. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Ohh err, watch me Ackermann function, it's giving me the right gyp today. Simon Adler (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it sort of works, but given that the focus here is on Penn & Teller, I'm not sure if the mention of Ross is necessary here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Removed mention of Johnathan Ross. Is it ok now? Simon Adler (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Other than the commas (which I think are unnecessary as they seem to interfere with the flow), I think it should be good to go. With that said, as 78.26 is the original reviewer, it would probably be a good idea to ask them first what they think of the new hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Have removed commas, agree they were clumsy. We now have this, teflon and Calf. 78.26? This is the DYK equivalent of a human wave attack :) Simon Adler (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a close quote mark after Teller? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I think that there shouldn't be any quotes in the entire hook, unless the hook itself is a quote of something. Penn & Teller don't use any in their stage name. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Redundant quote marks removed. Simon Adler (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have two proposed hooks:

A reviewer is requested to pick which among the two hooks is the best and is fit for promotion. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, the first is entirely negative towards the topic. On the other hand, perhaps Ross would appreciate the irony. I can accept it AGF. Regarding ALT2, the source does not explicitly support the claim. How do we know, via the source, that none of the PBS specials showed up on BBC? Goodness knows enough BBC material finds its way to PBS. Does it work the other way around? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's been over 48 hours. If this isn't settled soon, the hook will be removed from Prep 3 and the discussion can continue back on the (then reopened) nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as far as I know, I'm pretty sure (like 99%), that it never works the other way round. But quite happy to be proved wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Yes, I'm sure he would appreciate the irony. I must admit I saw it, not as negative, but as a rather honest appraisal. And besides, Teflon is a great product you know.
I don't see how ALT1 is negative either, since I don't think BLP applies to media reviews (as I think it refers to Ross' acting in the series, not Ross himself). Of course, one way to resolve this would be to say something like "That The Independent described Jonathan Ross..." or wording to that effect. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Since this hook is in the next prep set to be promoted (Prep 3), I'm returning it to the noms page so the wording can be ironed out. Yoninah (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sheet music

I have a question about sheet music and original research. WP:PRIMARY says: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. My question is how much information can be stated about sheet music without being considered analysis and thus original research? Can we note the key, the time signature, whether notes are ascending or descending in tone, and how notes are grouped? All opinions welcome. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This refers to O clap your hands (Rutter). Perhaps compare Messiah Part II (with a similar question in the DYK review in 2011), an article written to complement Messiah (Handel), and Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, nevermind! I just found the essay Wikipedia:Using sheet music sources. @Gerda Arendt: It recommends that the source be attributed in the prose (not merely an inline citation) but it should all be good. I will try to get to it tomorrow. Thanks for your patience! – Reidgreg (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the essay (which I never read, I learned by copying what others do, with trial and a lot of error)! Talking about music from the sheet music is like telling the plot of a book, which doesn't need quotation. In this lucky case, we even have it online, completely. Musical notation is no secret, and explained in some of our articles. (The little dots go up and down. When there 8 similar ones in the upper system, and those below match 1, 4 and 7, you have a 3+3+2 grouping. etc.) I think I could add measure numbers or page numbers. But to say it's like that in the score when that score is cited inline seems a bit awkward. - I wrote at some time that if I learned one thing here it's patience, and you require NONE compared to the discussions (DYK and talk) of BWV 243a which I try to forget. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel bad that I didn't come across it sooner, it could have saved a bit of effort. I've been trying to go by policy rather than practise, and just wasn't sure how far one could go. Sheet music is essentially like reading a code (a non-secret code), but if it was computer code I don't know that I could draw an observation like the use of a recursive loop. In any case, although this is only an essay, it's enough of an opinion for me to approve (the essay was the result of some discussion at WikiProject Music). Rather than counting measures, I think it's better the way you have it with references to the lyrics and written notes in the sheet music, which are easier for the average person to spot. So enough of my yammering, I'll get back to a formal review now. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Admins requested to promote at least one prep; all preps are filled

