Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 138

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Cwmhiraeth in topic Prep 4 - most electronics
Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140→Archive 145

Author bases non-notable book on non-notable obscure sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago39 comments7 people in discussion

In light of the discussions over dull hooks, in particular the debate in the preceding section, I ask the community to reconsider this hook, in queue 1 right now:

... that Susanna Elm's book Virgins of God draws on little-known sources such as the Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem?

I'm not sure why basing a non-notable book on a little-known and non-notable source is avoid interest to a broad audience. Perhaps I'm missing the point? Jwslubbock, Haylesley, Andrew Davidson, Cwmhiraeth, Mifter. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The book Virgins of God is notable as there are at least 8 reviews of it. I could easily start a separate article about it but the point currently is to get people to read the newly-created article about its author. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The point is that it's "just a book" (one which may have had eight reviews - much like What Shat That? (pocket edition)) and it being based on something obscure is probably of very little interest to a broad audience. This article seems one of those which is striking for its lack of interesting hooks, and this hook is just forcing it a bit too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure we've ever gotten around to putting it in writing, there has long been a convention at DYK that hooks should not contain proper names that are unlinked, partly on the basis that if something is notable enough to be mentioned by name, it should have its own article, and if it isn't notable enough for its own article, it shouldn't be mentioned by name. This hook has two unlinked proper names, in which case I agree it is unsuitable as a hook. Either a couple of new articles on the appropriate subjects should be created, or the hook should be pulled IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly worth considering, indoctrinating that, as it's certainly part of my thought process when reading these hooks. There was one about an athlete who happened to represent his country in two sports in the early 20th century at an international sports event, but the individual wasn't notable enough for (or no-one could be bothered to create) an article. It left the hook somewhat bereft of impact, and it's usually as a result of the target article really having nothing of substantial interest from which to develop a hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not a rule. Today we have Andy Goulding in a hook and that's a red link. Yesterday, we had "... that Hans Larwin painted Soldat und Tod in 1917 when he was the official war painter..." That's a very similar case of mentioning an artist's work by name when we don't have a separate page for it. Per WP:CREEP, we should not go inventing rules which are not our actual practice. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We didn't say it was a rule. But it's definitely something that should be given due consideration for the benefit of our readers, who would look at a hook like this one and unless they had heard of Elm, would be highly unlikely to give it moment's consideration because the rest of the hook is not interesting or informative. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, redlinks violate supplementary rule C1 and should never appear in a hook. I can't see a hook with "Andy Goulding" in it anywhere so don't know what you are referring to but regardless, redlinks are not permitted. With regard to unlinked proper names, I didn't say it was a written rule, I said it was a longstanding convention, and the fact that unlinked proper names are starting to creep back into hooks leads me to think that it's time the convention was formalized. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The hook which mentions Goulding is the bottom one in the current set, "... that Free Radio presenter Andy Goulding thought that "Scared of the Dark" by Steps ..." Andrew D. (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well if Andy Goulding isn't notable enough for his own article, the hook should just say "... that a free radio presenter ...". If he is notable, then the nominator should have added a stub about him IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, that hook should have been pulled, who actually cares what a non-notable radio DJ tweets? Either this is an encyclopedia or it isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Got no opinion on the matter, but I suggest that we not use "notable" as a criterium since WP:N has nothing to do with whether people are interested in a certain subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's what was meant by "notable" really. The hook distilled hook says "...Author drew sources for work 1 on little-known work 2?". I'm just trying to understand why that would be considered interesting to a broad audience. If it was "Author drew sources for Booker Prize-winning work 1 on little-known work 2?" then I'd see some possible interest. Admittedly though, it would be far better if it was "Author drew sources for work 1 on little-known work 2?" so our readers were able to judge for themselves the relevance of the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The point is that if it isn't notable enough for its own article, then it's definitely not of sufficient interest to be referred to by name. All that can achieve is to irritate the reader, something that DYK should do its utmost to avoid. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, we don't have any evidence that notability is a proxy for "interesting to a broad audience". There are lots of things that people find interesting that are not notable and vice versa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well no, that's true. "interesting to a broad audience" is a purely subjective rule so perhaps it should be removed because, as in this case, when a hook which is obviously (to me and others) not of interest to a broad audience is defended by others, then there's clearly a problem with the rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The hook is fine -- Virgins of God (virginity and god (or the the gods) have gotten much interest over the millennia), Virgins going to Jerusalem (why the heck are they doing that?) --- this Elms character sounds quite interesting. Also, the "convention" suggested above is 'not interesting' and not a rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." is a rule, and that's what was quoted initially here, e.g. "very little interest to a broad audience". I think the "interesting to a broad audience" is not being observed here, so it's breaking a fundamental rule of DYK. Alternatively, remove the rule entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I've explained why your argument and your objection is poor, there is no reason for you to repeat the same poor argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a DYK rule - interesting to a broad audience - which this hook is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You have already said that, stop repeating, it is boring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Alan, please see my reply to Jo-Jo above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I saw that. That is why I changed to call it a 'convention' as you have. I am still not seeing it as worthwhile to say you can't talk about proper people, places or things just because no one has written an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem, as I said, is that it's irritating to the reader to introduce them to a topic and then not give them the means to further explore it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
But there is a way to further explore: here, it's Susanna Elm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I think Gatoclass was talking about the topics that were introduced in the hook besides the author, namely the book and one of the works it was drawn from, neither of which have articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
For Virgins of God, yes, but not for Letter to the Virgins ... readers are left wondering what the latter was about. In any case, in my experience there is usually zero additional information about the unlinked proper name in the nominated article, which again creates frustration for the user. See also Masem's comment and my response below. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
From the article: "The book Virgins of God was a development of her doctoral thesis about female asceticism in early Christianity.[6] Enthusiatic religious women sought virtue by engaging in spiritual marriage or becoming anchoresses. Elm recounted how the religious hierarchy restrained such practises, condemning some of them as heresy. Doug Lee, writing in The Classical Review, praised the work as a "stimulating exposition which negotiates the complexities of the source material and subject matter with skill and assurance. ...one of the many strengths of the study is E's exploitation of little-known sources such as an anonymous treatise On Virginity (pp. 34–9 331–6) and Athanasius' Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem (pp. 331–6)."[6]
Since, at least, the Vestal Virgins, virginity and god have been of lasting interest to many people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are putting in a proper noun that is not notable (no standalone article or section in a different article), that's not necessarily bad, but the hook absolutely needs to give context for that proper noun to say why is it important in the hook as to help the reader understand the importance; because of word count, that could affect the phrasing of the hook. For example, take a painter "A" who has a principle work "B" he is known for but that the painting is not notable outside of talking about "A". Then an appropriate hook could be "...that A painted his most famous work B in just two weeks?" (or something like that)- the reader now knows how B relates to A without even clicking through. Taking that to the case above, we need to put Virgins of God (beyond being Elm's book) in context as well as what Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem is, otherwise, as pointed out by others, there's no inclination for the reader to understand why they are important. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with that. Without an indication of why "B" is notable, the reader is left wondering why it warranted a mention, but without the means to satisfy his curiosity. It's true that this problem is resolved if the notability of B is clarified in the hook, but as you point out Masem this can make for a clunky hook, and in any case, if B is notable, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to add a decent stub anyway. So IMO there is no excuse for featuring hooks with unlinked proper names. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I would oppose that, it is just senseless to argue we have to have an article on every proper noun, and it's very contrary to DYK practice that every question in the readers mind has to be answered by a hook (it's quite contrary to form, in fact). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That's possibly one explanation as to why some DYKs are getting fewer than 300 hits in their 12-hour slots then. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I didn't say we should have an article on "every proper noun", what I said is that I think every proper noun that appears in a DYK hook should be linked. Now perhaps a case can be made for an occasional exception, but in my experience hooks with unlinked proper nouns are hooks to which sufficient thought hasn't been given so I think it's a convention worth retaining. Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That is a new argument, but really, you think those people did not think about that hook because Virgin of God is not blue, etc? I don't see how that follows. I think they did think about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Then someone should pull this back to noms since there's clearly concern over this continued approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'm with TRM on this one, though part of the problem cold be alleviated by adding "Athanasius little-known Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem" or something like that. Adding publication dates (1994 and 4th century) will help indicate also that this matters. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, 783 hits from the main page seems to say it all here. Honestly, if all the effort and debate that goes into some of these DYKs results in 783 hits, the project needs to redirect its efforts, or reconsider the priorities. You were warned but I guess folks like Alanscottwalker who found it interesting are few and far between. What an incredible waste of effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - List of Australia Test cricket records

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Current hook is:

... that Arthur Mailey's best Test bowling figures of 9/121 has been the Australian record for 96 years?

Under the current regime, unlinking is the fashion, so we have "Test bowling figures of 9/121" to amaze and bemuse our readers. So that's Test cricket (cricket isn't mentioned in the hook), "bowling figures" (bowling average is our usual guide to the uncertain) and "9/121", anyone thinking "what is that?". I know precisely what it means, but is it of use to the main page? I don't think so. I'll ping Ianblair23, Magiciandude and Yoninah here.

If this is the best factoid we can derive from the entire list of Australian Test records, I despair. It's not even the longest-standing record for Australian Test cricket. Perhaps the 562-run win against the Poms would be more interesting, or Allan Border's continual representing between 1979 and 1994. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

TRM, I'm ready to hand over the baton to you for promoting sports hooks. This is all Greek to me. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's probably entirely inappropriate given my status, I'd suggest we wait for Ian or others to chime in here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man I was waiting for this discussion to occur. It is oldest individual record except for J. J. Ferris' bowling average and strike rate which unlikely ever to be beaten. But in every innings it possible to take nine wickets which is why I selected Mailey's record. Happy to reword as follows "... that Arthur Mailey's best Test bowling figures of 9 wickets for 121 runs has been the Australian record for 96 years?" Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, that works (clearly) for me. It does rely on DYKers allowing numerous wikilinks, some of which are to "not brilliant" articles, but it's probably the best we can do in short order. I hope you understand my initial concern (even though it didn't concern me personally at all, just those reading who haven't had the benefit of a good upbringing (with wicket maidens, stumpings and silly mid-offs...) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man No worries TRM. The difficultly is finding the right balance with links. I understand the argument that the article we want to display may be lost with too many links but on other hand we need to think about our readers. I will update the hook accordingly. Cheers– Ianblair23 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Ianblair23, since you're the page creator, I'll have to adjust it in prep.
  Done Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah and TRM. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrative controls

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I reviewed the DYK nomination of this article, and when I went to check if a QPQ was required I found that the user had only contributed on the day the article was created - to the article, the DYK nomination, and a template used in the article (with one other edit to a related article). I find this suspicious, perhaps a sock. That is all I know. Should I AGF and approve (it seems to otherwise be qualified), or do something else? MB 02:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there is cause for concern. The other editor of this article is John P. Sadowski who is a Wikipedian in residence at NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), aiming to improve Wikipedia coverage of occupational safety and health issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The article was created by a visiting student who was in the office for a week. I was asked to give him an assignment so I had him write this article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable wrestler retires - prep 3

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
* ... that professional wrestler Lou Klein announced his retirement the same day he won the Detroit version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship? MPJ-DK, The C of E, Cwmhiraeth.

This is another hook along the lines of the couple we've discussed above, the subject of this hook is not even notable enough for an article, yet we think our readers would be interested in the fact he won this championship and subsequently retired? A more interesting and pertinent fact is that this "world" championship featured only teams from the non-notable "NWA Detroit". The target article has a far more interesting claim:

"Because individual NWA members, referred to as NWA territories, were allowed to create their own version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship at least 22 different versions existed between 1949 and 1991". A DYK could be:

... the Detroit version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship was one of at least 22 NWA World Tag Team Championships that existed between 1949 and 1991?

At least that targets the real target article and doesn't rely on non-notable wrestler's career options. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Let's see if MPJ-DK has a view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
New suggested hook is much better IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the revised hook is far more interesting. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have substituted the revised hook in Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture hook

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The G3DP glass printing process

Are we happy in using this video in the picture image slot now in Prep 3? To me it resembles an advertisement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It does look a bit like an advert for generic glass or MIT but nothing I would be too concerned about as it's not promoting any particular brand of glass in my view. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 
 
  • The article in question is Neri Oxman which contains many striking images, not least the lead image of the professor herself (right). Myself, I'd have gone for the funky chair (left) but we should respect the choice of the main author, Sj, who chose to focus upon the 3D glass printer. The video seems reasonable for that hook. Andrew D. (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Glass printing seemed a memorable hook, from art and engineering angles, though I agree there are more striking images. I also wish that video were more technical and less literally glowing, but it stays focused on the process, and demonstrates it in a way that would be hard with images alone. – SJ + 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Violinist plays violin concerto (prep 1)

Latest comment: 7 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Liza Ferschtman @Gerda Arendt, Meneerke bloem, BU Rob 13, and Cwmhiraeth:

