Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 156

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 5 years ago by DYKUpdateBot in topic DYK is almost overdue
Archive 150←Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158→Archive 160

Template:Did you know nominations/A. L. Burt

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments9 people in discussion

This hook was approved by DannyS712, promoted by Yoninah, and slated to run on 3 February 2019. Gatoclass pulled it on 2 February, stating merely that "pulled A. L. Burt - hook needs work." In the intervening time, the nomination page has not been reopened, no work has been done on the hook, and the only reason I even noticed this action was by looking into it after wondering why the A. L. Burt hook did not run. Gatoclass, what is the work that you say this hook needs? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I really hate it when hooks are being pulled without a reason being stated, and without subsequent follow up. With that being said, I agree the hook was rather underwhelming but I am not sure what can be done about it. I suspect this is related to the real world connection stuff again; I understand the hook was being intentionally misleading to be "hooky", personally I would go for boring but easier to understand hooks along the lines of ... that A. L. Burt mostly published characters involving teenage protagonists, with the most successful ones being fictionised "boy heroes" of World War I? ... but that's just me. Alex Shih (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Really? I thought it was the perfect "hook" ... and it was in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to this sooner Usernameunique. In response to the above comments, I did not pull this because of the "real world" rule, but because I thought the hook was awkwardly expressed and inaccurate. I was hoping to get it back in prep with a minor tweak, but with further time to reflect on it, I don't think the original hook is salvageable. I don't think it's going to work as a quirky and I can't see the point of the girl and three plane crashes clause which it seems to me adds little of interest. So I suggest the following as a substitute:

  • ... that in the world of A. L. Burt, boy heroes could be found "practically winning" World War I by themselves?

- or something similar. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all the input. I agree that the original hooks proposals might have been somewhat inarticulate (e.g., "caused a girl to get into"), but I appreciated the quirkiness of them and the hidden punchline, which is lost in the new proposal; in fact, because both the A. L. Burt and the Beverly Gray links look like the names of people, even when hovering over them to see where they lead, they are particularly suited to this hook. What about:
... that because of A. L. Burt, a girl was in three plane crashes? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Another option, to tie the hook more directly to book publishing, what about:
... that because of A. L. Burt, a girl was in plane crashes in 1934, 1938, and 1942?
Yoninah, I think this could still go in the quirky slot. If it works, I'll add the information and source to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Because of" makes no sense in this context. Would you say "because of Homer, lots of people got killed in a war"? This is just trying to shoehorn an unsuitable hook into the quirky slot by distorting the facts. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The comparison is inapposite, because because readers can be expected to know who and what Homer and the Odyssey are. The point of the hooks here is to take an entity and character that readers are not familiar with, and to frame them—through a causal connection that is technically correct—in a way that obscures the fictional backdrop. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I probably didn't make my point very well in the last post, and was in the process of refactoring when you replied. My point is this: while I'm in favour of occasionally employing puns, double meanings or other examples of wordplay to hoodwink the reader, when we do that, readers should be delighted by the ruse they have fallen for, not irritated by the fact that the trick has been achieved through inaccurate use of language or distortion of facts. That sort of thing can only ultimately alienate the readership, which is surely the last thing we should be doing. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, it's unclear how language in the proposed hooks is "inaccurate" or "distort[s] facts" to a greater degree than hooks that, you say, leave readers "delighted by the ruse they have fallen for." It's also unclear who would be offended. If anything, many readers by now expect the last hook to be mischievous—hence the term "quirky." If it helps, here's a hook that tones down the causation language:
... that Beverly Gray was able to survive three plane crashes with help from A. L. Burt? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou Usernameunique, that is more acceptable with the link to the fictional character, I would just suggest substituting "thanks to" rather than "with help from" and I think that would work. Please note however that the article has a reference tag on it that will need to be addressed before the article can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gatoclass. I've added a reference to the section in question and removed the tag. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As there has been no movement on this in the last week, I've restored the nomination to the nominations page, with the hook settled on above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done Cwmhiraeth has promoted it to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The title of his article indicates that it would be a biography, and yet the lead sentence indicates the article is a company. How was this overlooked? Flibirigit (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Usernameunique, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth:, did I miss something here? Flibirigit (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, the company is named after the founder. It's common parlance to call the company "A. L. Burt" instead of "A. L. Burt Company," hence the title of the article. Were there to be an article about the founder, Albert Levi Burt would work. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't seem common to me not to say the word company when talking about a company. I'm curious what others think. Flibirigit (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: per WP:NCCORP:
The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title (for example, Microsoft Corporation, Nestlé S.A., Aflac Incorporated, and Deutsche Post AG). When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company)).
Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
In this case, my opion hasn't changeed. Disambiguation is needed to differentiate from a person. Everyone knows that Microsoft is not a person, whereas A. L. Burt is a person's name, and would be easily misleading. Flibirigit (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
When I promoted the hook, I did not use the image because I thought the hook went well in the quirky slot. If the image were to be used, the caption would need to be changed to "The company founder" or somesuch because, as Flibirigit points out, the article is about the company and not the man. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Including "Company" in the title would not be standard practice: see Alfred A. Knopf (which doesn't include "inc." in the title), A. C. McClurg, D. Reidel, Dorling Kindersley, and E. P. Dutton. There are undoubtedly others, but I stopped at E. Anyways, any ambiguity is removed with the first sentence of the article: "A. L. Burt Company was a New York based book publishing house from 1883 until 1937." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I still feel it is misleading. But, if it is consensus, I will accept it and move onto other things. Flibirigit (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Untranscluded DYK nominations

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

A couple of times a year, we remember to check on untranscluded nominations, and find a few that might prosper even though their nominators have forgotten about them, or have simply stopped editing.

We do this to see whether a DYK regular is willing to "adopt" one of these. At the moment, there are five that qualify. I've pinged two of the nominators directly on their respective talk pages, since they're reasonably active and can decide for themselves whether to pursue the nominations. The other three I've listed by date and with a bit of commentary:

  • September 3, 2018: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoo Interchange—the nominator (Knoah) hasn't edited since the date the article was expanded/nominated, but it was a major expansion to 28,494 prose characters and easily 5x.
  • October 24, 2018: Template:Did you know nominations/African Democratic Congress—this was moved to mainspace and nominated on the same day, and the hook is neither properly formatted nor interesting, so that would need to be addressed. The article was templated with "insufficient context", but there have been two significant increases in content since then, so perhaps the template is no longer necessary. Nominator Danielleaar's most recent edit was to this article on December 10.
  • December 18, 2018: Template:Did you know nominations/Lunar New Year Film—the article was created by Anqing Hu on December 14, and the nomination template edit on December 21 was the nominator's most recent edit. The proposed hook and article have significant and pervasive grammatical issues and are a bit confusing besides; I'm not sure this could be saved without a major copyedit and someone willing to take care of the nomination itself.

It's possible that one or more of the nominators will show up to claim theirs, but not likely; if you're willing to take on one of these, please strike it here and transclude it on the Nominations page. Thank you very much. Any that remain unclaimed will ultimately be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been a substantial effort put into Zoo interchange. It deserves a chance. Flibirigit (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I just took care of Zoo Interchange. It's on the approved list now. — Maile (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I copyedited Lunar New Year Film quite a bit, but the article's quality is still quite poor and largely only focuses on Hong Kong. It requires major work to be ready for DYK. -Zanhe (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Zanhe. I've just updated the template to reflect your move of the article, but if no one takes on this article (unfortunately quite poor, including the nearly incomprehensible hook), I'll probably close the nomination tomorrow or Saturday. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Not adopting any nomination, but I've proposed new, clearer hooks for Lunar New Year Film to help out editors in case they decide to adopt it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've closed it as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, we typically delete those rather than close them, if it's just the nominator, though now you've closed it we should probably keep it around. The "you didn't transclude this" message that goes to people mentions that they can request a speedy deletion (G7) if they no longer wish to pursue the nomination; if they don't do so, I typically request a speedy (G6) when it's abandoned, or if they say they're no longer interested. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Move to April 21

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Could someone move HMS Splendid (P228) to the special occasion area for April 21? (the date of the submarine's sinking, which is mentioned in the hook). L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Maile, the reason I had moved it back when L293D moved their nomination there on their own is because the nomination was made over eleven weeks in advance of the date (which was not requested at the time), nearly double the six weeks that is supposed to be the maximum. Even now, April 21 is eight weeks out. If we're going to allow exceptions to six weeks, which we do frequently enough (though usually with less of an overage), I believe we should at least note that we are making exceptions, and perhaps discuss it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. Then let's have some feedback here from others. We can always move it back to where it was. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If the nominator wanted it for April 21, then I would have expected him to post the article 6 weeks in advance of that. That's what I've done with my special occasion hooks that I'd like to run months in the future. Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The article just passed GA, so if I really wanted I could withdraw the current nomination and nom it again, but I think this would be a waste of volunteer review time. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This is up to everybody else. I moved it in good faith, even if I may have jumped the gun on the date issue. If the consensus is to move it back to January 26 date, then someone else can move it. But I don't think DYK will be harmed if we just let it go on April 21. — Maile (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with it. If the user wants to delay his/her own DYK credit, why should it bother anyone? If there are obections, we can open up a discussions specifically on waiting time for special occasions. Flibirigit (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Named after

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Queue 6 currently has two 'named after' hooks, which is a tad repetitive. Can one be delayed? Stephen 03:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've swapped the second "named after" hook with one from the next queue. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived earlier today, so here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through February 19. Right now we have a total of 275 nominations, of which 130 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from last year and the four from January.

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) 18:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep area 4, plus MLS Cup hooks

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone please move Russ Bogda to another set? That set already has two sports-related hooks in it, and one (György Pásztor) can't be moved since it's a special occasion date. I would have done it myself, but I'm somewhat reluctant since I reviewed both hooks. Also, perhaps the MLS Cup 2003 2007 hook can be moved to a later hook? With the current rate, that would be two MLS Cup-related hooks on back-to-back dates. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I don't see the problem with two sports hooks in Prep 4: one is hockey and one football, and one focuses on the player while the other focuses on the playing field.
I don't see an MLS Cup 2003 hook in the preps or queues. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, meant 2007. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll move it when more prep sets open up. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Calculating word counts

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A long list of what not to count is at WP:DYK, but it does not clarify if footnotes are eligible to be counted. Is there any consensus or precedent to include footnotes in a word count? Flibirigit (talk)

@Flibirigit: The DYK check tool does not appear to count them, which probably provides precedent for their exclusion. Have you a particular case in mind? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Footnotes should not be counted, nor should any footnote section headers or the like. As Espresso Addict notes, DYKcheck is the standard tool, though sometimes it will count some text in oddly formatted reference sections. DYK counts prose, and presumably original prose at that: blockquotes are not included, nor are bulleted lists or tables, captions, or notes. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Not that I'm partial or anything, but I don't see why footnotes wouldn't be included. They're not included among the many exclusions in Rule 2 or Rule A2, and with good reason: those exclusions are about random pieces of text that appear here and there. A clear difference between what is in a footnote, and what the rules exclude, is that a footnote could be easily (if tangentially) incorporated into the main body of an article, whereas the excluded items—image captions, references, headers, and the like—could not. (Leaving aside the arbitrariness of relying on the choices of whoever coded DYKcheck, that took seems to be off by more than 300 characters in the Ian Eaves nomination, so it doesn't seem a good argument to rely on.) --Usernameunique (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If the article is short enough for word count to matter, why not just put them in the text then? Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Have done so now. That was my fallback solution, if inartful. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

... that minerals have evolved, with over two-thirds of Earth's mineral species owing their existence to life?

@RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): @Brandt Luke Zorn:
On the face of it, this doesn't make sense to the casual reader. It sounds like you're anthropomorphizing "life" or something. It really doesn't make sense. Yoninah (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You could more safely say it is a hypothesis (of Robert Hazen and others). DYK is ill-equipped to promote it to a theory. Yoninah, good catch. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have proposed another hook on the nomination page. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Previn

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

André Previn is pictured In the news because he died yesterday. Template:Did you know nominations/Violin Concerto (Previn) is related. Make an exception, or wait? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This should wait. Writing an "instant DYK" the same day would be an unfortunate precedent. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand "same day", - death and news came yesterday. Nor "unfortunate", sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding same day: article created on March 1, pictured in the news on March 1. Regarding unfortunate: a euphemism for bad. I reordered this reply to show that the DYK article was created before Mr. Previn was pictured ITN. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
How could I know he would have a blurb? See yesterday's discussion on Martin's talk: I thought that his article was so little referenced that he wouldn't even make RD. What do you think is bad about writing about the composition of someone who died? It would have been better to have done it while he lived, but - sorry - I didn't manage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding "What do you think is bad about writing about...": my euphemism "unfortunate" was used to modify the word "precedent". -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It's wonderful that this article was created. It fills a blank. Your question was, however, should an exception be made, or wait? My opinion is that we should wait. Hope that explains. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Being pictured in the ITN section would typically make someone ineligible to be in DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not about someone. It is about his composition, therefore I said "related". I guess that people might be more interested sooner than later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I do not think we could follow due process for a same-day post. Flibirigit (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. It's now mute because he's off the Main page. The concerto article had already as many views yesterday as some of my boring DYKs ;) - Let's just proceed normally, with a pic of two women in Women's month, hopefully to appear within March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Images in DYK articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I have received a third second DYK review now, where the reviewer misapplied WP:DYKIMG, specifically to WP:FU images appearing in the article, but not nominated for the photo slot. This is frustrating. I suggest to amend the reviewer's instructions to make this more clear. Flibirigit (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: Can you give us links to these reviews? If reviewers are interpreting the instructions incorrectly, it could be for several reasons; unclear instructions are just one possibility. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see reviews at Walter Wasservogel and Tommy Lockhart. Ultimately these were approved with the intervention of an experienced editor.Flibirigit (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
An experienced editor? Flibirigit, one of those reviewers has eleven years tenure and 12000 edits :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a need to clarify the rules here; both those examples show editors who didn't read the DYK rules carefully enough. There's no evidence that they read the rules and were confused by them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Reviewers are required to check that all images in the article are used within policy, but I fear even some long-term editors here find the image-use policy hard to understand. That isn't going to go away by changing the wording of the DYK instructions! If you feel your submission is being held up unfairly you can always report it here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it natural?