I've just replaced the one blank hook in Prep 6, so it's ready to be promoted by a passing admin. Pinging Alex Shih, Cas Liber, and Vanamonde, to increase the likelihood of an admin passing by soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Seen this, but I'm a bit concerned about the first hook; it strikes me as rather dull, but the article has a lot of possibilities. I wonder if you would be willing to swap in a different image hook, allowing us more time to find a good hook for that article? @KAVEBEAR: I don't think your hook quite gets your point across. First, the article doesn't say explicitly that all of the other students were half-Chinese; second, the heritage of Hawaii was complicated enough that to the best of my knowledge, being biracial was not uncommon even in 1875. I wonder if you could make a hook out of the fact that the children were educated in the only English school in the city? Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It was the 1850s not 1875. I mainly used it because of the image. It’s implicit in the sources on pg 64 of Kai’s article since it gives a list of names of the students and the names of their parents. Except for the Pitman siblings, the other students had Hawaiian mothers and Chinese fathers. Here is an alternative hook suggestion: “that Mary Pitman Ailau and her brother Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman (pictured) were educated at the only English language school in Hilo with other biracial students of Hawaiian descent?” I’ve been doing DYK for a while and my opinion is that any other hooks for this article won’t garner any more views. But a good quality image is often more hookier than the hook itself.KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Vanamonde, Alex Shih has just promoted Prep 6 to Queue 6 as is (and Prep 1 to Queue 1). However, you can certainly swap the lead hook with one from the preps; for instance, Prep 3 also has a lead person hook, so if you think it works it will fit in the bio/non-bio alteration that Queue 6 uses and give a bit of time to address the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, if I had promoted that hook we'd probably have seen more of this sort of thing: I'll take a look at Prep 3, but Alex, if you're willing to stand behind this I'm not going to argue, as I'm rather tied up off-wiki. Vanamonde (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should be consistent and avoid fouling up perfectly decent nominations at your own whim, completely against consensus and without discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Took a quick look. That hook also needs some work, or rather, the article does; it has two unreferenced paragraphs and the first citation is to a database that does not provide direct verification. I don't have the time to handle this at the moment, sorry. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, there are still 20 hours to go so I think we have plenty of time to ponder. People are going to say whatever they are going to say; I don't particularly think it is a boring hook, but I guess the context can always be better explained (e.g. why should we care about her brother, or why should we care about Chinese Hawaiians). For the sake of simplicity, I would personally go with something like ... that Mary Pitman Ailau and her brother Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman (pictured) were one of the first (haole; optional) students to receive their education in English at the time in Hilo? What do you think, KAVEBEAR? Alex Shih (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding: Kai 1974, p. 64 supports both of the claims being made, and since they are not the only source for these two claims, I don't see how it's not directly verifiable. I assume the unreferenced paragraphs that you mentioned are under "Education and role in royal court" section, in which all of the content were written based on p. 62 of the same source. I'll add that to the article. Alex Shih (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: the unreferenced paragraphs that Vanamonde93 refers to is for George G. Eitel not for Pitman’s article. KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I prefer your alternative, and the source seems to support it. It's not quite what the article says, though; it says they went to the only English-language school in Hilo, but for all we know that school may have existed for a while. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but the article needs to mention those details. FTR, KAVEBEAR is correct in saying that my issues with referencing were not related to this article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I added "...and started the school in April 1850" from p. 62 to clarify that. I don't have problem with the current hook, but if KAVEBEAR thinks my ALT is fine then let's go ahead and swap it. I wish the there was an article like History of multi-racialism in Hawaii for the current hook, which would probably make it easier to relate. Alex Shih (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: That looks good, thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde, I think I've dealt with the sourcing issues in the Eitel article; the information can be found on the very extensive 2007 nomination form for Eitel Hospital to be listed with the National Register of Historical Places. I added a direct link to the registration form (source 3) because I have no idea how the other source (FN1) works, which uses Template:NRISref but doesn't seem to have a direct link to the information there. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Requirements for non-bolded links in hook