So, we have a classical violinist who played a random classical violin concerto at a random moment. Why is that bit of information so noteworthy as to be included in a DYK? It wasn't a premiere, an exceptional performance, something unexpected, something especially noteworthy (it is sourced to a primary source, not even a review of it)... Just one of dozens of concertos she has played over the years. Basically, it is "DYK that Ferschtman did her job?" Fram (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, It is not a random concerto, but a new step in her career, a great work of the 20th century, which - admittedly - deserved a better article, - promise to improve there. - We should raise curiosity, and Beethoven has been mentioned often. - We could have stopped after the National prize, but I like to add music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
ps: calling Drmies who also added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
If the article does absolutely nothing to descirbe this as a "new step in her career", and no sources indicate that this is a new step in her career, then ye, this is a purely random bit of information. It is absolutely unclear why this single performance is highlighted in the article, never mind in the DYK. Raising curiosity is very fine if that curiosity is then answered in the article. All it does here is leave the reader scratching his head wondering why this performance, of all her performances, is worthy of main page (or even in-article) mentioning. The aim of DYK is not to frustrate and alienate readers. Fram (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Worse; she already played that concerto in 2013 for a Hans van Manen ballet[1], so this isn't a "new step in her career" at all... Fram (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) The reviewer didn't scratch the head. I find just mentioning a prize boring, so added the piece that sounds most interesting and that I am determined to improve. As we can not mention more than three performances in one hook, I guess the readers will understand that we have to make a choice. My understanding is that we have to present one interesting fact. - If I say she played it for the first time, you will come and find a source about her playing it in 2015, so I came to avoid "firsts" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
After ec: the hook doesn't say "first" or "new step", intentionally so. We can add that source and say 2013, + for ballet, which might make it more interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Um, no, it doesn't it make it any more interesting at all, it still is an utterly random performance, one of many in her career. You were making things up as you went along ("It is not a random concerto, but a new step in her career") which really is very disappointing. Either drop the performance or pull the hook, I don't care which, but don't continue this charade please. Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Pull the hook, we were still working on expansion, - see my talk. Other voices welcome, though: Can the hook fact be one of many facts (called "random" above)? That's what I always did, beginning with my first, which mentioned one of a composer's pieces, without having to justify the choice. Related question: may the article writer suggest the choice? - I am sorry that I tried to justify, instead of saying: do I have to? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I do have to agree with Fram here. When I promoted the hook I did think "what does this 2017 performance have to do with the prize eleven years earlier?", but I am wary of amending Gerda's hooks after past experience, so I left the last part of the hook in place whereas I would otherwise have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Article writer may suggest the choice, others may react. Normally, when you choose which fact should be used in the hook, you have a reason for doing this, one which should be obvious to most readers (something unusual, something new, a highlight of a career, something quirky, ...). With this choice, there was and is no reason at all to choose this fact and not one of her many other concerts, records, ... It's not clear why this performance gets a separate sentence in her article (while others don't), it's even less clear why it would appear on the main page. A DYK hook is supposed to be interesting, and the second part of your hook simply fails that rule completely. Graham Waterhouse, which you mention as comparable, had a hook about a piece he composed for bagpipes and string orchestra, which is (AFAIK) an unusual combination. A violinist playing a violin concerto though is not, by any stretch of the word, an unusual combination. Fram (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The unusual fact is that she won the National Prize. The other (extra) is just to add some MUSIC. What would your suggestion be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Drop the music. * ... that classical violinst Liza Ferschtman won the Nederlandse Muziekprijs in 2006? Fram (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
What do others think? I miss the memory of an angel ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Fram's proposed hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Decreasing interest in DYKs, where I said yesterday that I still supply to DYK. If I may say no more about a fascinating musician than that she received a price, I may reconsider. Listening to music makes me write articles, not reading prize-winner lists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Gerda's hooks often seem to need some sharpening or allure. The most recent example was
... that Max Reger recorded some of his 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67, on the Welte Philharmonic organ?
A lot of hard work went into that article but the hook did not do it justice as there were only 279 readers, which is remarkably low. That was a shame as the article has some excellent sound files created by Mathsci which merit a wider audience. For this latest case, I suggest the following. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Ferschtman in concert
ALT2: ... that Liza Ferschtman (pictured) used seven different violins for her virtuoso performance of the Rosary Sonatas?
Now we lost the prize, and "virtuoso" sounds like a POV term, not in the article. On the picture, she plays with orchestra, while the sonatas are chamber music. The hope for that picture reduced the choice of mentionable works. - What would you have said about the preludes? We have many chorale preludes, but few recordings with Reger playing (also not pictured, unfortunately). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Using seven violins in a performance certainly piqued my interest more than an award. Since the article describes the performance as a "rare tour de force" per the translation supplied by Drmies, we can easily replace "virtuoso" with "tour de force" (I prefer it without "rare" for better flow, but if others think it would be better with "rare", that's also fine):
Tour de force is a noun not an adjective and so ALT2a is ungrammatical. 'Virtuoso' can be used as an adjective and seems reasonably close in meaning. The actual phrase used by the reviewer was "een zeldzaam huzarenstukje" which literally means a 'rarely seen Hussar piece' and so we have to use some poetic licence when translating the idiom. Andrew D. (talk)

I like the angle about the seven violins - that's definitely unusual and yes, I think it would get considerably more hits than is usual for this topic area. I don't think it matters that the image is of Ferschtman with an orchestra - the hook doesn't say it's a picture of her playing the Rosary Sonatas. I would recommend going with Andrew's suggested alt, assuming it can be verified. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I checked the source given; Google translate offers "Ferschtman with seven different instruments on stage" (in a context that wouldn't include the harpsichord in the seven, just the violins) and "full implementation of Heinrich Biber[']s Rosary Sonatas", and the phrase "zeldzaam huzarenstukje", which Drmies translated as "rare tour de force". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I still find the orchestra image for a chamber music hook misleading. I don't like "tour de force" because of the "force" it suggests. We came a long way from her angelic playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "tour de force" (and even "virtuoso") seems not appropriate for the pieces: "the music's raison d'être: to evoke an intimate, private atmosphere suitable for prayer and meditation", quoted from the article, which I think is one for insiders. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt, both "tour de force" (assuming she played them well) and "virtuoso" definitely apply to these pieces; the Rosary Sonatas article makes that abundantly clear; in addition to using "virtuosic" in the lead, the body of the article notes that they include very rapid passages, demanding double stops and an extended range, reaching positions on the violin that musicians had not yet been able to play. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd scratch my head but I got some sunburn last week in Florida. Huzarenstukje does translate as "tour de force", and the advantage over "virtuoso" is that huzarenstukje and "tour de force" are both nouns. "Rare tour de force" is simply "zeldzaam huzarenstukje"--"Een zeldzaam huzarenstukje, alleen al gezien de lengte van de cyclus..." As for Andrew Davidson's comment that "tour de force" can't be used adjectivally--well, to begin, "tour de force" in "her 'tour de force' performance" isn't a noun, it's a noun phrase, and second, if we couldn't have nouns or noun phrases used adjectivally, we couldn't be banging our heads into a brick wall, could we. So that proposed hook of BlueMoonset's isn't ungrammatical, and it's exciting (not to mention verified). I'm all for it. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I've taken your word for it Drmies and substituted the hook. Thank you everybody for your input. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mozart

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I thought that Template:Did you know nominations/Piano Concerto No. 6 (Mozart) would make a nice match for the TFA on 24 March, - now that it's approved and we are on one set per day, that seems not likely to happen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The featured article in question is Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) which is the TFA on 24 March, the day the work was completed. If your DYK hook runs on the same day I fear it may get few hits because classical music enthusiasts may not want to read both and may prefer the featured article. Just my view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought less of views for our little article, but of offering to the interest public an image of Mozart that they may not know, unlike the sugary one that is in our article on him and on the sweets. No problem to do so later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bonnanza

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Queue3:

Template:Did you know nominations/Beethoven Orchester Bonn @Gerda Arendt, Vivvt, and Cwmhiraeth:

The line "In 1907, Richard Strauss conducted his works in Bonn with the orchestra" is sourced to source 4, which is somewhat confusingly a triple source. The problem is that as far as I can tell, not one of the three pages actually mentions Strauss or 1907 at all...[2][3][4]. So I'm a bit amazed how three people verified that this source actually supports the hook! Fram (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Its with source 1 in German. I have added the inline source. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable person law partner joins court after notable person leaves - prep 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
... that the law partner of North Carolina Supreme Court justice Armistead Burwell joined the court after Burwell had left it?

This is like several above, where the target article is bereft of anything of real interest so the hook has to be constructed and focused around something else. I read the article, and thought that a more interesting hook could be:

... that despite being severely wounded in the American Civil War in 1864, Armistead Burwell became licensed to practice law five years later?

or

... that Armistead Burwell became licensed to practice law five years after he was severely wounded in the American Civil War?

These alt hooks place the focus on the actions of the target article rather than something peripheral to it, and any case, I think either would be more interesting. But YMMV, just worth thinking about in my opinion. Pinging MB, Cwmhiraeth, Dr Aaij. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and think the second hook you suggest is the better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that is better. MB 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Then we need an admin to replace it since it's subsequently been moved to a queue. Maile66, Mifter, Coffee, Black Kite.....? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and MB:   Fixed — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dr Aaij: (I messed up your ping). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

1950 Fairfield-Suisun Boeing B-29 crash

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A few days ago I created a new article on the 1950 Fairfield-Suisun Boeing B-29 crash, and overhauled a related article about Brigadier General Robert F. Travis (who was killed in the crash). I sent the air crash article to DYK, and it was reviewed and approved by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and has been moved to the approved list. However, yesterday, Travis was promoted to GA.

I therefore updated Template:Did you know nominations/1950 Fairfield-Suisun Boeing B-29 crash to add the Travis article, making it a double-barrel hook; added a second QPQ; and added an image of Travis.

I didn't move it from the approved pile - I wasn't sure what the procedure for this is. I have marked it as requiring another review.

If someone could take the appropriate action, that would be great.

The air crash made front-page news back in 1950, due to the deaths of so many people, including the general, and again in 1994, when it was revealed that an atomic bomb was involved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Yeah, it was a cool article, which taught me something. Nice bit of history, although my comfort zone is 500 years earlier :) Not sure I can help here. In fact I cant, as I was a reveiwer virgin until then. So what's up? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 21:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  Done I undertook the second review. Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4 is full; it just wasn't given a DYKbotdo template at the top when it was promoted like the other queues were. Calling any admin to do this in the next hour, so that the first of the April Fools' Day sets can be promoted on time. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Singer releases album soon after mass exposure at presidential inauguration - prep 5

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion
* ... that only two months after she performed the national anthem at the 2017 United States presidential inauguration, Jackie Evancho is set to release a new album, Two Hearts?

This is no way remarkable, or really particularly interesting. It's in Evancho's best interest to work the publicity from her appearance at the inauguration, the timing is obvious. It's even less interesting and less remarkable once you read that "Evancho began recording music for the album in 2015..." I read the article and found some alternatives that are perhaps more interesting.

Maybe one of those would be more broadly interesting? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not that last one! She sings covers of pre-existing songs, Enya and the others have not written a song for her or for the album. Fram (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The article lists them as writing credits, right? It doesn't say they were written for the song or for her explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It could be rephrased :
Better? I liked it because I thought the contrasting writers, including Stilgoe (who I'd forgotten even existed), Swift and Boberg, made for a genuinely hooky hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I was going to make the same point as Fram, but you've solved it already - the second of those two hooks you've added is the best, I think. And I'd forgotten about Richard Stilgoe as well, I think the last time I saw him he was in the dictionary corner on Countdown. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Re:Stilgoe, my thoughts exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgot courtesy pings to Ssilvers, Pgallert, Hawkeye7, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with this kind of informal hook chat is that people may agree on a new hook but the discussion does not appear on the nomination template and nobody actually substitutes the hook in the prep area. Of the hooks above, the only one that conforms to precise DYK rules, and for which I can check the source, is TRM's second hook. I am prepared to replace the present hook by that one, but any other actions will need to be taken by someone else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Well the other action you could take would be to return this to the noms and re-open the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
But interestingly, your point about the latter hooks not being referenced in the article is enlightening too, so the information with the track listings is actually unverifiable and should be tagged as such... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TRM – the hook is uninteresting. And I saw it on the nominations page while building preps and simply skipped over it. I think the hook should be pulled from prep for further work. Yoninah (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I think TRM's 2nd hook ("includes covers of songs written by..") is fairly interesting purely for the bizarre range of songwriters (You'll be doing well to find another sentence with Taylor Swift and Richard Stilgoe in it!). I'm not particularly bothered if it's pulled, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TRM's 2nd hook, but it needs to be sourced in the article. Returning to the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Good job Cwmhiraeth, I tagged that section as unreferenced because it doesn't back up the claims discussed here. I'm sure the nominator, reviewer, promoter and promoting admin simply overlooked this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I have added the sources to the Lead now (they were in the body of the article previously). Can someone please help move this along now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: If we are going to use ALT3, I see citations for Enya, Swift and Smith in the article but not Stilgoe and Broberg. If you can find cites for these two, I can promote the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I prefer Alt2 about the Cafe Carlyle. That one is now fully referenced. I don't think we're going to get the Stilgoe ref until after the liner notes become available. is this ref ok for Broberg? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. It is in Prep 2 now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! BTW, I took a closer look, and I am satisfied that Stilgoe had nothing to do with "Caruso". It appears to be a cut and paste error. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A real shame. Connecting such a wide array of artists, e.g. Swift, Enya, the 19th C. guy, to this modern artist's repertoire on the album is by far the best and most interesting hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK article

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is {{DYK article}} still in use anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not. EEng 03:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Flag of Kyrgyzstan

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Please look at this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Kyrgyzstan.
Before expanding the article in question, the nominator deleted most of it as a copyright violation. In my review I demonstrated that it wasn't a copyright violation and asked the nominator to expand the article some more so that it complies with the five-fold expansion requirement (five-fold in comparison to the version from March 18). But the nominator instead started accusing me of "not AGFing" [5] and "playing games" [6]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you did on this review, Moscow Connection. I spent some time analyzing the issue and gave a full review. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Okay. Thank you and MPJ-DK for helping with this. I didn't really know what I should do. As you can see, I didn't want to kill the nomination and didn't post a no sign.
By the way, I didn't think it was a good idea to write this in the nomination discussion, but yesterday I looked at some other flag-related DYKs by Bloom6132, and here's what I have found:
1. [7].
2. [8] — The deleted section wasn't a quote from the source. Yet it was excluded from the calculations: [9]
3. [10] — Bloom6132 deleted that as a copyvio, but I don't think three words can constitute a copyright violation. As you can see in the nomination discussion, the short sentence mattered in the calculations: [11].
That's all I wanted to say. :-) I'm perfectly okay with giving all these nominations a go, since the articles were expanded and became better, which is the purpose of the DYK project. (It's just that I decided to look at one of the flag-related nominations at Bloom's talk page and I saw something interesting, so I looked at the other ten or so. I don't know how polite it is to post these findings, but I wasted some time on this, so why not...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection – with regards to "proofs" 1 and 2 that you mention above, lists in articles – whether they bulleted (in #1) or numbered (in #2) – do not count towards the prose count (in accordance to DYK eligibility criteria 2(a)). So my deleting them does not affect the amount of characters I have to write for 5× expansion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. (Number 2 looks like prose to me, but yes, maybe it's technically a list. Not sure.) (By the way, I didn't call it "proofs" or anything like that.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection – anything that has either a number or a bullet point before it is a list (which won't be counted by the scripts or tools that measure character count). I know you didn't call them "proofs". But you were using it as evidence in an attempt to show an extensive pattern of wrongdoing on my part – glad that doesn't wash. Also, I'd find it very disturbing if you went through every flag- and coat of arms-related DYK of mine just to come up with those three examples above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't "an attempt to show an extensive pattern of wrongdoing". And there were only like 10 or so flag-related DYKs. You shouldn't find it "disturbing", I've already forgotten about the discussion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few hours ago. Here is an updated list of the 25 non-current nominations (those through March 18). Right now we have a total of 127 nominations, of which 24 have been approved. Two of the hooks are from January, and need a new reviewer after significant previous work; it would be great if both of them could be reviewed in the coming week.