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

@BlueMoonset and Yoninah: I created an article and nominated it for DYK. More than a month after the nomination, DBigXray has made some edits and added himself as the expander which gives the impression that he's involved in the nomination. Is it natural for the others to add their names into the nomination of new articles created by others? I should emphasize that the eligibility was not stemming from the expansion since the article was a new creation made by me, so the nomination was not a co-work. --Mhhossein talk 12:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Usually I like to share, and most of my DYK noms are by several users from the beginning, and sometimes I enter someone who added afterwards, and sometimes Yoninah enters someone. I usually don't add myself afterwards, but that's a matter of taste: why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that's wrong, there was no "Expander" credits for a new article creation and since it was a month later it was not even within the DYK nomination period. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, think its OK, but it is best if it is done by someone else. I sometimes add an extra "DYKmake" at the time I promote a nomination to Prep, if I notice that someone who is not credited has made significant contributions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't take anything away from the original creator to credit other editors who significantly contributed to the article. But from the point of view of politeness, I think the expander should have requested a co-creation credit on the nomination template, and then someone else (like the prep promoter) would have included him. Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
My problem was the "self-nomination" aspects of it, I have seen others add noms and I've never seen that be a problem. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see what you're talking about, Mhhossein and MPJ-DK. The expander put his name in the wrong place. Once the nomination is set, there's no need to add to the line Created/expanded by ... on (date). The only place to add names is under the DYK credit lines. I'm going ahead and adjusting the nomination template now. Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah: Thanks but I'm still troubled by this. What does it mean? He was not involved in the creation and/or nomination. He's more like a reviewer here, why should he be credited with this nomination? --Mhhossein talk 14:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
According to the page stats, DBigXray wrote 16.5% of the current text. If he wanted a co-nom, imo he should have asked you, and at that level of contribution, plus the timing factor, it is entirely up to you whether you agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Mhhossein maybe I acted too quickly. Are you saying that if DBigXray asked you politely, you would not agree to include him in the DYK creation credits? Also, it should be noted that if DBigXray has made a significant contribution to the article, he has to recuse himself from the review. I see that he has suggested a bunch of alts and left it to another reviewer to take over. Yoninah (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Yoninah. It's a pleasure to work with other editors but I'm not willing to agree with this at the moment. --Mhhossein talk 10:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand. I reverted my edit. Yoninah (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Because this action clearly promotes collaboration, and isn't a clear ownership statement........ Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I often come across new articles which I then help to expand and then nominate for DYK. I always put the creator first followed by other major contributors before me. I do it so the creator gets the creation credit and also as a courtesy so I'm not seen as trying to claim I'm the owner. It is a collaboration thing which I see nothing wrong with. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nao Tōyama

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone please promote this nomination now? Yoninah was supposed to but she ended up suggesting a new hook, so a new promoter is needed. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall length of Preps 5 & 6

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I note preps 5 and 6 look very different in overall length. Could some of the hooks be swapped? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to swap in longer hooks to Prep 6, but it still looks very short. Perhaps other hooks need to be added to it on the main page, keeping the quirky for last. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Yoninah the length issue has possibly been resolved, because I swapped hooks with another Prep. I didn't do it for the length issue.

  • ... that first-person shooter Bright Memory looks and feels like a high-budget game despite being developed by a single person in his spare time? - has been moved to Prep 6.
  • ... that a crisper drawer can help protect fruits and vegetables from ethylene gas? - has been moved to Prep 2

The reason I made the swap, is that reading the article on the Crisper drawer, the text does not say what the hook does. The article says, "because some fruits emit high levels of ethylene, separating them from thin-skinned vegetables prevents damage to the latter." It does not say it protects the fruits, only the vegetables. The source would seem to say the fruits are also protected, but it's not in the article. Maybe that one just needs a little change in the article prose. Meanwhile, I might have helped the too-short length of Prep 6. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: thank you. I have edited the article per the sources. Now it aligns with the hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  Great! — Maile (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks to Amakuru and Vanamonde93, I've had a little more time to complete the all-women (minus one horse) sets for International Women's Day. However, I am having unexpected trouble filling Prep 4. I have combed through both the Approved and Not Approved pages to find hooks, but the majority of them are about American women, and this is supposed to be an International Women's Day. At present, the first, second, and fourth slots in Prep 4 are all occupied by U.S. women, and I've had to add a (U.S.-based) cookbook just to find a non-bio entry. I finally found a good candidate at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Webber Harris, which I approved and would appreciate someone else promoting. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

OK gesture has already appeared on DYK

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone explain to me why a hook about the OK gesture is on the main page right now, when it also was displayed about a month ago? Or is this a gross error? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@L293D: See [1] by @Maile --DannyS712 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, @Maile66: --DannyS712 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I can explain. Not only OK Gesture, but also George Meade. Visually, our 8 hooks were small/short and left the main page looking lop-sided. When that happens, it is pretty routine for an admin to add an older hook or two that have already been run, just to balance out the page. In this case, OK Gesture and George Meade were in a February set that didn't get a full run, so I picked from that date. I left the explanation in the edit summaries when I added those hooks. — Maile (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I didn't know that this could happen. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all who add hook referencing in the nomination template

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Since we've been on the 12-hour rotation cycle, I've tried to check each prep set before it goes to queue. I might have missed some ... or not. But I must say that those who add source text after their hook on the nomination, and include a link to the source, have helped tremendously. Here and there, some tweaks have been made on the hooks. And I know I'm not the only one checking before a set goes to queue, or even after it's in queue. And I'm not the only admin who promotes to queue. All things considered, I think we've been doing pretty good on what's been on the main page.

I have a theory that a difference between the current cycle, and when it's a 24-hour cycle, is that in a 24-hour cycle people get complacent and think somebody else is checking, or somebody else is promoting to queue, so things fall through the cracks. Maybe more people are checking now, and checking more carefully. So, keep up whatever you're been doing, because it's working. You all have been pretty awesome. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback--it's nice to know that someone is actually reading the source text. I also find it helpful when reviewing nominations. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree for the sake of expediency and transparency. Flibirigit (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, source text and a link are incredibly helpful to me as a reviewer. And really I've even found it's helpful to me as a nominator as it forces me to make sure I've 1. sourced the hook assertion 2. to the correct ref and 3. that the ref actually does explicitly support the assertion. valereee (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Women's history month

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

In prep 2, do we really want to picture a logo in March, when we can have an expressive woman pictured, in a photo which shows the period? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Please remember that we're running 2 sets a day. The woman image is already in the first 12 hours of March 1. Also, we are trying to maintain image diversity, so you will see nature hooks and building hooks and logos in the lead slot the whole month. During March, I'd like to try running one woman hook per set, which would mean allowing for 62 hooks. Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a minimum ;) - please let's have many pictured. Do we plan to have all women again on 8 March, which would mean 16 and would be quite a challenge? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, we do have quite a number lined up in the special occasion holding area. Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Should we make an overview? Long reviews, hard to see how many which topic. For the 8th, I see two, and one is a horse. We can use only two pictured ones that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Too bad the horse isn't a girl :). Well, we won't be putting it in the pictured slot on International Women's Day. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/The Princess Saves Herself In This One might be a good candidate for Women's history month, but it appears to have stalled. Is anyone willing to help? Flibirigit (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I will try, but later. Just for the above: February had 48 women-related DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it right that prep 3 and prep four are for 8 March? Should both have a woman pictured? (Prep 4 has it.) Should we at least try to get many other women in? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Your efforts and sentiments would normally move me. But in this case, I vote for the horse picture. It's his birthday. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that there is quite a variety of hooks in Preps 3 and 4. I don't mind the horse picture since it's his birthday, but can't we have all the rest about women for International Women's Day? Pinging Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? Two entire hook sets about women, and one male horse, seems like a good idea. It looks like there are already 12 approved hooks waiting to be promoted. Let's do it!! — Maile (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll also cull hooks from the noms page to get some diversity. The special occasion section has just the hooks that I culled last week. I'd like to aim for a mix of bios and non-bios. Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I have never heard of International Women's Day except here at DYK. I just fill sets with mixed hooks to try to make balanced sets, but if you want to make the 8 March an all women's day, that's OK by me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
We did it last year, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/March#9 March 2018, but that was easier because we had to fill only one set. I think, though, that we have enough to staff two, and can hope that more will be written during the month. I think Lydia Steier would be good, but needs a review first. - Btw, a friend from Slovakia said it used to be a day of heavy celebration and drinking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I put a transgender woman in Prep 4, but if others think it doesn't belong in International Women's Day, please move it. Meanwhile, there's a very good hook for a Latinx woman that I think should run on March 8 (Prep 3). Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a good addition. This was created as part of WP Women in Red. One of their members has already posted a link on Twitter. Her parliament welcomed her as a woman after she came out. I don't see a problem. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

My DYK appears to be in limbo

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. So I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Dux some time ago, with two bolded articles, Frank Dux (which I'd promoted to GA) and The Secret Man (book) (which was newly created). The nom was moved to prep but was then removed as an editor noticed an issue with the article 'The Secret Man'. As per their suggestion, I unbolded 'The Secret Man' so the DYK would only be for Frank Dux. However by this stage the nomination was already moved from WP:DYKT. Accordingly, I have just received this notification [2] telling me my nomination is incomplete as it is not listed at DYKT, when the reason it is not listed there is because it was moved from there to prep. The nomination appears to be stuck in limbo now, as it is neither at prep nor DYKT. Is there any chance someone can add it back to prep? The article has been ticked as good to go following the last issue. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved it back to approved. The one who pulled should have done that (or to "needing review", rather, at that time). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5 George J. Roskruge

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The approved hook was modified to include the phrase "Arizona board of education president". I think this is misleading as it implies that he was president of a state-level board of education which is not the case - this involves the school board of a particular city, Tucson. (However he was a member of a state-level board of regents which oversaw a university. This is unrelated to the fact in the hook but could add more confusion). @Yoninah and Amakuru: MB 17:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I added that because I found the hook confusing with just his name stated. It wasn't at all clear who he was, or why his opinion on the teachers was relevant. I don't mind if I'm reverted though. Do what you think is best.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This is now in Prep 5. I was going to change it to Tucson, Arizona board president. That would be an easy fix. The problem I find, is that the hook, and the source, are identical in wording. There must be a way to re-word the article and hook so it doesn't fall into copyvio or close paraphrasing. — Maile (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hook:
Roskruge demanded that they resign or at least be suspended
  • Source:
Roskruge demanded that the guilty teachers resign or at least be suspended for the rest of the year
The hook is now in Prep 1, but I'll return it to the noms page if this isn't resolved quickly. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor has already reworded the article slightly. Here is a similar change to the hook:

7 March Ravel

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

... is the birthday of Maurice Ravel. I wrote an article to celebrate, Template:Did you know nominations/Trois chansons (Ravel), approved last month, but I forgot to mention the special day. What can we do? - I was told not to move "my" noms to special occasion, so ask that someone else please move the approved Ursula Wendt-Walther nom to her birthday, 13 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Must have been some mis-communication. The Supplementary rules only say, "Promoting your own articles is generally discouraged, and promoting your own articles before they have been independently verified is not allowed. Updates should be filled from the approved nominations page, including those being held for specific dates in the Special occasion holding area at the bottom of the page." It just means you shouldn't be promoting your own hook into a Prep area. Go ahead and move it. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Too late for 7 March, because all is settled. We can of course wait and say better later with image, - which probably couldn't appear on 7 March because he will be TFA, - with the standard not-so-good image, sadly. I remember the fight for Sibelius, about no two pics of a composer the same day, not even on a celebration day, so the (better) DYK images came the day before and the day later, - no idea what readers thought about that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I disagree with that. We have had some requests for special occasions that have been disallowed because they just weren't special. The point in having someone other than the nominator move the hook to the special occasion area—it can be the reviewer—is that there's someone independent determining whether the request is reasonable and reasonably special. Unless there's consensus otherwise, I plan to continue returning nominator-moved special occasion hooks and reverting nominator-edited prep hooks, which are similarly inappropriate actions. Promoting one's own articles is so generally discouraged that it's likely to be reverted as well; I'd certainly do it absent an extremely compelling reason, and I doubt such exists. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the two actions - promoting one's hook and moving one from somewhere approved to the special occasion corner - really compare. I can still oblige, move the 13 March birthday one back, and someone else can again move her to 13 March. I think it has little to do with promotion to find that she should appear in March, as a woman, and with her birthday the 13th, that would be the cutest day. Also, it's still up to a promoter to concur with the date request, which was in the nomination from the beginning. - Having said that, I won't do it again just because don't want to cause problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is now in prep, but I'd prefer to remove it, until the move discussion is over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that. Returning it to the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Participation in the discussion appreciated. The question is more or less: Is Chansons a good title for a specific composition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusing hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the current line-up going life early tomorrow morning, there's a hook that I think is unclear: "that Daan Jahja recommended the creation of pre-emptive contingency plans for a Dutch attack, which later became the Emergency Government of the Republic of Indonesia?" Did "contingency plans" become a government? Or did the Dutch attack become a government?I think this needs to be reformulated. I'm not very familiar with the whole DYK process, I hope this is the right place to bring this up... --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It is currently on the main page. I suggest asking questions at WP:ERRORS.Flibirigit (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I reworded it according to my understanding of reading Daan Jahja, as well as Emergency Government of the Republic of Indonesia to try and understand that period of Indonesian history. The sourcing is in the Indonesian language, so I hope I got it correct. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:DYKNA is really overlong (Return to 2 sets a day?)

