Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 165

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160 ← Archive 163 Archive 164 Archive 165 Archive 166 Archive 167 → Archive 170

Prep 4: London Traffic

  • ... that the Royal Commission on London Traffic proposed constructing 9 miles (14 km) of avenues through central London with railways underneath at the cost of £30 million in 1905, equivalent to approximately £3.16 billion today?
@DavidCane:@The C of E:@Cwmhiraeth:
The hook is over 200 characters long. Could we cut it after "1905", or should a new hook be proposed? Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems a good idea to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That's okay with me. I didn't include the current value in the suggested hook for that reason.--DavidCane (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/JoAnne Graf (second opinion)

Hi all,

Is there some one who can give a second opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/JoAnne Graf ALTs? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiesbadener Bachwochen

When I wrote the hook for Wiesbadener Bachwochen, Christmas was ahead, but now - past 6 January - even the last part of the Christmas Oratorio would have been performed in Bach's time. How about mentioning instead Bach's Mass in B minor and/or Handel's Messiah, both given in 2019? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, you picked Messiah, - I had to change church and year. The church was a one-sentence stub, and isn't much more after translating, see Bergkirche, Wiesbaden. If that's not enough, please take the B minor. On vacation, can't dig in more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The church article looks good, though not well referenced. So we'll go back to Bach. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility of DYKs that have appeared as POTD

Hi all, a quick query about the DYK rules - I started a new article at Sunrise, Inverness Copse today, which I had been incubating in my user-space for a while, because I noticed this morning that it is today's POTD. I've then updated the POTD template so the new article is bold rather than the artist. My question is whether it is still eligible for DYK, even though it's been the bold link on the main page already? From the WP:DYKRULES (1d), it says that "If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK", which doesn't specifically mention POTD. (It also doesn't mention TFA, which I imagine is unlikely to occur, although could in theory happen if the DYK nomination was in the backlog for a long time and the article passed FAC and was scheduled for TFA before the DYK was run...) So is the above article allowed, or would that be bending the spirit of 1d? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Arguably the rule should mention POTD, but since it doesn't, your article is still eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been expanding some articles that I see are soon to be POTD, or where featured pictures are currently ineligible for POTD because the associated articles are stubs or don't exist, and I have been nominating them for DYK. One such was Rhinogobius flumineus which was POTD two days ago. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
An interesting point Cwmhiraeth, and we wouldn't want to discourage that as it's highly useful and many of our POTD articles are in a dreadful state. Of course, appearing at DYK first and then POTD, TFA, ITN or OTD later would not be frowned upon at all...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Credits for last update

Returning from a vacation day, I'm surprised that I see a new update but no credits. Had no time for watchlist yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

None of the credits seem to have been distributed as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The bot added all of the article notices except the last one, for Talk:KHBC-TV, then stopped. It did not add any user credits, did not clear Queue 1, did not set the pointer to the next queue, and did not add a DYK notice for the image. Shubinator, please see what happened. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Also pinging Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile to complete the bot's unfinished work, especially clearing Queue 1 and setting Template:Did you know/Queue/Next. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mandarax: I have done the two admin-specific tasks you mention. I will leave it to others to do the user credits and DYK notice if that's OK, unless it's not done by much later tonight. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. I added the notice to Talk:KHBC-TV, and I guess I'll also take care of the rest. It'll be a little slow-going, as I like to include the hook rather than taking the lazy route and omitting it. (To make it a little easier on myself, I added a "hook" option to Template:DYKmake/DYKmake-insert.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I finished the credits. An admin will still have to add {{DYKfile|16 January|2020|type=image}} to File:Guillaume Marie-Anne Brune.jpg (or anyone else can do it later, when it's no longer protected). Also, check to see if the bot successfully performs the next update in two and a half hours. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The bot successfully completed the update. I mistakenly thought that the bot adds {{DYKfile}} to the image file of the new set, but it's actually the image from the previous set. So the one the bot missed was actually File:Cyprinodon diabolis, males.jpg. I've added the notice to that file. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Query about book cover image used in article

File:A short history of Soviet society 1977.jpg

At the DYK I'm reviewing for V. S. Lelchuk, nominated by Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory, I raised a query about the status of the book cover image on the right. Per C:COM:BOOK, the Commons rules on copyright, a book cover is only legitimate if it is of "very simple design" or the images used on it are all in the public domain. I'm concerned that the logo in the upper-right corner, and the photo of a sculpture, which presumably dates to around 1977, would not qualify under this. I'm not sure if this is a concern for passing the DYK though. Please could the community advise? THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant it is, but the statue is Mukhina's Worker and Kolkhoz Woman, from 1937. Mukhina died in 1953. Russia has no freedom of panorama, so images of the statue are not considered public domain. I'm not sure De minimis could be said to apply given it makes up a not insignificant element of the cover. Add in the logo and altogether I'm somewhat dubious the overall design can be said to be uncopyrightable. Similar book covers, like File:Robert-Conquest-The-Harvest-of-Sorrow-cover.jpg, File:Cover of Death Traps by Belton Y Cooper.jpg and File:Der Untergang (Joachim Fest book).jpg are considered under copyright. Spokoyni (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. As it is on its plinth, that makes it most likely a 1937 photograph and so possibly eligible for PD Old or one of the Anonymous licences. But may be taken in France, not Russia, where there also is no FOP. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely Moscow, the plinth went with it and the Ostankino Tower is visible in the background, which places the photograph as no earlier than 1967. Just for information, there may still be some reasoning that makes the book cover pd for wikipedia. Spokoyni (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Either de minimis or "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, any forms of money, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" under Template:PD-RU-exempt. Is it a state symbol? It was produced for the Soviet government's pavilion to represent them and owned by them so it might be. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately even if the statue were considered a state symbol, photographs of 3D works garner a separate copyright, and a post-1967 photo is almost certainly still within its copyright term. Further I agree with Amakuru and Spokoyni that the de minimis argument is at the least questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have nominated the photograph for deletion on Commons. Of course, as a book cover, a low resolution version may be retained here under fair use. An argument from de minimis carries very little weight in arranged works, as DM rests on the extent to which the inclusion is accidental and incidental. This is the same reason why DM doesn't apply to screen shots, as all content included in the screen shot is presumed to be intentional and essential. GMGtalk 13:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion hold request

DYK nomination Possession (Joywave album)

The article Possession (Joywave album) was converted from a redirect by @Aria1561: on January 9, 2020. It was nominated for DYK on January 16. The nominator would like the hook to appear on March 13, which is the the album's release date, therefore surpassing the six week maximum. Since the 'Special occasion hold requests' sub-section on DYK's reviewing guide suggests to open a thread here to gain consensus, I'm opening this requests, to know if the proposed date is deemed sufficiently special by other users. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK should not be in the business of promotion. The lead says it is an upcoming album, so we can run it on the usual schedule. Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Without taking a position either way, I will note that Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 23, 2019 on Taylor Swift was scheduled specifically to appear on the date one of her albums was released. This was noted on the main page at the time but otherwise wasn't discussed much. I'd rather there wasn't one rule for one section of the MP and a different one for another - another way to look at is that the album's release creates more attention for the wikipedia article - which seems to have been the rationale for the scheduling of the Taylor Swift FA. Spokoyni (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to a special release date, if you can get a consensus here. If so, you need to change the lead sentence to something like: "Possession, with a release date of March 13, 2020, is the third studio album by American indie rock band Joywave." Or something similar. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No objection to a special occasion date provided that the hook that will go up on that day is not promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Angelina (French singer)

Could someone please help me with the image? Can it be cropped without creating a separate file? --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Angelina Nava at JESC 2018 (cropped-3).jpg is smaller and File:Angelina Nava at JESC 2018 (cropped-2).jpg if that helps. MB 16:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That helps a lot cause now I see that the image I used is already cropped too drastically and I should try just taking the original, File:Angelina Nava at JESC 2018.jpg, and experimenting with it a bit. (The reviewer recommended that I make a wider image.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Q1 Jan19b

Template:Did you know nominations/Meta Romuli

Alessandro57 Raymie Yoninah

First para of Structure section has no citations and the sources are all offline. --valereee (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, how did I not catch that... I assumed good faith on the offline sources, but yeah, that Structure area needs a citation. Raymie (t • c) 18:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Raymie, I almost didn't catch it either, short para at beginning of section, easy to miss. We could probably just smush together the two paras as this one's just 2 sentences, but thought I'd at least ask first since we have a few hours. :) --valereee (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Raymie Yoninah, source added, and it is online, so both the problems are solved, I hope!, Anyway, my fault, sorry! Alex2006 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Kristi Overton Johnson

@~riley:@NoteworthynancyNC:
I notice that you have a most hooky hook in the quirky slot in Prep 3 with a link to this article. Would you like to run a double hook there? Yoninah (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Works for me! Either or ~riley (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@~riley: Thanks! The prep set was just promoted, but I've asked an admin to adjust the last hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ping bug still hasn't been fixed

Seems that the recent change to the relevant template hasn't solved the issue: I just another ping after Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Rwabwogo was promoted by Cwmhiraeth. Should we bring this up to WP:VPT? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: MicroG

@Yae4:@Raymie:@Cwmhiraeth:
Honestly, this reads like a brochure entry. Is there any way to write a hook here? Yoninah (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Not sure what you're looking for? Something more exciting like, from the source: "Despite the hundreds, if not thousands, of developers who work on Google Play Services, one of the most well known replacements for Google’s closed software is maintained largely by only one developer, Marvin Wißfeld, based in Germany."? -- Yae4 (talk)
@Yae4: that is certainly very promotional, and your Wikipedia article doesn't make that distinction that being maintained by one developer is so noteworthy. Looking closely at the article, I see an unnecessary glut of citations in the lead, and generally a less-than-start-class feeling about the whole article. Perhaps some of the information in the lead could be moved to a later section, Current Status? The idea of hook-writing is just that, to "hook" the reader into clicking on the article, as opposed to telling the whole story in the hook and leaving the reader with no need to click on the article. Perhaps after some reorganization, a short but punchy hook fact will jump out. Yoninah (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
​ @Yoninah: I still don't know what you mean by a "brochure," but I took it like "boring." The article was written neutrally, more neutrally than some sources. It was also a collaboration. I'll see about moving some of the lead as suggested, Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yae4: I mean it reads like a statement of fact, the kind of description you would read in a brochure touting the product. It does not read like a "hook". Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The article has been updated, and how about this as a more hooky hook?
-- Yae4 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Yae4: thank you for your work. To be honest, I find the article very technical and do not understand the content at all. Could other editors weigh in on the alt hook please? Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 as it stands sounds promotional or otherwise not like a hook but more like a straight statement of facts. Maybe a change in wording is in order, or perhaps something else can be focused on? I think it might be more interesting that these were written by one person rather than the "replace Google Play Services" part. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm in the process of reviewing the article, and I will attempt to address the concerns. — Newslinger talk 03:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
As things are moving quickly in the prep promotions, I'm returning this to WP:DYKN for further work. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wellacre Academy hook changed while on Main Page

Gatoclass, I can see that you changed the hook for Wellacre Academy while it was on the Main Page to ... "as of 2016, Wellacre Academy had 1720 solar panels, more than any other school in the United Kingdom?" Why did you change Great Britain to United Kingdom as the sources do not say UK? Also, as the article mentions Great Britain it no longer matches the hook. Shouldn't there be a comma after 1? - is there any chance the original hook can be restored in the archive or restored but with "as of 2016," added to the beginning? Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

And if anyone doesn't understand the reason for the dispute, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are very different things. One is an island. One is a sovereign state. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the sources say "Britain", not "Great Britain",[1][2] and according to Wikipedia: Britain usually refers to the United Kingdom. Additionally, as I recall there has long been consensus that on the main page the formal term "United Kingdom" should be used rather than informal terms like "Britain". Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, Britain is also short for Great Britain and the solar panel data may only be referring to the island of Great Britain but clarity is an issue here. However, if there has been consensus that "United Kingdom" should be used rather than "Britain", then I guess that could be ok but I don't know and do you have a link to that consensus? Also, please can you tell me your thoughts about the restoring the original hook part — the hook has already ran with both so I don't think it would be much of an issue here, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
No I don't have a link to a discussion, my comment is based on regular protests at WP:ERRORS when the terms "Britain" or "Great Britain" have been used in place of "United Kingdom". With regard to altering the hook in the archive - firstly, I'm not sure what change you are advocating, and secondly, there has been some resistance in the past to altering hooks in the archive on the basis that they should be a record of what was actually displayed on the main page. Personally I would probably be in favour of correcting hooks in the archive but am reluctant to do so when we don't have a set policy on it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I see, the problem is what if the solar panels is not referring to the UK? Anyway, for altering the hook in the archive, the original hook was displayed on the main page until you changed it, so for that reason, I don't think it would be much of a problem to restore that in the archive, can we change it back? Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
No we don't alter archives without a very good reason, and the above isn't near enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Only in death, why is that not a good reason? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Steven (Editor), because the hook was flawed in its promoted state and had to be changed to add the "as of 2016" qualifier. We always archive the hook as it was when the set on the main page was replaced with a new set, and changing it to a wording it never had on the main page (we're certainly not going to go back to the problematic promoted wording) is an inaccurate representation and inappropriate for an archive. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I'm not fussed about the hook thing by the way, but what I'm trying to say is, the original hook was updated midnight 16 January, Gatoclass changed this 8 hours later — 8 hours of the original hook on main page, so why can't this be restored in archive? The main issue here is the changing of Great Britain to United Kingdom and whether Britain in the source is referring to Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Also, wouldn't it have been better to add the "as of 2016" qualifier to the original hook instead of rewording the sentence? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The DYK standard is to archive the final version of the hook. That's how the process works. Hooks change all the time on the main page; yours was changed because of a post to WP:ERRORS. You haven't given a compelling case to make an exception in this one case, and if you're truly not fussed by it, please let it drop now. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I know but dammit I did not see that WP:ERRORS discussion — but the discussion was about University of Sussex having more solar panels but that is a university with the ending comments being "the objection isn't to the hook, but to British English". A user suggested it be changed to "that in 2016, Wellacre Academy hashad ..." (what I was saying above) which seems the rest of the original hook wording was ok and no issues were raised. Gatoclass commented on that discussion the next day after changing the hook with "I changed it to:" — wish I seen this so I could comment but too late, yeah it's dropped. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 169 approved nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 282 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are four nominations that were approved at least a month ago, between December 13 and December 20. These have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given in the list is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever feasible so the nominations don't have to wait much longer than they already have.