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) 05:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Credit template broken?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The credit template for Paul Rapsey Hodge, which looks like this {{DYKmake|Paul Rapsey Hodge|7&6=thirteen}} in the edit window, looks like Paul Rapsey Hodge – [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] (give) (tag) –View nom subpage in read mode. Is this a problem? How do we fix it? Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the one who "fixed" it from the way it appears in Cwmhiraeth's comment. I thought it was a mistake. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a side-effect of the ampersand in 7&6=thirteen's username, which confuses the template code. The 1= and 2= tells the template that what appears after are the values for first and second parameters respectively. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
yes, that fixed it, thanks all. Vanamonde (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Manual update, bot failed to run

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

@Shubinator and BlueMoonset: The DYKUpdateBot has not run in 25 hours. I did a manual update for the main page, but I don't have time to take care of the notices on the individual articles and individual nominator talk pages. Also, I didn't touch the clock. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maile, please don't ever manually update the main page without also updating the clock. If the bot is turned back on before the time is updated, the set you just got promoted would be immediately archived and the next queue immediately moved to the main page, even 20 minutes after you finished the manual move of the prior queue. If you don't have time to at least update and reset both the next queue and the time of the next update, then please leave updating for an admin who does. I've just posted to Materialscientist's talk page, asking to clean this up, particularly the time (but also the various notices), but if another admin stops by sooner and can update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time from 2017-03-24T00:00:00Z to 2017-03-25T00:00:00Z (change "24" to "25", if it hasn't been done by some other admin), that would be fabulous. Thanks to anyone who can take care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, okay there BlueMoonset. The reason I didn't was because last time I corrected the clock, you left me this message. Don't bother to explain. I have noticed that when another admin updates the time, you don't mess with them. I figured that by the next 12 hours, somebody would take care of that. But you have a point - maybe neither you nor anyone else should ping me when an update is late. That should solve this little issue. — Maile (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Maile, I'm sorry you misunderstood my posts then: the bot had already updated the time as part of an automatic update, and you were then editing that—a completely different situation. When you do a manual update, it means doing all of the required steps, or at least enough of them so that if the bot comes back online, it won't think the update still needs to be done, and that means incrementing the time. The full instructions are at the bottom of any prep page in the "Posting the new update" section; numbers 8 and 10 are the ones you can safely skip. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset let me clarify, so you and I don't have a spell hopping on the wrong foot with each other.
  • I take your word that we've had a misunderstanding on the time thing, and hopefully you understand my originally posting here about it was both to notify you and to Shubinator so he could see, and correct the time, before he re-jiggered the bot.
  • I hope you become an admin. Really. Then explanations like this aren't necessary, because you will have experienced the thrill yourself.
  • When the bot fails to update, it's a fire drill situation. Posting the update and archiving the old one off the main page is easy and quick.
  • I am by far not the first admin who did an update and didn't then post the individual templates. Maybe I'm just the first one to admit it here. More than once I've done the postings after the fact when another admin missed that step. It's tedious and time consuming taking maybe half an hour or more. Different templates for the user pages than the article pages. 8 nominations, 16 templates to distribute. Do this 16 times: Copy the template, open a talk page, paste the template, manually type info, preview to make sure it looks right, correct any typo or fix what doesn't look right, preview again, save. Doesn't sound like much. Until you do it. Time consuming. You know anybody who's sitting around with nothing else to do? Ironically, the notification templates can be done by any non-admin. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • And just to clarify my own post, the one thing that does not need to be done at the time is the individual updates (the number 8 I referred to above). They can be handled quite a bit later, when someone does have time. (I've done them myself as part of cleanup, and agree that they're no fun done manually.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, then. I guess we have this all cleared up now. Thanks for your input. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Materialscientist took care of the remaining update tasks, and I've restarted DYKUpdateBot, so we should be good to go :) Shubinator (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator. Glad to know it's back up and ready to run tonight. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
My commiserations to Maile who stepped into the breach and did his best under difficult circumstances and is I think justified in feeling a bit miffed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrol nominations

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Many new but prolific content creators wind up finding DYK and nominating their own articles here. If you notice such a content creator who is not yet autopatrolled, please consider nominating them yourself at WP:PERM/AP or granting the permission directly if you're an administrator. Ideally, our prep builders would be on the lookout for recurring author names that they didn't see a couple months previously to see if they might qualify. This would be a huge help to new page patrollers. Thank you! ~ Rob13Talk 17:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Tomahawks etc - prep 3

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
* ... that the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), was adopted by the Atlanta Braves following the signing of former FSU Seminoles cornerback Deion Sanders?

A few minor issues to be cleared up. The article is called "Tomahawk chop" yet uses "Tomahawk Chop" throughout. Secondly, most non-Americans will not have a clue what "FSU Seminoles" is. Thirdly, does "cornerback" add anything to the hook for most anyone? Fourthly, given the sensitive nature of this, I would suggest it's either not run at all, or the controversy is the focus of the hook, not some odd, ethically dubious National Guard-esque grotesque parody of the history of Native Americans. E.g.

* ... that Native Americans asked the Kansas City Chiefs to stop performing the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured)?
* ... that the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), was banned in 2009 by Massachusetts schools who said that it was "offensive and discriminatory"?"

The C of E, Edwardx, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason why "complemented" cannot be replaced with "done" in whatever hook is ultimately used? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that's a little beside the point really, and "done" is really ugly/clumsy/unencyclopedic. "Performed" would be better, but as I said, that's missing the overall point. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this, The Rambling Man. I was the reviewer, and perhaps because I grew up in the US, sometimes don't pay enough attention to what non-Americans are likely to know. I don't think it's that sensitive, but having said that, I much prefer either of your two suggested ALTs, both of which are supported by cited sources. Edwardx (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem, it happens! I think the most recent issue I'm aware of is the kerfuffle over the Washington Redskins name, so that's why I thought this hook would be better positioned as one that represents the controversy rather than the macho National Guard/"Oorah" approach to the article(s), particularly with the unsympathetic lead image on the "chop" article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Not too sure how its unsympathetic as it is the best clear example of it being done that I could find. I am not American and I honestly don't see anything amiss with it. It's one of those Marmite things, you either love it or hate it but nothing to stop it being present to allow those unaware to make up their minds about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
And furthermore, I had wanted to hook to include a reference to the Atlanta Braves as I was hoping to have it run to coincide with the opening of SunTrust Park. So maybe something like the original ALT1, just without the person mention in it. Something like:

... that the Atlanta Braves were called "Negroes", "Klansmen" and "Nazis" for adopting the tomahawk chop with foam tomahawks (pictured) as it was viewed as a mockery of Native Americans? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I think somewhere between one of my suggestions and the original running hook would be more appropriate. If you wanted that sort of thing to run, maybe consider it for April Fool's Day, it's so grotesque. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There would be no Braves connection that day if we used the others. We can equally change it to :....that fans of the Atlanta Braves were asked to stop doing the tomahawk chop with foam tomahawks (pictured) as it was viewed as a mockery of Native Americans? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't need a Braves connection. And we don't need two articles to cover one concept. But I've made my feelings clear here, so I'll leave it now for the rest of the community to deal with. I have a stalker who's already engaging. Good luck!

Unfortunately, both articles have been proposed to be Merged, which means that this nomination will have to wait to run until after the Merge proposal has been settled one way or the other (see discussion at Talk:Tomahawk chop#Merge). It seems unlikely that this will happen prior to the Braves March 31 first game at the new park, but it could well be settled in time for the Braves home opening on April 14. I am pulling it from Prep 3 now. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1 minor issue

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"in the United States presidential election, 1960 was"

Should be "in the 1960 United States presidential election was" or "in the United States presidential election, 1960, was" (preferably the former). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

fixed, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Spencer Weisz

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

The hook currently says "that Spencer Weisz is the 2017 Ivy League Men's Basketball Player of the Year, although he was only fourth on the 2016–17 Princeton Tigers team in scoring?" whereas the supporting source says "Weisz averages 10.6 points per game, which ranks fourth among team leaders". I don't see "team leaders" and "Princeton Tigers team" as being the same, and it sounds more like he ranked fourth among Ivy league captains. Am I missing something? @TonyTheTiger, Vivvt, and Cwmhiraeth:. I'm swapping this into Prep 6 to give us more time to deal with this, as I'm promoting 5 to the queue. Vanamonde (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I know nothing about basketball. My understanding was that he came fourth in scoring points by throwing the ball through the basket, but scored many points through rebounds, assists and steals, sufficient to get him his All-Ivy selection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I was also troubled by the hook, but more from the point of view that you needed somehow to be top scoring to be the Ivy League POTY. That's not indicated anywhere obvious so the "although he was only fourth..." clause is somewhat a case of "so what"? I suggest the nom be pulled for further discussion to find a more interesting hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Although, having said that, the article really is lacking in anything that would draw interest from a "broad audience". It's an utterly unremarkable biography about a mediocre player with nothing of interest outside his average achievements. This is one of those DYKs which should have just been failed as "not interesting". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have sympathy for TRM's view here, but honestly I stopped at an earlier point: whether the hook fact is even true. At this point, I'm unsure that he even was fourth for his team. I'd really like to see the nominator and reviewer's thoughts here, though I'm inclined to pull this shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde, I'm not entirely sure why that hook was promoted, since ALT1 is the one that Vivvt approved. Would replacing the hook in the queue with ALT1 be a possibility? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I was the one that promoted this hook, and I should not have done so. I was unaware that "Most Valuable Player" had a specific meaning in sport, and rejected ALT1 because he was an amateur and didn't seem to have a monetary value. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, swapped in ALT1, though it's not the most enthralling hook. Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:UpdatingDYK

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is Template:UpdatingDYK still in use anywhere? Searching for "insource:UpdatingDYK" suggests that it may not be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even know the template existed, and I don't think it has ever been used. Having said that, I think we could use such a template, though that one looks too big. Gatoclass (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Exposing the correct spelling of "exposé"

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the fourth hook of Queue 1, "exposes" should be "exposés". Also, "vote fraud" seems odd to me. I think it should be "voter fraud" or possibly "election fraud". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Hits the Main Page in about ten minutes.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done Corrected to exposés; "vote fraud" was a redirect to "election fraud", so I just changed it to a direct link to election fraud. But I agree with you, I've heard of "voter fraud", but "vote fraud" seems odd. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation London Bridge

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Currently the 5th hook in Queue 1. The hook was changed at some point to, "...that the announcement "London Bridge is down" will set in motion the contingency plan designed for when Queen Elizabeth II dies?"

However, the promoted hook (Template:Did you know nominations/Operation London Bridge) was the punchier and more succinct "... that "London Bridge is down" will announce the death of Queen Elizabeth II?" I can't conceive of any good reason for the change. Would it be possible to change back to the promoted hook, or alternatively could someone at least provide a justification for the change? Edwardx (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I've been tempted to announce "Operation London Bridge" (or tweet it) just to see these contingency plans rolled out. I would 100% back a restoration of the original, approved hook. As it's a little alluring, I would also consider it for the quirky slot. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I made the change. It's humans and not slogans that make announcements, and I wouldn't dream of putting the death of the Queen in the quirky slot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The rewording is poor and if you feel sensitive about the suggestion to run it in the final slot, then allow others to handle that nomination. Please note that the last slot isn't mandated to be quirky, just where you would expect to find slightly more cryptic DYKs. But never mind, nothing much can be done now other than an apology to the nominator, so, sorry for this Edwardx. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't despair! You have two whole days to persuade somebody to change the hook back and move it to the quirky spot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth That shouldn't be necessary. The nominator has made a polite request to restore the hook. Either facilitate that, or return the hook to the noms area. Since you made the change, regardless of the fact it's now in a Queue, it's your responsibility to fix the problem you've created. Please find an admin to help you out with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I would, however, suggest that such radical re-wordings of hooks should really be done at the nom page, instead of unilaterally by a reviewer promoting the article into prep, especially as those preps are quickly turned into queues which makes them uneditable to most. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, The Rambling Man. Nowadays, I only bother nominating "my" articles for DYK if I can think of a hook that our readers would want to click on (whilst trying to comply with the tenets of good broadsheet journalism, of course). I don't doubt Cwmhiraeth's good intentions, but the resulting Queue 1 hook is turgid. I'm quite sure that our readers will be able to discern that humans will be making the appropriate decisions; we don't need to spell it out for them. And the Queen has probably contemplated her own mortality more than most of us ever will ours. Out of all the things she might take exception to, this hook appearing in the quirky slot (only us editors are really aware of it being such), must be well down the list. Could an admin please reinstate the original hook! Edwardx (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile, what's in the quirky slot in Queue 1 isn't quirky at all. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
HELP - this is going live in 4 hours! Could a friendly admin please fix this ASAP. Or do we have to wait until it goes live and report it in WP:ERRORS. Surely we should be looking to sort this out BEFORE it hits the main page. Edwardx (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Edwardx, Cwmhiraeth has completely refused to help you out here. Instead of keeping it in the preps and then into the queues, she could have returned it to the noms, but no. It's a real shame, and yes, I guess we'll take it to ERRORS instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you again for trying your best, The Rambling Man. I've just raised it at WP:ERRORS. Edwardx (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion

With April Fools Day just under a week away, now is probably the time to think about the queue setup for the day. Given that we currently have 19 approved and 1 that will be later, will we be doing 2x7 and 1x6? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How long are the various hooks? If they're very short, to make sure that the main page is balanced, it might be better to do 2x10; regular seven- or six-hook sets are typically too short for the current main page layout, and with many short hooks, it could be a problem. Pinging Gatoclass, who has been instrumental in past AFD organization. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Where are these approved hooks please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know either, but I've found them - Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know. Looking at them now. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite, just another part of the curious way DYK is structured I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, there are some stinkers there, like we suddenly find the word "gay" funny? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that made me wince as well. The "wanker" one will ensure the main page is unavailable to most schools for the time it's up as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    Grim stuff. We need the proposed sets to be pulled together because it's difficult to piece together what's been approved in a succinct manner from all the noms and the various schoolboy attempts at humour en-route. That way we can see where we are without the needless commentating by some users which has bloated those noms. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
First communion of anaemic young girls in snowy weather

Well, I had considered suggesting Album primo-avrilesque, with its seven monochrome artworks (see example) and silent funeral march. A different class of schoolboy humour in the 1890s. Theramin (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Negroes fighting in a cellar at night" looks to have potential as a lead April Fools hook :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In fact, I'll provide an alt for it right away:
  • ALT1: ... that an 1897 monograph by French artist Alphonse Allais included the painting Negroes fighting in a cellar at night (pictured)?
     
