Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115

Changing meanings

Removed from Queue 6 (lead hook, with picture). Template:Did you know nominations/Hackett Hall McKnight. @Sionk, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:

  • ... that the Northern Irish architecture firm Hackett Hall McKnight created the Belfast MAC (pictured), described as one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century"?

The hook is incorrect, the building has not been described as one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century". What the source[2] actually says is that Belfast has "two of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and the MAC is one of them. So the correct conclusion is that the MAC is one "of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century" which can be found in Belfast, next to presumably other "most stunning new British buildings of the century" in other places. If the source had stated that Belfast had "the two most stunning new British buildings of the century", then the hook would have been correct. "Two of" clearly indicates though that there are more than these two in that implicit list... Fram (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

or ... you could have quietly deleted the words "the two" and saved others extra work. Please try and improve what you find and minimise the corrections required when you find an error please. Victuallers (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I try not to be confrontational here, and I do greatly appreciate Fram's fact-checking after the nomination has been promoted to the prep and queue, but I would also appreciate it if on these minor corrections, Fram could just make the correction and note it here on the DYK talk page, rather than pull the hook and give everyone a figurative slap on the hand. Yoninah (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
"Minor corrections" are grammatical ones and the like, capitalization, adding or removing a "the", ... A change that changes the meaning of the hook is not a "minor correction" and I will not make this in the queue on my own (there is no guarantee at all that I am actually right, it may be that the original hook was correct and my concern misplaced). Fram (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Victuallers: no, per my reply to Yoninah. The aim is not to minimize the extra work, the aim is to get more eyes on this. From Nomination to Queue gets 4 pair of eyes, I am not going to change the meaning of a hook on my own against the review / opinion / work of 4 others. I pull it, note it here and at the nomination page, and then it gets rereviewed, corrected (or the original hook turns out to be correct after all), and reposted. I am not going to short-circuit the system just to avoid the extra work this may cause. We can just as well abolish the whole review system in that case. Fram (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mixing proposed hooks isn't always a good idea

I removed a hook from queue 3. Template:Did you know nominations/Mother (video game) @Czar, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:

According to the article, the source, and the proposed hooks, it was Itoi who made a pitch, and Miyamoto's reaction to that pitch made Itoi cry. Fram (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor who proposed this hook and marked it as reviewed at the same time has now responded at the nomination page. Apparently I not only have to find the problems people create by proposing factually incorrect hooks and reviewing their own hook, I also have to pick another hook, review it, and put it straight into the queue, instead of dropping the above note here and letting the normal process take over. Fighting fire with fire is sometimes a good solution, but not here... Fram (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Cathedral was parish church

Unrelated to this hook, but in the same queue, we have

I have not removed it, as it is correct, but we can get any more boring? Cathedral history has only two options: either it existed before the diocese was created, and then it was usually a parish church, or the cathedral was only built after the diocese was created. Having a cathedral that first was a parish chruch is an utterly common occurrence. Just looking at the first ten Philippine cathedrals, the same can be said for Antipolo Cathedral, Baguio Cathedral, Balanga Cathedral, Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity, Caloocan Cathedral, Cathedral of St. William the Hermit, Cubao Cathedral and Imus Cathedral. Only Cebu Metropolitan Cathedral and Daet Cathedral were a cathedral from the very start (i.e. constructed after the diocese was established).

A hook should highlight something special, noteworthy, quirky, catching: not something commonplace as this. Fram (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and always have done but the general theme here is that anything which is nominated will eventually be featured, regardless of how dull it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
So true. The strange thing is, it's very seldom I see a lifeless hook, that on checking the article I don't find something much more snazzy that could be used instead. I don't know why nominators shoot themselves in the foot that way. EEng (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Tintype and crime

Another hook from the same queue:

Again, not removed, not factually wrong, but what a strange way to put things! "Rubens produced thousands of paintings focusing on oil on canvas and fat women?" Tintype is her medium, her style, crime is her subject. Fram (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That also looked odd to me when I promoted it. Could you change it to:
... that Deborah Luster produced over 25,000 tintype images focusing on crime? Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
But she created more than 25,000 images, and many of them were tintype: were there actually more than 25,000 tintype images? Something like "25,000 images, mostly tinype, focusing on crime", would that do? Fram (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
And it should definitely be "more than" and not "over". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
No matter how much we tweak it, the hook fact isn't even cited inline. Do you want to pull it (it's on the main page now)? Yoninah (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Normally, yes, but we are already down to a six-hook set, and I fear that some people would make a drama of having a 5 hook set... I changed it to "... that Deborah Luster produced more than 25,000 images, many of them using tintype, focusing on crime?", even though I'm not totaly happy with it either. Fram (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Fram, Yoninah, and The Rambling Man:ALTX ...that Deborah Lusters latest work, One Big Self, draws from over 25,000 photographs, mostly on tintype, portraits of prison inmates? ~ R.T.G 15:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog (again)

It's been very hard lately to put together decent prep sets with as little as 15 approved hooks at a time. Even now as I write, there are only 25 approved hooks for 360 nominations, and if I start reviewing them to build a prep set, I'm sure I'll invalidate a few. I'm wondering if it's time to nullify the exemption from QPQs for non-self-nominations. Anyone who wants to get an article onto the main page should help reduce the backlog, not add to it. Yoninah (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am in favour of your suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see an issue as long as we ensure quality reviews are still conducted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Non-self-nominators will have to do the same QPQ as everyone else. If they do a shoddy job, their nomination won't pass. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I want do some reviews. I'm also participating the GA Cup, writing some new articles, working part-time, and applying to grad school. So I'm planning to do some reviews, but I need to balance my time.--¿3family6 contribs 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for consensus

Consensus is fairly clear: starting from this datestamp, new nominations by non-self nominators are required to include a QPQ review, with two caveats: 1) nominations made before this time stamp are grandfathered in, meaning they do not need a QPQ to be reviewed but should be treated in accordance with the previous rules, and 2) as with self-nominations, there is a grace period of five non-self nominations (including the time before this date stamp) before a QPQ is required. I will update the rule pages.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me put that a bit more crisply:
  • Every nomination (self-nom or not) made on or after 21 Nov 2014 UTC requires a QPQ, except that an editor's first 5 nominations (self-nom or not, and regardless of whether before or after 21 Nov 2014) do not require a QPQ.
  • Noms made before 21 Nov 2014 are subject to the old rules.
EEng (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Should we change the rules to require that non-self-nominators also submit a QPQ? Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Provisional support In times like these, then I would say that we should trial this proposal until the end of the year then drop it for a few months when the WikiCup starts and compare the difference. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all non-self-nominators. I could see requiring QPQs for, say, someone who nominates a GA that they promoted but didn't write. But to require it for everyone I think will come back to bite us in that the number of nominations will drop considerably and the project will lose content to put on the main page - as bad as having a backlog is, at least it means there are nominations to put on the main page. I'd support an alternative proposal such as a backlog drive (like the one going on for GAs right now - which actually might have contributed to the high volume of nominations here) to reduce the backlog.--¿3family6 contribs 15:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please clarify Is the proposal that (a) there's no difference between a self-nom and a I'm-nominating-someone-else's-article nom; and (b) everyone still gets to make 5 noms for free? EEng (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Clarifications: (a) Anyone who nominates an article, whether he wrote the article or is nominating someone else's work, must submit a QPQ. The goal is to reduce the backlog of unapproved nominations, not to penalize people who are trying to promote newbies' work (besides, frequent nominators get medals, just like article creators/expanders do). (b) As for the 5 noms for free, until now that rule has applied only to self-noms. We would have to decide if it applies to nominators of other people's work, since these non-self-nominators are generally people familiar with the DYK system and with writing hooks, so why shouldn't they review QPQs too? Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I support the basic idea no matter what, but I think it'll be easiest to just say everyone gets to make 5 free noms for free, but drop the distinction between self-noms and not-self noms. EEng (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I don't see why no reading of the opposite of what you said contradicts ... what? What you just said is, essentially, "Support. This is a bad idea." EEng (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that, as I must have been distracted when I wrote that, and I have struck the incorrect grammar accordingly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I think nominations made until this change is official would be subject to the old rules. EEng (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we can't add another rule just because of backlog, leading to generalization of all non-self-noms. We can beg for more volunteers rather than ask for another rule. What happened to hard work nowadays? --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Most of votes come from veterans of DYK or involved editors. It's time for more comments from uninvolved. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, right -- it makes no sense that those doing all the work put some kind of brake on the free ride. Very selfish indeed. EEng (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've had the same idea -- see User_talk:EEng#Informal_tracking_of_the_stats. EEng (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY would apply to this discussion. At least I did four QPQs for four nominations. --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, George Ho. All nominators of other people's work should be as good as you. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we close this alreadynow?