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

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2: Charles Jones

Originally nommed with a picture, but approved promoted without. In case the hook with a photo is struck for whatever reason, we shouldn't use the supplied photo with the Jones hook—it demonstrates a part of his engineering project not completed during his tenure. This error was corrected in the article but obviously not updated in the hook. I suspect this won't come to anything but flagging in case it does! MIDI (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Cwmhiraeth: (FYI, no action needed!). MIDI (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The photograph did not seem to add anything much to the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion hold request: Teraupo'o

In the Template:Did you know nominations/Teraupo'o, the nom is requesting for the hook to run on 15–16 February, as the hook relates to this date. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that it is already in Special occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ae Watan

Currently in prep 5 after I rotated it from the queue:

The quote in the source is that Gulzar wants it to become "the song of our country". That is not the same thing as the "national song of India" (ie national anthem, linked to the latter quote in the article). I'm not sure what to do about this so have brought it here for further discussion. Pinging the nominator CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass, "I would like ‘Ae Watan’ to become the song of our nation" [3]. Nation refers to a country. Maybe to . that Indian lyricist Gulzar wants "Ae Watan" to become the song of India? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Women in law in the United Kingdom

Any chance we can escalate this one (already approved), given it is the 100 year anniversary of the event in the hook today? GiantSnowman 08:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking whether we could add this to today's set that's already on the main page, or did you just want it to get into a prep yet this year? --valereee (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The sooner the better really... GiantSnowman 15:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to put a dampener on festivities, but this article is so Anglocentric it borders on racism, and I strongly suggest pulling it unless and until it's brought up to scratch unless you want WP:ERRORS deluged in (legitimate) complaints. The UK is a union of four nations, not just England, and all the early running when it came to gender equality took place in Scotland and Ireland, but this article ignores anything that took place outside England; as it stands Madge Easton Anderson, Frances Kyle and Averil Deverell aren't even mentioned. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That, and it is rather poorly formatted, terrible proseline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I've put the approval on hold based on the above comments; the issues raised need to be addressed. Perhaps the discussion should relocate to the nomination page? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent and Jo-Jo Eumerus: why not use your clearly vastly superior knowledge of the subject to improve it rather than just sit here and moan? GiantSnowman 11:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than demanding that other editors help them out, I suggest that the original author widens their sources to include material from some of the recent scholarship in this area, in addition to the usual mosaic of cuttings snipped from websites and newspapers. For example, [4]

In a similar vein, there might be useful material at (the rather US-centric) Timeline of women lawyers and my comments on the talk page there some 4½ years ago. And there is related content at List of first women lawyers and judges in Europe#United_Kingdom.

For example, you might want to mention the first woman law professor in the UK, Claire Palley (Belfast, 1970, some decades after Frances Moran became a law professor in Dublin). Or the first woman advocate in Scotland, Margaret Kidd. Or the first woman solicitor in Wales, Agnes Twiston Hughes. Or some of the other judicial milestones, such as Sybil Campbell as a stipe, or Victoria Sharp as President of the QBD. Or Lady Cosgrove in Scotland, and Denise McBride and Siobhan Keegan in Northern Ireland. Hope that helps. Ferma (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Iridescent and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I agree the prose is terrible. I do suggest that you take a whack at improving the article and including those things that are missing. @GiantSnowman: this wasn't ready for prime time. --evrik (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Given I'm "terrible" at writing articles I'd just love for other editors to help me out rather than sit there criticising? Where are you @Iridescent, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Ferma, and Evrik: hmmm? GiantSnowman 11:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Before you wrote that last comment, you may want to check the edit history. I have already done a fair amount to clean up and make the article more presentable. The whole second section needs to be rewritten. Giant snowman, since you put this forth as a DYK, I think it falls on you. --evrik (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not particularly familiar with the topic and not particularly interested, but one thing to do would be to merge the one sentence paragraphs into one coherent block and make it so that it doesn't read like a timeline. I probably shouldn't have used the word "terrible", though; sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If part of the issue here is a mismatch between title and content, is renaming the article a possible step forward? Is there enough reasonable content to support Women in law in England? I know very little about the legal systems of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but my impression is that they have very different historical foundations, which might be very challenging to address in a single article for all of the UK. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I don't know enough about the subject to judge either, though the current article seems a collection of names and dates with little narrative. What I do know is that nominator GiantSnowman hasn't made a single edit to the article in an attempt to address the issues raised above. I have just made a note on the nomination page about this lack of action, and I think further discussion should move there now that three weeks have passed since this section was opened. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: neither have the people who raised the apparent issues. If y'all don't want this to be a DYK then fine by me. GiantSnowman 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Snowman: If you were to rewrite the center section so it is less of a recitation of facts and flowed better - and maybe added a sentence explaining the inclusion of Scotland and Wales into this - it would move along. --evrik (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: 1) your ping did not work 2) I don't have the time or inclination. I'm still waiting for all the critics to so something constructive and make some edits to improve the article rather than slagging off the article/my ability. GiantSnowman 18:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

Ruby2010 MWright96 Cwmhiraeth

This hook is 224 characters, suggestions for shortening? Do we need both title and name? --valereee (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and shortened it to
...because it's due on the MP in just a few hours and I may not be around much longer today. If anyone else wants to shorten it in a different way, go ahead! --valereee (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Also: the section on Issue has no citation, can someone please add that? --valereee (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I've found a source for Issue --valereee (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I forget what the hook maximum length is, but I'm fine removing her title (or even shortening her name to "Lady Salisbury" if needed):

  • ... that Georgina Gascoyne-Cecil became a leading member of the Primrose League, the first British political organisation to give women a prominent role, despite finding its medieval influences absurd?

–Better? Ruby2010 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot down

Just letting everybody know that the bot failed to fire again. I have manually updated but haven't found time to do the credits yet, and not sure if I can find the time right now. If somebody else can manage it, that would be very helpful. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Credits are done. Gatoclass (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago, so here is an updated list with the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 13. We have a total of 278 nominations, of which 165 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two remaining from November.

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) 03:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Q4 Jan24a

Template:Did you know nominations/Art of Francisco Narváez in University City of Caracas

Kingsif Cwmhiraeth TheAwesomeHwyh

The article's sentence says the group wished to preserve all of his artworks, but the hook indicates they wanted to preserve the artworks at the university. I can't read the source, which is a pdf in Spanish, so I'm not sure whether I need to tweak the hook or tweak the article sentence. --valereee (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Page 37 of the pdf has the paragraph "El 15 de septiembre de 1982 se crea la Unidad de Conservación de Obras de Arte, producto de la mutilación de una obra de arte mural del artista Francisco Narváez, ubicada en el Comedor Universitario, como consecuencia de la ampliación del mismo. Un grupo de arquitectos de la Dirección de Planeamiento y una delegación estudiantil ante el Consejo Universitario evitan la perdida total de la obra de arte del creador antes mencionado. En el mes de mayo, fue ordenado por la Fiscalía General de Mantenimiento de Desarrollo Urbano, en cumplimiento con lo establecido en la “Ley sobre Mantenimiento de la Obras e Instalaciones Públicas” la elaboración de un Informe, cuyo objetivo era poner en conocimiento a las Autoridades Universitarias y a los encargados de la Conservación y del Mantenimiento del estado los bienes afectados para que se adoptaran medidas de preservación. En virtud de la magnitud del problema, el Rector Dr. Carlos Moros Ghersi y los Miembros del Consejo Universitario deciden crear la Unidad de Conservación de Obras de Arte." (bold own) - the bold parts translate as "On 15 September 1982, the Artwork Conservations Unit was created, a result of the damage of the Narváez mural in the university cafeteria, a consequence of its improvements" ... "they work to prevent the complete loss of the works of art of the aforementioned creator" and that "they achieved establishment" ... "with the objective to win recognition from University Authorities" ... "recognizing the magnitude of the problem, the rector Dr. Moros and the members of the university council decided to create the Artwork Conservation Unit". So while it says a group to preserve his artworks, it's within the university. Perhaps the part in the article could be expanded, by adding that the group was approved by the university when they realized damage was a big issue? Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, I was mostly looking to make the hook and the article sentence say the same thing, which I think they're intended to do. We could either change the hook to read 'to preserving his works' or the article to 'preserving his works there.' My concern was that unless the eleven pieces he donated to the uni are the total of his art, or unless the group wants to also preserve any works that are in other places, the two sentences currently mean two different things. --valereee (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll add to the article. I didn't originally because I thought it was clear given the article's scope. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Deportations of Kurds (1916–1934)

Semsûrî BabbaQ 97198

I'm only seeing the word "Turkify" in the lead of this article, and that sentence doesn't have a citation. I tried the source listed in the nom, but the portion of it I can get to also doesn't bring up anything on a search for "Turkify." What is the sentence in the article that supports the assertion that this was "an attempt to Turkify"? --valereee (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There's also a 1-sentence para without a citation, second para in 1923-34 section.--valereee (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Regarding 'turkify', it was the deportation of Kurds AND the settlement of non-Kurds (Turks and turcophones from the Balkan) that constituted the attempt to turkify the region. The article states: "Moreover, the largest Kurdish city Diyarbakir was declared a 'Turkification Region' and Kurds were deported from the area, as migrants from the Balkans were planned to be settled there" with Üngör as a reference. Can you point at the specific sentence in the 1923-1934 section'? Everything should be fine there in terms of references. --Semsurî (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Semsûrî, ah, I see that now, sorry! I should have searched 'turkif' instead of just turkify. :) Sorry, hurrying through the check to get it done as I'm on the road most of tomorrow. The sentence in the 23-34 section is Assuming that the laws had become successful, Turkey eased on the restrictions and allowed some of the deported to return in 1929. I have no major objection to this being simply combined into the previous or following paragraph, but I don't like to do that myself if someone familiar with the article can help. Every paragraph needs at least one citation for DYK, even if it's a single sentence. --valereee (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Blechhammer concentration camp

The hook I have in mind has a special occasion date of 26 January, would someone be willing to review it? Thanks in advance! buidhe 22:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

done, please reserve a slot on 26 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Promoted to Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 3, Jan 23 b

Could someone please add a wikilink to Andrés Prado in the hook, I have created an article for it. Thank you. Bammesk (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  •  Done. I've given the new article a quick review and added it to the credits as it appears to be eligible under the criteria. Strictly speaking though, you now owe an additional QPQ. Nice work! Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexei Leonov

Alexei Leonov appeared at ITN upon his death. Does that mean that even if I improved the article to GA now that the article cannot appear at DYK? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Depends whether it was a bolded link or not - if it was bolded, it can't appear, otherwise it can. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It was a bolded link in a blurb in the prose section - [5]. Technically this disqualifies it under Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria 1d, unless we agree on a WP:IAR exemption. Spokoyni (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, it does indeed mean that the article is no longer eligible for DYK, since it was a bold link in the ITN prose section, even if improved to become a GA. Sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't it depend on whether it was a bold link? That is, an ITN blurb vs. a RD? RDs aren't boldlinked, blurbs are. --valereee (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That is indeed the case. For example, after Barbara Bush's death she was listed at "Recent deaths" instead of a full blurb. Thus, under this circumstance, theoretically Bush is still eligible for DYK. In fact, such cases aren't too uncommon: I've seen instances of an article appearing at WP:RD then later appearing at DYK, an example would be Wang Jian (businessman). However, if a person's death appeared as a full blurb (as was the case with Jules Bianchi), then Bianchi and other similar examples would no longer be eligible for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

February 3 special occasion request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/W. G. Hardy with a special occasion request for a February 3 birthday anniversary. Thank for you consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It needs to have been reviewed before it can be moved to the Special holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If nobody beats me to it, I'll review, but am busy writing for 27 January which needs even more of exception making. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Not that the article is ready, but at least ready for review: Template:Did you know nominations/Litanies (Mozart), - will do the qpq later tonight, need to go now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It's now approved. Could someone please move it to special occasions or prep. Mozart pictured on his birthday, 27 January, would be appreciated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Special 6 millionth article DYK?

It appears we have just passed the 6 millionth article mark. Should we do a special DYK to commemorate this? Taewangkorea (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I wonder what the article was. --evrik (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Six million articles, about a woman, by a woman ;) - recipient #1 of Precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Maria Elise Turner Lauder. Carefully managed, I guess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5 - Pontobdella muricata

Well, of course it does, that's just what one would expect a marine leech to do. This hook is just a statement of the obvious and therefore by definition uninteresting. Suggested alt:

Yoninah, any chance you could verify this alt? Or somebody else with a minute to spare? The set will go to the main page in a few hours. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Casliber? Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's my hook, and I agree with you that it is an unsurprising fact, although the leech could parasitise a whale, seal or sea turtle, but its not an error. Many readers may not know that leeches suck blood or that fish have blood to suck. I'm happy with ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the basic knowledge of the average reader. Regardless, I have had to substitute the nomination with another because unfortunately nobody was able to review the above alt in time. The alt still needs review however, hopefully it will be done soon so I can restore the hook to prep. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I corrected the cite to the hook fact in the article. Here is an approved hook, including conversion template:
ALT1a: ... that with a stretched length of up to 20 cm (7.9 in), Pontobdella muricata is one of the largest marine leeches? Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Yoninah :) Added to prep 6. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Admins needed: the queues are empty

All the queues are empty, and the next main page promotion is due in under nine hours. We'll need at least two preps promoted to queues in the next 24 hours, and hopefully more. Pinging Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile, in the hopes that some of you can help out. Many thanks to all, including anyone who can fill the preps once they're emptied into queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Regrettably, the queues are once again empty. Happily, the preps are full, so we have plenty of sets ready for any passing admins. In the hopes that some will be passing by, I'm pinging the usual list: Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile, in the hopes that at least one set can be promoted in the next few hours, and more to follow so we can build up a buffer. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
ok hang on..done..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
We've been doing this for a month and we're only down to 131 approved. How can that be? :) Two sets a day is a grind. I feel like I just finished one. It was three sets ago, but it was just the day before yesterday. I moved another, too, will check it this morning. Should we consider going to nine hooks, maybe permanently? Last time we brought that up as a temporary measure (also during a two-sets-a-day push) there was discussion. --valereee (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The rate of new nominations spiked around the holidays and hasn't let up: most days get over 10 nominations and January 18 is at 19 noms, more than would fill two sets. And the queues are already empty again, despite the best efforts of you and Cas Liber and the usual set of stalwarts (pinging all of you again: Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile). If the rate is becoming too much, we'll need to go back down to one a day, at least for a while, and build up the number of filled queues gradually. Thanks again to all you admins for stepping up. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Put Template:.../Lviv pogroms (1941) in Prep 5?