    Negroes fighting in a cellar at night—painting by Alphonse Allais
The problem at the moment with Album primo-avrilesque is that the article doesn't have a single inline source citation, and not only do the hook facts need to be so cited for DYK, but each paragraph does as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Theramin? Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You rang? I've sprinkled some blue pixie dust. Much better :-/ You want a citation for the contents of the book? How about opening the book at page 7? A copy at the BnF is linked in the article, but here is a direct link to page 7. Theramin (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Would Template:Did you know nominations/Caterpillar inflation be a viable option?©Geni (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The topic might have some potential, but I don't think either of the hooks proposed thus far would work as April Fools hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, BlueMoonset. After the frustration with the AFD sets last year, I had sworn not to get involved this year but started doing so again against my better judgement, only to encounter the same kinds of difficulties, namely the resistance to dumping of substandard hooks by certain parties, and the general lack of involvement from the wider DYK community. I pretty much decided to quit this year after inviting somebody to verify a couple of hooks, only to have them propose a couple of additional hooks themselves. The AFD special project is never going to give satisfactory results without wider input from responsible, clueful participants. If this thread results in such, I might be sufficiently encouraged to return to the fray and see if we can achieve some reasonable sets. Gatoclass (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Gatoclass. There does seem to be less general enthusiasm for AFD over time; many participants from prior years don't seem to be very interested any more. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if wit rather than schoolboy humor became the norm, maybe more of us would be inclined to participate. Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and if we could focus on "interesting" our readers rather than simply trying to "shock" them, that would help too. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So, are we going to ditch the Beavis and Butthead type stuff, and actually concentrate on those that are genuinely witty? (If the "gay" one appears on the Main Page, I will pull it in an instant: fair warning).OK, but can we please try to ditch some of the really juvenile stuff? Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
On what grounds? (aside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh for goodness' sakes, the "gay" hook is totally innocuous. Gatoclass (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Cas Liber, since it looks like his hook is destined to be pulled. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. Why are we laughing on the Main Page at the word "gay"? It's a shame, because it's a great little article (as per usual for Cas) and it deserves to be showcased, but that hook just makes Wikipedia look juvenile. I know it's April Fools' Day, but surely we can do better than this? How about this instead - shall I start a discussion somewhere more central about this, and then if community consensus is that it's OK, then it stays? After all, the last thing we want is for a slew of complaints at WP:ERRORS on the day itself. If the hooks are actually witty, then it won't happen. Black Kite (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You do know that there are always complaints on April Fools Day but equally a lot who support having it. Including those who don't necessarily come to Wikipedia. But I think if you want to get a true reflection on opinion for the hook, let it run then work retrospectively if consensus is that it is not right. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I honestly cannot believe that somebody would want to oppose a harmless bit of wordplay like this. The hook presents a simple statement of fact, which is that the white-throated honeyeater used to go by another name, but in such a way as to suggest another meaning. The hook does not rely for its humour on any notion that there is something intrinsically funny about gayness per se, but rather on the absurdist suggestion that a bird is capable of reflecting upon its sexual identity.
I might add that a far worse hook was featured last year, the execrable " ... that He was gay?" that I tried to prevent appearing on the main page, because that really did suggest that there is something intrinsically funny about gayness (original nomination page here). As usual, I got no support and the hook was featured, but even so, didn't attract a squeak of complaint, so I can't imagine an innocuous hook about a "gay honeyeater" would fare any worse. Gatoclass (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sheesh, that is indeed even worse. I dunno, perhaps I am being overtly sensitive here, but I well remember having to tell my kids not to use "gay" as a pejorative and getting the reply that it was "just a joke". Ah well. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
When I saw the hook on the main page, I interpreted the joke as an absurdist suggestion that a bird is capable of reflecting upon its sexual identity and changing it through conversion therapy, a discredited "cure" that's been found to increase the likelihood of depression and suicide. The exact phrase "used to be gay" commonly appears in that context.
I assume that this was not the intent, but it's an unsurprising consequence of an attempt to derive humor from a "gay" joke with purposely ambiguous wording. —David Levy 16:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I knew that hook would probably be trouble, and I knew why, but I had already argued for change in two hooks (what I thought were worse editorial mistakes), so sorry, I did not raise my hand again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I honestly can't understand why it is impossible to produce a couple of sets without overt swearing, without juvenile shocks and without resorting to LGBTQ slurs. We would probably get zero complaints if we actively selected "clever" and "interesting" hooks instead. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a copy of Viz. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

But...but...it says "masturbation" and "erection" on the main page! That's funny because...it says "masturbation" and "erection"! Who could ask for anything more?! —David Levy 16:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April Fools Day roundup

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Time is running out for organizing this year's April Fools nominations, so I am posting links to some of the nominations here in order to keep them moving forward.

Articles with hooks, or new hooks, needing review:

I will probably be posting some additional links in the next day or so, but getting these done would be a useful start. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: The Londonderry Police one has already been approved, it is just that others have jumped in later with their own proposals which did not override the original review for the original proposed hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, some additional hooks have been proposed after the original hook was reviewed. We want the best possible hooks to be featured, not just the first one that happened to be proposed, which is why I am asking for the new hooks to be verified, then the set builder can decide which hook they prefer. I have unstruck the link above accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
As long as its not ALT2, that's all I am concerned about. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that ALT2 should not be promoted, as it isn't an April Fools hook. Gatoclass (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It depends entirely on the nominations. There are probably more than average on sexual themes in this year's mix, but it varies from year to year. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Next year you probably won't as it coincides with Easter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So what. If it is appropriate for AFD, then it is appropriate for an AfD which happens to be Easter. I would rather not have any of these juvenile wink wink nudge nudge "jokes" on AFD, but having them this year, but not next year "because it is Easter" really is taking the piss. We shouldn't let religion influence the choice of hooks or articles. If some religious zealots are so fundamentally entrenched that they cannot accept a sexual "joke" on Easter, then tough luck, but we're a neutral, science-based encyclopedia, not a fable-believers foster house. Drop AFD (or the juvenile aspects) now, or don't drop them at all, but don't just drop them for next year. Fram (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's hold the "that He was gay" until next year's April 1/Easter. That'll really put the cat among the pigeons. EEng 18:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Two American baseball hooks in one set? Come on.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I put the request in for both to run on the same day back when we were doing 2 sets a day. And in fact, if I hadn't moved Tal's Hill to April Fools Day, it would have been 3. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So now we're at one set. We don't need two such hooks in a single set for 24 hours on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
You could probably move one to the next day and it would still work due to time differences. Plus personally I would prefer Home Run Apple being used as a lead image instead of Mount Davis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
TRM, I was the one who promoted both to Prep 1. There are many avid American baseball fans out there, myself included. Do you object when there are 2 (gasp!) British hooks in a set? I think not. Yoninah (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Because the topic "American baseball" and the topic "British" can be compared? Perhaps you meant "2 British soccer hooks"? That would also be a too much, even though there are many avid British soccer fans out there. Fram (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be better to solve the actual problem rather than try to make weak imaginary scenarios up. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not being facetious. Whenever U.S.-centric hooks come up, TRM seems to view them through a U.K.-centric prism. Well, I view U.K.-centric hooks similarly – they all look the same to me. Running 2 baseball hooks on Opening Day, which to baseball fans is the second most exciting event next to the World Series, is hardly overdoing it. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Who said "facetious"? Could you demonstrate a set that passed with two UK-centric hooks, let alone two-UK-same-sports-centric hooks? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And please, let me know where I've viewed these US-centric hooks through a "U.K.-centric prism". I review every single prep and have done for months. I can't recall ever complaining about a US-overload before today. Happy to be proven wrong, but if not, please retract your accusation, that's really important. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for anything you heard as an insult. I didn't mean to insult you. I'm now hearing yours (and Fram's) objection to two same-sport hooks in the same set. I'll move one along to the next prep. Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

April Fool's Day type of humor

Latest comment: 7 years ago51 comments15 people in discussion

In the two discussions above I count at least five editors with serious concerns over the all-too-frequent use of rather juvenile hooks on April Fools' Day (AFD). Before the actual queue is prepared, can we come to a quick agreement on what is and isn't acceptable? Either a general discussion on allowing sex / scatology / ... or not, or a vote per hook? That way we can at least make sure that no hooks with lots of opposition get promoted anyway because one or two people thnk they are funny. Fram (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We have had hooks employing "sex/scatology" year after year at DYK on April Fools Day, and indeed on many other days, with virtually no complaints, so I think this proposal is a non-starter. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Strange, I see a lot of people complaining about this in the sections above, so it seems as if this is not so much a non-starter anyway. A hook about sex, for a topic about sex, is no problem. The idea that humour invariably (or in most cases) must involve sex and the like, including tired old stories like the "Fucking" sign, is a problem though. If you don't believe it to be a problem and would prefer to continue running such hooks in abundance on AFD, fine, but then just gieve this as your opinion, not a "we had no complaints so it isn't a problem". We had no complaints about many incorrect hooks either, that doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. Most people never complain to us no matter what we do, that doesn't mean that they like (or dislike) it. Fram (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
If the handful of people complaining above weren't mostly the same bunch who always seem to be complaining about one thing or another at DYK, I might concede that you have a point. But the notion that DYK AFD hooks "invariably or in most cases must involve sex and the like" is just completely wrong. Of the 24 hooks we featured on April Fools Day last year, I think just three of them involved bodily functions. This year the overwhelming majority of hooks again do not pertain to either sex or scatology, I think we have at most four hooks this year involving bodily functions, and a couple of them pretty innocuously. There are a couple that I think could still use some improvement, which is why I've been trying to supply some alts, but we are still waiting to get those verified. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've counted them, there are more than I thought this year, which isn't ideal, but if necessary we could probably weed out a couple of clunkers and just go with the best of them. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Why don't we just go with 2 x 8 and get rid of the most egregrious of them? The "Fucking" one is incredibly boring by now, and the article probably isn't even independently notable and probably should be merged into the article on the town. The "Wanker" one had a much better and more subtle hook suggested by Gatoclass ("... that at the BBC in the 1970s, "winking" was verboten?") which was rejected - and don't forget that using "Wanker" (or "Fucking") on the mainpage will cause issues with schools trying to access the mainpage while it is up (Yeah, yeah, NOTCENSORED, but why piss off our readers when we don't need to?)Yes, I've just realised that it'll be a Saturday - so the damage is minimal. The "gay" one is still a bit juvenile. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: The "Fucking" one needs to be pulled because User:Prioryman has AfD'd the article and that tag will still be there on 1 April. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Fucking" hook is not going to be featured because it has unresolved tags and because as I've already said it isn't eligible for DYK, so you don't need to worry about that one. I've been thinking myself of just going with 2 x 8 sets because there are some real clunkers among the nominated articles. The remaining articles can be featured on other days - perhaps with modified hooks as necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Template:Did you know nominations/Orobanche uniflora could somehow have an April Fool's hook. The common name has naked and rape plus the plant literally preys on other plants. I'm fine if my normal hook is added, but it's just an idea. SL93 (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, SL93, I think that will work as an April Fools nomination as well. I don't think I'm up to inventing more April Fools hooks now, and we are having trouble getting the remaining hooks verified regardless, but I think the original hook with this nom is quirky enough to work on the day in question. I have added it to the April Fools page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed sets

Okay, I have been through all the nominations, and I propose we go with the following 16 hooks. I've put these sets together in an order which I think works, but I'm flexible on the order. Full disclosure: some of these hooks are mine, and others I have tweaked slightly from the original proposed hooks (but not in such a way as to change the meaning). I am not accepting any DYK credits for any hooks of mine which are accepted, I simply proposed them in circumstances where I felt the original hooks were somewhat lacking or inappropriate, and did so in what I think the best interests of the project.

Here are the two proposed sets:

 
Dance of drunks in the fog


 
White-throated honeyeater


I propose that the following hooks be dropped from April Fools Day, on the grounds that they are either not very good, or not April Foolsish enough. These nominations, perhaps with different hooks where appropriate, can still be featured at DYK on another day:

Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The Winkers Song one is not the one that was approved by the nominator or anyone else. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I said I'd done a little tweaking of one or two of the hooks. It's often easier to see how well a hook works once it is in a set than when it is on the nominations page. And in this instance, you criticized the alt in question, and I think your criticism was legitimate so I gave it a tweak accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
My view is that it just isn't April Foolsy enough, while ALT4 is and that is the one that was approved in accordance with the rules rather than this one than appeared to have come in on a personal preference. As for the allegation of school filters or anything like that, then i would suggest running it with the original hook in the second set to limit any (even if there is any which I doubt) impact on British schools as I know Americans don't view wanker as a swear word. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
There actually will be very little impact on schools in general because - as I'd forgotten - that April 1 is a Saturday. I can assure you though that swearing (especially sexual swear words) will generally cause web pages to be filtered in most schools in the UK - it is a child protection requirement. Every time this is mentioned some people just shout out NOTCENSORED, but whilst I agree in general with that guideline, I think ensuring accessibility to Wikipedia for educational facilities trumps it. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm traveling with limited connectivity, so just this fragmentary comment: it's been commented both on the nom page and the article's talk that we should avoid any implication that vaginal steaming has any kind of medical validity; I therefore think "not universally recommended" is too weak -- see that nom page for stronger ALTs recently proposed. EEng 07:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough, I have deleted the word "universally" from the hook accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But I want to emphasize that we still have a bunch of unverified hooks in the sets above, if they are not verified in the next 36 hours or so, April Fools will have to be run with a combination of standby hooks and other hooks which have drawn objections. The nominations still requiring verification are:

New ALT proposed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)   Done Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Unsuitable for AFD in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)   Done - new alt proposed and verified. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