After 15 days, we have 19 Supports and 2 Opposes. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

By "already", do you mean "now"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes! Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'd interpret "already" as "yesterday". What we need is someone who knows all the places the rules and instructions need to be changed. EEng (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Would some admin please take responsibility for this? This is absurdly avoidable. —Swpbtalk 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
We're now five hours overdue, and there are five preps ready to promote. Admin needed as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why Qs empty ?

Why are all Qs empty and hooks not being promoted from prep areas ? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sutton Heritage Mosaic pulled from main page

See [3], but briefly the hook made no sense and I'm surprised this wasn't picked up earlier, in particular during the nomination.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The original hook wasn't specific about what the tiles were affixed to. I don't understand why the very small change I suggested, which makes it unambiguously correct, is being fought. Can an admin please look at this objectively and restore the hook with my suggested change? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't check the hook, and having opposed a similar previous Sutton hook, I'm not really uninvolved. But if, as you say, this is "the standard method which is used for creating large mosaics.", then your hook is not really interesting, surely? "This mosaic was glued with the standard method" is hardly a captivating or interesting hook. Fram (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not "my" hook; I merely suggested adding three words, and I haven't even read the article other than the relevant paragraph. What you say about the interest level actually had occurred to me. I was reminded of a hook which I had suggested long ago for some insect. The fact was something extremely interesting, but it was true not only for that specific species, but for every member of the genus. I thought it would still make a great hook because it would be an interesting fact unknown to everyone but experts on a small group of insects. Similarly, the methods used to construct large mosaics are not known by most people, and, as long as you don't word it the way you paraphrased it, the hook fact could be somewhat interesting to people unversed in the intricacies of mosaic construction. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I shouldn't have said "your" hook. Apart from that: using flour in glue is not really unusual (outside the world of mosaics I mean), so I don't think it is as interesting to many people as you do, but that's just opinion of course, not fact. Fram (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As a novice, I thought the hook was interesting, but the description didn't make sense to me and I suggested an alternative. The page creator added a link to the article but not to the hook to explain it better. When I saw it in the Queue, I thought it should have said "flour-and-water glue", but it was too late for me to do anything about it. Yoninah (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It was not my original hook suggestion, but when it was suggested by Serten, I agreed it was really intriguing, as the vast majority of readers would obviously know nothing about mosaic installation. Whether or not it is often done that way is neither here nor there as I see it; the fact is that it would seem interesting to many people, and intrigue them enough to make them click on the hook. Everyone else involved in the nomination agreed, either openly or tacitly. So, it was a bit disappointing to find that the hook had been pulled. Even if the hook alone did not enable people to completely understand all the ins and outs of the installation process, they would soon find out by reading the article, given that I had inserted a wikilink to Wheatpaste for "flour and water glue". And now that Yoninah has helpfully recast it as "flour-and-water glue", it is even clearer. So, my conclusion is that the hook should be re-run, but this time with the wikilink to wheatpaste in the hook as well as in the article, in order to satisfy any concerns. So, it should now read:
A P Monblat (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

But that's identical wording to the one that was pulled for making no sense. You can't affix tiles to an outside wall with flour and water, not unless you want them to come unaffixed at the first rain shower. The article explains it better and says something different in doing so. A hook is meant to hook readers because it's interesting, not because it's so obviously wrong that readers have to visit the article to understand what it should say.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnBlackburne is absolutely right of course. I realised my mistake soon after my edit, and was going to amend it, but he beat me to it! The correct hook incorporating the helpful suggested addition by User:Mandarax reads as follows:

A P Monblat (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case I agree with Fram that the hook is not really interesting, as it just describes a standard way of doing things.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Not everything has to be out-of-the-ordinary to be interesting. In this case the "ordinary" is little known about by the general public and intrinsically interesting. Besides, the only reason this hook was pulled was that, as it was not very specific, it could be seen as being inaccurate. No-one was ever claiming that the method was non-standard, merely that it would be unknown and intriguing to many people not well versed in the art of mosaic creation. I am sorry that the hook contained a problem, but it was seen by several people and finally approved; and, now that it has been corrected, it should be reinstated, I feel. A P Monblat (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification: when I said it was "a step in the standard method", I was referring to the practice of using some kind of water-soluble adhesive. I have no idea if a flour paste is standard or not. For all I know, it may be highly unusual. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point there from User:Mandarax. But, either way, it was an interesting idea for the hook from User:Serten, and is now completely clearly expressed. I think it should be reinstated - who is able to do this? A P Monblat (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Would be a great shame to lose this interesting article from DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
A statement like " You can't affix tiles to an outside wall with flour and water" is as OR based as plain nonsense. I have been participating in actual research about such agents and can confirm that e.g. oysters on rifts use water solvabe sugar variants to hold against sea spray, tides and waves and they are not washed away at all. DYK kills itself with such naive behavior. We have been here before and I start to loose interest. Do as you like. Serten (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
To editor Serten: (and others). Yes, I agree that this is disheartening. The "powers that be" re DYK seem to have forgotten this article and hook. User:Stephen pulled the hook from the front page after 5 hours, but has not reponded to the message I left on his talk page. Despite you and several other users (eg User:Mandarax, User:Martinevans123 and User:Yoninah) being upbeat, the DYK for the article seems to have died a death. Hopefully I am wrong...we shall see. A P Monblat (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
To editor JohnBlackburne: To editor A P Monblat: Compare Template:Did you know nominations/Piganino and Template:Did you know nominations/Mariam al-Mansouri. Seems its the new DYK normal. Serten (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This idea of pulling hooks from the main page because they don't make sense to some people (but they did make sense to others during the review process) is alienating DYK contributors faster than our laundry list of rules does. I am going to be bold and reopen the nomination, in the hopes that a new hook can be found and this good article will run its full 12 hours on the main page like every other. Yoninah (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
That's how Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors works. Anything on the main page, or about to go on the main page, can be brought up. The main reason I think is the main page is WP's most prominent page, and so it is worth the extra checking to ensure it has no issues. It's often the case that it can be easier to spot problems there, especially in smaller items like DYK, ITN, On this day and in their sets. As everywhere on WP people are only human and make mistakes. We have Main Page/Errors to try and stop them getting to the main page. Editors should not feel alienated when their edits are affected; anyone who gets upset when their edits are removed, from the main page as anywhere else, is not going to last long on Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Daraga Church on Prep 2

The approved hook for Daraga_Church different from the hook in the queue? Please see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Daraga_Church. Is it allowed to change the approved hook? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it happens all the time, but if you prefer the original feel free to change it back. (This change was merely stylistic, not any kind of correction). EEng (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
True, editing the promoted hook happens with some frequency and is normal, but if it happens, while the nominator is free to request here that the hook be changed back, it should be changed by someone else. Otherwise it's a conflict of interest. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, unless the person who made the change (I) says, "It was just a stylistic change, so go ahead and change it back." EEng (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

QPQ check non-functional?

this seems unlikely to be correct. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember that, based on discussion elsewhere on this page it's likely the QPQ rules are about to change. EEng (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but "does not work at all" is unlikely to change with the rules. Am I missing something, or did this tool not work for some time? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It's always been buggy. In particular, it has never worked on users like yourself and HJ Mitchell, who have a space in your names. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed

The article nominated in Template:Did you know nominations/Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year includes a chart of "Winners and nominees" that is completely referenced, but following that is a chart of "Multiple wins and nominations" that is not referenced at all. The page creator explains that the numbers in the second chart summarize the numbers in the cited chart. It is my understanding, however, that all charts must be cited for DYK. Meanwhile, the article just passed the criteria for Featured lists, even with the uncited chart. What should I do about this? Could I pass the nomination as is? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR allows elementary arithmetic e.g. counting # of wins for each artist. If we accept that the main table is OK, then summary table must be OK too (it can cite to the same sources the main table cited). EEng (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

1861 Boat Race

Now in prep 6, we have

from Template:Did you know nominations/The Boat Race 1861. @The Rambling Man and Bloom6132: it looks to me that the competitor in case is William Robertson (Australian politician), who hasn't been linked from the hook or the article. If this is indeed the same person, wouldn't it be better to change the hook to

The article will need to be adjusted as well of course. Fram (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article stuff done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done Hook adjusted in prep. Yoninah (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At present two of the three queues and all three of the filled prep areas have hooks relating to historic university boat races. Is not this a bit excessive? I think they should be spread out more thinly. And while on the topic of excessive nominations on similar subjects, I see that around October 16th / 17th there was a swarm of nominations on wasp species, the result of a class project, and these will not want to swamp the front page either. I propose to work my way through reviewing them over the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I have yet to see the Rambling Man's legs. Do you have a reliable source that says they're nice? I think not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Even though I say so myself, they're not too bad.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I meant that he does all the legwork around here, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth: the problem lies in the paucity of approved hooks and the need to fill 6 prep sets. There are around 26 approved hooks now (although when you start promoting them, you start finding undiagnosed problems with them), and the prep sets handle 42 hooks at a time. You can see why we're grabbing at straws to fill the prep sets – and when a university boat series comes through all nice and approved, it's a relief to just pop them in one after another. Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can all call you "Tinchy Rambler", or possibly (and more likely... ) Dappy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not really interested in actively participating this process any longer, particularly while it's all about quantity over quality. I've tried hard to participate in improving it and have met opposition on several fronts. I find it quite funny that my good work at GA can be "claimed" without any kind of discussion by another editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"I've kissed the moon a million times, Danced with angels in the sky". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yet you've never kissed my ass, why is this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just trying to pile on the irony. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the spirit! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional irony may be found here: Talk:Prawn_cocktail#Degrees_of_irony. EEng (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Going, going, but is it really gone?

Now in prep 2, from Template:Did you know nominations/Cubic Ninja. @ViperSnake151, Diego Grez, and Hawkeye7:

  • ... that copies of the poorly-received video game Cubic Ninja began selling for upwards of $500 after it was used for the first Nintendo 3DS homebrew exploit?

Well, they are being offered at prices ranging between $24 and $500. Not only don't the two sources claim that anyone asks more than $500, but nowhere is it said that any game has actually been sold for more than $500 or even exactly $500. Anyone can ask whatever price they want, it is only noteworthy when something gets actually sold.

  • First source: "Right now, the cheapest copy available from an Amazon seller is going for over $24, with one seller asking as high as $500." and also "eBay sale prices have shot up as high as $40, with even the "cheap" North American Buy It Now auctions going for a minimum of $25 or so. "
  • Second source; " Amazon sellers have jacked up their prices, leading to a range of prices between $40 and $500."

If $500 is the highest claimed asking price (according to our sources), then we shouldn't proclaim that they are selling for upwards of $500... Fram (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of actually being helpful and wishing to solve a problem, as opposed to simply complaining without trying to resolve anything, let me suggest an alternative hook for the nominator:
  • ... that asking prices for the poorly-received video game Cubic Ninja jumped to as much as $500 after it was used for the first Nintendo 3DS homebrew exploit?
I would have thought that should be OK; it's certainly supported by the sources. Prioryman (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, oh great guru of enlightenment (there, especially for you, a real example of passive-agressiveness). Any progress on those multiple sources to support your failed hook at C5 above? Do you really think you come across as believable when you complain about my supposed passive-agressiveness above (when you keep on making the same kind of errors after they have been politely pointed out to you), and then come here to berate me for only finding a problem and politely pointing it out, but not proposing a different hook at the same time? Anything else? Coffee? Tea? If you were really serious about "collaborating" and not wanting a toxic environment, then your post here was very ill-advised. If, as seems probable, you weren't serious about it and just wanted to complain about me, then be at least honest about it. In any case, I note that you don't believe it is helpful that some people try to check whether the hooks that are set to appear on the main page are correct. It explains a lot. Please come back to DYK when you have a better idea of what fact-checking and correctness are. Considering your history, it may take a while, but hope springs eternal. Until then, I'll continue my unhelpful simple complaining (which actually can take a surprising amount of work and is a rather necessary part of DYK queue building, but never mind that of course). Fram (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there a good reason why wikipedia requires editors to evaluate the edit and not the editor? Seems like a good idea to me. Can we re-introduce the idea here and stop the drama? Victuallers (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good thing we're late