Would it be in bad taste to have Lviv pogroms (1941) as the lead image hook for January 27? The date January 27th is Auschwitz Liberation Day and the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a pretty graphic image. I'm moving that hook to Prep 5, though, because it is a Holocaust anniversary date. Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 2: Statue of Robert Burns (Milwaukee)

Statue of Robert Burns in Milwaukee
Statue of Robert Burns
in Milwaukee

The licensing for this image looks bogus. It's PD-US, which means the photo was either taken before 1925 or there was no copyright renewal, but the metadata shows that the image was taken on a digital camera in 2012. The summary says the photo was taken by "Ilona Gonzalez" and it was sourced from "Photographs of public sculptures in Milwaukee", but that isn't a description of a source, and the link provided is only to a description of the statue at the Smithsonian. It looks to me that the uploader has erroneously concluded that because the sculpture was made before 1924, the photograph is in the public domain. Since this is in the next set due for the main page, a quick resolution for this is needed. Gatoclass (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The username of the uploader (Lonibug - on user page as Loni Gonzalez) seems similar enough to the author credit that it could plausibly be self-published with confusion of photo copyright tags. Since getting this confirmation might take a while, is there a chance it's under some Freedom of panorama? Kingsif (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that the person taking the photograph still has copyright over the photograph, regardless of whether freedom of panorama applies, so I don't see what difference the FoP status would make. Gatoclass (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the intent was that PD applies to the statue since FOP in U.S. does not apply to statues and sculptures. But the user made the mistake of not applying a license like cc-by-4.0 for the photo itself. From looking at the metadata, the user very likely took the photo, especially considering their other uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Lonibug --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
That is most likely the case Coffeeandcrumbs, but I would be reluctant to correct the licence without further consultation, at commons for example, as I'm not sure what to do in cases like this. Gatoclass (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have swapped the image with another appropriately licensed image from the article. Gatoclass (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @Gatoclass: the word "(pictured)" belongs after "monument". Also, it would be nice to crop it to get rid of the colored cars at the bottom. Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for picking up the absence of "pictured" Yoninah - fixed. With regard to a possible crop, anybody is welcome to do that, but I am about to take a break after a long session and will not be doing it myself. Gatoclass (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I have started c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lonibug with an explanation of the situation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Easter egg within an Easter egg

@GiantSnowman:@The C of E:@Cwmhiraeth:
The links in this hook do not even point to Tyreece John-Jules' uncle, who is Danny John-Jules. It seems to me that the link should be piped this way:
Fine. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2020 (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) 10:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5 - Columbia Station

@Cwmhiraeth: The hook should read "around Wenatchee", as it included school districts across the two counties. SounderBruce 06:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I was not responsible for adding the location information. It will need an administrator to alter the hook in the queue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I changed it to "in the region of". Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Wenatchee is a single city, not the name of the region (though the school districts stretch all the way up to Chelan, considered part of a separate region). "Around" or "surrounding" would be more accurate. SounderBruce 18:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but "around" or "surrounding" implies that school districts in Wenatchee itself were not included, and there is no indication of that that I can see. "Region" in the broad sense just means "in the vicinity of" so I think it's less confusing. Gatoclass (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Back to one-a-day?

As of now, we have 129 approved hooks (a few of which need further action before promotion). This is only enough for 8 days at this rate. Is it not time to switch back to one set a day. I propose we switch back soonish, probably February 1 or sooner. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No, not yet, not when we're getting new nominations at a higher rate than ever: January 18 currently has 19 nominations, which would fill nearly two and a half sets just by itself, and most days run into double digits. I would aim for around 75 approved hooks before switching back. However, if we're approaching burn-out for the admins who promote from prep to queue (the queues are again empty), we may have to reduce the rate whether it's optimal to do so or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
No burnout in my case, and otherwise I agree with BlueMoonset that we should persevere for a while yet - the backlog has been extraordinarily stubborn this time around and it's only in recent days we started to make some real progress against it. Gatoclass (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy to leave at 2 sets/day. Am on and off so pinging is ok re moving preps to queues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, last time we did not switch back to one set a day until the number of approved hooks fell to about 40. -Zanhe (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Cas Liber, since we're down to one queue filled. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Earwigs down

Is Earwigs down more often then it's up for anyone else, or just me? Morgan695 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be blocked by Google for doing too many searches. Untick the "use search engines" box and it still works for checking copyvio against cited sources. -Zanhe (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I have always unclicked "use search engines", but the site is working incredibly slowly nowadays. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Not specific to Earwig, but I would urge editors to sign up for the weekly Tech News: Meta:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors - scroll down for the appropriate number/letter section to add yourself. . It won't have all the answers to funky things happening out of nowhere. But sometimes when there seems to be a big flub up - like the connection problems of a few days ago - the weekly newsletter is sometimes an advance notice on such things.— Maile (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3: Video game

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA:@Miraclepine:@Cwmhiraeth:
This hook does not meet the criteria of Rule C6. Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
ミラP 13:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
... that the video game 868-HACK developed and published by Michael Brough was created as part of a seven-day roguelike competition? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, but that is so niche as to be unintelligible to non-gaming readers like myself. Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Rogue is actually a seminal game in the industry, the forerunner of countless D&D-style games. IMO the hook would work fine with a link - I've added one. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for enlightening me, Gatoclass. Could we shorten the hook for the quirky slot by taking out Michael Brough? Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, ... that the video game 868-HACK was created as part of a seven-day roguelike competition? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 23:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Though this has been resolved in another way, the original hook did meet C6 - the player being the real human person playing, not the player character. The player character is the smiley face; as in, to play the game, one must control a smiley face. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: thank you. Replacing hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The new hook refers to the Seven Day Roguelike Challenge (see 7drl.com or the game's entry here), the roguelike world's equivalent of National Novel Writing Month. It is arguable "the", not "a", and it definitely is a proper noun, and should be in caps? (... as part of the Seven Day Roguelike Challenge?) Pinging @Yoninah, Kingsif, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, and Miraclepine: —Kusma (t·c) 20:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to draft a stub article than direct readers to a section in Roguelike called "Community". I had to start reading the paragraph to even find what you're referring to. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, perhaps, but it would also be better to use the originally approved hook. The current one (especially with "Roguelike" in caps) just reads weird if you know the concept of "Seven-day Roguelike". A bit like saying "... that Antony Gormley created an angel of the North?" instead of "... that Antony Gormley created the Angel of the North?" —Kusma (t·c) 04:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As this is not my area of expertise, I defer to other editors for their opinion. The original hook seemed too in-universe vis a vis Rule C6. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Concur with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and Miraclepine who drafted and approved the original hook, and with Kingsif and Kusma, the original hook should stand. I don't see this as violating the spirit or the letter of Rule C6. Spokoyni (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done Thank you. Restoring the original in prep. Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived overnight, so here is an updated list with the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 20. Things have been slow lately in terms of reviewing from this list and in general; the gap between total nominations and approved nominations has widened significantly since the beginning of the year. We currently have a total of 251 nominations, of which 125 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those remaining from mid-December and earlier.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5 - choogling

Is it just me or shouldn't this just be "chooglin'"? Pinging @Daniel Case, Cwmhiraeth, and Rlendog: —Kusma (t·c) 14:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Fixed by Ravenpuff. Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1:Image licensing

The Minute Man (1874) by Daniel Chester French
The Minute Man (1874) by Daniel Chester French

Just checking that this image does not violate FOP in the United States. Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

As a public artwork dating from 1874, it is clearly public domain, as is everything from 1924 or before in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1 William Street

I was wondering about this nomination. It seems that it was promoted a month ago by Amakuru but never ran. Was there a problem with the nomination? epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't look carefully. It did run but somehow there was neither a DYK credit nor a notice on the talk page. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (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 #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated entries

The hook for La Saline Natural Area, currently on the main page, is also in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Assuming this is an error and a prepbuilder might like to swap this out before it enters the queues? Spokoyni (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this! Looks like whoever promoted the hook forgot to close the nomination, and it was then promoted to Prep 1 by someone else. It's happened a few times before, sometimes unnoticed until they appear on the main page twice. I've now removed the hook from the prep area. -Zanhe (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No, what happened here was it was closed by the original promoter, but then the nominator undid the promotion to edit one of the ALT hooks, and a new promoter came along later, saw it was open and approved, and promoted it anew. I've just restored the original promotion (by Yoninah), since that's the promotion that went to the main page, with apologies to Cwmhiraeth, who did the subsequent promotion in good faith. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the investigation. I didn't look closely at the template history as I didn't want to find out who made what must have been an honest mistake. Good to know that neither of the two hardworking prepbuilders made a mistake! -Zanhe (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mary Gordon

I would like another set of eyes on this hook.

  • ... that Mary Gordon, the first British female prison inspector, once forestalled recidivism by supplying men's clothes and a train fare to South Wales to a female inmate who wanted to live as a man?

Looking at the article, while Gordon did reduce recidivism and did help an inmate wishing to live as a man, it's not clear from the article that the two are related in the way the hook implies. I moved it to prep 3 to give us some additional time to discuss. Ping nominator: @Cowlibob: — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I read it that they are related - the article states that the female inmate repeatedly stole men's clothes, which Gordon ascertained was because the inmate preferred to live and work as a man. So presumably to prevent the inmate from returning to stealing men's clothes on being released from prison, she gave her men's clothes and travel to a place where she could, and apparently did, find work in a largely, if not totally, male occupation. Thus Gordon could be said to have forestalled that inmate's recidivism. it might perhaps be reworded as
  • ... that Mary Gordon, the first British female prison inspector, once prevented a female inmate from reoffending by supplying her with men's clothes and a train fare to South Wales?
Which to me sounds even more hooky and unusual, and concentrates on this particular case. But just a suggestion. I think the original hook is still fine. Spokoyni (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Well that's all very well, but if it's just a theory that they're linked, and not supported by sources, then it would be too dubious for the main page. In fact, though, I think we're OK with the current hook. Oakley p204 says that Gordon's actions were motivated by the prisoner's own ideas about what would keep her out of prison going forward. I suggest the article text be modified to make it clear there's a connection, then we're good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Wugapodes: I've added a sentence into the article about the outcome of her intervention from her book. The story is originally derived from pages 71–72 of her book Penal Discipline which is available via archive [[6]]. Cowlibob (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to move special occasion hook from prep 5 to prep 6

Please consider moving the special occasion hook for W. G. Hardy from Prep 5 to Prep 6 to correspond with day time in Alberta. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: yes, I was planning to do that when Prep 6 opened up. Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Appreciated. Flibirigit (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6:Brothel

  • ... that Sallie Shearer's brothel (pictured) in Reading, Pennsylvania, was "magnificently furnished" with fine velvet carpets and beautiful mirrors?
@Philafrenzy:@Whispyhistory:@Cwmhiraeth:
The discussion on the nomination template noted that this isn't such a great hook. To me, it sounds like it's discussing the Waldorf-Astoria. Other hooks were suggested but rejected in favor of the image. But it's incorrect to say in the hook that the brothel is pictured. Frankly, we could run this type of hook without the image. I'm appealing to the DYK community to come up with a better hook for the image slot. Yoninah (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a quote from a police officer who visited and was obviously shocked at how opulent it was. There is another pic in the article that gives a better idea of the fancy Victorian decor but it doesn't show Shearer. It's well known that fancy furnishings are often used in brothels to counteract the low nature of the activity and to justify a higher price for what is essentially always the same act. I don't feel there is anything wrong with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Change it to "Shearer pictured". Philafrenzy (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing "wrong" with it, it just doesn't deserve an image slot. You are usually so much hookier! Yoninah (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Well I did suggest "...that in the 1880s, Sallie Shearer (pictured) ran a disorderly ranche in Reading, Pennsylvania?" Philafrenzy (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Or "...that Sallie Shearer (pictured) was prosecuted for running a disorderly ranche in Reading, Pennsylvania?"
I think it is an intriguing image of the brothel and a more interesting hook than the other suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course that's the cropped pic. The original is in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Got it - ALT1: ... that Sallie Shearer ran an all-female ranche? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Sallie Shearer ran a magnificently furnished all-female ranche?
ALT3: ... that you could buy alcohol on a Sunday at Sallie Shearer's all-female ranche? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I like those (particularly ALT1 and 2) for the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is the word "ranche" being suggested when the article says "brothel"? Ranche directs to Brothel, which makes no mention of the word; the redirect was created today by Philafrenzy. I'd never heard of the word in (decades of speaking) British English; Oxford Dictionaries haven't either, nor Wiktionary. It looks like a spelling mistake. Does this go against WP:COMMONALITY? Bazza (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It was a euphemism for brothel in use at the time. See the sources in the article and in William Goldman. The e is not a spelling mistake. Didn't you read the article? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't read the whole article, no. I did what I guess lots of people do which is read the lede to see if more might be interesting. I learned there (in the lede) that SS ran a "parlor house", which is another name for "brothel"; but nothing about this strange word "ranche". My main concern is that ranche is a link to somewhere which offers no explanation as to why the reader's been taken there; Wiktionary offers no explanation other than it being an archaic spelling of "ranch"; and Oxford Dictionaries report it as a spelling mistake. It's obscure; enough to prompt me to write my two comments. Bazza (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not surprised Oxford don't have it as it was probably limited to 19thC Pennsylvania but it has multiple sources and doesn't seem to have been slang. Why not create it in Wiktionary having read the sources in the article? It certainly could be added to Brothel, however, it is explained in the source article which may be the right place. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think blurbs should place an expectation on readers to have to scroll through an entire article and its sources to decipher what still looks like a spelling mistake. As you suggested, I've added the word to brothel, as a solution to least surprise. (Alternatively, ALT3 would be an alternative solution if amended: ... that you could buy alcohol on a Sunday in Sallie Shearer's parlor?, or similar. Bazza (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Problem solved - Ranch (brothel) exists. I changed the redirect. So we can have either ranche for authenticity or ranch in the hook. New target is unreferenced and disproved on origins by sources I found however. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems this discussion has attracted a lot of ranche hookers. EEng 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Translation?

I think the recent DYK Crepereia Tryphaena started out as a translation of the Italian version, it:Crepereia Tryphaena. See my question at Talk:Crepereia Tryphaena. I suppose a translation to English counts as "new", but I can't see any attribution anywhere. Should that sort of thing be disclosed in a DYK nomination or on the talk page or somewhere? What is the best practice? Theramin (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Just make sure it has a translation template on the talkpage if it was translated - the work and sources make it count as new if it's done well (I thought newly translated was a nom option, I guess not) Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write it! It doesn't have a translation template anywhere that I can see, or even a note in an edit summary. It seems to me that a Google translation of the Italian text is close to the first version of the English article. I could be wrong of course - perhaps they are both derived from a third place.