Latest comment: 5 years ago44 comments17 people in discussion

Nothing is displaying from February 7 down, including the whole special occasion hook section. This is rather hard on prep builders. Can something be done about it? Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

May need to go back to a 12 hour cycle? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Support temporary 12-hour cycle. It looks like we have 334 nominations, with 201 of those approved. It would take 25 queues just to process what is already approved. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't support at this time: right now there are four preps and one queue filled. One thing that would fix the problem would be to have eight to ten sets ready: that would take another 24 to 40 nominations off of the Approved page. Further, until we have a large number of sets built up, we can't handle the increased frequency that twice a day would bring. As for the special occasion section, a trick is to pull the entire section into the editor, and then use Preview to look at everything that's there, and pick nomination pages to promote from that. Just a reminder that the failure to display happens to pages when the number of templates that need to be translated exceeds a certain number. We originally split the Nominations page into Nominations and Approved when the former had about 350 nominations and couldn't handle the load; now Approved is choking at a little over 200. But more and more people are using DYK checklist, which require translations, and also ping and use "done" and "ok" and other templates, so we're running up against the limit sooner. It's the change in behavior that's working against us, along with the build-up on the Approved page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Question. If the problem is caused not by the total byte-count of the transcluded nominations, but by the template count, as BlueMoonset suggests, it seems to me a viable solution is to compel the DYK review templates to be substituted, and/or to have a bot substitute the other symbol-related templates that are on that page. Would someone more technically-minded tell us whether this would work? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, there's an explanation of the limit we're running up against at Post-expand include size. My recent experience is that substituting the minor templates that don't generate much wikitext doesn't do much good, but that probably isn't much help in terms of knowing what would be most effective. However, now that we're doing two sets a day, the immediate problem should be solved very soon; only the last few special occasion hooks aren't being transcluded now. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thought would splitting the "approved" page, say by month, help? It might also smooth flow, encouraging the clear-out of old months. Currently October & November still have one verified hook each. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose every time we got to 2 per day we get more errors and missed deadlines and a decline in quality because people rush. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think Joseph2302's comments are borne out by the facts. We will need to move to two sets a day before long because more nominations are being made (average 10 or 11 per day) than hooks being promoted (8 per day), and therefore numbers of approved hooks are building up. I suggest a few prep sets are moved to queues in preparation so that we can build up a reserve of prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Everytime we go to sets per day, we never have a large number of preps and queues ready to go, and every 3-4 days DYK update ends up being late. Just check the history of this talk page, it'll show I'm right. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So at what level of backlog do you crack? It's building up steadily, as it does every year. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It is, of course, not true that Everytime we go to sets per day, we never have a large number of preps and queues ready to go. I remember more than one instance when we made sure to have that large number, and if we go ahead with this one, I hope we do have said large number before we start. But Johnbod has an excellent point: either we go to twice a day at some point, as we've done in the past, or the number of nominations continues to build. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - if errors go up, we can drop again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    I can pretty much guarantee that errors will go up by around 100%. Whether that's a price worth paying for clearing down the queue is left as an exercise for the reader.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if the set-builders want it. Actually, just support: there are currently 568 (no-see below) nominations, the great majority of which will eventually make it. So we have some 68 days-worth already, and the pile continues to grow. Some will take 6 months or more to reach the MP at this rate. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, I think you're misreading the Count of DYK Hooks table: it's 334 hooks total as I type this, of which 201 are approved, although that "approved" number doesn't include the ones on the Approved page that aren't being transcluded or the ones in the special occasion area or on the April Fools' page. At the moment, I see 7 not transcluded, 22 in special occasions, and 9 for April Fools', which makes a grand total of 372 unpromoted hooks in the DYK system, 239 of which are approved. That's nothing like 568. Unless you meant Good Article Nominations, which is now up to 574... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • True enough, and the number's a bit higher because both the total and approved numbers don't include the noms that aren't transcluded, not just the approved ones (I forgot about the total also not including the ones that don't transclude). So it would have been 341 total last night, excluding special occasions and April Fools' (now 345), which also doesn't count those already in preps and queues awaiting their turn on the main page (three queues and three preps). If we can bank another three sets, I'm on board. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Instead of running two sets per day when the backlog of approved nominations gets too large, why not a permanent dynamic solution to match the run rate with the number of new nominations. On the first of every month, we could see how many nominations were made in the past month (say 300 or 10/day avg), and from that set the run time for the month to 19 hours which would remove about 300 from the approved queue. This would keep the queues from getting too big, eliminate the discussions over "is it time to go to 2 sets per day?", and eliminate the burst of extra work during periods of two sets/day by spreading out the effort. MB 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a very interesting idea. Is it feasible to have say a 19-hour turnover rate and could the bot cope? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The person to ask is Shubinator, the creator of the bot, who would know how it would cope. At the moment, it would attempt to move in 15 minute increments to get back to midnight UTC, so it would be working against the 19 hours (or whatever) in a small way; there's also the question as to whether it's a good idea for DYK not to move at midnight when the rest of the main page changes over. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Assuming an admin correctly sets time between updates to 19 hours (or whatever), DYKUpdateBot will be fine. I can disable the auto-drift to midnight UTC that BlueMoonset mentioned, that's the only piece that would be affected. Shubinator (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
It'd be far better to set the update interval to 18 hours rather than 19, so that most updates will still occur at midnight or noon, instead of any random hour of the day. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The suggestion was to make the run-time change each month depending on the submission rate. The interval could be 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 hours. It would be completely decoupled from the midnight main-page update (which only occurs at midnight in one time zone - so that already occurs at 24 different times around the world).
As far as whether it is important that the DYKs switch with the rest of the main page, I can't think of a good reason. If a reader somewhere goes to the main pages at a certain time every day to see the new version of everything, they may already be missing half the DYKs when we run two sets per day. The entire encyclopedia lacks "editions" like a print publication - the current version changes every second. MB 17:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that having arbitrary starting hours makes scheduling of special occasions hooks much more difficult. Using 18-hour intervals makes dates easier to calculate. I suggest we use 18 hours as the default interval, with adjustments of 6 hours in either direction when needed, depending on the number of approved hooks. -Zanhe (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 2/day, or any type of flexible schedule really. Ideally scheduled to appear before/after peak traffic so one isn't scheduled to be the 'nightshift' where they don't get seen, and the other bunch in 'prime time'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hooks

  • Yoninah All queues are now filled. Preps 5, 6, 1 and 2 are ready for hooks. And it's not even a dip in the bucket to resolving the visibility issue on the Approved list. There's nothing preventing error corrections while in queue. Errors happen, they get fixed. We have a more urgent issue to resolve, the backlog at Approved. — Maile (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Please check for hooks with requested dates. I know at least one meant for 22 Feb which would now come too soon if not moved. Needs an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There are several special occasions requests between now and Febraury 22. I suggest waiting a few days to go to 12 hours, unless we want to rearrange a lot of prep sets. Flibirigit (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The 2019 EFL Cup Final hook is also scheduled for 24 February, so will need to be moved appropriately. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done Moved 2019 EFL Cup Final back to the special occasions area. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Attention administrators: Please return these hooks from the queues to the special occasion holding area:

  Done Swapped George Washington (Canova) from Queue1 with Beaver Hall from Prep 5, both lead hooks. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done Swapped Jennie Jackson from Prep 5 with Marika Kouno from Queue 1, both second hook . — Maile (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done Swapped Chang Ya-chung (Queue2) with Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament (Queue 5), both hook #2 slot — Maile (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The corresponding set of three credits were only partially moved. Flibirigit (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Nice catch. Taken care of. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah Suggesting a more simple method that does not involve re-opening the individual nom templates and moving them back to Approved listing
  • Move the Quebec hockey hook from Queue 5 to Queue 2, which is for Feb 20
  • Move the other two to either Prep 5 or Prep 6 that are most likely to be Feb 22
Yes? — Maile (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 of course, that works too! You can swap in anything from the preps to fill the holes. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah the swaps were made. They can be changed if necessary. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a day ago with only five unreviewed items, so here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through February 27. Right now we have a total of 267 nominations, of which 121 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four that are over a month old.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead too short

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article Spinophorosaurus has been tagged with a {{lead too short}} orange template at the top. While this seems to be accurate (a lead of one short sentence for an article with 18 kB of prose clearly doesn't summarise the key points), I'm not sure if it's a reason to fail the nomination or pull the hook. Please advise? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru The Supplementary rules say: The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. If you click on the link, the "lead too short" is not considered a dispute tag. I don't see anything else in the Rules or Reviewing Guide that mentions anything else.— Maile (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead was expanded about an hour later, and the tag removed, before the hook was promoted to the main page, so all is well. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

We Are Displaced, lead hook in Queue 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Amakuru, Fish and karate, Bilorv This is the next queue. The original hook said, "that the 2019 book We Are Displaced by Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai (pictured) tells the stories of ten displaced girls, including herself" Sort of redundant. That same kind of repetitive on the word "displaced" is throughout the article. " "I Am Displaced", details Yousafzai's experience being displaced". We can leave the article as is. I changed the hook to "removed from their homelands", but that's not actually correct, either, as some were relocated in their homeland. Can any of you come up with a hook that is not so repetitive? — Maile (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not redundant at all. If we omit that then it sounds like it's a collection of ten people's stories which Yousafzai worked on compiling. Instead it's Yousafzai's story, and then nine other people's stories introduced by her. It's not correct to say anything other than "displaced"; Yousafzai is key to make the distinction between displaced people and refugees and as you say, "removed from their homelands" is factually incorrect so you need to revert this edit. I don't see a problem with the original hook; the word "displaced" is used twice but one usage is in a proper noun phrase. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How about ALT0 "that in We Are Displaced, Malala Yousafzai (pictured) recounts the stories of ten girls, including herself?" Since the title already contains the necessary information about being displaced, I see no need to repeat this in the latter part. Regards SoWhy 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The stories of the other nine girls are relayed in first person from their perspectives; Yousafzai only introduces each story (it's not accurate to say she "recounts" them). — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
ALT1 ". . . that in We Are Displaced, Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai introduces ten first-hand stories of herself and nine other girls, forced to flee their homes due to political or social circumstances." You don't have to say it's a book, and you don't need to give the publication year. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The hook doesn't have to say anything, but the time for arguing over the content of the hook is during the review process and the prepping stage. This is neither. The only issues that need to be addressed once a hook is in the queue are factual or grammatical errors. This is neither. Kindly revert your deliberate factual mistake. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Is this an April Fool's Day hook?

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion
When I clicked on this to see what it was about, the title of the target article, Army Printing and Stationery Service, made me smile. Yoninah (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, if it's not, it should be lol valereee (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Well the door is always open if @Dumelow: as creator wants it to run on April Fools Day but it's the creator's choice. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me, happy for it to run whenever - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's in prep at the moment and I propose leaving it there. It isn't really a "funny ha-ha" type of hook, but I was surprised by the number of documents processed and the number of officers and men involved in their distribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently in queue, and will be moved to the main page in seven hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done Moved to April 1 holding; substituted another quirky hook in Queue. — Maile (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
What's the supposed comedy element here? Virtually every military in the world—along with virtually every other government department in the world—has a similar branch; not only do armies produce huge quantities of paperwork but military facilities need signs, information posters, instruction manuals… The current US equivalent is the United States Army Publishing Directorate. ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 
Fancy stationary
 
More fancy stationary
The way it's phrased leads you to picture a whole unit of soldiers whose sole purpose is to run through the trenches of WWI and distribute fancy things, like the stationary at right. In reality they did a lot more than that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for this on April 1. The date aside, there is so many interesting points in this article: (1) They were in charge of rubber stamps for the mail censors; (2) They were a century ahead of everybody on recycling paper, which they were doing in 1918; (3) Their documents had "SS" as a reference code, decades ahead of the Nazi SS, the United States Secret Service, or the old US military Selective Service office. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Anju Bala

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

As per this revision, the number of characters in this article is 496. I expanded it, now it has 2488 chracters (5x satisfied). However, the DYK tools shows that the article has not been expanded 5x. Can anyone please look into this matter and clarify where I have gone wrong? RRD (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah can you or anyone else offer advice on this? I think what the bot did was compare older versions that were longer. However, those older versions were removed/deleted. Because of edit wars and/or vandalism, the article is PC-1 protected since 2016. Can Royroydeb go ahead with this nomination? It doesn't seem correct to not allow this because past vandalism made it temporarily look like a larger article. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, there were additions and revisions by IPs and vandals in 2017 and onward, but reputable editors were also working on the page and the character count reached a high of 866 at the time it was page-protected on March 14, 2016. It seems to me that that figure should be used as a base for the 5x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, we typically don't count material that dates from three years ago; we take a look at the pre-expansion state of the article, and maybe see if part of the expansion is restored material that had previously been deleted from the article. My inclination would be to say that going back three years is way more than we ought; this was a good-faith expansion of an article that had been under 500 prose characters for nearly three years. On March 16, 2016, two days after the article was protected, 370 prose characters of "trivia" (according to the edit summary) about some erroneous information in her Wikipedia article discovered that month were removed as trivia (the event, its addition, and its removal all occurred with two weeks in March 2016), which led to a decrease from 886 to 516, which changed to 496 the following month when Kasparbot migrated the persondata to Wikidata (no, I don't understand why that would be the case, because there should be no prose in a Persondata template, but 496 is nevertheless the number we should be considering). Even though the information about the Wikipedia removal has been added back to the article in the recent expansion, it differs from the original text, so it can still be considered original; however, if it is indeed trivia, it should probably be removed. (The article does need a copyedit regardless, including that paragraph.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, Yoninah, Royroydeb, and Maile66:, there is a difference in opinions above. I am reviewing the article. So which figure should I consider for 5x expansion? -Nizil (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Nizil Shah Nominate the article now, so we don't overshoot the time frame allowed. As I understand what BlueMoonset has said, the base figure was 496. (496X5=2480), and the current size of the article is 2488. Make a note on the nomination template as to those figures, and reference this talk thread. — Maile (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Maile, the nomination was made last week by Royroydeb; Nizil Shah is the new reviewer of it, so they should indeed have all they need now regarding the length. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK hooks with multiple bolded articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In all of my previous experiences for DYK hooks with multiple bolded articles, the hook fact has been cited across all of the eligible articles. I have asked for this, and been asked for this every time with no problems.