Are there any requirements for non-bolded linked articles in a hook? I didn't spot any rules for these on the Onepage. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Unlike say stuff like ITN or OTD, with DYK, the quality of non-bolded linked articles isn't as important. Usually it's not even considered, what's important is the quality of the bolded link. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Reidgreg, there aren't requirements per se. Too many regular links tend to distract from the bold link, so we don't recommend overuse. Some people try to avoid any non-bold links to maximize views, but unfamiliar terms that are required to understand the hook should probably be linked. It's also probably a good idea to avoid linking to an article that's clearly problematic, or goes to a disambiguation page or the wrong person with that name. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
If the non-bolded link has serious maintenance tags on it, we don't link it from the main page. Yoninah (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Depends. We had a big issue not too long ago where the non-bolded article had massive BLP issues in it (i.e. calling a living person a criminal without any sources at all). They do need to be checked for any obvious problems. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please could this be added back to the queue?

Template:Did you know nominations/Working Definition of Antisemitism was removed from the queue a few days ago due to some bare link refs which had been added. These have now been fixed. I received an auto message on my talk page about the nomination not being in the noms queue any more. Please could it be added back? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done It is now in Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

How do nominations get to the approved page?

Hi. I did a review and finished it with a check mark. But how do I move it to the approved page? It doesn’t say in the reviewing instructions, but it says in the promoting instructions that they should start on the approved page so I was thinking that means I am supposed to move it there somehow. Help? Thanks, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You just leave it to someone else now. And watch in open-jawed amazement as what you approved evolves, gets re-written, and destroyed. But your bit is done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Simple answer, not quite as spectacular: a bot does that now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool, thank you both for the answers. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Double nominations

Is there a guideline page or subsection for double DYK noms? I've made one at Template:Did you know nominations/French submarine Narval (1925) but I'm unsure how it works. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Just that I'd try to avoid such a thing, and prefer to give each article undivided attention ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok. But then do both articles get the {{DYK talk}} template? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The nom was missing a credit template for the second article, so I added it. With a {{DYKmake}} for each article, yes, the bot will add a {{DYK talk}} to the talk page of each article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, you'll need to do 2 QPQs (unless you have fewer than 5 DYK nominations). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 - William G. Blakely hook needs urgent attention

Khajidha has raised an objection on the interest of the William G. Blakely hook currently on Queue 1. As the Queue is about to go live, an urgent response is needed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The objection raised at errors on Blakely was that the hook was boring. Of the eight articles in the set, it had the third-most views (~4300), only a few hundred behind the lead hook. The quirky hook was way ahead (at almost 14k). (numbers for all eight.) I'm glad that no one overreacted and did anything despite the snarky comments at errors. Pinging Stephen, Narutolovehinata5. MB 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
See Streisand effect! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You can't be serious. WP:Errors only had 350 views that day, and there were a couple of other items being discussed. Maybe the hook just really wasn't that boring. MB 00:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I sure can. It was discussed in several places besides ERRORS! The hook was boring and poorly constructed. That's nothing personal, just the facts of the matter. Congrats on the clickbait result. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That's more BS. The only other place it was discussed was at your user page by the same two editors who commented at MP:Errors. The facts are that your pronouncement of the hook as boring is inconsistent with the number of views, showing that your judgement is not infallible. MB 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Oooh, BS? Bad words. I think you ought to know that WP:ERRORS is transcluded on WT:MAIN so anyone visiting the latter sees the former... No, my judgement is not infallible, but there was a minority of one who though the hook was either well written or interesting. As I said, congrats on your clickbait, certainly amongst the worst of October, but there's a few days left. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the objection was that it was boring. Is "interesting" NOT something that the DYK project asks for in a hook? As for the number of clicks, unless you can say why those people clicked through, then I don't see that as supporting the worth of the hook as written. I've clicked many DYK hooks because the hook was so boring or pointless that I just had to see if that really was the best hook that could be made from the article. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

October 31 set?