Pinging the main author and DYK reviewer, @Alessandro57 and Mary Mark Ockerbloom: who may know the answers. Theramin (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, @Theramin and Kingsif: I am the author of the English version. Yes, the article started in my sandbox as a translation from the Italian Wikipedia, but I expanded it - also in the mainspace - and I referenced it, since the Italian article has almost no references at all. Mary, who reviewed it, after the review added other English sources. The article at the end of my work (there are no other authors) has little to do with the Italian version. As a general rule, I always add a translation template (or more, if the originals come from several Wikipedia) if the article is a literal translation from another article and I decide to leave it as it was, but I don't add it if I expanded, changed and referenced it in the sandbox and continue the work in the next few days after going in main space, as in this case: which version of the foreign wiki should I put then in the translation template? Regarding Crepereia Trypaena, I have in the pipeline a "reverse translation" of it, in order to bring the Italian article to the level of the English one. P.S. In some cases, like this one, I am the author of the Italian and the English version at the same time. In this case in most of the case I write both versions simultaneously. Alex2006 (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Alessandro57, this is not a big deal and can be remedied anytime. Unless you start from scratch, you should always tag the talk page. This is to give credit for all user contributions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Coffeeandcrumbs, I did not know it, my fault, I will tag it at once! Alex2006 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Admins needed: the queues are again empty

We have fewer than six hours before the bot will do its next run to promote a queue to the main page, and the queues are all empty. Pinging our heroic admins, Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, Maile, and recent addition Wugapodes, in the hopes that at least one set can be promoted from prep to queue in the next few hours, and more to follow so we can build up a buffer. Some additional prep building by the usual team would also help, as only three preps are currently ready to go. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done I've promoted the three completed preps 6, 1, and 2 to their respective queues. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

We're again with empty queues and fewer than six hours before the next queue-to-mainpage bot promotion. Pinging our heroic admins, Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, Amakuru, valereee, Maile, and Wugapodes, in the hopes that at least one set can be promoted from prep to queue in the next few hours, and more to follow. There are currently four preps filled. Many thanks to all! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass did 6, and I have just done 1. Will check the hooks later tonight hopefully.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot didn't update main page at 00:00 UTC

The bot did not run at midnight, and we're about 90 minutes late for an update. Pinging Gatoclass, who usually does a manual update when it happens. (I've already notified the bot owner, Shubinator.) If anyone else from our group of admins has handled this in the past, please feel free to give it a try. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging Vanamonde, Maile, and Materialscientist, who have done manual updates within the past year, in case any of them are around and able to try. Not sure whether Amakuru, Cas Liber, or valereee would want to try, but why not ping just in case? Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that while Queue 4, the next queue in line to be promoted, is a regular set, the set after it, Queue 5, originally scheduled to be promoted at 12:00 UTC, has two hooks in it that are special occasion hooks for January 27 (today). If the delay in promoting the next set gets long enough (it's almost five hours as I type this), we might want to think about swapping hooks so that the "four litanies" lead hook and the fourth hook "1941 Lviv pogroms" in Queue 5 are put in Queue 4 to run in full today. (I don't believe any of the other queues or preps have special occasion hooks.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry just saw this. I have some pressing chores for next couple of hours until I get a spell of time I can focus on this (I have about 5 minutes now but don't want to hurry and stuff it up). Of course if anyone else can get to it....go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Still, this hasn't updated. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about the next queue, but the second in line has Mozart, related to his birthday. Could that hook be swapped, please, or the whole queue? Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset said the same thing, sorry for repetition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, unfortunately I'm usually asleep when these things hit, and I have to travel to work now, but I'll try to get on to this in about an hour or so if nobody else does. I think at this stage, since it's missed over half its run, it would be a good idea to run queue 4 until midnight, then resume with queue 5 after that, in which case the special occasion hooks can be swapped in.. Or maybe just run queue 5 immediately and then queue 4 tomorrow morning?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have now updated with Q5 instead of Q4, and we should let this run for the rest of the day. Does anyone know how to instruct the bot not to update at midday? (Assuming it would be working again anyway). I'll work on the credits and stuff slowly, it might take a bit of time.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Amakuru, I have reset Template:Did you know/Next update/Time to midnight last night (UTC) and User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 24 hours so that the current set runs until midnight tonight UTC (as otherwise it would only be on the page for about four hours). Please note that this means somebody will have to reset Time Between Updates to 12 hours after midnight tonight UTC, or the next update will also run for more than 12 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Credits done. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Gatoclass!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
So some time after 11am tomorrow Sydney time? I should be back in a position where I can do something about it. Been busy IRL, sorry folks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Casliber: yes, that sounds right. Any time between 11am and 11pm tomorrow will be in time for the 12:00 UTC changeover to happen tomorrow. Assuming the bot functions tonight, of course. I think we haven't heard from Shubinator on what has gone wrong yet, so in all likelihood it may not yet be fixed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually Amakuru and Casliber, since it's past midday UTC, I have just reset Next Update/Time to 12 midday UTC and Time Between Updates back to 12 hours. This means there is nothing more to do to get things back on track, the next update should be posted at midnight UTC assuming the bot is again operational. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back online! Thanks BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, and Amakuru for keeping things rolling during the downtime. Shubinator (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Shubs :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Fun fact: due to the long time of the manually loaded set on the Main page, Mozart collected 17.542 clicks. Too bad it wasn't the bolded article ;) - Be this a strong reminder to avoid a link to an attractive topic before the article topic, here Litanies (Mozart), unless (as here) you want to attract to that first topic. Mozart certainly deserves it, even in Beethoven's year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree @Gerda Arendt:, we do sometimes have a problem with WP:OLINK in our hooks. That's why I will almost always never link anything else in my hooks at nomination to avoid something like this. I know people later add them in the preps and queues but what more can you do unless there is a rule about it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
My topic wasn't overlink, just order of links. Overlink: the German Wikipedia is strict about one and only one link in a hook, and while that's ideal for focus on the subject, I find it too restricting. In the Litanies hook, we can't expect people to know what Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg means, so I find a link useful. Order of links: I normally try to have the link to my subject first, and in articles no link to any composer when the piece right next to him or her has an article. DYK is a different story in that respect, and in this case, the focus on the composer on his birthday was intentional (see further up). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I believe the German WP approach is the right one: each hook should have just the one, bolded link. The point of the hook is to intrigue -- people who think, Gosh, who or what is a Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg? can go to the bolded article and click through from there. (It's hard to imagine anything that might be linked from a hook that isn't linked from the bolded article.) EEng 02:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, Gerda Arendt, unless these were definitely clicks from the main page, some of the extra views could be people curious about Mozart having heard his name (and that it was his birthday) on the radio; most classical stations will program extra Mozart works on the day and tell you why. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right, but how would we ever know? I was a nice spike, for whatever reason. I honestly wonder how many would look up the article of a birthday child they heard about on radio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Five fold

That's prose, correct? Looking at Ragnarok (TV series). It has two tables,a list of actors, and a few sentences. Only the sentences count, correct? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher, since this is a new article created within the past seven days, the rule is a minimum of 1,500 prose characters (no fivefold requirement unless you're expanding a no-longer-new article); it currently has 504 prose characters. Articles should be nominated within seven days; as it was created on January 27, that means it's within the seven days as long as it's nominated before midnight on February 3 (today). (It might be possible for a little stretch on the seven days, or you might want to nominate it now if you know it's going to hit 1,500 prose characters shortly.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking seven days from when I first edited it, which is today. May not matter, dont' know. There's a Norwegian editor who did the heavy lifting on my last norsk tv dyk. I don't know if they are interested in working on this. If they start working on it I will nominate it in the hope we make it. Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher, you can certainly do a 5x expansion if you'd rather. That way you have until February 10. Your pre-expansion starting number for the prose would be 359 characters, requiring an expansion to 1,795 prose characters, not that much more than the 1,500 for a new article but giving you an extra seven days to get there. Best of luck, whatever you decide. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I feel like I understand the current consensus on how this works! Sweet! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, if you'd reaach 1.500 by tomorrow, I'd be lenient on that one day, - which might beeasier, - only 1.000 more chars needed. Are there reviews? Not only that they bring in prose, it's also interesting ;) - You'll have to reference the facts, that is almost more important. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot forgot to update...

...Talk:J. Schmuck Block, Talk:Meers Fault and Talk:Wynand Boshoff after the DYKs ran. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? In each of those, the bot placed a DYK template on both the article talk page and the nominator's talk page. Was the bot supposed to be doing something else? — Maile (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66:Huh. What I was referring to is that the DYK nomination page still transcludes on the talk page, I thought it wasn't supposed to (and it is burying the DYK talk notice). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
To remove that clutter is none of the bot functions. I never even add the transclusion, and I remove it manually when I still see it after the DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems like I was misunderstanding what the bot does. I've rearranged the talk pages manually so that the DYK notice comes first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The bot provides a link to the nom, prominantly at the end of the notice. I don't believe a transclusion is needed after it appeared. As said above, I don't even believe it's needed before. For most articles, one click to What links here and scrolling to the bottom will lead there, leaving the room on the talk page free for users who actually want to say something regarding the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I have also wondered why the bot is placing the DYK notice after the nomination template. We end up with small orange boxes for the page ratings, a big blue box for the nomination template, and another small orange box for the notice. Could the bot be instructed to place it before the nomination template? Yoninah (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
How would the bot even know then nom template is there? - The notice seems to go above the first message with a header. Perhaps those who want to keep it showing in full length might try to give it a header? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This was just discussed a few weeks ago without any conclusion - Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 164#{{DYK talk}} template showing at the bottom of the talk page (can't get a direct link to work). MB 15:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mathematician image

In Prep 3 we have a hook, ... that mathematician Pamela E. Harris co-founded the online platform 'Lathisms' to promote Latinxs and Hispanics in mathematics? that has a very nice image in the infobox. However, the licensing on the image is uncertain. If this can be sorted out, it would make a nice lead image hook, but if it cannot, it must be removed from the article. Pinging nominators LittleDart and Achaea. Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @Yoninah: I did not add it because of the licensing (and it was added after my DYK nomination). I don't have enough expertise in image licensing to make a call here. The image seems to have been uploaded by @LittleDart: can you confirm that you had the correct rights for this image? Achaea (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah:I did upload that picture. I'm not sure if I did it correctly. I have only done pictures I have personally taken before. I have permission from the photographer, in an email, to upload this photo to wikicommons. Any idea how I fix this, so it doesn't get deleted? LittleDart (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The standard answer is: get the photographer to email the permission directly to WP:OTRS. It may work (has in the past worked for me) for you to forward your copy of the email to OTRS, but that is less reliable. In either case, it should clearly identify the image in question and state explicitly the license under which they are releasing it to Wikipedia, and it has to be a license acceptable to commons. The most likely license is CC-BY-SA, but it could be more permissive, such as CC-BY without the SA (the one I generally use myself for photos). Do not use the NC or ND clauses of the CC licenses, as they are not open enough to be allowed for use on commons or Wikipedia. Also do not merely say "you have my permission to use this image on Wikipedia" without mentioning a license as, again, that is not permissive enough to meet our standards — we need an explicit license and it has to allow others beyond Wikipedia to also use the image. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@LittleDart: PS as of yesterday the image has been deleted because the permission was not yet received. But it can be easily undeleted, merely by sending the appropriate permission to OTRS (also identifying the deleted image as PamelaEHarris.jpg so that they can find it when they receive the permission). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @David Eppstein:, I saw. I re-email the photographer with the permission form from wiki commons, but she isn't responding any mpre. The photo is from one of those free head shots booths at a conference. Then they emailed a copy. I'm going to have to read up on licensing again because I just don't know enough about it to fix it right now. LittleDart (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Abel Azcona

I gave up on this review given multiple rounds of attempts by several editors to address the issues in the page. If anyone is able to review it instead, that would be good. Other than that, I don't see a path forward and I'm not sure what the process for declining the nom is. Any help would be appreciated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, do not use for correctable problems; it is reserved for articles that are completely ineligible. (eg already appeared at ITN or has been deleted). Use for correctable issues, however bad. Marking the nomination this way is the process of declining it. What happens next is that the prep area builder will come along and archive the nomination if it is marked as
For the curious, the process of archiving a nomination is similar to that for promoting one to the prep area. On DYK nomination page the prep area builder:
  • changes {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
  • changes |passed= to |passed=no
  • changes |2= to |2=summary of the reason for declining the nomination
  • Adds an edit summary, which usually says the same thing, preview, and save
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

February 13 special occasion review request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Lou Lefaive with a special occasion request for Febrary 13. It is still waiting for a review. Thank you for any help and consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Gender mistake on Cat Country (novel) hook

Someone may have mistaken the male author's pseudonym "Lao She" for a female pronoun and had the hook refer to "her novel". I don't see this mistake in the nomination but I'm not familiar enough with how the DYK pipeline works to identify where the mistake was made, much less how it might be fixed. (This problem was raised on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help; I didn't find it myself.) — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s already been raised at WP:ERRORS and fixed. P-K3 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago, so here is an updated list with the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 20. Things have been slow lately in terms of reviewing from this list and in general; the gap between total nominations and approved nominations has widened significantly since the beginning of the year. We currently have a total of 254 nominations, of which 101 have been approved (that’s 3 more nominations in total, but 24 fewer approved ones—we’re falling behind). Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones from last year.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed from Main Page

Steven Anderson (pastor) – nominated by PCHS-NJROTC – was removed after 14 minutes on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That hook doesn't comply with the rule that a hook shouldn't solely focus on a negative aspect of a living person. Good call to remove it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, that he's been banned from several countries is just about the most positive thing one might say about this repellent hate-monger. Would you prefer instead that the hook point out that Anderson said he "would not judge or condemn" someone who killed Obama? EEng 10:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"Did you know … that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, and Joseph Stalin was a poet?" I feel like this hook was fairly tame and entirely factual—at the end of the day a good (and well-sourced) percentage of the article is a heading titled "travel bans", it's not like a small facet of the article was blown out of proportion. GRAPPLE X 10:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I promoted the hook and I did think about BLP issues despite what the reviewer said on the nom page. I thought that calling his beliefs "controversial" was not in violation of BLP, and the banning was widely reported. Yoninah (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Does that mean we have to remove this hook ... that Johann Baptist Sigl (pictured) was imprisoned multiple times for publishing insulting articles about the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck and the German emperor? from Queue 6? Sigl was imprisoned, Anderson was banned. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, to be honest we do handle BLPs somewhat differently from someone who insulted Bismarck. But that still doesn't justify this removal. EEng 11:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Seriously, the rule is that hooks should not focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals. Nothing undue here. Stupid call to remove it, DragonflySixtyseven, especially with no apparent discussion of any kind. EEng 11:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The hook involved was

" ... that Pastor Steven Anderson has been banned from dozens of countries due to his controversial beliefs?"

and the edit summary for the removal was

"No. Having an entry like that on the front page is strongly, strongly inappropriate."