In a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Sumiko Hennessy, it was stated that... "all of the facts in a double hook do not need to be mentioned in both articles; it is enough that the hook facts are sourced in at least one of the articles". I was surprised by this, as it does not reflect my experiences, nor mentioned in the DYK rules. In WP:DYKRULES it states that, "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article", and "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience". However, it does not specifically mention multiple-article hooks, and I did not find anything else in WP:DYKSG.

I am curious if other have had similar or different experiences, and what is the general consensus. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the hook fact needs to be cited and sourced in at least one of the nominated articles. Sometimes it's not feasiblesuitable to repeat the hook fact in both. Yoninah (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In my experience, the hook facts need to be mentioned in one article but not necessarily in both. For example, if A is a member of a group B, this can be mentioned in A's article but may not be suitable for mention in B's article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The Farm Vegetarian Cookbook - needs help finding a new hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With the nominator's agreement, I pulled The Farm Vegetarian Cookbook from queue for a new hook. They could use some help coming up with a new hook, and possibly a second set of eyes on the article. — Maile (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Taiiku Okazaki

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just created this article and nominated it for DYK. Is it okay if this gets a prompt review? I'm requesting it for a special occasion date on March 31 and I'm scared it might get lost in the backlog. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done Review started. Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hook pulled from main page

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Norway @Cwmhiraeth, Gronk Oz, and 97198:

The source for this[3] includes a handy table enumerating the number of species per type. Sadly, this includes algae and plants. The article writer on the one hand knew this, as they divided the numbers across the two sections (fauna and flora), but on the other hand they still kept the total with the fauna only, and used it for this hook... Feel free to correct this hook and the article and to reinsert it to the main page then, I have pulled it for now. Fram (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I must admit that was rather a bad error! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I should have spotted that in the review too - only bacteria and viruses were excluded from that count. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Time sensitive hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

May I request that Template:Did you know nominations/Frant Gwo be promoted to a prep that will be running soon? (Preferably Prep 1, to replace my other nomination Xu Shunshou, so no one else is inconvenienced). The hook is time sensitive as The Wandering Earth's total box office could be overtaken by Captain Marvel after this weekend, see Box Office Mojo. Thanks in advance! -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done Yoninah (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Yoninah! -Zanhe (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ida Tarbell

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for promoting this article. However, during the review, I had requested that this go up on an image slot. Can this request still be accepted? Considering it's Women's Month and all. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done feminist (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived with fifteen unreviewed items, so here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through March 6. Right now we have a total of 213 nominations, of which 71 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five six that are over a month old.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

April 1 concern

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I guess I need to raise this again. I'm really concerned that the quality of April 1 hooks is taking a nosedive. Very few hooks nominated so far this year have the misleading or hoax quality that is what AFD is all about. Most are maybe just amusing (more or less) or quirky, but have no surprise or "fooled you!" value at all, and could run on any regular day in a regular set. EEng 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to one set per day?

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments14 people in discussion

The number of hooks in the backlog is rapidly shrinking, and the number of DYK nominations per day (including both approved and not yet approved nominations) are hardly enough for 16 daily DYK hooks. Should we go back to a daily cycle? What we currently have is quite different from the situation a month ago. feminist (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though of course with April Fools Day coming up, we will need to be mindful to make the adjustments back for that day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed that on April Fools we should probably run at least two sets, based on current nominations. But we can otherwise go back to one set per day given our current number of hooks available. feminist (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If consensus exists to switch back to a 24-hour cycle, an admin needs to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates back to 86400. feminist (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. Of the 66 hooks currently approved, the majority are biographies, and it is difficult building a prep set while sticking to the limit of not more than four biographies per set. The greatest need at the moment, is for people to do voluntary reviews. There are currently 152 unreviewed hooks, a number that has gradually built up over time, and which will never be eliminated by QPQ reviews. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I think in the meantime, we can build sets of 7 hooks per set, 4 of which are biographies and 3 are other articles. Would that work? feminist (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that won't work because 7-hook DYK sets are too short for the main page; we need to keep hook numbers up at 8. Also, I'd recommend that the admin wait to change the Time Between Updates number until after the next 00:00 UTC set goes up, since we want the sets to change at 00:00 daily, not at 12:00. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I should be online all evening; what exactly do I need to do (and when)? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
After the next update (in abt 6 hrs time), change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time_Between_Updates to 86400. (i..e double the seconds) Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Thanks, both of you. I'll be out of touch, nowhere near a computer when the time comes. — Maile (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber. Will do assuming my internet cooperates (somewhat battered by recent storms). Espresso Addict (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems reasonable. I will most likely be busy IRL very soon myself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, especially if non-bios are running low. There's only one non-Women's History Month special occasion hook in the queues and preps (unless some are not labeled with the appropriate comment), and it's a March Madness hook in Prep 3 that shouldn't need to be moved, because it just needed to not run before March 19. Note that there are birthday hooks for March 22 and 23 that will need to be slotted into Prep 3 and Prep 4 if the move back to one day is made tonight after midnight UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as per the above, the backlog is almost clear, and there's almost zero non-biographies for promotion, so DYK will get very boring if we don't. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Returned to 24-hour rotation. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Espresso Addict. I have no idea why tonight's update started 35 minutes late, but we should be set for the bot to update tomorrow at 00:00 UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not me? (Unless just looking at the page causes the bot to stall.) Ping me if you want me to do anything further. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The bot was late due to unrelated issues, more details at User talk:Shubinator#Bot migration Ubuntu → Debian for the curious. Sorry for the confusion! Shubinator (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

At one set per day, please see that approved hooks about women get promoted, as there won't be as many slots in March as expected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Article history

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment at Template talk:Article history#RfC on proposed link in template regarding a proposal to change the output from {{article history}} for DYK items. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WugBot running down

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi all, due to technical changes on the WMF servers, WugBot has unexpectedly stopped running. Until the bot is running again approved nominations will not be moved to the approved page and closed nominations will not be removed. These can be done manually if need be. I'm working on figuring out what went wrong during the migration to the new WMF server and hope to get this resolved quickly. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is resolved. Pretty sure the problem existed between the keyboard and chair. If anyone notices the bot acting weird, ping me or let me know on my talk page. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Adoptee for African YouTube hook?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is anyone willing to adopt Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Angel (producer)? It is very close to passing, but the nominator has not been active in quite a while. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Monastery of Serra do Pilar in prep 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Monastery of Serra do Pilar in Prep 2: the hook is incorrect: "its uniquely circular church" -- I thought of two circular churches off the top of my head, and I've just found round church with many more. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Gerda Arendt:. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't look like one of Gerda's? I've just looked at the source provided in the nomination and it does not seem to mention unique or circular/round; the article does not even make this claim. The review seems to have been perfunctory. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you might be thinking of Gerda's nom Jörg Streli; the other (partly) circular church pictured in Prep 4. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. Pinging NoGhost. Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the "uniquely circular" part from the hook. The hook is still in a later prep so if there are still any issues, these can be worked out. Courtesy ping NoGhost since they were never notified of this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's in one of the article's sources. 1 "The interesting church and cloisters are laid out according to a circular design unique in Portugal." At the time of the nomination, the article said "The Church of Serra do Pilar is one of the few circular churches in Western Europe." — Maile (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Late: it depends of what defines a church. (Is a chapel a church?) Why not just drop "uniquely"? "Circular" alone should add interest, but you also see it pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Personally I think the fact that it was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site by itself should be good enough for DYK, but eh. I already removed the "circular" wording. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Good catch, I have no concerns with removing the "uniquely circular" phrase. Round churches might not be common on the Iberian Peninsula, but they're found elsewhere in Europe. -NoGhost (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Government Employee Fair Treatment Act

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nomination has now been marked for closure due to the nominator's inactivity. Is someone here willing to adopt the nomination? There are two issues at the moment: the original hook was too long, and the hook fact is unsourced in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done feminist (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Main page balance

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have brought back one hook from yesterday's set, because the main page was too long on the right-hand side compared to the left.

  • ... that an image of an egg posted on the social media service Instagram became the most liked online post of all time?

I didn't want to remove an OTD entry because there are only five anyway, albeit that all of them are very long (which is presumably the cause of the lopsidedness). It seemed fairer and easier to do this rather than promote a different one which would then not get its full day in the limelight. There are now nine hooks, which I think is within tolerance? If there are any thoughts or objections, please discuss. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Next time though, probably best not to use a hook that had been running the day before. Otherwise it gives it a double dipping for the stats. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Celebration of the Greek Revolution

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have just nominated this article for DYK and hope it might have an expedited review and promotion so that it can appear on March 25th if possible. I discovered it when New Page Patrolling, and am nominating it one week late. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm done reviewing this, would someone be willing to add this to Prep 6? I can't do it myself since I reviewed the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote at least one prep

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

At the moment, the queues are all empty and the six preps are almost entirely full—only four slots total out of forty-eight are open, one waiting for a special occasion hook (Prep 6). If an admin could please promote one (or better, two) to queues, then additional prep sets could be populated. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Maile, Cas Liber, Amakuru, and Vanamonde, who have done all the promotions to queue so far this month, in the hopes that one of them is available in the next ten-plus hours to do a promotion or two. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I'll do it now. Thanks for flagging this up.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we allow sets of nine hooks?

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

We still have more biographies than non-biographies in the pipeline. Since the OTD section is often longer than the DYK section (meaning that we have to re-run hooks from time to time anyway), maybe we should accelerate the promotion of biographies by building sets of 9 hooks, in which 5 of them are biographies? feminist (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

We sometimes have. I seem to recall that we have done in the past for April Fools Day and it looks like we may have to do it again for this year's. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It has been many years since we have done more than eight hooks per set as part of regular DYK—longer than I've been around. Special days like April Fools' aren't really relevant, since we ignore the regular rules. When I look at the main page on my laptop right now, the left side including DYK is a couple of lines longer; if I narrow the screen, it's suddenly reversed and the left side is shorter. We were asked by the people who balance the main page (pinging David Levy) to use eight hooks; if they think we need to go to nine because that will regularly better balance the page, I imagine they'll ask us. In the meantime, we can try to mix up hook lengths within sets to avoid ones with mostly short hooks that will tend to unbalance the page. If we're going to exceed the 50% guideline for bios in sets on a regular basis, that would need major buy-in here, just as it probably would for U.S.-only hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason for going with an odd number of hooks is that it would allow >50% hooks being biographies, yet ensure that no two consecutive hooks are biographies. So, hook 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 will be biographies, while 2, 4, 6 and 8 will not be. Thus, biographies and non-biographies sandwich each other. This would not appear substantially different to the reader compared to <=50% biography hooks. feminist (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
An odd number of hooks with five biographies would only work if both the lead slot and the quirky slot were biographies. We could not do that regularly. Flibirigit (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Responding to ping:
It's always possible to lengthen ITN (simply by retaining/restoring items), so increasing the number of DYK hooks should pose absolutely no problem with respect to column balance.
In my view, nothing would be more helpful than sticking to 00:00 (UTC) updates. And if running more hooks at a time were to reduce the frequency with which DYK accumulates a surplus and switches to twice-daily updates, it actually would make balancing the columns significantly easier – in part because the image changes with the rest of the section.
So from an overall main page maintenance perspective, I'm inclined to see a hypothetical expansion in the number of simultaneous hooks as a positive and welcome change. —David Levy 06:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nine hooks is too many and you won't quickly resolve the issue of a surfeit of approved bios doing it that way in any case. Rather, I would just ask reviewers to focus on verifying non-bios for a while. And if you don't have enough variety in the meantime, just run five or six bios per set until the balance is restored. The four-bios-per-set rule is a guideline, not a commandment, you won't break the internet by ignoring it for a few days. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Question mark error

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone please check this DYK and fix the "?" symbol in the neutrality section ? I have marked it as y and still the ? is appearing. thanks in advance. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done. feminist (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Marzano Peak

I have pulled Marzano Peak from from Queue 4 and replaced it with Laxmann's shrew. Feminist, RTG Marzano Peak is a largely unsourced article that was nominated on January 31, and promoted on March 18. Nominator and article creator Mehrajmir13 last edited February 20.

  • D2: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.

— Maile (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

When I looked at it, it was completely sourced so I am not sure what is wrong with it now sorry ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 23:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I should also have pinged Winged Blades of Godric who was also on the nomination template, but removed the sourcing you saw. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies. I didn't know why I failed to check this particular article, but OK. feminist (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hilary Franz

SounderBruce I removed the end of the sentence about Tonya Harding. The source says, "Competing in the Portland area in the 1970s and 1980s meant sharing the ice with Tonya Harding. Franz said Harding was older, so they never competed against each other, but Franz remembers watching Harding practice, compete, and win." So, she didn't train with Tonya, and all we are told is she watched her skate. Don't see a reason to name-drop Tonya into the hook. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: Could it be changed to "trained at the same club as Harding"? Without the name drop, the hook isn't interesting at all. SounderBruce 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about that, personally I think that a land commissioner previously having a sports career might be interesting, considering the contrast. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: if another admin wants to make that choice, I won't contradict. But for women's history month, I personally find the Tonya Harding mention more tabloid fluff than real substance about Franz. What I did find really interesting about Franz is in one of the sources, regarding the state's opposition to offshore oil drilling, it says, "Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz said she would assert Washington’s leasing authority over the shorelines and aquatic areas the state owns on the coast."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maile66 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A government official using their government powers to conduct government business is not terribly interesting, and is not directly related to Franz herself. Any of the public lands commissioners of years past could have done the same thing. SounderBruce 03:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators needed to load queues

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

We have 6 full prep sets and 6 empty queues. Could administrators please load a few queues so we can fill more prep sets? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Casliber and Maile! Yoninah (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Could an administrator return Queue 3 to Prep 3?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We have a special occasion request to add to that set. Pinging @Amakuru: @Maile66: @Vanamonde93: @Casliber:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: done. I've cleared down queue 3. Note that I have not put the hooks back in prep 3 for now, since it looks like you're working on that yourself and have already put other stuff in. Can I leave it with you to make sure that the hooks I've just removed from Q3 all end up back in prep areas? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. Prep 3 is now ready to be moved into the queue. Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zeige uns, Herr, deine Allmacht und Güte

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Requesting another editor give a final review of the hooks proposed here: the nominator requested a special occasion date of no later than April 13, so a prompt review is appreciated. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of/modify WP:DYKSG#C6 already?