Will somebody please step up and get these verifications done? Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I will do some reviewing. The two sets outlined above are both very short and will leave the mainpage unbalanced. To balance it you could make the sets 9 or 10 hooks long, or some of the better hooks could be given 24 hour exposures. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the joke in the Negroes at night hook, that it will be seen as racism? I think it is a mistake to run it, and hope it's not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The 1953 Alcoa Aluminum advertisement hook isn't that well written. Any objection to changing "... that a woman can open a bottle?" It just states what "this" is. Note that "this" wasn't part of the original ad's quote, so we're not adding any greater of a deviation than was already there, just making the hook slightly clearer. The joke is still present. ~ Rob13Talk 10:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha, that is good BU Rob13, and just what that hook needed. I've tweaked it as suggested :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with Alanscottwalker: I think that hook is in poor taste. There is certainly potential there: why not choose one of the images that pokes fun at a profession, rather than at skin color? The "cardinals" are pretty funny: and it's actually easier to see that that is just a block of red. Vanamonde (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I did provide a hook for the "drunks" print in case there were objections to the other one, and I would suggest using that as a replacement. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I have substituted the "drunks" hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I would suggest adding "April Fools" before monograph, and replace "artist" with incoherent before the artist's name. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh heck no, we are not going to add "April Fools" to the hook, that would completely defeat the purpose! Also, adding "incoherent" would just detract from the joke. Gatoclass (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
'incoherent' is way funnier and way more interesting, there, than 'artist': "that an 1897 monograph by French incoherent Alphonse Allais included the print Dance of drunks in the fog (pictured)?" As for the purpose, well, April Fools. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Grassy Knoll hook is an WP:EASTEREGG entirely. I've flagged it on the nomination template. The link to Grassy Knoll in the article is a piped link to Dealy Plaza in Dallas, to the section on the Grassy Knoll associated with the John F. Kennedy assassination. This article does not mention Grassy Knoll anywhere except in the lead, and is not explained in the body. The sources do not mention Dallas or associate the term with the JFK assassination.— Maile (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Easter eggs are permissible on April Fools, but regardless, this isn't an "easter egg" hook, Tal's Hill alternative name is indeed the "Grassy Knoll" according to sources. Whether or not the article itself should link to the well known "grassy knoll" of historical note is a minor issue that is not worth holding up a nomination over. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I mis-stated my meaning here. I understand the misleading of hooks on April 1 - that's the joke of it. What I meant is that the article itself is misleading with its wikilink to the John F. Kennedy assassination article. The article can leave its source links in place beside the term "grassy knoll", but the wiki link to JFK needs to be removed. The wikilink in the article infers that it was originally named Grassy Knoll because of the JFK assassination, but the source links do not mention Dealy Plaza or JFK. The C of E I should have pinged you earlier when I started this thread. — Maile (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66: If the link to the JFK assassination is all that was the problem, then I have no problem with removing it and have done so, so can the tick be restored please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: Oh, you betcha! I restored the tick. Sorry to have put you through this hassle. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
That's OK, with all the chaos going around my noms, I'm used to it now. The price I pay for trying to be the Clown-Prince of Wikipedia! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem with vaginal steaming is that so many DYK regulars have had their fingers in it (oo-er) that there's not many left to do the approving and promotion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I think you're still a virgin aren't you Ritchie? :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Both of the sets looks rather short even with eight hooks, and may not do a good job of balancing the main page. I'm not saying that we should use hooks if they aren't good, just that if there are enough good ones, we could use nine or ten hooks in a set in order to balance things better. Or run one or two of the best hooks in both sets in order to achieve that balance. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

They look okay on my screen. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Not on mine, Gatoclass. See tomorrow's page with Queue 4 and with Queue 5; both are a good four lines short of ITN/OTD, and that's going to be a problem. I would have been willing to promote the Outhouse hook, since you've proposed the ALT1, but now that it's in Queue 4 I can't touch it. Maybe another admin can do so? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Gonna be terrible. Cwmhiraeth pointed this out a whole day ago. Pity no-one listened to her. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple of the better hooks can always be used in both sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure there's a "better hook", the set is lame, but that's April Fool's Day bullshit for you. Tomorrow will be the the end of the beginning for this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Pity that there is no sourced funny line that could be used for Nemo Peak which I recently expanded. And most likely there isn't enough time left anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any adjustments were made anywhere, but the current set lines up perfectly on my screen. Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I've just looked on Main Page errors and there appears to be a bit of dislike towards proposed The Winker's Song hook. I will say that it was not the one that I as the nominator wanted. In the interests of fairness, would it not be better to compromise and merge the current proposed hook and the one I had initially wanted and change the hook to "...that the BBC were banned from broadcasting I'm a Wanker?" I think this one would be good and would satisfy everyone @Gatoclass:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If push comes to shove, I think we can do better than that, but would it be possible, The C of E, for you to source EEng's proposed hook about the song clearing dance floors? That's a pretty funny angle when you think about it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I am stepping away from this screen for half an hour, so won't be able to respond immediately to any reply. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick action needed for Q2, April 3

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

A creator/nominator has made a request for April 3 for Template:Did you know nominations/George Ronald Richards. I think this will require some tinkering with Qs already in the pipeline. Can someone handle it? EEng 22:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. And if we are returning to one set every 24 hours and the clock is adjusted to reflect that, it would have to be inserted into the next Queue, because the bot just loaded April 2 onto the main page. That would be Queue 1. And then it needs to be decided which current hook in Queue 1 is swapped out for this one. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Well we switched to 2x8 for April 1 only, but it looks like no one's changed it back. But no sweat. Since the approved reserve is now at 83 we might as well just leave things at 2x8/day until the approved reserve drops down to 50 again, then go back to 1x8/day.
As to which Q, it's an Australian anniversary, so presumary the update at 3 April 11:00 in Sydney is the one we want, and that would be Q2 (not Q1 as mentioned above). EEng 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Ping Gatoclass, if you would be so kind. EEng 03:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Sorry, just noticed the hook needs to pipe to Vladimir Mikhaylovich Petrov (diplomat) and another punctuation error. Corrected and copyedited:

Cheers. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Actually, I can't find enough reliable sources to remove the citations needed heading from Vladimir Mikhaylovich Petrov (diplomat) and it would be better if the hook linked instead to the Petrov Affair, a much better-referenced article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not terribly bothered by a tag on an incidentally linked article. It might be a good way of drawing attention to the fact that the article needs some citations. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
On reflection, I have removed the link on the grounds that the Petrov affair article is more informative. Gatoclass (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There was quite a fuss here a few weeks ago about an inadequately sourced linked article, but admittedly, it was a BLP. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the best solution. I am sure Vladimir will still catch cascading attention and get some love, poor chap.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We should link Sydney and Strasbourg since Baltimore is linked. Or the reverse and unlink all three.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Minor correction.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Tightening the rules on author-reviewer conflicts of interest?

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

The ongoing discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign has raised some issues about the DYK nomination process. Without getting too deep into the specifics, the review was conducted by an editor who made numerous edits to the article (though I should note this was mostly done after the article was approved). This prompted me to look at the DYK rules to see whether there is anything to prevent one co-author writing an article and another co-author reviewing it. As far as I can see, there isn't. Am I wrong about that? If this is a genuine gap in the rules, I think we need to tighten them up to say something along the lines that an editor with a significant number of contributions to an article shouldn't review it. Prioryman (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have always been proactive in improving articles I review. Frequently do lots of edits. So what? Are we supposed to not improve the product? Prioryman and User:Floquenbeam are using this as one more line of attack on me. There was no off wiki or other collusion. However, there were folks that went of the deep end in this discussion, and it continues here.
So we are clear, I was not asking for DYK credit. No COI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No opinion on the nom itself but on the policy issue: In my opinion trivial edits are OK, expansion work after approving may merit a re-review and reviewing a DYK nom when you heavily contributed to that article is a "no". Anyhow, it's at AfD so it will need to wait 'til it concludes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) As I said, I'm not going into the specifics of this particular case and this isn't the place to rehash them. My interest here is to see if there is a need to be more explicit in the rules about who should and shouldn't carry out reviews. It's not meant to be an attack on anybody. Prioryman (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

QPQ is always going to be open to abuse. Whether this is or is not a case of that is unclear, but AGF it's just one of those things that a brand new DYK can be reviewed and passed within 12 minutes. Perhaps that's partly why some of the articles that are promoted are in such a poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So is Template:Did you know nominations/Two World Wars and One World Cup in that same category of being reviewed in 36 minutes then get promoted 59 minutes after receiving said review? The Fucking sign one was a coincidence which I have already given explanation for on the nominations page as to why and how that could have occurred. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Jo-Jo here, 7&6 did make a substantial number of edits but they are all minor and would not in my view disqualify them from reviewing the article. Copyediting should not be a disqualification for reviewing IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, this was all trivial. Formatting, copy editing, and I think I added a source or two. But it was de minimis. Sometimes when I have made substantial edits I have DSQd myself and asked for credit. But it was all just routine, I've done this hundreds of times without problems.
And I'm being driven away from further reviewing. I can live with that. Assuming Bad Faith is a good way to drive off the regulars. User:Prioryman and Rambling Man is acting like he has a personal interest in this DYK (which doesn't directly involve him at all). I understand that he has a right to comment like any other editor, but this wasn't personal to him. The far fetched accusations (repeated and with a refusal to retract) are a bad way to run an encyclopedia.
DYK is not a zero sum game. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Since when has it become a crime to review an article then upon further review think you can make it better by making improvements to it then do so? I have done that myself in the past but the QPQ rules are not meant to say "you review this article; thanks, but leave it alone now". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a crime, and I've on many occasions made copyedits (fixing typos, referencing errors etc) in the course of reviewing articles for DYK. I'm not proposing to restrict that and I wouldn't want to. What I'm looking at here is the question of restricting self-dealing - a situation where a co-author reviews an article for another editor. We don't seem to address that scenario at all in the current rules. So in the interests of moving this discussion on, I'll propose a form of words. Under Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria, I suggest we add a point 6, as follows. What do people think? Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
6. Review requirement (neutrality) – If you chose to review an article, you must not be a substantial contributor to that article. "Substantial" means that you have added or removed significant amounts of content, changed the structure of the article, made significant changes to wording, and so on. However, it is fine for reviewers to make small improvements such as correcting spelling mistakes or repairing references before or while conducting a review, as these do not constitute substantial changes.
Another ambiguous rule. Effectively means that reviewers shouldn't touch them. Since I am thinking of not doing reviews, this won't personally effect me. But it will dumb down articles. Reviewers will have to deal with the articles "As Is," which is a great way to limit your warranty liability to consumers, but is a poor way to get things corrected or improved. At DYK there are a lot of complaints about quality. This will only aggravate the problem. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Of course, if you assume the reviewers and the creators are conspiring together, then we know where that went. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need a rule like this, we have a rule which states that you cannot review an article for which you are claiming a DYK credit and I think that is sufficient. Gatoclass (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Gatoclass here. I think what we have is sufficient, and this is not a serious enough problem to spend time fashioning rules to prevent. If somebody has the time and the inclination to write rules, they'd be more productive streamlining our many rule pages, and tightening quality standards. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I also support no rulez change. When I review an article, I always fix the things I see, thinking it's easier to fix than describe the problem, - never occurred to me that it could mean "involvement". Once I had done that for an article I had nominated, was changed to "maker" by a third user, and didn't protest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
This is what happens when you do a review, there is a substantial defect, you maintain a hands off stance (IMO, that level of addition was beyond my job description) and it goes unremedied. Template:Did you know nominations/Charenton (asylum) That article was salvageable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What to call the link to WP:Recent additions on the main page, and what to call that very page

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Two points upon which I invite your comments, but first some background:

  • On the main page, the TFA, TFL, TFP and OTD boxes each contain a link to an archive page that contains the current month's appearances at that venue. DYK contains a link to WP:Recent additions, which performs the same function: a list of every DYK from the current month. As that page says "This is a selection of recently created new articles, greatly expanded former stub articles, and recently promoted Good Articles that were featured on the Main Page as part of Did you know?" "Recent additions" is not an accurate title - "Wikipedia:Did you know archive" would be better.
  • Today Deb changed the main page link to the "recent additions" page from "Archive" to "Recently created articles", on the grounds that "archive is very misleading". Since the page is an archive, I don't understand how calling it an "archive" was misleading; and calling it "recently created articles" is much more misleading, since GAs and expanded articles are not recently "created". Maile66 reworded the link as "recent additions". The TFA, TFL, TFP and OTD links are all called "archive".

So the two points for discussion are:

Is there anything wrong with leaving this as is? If you move it to a new name, then 13 years of links show up as redirected to the new name. And therein lies the potential for a future anybody-can-edit slapping a CSD tag on the old page, and an admin not checking for links before clicking "Delete page". Deleted pages can be recovered, but why go through that in the first place? — Maile (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How should it be described on the main page? Should it be "Archive", as it was until today and like every other main page element that links to an archive? Or "recent additions", or "recently created articles", or something else? BencherliteTalk 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing the subject to this talk page. I'm just as happy with how it originally was, "archive". That would be the most accurate. We are archiving the hooks. Since our hooks come from new articles, expanded articles, and articles that passed GA reviews, it's erroneous to say they are all recently created. — Maile (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't really see how "Archive" is descriptive of a page that begins "This is a selection of recently created new articles, greatly expanded former stub articles, and recently promoted Good Articles that were featured on the Main Page as part of Did you know?" What I was trying to achieve, however, was to have a link to new pages directly from the Main Page. We used to have one, someone moved it, someone else took it away, someone else renamed it. But we always ended up putting it back in some form or location. I am not really bothered as to where it is or what it's called as long as it's easy to find. Deb (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I got used to "Recent additions". It doesn't say "recently created articles", - addition can mean the addition of content or quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps it would be easier to reword the first sentence on Template:DYK archive header "This is a selection of recently promoted content that was featured on the Main Page as part of Did you know? " And leave the rest of the wording as is. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep is now protected against non-admins

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been updating the "next prep" count for years, but tonight when I went to edit it the page was protected. This particular page holds the number of the prep that's next in line to be promoted to queue, and it isn't involved in any automatic processes: promotions from prep to queue can only be done manually, and by admins.

What needs to be done to get this page unprotected again? When I try to edit it, the following message comes up on the top of the page: This page is transcluded in multiple cascade-protected pages, and can be edited only by administrators. It then lists seven pages that have cascading protection that this is supposedly a part of, and they're the Main Page and variants thereof (i.e., Wikipedia:Main Page/1 through /5 and Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow).

I think this may have something to do with cascading down to Template:DYKqueuenav, which last month was extended to include a link to NextPrep. (I could certainly be wrong, because this didn't kick in until very recently.) Mifter, if this is the case, do you think you can undo your edit there, or at least the part that involves NextPrep? Or if this isn't the cause, is there some place we can arrange to have this page made editable again by hoi polloi? Thanks for anything anyone can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

From looking at it, it looks like it got caught in the Main Page's cascade protection due to the next queue being empty and thereby transcluding Template:DYKqueuenav to some of the alternative Main Pages (as that template sits in the Queue until the set is loaded). As queue 4 is the next queue to hit the MP and it was empty up until a few moments ago once I loaded the next set of hooks the cascade protection immediately was removed from Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep. I'm looking into a way to keep the convenience of having the next prep for promotion listed on the template while preventing the cascade protection from overextending if our next queue happens to be empty. Mifter (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Mifter, for identifying the cause and looking into how it might be fixed to prevent future protection cascades. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Something's wrong here

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When I click "Review or comment" on this nomination, a blank page comes up. Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the link. This may just be nominator error or could indicate a more serious technical issue. Can someone see if my fix will cause more errors down the line.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Issue begins here with 12george1 partially correct edit.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - diesel locomotive for $10

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
... that in Canada, ten dollars will get you an EMD F40PH (pictured) diesel locomotive?