DragonflySixtyseven you acted too quickly, and at the very least should have first posted here for opinion. I don't see anything inappropriate about the hook. Please discuss here. Lacking any kind of response from you, I think the hook should be placed in another set for a full run. But let's have consensus here if it gets put back, so it doesn't become WP:WHEEL. — Maile (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Now DragonflySixtyseven, in a truly gymnastic post-hoc rationalization, claims that the problem is that saying "a pastor was denied entry for his controversial beliefs" could all too easily be parsed as "and therefore he is a victim who is being oppressed". Adding that to a comment above in this very thread, we now have people claiming the hook's too positive, and others claiming it's too negative. That tells me it's a factual statement the import of which the reader can supply for himself. EEng 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
In any case the hook doesn't seem to be supported by the sources: none of them say he was "banned for his beliefs". It seems more likely he was banned for saying things like "that homosexuality should be punishable with being stoned to death." You don't get banned from the EU for believing that, but you can get banned for preaching that. —Kusma (t·c) 12:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The article states that he has prayed for the deaths of named living people. These are not simply "controversial beliefs". We shouldn't spread this via the main page. SarahSV (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Joseph, good call to remove and clear breach of the negative BLP rule. Not every article is suitable for DYK, tough though that is on authors. I don't think this should be rerun.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your logic, Amakuru. In the past we have spent a lot of time trying to formulate acceptable hooks for people who are shot through with unacceptable behaviors. Nowhere in the DYK rules does it say that some articles just aren't appropriate for DYK. It only says some hooks. Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not a "clear breach", as the disagreement here shows. It should never have just been unilaterally pulled without any discussion either here or at ERRORS.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
In addition, there's the video he apparently made, The Holocaust Hoax Exposed. Do we really want to give Holocaust deniers main-page coverage? SarahSV (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
We're giving an actual holocaust perpetrator main-page coverage right now - "DYK ... that Harun el-Raschid Hintersatz, a German convert to Islam, led a Muslim SS unit comprising Turkmens and Tatars during World War II?" I've been watching this debate develop and I can see this taking a worrying turn from what sort of hook is acceptable, to whether certain articles should be linked at all from the main page. That's a much wider question, and if we are just debating hooks, can we please stay on topic. Spokoyni (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • @DragonflySixtyseven: I don't see a bright line policy reason that backs up your edit and edit summary, but agree that it was probably a good IAR call. I'm not a consumer of DYK and view it as usually an amusing or lame attempt by Wikipedia - which struggles mightily to not be promotional - to be promotional. The Anderson article has what I consider to be serious NPOV problems, using the SPLC as a direct source, not to mention the other sources with evident religious biases, so I'd be loathe to hold it up as an example of what Wikipedia should promote. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Which raises the interesting point - how do you run an interesting hook on a BLP which isn't negative, when that person is basically a repellent racist anti-Semite homophobic fuckwit and that's all he's notable for. The answer, I think, is "you don't". Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    You don't what? Don't run one that isn't negative, or don't run one at all? Seems to me it's the former. The rules are we shouldn't focus unduly on negative stuff. If the person's an [etc etc] fuckwit, then picking one interesting aspect of his fuckwittery isn't undue. EEng 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I can see the point, but "you don't" meant "you don't run it at all"; frankly I am uncomfortable with giving such people any coverage, regardless of whether it's negative or not. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
(ec)*I don't think that characterisation is in any way helpful and however much I might agree with it, I think you should redact it. Users appear to have made a good faith attempt to write a neutral and balanced article. The other hook offered in the nomination - "...that Steven Anderson (pictured) is the founder of the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement?" would seem a good alternative. If the article has NPOV problems and sourcing issues as jmcgnh suggests, that in itself disqualifies it under DYK's own rules from being passed until that is suitably addressed. And I agree with jmcgnh's point, but I don't think those that work on DYK really deserve to have it called "amusing or lame". Spokoyni (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The alt hook, however, is a whitewash; it would make us look pretty silly to run a hook like that given the underlying subject matter. We should also factor in to this debate the fact that Anderson would likely not feel slandered at all by an accurate statement of his views in the DYK slot and would indeed probably be happy to have them appear. I would have thought that we should be able to come up with an alt hook that gives some idea of his controversial views without being unduly negative - though admittedly I can't come up with one right at this moment. In the meantime however, there are some bare urls that need to be cleaned up in the article before its promotion can even be considered. Gatoclass (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
If you are concerned that the hook is not specific or graphic enough, I suppose we could go with something like "Did you know that... Steven Anderson thinks the Holocaust never happened and believes homosexuality should be a capital crime." That would be factual and neutral, and as you said, I think Anderson himself would approve (not that I am writing the article or the DYK entry to appease him). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Precisely. EEng 22:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep sets needed

There are currently no completed prep sets left in prep, so it would be handy if somebody would build one or two. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The preps are now empty. Gatoclass (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Two preps have been filled and a third mostly so, but we still need more, so any further prep building would be much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Danzen! Futari wa Pretty Cure

Looking at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6, "25th movie" doesn't sound interesting. Change to "15th-anniversary movie"? ミラP 15:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Exception for the recognized 6,000,000th article

Any objections to making an exception for me to nominate Maria Elise Turner Lauder. It was created by Rosiestep on 23 January 2020‎. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Not from me. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Rosiestep - I think it needs to be clear on how much is original content, per DYK Eligibility criteria - long enough ...because the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles, and from the ×5 expansion count for ×5 expanded articles. There's an attribution section above the Bibliography. And reference 6 is Wikisource. — Maile (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
It already had recognition by being featured as a special banner on the main page and media attention in national newspapers. Plus would said hook include mention of being the 6 millionth article? I'm sorry but with all the attention it got, someone should have nominated it in time if they thought it worthwhile for DYK. I would not be in favour of breaking the rules just for this one. Just my opinion, but I will not object if consensus is to IAR. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5 image

Ruins of Castle Folds and Great Asby Scar
Ruins of Castle Folds and Great Asby Scar
@Andrew Davidson:@Miraclepine:@Cwmhiraeth:
I tried to resize the image, but frankly I am unable to see anything at thumbnail size except a swath of blue sky and a dark shadow of land. If the hook is relying on the image to explain it, it's not working. I would move it into the set without an image, but then the hook is uninteresting. I think we need a new hook, to run with or without this image. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Chapel of Greenwich Hospital, London
Chapel of Greenwich Hospital
  • The main cause of this issue is that the DYK thumbnails are too small. For example, the current thumbnail (right) just appears to me as a non-descript hall with the only features being the two lines of windows. When one clicks through to see the full image, the intricate detail appears and makes the image much more impressive. Anyway, I'll have a look for more images for this set so please remove the entry from the prep, if the current image is unacceptable.
Also, the comment about "the hook is relying on the image to explain it" seems to misunderstand what we're doing here. The object of a hook is to get the reader to click through, not to explain everything about the topic. The picture in question is clearly a landscape and so the reader will understand the general nature of the topic. If it's not fully explained, that's fine, as that's the point of having the articles with more detail.
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Castle Folds and Great Asby Scar
Castle Folds and Great Asby Scar
  • Yes thanks, that's a good image as it shows the elevation of Castle Folds more distinctly. I'd not come across it before and it looks very suitable for addition to the article. As a thumbnail, one still can't make out much detail but the feature in the centre of the image seems more suggestive and so works better with the hook IMO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The new image suggested by Black Kite looks fine and is in one of the articles, so I've just substituted it in Prep 5 for the one that had been there. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Q3 Feb 11

Template:Did you know nominations/Julio and Marisol

RoySmith epicgenius Cwmhiraeth

This is about an ad campaign -- does this fall under our work of fiction rules? Needs an explicit connection to the real world? (5th bullet under Content at WP:DYKHOOK) --valereee (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Ugh. Some possible alternatives would be:
  • "... that Julio and Marisol spent years arguing about condoms in crowded subway cars"
  • "... that Julio and Marisol taught millions of New Yorkers about safe sex"

But, honestly, I think the original is the best one, WP:DYKSG notwithstanding. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, hm...I do like the original hook best, especially in the quirky slot. I'd be willing to IAR this, unless there's an objection from anyone else. --valereee (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, in my original thinking about hooks, my first thoughts were more along the lines of the crowded subway car idea. I liked the visual image of a young couple in a packed subway car, arguing loudly about condoms, oblivious to the people around them. But, I couldn't find a catchy/compact way to say that. The one I suggested above is the best I could do on that theme, but it's just too wordy. And the "but not enough to die for you" line really is the stand-out catchphrase from the whole series. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I like the original hook better, it's much catchier. The alternatives are OK, but not as exciting or strangely-sounding as the first. epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, since no one's objected, I'll leave it as is per IAR. :) --valereee (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Setting preps

Sorry for the absence, a combo of computer/internet/travel/real life stuff going on. It looks like we're not only low on Qs but also on preps. Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, would it be more helpful for me to build a prep than to promote another prep to queue?

I feel like our prep setters must be getting burnt out. Are there even fewer people regularly building prep sets than moving prep > queue? Quite honestly building a set takes longer than checking/moving one. It involves multiple passes through the approved noms as well as doing all the checking admins do to move a prep > queue. I am really concerned. I think we need to find some way of limiting the number of hooks other than weeks and weeks of two sets a day several times a year. Could we limit how many DYK hooks any one editor can submit unless they start helping with preps? Like maybe in addition to reviewing a hook for each one submitted, once you've reached 50 hooks you have to build a set for each ten hooks you submit?

I've been gone for two weeks and I still feel burnt out on this. I can't imagine how this must feel to people who are building four and five sets a week. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that forcing people to build preps is great. I'd prefer some gentle encouragement for more prep-building newbies to enter this area of specialization. I assume it isn't really as complicated as it looks. But Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide doesn't seem to be complete or up to date (it doesn't say anything about closing and "promoting" the nominations). With better instructions, it might be easier to get people to participate. (I should really start helping, but I'm worried about forgetting something important). —Kusma (t·c) 15:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I was once the newbie who tried building prep sets a while back. I found the community was highly critical of me and almost hostile. I chose to just review nominations instead. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: we all go through burn out, probably most of us have taken a few criticisms for our efforts. My first efforts were met with something less than applause. Those who have stuck with it for years deserve a great deal of thanks. If you put conditions on who should be building the preps, who is going to police the policy? That just adds one more step, one more written instruction, to keep track of. Right above the Prep area is the section "Instructions on how to promote a hook", which I added because that function is complicated. I didn't want to mash it into the rules that are already longer than the average attention span, and felt it would do more good at eye level right above the work load it pertains to. Sometimes you gotta step back, or change which section you deal with. — Maile (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Kusma, it's complex, took me multiple sets to get into the swing of it. There are a lot of things to keep in mind, and it's a bit like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. I, too, am leery of a QPQ for building preps. I know the QPQ of DYK is actually one of its weak points. But honestly if someone is nominating HUGE numbers of articles, they ought to be helping with building preps.
Maybe instead we could limit how many DYKs any one person can nominate. Maybe 1 per month, for instance? --valereee (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Flibirigit, I'm sorry you had that experience. If you'd be willing to give it another try, I'd be happy to work with you! --valereee (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, @Valereee:, if you put limitations on the process, somebody has to police it. And in doing so, you would be drying up our most loyal participants. Like ... just to pick a name of out the old straw hat here ... @Gerda Arendt: and all her nominations on classical music. — Maile (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, it's not the criticism that bothers me. If it's fair, it's fair. :) It's the feeling of being on a hamster wheel. Two sets a day for weeks on end is just too much. It makes me feel guilty for not doing more, even when I'm doing more than I really want to do, because other people are even more overworked. I think we need to figure out some way to deal with backlogs that doesn't involve two sets a day for a couple of months several times a year. And why do we need to police it? We can just make it a strong suggestion, like at GA. --valereee (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
So maybe Gerda would consider building a prep or two once a month? And Raymie, and a few others. Why not? I'm happy to help train them! --valereee (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I avoided intentionally to build preps, for the same reason I don't do GA reviews: I am foreign, and could not judge the grammar of the hooks. Also, my insight in some topics is limited. - The other question: If you put a limit to number of nominations you lost me. (German has 3 at a time, and they lost me.) - I could turn completely to ITN, reaching many more readers, just look at the little DYK spike on 7 Feb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I don't feel burned out. I build a set every 1 to 2 days. It does take time to check all the criteria, plus to promote a balanced set in terms of topics, geographical locations, and also hook language (not more than one "first"!). I hope I didn't scare you away, Flibirigit. I do tend to swap around promoted hooks to ensure the balance I just mentioned. Valereee we are only experiencing this rush to promote to queue now that we're doing 2 sets a day to reduce the backload. In a week or so we'll probably switch back to one set a day. Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah I am refering to the conducted of others mentioned at User_talk:Yoninah/Archive_23#DYK_questions. You have always been civil when we disagreed. Flibirigit (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, sure, but we've been doing it for two months now. And we just did two sets a day in August/September. We've spent as much of the last seven months on two sets a day as on one set a day. I'm glad you aren't burnt out, because honestly if we lost you I think the whole process would break down. --valereee (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
valereee thanks for the compliment, but there really is always someone to pick up the slack. Lately I notice BlueMoonset promoting hooks to prep (great job!). Yoninah (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"Police it" means (to me) that a reviewer or promoter needs to know whether a nominator has exceeded their allotted limit. Who is going to keep track of that? And if a nominator decides to exceed the limit, who is going to step forward and deny their nomination? That I know of, there is not another process on Wikipedia where submissions/queries are limited to the user. I do agree that the prolific nominators could help out with prep building. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, again, we don't have to police it if we just make it a strong suggestion, like GA does. --valereee (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I'd also like to note that we really need all the reviewers we can get. The people you mentioned as being appropriate to move into prep building are actually some of the very few regular reviewers that we have. Take a look at WP:DYKN and you'll see what I mean. I really don't see a problem at all in the reviewing/prep building department. Yoninah (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I guess I disagree. In normal times, on average, we need 8 reviews a day. We need one prep built every day. We need one prep moved to queue every day. When we go to two sets a day -- caused by too many noms/reviews, not too few -- we HOPE for FEWER than 16 noms/reviews a day so we can catch up. In my opinion our problem is too many nominations, which causes a backlog that breaks whatever we keep breaking. --valereee (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
ETA: I guess no one else sees a problem, so I'll shut up now. --valereee (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
When I met DYK, in 2009 when someone nice nominated my first article, there were 4 sets each day. - Sometimes I wonder if we could do something like Recent deaths: just names, linked names of new articles which have been checked to be of DYK quality. I imagine a set with three hooks, and others - 10? or whatever needed to clear backlog, - just name. I'd often volunteer to have just a name, compared to the time spent on finding a hook, not pleasing a reviewer, having to think about another, finding a compromise, could be ALT9, - and in the ending having to defend the compromise in prep because it wasn't understood. I sometimes feel that I could have written the next article with the time spent in the procedure, - feel sorry also about the time of the reviewer(s). - There are of course many pleasant other case of smooth sailing, such as this brutal one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I feel the lack of DYK reviewing is a reflection of two main themes. First, the influx of nominations at this time of year seems to comes from users who are exempt from QPQ, putting a burden on the more experienced contributors. Second, I regularly see multiple users claiming a QPQ credit on the same nomination. This leads to a user doing a quick review for a credit, and then not coming back to finish what was started when their own nomination was successful. Flibirigit (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
In some cases though, that could be attributed to a reviewer doing a complete review, but later an issue was raised leading to the proposal of a new hook or new hooks, which then need to be reviewed as well (sometimes by different editors). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The original reviewer should come back to the nomination page and finish the job in my opinion. Flibirigit (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been such a first reviewer. When called to a review I began, I will "finish the job" if I can approve the changed hook, but if not - which happens - a second person is needed. I'd still count my review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3 image