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments12 people in discussion

I kind of understand why that criterion exists, but I feel that it may be doing more harm than good. Like in many cases, when discussing works of fiction, the article might have quite a bit of interesting information about the plot, but information about real-world developments might be lacking or uninteresting. I am asking this because I'm currently reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Reborn as a Vending Machine, I Now Wander the Dungeon, and the proposed hook involves an in-universe fact, but personally I feel it would be a shame not to run it or a variation thereof as it's a pretty interesting fact. There have been other examples too, but this is the one that comes to mind. Perhaps we can either get rid of DYKSG#C6 due to its limiting potential, or perhaps change it so that in-universe information may be allowed as hooks on a case-by-case basis, provided that the hook makes it clear that the information is fictional? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is very restrictive for the creative hooks. Personally with the one you mentioned, it would be fine under the current rules but I would agree that this rule is surplusage and actually stopping creativity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a very useful criterion, and a little imagination is usually all that's required to combine real-world and in-universe elements into an entertaining hook. In this case, adding the fact that the author had tried for four years without success to get published and this was his last-ditch effort before giving up as a writer, combined with the vending machine protagonist, should make for a perfectly interesting hook. Disagree with the proposal to remove the criterion. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Although I brought up deprecation as an option, personally I lean more towards a modification where real-world hooks are still encouraged and considered ideal, but in-universe hooks that don't fit that will occasionally be allowed, on a case-by-case basis, if consensus determines that such a hook was the hookiest option and real world information in the article is lacking and not ideal for hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Currently, WP:DYKSG#C6 reads:

C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way.

I am proposing that this be modified to read as (changes in italics):

C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook should ideally involve the real world in some way; however, in-universe hooks may be permitted on a case-by-case basis if consensus decides that such a hook is the most interesting and/or when the real world information in the article is considered not suitable for a hook. Such hooks must make it clear that the hook content is fictional and should not present facts in an in-universe manner.

An example of a hook that would fit under this proposed change would go like ... that in the film Movie X, Earth is depicted as a cold wasteland that has been taken over by Martians?. This will not necessarily mean that we should do away with requiring real world hooks for fictional material, merely that in-universe hooks may be allowed sometimes. This proposal could also help out with the problem that sometimes reviewers cannot determine if a fact is in-universe or not (for example, in video game hooks, do gameplay mechanics count as in-universe or not?). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think we had this discussion not very long ago, but in any case: an exceptional "in universe" hook would be covered by IAR anyway. Anything short of an exceptional hook (that is, a hook so good that it could get consensus here to be run despite being an "in universe" hook) should still be required to conform to the guideline as it stands because we're likely to be flooded with a lot of garbage otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think we'll be flooded with garbage so much as a flood of in-universe hooks. There are so many creative ideas out there in film, music, and literature that it's way too easy to pitch the storyline as the hook. Insisting that the hook be related to the real world in some way sidesteps that problem and also creates a more intelligent hook. Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanamonde93 - any hook that's good enough can invoke IAR; any hook that doesn't meet the IAR standard probably shouldn't be on the main page as in-universe. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – as I noted in the pre-RfC discussion, it should be possible to involve the real world in some way in a hook, even with some in-universe material included. Indeed, the hook that inspired this particular RfC has significant possibilities along those lines. And, as Vanamonde notes, we've had this discussion fairly recently, and a similar proposal didn't fly there, either. C6 is fine as it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some of the concerns expressed with the current wording seem to stem from a very restrictive—unduly restrictive, in my view—interpretation of the rule. "Involve ... in some way" is a loose requirement, and I think the example of a hook that would work under proposed rule would, in fact, work under the current rule also. "... that in the film Movie X" already seems to involve the real world in some way, grounding us, as it does, in the knowledge that Movie X in a real movie from our real world. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 
Noodle Car road sign.
  • Oppose If a mere plot summary is all there is that can be said about a work of fiction, then we should not even have an article on it, let alone feature such an article on the main page. If the most interesting thing about a work of fiction revolves around its plot, that's fine to have a hook about that, but it needs to explain, using real world examples, why it's interesting. For example, instead of "... that Book X features cars that walk on noodles instead of wheels" say, "...that the noodle cars in Book x were inspired by a road sign?" or "...that Book X inspired the trend of Noodle Cars that have since been incorporated in over 100 sci-fi books by over 25 authors?" ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. "Such hooks must make it clear that the hook content is fictional and should not present facts in an in-universe manner" is sufficient to prevent any misunderstandings. feminist (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should not be asking readers Did you know fictional-thing? We're supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is quite lame for this purpose, and conspicuously lame for anyone who is not already a fan of that fictional franchise. It also essentially serves as little more than a promotional vehicle for that fictional work. I must definitely do not want DidYouKnow becoming an attractive target for commercial media promotion teams: Did you know Superman dies in Warner Brother's hot new movie: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? ...no-thank-you. Alsee (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would not, I'm sure, encourage fancruft; but we'd like to be sure, and the current position does so succinctly. ——SerialNumber54129 07:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Couldn't argee more with Alsee, Bluemoonset and Vanamonde93. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived almost a day ago, so here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through March 18. Right now we have a total of 233 nominations, of which 115 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ten that are over a month old.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

April Fools Day Preps

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

As some may have noted, Prep 1 will fall on April Fools day. At the moment we have 15 passed nominations and 2 awaiting approval for AFD. I think if we move the Dippy hook from Prep 6 into the AFD sets, we have enough for a 2x9 April Fools Day barring any late entries. What do others think? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Or if needs be, I am OK to drop Flag of Blackbeard to run on another day so we can do 2x7. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I've recently had an April Fool-themed one approved which I don't think has been moved across to the April Fool holding page yet (Worthing Tramocars; currently on the "normal" Approved Hooks page). Could that one be included as well pls? Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Is Dippy April Foolsy? I'm sure we have more suitable entries. Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair point on Dippy. I have moved the Worthing Tramocars one into the collection so we have 16 approved so a possible 2x8 might work. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Given that April 1 hooks tend to be on the short side, I'd imagine anything up to 2x10 (and maybe higher) won't be a problem. Since we're already at 2x8, we should be in fine shape even with an odd number of hooks; with a little work they'll come close to balancing even with one having more hooks than the other. It's still possible for another hook or two to show up... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
They'd better hurry! But even if we end up with a shortage, I don't see why we couldn't run a quirkyish hook or two to fill out the sets. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC).
Due to a lack of movement so far, I have included Template:Did you know nominations/Eiseman-Reynard and others v. the United Kingdom to plug the gap. I really didn't want to have to do that but I felt no other option if we want more hooks for AFD. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Have we got space for International Banana Museum? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes we do @Ritchie333:, yes we do. :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  Moved from Template talk:DYK bottom
 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please replace

</noincl<noinclude></noinclude>ude>

with

</noincl<noinclude />ude>

because there is no need for a tag to be closed immediately and not use a self-closing tag. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not done there is no need to do it either way, this doesn't really improve anything. Certainly feel free to discuss if there is an improvement to be had. — xaosflux Talk 00:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: What do you mean by there is no need to do it either way? The "noinclude" tag is transcluded for a reason, and it is broken up in the template so that it isn't parsed as an actual tag on the template's page. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I meant there is no need to do it one way over the other, so there is no need to change it. — xaosflux Talk 00:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: oh, thanks. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't edit queue

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why can't I edit the Did you know queue template? The Wikipedia tips page suggests that you can edit the queue, but when I attempt to edit a queue page it is protected and I can't edit it. Why is it like this? I was interested in editing it until I found out I can't edit the page. Matthew Cenance (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@MatthewCenance: Preps are open to edits by most users. But Queues are only editable by Admins. Post any issues at WP:ERRORS.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It's that time of year again! Tomorrow we have April Fools Day and so far we have 17 approved, with 1 that requires formal approval (Template:Did you know nominations/Eiseman-Reynard and others v. the United Kingdom). So enough for us to do 2x9 tomorrow. Is someone able to set the bot to go to a 12 hour cycle and start filling the preps please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The bot should not be set to the 12-hour cycle until after the first April 1 set has been promoted. It then gets set back to 24 hours immediately after the April 2 set is promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I have asked a question at WP:ERRORS regarding the obscene hook scheduled for tomorrow. I'm sceptical as to whether it should go on the main page but open to discussion...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Review needed for late entry April Fools hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Patsy Dan Rodgers was a late entry for April Fools. I just supplied an alt for it (ALT3) and as we are only a few hours from the date in question, it needs to be reviewed quickly, if somebody could manage it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. And since Prep 2 is so very short (see Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Tomorrow and DYK Prep 2)), I suggest it goes there, and if the Mud pie hook can be sorted, it should go there as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: that's what I did. There are 10 hooks in Prep 2 and it still looks kind of short. There are 9 hooks in Prep 1 and it looks okay. Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1 (Prep 1) - 2h30 to go

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

".. that a bronze statue co-created by Fiona Peever apparently stepped off its pedestal and sat down before disappearing, leaving only the pedestal behind (pictured)?"

  • I agree with removing "leaving only the pedestal behind." The hook works fine without it. Storye book (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Corrected hook: ".. that a bronze statue co-created by Fiona Peever apparently stepped off its pedestal (pictured) and sat down before disappearing?"
  Done Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Dortan

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This hook is now in Prep 4, because I promoted it this morning. When I came to look at our article for Dortan, I found it was almost non-existent. So I expanded it to 2000 characters and am requesting that, if possible, someone reviews it and that it gets added to the hook, making it a two article hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Date and expansion good. Fine to go in with the Massacre hook. I'm going to IAR for QPQ just to put it in (though may help @Cwmhiraeth: if you do one just so the Vice squad stay off our backs!) No close paraphrasing. I'd say good to go to add in the hook. I will await someone to do the "promotion" but if you think it is acceptable, I can put it in for you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: Thank you, I have done a QPQ, Template:Did you know nominations/Rob Morrison (scientist). I expect someone else will "promote" Dortan. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I bolded the new article and also adjusted the hook wording so the blue links wouldn't run together. Does it look all right to you? Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That looks fine. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the bot set for two 12-hour sets for April 1?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current set on the main page should run from 00:00 – 12:00 UTC, and then Queue 2 should take over for another 12 hours. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin needed to change update frequency for April Fools' Day and load a queue or two

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It's now April Fools' Day on Wikipedia, and for DYK that means that we need to go to two sets for today only. (No, really. I'm not fooling about this.)

The first set is already loaded, and since the next set needs to be promoted to the main page at 12:00 UTC, we need an admin to do the following before then:

Pinging admins Cas Liber, Maile, Amakuru, and Espresso Addict in the hopes that one of them can take care of this. If any of you can promote Prep 3 to Queue 3 not too long after that, it will help a lot.

Note that once Queue 3 has been promoted at 00:00 2 April 2019, a little over 23 hours from now, we go back to one set a day, which means that User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates will need to go back to 86400 within a few hours of Queue 3 hitting the main page. (But not before it does, please!)

Thanks to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset I updated Queue 2 like you asked. Somebody else needs to change the update time. The one and only time I did it, the bot got confused and rotated the hooks within about half an hour. I'd just as soon someone else do that. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks as if Materialscientist did this at 04:27. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. Materialscientist has changed the update interval, so Queue 2 should go to the main page at 12:00 UTC. Now, if an admin could please promote Prep 3 to Queue 3 so we have the set after next queued up, that would be great. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

April 18 special occasion request

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have submitted hooks at Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Kryczka for consideration of an April 18 special occasion. The nomination was originally an April Fool's hook, but I feel that April 18 is more appropriate for the content. Thanks for considering. Flibirigit (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit I've approved the April 18 hook for you. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

March for women

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The thread about March as women's month is already archived, but I have one more request. I plan to write three more articles which would be better shown in March, an operetta singer (today), a book by a woman and a journalist. Can we reserve a few slots for latecomers? I suggest to place the need for speedy reviews right here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ready to be scheduled:

Also Template:Did you know nominations/Christine Ferber Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Template:Did you know nominations/Riko Azuna since I specifically requested this be a Women's Month hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am really not keen on these types of "Month". I have just added four of the above hooks to Prep 5 (March 29th) but many are contemporary women having nothing to do with "history", and the approved nominations list now is overwhelmed with men, with never a woman in sight. In my view, our readers are better off with balanced sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the four, and for marking them as done. Don't be afraid, I will keep writing on women ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I just approved one which I think would be especially suitable to appear still in March: Template:Did you know nominations/Euphrasie Kouassi Yao, - any bold admin to swap something? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, could also be her birthday, 18 April as requested, never mind then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Last day of March: 84 DYK related to women. More articles written in March will appear later. Good result, thanks to all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved hook reviewer needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Template:Did you know nominations/Fatwa of Ali Khamenei against insulting revered Sunni figures, I reviewed but the hook was not neutral, so I wrote a hook I think is neutral. Nominator/creator is weeks absent and the closer wants to get it done. Would someone like to review ALT2 and ALT3 of this nom, and to propose any more suitable alts please? ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 15:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

QPQ check down?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When I try to enter a username over at QPQ check, it simply doesn't work. It's been like this for over a week now. Can this be fixed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Patently false statement on the front page of Wikipedia

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"that the FBI can lock your computer (logo pictured)?" is unsourced and not even in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: the above was added to the bottom of the nominations page; North8000, are you saying that this doesn't work as an April Fools' Day hook? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Already been pulled; see section below.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeating squirrel

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Was the squirrel DYK repeated because the second set was short, or is it a meta-April Fool's? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's because some people didn't like the idea of the FBI locking people's computers being the lead image @Yngvadottir:. Personally I don't think it should have been pulled because the complaints were minimal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Link to the discussion: Talk:Main_Page#Patently_false_statement_on_the_front_page_of_Wikipedia.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, it was actually because, as was pointed out in the discussion, not only wasn't it the FBI, but the computers weren't locked. The image came in for some criticism, but I think it was just an extra point, with the other two issues being the critical ones that led to the hook's removal, and the need for a new image-based hook (and also to keep the set, already a bit short, from getting way too short). A little meta was a fine happenstance, under the circumstances: you can't keep a good (or bad) squirrel down. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WugBot move

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir finally was approved. Why did WugBot remove it? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry it was a comment made today by User:Nikkimaria that probably triggered the move. It's a fair critique. If it's all the same to everyone involved, I am happy to let this one go. The nominator might be permanently offline. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
SusanLesch, for future reference, WugBot automatically deletes nominations that have been promoted from the Approved page to prep and closed during the promotion process—it deletes all closed nominations, actually, either due to promotion or because they were finally rejected. This is a normal thing; that deletion happened after the nomination was promoted to prep, and happens with all approved nominations promoted to prep. Nikkimaria subsequently removed the nomination from prep and reopened it due to the issues she found; I was the one who retranscluded the nomination on the Nominations pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset, for following up. DYK is still a mystery sometimes. 😃 -SusanLesch (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5 (3 hours away)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"... that Dutch pool player Nick van den Berg has competed eight times at the Mosconi Cup, losing only once, in 2006?"