I saw a couple of approved hooks which may be appropriate for Halloween. Could we perhaps set a date for the special occasion holding area?

  • Emanoil Băleanu (ALT0), paranormal reference
  • PSYCHLOPS
  • Max Troll

Just throwing it out there. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I am working on a nomination for 31 October as Reformation Day, would that also go there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Why not? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Open for review: Template:Did you know nominations/Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on the October 31 set right now. I promoted Emanoil Băleanu, but I don't see how the other two apply to Halloween at all. I put Satyr in the image slot and could reserve a slot for the Reformation hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/The Hexer (film) would also be a good candidate, if the issues brought up on the review are fixed in time. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking Cyclops and Trolls as monsters/Halloween costumes. I hope the Hexer hook gets done, it would be an excellent addition. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: did I fix it? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you both. Template:Did you know nominations/The Hexer (film) is now approved and in the October 31 holding area ready for promotion to Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@78.26: I think the Max Troll hook would work for Halloween if we piped the link, like:
ALT2: ... that between 1933 and 1936, a Troll betrayed hundreds of fellow communists to the Bavarian Political Police, a forerunner of the Gestapo?
But we would need the nominator's permission. Pinging @Turismond:. Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how you need my permission as I do not own the article or the hook, but, if you feel you do, I will happily grant it. While the name Max Troll struck me as funny, too, I'm just wondering whether the subject of the article is suitable (betrayal to what essentially was the Gestapo in all but name) for Haloween? I leave it up to you to decide. Turismond (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Turismond. We do take the nominator's preferences into consideration when suggesting revisions. Know that the Halloween set needn't (and shouldn't) deal totally with witches and goblins, since many readers outside the United States aren't even celebrating the festival. But we do like to use Halloween imagery for a few hooks to add some flavor. In a previous year, I promoted a hook about witch-hazel for the nature hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Promoters needed to move the Special Occasion hooks under October 31 to Prep 2. Gerda, what is going on with your Reformation Day nomination? Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

needs a reviewer, I also have a hook open for 2 Nov, same, and will create one soon for 4 Nov. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Check for new review

Could someone please check whether Template:Did you know nominations/Hijabophobia requires a new reviewer? Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

New reviewer has done a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about fourteen hours ago; here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 9. Right now we have a total of 346 nominations, of which 180 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones that remain from August and September.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Prep 51: Mass murder of Czech citizens

@Catrìona: @Sagecandor:

The hook fact and the way it's stated in the article does not align with the source. The article states in the lead: The first liquidation was the largest massacre of Czechoslovak citizens in history. Under Legacy, the wording is: The liquidation of the camp on 8–9 March was the largest mass murder of Czechoslovak citizens in history. But the English-language source states: The liquidation of the family camp on 8 March and 10-12 July 1944 was the largest mass murder of Czechoslovak citizens during the Second World War. Yoninah (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the scrutiny, Yoninah. The Czech News Agency source (in Czech, but you can run it through Google Translate) just says that the first liquidation was "The largest mass murder of Czechoslovak citizens" without specifying a time interval. (The Czechoslovak state only existed 1918 - 1994, and the only major war was WWII. During peacetime the massacre of thousands of people at once is much less likely). The reviewer preferred the wording "Czechs" to Czechoslovak citizens, and from the sources in the Kremnička and Nemecká massacres article (unfortunately offline), you can see that the largest massacre of Slovaks was much smaller. If you feel that's WP:SYNTH, I have no objection to "Czechoslovak citizens". Catrìona (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just on a off topic note, Sagecandor has been blocked indefinitely recently, so they wouldn't be able to answer here. Alex Shih (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Catrìona: I like "Czech citizens" better, but the point about it being the largest mass murder in history contradicts the Terezin Initiative source. Also, you've been running a lot of these "largest atrocity" hooks lately. For an image slot, it might be nice to say a little more about the family camp itself. Yoninah (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As this article was reviewed by a sockpuppet, does it need to be re-reviewed? I know this was something discussed before, but don't know what consensus was. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Yoninah: I disagree that there's a contradiction, but here's an alternate suggestion. (If the prior option is adopted, it would have to be Czechoslovak citizens rather than Czech citizens, because the Czech Republic did not exist until 1994). Catrìona (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that Heinrich Himmler probably gave permission for the Red Cross to visit the family camp (ruins pictured) at Auschwitz II-Birkenau, just a few hundred meters from the gas chambers?
@Catrìona: Certainly I like the description in ALT2 better. Would you like to pipe it to "family camp" or "Czech family camp"? Yoninah (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I prefer either "family camp" or "Theresienstadt family camp". As stated in the article, not all victims were Czechs, and the term is less used. Catrìona (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: OK, we'll stick with your ALT2 wording. But where in the article is the hook fact that Heinrich Himmler probably gave permission for the Red Cross to visit? Yoninah (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: When Himmler granted permission for ICRC representatives to visit Theresienstadt, he also granted permission for a visit to a "Jewish labor camp", believed by Czech historian Miroslav Kárný and Israeli historian Otto Dov Kulka to refer to the family camp at Birkenau. in Background section. Sources in text. Catrìona (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'm replacing the hook in Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it should be "Theresienstadt family camp". The "Gypsy Family Camp" may be better know, so a descriptor would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I believe that something more simple and direct would work better in the image slot. What do other editors think about:

This isn't advancing the discussion, but I don't think the picture is necessarily adding much to this hook and would be happy to run without. There are other hooks which would benefit much more from an image, such as Template:Did you know nominations/Stefan Baretzki, currently in Prep Area 6 as non-lead hook. Catrìona (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd be up for just about any hook which didn't have "probably" in it. This really weakens the hook, to the point where something else should be chosen. Oh, and if I was to offer an opinion on the ALT4, it's good but distracting, so just go for "... where youth were taught subjects including Judaism?" The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Basic DYK rules being flaunted flouted every single day

I often find articles which flagrantly fail fundamental DYK rules in the queue heading to the main page. These include simple issues like bare URLs, unreferenced paragraphs, etc. For example, we have the heavily maligned Working Definition of Antisemitism en route to main page in six hours, yet it fails a basic requirement, with bare URLs. We had just yesterday Theater Bremen which had dozens of unreferenced items. Honestly, is there any point in the QPQ process or this myriad set of DYK rules if they are ignored on a daily basis by just about everyone involved in the process? I suggest the DYK community decide whether these kind of simple tenets are worth embodying in the ruleset or whether it should just become a free-for-all, which is where QPQ is tending to drive the end result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Basically, a DYK review will cover the DYK essentials of newness, length, hook facts adequately cited, neutrality and copyvio-status. There will be many QPQ reviewers who are unfamiliar with the long list of rules and I don't think they should be criticised for missing the sort of details you are listing. Promoters will pick up some of the defects in hooks and articles and other editors such as yourself can further inspect them while they are in prep or in queue. It's a multi-stage process and hopefully, not many hooks get as far as the main page with serious defects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
These are basics, being overlooked on a daily basis. One problem here is that reviewers and promoters are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they continually accept and promote items which are in violation of the fundamentals. It's a multi-stage process which fails daily. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the reviewers are doing a pretty good job of covering the "basics" listed on the Rules page, which only requires them to cover the five main DYK criteria. Things like bare URLs and unreferenced paragraphs are only mentioned on the Supplementary Guidelines page. (And I can hear reviewers arguing that these are only "guidelines", not "rules".) I agree with you that DYK has to enforce more quality control, but the avalanche of rules isn't making things any easier. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, how about streamlining some rules and guidelines then? Perhaps bring some more in line with how the project actually operates, completely bin others etc.? If one is ambitious perhaps even a more comprehensive review of all rules and guidelines and rebuilding it from the ground up. Or perhaps making a page with specific review criteria, which then gets copied to every nom and gets a tick for each point in need of being looked at(perhaps in a hat so that it isn't too huge when just opening the nom). That way badly done reviews most certainly would be very obvious and there would be clear cut things to check in any given nom, just working off a small list of clearly defined criteria basically(making it as easy as possible for reviewers, yet harder to not do it properly without anyone noticing). There certainly seems to be a need for reform but it surely would take a lot of time and discussion(and bickering probably lol), if there even is a willingness to do such a thing. At least in my opinion, for what little that is worth. 91.97.251.107 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I've only done a half-dozen reviews and one was pulled from the queue recently. I fear I'm not a good enough all-around editor for reviewing, but will try to take more care. There have been discussions at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals, BTW. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The above is a great example of why a list of specific review criteria to tick off at every nomination could be usefull, especially for less experienced people. Nothing too excessive of course; basic DYK rules, referencing, bare URLs and so on. If one knows exactly what one is supposed to check, the task is much clearer for the reviewer. If one gets spelled out exactly what is expected of a review(in form of bulletpoints to tick off in every nom or whatever really), basically anyone can do it. No matter the experience. And quality control would perhaps be improved due to reviewers actually having to, more or less, say "yes, i checked that criteria" and more importantly just knowing what exactly to check and perhaps also being more secure with the knowledge of what exactly is expected. Easy to see a pattern if someone is not actually checking what they claimed to have checked during a review as well. But perhaps i am missing something that makes it less feasible than i assume it would be. 91.97.251.107 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If it helps, we do have {{DYK checklist}}, although at the moment its use is optional. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Well how about making something like that the norm and mandatory then? I know that it will never happen because it would actually bring accountability to QPQ reviews, something that does not seem to be wanted at all. But i don't see anything about it that could make an already terrible process even worse. But that is for you lot to decide. Cheers anyway for pointing me towards the checklist. 31.150.101.33 (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I do believe in the value of checklists and am grateful for the extensive edit notice on the nomination pages, which I have been using as my primary checklist. (It doesn't mention the original poster's concern for references to be formatted/no bare URLs, though.) I haven't used the checklist template because it doesn't display well for me and I can't distinguish the various ticks. If the checklist template was used for every review, I fear it would add significantly to the code size of [[TT:DYK]] Template talk:Did you know which is already very large. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Your link leads me to some page in cyrillic, i assume you meant to link to something else? And i did not mean to say we should use exactly that checklist, which i did not even know existed when i suggested something along those lines. And it would not even need a graphicaly displayed tick, just yes/no or even a small sentence would probably be much more helpful when things are not good enough or unclear. The way i imagine it is that at the top of every nomination you get a collapsed checklist(so the display size of any nom stays small when just taking a glance at the nom or during hook discussion etc.) with criteria deemed the most important to get an article main page ready and meeting DYK criteria. Reviewers go through the list, confirm they checked the points in need of checking. Hook discussion and so on stays like it is. Basically all i suggest is adding a collapsed box up top with the criteria to be checked at the top of every nom, which then needs a confirmation of the reviewer that they indeed have checked the criteria. A small change, or addition rather, to every nominations page; very clear, every reviewer knows exactly what to check and is expected to do, accountability for reviewers, easily seeing a pattern of bad reviews etc. But as i said before, it well may be that i am missing something that makes it less feasible than i imagine it to be. 31.150.101.33 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
31.150.101.33: I was adding to the discussion in general and did not mean to criticize you. Sorry about the bad link. Collapse boxes use javascript and add to the loading size and browser requirements. The html for the page is about 1.1 Mb, which I expect is largely due to the high amount of formatting in the text. We need that to aid discussion, but I'm cautious about adding to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Did not feel criticized, no worries. By the way, pings don't work for IPs. So while a nice gesture, it does not actually do anything. But whatever in the end. Clearly no one likes my idea, so be it. Let the status quo continue with the inevitable end for this project in a few years. Not my circus in the end. Cheers anyway Reidgreg :) 91.97.244.225 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the section header should read “flouted” rather than “flaunted.” Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Great input Brad! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So...what if we added something like "Eligibility criteria 4b": Ensure the article does not have, or does not need tagging for cleanup. GMGtalk 22:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: cleanup tags are the least of our problems. We're talking about referencing and formatting issues that are delineated at WP:DYKSG but are not read by most reviewers. Yoninah (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not really concerned about tags in-and-of themselves. I'm just using them as a supremely concise way of saying "check for general problems with the article". A few thousand words of supplementary guidance is all well and fine, but that doesn't mean it's in a package that people are going to take the time to read, understand intuitively, and actually apply in practice. GMGtalk 10:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with losing the prescription is that the level of competence of some reviewers is such that they will simply overlook fundamental issues. And that will waste even more time downstream and run an even higher risk of issues making it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, one added side benefit of targeting cleanup tags is that AFAIK, they are disqualifying for the main page, right? So if someone ignores this guidance, then it would seem appropriate to tag the article, notify the reviewer that they've overlooked a fundamental issue, and the nomination can proceed once the issues are fixed. Yes, fixing the issues directly is more expedient, and more in the spirit of the project as a whole, but it doesn't really give any normative feedback to the reviewer that allows them to correct the problem moving forward. GMGtalk 12:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, at the moment, the dreadful QPQ process pays no attention to "after the pass" events. Reviewers could happily live out their entire existence without passing a single decent hook but never know it. Shambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Empty queues yet again redux