East face of St Leonard's Tower
East face of St Leonard's Tower
Is there any way to lighten this image? It looks awfully dark at thumbnail size. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed on sourcing requirement

Did you know nominations/Living on the Veg

In reviewing articles, I understand that plot synopses are exempt from sourcing. However, charts do need sourcing, and I have relied for that rule on Rule D2. Sports articles with charts of results; film articles with filmographies; awards articles with lists of winners; and television shows with lists of episodes all need sourcing, and for the most part our nominators have complied with this rule. But now an article has been promoted which has a chart with a list of episodes and guest stars that is not sourced. The nominator rudely told me to stop bothering him, and Cwmhiraeth went ahead and promoted it anyway, saying that Rule D2 does not apply to charts. I would appreciate consensus from the community on whether Rule D2 also applies to charts. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SourceList Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references) @Cwmhiraeth:, since you restored the green tick, I'm wondering if it was correct for you to have also been the promoter. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I probably should not have restored the tick nor promoted it, but I didn't like to see a spat between two editors who I respect, so I decided to IAR before it could escalate further. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Cwmhiraeth, but the "spat" wasn't going anywhere, as the nominator disengaged himself from the start. I'm upset that you didn't acknowledge my position, which was an impartial review of the article, and instead promoted an article that doesn't meet the criteria. Yoninah (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

To avoid this kind of dispute in future, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a few words to D2 clarifying that tables, charts, lists of works etc., must also be fully sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Here is suggested new wording:
  • D2: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. Factual information as well as text and figures in charts should be sourced. The sourcing requirement excludes the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. Yoninah (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The elimination of the "rule of thumb" language in this new version is a non-starter with me. Without it, everything falls apart. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
So you're saying that for DYK, one citation per paragraph is enough. I'm not so sure that holds true when there's only one citation buried in a long paragraph of facts. But even if that's the case, would it also hold true that only one cite is needed for a whole chart of information? (For example, film or television facts taken from different sources.) Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to treating a short simple chart like the one in this article as a paragraph and requiring a single citation, but what about charts that have 6 columns and dozens of rows? Is a single citation enough for dyk? --valereee (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm objecting to. If all the information in the chart comes from one source, as it often does in sports scores, then one cite is enough. But usually television episodes are cited to different sources. And list articles with charts with dozens of entries all have a cite for each entry. Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators needed to promote to queues ASAP

@Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Gatoclass:@Valereee: the queues are all empty and the next set is due to run in 3 1/2 hours. Four prep sets are filled and ready to promote. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've done the first one. Will perform checks now. Thanks for the spot.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Also pinging Wugapodes, since we're back to empty though now we have 10 hours until the next queue will need to be promoted to the main page. Thanks to Amakuru for doing the most recent set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've done another, will check today --valereee (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The queues are again empty, with two preps immediately ready for promotion (and Cwmhiraeth having just finished off the next two as I was typing this), and a little over four hours before the bot runs next. Pinging Cas Liber, Amakuru, Vanamonde, Gatoclass, valereee, Maile, and Wugapodes, in the hopes that one or more of you see this before then and can promote a set or two. Many thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved one, have a meeting starting soon that will last several hours but will try to check it later today. And now I'm confused about the dates and times...did I just miss it, or did what's on the mp now just get moved there? --valereee (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

15 February

... is the birthday of Template:Did you know nominations/Elke Heidenreich, - a review began on 1 Feb, no reaction to a ping hours ago, - any merciful soul to pick it up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Moved to prep. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

5x expansion question

In March 2017, I took a look at Oxford Circus and reduced it to a redirect with the aim of writing a proper article. Recent activity by Logetgabs has jogged my memory, and so now I've done it. Technically, together we have expanded the article 5 times from nothing to about 1650 bytes in a few days, which technically sounds like it meets the criteria. However, I can't help thinking that because I originally contracted the article some years back, that this sounds like bending the rules for the sake of it. What do other people think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#A4 suggests that 5x expansion is regardless of if any content was kept, but in this case it had been a redirect for a while, so I'm not really sure. To be on the safe side, I'd suggest you try to expand it as a 5x from where the article was originally, if only to prevent ambiguity. However, I think there have been cases before where articles created from redirects which were previously articles were accepted as new articles on DYK, so perhaps that might be a good precedent to follow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
While I'm sure you wouldn't try to game the system Ritchie, I would be very reluctant to start allowing users to blank articles and then claim a DYK by rewriting them, because it would open the door to gaming. Having said that, as I recall I have occasionally supported a DYK request of this nature per IAR, if the original article was clearly and unambiguously trash. That doesn't seem to be the case here, as the original article was sourced, included supporting materials such as an infobox and images, and was grammatical and contained useful content, even if some of that content may have been less than ideal. Also, the new article is pretty stubby itself. So I would be leaning toward concurring with Narutolovehinata5 that you should probably expand it to x5 based on the article size before you redirected it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not clear that the new version is significantly better than the old one; for example, the new lead is too sketchy and doesn't make any assertion of importance whereas the previous one had the interesting claim of "highest pedestrian volume". So, there's still more to be done and I might chip in myself as I took pictures of the Extinction Rebellion pink boat there (right). In such a case, we should require the new version to be brought to GA status. This will provide independent confirmation that the article has been improved and is a valid qualification for DYK, whether the article is new or old. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The old version only claimed that in the late 2000s, a short time period out of a 200-year history. I was surprised that The London Encyclopedia, which is generally a great place to start when expanding London architecture articles, devotes little more than a single paragraph and what's now in the article is pretty much all there is. Another problem is that many things describing themselves as "in Oxford Circus" are actually on Oxford Street, Regent Street, some other nearby street, or the tube station. There's not much seemingly available for the circus itself. That is, of course, unless you know different.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • We have previously allowed articles reduced to redirects and then recreated run on DYK before. We do have the precedence of London Irish Amateur being one such case so I don't see anything wrong with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but that article had been redirected by somebody else four years prior to you recreating it, so there is no question of COI involved. The issue here is that it was Ritchie, the would-be nominator now, who originally made the article a redirect. And while I have no doubt that this is entirely a good faith request on Ritchie's part, my concern is that accepting such a nomination would set an awkward precedent. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at any version yet, but based on this section I agree with Gatoclass. Ok, now I have & I still do, and also agree with Andrew. Really more of the old stuff should be re-used. I think closing OC has been a long-standing ambition for deliberately disruptive demos of G7s, G20s & the like, & I'd bet more could be found on that. Also on having to close OC tube when below-ground crowds get too big, forcing large crowds to wait above ground. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: Confine thyself to 5X expansions no longer :) Embrace 13X! ;)
    Problem solved... ——SN54129 09:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, men bragging about size again.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)</ref>
I have now expanded the article from this (1277 bytes) to this (6463 bytes). How do people feel now? Or should we just take up Andrew's suggestion of going for GA instead? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Works for me! --valereee (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie333, don't wait for a GA review; it qualifies now after your extensive expansion (now 9248 prose characters, or over 7x), so go ahead and nominate it. According to DYKcheck: Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 77 edits ago on February 12, 2020. No time like the present; there are currently 560 unreviewed GA nominations and it might take months to go the GA route. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The 5x expansion is a good formal qualification. But we shouldn't rush too fast as there may still be more to come. I ordered Hermione Hobhouse's histories of Regent Street to help with this but they haven't arrived yet... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Q6 Feb15b

Template:Did you know nominations/Lynae Larson

Joseph2302 Narutolovehinata5 Yoninah SounderBruce

I see this was discussed at the nom, but I'm still concerned about characterizing it as 'complaining' as neither source quotes her. They just say she "complained". I kind of hate to see us possibly replicating what may just be the casual sexism of 40+ years ago. Would anyone object to my changing this to

ALT1: * ... that after winning the 1978 Chicago Marathon, Lynae Larson had to drive six hours back to Brookings, South Dakota, to work the next day?

I actually think it's no less interesting; she runs a three hour race, then gets in the car for a six hour drive. Is it more interesting that she'd complain? Or that newspapers, which at the time were barely mentioning the top women's finishers in marathons, described it as complaining? --valereee (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the article re: this, too, which if it works for everyone, would also affect the original alt. I found an article that talked about other runners complaining about the late start causing them to finish in 80F heat, which actually gives context to Larson complaining instead about it causing her to have to jump right back in the car to drive six hours. :) --valereee (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

ALT2: * ... that while other runners in the 1978 Chicago Marathon complained the late start caused them to finish in 80 °F (27 °C) heat, winner Lynae Larson was more concerned about her six-hour drive home?

It's a bit wordy @192 characters. --valereee (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

ALT2a: * ... that while other 1978 Chicago Marathon runners complained the late start meant finishing in 80 °F (27 °C) heat, winner Lynae Larson was concerned about its effect on her six-hour drive home?

A little tighter @188 --valereee (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

ETA: okay, so no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. If anyone objects later, go ahead and revert. --valereee (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks fine to me (assuming source is good which I can't check easily). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanity templates?

What templates exist for listing bragging about your DYKs on your user page? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{{User Did You Know2}} and those found at Category:DYK user templates might be of bragging rights academic function for you. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, thanks for that, but I remember seeing somebody's user page with a set of templates that looked pretty much like Template:DYK talk, but each one was only two lines tall. That's the one I'm trying to find, and it doesn't seem to be in that category. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, do you mean Template:User Did You Know? See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Participation#Did_you_know for some more options. —Kusma (t·c) 20:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I recently made a version of {{DYK talk}} to use on my userpage, it's {{DYK user}}, but it's the the full six lines. MB 22:39, 14 February 2020 (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 #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4 - The Night We Met (Lord Huron song)

Issue has been resolved. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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


DYK The Night We Met (Lord Huron song)

@Cwmhiraeth, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Bcschneider53, and Yoninah:

I have pulled this nomination out of Prep 4, and re-opened the nomination template. When I ran Earwig's tool, it showed a 42.5% chance of copyvio. Looking at the first item under Earwig's tool, it appears the entire lead paragraph of this article is word-for-word identical to a 2018 mention in lyrics.com. The copyvio was not created by any of you, but dates back to the first edit that coverted this from a redirect May 29, 2018. I think it would be advisable to check all of the article for any other potential copy issues.

Would somebody please promote a different hook to that slot. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The passage concerned was in the original edit when the article was created by @Carbrera: on 29 May 2018‎. It may be that the Lyrics site copied Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I only tweaked the wording while it was in prep. I replaced it in Prep 4 with another hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: We'll never know who copied from whom, and it doesn't matter. We just can't pass it like that. @Yoninah: Thanks. I'll finish looking at the prep set now. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • P. S. I love the Diego lead hook. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this conversation is over or not but I assure you that it was the lyrics.com site that copied the opening passage. I would not plagiarize such easily-attainable information. Carbrera (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. We just want it corrected before going back into a prep area. I kind of like the AGF "no blame" theory - nobody at DYK deliberately errs. It is not unusual for other websites to lift Wikipedia copy without attribution. We should just take care of it and move on. But it is a reminder that reviewers need to check for copyvios. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
If the other site lifted from us, there is nothing to be corrected. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: It does matter which came first, because if there was a copyvio, which I accept there was not, then there should be a CV revdel, and otherwise, there is nothing "to take care of". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
How would you prove it? Where is the diff from the other site? Rather than spend time here debating this, why not just take a minute or two and reword the lead? Why waste time here debating who was at fault? Just reword the lead, and thereby avoiding a non-DYK admin pulling it from the main page as a copyvio. Some admins DO act first, and post later, or not bother to post at all. — Maile (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
If you care to right click the lyrics.com page, one of the options there is "View page info" and the info states "Referring URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/ Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you're really good! I have returned the hook to prep, this time it's in Prep 3. @Carbrera: my apologies for the disruption. However, this issue should have shown up in the nomination review and been resolved before it got to prep. — Maile (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I love you, Maile, but will people PLEASE stop saying that Earwig returns a “chance” or “probability” of a copyvio? It’s utter and complete statistical nonsense, and it drives me batty. I’ve tried in the past to discover just what Earwig’s figures DO mean, but couldn’t get a straight answer. In the meantime it absolutely, positively isn’t the probability of anything. All we can say for sure is that bigget is worse. EEng 02:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @EEng: The percentage is just a flag to get the reader's attention. However ... it's always helpful to provide a link to the Earwig results, so the next person in the DYK chain can decide for themselves. Earwig's wording is like, " Violation Possible 42.5%" And then below that is a visually highlighted comparison of the original text and where it appears in the DYK nominated article. The highlighted text is the key. Sometimes it's just something in quotes in the article, and sometimes it's a complete lift and copy. All the percentage means to me, is if it's something like 2% chance, it probably isn't worth bothering about, but I still check it out to make sure. But as the percentage gets greater, it's best to at least look at the highlight comparisons. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    Everything you just said is fine EXCEPT that you keep talking about the % being a “chance”, like when the weatherman says there’s a 40% chance of rain. But Earwig’s numbers aren’t chances (probabilities). I don’t know what they are, exactly, except a numerator divided by a denominator resulting in a quantification of something or other as being such-and-such a proportion of some other, larger something or other, and the bigger that proportion is the more suspicious we’re supposed to be. Fine. But whatever it is it’s not a “chance that there’s a copyvio” or anything remotely like that. It can’t be, because there’s no way of computing such a thing.
    So please, just stop calling it a chance or probability. That’s all I ask. Thus endeth the lecture. EEng 04:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. See also User:EEng#Museum_of_Damn_Statistics.

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived last night, so here is an updated list with the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of January. The gap between total nominations and approved nominations continues to widen. We currently have a total of 184 nominations, of which only 35 have been approved, a ratio of over 5 to 1, so I'm hoping we make real progress over the next several days on getting nominations reviewed and approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five from last year.

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) 07:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Animal Crossing Plaza‎ & Aya Kyogoku‎

I see that User:Cwmhiraeth promoted my nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Crossing Plaza to a prep queue, but I was wondering if it was possible to hold both Animal Crossing Plaza and Template:Did you know nominations/Aya Kyogoku for March 20, the date that Animal Crossing: New Horizons is released (pending the approval of Aya Kyogoku, of course). Morgan695 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since we try not to have two hooks from the same user on the same day, perhaps just wait for Aya Kyogoku and mention the special occasion in the nomination. Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. Aya Kyogoku has now been reviewed and approved; possible for someone to move it to the holding area for March 20? Morgan695 (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Queue 1: Reynhard Sinaga hook amended

FYI per a discussion at WP:ERRORS, I have amended one of the hooks in the next set as follows:

  • ... that police found more than three terabytes of videos of serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga's assaults on his mobile phone?

changed to

  • ... that after examining serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga's mobile phone, police discovered more than three terabytes of digital video evidence of his assaults?