  • @Cwmhiraeth and Lee Vilenski: Two problems
    • the hook isn't actually properly cited. One source says that he will play in the 2017 tournament, and it'll be his eighth, and he'd only lost one previously. The other source confirms he played. But there's no source to show his team won in 2017, so it's all a bit messy. It really needs one source with the current information in.
    • The Mosconi Cup is a team tournament, so it'd be better to say something like "finishing on the losing side only once" or similar. You wouldn't, for example, say "Tiger Woods has played in 5 Ryder Cups, winning 3 of them" - you'd say "has been on the winning side three times". Especially as, for example, in 2015, Berg lost three of his four matches! Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree it doesn't make sense as a hook. And I put a courtesy note to this discussion at WP:ERRORS since it's the next DYK set. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I have replaced the hook. As chance would have it, there was another Dutch poll player hook due to run three days later so I've slotted that in. And yes, it's always better to raise these things at ERRORS because this page won't always be monitored by admins.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5 lead hook

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

DYK Harry B. Neilson

... that in The Fox's Frolic (illustration pictured), Harry B. Neilson depicted fox hunting in which the foxes do the hunting?
@Moonraker:, @Vanamonde93: Can we either do a speedy re-write of the hook, or swap a different hook in the lead, while this is looked at? Fox is mentioned three times in the hook, and once in the image. Besides which, Neilson was apparently the illustrator of the named poem, but it was written by Sir Francis Burnand. According to Six Centuries of Fox Hunting, the poem is a children's parody where foxes ride the hounds in search of the farmer's broom. So the foxes aren't actually fox hunting. They're broom hunting. I just think we could come up with a better hook. Can this hook be moved back to prep, or someone quickly come up with a hook that doesn't repeat the word "fox" so much? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I've pulled this hook and replaced it with another so that more time can go into thinking about the issues raised here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 and Amakuru I do not see a great problem, the word "depicted" means exactly "made pictures of", from the Latin depingo, it does not mean he wrote the book. The "fox" issue is dealt with on the nomination page, but if others see a problem then you could use ALT1, which has "hunting" instead of "fox-hunting". Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: and @Moonraker: I've listed the pulled hook above for clarification. It could be better. Much of the 108 character hook is repetition of the words "fox" or "hunting". If others agree it was OK, that's fine with me. But maybe we could make it better. — Maile (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, "clarification" is a strange word, unless you mean you want something aimed at a child of seven who does not know the meaning of "depicted". Would you like the hook to say "Harry B. Neilson drew pictures of..."? If you think you can word it in a better way, please be my guest and suggest something. If you are taking the matter somewhere else, please provide a link. Moonraker (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK not updated on Main page - Need admin who understands Krinkle and Main page issues

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

DYKUpdateBot/Errors says the Queue6 image is not protected on Commons, so I protected it on Wikipedia (I am not an admin on Commons). Meanwhile, I posted over at Commons Krinkle Bot, where it seems they don't even see Queue6 lined up for the main page, so the bot doesn't respond for protection. Any admin who understands this issues, please assist. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick action. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem. It took Krinkle about half an hour to protect it, and DYKUpdateBot has now run successfully, only around 50 minutes late so no harm done. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Further, it looks like the issue was caused by a change to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow which broke the Commons media protection; see Talk:Main_Page#The_layout_of_the_Yesterday_and_Tomorrow_pages. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here is an updated list with 34 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through March 26. Right now we have a total of 231 nominations, of which 103 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two from last year and the two from January.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Queue 2 is next in line to go on the Main Page, but one of the articles (Inner core super-rotation) has a {{lead too short}} tag on it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Plus a couple of {{Clarify}} tags. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The tags are gone Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Queue 3 (tonight's update)

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

"... that the BBC rescheduled the broadcast of Holby City's "A Simple Lie" episodes due to news coverage of Brexit negotiations? ".

Promoter needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on Template:Did you know nominations/Kiritsugu Emiya, could someone else promote it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hook promotion urgently needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Lange (conductor) has been approved and needs to be slotted into Queue 1 before the page goes live in a few hours. The Gene Ritchie Monahan hook can be returned to the open slot in Prep 3. Pinging Amakuru, Maile66, Casliber, Vanamonde93. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I can do this in around half an hour if nobody else gets there first. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: @Gerda Arendt:   Done congrats and thanks for getting this one ready!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, and the many who helped, - Wikipedia at its best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a DYK rule that books listed in an article need to be referenced, as claimed?

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments10 people in discussion

At this edit to ERRORS early on 3 April The Rambling Man complained about Harry B. Neilson "Publications section dreadfully under-referenced", and at this one he added "So it fails basic DYK rules, but will run tomorrow anyway?" No one drew my attention to this until a section was created on this page much later that day, see above, and the hook was pulled in a hurry before I (or indeed I think anyone) had replied on that point. It seems to me it may be part of Amakuru's thinking on "pulling" the hook, but he has yet to explain what that was, so I may be wrong. It was Black Kite who added "Pulled" at 22:36, perhaps just for information.

In any event, there is still a tag on the section of the article put there by The Rambling Man. I have always believed that a book in a list of books acts as its own reference. We have some Good Articles which have unreferenced lists of books. If DYK has a rule which requires books to be individually referenced, can someone please give a link to it here? Moonraker (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(Followed this thread from TRM's talk; I'll explain the issue rather than TRM, to avoid him accidentally triggering the "belittling" filter.) Yes, a book is its own reference for who wrote it, but what the reference is necessary for is to indicate that someone else cares. We don't by and large do indiscriminate lists of a painter's paintings, an author's books or a composer's songs; Wikipedia is all about notability, and if you can't demonstrate that an independent, non-trivial, reliable source considers the fact that an author wrote a book significant, then that book almost certainly shouldn't be mentioned on the author's biography. This confusion between "can be proven to exist" and "can be proven to be considered noteworthy" is an ongoing long-term problem at DYK, and is the underlying root of the long-term conflict that's festered for the last few years between DYK and the rest of Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually I don't agree with this at all! To demand notability for stuff inside an article is a common mistake I'm suprised to see Iridescent make. Notability only applies to article subjects. Referencing of facts inside articles is all about WP:V, and WP:UNDUE to cover the notability-type issue. There may be some cases where WP:UNDUE becomes an issue - certainly for academic papers, which are sometimes listed at great length - but not that many people have written so many sole-author proper books that UNDUE need be invoked - well Barbara Cartland etc I suppose. I'd say autobiographies are never likely to cross UNDUE, as even the crappiest ghost-written sport/pop culture ones must bear some relevance to the subject's life. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Think of it as "relevance" if you don't like "notability". A biographical article exists to tell us the important facts about the article subject, and unless there's an independent source to indicate that reliable sources consider a particular fact pertinent to the subject's life, it shouldn't be in their biography. (We do sometimes have specialist bibliography/discography articles which do list the subject's entire output, but they rarely if ever belong in the biography.) Even biographies where every one of the subject's works is indisputably considered significant, such as William Shakespeare or The Beatles, don't include full lists of works. ‑ Iridescent 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
That is purely on grounds of length and convenience. Artists and composers are of course different, as they commonly rack up vast oeuvres. What policy sets out "unless there's an independent source to indicate that reliable sources consider a particular fact pertinent to the subject's life, it shouldn't be in their biography"? I'll continue to think of WP:UNDUE as the relevant policy, and it doesn't say that. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY in the MOS, which explicitly points to WP:WikiProject Bibliographies#Recommended structure, which says: "Most topical bibliographies will be single articles or lists with enough entries to warrant a separate list, yet not so many that a summary style is required. If there are fewer than 10 possible entries in the bibliography, then those entries should be included in a Further reading section in the topic article." Two examples are given where bibliographies have been spun off into their own article: Umberto Eco bibliography and Bibliography of Richard Nixon. Neither has references, the books serving as their own references for the author.The notability of Harry B. Neilson is established. Moonraker is therefore correct. The hook should not have been pulled. Drive-by tags may be removed by any editor if there is no indication of discussion on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, Iridescent and Hawkeye7. So if I could sum up, we don't think there is a specific DYK rule, and the global WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY doesn't require citations for books, but it wants publication details and says ISBN numbers are "useful". In this article, all but one of the books listed date from long before the ISBN system, and I had already added the one ISBN number that's possible. I notice Mandarax and Coffeeandcrumbs have helpfully added some OCLC numbers, which is a new thing to me, but no doubt useful, too. So I see no problem if I remove the {{ref improve}} tag that's in that section? Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
No need to reply, Maile66 has just removed it. Moonraker (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
When I promote articles for DYK, lists of books with ISBN or OCLC numbers don't trigger any red flags for me either. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your reading of these policies, Hawkeye7. But this rule would in general be dumb for DYK to adopt. While cleaning old articles for ITNRD, I have found several hoaxes and vandalism hidden in bibliography sections (in this case possible censorship). Sure, at FAC, we can trust editors not make up book names. But at DYK there is reasonable risk of hoaxes and mistakes based on personal knowledge slipping through. The simple rule should be that the DYK nominator can attest to every book's existence. Many articles improved for DYK were previously originally-researched bad articles. If OCLC or ISBN can't be found, I believe the item should be commented out until a good faith editor can find a physical copy of the book or reference in RS like a library database. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Since there is nothing specific in the DYK rules about this, it cannot be required. The rules are either there, or they aren't. Interpreting the rules in a way that an unspecified point in the rules might possibly be implied in spirit or practice, does not make it a rule. It either says it flat out, or it does not. Potential changes to the DYK rules should be discussed here and voted on. The ISBN or OCLC numbers are in and of themselves verification. Imbeded lists of works in a biography are in and of themselves a bibliography, partial or whole, of the article subject matter. Featured lists, which also appear on the main page, do not require a source next to every title on bibliographies. For instance, P. G. Wodehouse bibliography has none by each item. List of works by W. Somerset Maugham has it in some sections and not others. Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography has none. And so it goes. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Maile above. Also, notability criteria applies to the article as a whole, not individual facts that appear in that article. To reiterate Moonraker's point above, ISBN is a relatively new system in the history of publishing (1967), and requiring ISBN numbers would completely reshape what articles DYK can feature. OCLC is good but it isn't perfect—it has gaps. Finally, if I create an article about an author with a long and prolific publishing career that predates ISBN (let's take Katharine Newlin Burt as an example, since I did just create it), commenting out all the works I can't find secondary sources on provides a misleading view of just how prolific they were. "Selected novels" does not signify whether I've left out 2 or 20. --Nonmodernist (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zeige uns, Herr, deine Allmacht und Güte

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Requesting another editor give a final review of the hooks proposed here: the nominator requested a special occasion date of no later than April 13, so a prompt review is appreciated. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Revived from the archive. We're getting closer to the date, preps filling, and no review yet. we also have

The latter is now approved, - can it be please promoted to the prep in question, or to the special occasions area? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I put Template:Did you know nominations/Zeige uns, Herr, deine Allmacht und Güte in the special occasions area, and reserved a slot for it in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Now in Prep 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, and the other is also in progress --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Help! Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Lange (conductor), not interesting to one person, who believes that it is a reason to mark for closure. What do others think? We have a conductor who became chief of one of Germany's State Opera's (not so many) at age 36. Rare. I believe we should also mention what kind of music he makes, but am willing to give up that idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Please. At the moment we have a hook saying that a worm swallows mud. If that is interesting, a young conductor becoming chief of a State Opera should also be ineresting, + 2 other hooks. The birthday is 12 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Tanis (fossil site)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been working on this for about 6.5 days, since creating it at 16.22 UTC on 3 April. It's an article on what seems to be a major work of widespread public interest. The papers describe a comparatively huge range of new finds and conclusions - several of which seem likely to be individually very significant - and it's a rare discovery that (if the academic community concurs), could revolutionize knowledge in several fields.

The topic/article is also likely to be very highly engaged by the public if media cover it further - which they surely will. The sources for some aspects of the coverage are quite narrow, and a good balanced article, with fact checking, has taken more than usual time. I didn't want to start it in user space, because it's also a high profile current discovery as well, and needs to be findable within mainspace, even if in creation and not yet complete.

At this point I've only got the main paper to summarize and some points to research and clarify on the mainstream current scientific consensus, and a quick look at media and professional reception, then a bit of copyediting/condensing, and then remove the template and invent some really good DYK hooks. There's so many to choose from!