Shouldn't this be in the quirky slot, because as written, it's simply untrue? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you and have moved the hook to the quirky slot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was just archived, so here is an updated list of the 23 non-current nominations (those through March 26). Right now we have a total of 145 nominations, of which 46 have been approved. Two of the hooks are from January, and need a new reviewer after significant previous work; it would be great if both of them could be reviewed in the coming week, since they've been awaiting a reviewer for over three weeks.

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) 02:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Get Anton Boys out of purgatory, please!

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The DYKN Anton Boys is stalling because, apparently, no hook can be found that is catchy enough. There are 7 different propositions but none seems hooky enough. Could some really witty person help us out? Thank you, Edelseider (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have seen far worse get accepted by reviewers and I actually find the hooks proposed interesting. It's a shame that the creator went to so much work to fix the article just for it to be stuck like this over what I believe is kind of petty. SL93 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have suggested a compromise hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It is problematic, though, because it is not sourced (more details on the DYKN page). If that isn't a *real* problem, tant mieux! --Edelseider (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
No uninvolved person has even chimed in about Yoninah's hook suggestion, the one from the only person who said that all of the original 5 hooks were lackluster. SL93 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Attention Prep Builders: Wugbot missed approved Jadwiga Szubartowicz

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Wugapodes Template:Did you know nominations/Jadwiga Szubartowicz was approved on April 6. I still see it on the nominations page needing approval. I do not see it on the nominations approved page. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's because the tick is too far from the bottom. If the various bots see that, they assume discussion has resumed and the tick no longer applies. I've re-ticked, and unless I am deceived the bot will move it on its next round, whenever that is. EEng 20:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I wondered about the placement of the tick, and we shall see. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, it wasn't the tick. The bot has now run twice since you did that, and this nomination remains unmoved to the approved nominations. Maybe it's just better to alert prep builders here, that this particular nomination needs to be picked from the unapproved page. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like several of the nominations listed under April 1 have been approved but not moved, including one that should have been moved in the three days between being ticked and then having the tick superseded because the nomination was missing a QPQ. Pinging Wugapodes to take a look and see why WugBot isn't moving these nomination transclusions to the Approved page. I'll check to see if there are other dates with approved noms that should also be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think I may have found the problem. April 1 was the only date where the nominations hadn't been moved, and April 1 was also the only date on the Nominations page where someone had added asterisks (for bullets?) on every line before the transcluded nomination there. I've just deleted the asterisks, and I'm betting that WugBot will be able to move the ticked nominations to the Approved during its next run, at 03:00. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The hook in question, along with two others from April 1, are now on the Approved page and ready to be promoted after being moved there during the 03:00 run. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking on this, and for resolving it. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I proposed an ALT for this, which has been agreed, and I have also posted a request for a Polish speaker to check the refs and for copyvio issues. All of the refs are in Polish and while I have no reason to doubt the nominator, it is a first nomination and I think a check by a native speaker is desirable from an abundance of caution. I feel more comfortable with AGF-ticks (when they are unavoidable) with editors with a DYK track record, and it is avoidable in this case by contacting a Polish speaker. Apologies if this briefly holds up the nomination and I emphasise that I do not mean to question the integrity of those involved with this nomination, I just think that checking should be done where possible for all nominations. EdChem (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Ipigott did a lot of the editing that brought the article up to standard. Looking at the history, I'm not sure if she added references or just improved the formatting of the existing ones.— Maile (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I have "upgraded" the tick from AGF to "regular" based on the response from Piotrus. EdChem (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark for closure as failed?

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Should Template:Did you know nominations/Jadwiga Szubartowicz be closed as failed? It has two major issues (notability tag and not long enough). If not, maybe someone here might be able to improve the article. I'm not sure if the nominator will be back to the nomination. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be a rare beast to see a nomination failed. Is there a procedure for that?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not as rare as I thought - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Failed_DYK_nominations. It's still pretty rare though compared to the number of nominations. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
We typically give the nominator an opportunity to expand the article so it meets the DYK guidelines (whether by reaching the minimum 1500 prose characters if new or by reaching that minimum plus a full 5x expansion if an expansion). The notability issue may ultimately sink this one, since it can't be promoted with that template on it; a trip to AfD would settle the matter one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I have not infrequently marked nominations as failed. I have also archived nominations marked by others. If the issues are small, we give the nominator a chance to get it right. If the issues are large, and/or the nominator has not made an effort to solve them after a reasonable point, we should, I believe, fail the nomination. DYK is not so important that we should bend over backwards to pass every nomination. Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was vastly improved and expanded by another editor. Perfect. SL93 (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I had not realized it was at DYK. I was just tidying it up.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I have suggest an ALT2 hook on this. There is an image involved, and the first hook does not even mention her name. Just as an aside, the nominator is a long-time contributor of Polish Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard Springer

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@DarjeelingTea: This hook is in the special holding area for April 15th, but while checking the source, I noticed that the dates were wrong, rendering both article and hook inaccurate. On April 16th, the New York Times article dated April 15th refers to the incident as having happened on the previous Monday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth - thanks so much for catching this. It appears I must have been looking at a 1990 calendar, and not '92, when I made the conversion. I've corrected it in the article and this should be moved to the holding area for April 13, but I'm not sure how to do that? DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
My research also makes it April 13th. The prep set (Prep 5) for that day is already made up, but I will do some hook swapping so that your hook appears on the right day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hymn hymn hymn hymnal - prep 6

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
that the Good Friday hymn "Take Up Thy Cross, The Saviour Said" was one of two American hymns included in the Church of England's "Hymns Ancient and Modern" hymnal?

This is repetitive beyond belief, can we rephrase to avoid the endless "hymn"ing? The C of E, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

We could probably make it
Much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I knew you would say something, @The Rambling Man:. I said the same thing 3 weeks ago, but the page creator ignored me. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
You can always rely on me to state the bleeding obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to have a reference to Good Friday in there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

@The C of E: how can we avoid "chorus ... chorus" in this hook?

... that people traditionally stand during the performance of the Easter chorus "Hallelujah Chorus" (sound) because King George II did at the London premiere? Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
.. that during the Easter performance of the "Hallelujah Chorus" (sound) people traditionally stand because King George II did at the London premiere?
By just rearranging the sentence? — Maile (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I also thought of calling it the Easter performance, but the chorus is also performed at Christmas. I think it's important to keep the "Easter" in there somehow. Yoninah (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem with "Easter performance" is that it implies that the standing occurs only in performances at Easter, when it happens at performances any time of the year. The complete work is, at least in the United States, performed far more frequently in December than around Easter. I've struck that particular version of the hook. The article doesn't actually support the hook anyway: George II's standing is presented in the article as one of the possible reasons the tradition was started. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just added a "failed verification" and a "clarify" template to the article; the claim in one case and the sentence in the other do not hold up. These will need to be resolved before the nomination can be promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The hook has been pulled from prep, and the nomination reopened. (It's still in the special occasions section.) Beyond what I mentioned above, the claim that it took a week to write the chorus was a clear misreading of the source (and I'm not sure of the source's reliability), since all of Part II, of which the chorus is one of 23 recits, arias, and choruses, is said to have taken nine days to write. There are too many issues with this article to leave it in prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Main page article problems

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/R. v. Gowan @Futurist110, The C of E, and Yoninah:

I have removed from this article a blatant BLP violation (giving a motive for a crime which was not in the source) and two (of the four) sources for being copyright violations (Reocities copies of newspaper articles). Can people please thoroughly check articles (certainly on such BLP-sensitive issues as this one) before putting them on the main page, or else consider simply not putting something like this on the main page at all? Such issues shouldn't exist anywhere on enwiki, but even less when wwe highlight the page on the most viewed page and hope to get as many hits for it as possible. Fram (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Korrika

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Can someone please help me at Template:Did you know nominations/Korrika? I explained that the article isn't eligible for DYK and the nominator still doesn't get it. SL93 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. SL93 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bee Free Honee

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

@Paul2520 and Daniel Case: Bee Free Honee was pulled from the main page with this edit. WP:ERRORS pulled within 2 minutes of the nominator offering to make any necessary changes. This was the nominator's very first DYK nomination, their first experience with the process. Perhaps they should have been allowed more than 2 minutes to whip up a correction. — Maile (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • As I said at ERRORS, I would have pulled this as well had I not seen it 2 minutes before I was due to leave the house for work. The nominator is not at fault here, the process that allowed it to arrive at the Main Page was. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I presume from the wording that "process that allowed it to arrive at the main page" is meant to be a criticism of me, in which case I would prefer that someone directly say so.

I think in retrospect I might have been in a hurry when I reviewed it as well. I tend to look for the nomination that has gone the longest without being reviewed when I make a new nomination myself ... I was rather surprised that no one had done so in this one's case (usually the ones that have gone unreviewed for the longest involve rather arcane knowledge; this one would not usually have lasted that long) and so to be fair to the nominator I reviewed it. As I said at the time, a little more effort could have found a more interesting hook, but I had focused on the idea of it being an acceptable honey substitute for people with allergies to honey and perhaps overlooked the "more sustainable" claim.

In any case I agree with Maile that the hook could have been improved by pulling those two words and letting the nominator fix the article as he had offered to do rather than pulling it entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As the original nominator, I just wanted to weigh-in that I've been following along, and feel that I am learning a lot from this (indeed my first DYK nomination). I do appreciate the follow-up and explanations. = paul2520 19:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a very positive attitude you've got there. When I first started on Wikipedia, with little knowledge of how things are supposed to be done, I made a bunch of mistakes. Some editors took time and tried to politely steer me towards policy and give me pointers. I was fortunate to run across some incredibly helpful and patient editors who helped me learn from my mistakes. And then there were the other type of editors whose style was more abrasive and a bit intimidating, and I learned nothing from them. Should you decide to try DYK again, I hope it's a better experience for you the next time around. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If some blame is put on me, as the prep builder as usual in these situations, I think that's nonsense because a prep builder is not the reviewer. However, I have already decided much earlier that I don't want to help build preps since I really don't want to be reviewer number two. Maybe that is why preps get built so slowly. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@SL93: Actually, I hope you will continue to build sets, regularly or occasionally, because you've done good work, clearing many hooks with which I was involved and that I could not promote, and enabled me to take a bit of a holiday from DYK. It is not fair to blame prep set builders when things go wrong, but such criticisms have made me more critical and selective in the hooks that I promote, and I query many more than I used to [12]. So "Daliwch ati!" as we say in Wales. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
"It is not fair to blame prep set builders when things go wrong" False, as has been explained countless times to you. Prep building is not "finding 8 approved hooks which would make a nicely balanced set", it is much more than that. I don't know why you continue to spread this false belief that prep builders are not also responsible for keeping problematic hooks from the main page, even if they have been reviewed and promoted incorrectly already. This project sadly needs many checks and balances to minimize the number of problematic hooks and articles reaching the main page, and while in general this seems to have improved, you won't achieve this by yet again making false claims about the responabilities of the prep set builders. Fram (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If you consider the context of that sentence, you will see that the purpose of my post was to encourage SL93 to continue to build prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes it allright to spread false information then, right. I need to remember to adjust my ethics-o-meter when dealing with some pages and people... Fram (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If that really is the case, the information about prep building should say that the prep builder should be the final reviewer. Looking at "At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area", I see no mention of such a thing. I really do think it's wrong to blame a prep builder for such hooks making it to the main page and I mean until there is some sort of discussion and change to the prep building information. To get the checks and balances that you want for DYK, there should be some sort of discussion first to change the vague or unstated rules of DYK. I also never see blame put on the admins who build the queues which is strange. SL93 (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It's one of the few things a prep builder must do (on top of the actual prep building): from those "at-a-glance instructions", "4) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." This hook was pulled because the hook was not stated as such in the article (they "aim to make a sustainable alternative" is not the same as being "more sustainable", and that's ignoring the fact that it is sourced to their own website in the first place). No discussion to "change the vague or unstated rules of DYK" is needed, just giving correct information to prep builders instead of claiming that they don't need to check the hook, as some veterans here seem to believe. Fram (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not so simple when even things beyond the hook are placed as blame on the prep builder. Also, the next step is the queue builders where no blame is ever placed. SL93 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep for April 19

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry to ask for attention to my parochial care, but given the number of preps already starting to get built, one of them is destined to be April 19, and I've got a special-occasion hook I'm hoping can take the lead slot that day – Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Harry R. Lewis. Since I'm the nominator it's hands off for me, but can someone line that duck up, please?