The rationale is presented at the ERRORS page, but the TL;DR version is that an iPhone can't hold 3TB, and the source doesn't really make clear where the data was. I thought this change was preferable to pulling, with 20 mins to go before it goes live, but can rethink if anyone objects. Courtesy pinging @Sentausa: @Nice4What: @BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: who nominated, reviewed or promoted the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The source says they found "films on two IPhones", and then found 3.29Tb on other "digital devices". I wouldn't bother mentioning the phone(s) at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ... that police found more than three terabytes of videos of serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga's assaults on his digital devices?
    Reads as if he assaulted his digital devices. EEng 09:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 lead hook: Gessner Harrison

What's going on? The article has been tagged for encyclopedic tone and is undergoing a major revision by its creator, Hoppyh. We cannot have a tagged article on the front page. Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have pulled the Gessner Harrison hook, which was heading Prep 4, and will restore it to the Nominations page in a moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I have completed work to address the tag from @Nikkimaria: and I believe the tag can be removed. Hoppyh (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely better than it was, but I think it would benefit from some additional revision. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles draftified and rescued

What is the DYK status of an article that's been created in mainspace, immediately draftified, rejected by AfC and then (more than 7 days later) improved and mainspaced by another editor? My particular query related to Joseph Stoddart, which I've actually just managed to scrape up to 5-fold by writing a lead, but with increasing use of draftify as an alternative to speedy deletion by the new-page patrollers it might be worth formulating a general rule. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I would consider an article that spent all of 12 minutes in mainspace before being moved to draft space as not really being in mainspace for DYK purposes, so the move back to mainspace would be considered the point where it was "new". It does also happen to be a 5x expansion from the time it was moved to mainspace; either way, the relevant date in February 15. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset. I've nominated it as "moved to mainspace" as I'd prefer to acknowledge the role of the creator if possible. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Jesus Is King Part II

The original blurb "... that Kanye West credits creating "an album for God" for being able to collaborate with Dr. Dre on the upcoming Jesus Is King Part II?" was changed to "... that Kanye West credits his production of "an album for God" with paving the way for his collaboration with Dr. Dre on the upcoming Jesus Is King Part II?" I have some issues with this undiscussed alteration. First, West's involvement on Jesus Is King goes beyond production and in hip-hop, that term usually just refers to whoever made the instrumental of the songs. Second, the reworked blurb reads a bit awkward using the word "with" twice and I'm not sure why "for being able to collaborate" had to be flourished with "paving the way for". West's original quote was simple enough, saying "Who knew all I had to do was do an album for God and then Dr. Dre would start mixing my beats?" Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 11:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I edited the hook because the grammar was poor. It also didn't make sense. I read what West said and I thought this is what he was saying. Otherwise it sounds too spiritual for words. Yoninah (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I originally had "for" in the place of the first "with", but two "withs" don't sound so jarring. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Brendan Kavanagh

Kindly requesting some second opinions for this nomination. The nominator and I cannot come into an agreement on whether or not the use of terms such as "sensation" and "star" in a hook are acceptable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Terms like that also smack of promotionalism. Even if such a term got passed at DYK, it would be edited out after five minutes on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
What should be done, in this case? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I've struck the hooks with the puffery terms. What's needed now is a full review of the article and remaining hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

8-week Special Occasion hook request

Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 31 has been approved with this hook:

  • ... that according to Luke the Evangelist, the last words of Jesus came from Psalm 31?
  • When @Gerda Arendt: and I expanded this article, we did not realize that the hook would be perfect for Good Friday, which falls this year on April 10. Requesting consensus from the community on whether we can apply for a special occasion date 8 weeks in advance. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - It's only stretching the rules by 2 weeks. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support minor stretching of rules for a good reason --valereee (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: seems a reasonable request given the short extension involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. If consensus has been reached, could someone move this to the special occasions area for April 10? Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

q re reviewing guide

The Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide says w/re checking the image that reviewers should Ensure the image has rollover text (wikicoded the same way that a caption would be). What's it mean? --valereee (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ALTTEXT. I have not seen that item enforced though. Flibirigit (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep, and in the case of Template:Did you know nominations/Goat tower (for example), the caption is the alt text. When you add a caption in a DYK image template, by default it will also be used as alt text. epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, it's just the alt! I know how to add the alt within the article and usually try to remember to...is there a parameter we should be adding to the DYK image template to make this easy? --valereee (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: No need to. When you fill out {{main page image}} with a caption, the caption is also used as the alt text. epicgenius (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, it was me who asked (in my second ever attempt at a DYK review) about this "rollover text". Simply, "rollover text" is a misnomer. (It would have been rollover text if we were still using Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator or similar. There is a way of providing rollover text as shown in today's browsers, but it's not required.) The question is instead: Has it got ALT text, or a caption usable as ALT text? (And the answer to that question for this particular DYK candidate is: Yes it has. I'm about to comment there accordingly.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius:, but not every caption is a good alt text. The point of alt text is to provide information to people who can't see the image. If we default to the image, we're not providing an option to make the alt something useful. --valereee (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, yeah, good point. In the {{Main page image}} template, there is an "alt" parameter you can add as well. Otherwise, it defaults to the caption, title, or image name in that order. epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Epicgenius, hm, I wonder if it's possible to edit that template to ask for an alt? Or possibly instead of defaulting to the caption maybe default to PLEASE REPLACE WITH ALT TEXT, which would make it obvious to reviewers that an appropriate alt hadn't been added. --valereee (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
valereee, I think it may be possible to add a new parameter to Template:NewDYKnomination titled |alt=. Maybe that might help. epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
SD0001 is there a way to add a requirement to insert an alt text into a submission in dyk-helper? --valereee (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3: John Bröcheler

@Gerda Arendt: What exactly does "discovered" mean in this context? I'm not seeing a quotation in the article or the nomination that uses the word. If it isn't from a quotation, it might instead be interpreted as a scare quote, which should be avoided. Pinging also Doug Coldwell and Yoninah. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

English remains a mystery to me. If you can say discovered without quotation marks, fine. You could also say: "but an international operatic career began when he appeared in Donizetti's ..." or "but entered an international career ..." - His role was minor, people from around the world wanted to heare Joan Sutherland - and discovered him - for major roles from then on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The quotes don't bother me. He was already a world premiere singer in concerts, now he was found to be good at opera. The hook doesn't have to match the article word-for-word, just give a gist of it. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3: Elizabeth Willing Powel

I think we should change to "A republic ... if you can keep it", using an ellipses instead of a comma. There are many different reportings of Franklin's response, including some that use a comma or ellipses but several include "madam" or "replied the Doctor" in place of the comma or ellipses. I now realize, using the ellipses is best because it covers the most ground. All of this is noted in the footnotes of the article. I am the nominator so I would like to avoid changing the hook myself in this late stage. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

198 characters with ellipses. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I made a minor edit per MOS:ELLIPSES. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. Please do the same in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2020 (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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4: Caroline Weber (author)

The article says that she discovered one lost essay and one unknown essay. Does an unknown essay also count as a lost essay? Pinging nom and reviewer: Coffeeandcrumbs HickoryOughtShirt?4  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru I think calling the essays both lost is reasonable since it was unknown to even be on the Earth. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, that seems reasonable, just wanted to confirm that makes sense. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That was my reading as well. Technically, the unknown essay was known to Proust and perhaps a publisher but was lost to the rest of the world. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

per above section q re reviewing guide

Does anyone have an objection to me requesting at the template talk that an alt parameter be added to the dyk template, and that we update our reviewing guidelines to clarify that one of the things reviewers are checking for whether the image/caption needs, and if so has, a useful WP:ALT? I don't think this represents an actual change to the intent of our guidelines (I assume we required the "rollover text" for accessibility reasons) but it does represent a change to how they've probably been interpreted by a lot of reviewers. --valereee (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a link to the relevant Wikipedia policy should not be controversial. Flibirigit (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, given no objections, I've updated the reviewing guidelines and the admin instructions. I'll go ask at the template if this is something we can add as a default parameter to the template without causing a problem. --valereee (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

broken code on noms page

There's something gone awry at February 9 (link takes you to Feb 10, scroll up slightly) where the next hook(s?) seems to have gotten appended to the Clarice Phelps discussion. I can't figure out what it is -- maybe something transcluded incorrectly or something? --valereee (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Valereee I think I've fixed it - there was a main page image template at the Clarice Phelps nom page that was not closed correctly, which was having a knock on effect for the rest of that page and the DYK page itself. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --valereee (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WIRK-TV

I don't like to promote myself like this, but I have a special occasion nomination for February 29 and it needs reviewing: WIRK-TV. Not exactly many chances to make up for a Leap Day hook! Raymie (t • c) 01:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Raymie, someone has reviewed and approved it, and I just moved it to the special occasion area. You're all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Raymie (t • c) 05:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 24Feb

MX Yoninah Cwmhiraeth

I am super uncomfortable with this hook from a BLP point of view. This woman was kidnapped, dragged around by her hair, and eventually under God knows what circumstances agreed to marry her kidnapper? I am not comfortable with putting this on the main page. There has to be something else about this horrible man we can put on the main page other than a statement that sounds like WP buys into the idea this woman did this because, oh, hey, he's kind of a great guy after all rather than some horrible Stockholm syndrome thing. --valereee (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree - yeah ... Clara Rojas and Patty Hearst immediately came to mind. What do you do to save your own life, and that of your child? As far as I can tell from the article, the woman in this one is still living. Please, let's not use this hook. Let's not add to this woman's pain by putting it on the main page like it was some sort of stroll through lover's lane. I also think the article should remove the phrase, "became romantically involved ... " She was kidnapped, brutalized, threatened with death, robbed at gunpoint, subjected a shakedown to deplete her savings, forced to purchase homes for the cartel under her name, and eventually she and her daughter were selling drugs for the cartel. It is globally insulting to women to term it as a romantic relationship. No ... not on the main page. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: I can agree how this can be seen as an insult to women. Valereee has removed such phrase from the article and I am happy with some of the changes. For the record, I was simply going by what reliable sources say. The cited source does use the word "romance (romance) to describe their eventual marriage. Please let me know if you think the article needs any other changes. Regards, MX (✉ • ✎) 02:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree clear BLP violation for the victim. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I've made a couple of edits to the article to remove assumptions either woman was doing this out of true love, which I don't think we can assume unless they and everyone they loved were in some permanent safe place telling that to some reliable source. --valereee (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Valereee's edits look good, but I don't see this as a BLP violation. The hook fact is cited and presumably true, she was not an innocent bystander when she was kidnapped, but was running a rival contraband business of her own, and was eventually sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, she was a crook for sure, but maybe she had little choice but to 'fall in love' with her captor. This is a very bad man. ETA: I think the edit to the article does make this hook less of a problem, since the hook doesn't mention romance and now the article doesn't either. --valereee (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: Thank you for your recent updates on the article. Just to clarify, I used "romantically involved" because that's what reliable sources explicitly said. Had they suggested she was forced to marry him, I would have indicated that in the article. See my previous update above. Please let me know if you think the article needs other fixes. Regards, MX (✉ • ✎) 02:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that a note threatening the authorities and signed by Omar Lorméndez Pitalúa was found next to a dismembered body dumped near a gas station in 2016? --valereee (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
ALT3 looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • MX hasn't edited since this was posted, ideally I'd like to get buy-in from them. --valereee (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The kidnapping seems to have been "just business" between rival smugglers and there don't seem to have been any hard feelings. A hook for these people is tricky though as our guideline states "hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals ... should be avoided" So, for example, ALT3 won't do as it's more negative and the subject doesn't seem to have been convicted for the dismemberment. How about:
  • ALT4 ... that a Zeta enforcer, code-named Z-10, is also known as El Mono Tonto (The Silly Monkey)?
  • ALT4b ... that a Zeta enforcer, code-named Z-10, is also known as El Mono Tonto?
See Mexican Cartels: An Encyclopedia of Mexico's Crime and Drug Wars for a supporting source.
Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
ALT4 is good, Andrew Davidson, but the translation doesn't appear in the article. Yoninah (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
To edit the article, one needs a good command of Spanish and a 24-hour bodyguard. I note that El Mono is a Spanish idiom similar to cold turkey but that's as far as I'm going. Perhaps we can just drop the translation and leave it to the readers' imagination. I'll add ALT4b to illustrate. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
We need MX to weigh in here. Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: The issue here is we are making an absolute statement of fact that Omar Lorméndez Pitalúa is a member of Los Zetas. Let's remember he's a fugitive and is subject to due process like any other human being. I'm worried this hook will be brought back here by someone else who has an issue with a BLP violation. Let me brainstorm a bit and come back with more ALT hooks. MX (✉ • ✎) 02:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm reading this discussion just now. I'm on my phone right now but will respond with my laptop later today. Thank you for your patience. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • ALT5 ... that the U.S. government tried to prevent Omar Lorméndez Pitalúa from having access to the international financial sector? USDOT Today's action amplifies Treasury's ongoing efforts to target the support networks of drug organizations worldwide and to deny these criminals [like Omar Lorméndez Pitalúa] access to the international financial sector."
Yoninah, Andrew Davidson, Cwmhiraeth, Valereee How about this hook above? It was part of a sanction against 54 other Mexican nationals in 2010. I've done some biographies of other folks from this same sanction but have never suggested a hook like this before. Thanks to all for the ongoing support and feedback. Regards, MX (✉ • ✎) 03:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
MX, ALT5 works for me. FWIW, I do understand that the Spanish-language sources said something along the lines of "romantically involved," but I'm worried there's some not-so-subtle sexism inherent in the situation. Women have been coerced into marriage for as long as powerful men saw those marriages as useful to them. I think we have to take even a reliable source with a grain of salt unless they are directly quoting a woman who is no longer in danger. I know I'm getting dangerously close to OR and synth here. I just think since this woman is still alive, we need to be very carful. --valereee (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, ALT5 is good, and verified and cited inline. I'll go ahead and replace it in the prep set. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

K-Books and Butler café

I submitted a DYK nomination for K-Books (nomination here) on Feb 18, which was subsequently approved and is currently in Prep 2. I've subsequently written an article for butler café (which the K-Books hook references) and would like to submit it for DYK, but I'm thinking it makes the most sense to incorporate butler café into the K-Books hook, rather than have two hooks on such an incredibly specialized topic in such a short window of time. What's the best way to go about this? My proposed hook would be ALT1: "... that in addition to its retail operations, Japanese used goods chain K-Books operates a butler café?" or ALT2: "... that in addition to its retail operations, used goods chain K-Books opened Japan's first butler café?" Pinging User:Yoninah, who promoted the original K-Books hook to the queue. Morgan695 (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Morgan695: Sounds good. The ALT1 hook fact was already reviewed in the course of the K-Books nomination. The ALT2 hook fact appears in the Butler café article sourced to a foreign-language ref. Butler café is new enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Please submit a QPQ and I'll substitute the hook in prep. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply. Earwigs appears to be down yet again, but once it's back up I'll do a QPQ and ping you once it's completed. Morgan695 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: QPQ has been completed for KETX (TV). Morgan695 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Promoting your double hook now. Yoninah (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6: Trade union

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Danish Trade Union Confederation
@Warofdreams:@Flibirigit:@Cwmhiraeth:
Is this the hookiest thing you can say about it? Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with it as is. Flibirigit (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
That's nice. A better hook would get more clicks. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
What about mentioning that the organization promoted the so-called "Danish model"? That model might sound unusual to many international readers and thus might warrant a mention in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I am willing to review other hooks proposed. Flibirigit (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that the Danish Trade Union Confederation, Denmark's largest trade union centre, promotes a model where pay and working conditions are negotiated without state involvement?
This could probably be reworded further to remove redundancies, but it's the thought I had in mind. Another option could be a much simpler hook, something like ALT2:"... that the Danish Trade Union Confederation is the largest group of trade unions in Denmark?" or something to that effect, although that's a bit circular. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 is factual and verified, but it not properly cited in the article, as the sentence which includes the second hald of the hook has no citation. Also, the red link needs to be corrected. ALT2 is not worded well, and should wikilink to National trade union center. I suggest using "the country's largest" to avoid repeating Denmark. Flibirigit (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with either. ALT1 is covered by the Avisen reference, cited at the end of the short paragraph - loosely translated, "...the organization will work to maintain the Danish model, where working conditions and wages are negotiated outside the state. The organization believes this is crucial to Denmark's prosperity." Warofdreams talk 09:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 is still not properly cited. The citation(s) must appear directly at the end of the sentence which supports the hook. Rewording the hook is still necessary to remove the red link. Flibirigit (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I am returning this to WP:DYKN until the issues are all sorted out. Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about half an hour ago, so here is an updated list with the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through February 11. We currently have a total of 197 nominations, of which 55 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from December and ten from January, including seven from the previous list that have still never been reviewed at all.