Being mindful of non-rule D9 in the supplementary guidelines, I'd like to ask up front that some kind DYK consensus might agree that it'll be fine if I need to take an extra 2-3 days, in light of the need to get this one right (more than most) and the fact it's a (potentially significant and extreme public interest topic) scientific discovery too. If not 2-3 days or so then at least an extra 30 hours beyond the usual 7. I'm damn tired, and there isn't much left to do. But I'd kinda like some sleep and as the contribs show, I've been up all night trying to clean and solidify what's already there, and I ought to rest and deal with RL matters (work etc) before returning to complete Tanis, without the edgy thought in the back of my mind whether that'll cost the article a chance in the DYK queue.

I'm too tired to reword this and avoid the barely disguised unsubtle appeal to sympathy, but if I check/ask now rather than at the last minute, it's probably better. Thanks all, I'm off to sleep now, and please say it's fine :) ! FT2 (Talk | email) 07:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Not controversial at all. No problem. Just nominate it as soon as you're back online. You can finish the page while the nomination waits for a reviewer. Ping me. I would like to review it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
After a second look, I have boldly moved the page to draft. The page was clearly not ready to be in WP:MAINSPACE. It would still qualify as a new article when it is moved back out of WP:DRAFT.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Would Maria Roszak be eligible for DYK?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This was created in November last year, but speedy deleted within 24h. I've rewritten and expanded this article, and republished it last week. As of now, it's still under a week of my republishing, but how does the deletion of the old article last year impact the DYK eligibility? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd review that as fine. Ping me when nominating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Since it was deleted so quickly, I don't think this would require a 5x expansion, even though a fair amount of the article is still intact. It should have been nominated on April 9, seven days after it was moved back to article space, but since you asked here on that day, I imagine a day's leniency (it was nominated earlier today) will be granted as well. Next time, please ask sooner. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe we typically treat formerly deleted and recreated articles as new ones. I've seen a case before, but unfortunately can't recall the name. -Zanhe (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
London Irish Amateur was one where it was recreated and treated as new. 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Royal C (talk • contribs)

Update is 2 hours late

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

@Shubinator: the DYKUpdateBot has not run since it did yesterday's update. And I'm going offline in a few minutes, so I don't have time to do it manually. Any other admins available to do this? — Maile (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: @Shubinator: Does anybody know why this didn't run? Can we expect it to go alright tonight? It's 1am for us now after hour changes, so too late for me to do anything if it doesn't update correctly. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: DYKUpdateBot has made no edits since 00.02 April 10. Shubinator is the only one who would know why, and he has not been online since he restarted the bot on March 28. It will probably require a manual update, and I don't think I'll be online at the time needed. @BlueMoonset: is there anyone you can get to do a manual update if Shubinator does not restart the bot? — Maile (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I can ask Materialscientist, who did last night's manual update. The update was done at about 04:23, though I see you've reset the time so the next update will be at 00:00 if the bot is back. Maybe Materialscientist can check at 00:30 or 01:00 and, if the bot hasn't promoted Queue 1, do an update then with a Next update/Time increment by one day but with the time staying at 00:00? I'll try to check back around that time myself. I did post a note on Shubinator's talk page that will be seen the next time they're online, but we've sometimes had to go many days using manual updates before the bots were restarted. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: - @Materialscientist: originally reset the clock at 04.25, and I thought that might have been an error. But if he wants to set it back to that, or you have other wishes, I have no problem either way. Whatever works here. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back online. Logs don't show anything out of the ordinary, which often means the server it was running on went down. Sorry for the downtime! Shubinator (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6, cave hook in quirky slot

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, so I am not sure about the process here, but a few days ago I was trying to help Gerda get a hook she liked for an article she had written and her wishes were very much taken into account. So is it possible my wishes could be similarly be worked with? My request is that the hook for the cave include the nickname Sarlacc's Pit, which is both cited and I think the most clickable fact in the article. For example, ... that a newly discovered cave nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit has an entrance 100 metres (330 ft) long? Or ... that a cave discovered in 2018, nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit, has an entrance 100 metres (330 ft) long? Thank you, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since the page is in the middle of a move discussion, I've returned the hook to WP:DYKNA until the discussion is concluded. Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Holy Week and Easter

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Same procedure as every year: We have a few hooks related to the Christian liturgical calendar, and not all of them are already in Special occasions, as I am not supposed to move hooks there which I nominated.

18 April - Maundy Thursday: Template:Did you know nominations/Christus, der uns selig macht in addition to others for the day - fine, that's done!

  Done 1 hook promoted. Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

19 April - Good Friday: several in special occasions, several pictured

  Done 3 hooks promoted. Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

20 April - Holy Saturday: one in special occasions

  Done 1 hook promoted. Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

21 April - one to come (not pictured) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen! is currently awaiting approval for Easter day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of March. Right now we have a total of 257 nominations, of which 116 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two from last year and the two from January.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A question about process

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am asking this question here, because the Admin concerned does not have the politeness to reply to questions on his talk page. I do not want to re-open discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry B. Neilson, where it died down a week ago. Several others have agreed with me that there was no good reason for the hook to be "pulled" at the last minute, with no opportunity to talk about the issues belatedly raised. I did not agree there was any need for a further discussion, but one did then happen. My unanswered question is this, Who takes the matter forward from there? Does this nomination now return to a queue, and if so how? It seems unlikely that is the end of the matter, but it surely should not be necessary for the nominator to chase anyone up. My biggest objection is to the present nit-picking culture at DYK, but the processes for "pulling" hooks and what happens next are not user-friendly at all. Moonraker (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I will volunteer to review the nomination again. But can you answer a question for me. Where did you get the list of books? IMO, a book can only be considered a reliable source for its own existence if the editor who is creating the bibliography has access to the book itself. Otherwise, you must have gotten this list from some other currently uncited source.----- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Second question: Why do you consider Christopher Proudlove a reliable source? You cite his blog several times, at times as the source for entire paragraphs? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, thank you for your offer, but there is a reviewer already, Vanamonde93. The short answer to your first question is that I created the list. The books appear in Worldcat, Google books, and similar sources. I do not agree that it is necessary for an editor to have a book physically in hand, or available in full online, in order to be able to list it. There is a discussion already on this page about the WP policy for bibliographies, which you may find it helpful to refer to, please see the thread "Is there a DYK rule that books listed in an article need to be referenced, as claimed?" above. Christopher Proudlove is independent of the subject, who of course has been long dead. I have to say you seem to be approaching the matter negatively, so on the whole I should rather you did not try to take over from Vanamonde. Moonraker (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Complaint

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Amakuru has advised me that this is the place to complain about his behaviour over the Harry B. Neilson nomination. Please see the thread "Queue 5 lead hook" above and also Template:Did you know nominations/Harry B. Neilson. The DYK process needs people to show reasonable judgement, and I do not believe Amakuru has shown it. There was never any credible challenge to the hook. A weak complaint was made very late in the day, not allowing reasonable time to deal with it. The word "depicted" does not assert that Neilson was the author of the book. By using the available ALT1, the trivial concern about one repetition of the word "fox" would have been dealt with. The other repetition of the word is inherent in the hook, and in any event there is (sensibly) no DYK rule about whether any word is repeated. Having "pulled" the hook and re-opened the nomination page, Amakuru is now saying that there needs to be a further discussion, and a new "consensus" needs to be formed, before the hook can be returned to a queue, but he has no opinion, which is far from helpful. But there may or may not be any further discussion, and no one except Amakuru sees anything wrong with ALT1 to require this further process and further delay, and he will not say what exactly he sees wrong, to help the further discussion, if there is one. I do believe Amakuru is in denial, and I do not see why I and others, including Vanamonde93, should be put to unnecessary trouble. In any event, where do we go from here? Moonraker (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Moonraker is referring to my original post Queue 5 lead hook and to the actions resulting from my post. See the nomination template Moonraker has linked. For my part, which started this, I was mindful of the various complaints we get over at WP:ERRORS when there is repetition of words in a hook. Or hooks that get yanked from the main page when there is no immediate response to a concern. From an admin point of view, I think there is a culture here that encourages all of this. My post was about 3 hours before the scheduled rotation. I am not faulting anybody in any of this, but having been on the receiving end of things I thought were nitpicking, I understand the frustration. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, I am not complaining about you, except that your points came very late in the day. My complaint is about the poor judgement of Amakuru and his idea that a whole new process needs to be spun out which is not justified, while at the same time he is not willing to explain himself. I agree with you that there is a culture which encourages nitpicking, but the problem goes beyond that. And my question stands, where do we go from here? — by which I meant with the Harry B. Neilson nomination, but there is a general problem of what to do about high-handedness which needs to be thought about. There are people who are voting with their feet by walking away from this project, and I am almost there myself. Moonraker (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Moonraker: I understand you're not complaining about me, but I wanted readers to understand what triggered this. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru has followed the correct procedure here; if there are concerns about the accuracy of a hook and no obvious method of fixing it on the fly, then it's better the hook be pulled before it reaches the main page as if it is pulled afterwards, it will probably never be restored. So what Amakuru did was actually a boon to you Moonraker, even though it may not seem like it. Any issues with the hook can now be dealt with thoroughly without any time pressure and it can be re-promoted when ready. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that there needs to be some way to stop hooks just being yanked because one admin doesn't like the wording. Indeed on AFD my FBI ransomware hook (which had been approved for 3 months prior for objections to be made) only got 3 hours before it was yanked. By some miracle, it still got enough views to go on the stats board but imagine how much more it could have had if the admins had been willing to allow for changes. It should be that unless there is some policy violation, the nominator should be included in the discussions and given the chance to make amends rather than it being chucked in some discussion page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-reasoned comments, The C of E. I don't know how we go about getting some due (and timely) process going here. I do think it is essential for nominators to be notified at once and in good time when new complaints are raised. Moonraker (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The hook was pulled because it was inaccurate. Perhaps you should stop blaming people for doing the responsible thing by pulling erroneous hooks, and start taking some responsibility for proposing an incorrect hook in the first place, because it's ultimately your mistake that resulted in the hook being pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I think there was a slight difference in senses of humour for the day in question. It was hardly inaccurate when it was reviewed and approved by a 3rd party, held for 3 months in the public pages for people to make any objections, promoted by an independent set builder, put in queues by an admin and even there were no complaints from even the unofficial errors page. Hardly my fault if people have a difference of opinion with all of the above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass you are claiming the hook was pulled because it was "inaccurate". Amakuru has not yet replied to explain any way in which it was wrong in his opinion, instead he has talked about concerns being raised, which is not the same thing at all. Admins need to explain themselves when questioned. Would you please explain your reasoning here, as he will not? I have other complaints about the way Amakuru has dealt with this matter, which I have just raised on his talk page. If he does not reply to those, you may wish to do it for him. There is another question I am going to ask below about DYK policy, which I think has been misrepresented without any correction. Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Moonraker, when I said the hook was pulled because of an inaccuracy, I assumed that the inaccuracy in question was that raised by Maile66 in the thread above, where she noted that "According to Six Centuries of Fox Hunting, the poem is a children's parody where foxes ride the hounds in search of the farmer's broom. So the foxes aren't actually fox hunting. They're broom hunting." That, along with the objection to the repetition of "foxes", struck me as sufficient reason to pull the hook. Now in reviewing the nomination page, I'm surprised to find that Amakuru does not mention this issue, but rather states that he pulled the hook because of another issue Maile raised, namely a potential confusion between the author and the illustrator. You've claimed that was not a legitimate issue but Mandarax noted at the nomination page that "depicted" is ambiguous and that it therefore was a legitimate issue. In short, you had a hook with several repetitions and two errors, so quite frankly, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. The hook was defective and needed work. And even if you want to contest that they were legitimate issues, the fact remains that three separate issues had been raised, and you cannot expect an administrator to fix all that on the fly. So once again, I reiterate that I think Amakuru was justified in pulling the hook, and once again, I cordially remind you that absolutely no harm has been done to you by the fact that the hook was pulled, as it merely allows the community more time to come up with a better hook. Gatoclass (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass at least it is now clear that you were making a sweeping claim without having paid any attention to the matter at all. Your comment was an appeal to authority, with the authority being a passer-by. Even now, you have not paid much attention. The "fox hunting" point is valid at first sight, but it could have been dealt with quickly and easily simply by adopting the ALT1 which I had offered, in case that point was raised as a problem. It certainly did not justify "pulling" the hook at the last minute, without any time for ALT1 to be pointed out, but there is no reason why Amakuru could not have found that for himself. I can agree that the hook approved by Vanamond and promoted was in a small way "inaccurate", but that is not correct of ALT1. Those concerned knew these points had been raised many hours before anyone had the courtesy to alert me, which is discourteous and very unhelpful. Your second point, the repetition of a word, strikes me as pathetic, and with ALT1 there was *one* repetition, not "several". So far as I am aware, there is no DYK rule about repeating words, please correct me if I am wrong. On "ambiguity", almost all English words are ambiguous, and many good hooks have much greater ambiguities than the one you are claiming to see here. The harm done is that my time is being wasted by all this nonsense. Some of us here are made weary by such sad point-scoring and nit-picking. Moonraker (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
at least it is now clear that you were making a sweeping claim without having paid any attention to the matter
Not at all Moonraker, I looked at the hook pull and decided, based on the objections to it, that the pull was valid. I didn't read the entire thread at the nominations page because I didn't need to, having already concluded from the issues raised that there was good reason for the pull. So it matters not that Amakuru pulled the hook for one reason and not, apparently, the other; they were both valid reasons in my view. With regard to ALT1, I did look at that and decided it was insufficiently clear, while the subsequent discussion has surely demonstrated that there was no obvious replacement hook to hand, given that there still isn't an agreed-upon hook. Why you've continued to harp on this is quite mystifying to me, given that it's a trivial issue that I have been at pains to explain has actually advantaged you, given that it prevented the hook being pulled from the main page which would have deprived you of the opportunity to have your article showcased there. But if you really feel Amakuru has done you some sort of injustice, there's nothing to stop you taking the matter up at WP:AN, though I can't imagine that you will find any more satisfaction there. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass I see you are avoiding my question, apparently in support of the culture of nit-picking and time-wasting which sadly is endemic here. I asked you to explain your reasoning, and you have not done that. *Why* exactly do you say both were "valid reasons"? In what way was ALT1 "insufficiently clear", which word in it do you object to, and why? Also, I do not see any intention on the part of Amakuru to bring this nomination back into a queue. In what way is that outcome "trivial"? Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Moonraker, Amakuru is under no obligation to return the nomination to the queue, that's not his job, his job is quality control. The DYK project will return the nomination to the queue by the usual procedures if and when an appropriate hook is approved. With regard to your other comment, I am not "avoiding your question", if I haven't replied to your satisfaction that's unfortunate but I've tried and nothing further is going to be achieved by dwelling on this. As for "nit-picking", perhaps I should point out that I am not the one who raised any of these issues, all I've said is that Amakuru's hook pull was defensible in the circumstances, because if there isn't an obvious fix for an erroneous hook, there is no choice but to pull. The task to hand now is finding a hook that has consensus, so please let's focus on that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Not either editor, but having participated in the discussion, I think the objection was mainly based on the word "depicted". Presumably the hook, which states "... that in The Fox's Frolic (pictured), Harry B. Neilson depicted hunting in which the foxes do the hunting?", does not clearly convey the fact that The Fox's Frolic is actually a book, and that Neilson was an artist who illustrated the book. Meaning, the hook could be misinterpreted to mean that Neilson made an illustration called The Fox's Frolic, or even that Neilson wrote the book. Indeed, I myself got confused with the wording, hence some of my earlier comments in the nomination. At least from the way I see it, while there was some confusion over the whole affair (and I can't really blame editors considering how long and winding the discussion ended up becoming), there did seem to be consensus that ALT1 might not have been clear enough to potential readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. Hooks are expected to be concise and to convey at least one fact, not a mass of facts. They often refer to the title of some work or other and do not need to explain that it is a narrative poem (as here) or a pop song, or whatever, and also say who else worked on it. You see my question above, and I think you are saying the answer is the word "depicted", thank you. But that word has a clear enough meaning for the purpose of a concise hook: it is a meaningful verb, the subject of it is "hunting", and the agent is Neilson. Neilson depicted hunting, and he did it in something unidentified called "The Fox's Frolic". This is all accurate and clear enough. As it happens, the extra discussion on the nomination page which has now died down has thrown up a less concise suggestion which you might prefer and I can live with, but I still see nothing remotely inaccurate or unclear about ALT1, and I was hoping Gatoclass could explain why he does. Moonraker (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators needed to promote to the queues