BTW, I think this new Approved page is the best thing since sliced bread. Hats off, again, to Wugapodes and others who helped make that happen. (I still wish newly-approved noms would be added at one end of the page, instead of scattered by creation/expansion date, but you can't have everything). EEng 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Easter

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Prep 6 is scheduled for Good Friday, 14th April, and when the present Prep 2 has moved into the queue, the next Prep 2 set will be for Easter Sunday. There were three hooks in the special occasion area scheduled for Good Friday and I have promoted two of them to Prep 6. The third I left because it didn't seem to me that we wanted two hooks on the "St Matthew Passion" running on the same day. Already in that set was this hook for The Devil of Christmas and that seemed quite inappropriate to run over the Easter period so I moved it to a later prep set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want two hooks about the St Matthew Passion the same day, you can take the relevant one, O Lamm Gottes, unschuldig. The image is a bit more abstract then the lead image proposed, - please keep in mind that the TFA will also show a cross. - The biography of Max Ciolek could be completely different, on a completely different day, if it seems too much (how many hooks about Frank Sinatra were possible one day?), while the hook about the hymn in its best-known function would make no sense any other day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 
I agree that O Lamm Gottes, unschuldig should be included in Prep 6 as the lead image. However, numerous paragraphs under Hymnals lack at least one citation. And the image of the autograph is rather fuzzy at thumbnail size; the lead image (right) is a lot clearer. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I've moved some hooks out of Prep 6 and shuffled around the rest so the two Passion hooks will be well-separated. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The Devil of Christmas hook is currently scheduled to start running Easter evening in the Western Hemisphere. As soon as a later prep opens up, it should be moved from Prep 3 to Prep 5 or beyond (moving it to Prep 4 would have it starting late in the day on Easter Monday in that hemisphere, which while better is still far from ideal). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For Easter: Christ ist erstanden still needs a review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Same: Template:Did you know nominations/Why seek ye the living?, which has the more attractive picture, but more problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC) withdrawing that, have no time for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think we should use the sound from Hallelujah Chorus because we have used a music sheet quite recently and plus we haven't had a sound lead hook for ages since featured sounds disbanded. Plus will be nice to hear a bit of Handel on the main page on Easter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Still for Easter (Monday): Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6, review here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt give me a QPQ. I reviewed the nomination. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile, qpq done, we have now two more Easter hooks, but the preps are full. What now? "Christ ist erstanden" should be Easter Sunday, while Ursula Zollenkopf (now there) could go to Monday, but please Bleib bei uns also (or even more so), as a GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Now it's already in queues, but still: Christ ist erstanden, probably the oldest German hymn and still prominent, should be Easter Sunday! It could replace Ursula Zollenkopf, who could come any day, actually. The Easter cantata (which was composed for Easter Monday) was only added because then it looked like not much related to Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Two consecutive High Renaissance artworks

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

We now have two consecutive High Renaissance artworks with the picture, in current queues 4 (Michelangelo) and 5 (Leonardo da Vinci). We normally have about one every few months. I think both are great picture choices (having done one myself), but can they be kept a bit further apart? The Michelangelo Last Judgement is not specifically Easter-related, but is certainly religious, and would work well over the Easter period. We have one sound clip (at the Special Occasions space), but no Easter picture hooks that I can see. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello - ping anyone! The Michelangelo is on the MP now, with Leonardo da Vinci scheduled for tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I have just promoted the 14-article Template:Did you know nominations/NWA World Tag Team Championships to Prep 4. (I also deserve a QPQ for re-reviewing all 14 articles!) Technically, the last article in the hook, NWA World Tag Team Championship (Mid-America version), is not a 5x expansion, and the text before expansion, needed to be expanded 5x to qualify. However, the reviewer chose to let this slide, and I have done the same, given the effort put into this group of articles. However, if someone wishes to be a stickler for the rules, the last bold link (Alabama/Tennessee) could be unbolded. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm I had 458 K before and 2776 k now - 5*458 comes to under 2500 k by my math. I got my numbers off the Wiki "page size" functionality, what do you have??  MPJ-DK  21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah and MPJ-DK: It says (and I also calculated it) that the original size was 458 K: 458 X 5 = 2290. The article size is currently 2776 K. It's fine. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, great. I never was good at math :( Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This hook is now in Queue 4 as:

I was looking at it in light of the above discussion, particularly the article NWA World Tag Team Championship (Mid-America version), which definitely seems to me to be a x5 expansion. However, I am concerned about these articles from a structural perspective. The Mid-America one has a lead section with a description of the championship, then the body of the article is three large tables with no accompanying text (readable prose, in DYK terms), and that seems to me to be inconsistent with the structure of an article. The lead should summarise the article content, yet that content is just tables. Are we (as a DYK project) comfortable posting on the main page articles structured in this way?

I also noted that the tables in the mid-America article have aspects which puzzle me. For example, in the teams reign table, the teams ranked equal 64th have two teams with reigns of 11 days. Should these be 1 and in blue like the others? Are they actually 11 days? Should they be blue, as they seem to saying the exact time of reign is known? In the second and third tables, the cases with multiple rows for the same rank aren't ordered in any obvious way... are they chronological (if so, say so)? Should they be alphabetical? Should the ones of unknown duration (which are listed as x where x represents their shortest possible duration of reign) come before those where the duration is known to be precisely x?

I don't want to detract from the work which MPJ-DK has done, these expansions and tables involve a huge amount of work, and I am pinging the reviewer Cwmhiraeth and promoter Yoninah out of courtesy (Nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/NWA World Tag Team Championships). I just am concerned that the structure of the articles with prose in the lede alone is unusual and the DYK project might want to think about this before a main page appearance. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Considering it follows the format of Featured Lists I fail to see a problem, a "list article" is after all still an article IMO. But mileage may vary on that so I am happy to take input from other. Side note, each article has more than the required prose, without repeating itself like regular articles do.  MPJ-DK  01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear from EdChem's initial complaint which of the DYK rules this nomination fails to meet. If there's something within the very fabric of the articles that needs adjusting, that's one thing, and is commonplace with just about every single article nominated and run at DYK, but in terms of whether or not they meet the criteria, I'm stumped. Could you, Ed, be precise in telling me which rule(s) this nom fails? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • And I will check on your comment on the "11" reigns to see if it is a typo or I ordered them wrong when I put that part together and just not noticed. Thank you for catching that one, it will be sorted tonight.  MPJ-DK  01:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    If it's an error I've introduced while checking over each of those target articles, my apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    Most likely a sorting error I made in Excel, possible typo on my part. No worries, it shall be fixed.  MPJ-DK  02:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: To be honest, I hadn't thought of these as list articles, I guess I am too used to the "List of XXX" format, but I do see that they conform to the general style / structure of Featured Lists. I was looking through an article lens where the body is summarised in the lede, which is not the case here, and thinking (from a prose perspective) that they are all lede and no body... and that the DYK project could be criticised for endorsing that structure in an article. The expansions certainly meet requirements in terms added prose, and the additional content you have added in the tables is massive, so I was not suggesting your work be rejected, merely that I saw an issue which warranted consideration. As you say, list articles are DYK-eligible, and these are perfectly reasonable list articles in content and structure, so my concern was unwarranted. I needed to look through the list lens rather than the article lens, which I have done following your comment, and think that following that established structure, as you have, addresses the concern I was raising. Thank you also for checking on the 11's.  :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I was not suggesting that the nomination was in violation of any specific DYK rule, merely concerned that what I saw as a novel article structure could be controversial. As you are aware, there have been DYKs rejected before which violated no specific rule but were deemed unsuitable here at WT:DYK. There have also been cases where concerns are raised and other views sought, leading to change (or not) depending on those views. All I sought to do was raise a concern. I am glad to say that it was easily addressed by MPJ-DK by pointing out that the "list" frame rather than the standard "article" frame was needed for it to be clear that the structure concern I raised was actually a well-established one. Hopefully that clarifies my thinking. Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't find this article structure so novel. I have seen plenty of music awards articles at DYK (e.g. the Lo Nuestro Award series) with the same structure: a minimum 1500-char lead section and charts following. I check that the prose section is newly-created or 5x expanded, and that the charts have at least one citation in them. Then it's ready for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Those are again list articles. I accept that this structure is well established for list articles, but I maintain that it would be odd for a regular (non-list) article. EdChem (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the formatting and sorting issues, not sure how it got wonky. And yes Ed list format for a non-list article is weird. I made sure they were tagged as List Class to make sure it is noticable that it is a list class article.  MPJ-DK  22:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4 - Congo rubber

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
... that for failing to collect their quotas of Congo rubber, many people lost their hands? Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Hanberke, TheGracefulSlick.

Am I the only person who finds this odd, that the link in the hook is to Landolphia owariensis which, it its lead, has a link to an article called Congo rubber? It strikes me that the two articles share a considerable amount of common information as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed this and found it odd. But the current article has much more detail. Are you suggesting a merge tag? Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's one approach, but in the short term, the hook for DYK shouldn't pipe to Congo rubber when the article it leads to isn't the Congo rubber article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
How about "... that for failing to collect their quotas of rubber, many people in the Congo lost their hands?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, I'd also like to consider the overtly passive nature of "lost their hands" which should actually be something more akin to "had their hands chopped off" to accentuate the gravity of the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, for failing to collect enough rubber, workers were to be killed. The cutting off of the hand was done after death to demonstrate that they had been killed, and my original hook was

Well the image in the article seems to refute that understanding, the individual who is one-hand-down is pretty much alive and kicking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As the DYK reviewer noted, the image in the article is not one of those who were killed in the Congo rubber atrocity. Maybe that image doesn't belong there. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Well not if it directly contravenes what Cwmhiraeth is saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ...that for failing to collect their quotas of rubber, many people of Congo were killed and had their hands chopped off?
The Rambling Man is this a better hook that can be used after the merge discussion is concluded?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My recollection from having briefly studied this years ago is that a hand was amputated as punishment, thus making a living, suffering example of the victim (but don't take my word for that). Whatever the truth, the hook needs to be clear that hands were actively cut off by other humans; the original hook makes it sound like some kind of benign carelessness was at work. This is exactly the kind of nom that needs to go back to the nom page for an unhurried discussion. EEng 01:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said above: Possibly, I'd also like to consider the overtly passive nature of "lost their hands" which should actually be something more akin to "had their hands chopped off" to accentuate the gravity of the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. Looking again at the article, it's a coatrack on which the horror of Belgian rule has been hung. The linked article is about a plant. Belgian cruelty goes in some other article. EEng 01:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sling it back to noms. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I sit quietly by and watch my poor little article slung about :( Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it's very resilient. EEng 22:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - rapebroom

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
that the naked broomrape is a parasite of other plants? Cwmhiraeth, SL93, LouisAragon

I understand this is supposed to be a bit daring, but actually the alternative name of the plant is the only one which isn't actually referenced in the article. I'm sure it's simply resolved, but I'm not sure how this passed all the way to Prep without that being noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

it is cited in the next reference and I just added a direct cite. SL93 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Still fail to see how it passed to prep though, directly violating one of the core DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm not the reviewer or the prep builder. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I didn't expect you to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
While checking the hook source I saw this, which mentions the common name. The hook was at one time destined for April Fool's Day, and this common name was chosen for the hook because of the nakedness aspect I suppose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No harm no foul, it's fixed up nicely now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - image

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

That foundry image is almost imperceptible at the resolution at which its shown. The image in the Lorna Hodgkinson would be a much better choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Yoninah as the set builder. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, that's a great picture. Is it all right to have 3 people images in a row in the sets? Yoninah (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Well that may cause some upset with the project, but I doubt the readers would give too hoots. Maybe we should look around for other images, even within that set, simply because the foundry one really is too small.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Easy solution: I flipped Preps 6 and 1. Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Cool beans. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - (suspected) drug lord who has been released

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
that suspected drug lord Elvis González Valencia was arrested after using fake identification at a hospital? Yoninah, ComputerJA, Tachs

The article states "He was released in December 2016 after a judge concluded that the evidences against him were insufficient.", the infobox says his occupation is "Drug lord" (absolute statement of fact), the hook seems to be a borderline case of BLP violation, especially in light of his release from prison with no such charges. Per a hidden note in the article, it seems he is a convicted money launderer, but nothing more should really stick here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Because Mexico and the U.S. are two different countries and the evidences that are admissible in U.S. courts is not always the same for Mexican ones. See this source for a bit of background on how "reasonable belief" for crime varies between both countries when it comes to this. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, in the hook, but that may bloat it too much and de-hook it. The problem is with the "suspected criminal" claim, that's why I'd try to stick with the facts of the matter, but I also understand I may be in a minority here, and there's not much sympathy for such an individual and it's unlikely that he'll turn around and sue the WMF for defamation, but we should still try to respect the fact this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It definitely reduces the impact of the hook, I give you that. Let's see if anyone else has any issue with it, I usually stand alone in these kind of cases. We have a few sets queued up before this after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Very cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  Like ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you. Another editor needed to replace the hook in Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This would even work well in the quirky slot; I haven't yet found another bio to fill that slot. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah asked me to change the hook for this nomination in Prep 1, but instead I fancied writing an article for the ground squirrel, with the idea of making the hook into a two article hook. I have now written the article, but not yet finished it, because I must find some information on its fecundity. However I am stopping for the night now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to look for some Spanish sources on this rodent tonight if I have some time! Thanks again.   ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Having finished my expansion of the ground squirrel article I have returned the nomination to the Nominations page for further consideration of the new hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Ultra (comics)

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Yoninah, the above article is maintenance tagged (plot section too long) so it shouldn't be in this prep. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think the plot summary was too long so I promoted it to the prep (it really is subjective per each editor). I will try to shorten it for the creator if I can. SL93 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Yoninah, mis-read the set history, sorry to you too SL93 for mixing that up. But either way, it would be good if that maintenance tag could be sorted out so it doesn't have to be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I condensed the plot. Maybe Yoninah can take a look at it. SL93 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The plot is now about half the length that it was so I have removed the tag. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. I also don't think it can be even more condensed since it covers the summary of 8 issues. SL93 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The page creator just added back over 900 characters. The unsourced plot section now represents about 1/3 of the article text. Combined with the lead, that makes nearly half of the article unsourced, which is not the best ratio for DYK or Wikipedia. I normally ask for the plot summary to be cut down, or more sources added, in such a situation. Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Ugh. The creator seems to be difficult to work with. I tried at least. SL93 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your help, SL93. I'm pulling the hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
"Hard to work with"? No one reached out to me for any of this until just now, and the condensing removed key elements to the plot. I added back 879 bytes after you removed 2208, so I'm not sure how that's uncooperative. I cited specific issues for the plot, but I don't understand why MOS:BOOKPLOT doesn't apply here. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Quirky slot, queue 6

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The current entry in the "quirky" slot for Queue 6 is:

I have a few concerns:

  • First, I don't see how this arrest in relation to civil rights abuses and legalised racism is quirky, funny, or upbeat, as is suggested in rule N9 for the last slot
  • Second, "white folks' section" strikes me as informal, perhaps "whites-only section" would convey the reality of the situation more accurately.
  • Third, "four years before Rosa Parks" is ungrammatical and meaningless to anyone who does not know who she was. If it is meant to be four years before Parks' arrest, shouldn't it be "four years before Rosa Parks', ...". Perhaps better still, if longer, would be something like:
  • Pinging the nominator (Drmies), prep-builder (Cwmhiraeth), and the reviewer (Jo-Jo Eumerus) out of courtesy. I note that Drmies requested a main page slot as soon as practicable at the nomination page in light of Bradford's recent death, which is entirely reasonable, but I am not sure that the quirky slot is a great idea, so am seeking the views of others here. It is a shame that a picture of Bradford has not become available as the lead slot would be a suitable way to honour his pioneer of the US Civil Rights Movement. EdChem (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please note that slot 6 is not "always" quirky. Hell's teeth, it's only J7, a "supplementary rule" of this process, to whit: "J7: Consider picking a funny or quirky hook if there is one available and putting it in the last (bottom) slot of the update". Most of the quirky hooks aren't even quirky so our readers aren't expecting anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware it is not always quirky, but look at it another way... suppose a reader looks at it expecting that choosing a quirky hook happens and asks themselves why is someone being arrested quirky. Could it be seen as trivialising the racism in Bradford's experience? I think it could be read that way, though I don't think that is what is meant. All I am doing is saying I have a concern and raising it for consideration by others here at DYK. If the consensus is that the hook is fine, that no change is needed, and that its slot is fine, then I will accept that, as always. You see the concern that I have raised as not needing any action, which is fine and I accept that is your view. Others may agree – or not – and that too will be fine. Please accept, though, that I motivated by quality and don't want to disrespect Ms Bradford; this is not about DYK "rules" or practices from my perspective. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if you're sensitive about it, switch it with the hook above. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Substitute "surprising" for "quirky", and I think this hook qualifies. As an American, I know exactly who Rosa Parks is, and I think it belongs in the last slot. However, "white folks' section" also bothered me. Changing it to "whites-only section" is an excellent idea. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To make any sense, the hook needs to make clear that Bradford intended to get arrested, as Parks did later. Just getting arrested is nothing special. EEng 09:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well. I think "white folks' section" actually conveys the reality of the situation quite well, given the vernacular, but sure. Bus sections were marked, I believe, with "Whites Only", but do whatever y'all see fit to. EEng, I beg to differ--getting arrested for this is really automatically intentional, as far as I know, and the "refusing" part should make that sufficiently clear as well. Getting arrested for this is really something special, as I think the article indicates: those folks' records haunted them the rest of their professional lives. As for "quirky"--I certainly don't think of this as quirky, but if I understand it correctly editors thought the last slot was a good slot to get it in quickly. I'm just a reader of Wikipedia, with just a few DYKs under my belt, and didn't know we had a "quirky" slot, so I don't know how many other readers will expect a joke in the last position. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is now on the main page, and the debate continues at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Extremely minor Queue edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The second hook of Queue 4 needs a space after the ellipsis. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The DYKmake credits for all 14 of the NWA articles in Queue 4 need a subpage parameter added before the final braces: "|subpage=NWA World Tag Team Championships". Thanks to any admin who can take care of these as well as the space mentioned by Mandarax. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
done both, please take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - FRSU or FPSO? and LNG?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
that the FSRU vessel MT GDF Suez Neptune serves Turkey's first floating LNG storage facility? Yoninah, CeeGee, Coemgenus

An FRSU is a Floating Storage Regasification Unit whereas what the article says about this entity is that it's an FPSO, or Floating production storage and offloading platform. The hook links FSRU to FPSO. I think the abbreviations/terminology need to be aligned. Also we shouldn't necessarily assume our readers know what LNG is either.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted. I corrected the acronym in the article and spelled out everything in the hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Right folks, I am setting this up to run May 15 to June 30 again...with the usual Amazon vouchers up for grabs. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was just archived, so here is an updated list of the 26 non-current nominations (those through April 5). Right now we have a total of 134 nominations, of which 42 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from February that needs a reviewer's attention.

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) 02:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The approved hook for Fatebenefratelli Hospital is in the special holding area for April 23/24 and should be included in Queue 4, according to my reckoning. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are 3 queues ahead of it. Could an administrator return Queue 4 to the prep section so we can add this special occasion hook? Also, the hook for Kula Volcanic Geopark needs to be tweaked for the translation, per the discussion above on this page. Yoninah (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah: I've moved the set back to prep 4, and updated the counters so that it will be returned to its right place eventually. Knock yourself out. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Prep 4 is ready for the queue now. Thanks again, Yoninah (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Moved to queue. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS File:Lorna Hodgkinson Harvard.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Lorna Hodgkinson Harvard.jpg: There's no evidence this was published pre-1923. The source just says it's from the archives of Harvard. No publication evidence (if it wasn't published and there's no author identified it's not PD). Seattle (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a two-fold reason for copying this post from WP:ERROR. One, is so that 97198 can be aware of it. My second reason, is maybe we need to have a discussion about image licensing. What does each of us really know about image licensing or Public Domain? Perhaps we could be more picky and not just take for granted that the nominator or promoter has figured out the criteria. But I think this is a good place to bring this to the attention of nominators, reviewers and promoters. Nikkimaria is the primary image reviewer at FAC, and her review of one of my nominations taught me that I didn't know all I thought did about image licensing. One thing I did pick up on that particular review, is that for an image to be considered in the Public Domain, you need to know the original date it was published. — Maile (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Ed project active at DYK

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Johns_Hopkins_University/Introduction_to_the_History_of_Modern_Medicine_(Spring_2017) has made a few noms I've noticed. Some of them have stylistic problems, but let's try to handle these with more than our usual gentleness and kindness. If you see a medicine-related article, check the primary author's userpage to see if it's related to this project. EEng 06:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We can expect another influx of DYK nominations next week, when the second set of articles go live. There were over two dozen GA nominations a couple of weeks ago, of articles that had been part of the first round of DYK noms in late February/early March. They have, unfortunately, not been very responsive in a number of cases here at DYK, so several noms have been closed already and there's one I imagine I'll mark for closure in the next few days. The final class session is on April 28. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Image slot

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have not had a DYK before, I am interested in getting a slot where the image I found can be displayed. It is hard to find good quality sports photos. Not sure how this works, can I move it back further so I can have the image displayed? My nomination is Caleb Swanigan. It is in the prep 4 group. Kees08(Talk) 03:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first DYK! Only another editor can move or edit your hook while it's in prep. I was the one who promoted your hook and I felt the image you submitted looked cut-off. Looking at your article, the infobox image might have been a better choice. But IMO the hook works much better in the last slot, ending the whole set on an "up" note. You'll see, you'll get a lot of hits there. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was afraid the infobox image would not look got at that resolution, which is why I ended up with the other. Works for me, thanks for the info! Kees08(Talk) 21:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Bullying Day?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Does Wikipedia recognize Anti-Bullying Day for its special occasion holding area? If so, would it be possible to suggest Jerry London (an article I recently posted)? He committed suicide after being bullied by an American promoter. Thank you. 72.74.201.132 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Special occasions don't need to be recognized. Just make the nomination and say what day you want it to appear, though it makes sense to say why that day is significant. EEng 04:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This nomination has been placed direct into the special holding area but has not yet been reviewed. It needs to be moved to the Nominations (awaiting approval) page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  Done Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Dubious hook in Queue6

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Queue6, the next queue to hit the main page (and which lacks a picture hook at the moment), has the following second hook:

Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammed Mohiedin Anis @Edwardx, HaEr48, and Yoninah:

The hook strongly suggests that he had a 30-car collection when he left his home because of the battle, and only 13 remained on his return. The article though makes it clear that when he left, he had at most 24 cars left. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that too when reviewing, but I let it pass because it isn't false. It is true that 13 of his 30 cars (which he once had) remained after the Battle, and the hook didn't claim that all 17 got destroyed during the battle. I thought DYK hooks had license to do these things, and as you said, once someone clicks the hook the article clears this up. HaEr48 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I also did the math, and felt the hook was less clunky than adding up all the cars that were stolen and impounded as well as being shelled. If you wish, we could go for a different hook:
ALT1: ... that Abu Omar, a vintage car collector in Aleppo, believes that "no car collection is complete without at least one Cadillac"? Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Or what about:
ALT2: * ... that Abu Omar returned home after the Battle of Aleppo to find that only 13 of his dozens of vintage cars remained? (24 is "dozens") Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The Cadillac hook is way too cliche :) Since you and I re-confirmed that we're ok with the original hook, I think let's just let it be. HaEr48 (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

@CeeGee: @Hawkeye7: The Katakekaumene page which is linked in this hook translates Katakekaumene as "burnt lands", not "fire-born". Perhaps that page or this page (Kula Volcanic Geopark) should be adjusted? Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The hook's source is [15], and there it says "named Kula as “KATAKEKAUMENE” (fire-born) because of the coal-black lava". I could not find the pharase "burnt landa" anywhere. Maybe you can advise. CeeGee 04:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@CeeGee: so could you change the definition in the Katakekaumene and cite to that source for "fire-born"? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah:   Done CeeGee 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@CeeGee: thanks, but I'm wondering if your source for "fire-born" is one against many. See all these Google hits for "burned land". Anyway, what does "fire-born" mean? Perhaps we should go with "burned land" here and in the other article. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Unfortunately, I cannot judge the difference. Someone with Greek or even Ancient Greek knowledge would be able to say more about this. I would accept your proposal of change anyway.CeeGee 04:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Tears on the Dancefloor

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

@Yoninah, Mifter, and Calvin999: "... that Steps' fifth studio album, Tears on the Dancefloor, is their first album in 17 years to consist solely of original material?"

  • As the lede paragraph points out, the album "also features a cover version of "Story of a Heart" by Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson of ABBA." (it was the title track from the 2009 Benny Andersson Band album). So the Steps album isn't solely original material, is it?
  • Incidentally, even if it was, it wouldn't be the first album of original material for 17 years, either, because their 2000 album included a cover of Kylie's "Better the Devil You Know". In fact, it appears that they've never released an album of original material, but this is all secondary to the problem with the hook. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I did my due diligence before promoting and noted the first inline cite: Speaking about the group's big comeback with their first album completely filled with original material in nearly 17 years... Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that - when the source is wrong as well it's easy for these things to slip through. I presume we've either got to pull this or find an alternative hook. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It means that their last album, Light Up the World, was made up of mostly covers, and that the last time they released an album of new material was 2000 with Buzz. Tears on the Dancefloor is, bar one song, composed of new material written especially for the album. It's irrelevant that there is one cover song, lots of albums have one cover song. The source isn't wrong. You're just interpreting it wrongly.  — Calvin999 21:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You're saying that it was "completely filled" with original stuff, but that Story of a Heart just meant it started to overflow a bit? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Huh? If there's a cover version there, you can't say that the album is "solely original material". The source is simply wrong. "Mostly" would have been fine. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
We could say:
ALT1: ... that Steps' fifth studio album, Tears on the Dancefloor, is their first album in 17 years to consist mostly of original material? Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess so.  — Calvin999 22:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Making the change so this doesn't get pulled :( Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought - why not look at something more interesting - how about ALT2: ... that the first two songs recorded for Steps' fifth studio album, Tears on the Dancefloor, were omitted due to not sounding enough like Steps? Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That isn't interesting and happens all the time with albums, songs being scrapped and starting over. I wanted to this hook to appear tomorrow because that's the day the album is released.  — Calvin999 08:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
(The article is in pretty good shape, with lots of references. But I was wondering, should it have a Personnel section? Most album articles have one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC))
The hook as it stands isn't great anyway, because it merely says that a band has released its first album of mostly original material for 17 years, but it's only released one album in that intervening 17 years anyway - and it just sounds a bit like something a PR agent would say. Still, if consensus is that we go with that, I suppose it'll have to do. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Altenberger Dom

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Altenberger Dom (now in prep 1) was nominated with image, and (while I typically just swallow when a proposed image is not taken) in this case I find it almost essential. Would you even know that the term means a church? More precisely a Gothic style church, more precisely a Cistercian one? All this people who know would see in the image. The 19th century hook is not even that interesting if we don't see that it talks about a much older building. We can't translate it - see talk - because it's not a Cathedral, and we'd get the fury of watchers if we said it was. So I see two alternatives: run it with image, or add "Altenberger Dom, a former Cistercian abbey church". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I took a look, and in all honesty I find Gerda's picture far more aesthetically pleasing than the image in prep at the moment. Pinging @HaEr48: as I'm guessing they had some reason for the swap. Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I moved the hook into the image slot in Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived very early today, so here is an updated list of the 35 non-current nominations (those through April 12). Right now we have a total of 149 nominations, of which 46 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from February that still needs a reviewer's attention.

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) 18:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

@MB: @SL93: @HaEr48:

The source (footnote 5) (and the article) does not say anything about the source of the nickname. The place is used for pilot training by the US military. Another hook could certainly be devised along those lines. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would just remove the part "by the US military". `SL93 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah and SL93: Lisa Speakman photographer says pilots gave it the nickname. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
But we should't rely on self-published source? I misread the footnote #5, I thought "where U.S. and foreign militaries train pilots and test jets in the gorge nicknamed Star Wars Canyon." supports the attribution to the pilots, but re-reading it again, it doesn't. I agree we can skip the "by the US military" unless we have better source. HaEr48 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@MB: @SL93: @Maile66: @Yoninah: How about

... that Death Valley's Rainbow Canyon is nicknamed Star Wars Canyon due to its supposed similarity with Luke Skywalker's home planet?

This fact is mentioned in the source. HaEr48 (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is weird - I have this page watch-listed and saw you posted. But the ping has not (as of yet) shown up on my notifications. Anyway, if you go with your suggested hook, somebody needs to put Luke Skywalker in the article and source its mention. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyone, I just got home and saw this. The article includes this statement: "The area is part of the R-2508 Complex administered by Edwards (the R-2508 Complex handbook actually refers to the canyon as Star Wars Canyon and the path through the canyon connecting Owens Valley in the west and Panamint Valley in the east as the Jedi Transition.)" with a ref. I don't see a problem with the original hook. Star Wars Canyon IS used by the military and it is even in a written document. MB (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@SL93: @Maile66: @Yoninah: MB 01:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the US military handbook refers to the canyon as Star Wars Canyon does not make the US military the originator of the nickname. Moreover, this reference to the US military handbook is not the inline cite for the sentence about the canyon's nickname. Yoninah (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed that part of the hook from prep 5 so at the very least it won't need to be pulled. SL93 (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is getting a little nit-pickey about the definition of nicknamed. A nickname is a substitute name for something. The canyon is nicknamed Star Wars Canyon by the military, i.e. the miltary calls it that. That is not an incorrect statement even if they were not the first ones to do so. MB 17:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Nothing claims that the military was the originator of the nickname. 'Nicknamed' can be a synonym for 'called'. (offline now until tonight). MB 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah, I think the current hook is just flat-sounding. No one has responded about my above response that using "nicknamed" should be OK. But if you can't accept that, what about one of these"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah I wouldn't mind seeing either one of the above latest two hooks. As written, I think the sources cover it. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I have disambiguated the two new hooks for you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66: Hi, I just got back online. This one's fine:

Prep 4 - most electronics

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
... that Air India saw its bookings to America double after the United States banned most electronics from the passenger cabin for flights departing certain Middle Eastern airports?

The ban on certain electronics affects items larger than mobile phones, so it's odd to say "most electronics" as "most electronics" on flight would be ... mobile phones. Plus the target article is badly named and an orphan. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The article concerned is 2017 electronics ban. I have deorphaned it and reworded the hook to
  • ... that Air India saw its bookings to America double after the US banned electronic equipment larger than a mobile phone from the passenger cabin for flights departing certain Middle Eastern airports? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_138&oldid=1085471417"