16 hours to go and nothing lined up for tomorrow's main page. Come on admins, we need to sort this out so we can review what's going live tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

there you go. three moved over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
C'est forte amusante that TRM is unable to look at hooks while they are in prep, where he could alter a faulty hook himself but his action might go unappreciated, but instead feels it necessary to wait till they are in a queue, by which time he can no longer make alterations, but can add any errors he finds to his splendid "Errors" page and expect other editors to make alterations at his behest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you already know why this happens, I've mentioned it to you several times, but since there's a proclivity for last minute changes to be made before queues are constructed, it's simply not of any interest to me to review things that aren't heading to the main page. I should also note, again for the nth time, that I do not expect other editors to make alterations at [my] behest, I simply record the errors and track whether they're fixed. I note that literally hundreds of issues have made it all the way to the queues at DYK over the past few months. So instead of attempting to berate me, try spending some more time making sure the hooks that are passed and promoted to prep sets and queues are in good form. Seeking to continually personalise the issue will not get you anywhere, indeed it may be detrimental for you in the long term. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The simplest solution, of course, is to work on the hooks while they're still on the main page prep. It's not difficult and it saves a lot of time. Merely noting them while expecting others to fix them is a waste of time and energy, energy that could be put into good use if the problems could be resolved immediately. I fail to see what's wrong TRM with simply fixing the errors yourself; I know you decline to do so for "philosophical reasons", but complaining that they haven't been resolved when it's already too late for non-admins to respond is a waste, and most of the time, they're so simple that you could have edited those hooks yourself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Did you really mean "on the main page" in your first sentence above? I would agree with you entirely if you really meant "in prep". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sorry; meant to say "in prep"; fixed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to keep repeating myself to you people. Your admins chased me away from here (i.e. there's no "philosophical reason" at all, so please don't just make things up). I don't care about the DYK project. I care about garbage on the main page. So I am performing quality control on the items that are on their way to the main page. None of this needs to be any kind of personalised comment on when I decide to apply my wealth of knowledge to your offerings. That I do it at all should be applauded, not berated for opting to do it at a point of my choosing. Now, crack on working harder at reducing the error rate, currently around 80 hooks per month are getting to the queues with issues, it's down to this project to get its house in order to stop that from happening, and stop personalising issues, criticising those of us who actually do care about main page integrity. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and if, as you claim, the issues are so simple that you could have edited those hooks yourself then why are so many getting passed through QPQ and then making into prep sets, then being sent to queues? The problem isn't about me finding these errors at a time convenient to me, the problem is with all those who clearly aren't doing the job properly as each hook moves en route to the main page. Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
TRM, you have a good point about errors. If you are finding so many errors in the queues, the hooks do need to be checked more closely. But the question we are asking is why you are waiting until the hooks reach the queues to list the errors on your userpage, instead of doing something about them when they are still in the prep sets?
Over the last few months, we have made a special effort to load up lots of prep sets in advance. The goal, as discussed on this page, is so lots of eyes can look at them, find errors, and change them or pull them before they're locked into the queue. Nikkimaria is one editor who surveys and pulls hooks at this stage. Any editor can do that, including you. So why wait until the hooks are locked away in a queue that only administrators can touch? Yoninah (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a great question. What TRM is doing (or not doing) is making more work for other editors. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
While that's true, per WP:VOLUNTEER, TRM is free to choose when he wishes to review hooks, and is free to post those where he wishes. If he chooses to review things only when they are in a queue, however, it's our prerogative (also per WP:VOLUNTEER) to ignore his demands to fill the queues early enough for him to review them. I for one am not going to promote a set to queue unless I have the time to review it, the demands above notwithstanding. Vanamonde (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
”demands”? Dick. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it didn't sound like a request. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So once again, please stop promoting error-ridden crap to queues, and please make sure at least o e queue is promptly filled. I understand that you cannot assure quality, that’s what I’m here to do; but do us all a favour and set the queue up as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Can a statement from the subject be "negative"?