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Preps 4 and 5 are ready to promote to the queues. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Maile (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
@Flibirigit: @Joseph2302:
Could someone please tell me why anyone would click on anything past the first bolded link in this hook? Or even that? I have no idea what a Summit Series is. I have no idea who are all the people listed here. I will move this out of the image slot if it can't be made more hooky. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
One possible way to resolve this could be to mention that the Summit Series was a series of ice hockey games between the Soviet Union and Canada. It might be a bit difficult to do that without making the hook even longer (it's already pretty long at 181 characters), or while also mentioning the other people. I'll try to give this a stab nonetheless:
ALT1 ... that the 1972 Summit Series, a series of ice hockey games between the Soviet Union and Canada, was agreed upon at the Hotel International Prague (pictured)?
ALT2 ... that the 1972 Summit Series, the first international ice hockey games played between players from the Soviet Union and Canada, was agreed upon at the Hotel International Prague (pictured)?
I understand that both of these (admittedly long) options would involve only focusing on the hotel; if either or both nominators still wish for all names to be mentioned, then I don't think there could be any option other than Yoninah's suggestion above. Otherwise, the names would need to have their own separate hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
All 5 articles are DYK eligible, so no reason to only link to one of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I meant what can be done here could be to write one hook on just the hotel, then write a separate hook that mentions Kryczka, Starovoytov, Ahearne, and Page. Something like "DYK that [these people (insert names here)] approved the 1972 Summit Series, which was..." or wording to that effect. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's the wording I had in mind, for reference:
DYK ... that Joe Kryczka, Andrey Starovoytov, Bunny Ahearne, and Fred Page approved the agreement that led to the first international ice hockey games between Soviet and Canadian players?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Narutolovehinata5. I'm moving this out of the image slot for now, as I really don't see why the hotel should be spotlighted. Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please remove this nomination from prep area 1 and return to the nomination stage. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: OK, but what about the special date request? Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Please disregard the special occasion request and return to the nomination stage. Flibirigit (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Well there's certainly precedent for multiple bold hooks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Multiple_Article_Hook_Hall_of_Fame Umimmak (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Umimmak: the question is not about the number of articles but the hookiness of the hook itself. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person 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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

First of all, the set has two hooks by the same author, which is something that is usually discouraged here. Would it be possible to move one to another set? The Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz hook probably could run on another day since the other hook is intended for Good Friday.

And speaking of Good Friday, I don't really understand what's so quirky about the Popule meus hook. It's hard to understand, seems to focus on too many aspects (is the focus the Improperia or the Trisagion? I would suggest sticking to just one fact), and speaking as a Christian myself, is frankly very bland. Surely, since this is a Good Friday hook, something better than this can be suggested?

Finally, I'm not sure if the current hook for Sophie Alexander is a good idea; isn't that technically a BLP violation? At the very least, it seems a bit too negative for me. How about a hook about her studying nursing or previously playing basketball? Those seem more interesting (and positive) than her getting a concussion.

Courtesy ping nominators Gerda Arendt and Teratix, reviewers 7%266%3Dthirteen and Zanhe, and promoter Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Both the Seven Words and Popule meus work on Good Friday and no other day. (Not on Thursday when not yet on the Cross, nor on Saturday when He doesn't speak. Both are about what Jesus presumably speaks.) Sorry that I wrote both the same year. Popule meus was planned, and the other a spontaneous inspiration. If we have strict rules about no two in a set by same author, drop Popule meus, at all. If you don't want to drop it, you can write what the two terms mean. I thought they are familiar for English-speaking people, because they are the common names used as article titles. How could I possibly know that this is not so? If only two liturgical texts use old Greek, how is it bland to say that this one uses it? It could probably come out more clearly, - always open to wording help. But again, if we can have only one of the two, take the more substantial - unusual - inspiring later composers up to the 21st century - Schütz. Most people where I live will have Popule meus anyway, every Good Friday. I couldn't believe that it had no article. It's not at all quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
If the current hook is not at all quirky then that's all the more reason that the current hook can't work. Like I mentioned to you before, not all Wikipedia readers are Catholics, let alone Christians, and many won't even understand what any of these concepts are. Hooks would need to be written in such a way that even, say a Buddhist or an atheist would understand. I actually think the Popule meus hook should be the one that must run on Good Friday, since the reference to the crucifixion there is more explicit. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry: I didn't know in this case that the terms are not familiar. Repeating: when I see Improperia as the article name, I assume that it will be known to the average English-speaking person, and how could I know that it is not? Same for the other. I didn't mean the hook to be quirky, the topic is not quirky.
The approved hook was ... that Popule meus is a motet by Tomás Luis de Victoria, setting refrains from the Improperia for Good Friday, including the Greek-Latin Trisagion?
Both terms appear in a connection to something known, Improperia with Good Friday, and Trisagion with Greek-Latin. I don't think that a reader who doesn't know what Good Friday, Greek and Latin means, will enjoy the article. Someone who does can learn two new terms. If you think that is teaching too much:
fewer terms: ... that Popule meus is a motet by Tomás Luis de Victoria, setting refrains from the liturgy for Good Friday, including the Greek-Latin Three-times Holy?
How is the following "deal": I don't write the article meant for Easter (meant a bit higher up), and may IAR have two on Good Friday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the issue here, hooks are meant to be enjoyed by those who are unfamiliar with the subjects in questions. Hooks are intended to be interesting to a broad audience, not a limited one. You mentioned that you don't think "a reader who doesn't know what Good Friday, Greek and Latin means, will enjoy the article", and that is the main problem here. You seem to be implying that the hook intentionally isn't meant for wide readership, which is simply not how DYK works.
Take for example, the Prep 3 hook on Shah Faesal. Speaking as someone who is not very familiar with Indian or Kashmiri history, I nevertheless find the hook easy to understand and interesting. It appeals to me, an layman. Another example would be the Prep 6 hook on Lydia Purdy Hess. I admit not to know much about paintings other than the most famous names, but I still find the hook interesting because it focuses on an aspect of her life that would be appreciated even by those who aren't familiar with art. And similarly, the said hook is clear, its main hook fact (sketching and painting while flowing on a river) has a broad appeal, and is easily understood. By contrast, the Popular meus hook is something that won't make any sense to those who are not "in the know", and indeed, I would argue that it isn't really good even for people who know what Good Friday or Greek/Latin are.
WP:DYK states that The hook should include a definite fact that is ... interesting to a broad audience, and the appeal of said hook is anything but broad. Think of this way, when writing a hook, try to write a hook as if you're explaining classical music or religion to, for example, a video game player or a fashion designer. Don't try to write a hook that only your fellow classical music enthusiasts would get, that defeats the purpose of DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggesting the following hook for Popule meus, which uses some more familiar terms and adds an interesting fact that may give it more punch:
(Adding): while we like to avoid more than one hook by a single author in a set, we sometimes end up running more than one on regular days, so I think a second hook for this one day is not so outre that we should exclude one of them for that reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to reword that BlueMoonset? It's still a bit tricky to read, considering the clause in the middle. Is there a way to present the hook in a straighter way? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict:) Thank you. I like the hook, and the exception-making. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, we could displace "Good Friday" into that middle clause, which I had considered doing, and attach the clause to the initial segment:
Does that help? I thought about an initial "in the Good Friday Reproaches motet", but it seemed like an up-front indigestible lump, as opposed to a later mention of "Reproaches" (an interesting word) almost as an aside. This version restructures it so it isn't an aside. It's fine, though I don't think it's quite as graceful as it would be with the bracketing commas. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's the version with the bracketing commas, just for comparison's sake:
I think the last option is the best one thus far. Gerda Arendt If you're fine with this wording, it can probably be put back in Prep. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
As we're talking about the Good Friday set, May I posit that it may be more suitable to use one of the images of the crucifixion in the set on this day which has significance to the majority of the world opposed to the current one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: for a special occasion, we do not adhere to one hook per nominator. See the April Fools set, where The C of E had about 3 hooks per set. The same happens with sporting events when one editor supplies numerous hooks. So Gerda's two hooks are not a problem.
  • I opted not to use a Christian image for Good Friday because I thought Easter Sunday would be more widely celebrated around the world, and I would like to use an image for that day. Yoninah (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I was out, so don't know where to put comments.
  • I like the Popule meus hooks by BlueMoonset, and I accept that no image. However, while Easter is widely celebrated, images are a problem, and the one suggested in Christ is risen simply has nothing to do with that specific hymn. In the German Wikipedia, I had a suggestion with abstract art, thinking that Resurrection is better abstract, but the image is threatened with deletion because the art is still under copyright. It's sad because a person pictured just died, - you may have seen that on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To answer the OP's concern about the Sophie Alexander hook, concussions are common in contact sports, and there's no shame or negativity (other than in a physical sense, obviously) associated with them. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I know, but I can't help but feel that a hook that focuses on an injury is not a good idea, it just seems to negative instead of a feel-good story. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Since when do hooks have to "feel good"? This isn't in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Concussions are accidental and do not reflect poorly on the victim. The hook is neutral, not negative; as Yoninah said, there is no requirement that hooks be positive. Australian rules football is a very physical sport and in a twisted way brutal bumps are part of its appeal to viewers. For example, Steven May's 2016 bump which concussed Stefan Martin made headlines in the UK and US. Being concussed in your first match of professional football is especially unlucky. As the sport is not widely followed outside its native country, it is difficult to compose hooks which will have international appeal. A great many of my previous hooks focus on injuries as they are one of the few ways to ensure they have universal interest. – Teratix ₵ 00:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Easter Sunday image

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to ask for broader consensus from the community on the inclusion of this hook in the lead image slot:

 
Jesus after his Resurrection

Please comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Is Risen! Christ Is Risen!. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I have approved ALT2A with the image, and Gerda has approved ALT2 without the image. Promoter's choice. We don't have time to putz around on this, with Easter Sunday being 4 days away. The approved hook has been moved to the appropriate special holding area. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. Since I wrote the hook, someone else will have to promote it. If it doesn't make the image slot, the HMS Splendid has a nice image of the crew (it wasn't submitted with the article, but it's freely-licensed). Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously I would say this but I feel it would be more appropriate if we did use the image for Easter, especially if we're not using a Christian image on Good Friday. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I also think we should use the Easter image. I honestly don't see what is the problem with it. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I also would like the image. @Gerda Arendt: posted on my user talk page that she had looked through Commons and saw no image she thought suitable. That being the case, it really needs to be an uninvolved party to make the choice - the promoter should decide. — Maile (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Can we please promote this now? The lead image slot for Easter has been kept vacant for this and I am mindful we're running short of time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is on the template, please comment there. The lead slot for Easter Day is open, but not necessarily for this image. It could be a different image, or a different article in the lead position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously I'd prefer the image to be used but as Easter is tomorrow, this needs promoting either with or without the image as it has hooks approved for both. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Aporometra wilsoni has a catchy image, and Template:Did you know nominations/Venetian Renaissance architecture is a substantial article which could go with the bright image of a famous villa, somewhat down in the nom. (I had nothing to do with either.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There is a complaint about the copyright status of the current image on main-page errors. Could an expert look into this urgently, please? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on the evidence I would say likely copyvio. Kees08 (Talk) 05:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have hidden it and requested protection of the similar image, but am going offline now, so someone else will have to add it, if they judge the copyright status adequate (I'm not sure if such a close variant can be free if the original is protected, but I am no expert on US copyright). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
ETA: The bot protected it as I was typing, so the variant is up now. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
As a note, that replacement image is also a copyvio, as it is a clear derivative of the original 1990 image. --Masem (t) 18:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_156&oldid=1085471641"