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) 02:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, User:Headbomb/unreliable can help finding out obviously bad sources and make your job just a tad easier. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

two a days?

I know I'm the only one complaining about this <g> but we're down to 31 approved hooks? --valereee (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • We should revert back to one set per day soon. Flibirigit (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: @BlueMoonset: just based on what we see at the Count of DYK Hooks, it seems like returning to a 24-hour cycle might be a good idea. Any drawbacks? Are we expecting a glut of nominations for March Women's History Month, or any other upcoming celebrations/contests? — Maile (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, we certainly can't maintain the pace until March with two sets a day. Nominations are being reviewed slowly, but we'll need 160 approved hooks for the next 10 days. Maybe it is time to go back to one set a day. Yoninah (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we probably are ready. It's getting harder to do balanced sets at the moment. We started on Christmas Day with a gap of 104 between total nominations and approved nominations; as I type this that gap is 146, which means we've had fewer approvals to nominations over the past seven and a half weeks, the opposite of what happened last fall. The big question is when to switch to one a day. We need to switch over after a midnight UTC set has gone to the main page. It's probably easiest to do so in 22 hours after midnight today (February 18), though we could conceivably switch in the next couple of hours if there's consensus for it and an admin available to make the necessary change. Right now, there aren't any special occasion hooks in queue or prep; once we switch back to one a day we will have three for February 21 and two for February 22 to slot in. Maile, there aren't any Black History Month hooks waiting for February, nor any Women's History Month ones for March, at least not yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's run it at 12 hours for one more set and switch it back tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good, Gatoclass. Will you be available to do the switch? (Note to others: the switch shouldn't be done until Queue 1 has been promoted to the main page.)
So we can plan ahead, here's what will run on the main page given the proposed schedule, and which sets will have those special occasion hooks:
  • February 18, 12:00 UTC: Queue 6
  • February 19, 00:00 UTC: Prep 1/Queue 1
  • February 20, 00:00 UTC: Prep 2/Queue 2
  • February 21, 00:00 UTC: Prep 3/Queue 3: should include the two special occasion February 21 noms plus the February 21 at 12:00 UTC nom
  • February 22, 00:00 UTC: Prep 4/Queue 4: should include the two special occasion February 22 noms
I've left notes in the February 21 and February 22 prep sets about the special occasion hooks that will need to be included. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I should be available BlueMoonset, but any admin can make the change so long as it's done after Queue 1 goes to the main page and before 12 midday UTC. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've promoted prep 1 > queue 1, will check it over the next few hours --valereee (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Could speed up the approval process by requiring two QPQs for everyone with >5 DYK credits. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that suggestion would work as the rules explicitly require only one QPQ per >5 DYK credits nomination. Such a change, even if temporary, would probably require more discussion since it's gonna be a bit of a major change. What I could instead suggest is that nominators would be encouraged to review more reviews, or that it would be allowed (but not required) to list more than one QPQ in one-article nominations. Sometimes, it can be hard to use QPQs since prolific reviewers that don't review often would have a bunch of unusued QPQs that they can't use. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Earwig's tool

Drive-by comment, but I find that the increasing unreliably of Earwigs is really slowing down my ability to do QPQs in a timely manner. Morgan695 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, does anyone know what's up with Earwig? I can't get it to complete more than occasionally and it's not just this project that depends heavily on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
We should not be depending heavily on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a prep can be built or moved to queue without relying heavily on Earwig. Not all of us are experts at detecting copyvio. --valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
If you can't evaluate the article without relying heavily on Earwig, then to be blunt you shouldn't be evaluating the article. Earwig is a tool, a useful one sure, but it cannot definitively identify whether the article does or does not contain copyvio, never mind more subtle issues of close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Evaluating 8 articles for copyvio without relying heavily on Earwig would be impractical. Evaluating an article for copyvio can take hours. We can argue whether this should disqualify Wikipedia from even having DYK -- many people feel it's inherently a problematic project -- but if we're asking people to assess 8 articles for copyvio in a period of a few hours, sometimes less, we don't have much choice but to rely heavily on Earwig or some similar tool. --valereee (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Evaluating 8 articles for copyvio by relying heavily on Earwig is impractical, because the tool is insufficient for achieving that objective. Since many (not all) DYK articles are shorter and use English-language, online sources, it does not seem unreasonable to spotcheck eight articles in a period of a few hours. I'm not saying you must do a comprehensive line-by-line analysis, and I accept that things might get missed - but I would posit fewer things would get missed this way than simply relying on Earwig. And of course this does not fall solely on the prep-builders, but also the initial reviewers and others who assist in the project. Multiple people doing spotchecks are more likely to find potential issues than multiple people all relying on the same tool. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
In a perfect world, Nikkimaria. With all due respect, I agree with Valereee 100%. We take it on good faith, because there is no other option, that every set of eyes - from review to queue - are checking the basics. In a perfect world, where everyone in that chain has no distractions in RL. In a perfect world where no one in that chain of checking is assuming somebody else checked, or will check, so they can skip it. But DYK isn't a perfect world, and some helpers on the steps from nomination to queue slip up. On top of which, we deal with sources in multiple languages. And each of us has to assume that we are the ONLY person who checked, because there is no way to be sure what anybody else did. We need tools like Earwig's. Labs Dup Detector helps, but it's more tedious to use, and each source has to be run separately. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic here. If you truly are assuming that you're the ONLY person who checked, that's even more reason to do it properly. The sources in other languages thing is a bit of a red herring - you may not be able to review that manually, but Earwig's not going to do it either. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
At the top of the tool is this message: "Update (17 February 2020): We are still investigating recent performance issues/timeouts on the new infrastructure (T245426)." You can click on that link for T245426 and be taken directly to a Phabricator discussion page on the progress. — Maile (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be working at the moment, but it's been touch-and-go for the past few weeks (months?) now. Morgan695 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

This would be very useful in DYK review. It won't catch everything, but it'll catch many things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, so what this does is place one of a variety of highlights, depending on consensus of how reliable a source is, into the references section? --valereee (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I just installed this, and it is awesome. This is a script that would be helpful for readers. --valereee (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Not just reference sections, but all external links plus everything that could be sort of referenc-y, i.e. lists (think lists of publications, further reading/external links sections) and everything in <code><ref></ref></code> tags. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Q4 Feb28

The image is a video, and when I scroll over, I don't see an alt text. Do videos not get one? Pinging Graham87 in case he has some insight. --valereee (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't think so. Graham87 17:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Alte Liebe

  • ... that Alte Liebe (Old Love) is a novel about a couple married for 40 years, told by a couple married longer but separated, with chapters written alternately by wife and husband?

Gerda Arendt MWright96

The article says they were married in 1972 and separated in 1995, and I can't translate the source that's used to support that they were "married longer"...are we saying they've been married since 1972 but have been separated-but-still-married since 1995? --valereee (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hard to tell. There are sources saying they are still married (probably never updated), but at least one says that he remarried, and another that she is happy with a partner but will not marry (saying it would be crazy at age 72). Anyway, how can we translate to English that they wrote this book together quite some time after they separated. That's probably all we need - longer than 40 or not actually doesn't matter too much. - I still believe we shouldn't say Old Love (but: Old love), as there is no title in English for this book. Can't believe it, - if I was a translator I would grab it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Source Halter quotes her having said: „Wir hatten zwanzig glückliche Jahre, fünf tapfere, zwei grauenhafte und jetzt unseren Frieden“ (We had 10 happy years, 5 brave, two horrible, and now our peace). Feel free to use. I'll travel to a funeral soon, don't count on me. All day tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Date request - Cesar Chavez Day

I request that Template:Did you know nominations/History of Filipino Americans, specifically ALT5, not be published to the main page until Cesar Chavez Day, 31 March. That date is greater than 1 week from now, and less than 6 weeks from now. The impact of Filipino American labor activists are often overlooked in the mainstream media, so much so that there is a Cesar Chavez Day (enacted into law here in California 25 years ago). Only until recently has that began to change.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: that is fine; it's 6 weeks from nomination to appearance. After the nomination is approved, please ask the reviewer to move it to Special Occasions. Yoninah (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March 3 to 5 special occasion request

The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Leuwiliang has an event anniversary upcoming from March 3 to 5. Does anyone have time to help with hook suggestions or a DYK review? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done Moved to special occasions. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The system failed

The article Esther Arditi has appeared on DYK without proper scrutiny, see Template:Did you know nominations/Esther Arditi. It was created and submitted by @HickoryOughtShirt?4: on 20/2, reviewed by @Thatoneweirdwikier: on the same day, promoted to Prep5 by Thatoneweirdwikier on 21/2 as a ninth hook, Prep5 was moved to the queue by @Wugapodes: on 22/2, and the hook appeared on the main page on 23/2. The reason I am questioning this sequence of events is that at 1245 characters, the article is way too short to qualify for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier may not realize people aren't supposed to promote a hook they reviewed. --valereee (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just confirming that Valereee is correct. I wasn't certain about this. Apologies. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 16:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
That's OK, and an article being too short is not a disaster, but in this case the system failed, everyone made mistakes and nobody noticed (I didn't either). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for my mistake in even nominating the article. I don’t often write short articles so I tend to forget the lengthiness criteria. This wasn’t a malicious attempt to subvert the process, I can assure you of that. Thank you for pointing out my error and I will be more cautious in the future. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to avoid this happening in the future, I really suggest that editors install and use the DYKcheck tool, as it helps check for the basic length and newness criteria. I could also suggest that the length and time checker also be added to the DYK helper tool, to give a message or warning if a nomination might not meet either or both criteria (although not preventing such). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I looked at the article on the day because it was mentioned at WP:ERRORS. There wasn't an error, nobody was bothered about the word count and nothing special was done. I quite liked the article myself and added some details to it. The reasons for liking it were that it told a good story and it had a good picture. A picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes, and so that was ample.
Note also that this was the second-best hook in the set, getting 4,425 hits. It was better than the picture hook (3,887) and almost as good as the top hook (4,934) which was an entertaining bit about sacred chickens. See stats and the set for details.
So, this was a successful DYK because it was interesting. This is what matters most as it's not enough to tick boxes if the material is so dull that few people want to read it. Kudos to the main author for their good work.
Andrew🐉(talk) 01:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

input needed on hook

Anyone feel like weighing in at Template:Did you know nominations/Deans Cottage, Riccarton House, William Deans? I usually find history hooks high-interest, and to me this one wasn't interesting until I had the whole backstory. Creator/nom likes it, so I thought I'd see if we could get other opinions. --valereee (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion of pulling hook from mainpage

There has been a suggestion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in Did you know ... to remove a hook from the set currently on the main page. Users arbitrarily pulling hooks from the mainpage has been contentious in the past, so notifying for input. Spokoyni (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Notifying @The Flying Spaghetti Monster: @Nice4What: @Yoninah:. Spokoyni (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Q6 Mar1

Template:Did you know nominations/2020 EFL Cup Final

The C of E Harrias Cwmhiraeth

Does this read to anyone else like they're looking to win for the third time against Aston Villa rather than winning it for the third time, this year against Aston Villa? --valereee (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with you. Perhaps a slight addition to the wording. Also, as worded, the team name is singular and should be "is" rather than "are". — Maile (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the extra words, but I'm not sure about the are vs is thing, especially now that we've got the word "they" in there. --valereee (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: How about change "they go" to "the team goes"? — Maile (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Or (with British English "are"):
... that Manchester City are looking to retain the EFL Cup for the third consecutive year in today's 2020 EFL Cup Final at Wembley (pictured) against Aston Villa?
Bazza (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Bazza, Maile, I'm actually wondering if it's not BrEng but SpEng (Sports English, see what I did there?) I think I'm going to leave it as are until The C of E weighs in, but anyone else should feel free to make that bold change --valereee (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The C of E here, I would use the one that says "are" because that is BrEn and this is a hook about an English event. But I will also say please do not WP:OLINK the hook. Remove the links to Wembley and EFL Cup please because they aren't needed and just clutter the hook with a sea of blue. The Royal C (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For British English, it's "they", "are" for teams. Bazza (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Heinz Schnabel and Harry Wappler escape attempt

  • ... that in 1941, two German POWs escaped from their British prison camp and stole a plane from an RAF base to try to reach the continent?

L293D Silver seren Yoninah

This good article has all citations at the end of the paragraphs, none at the sentence level. The sentence that probably is the best choice for supporting this hook is On the morning of Monday 24 November, the Germans bluffed Alan Garydon, an air apprentice, to start up a Miles Magister trainer aircraft. but I can't get to the source cited at the end of that paragraph, and I don't like to add a citation if I can't see the source myself. L293D, can you confirm that this sentence is supported by the von Müllenheim-Rechberg source p 62 (or more probably 62-63, that ref has what looks like a typo.) --valereee (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Error fixed. I can confirm the sentence is supported by the von Müllenheim-Rechberg source pp. 62-63. The sentence in the book is split between the pages. The pp. 62-62 cite error has been fixed as well. Thanks for pointing this out. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_165&oldid=1136518957"