Template:Did you know nominations/Ryder Jackson requests a second opinion on whether a hook based on a statement from the subject might be deemed negative. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I closed Template:Did you know nominations/Women in Iceland as passed, but the highlighted area is only taking up half of the nomination. I'm guessing that there is some type of syntax that is interfering, but I can't find it. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I figured it out. An editor commented below the line. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 image: Can't make out the foreground or the background

T24 (foreground) and Z24 under attack
T24 (foreground) and Z24 under attack

@L293D: I have never seen a more fuzzy and indecipherable lead image as this one between two ships. Can a clearer image be found? Yoninah (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that if there is problem with the lead image, maybe the hook could be removed from the prep until (or if) a clearer image is found. I was also thinking that maybe it could be moved to prep 1 without the image because only two hooks are in that prep at the moment. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: no, a clearer image of the sinking can not be found. However, I could change the image to File:T 35 as DD 935 in US seas August 1945.jpg and change the (pictured) to (sister ship pictured). Or, alternatively (I would prefer this solution), swap the Albatross hook from prep 6 with the T24 one and promote Albatross with the image instead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this image is unsatisfactory. As there are a number of nominations about German warships at the moment, we will be spreading out the different hooks over a number of sets. We are only likely to run one in the image slot, and might as well choose the best one for this purpose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've swapped the two hooks and promoted T24 to q6 without the image and Albatross to q2 with the image. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Huh? You're not allowed to deal with your own hooks in prep. Additionally, the image for Albatross is very faint and I wouldn't use that in the image slot. I have reverted your revisions to Preps 6 and 2 and returned Template:Did you know nominations/German torpedo boat T24 to the noms page for later promotion. Yoninah (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't know you weren't allowed to move your own hooks around in prep. I agree that the T24 hook image was bad, but why can't it stay in prep 6? Especially if there are several torpedo boat hooks coming in, we should better start early. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have reverted L293D's own reversion of Yoninah's reversion. L293D, requests can be made here if you see a problem or have a suggestion, but as Yoninah says, you should never do anything directly to your hooks once they have been promoted. I'll leave it to Yoninah to decide what should happen next, and make sure that everything is in a safe state in Preps 6 and 2 after the recent edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago; here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 17. Right now we have a total of 368 nominations, of which 209 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that remain from September.

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) 04:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for November 10 (Prep 6)

Prep 6 is currently full, but a special occasion hook approved yesterday would need to be placed there if it is to run on November 10. Can someone please take care of it? I'm afraid I don't have time to do a proper promotion today. (Note: it doesn't have to be lead hook even though it has an image, but it does need to be somewhere in that set.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC re: DYK

Regarding DYK in the {{Article history}} template. Discussion can be found here. Ergo Sum 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_152&oldid=1070593012"