Not an Eeng, yesterday, and not a Sinclair C5
The EEng (not to be confused with the Eeng) performs in rites and dances--ME123
ME123, next time I'm there I'll have you grilled on the witness stand. --EEng

It's a good thing we're a few hours late on the next update, or this GA hook should have been pulled from the main page instead of from Prep 1. Template:Did you know nominations/Sinclair C5 @Prioryman, Panyd, Hawkeye7, and BlueMoonset:

  • ... that although the Sinclair C5 electric vehicle (pictured) was once reviled as a notorious failure, one was modified to run at 150 mph (240 km/h) and set a world land speed record for electrics?

(note: this hook already was a replacement hook for another lead hook from that prep that has been pulled...)

"A world land speed record for electrics" is very vague of course, and understandably so. It will definitely not have been the world land speed record for electric vehicles, which stood at 174mph between 1974 and 2013 (the C5 did 150mph).[4] I can find no reliable sources confirming the lone regional newspaper article, nor any sources indicating which record exactly was broken. Considering that the article claims it was "the world land speed record for an electric vehicle", which was definitely not broken by a C5 going 150mph, I doubt that the source should be used at all for this article, and don't believe that we should run this hook.

As usual, when a hook claims a first, most, highest, fastest, ..., don't simply believe the source, but look for contradicting information please. Fram (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's such good advice I think it should go in the DYK supplementary rules/unwritten rules/institutional-memory rules, or whatever. Why don't you propose something? EEng (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we just advise "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is" and suggest reviewers find their own sources? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
An important aspect of the problem is that even a nominally RS has to be judged with respect to the assertion being made -- a newspaper is usually reliable for recent events in a given place, but (as observed) much less so for a blanket statement like "world record". An inexperienced editors and inexperienced reviewers don't understand this. EEng (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This thread looks too good to be true. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
A tangled problem indeed. EEng (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Well quite. Eeng doesn't have any inline citations. It therefore must not exist. QED. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Furry dice not pictured... (comes in kit form).
"It consists of a rectangular body made of wood and has one string that is bowed. It is performed in rites and dances." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's consider land speed records for a moment. The electrics are in Category A Group VIII on page 18. So we can get these people claiming a record 212.615 miles per hour (342.171 km/h) in August (in VIII class 3), while these guys set a record 106.966 kilometres per hour (66.466 mph) in October (in VII class 1). Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It was British electric land speed record and also the world record for an electric three-wheeled vehicle, which is probably a pretty small category. See Wired magazine [5].Prioryman (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Alas, the source in the article simply says: "Adam Harper, the driver who broke the world land speed record for an electric vehicle by whipping along at a staggering 150mph, was on hand to recount the tale of daring." ? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep. It seems that source conflates the two records that it broke - the British record for an electric and the world record for a three-wheeled electric. Wired gets it right. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Where does that Wired article say "three-wheeled"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It calls it a "tri-car", which is an expression I've never heard before. Full quote: "His first targets are the British land speed record for an electric vehicle and the world land speed record for an electric tri-car." It states 106 mph as the previous record. Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
But for our purposes, I think broke the world record for a three-wheeled electric? makes a really quirky hook. The article should be updated though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already taken care of that. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion started just fine, and then some people from the original discussion turn up and make basically the exact same mistake all over again. This is getting hard to believe (or accept). What Prioryman is proposing at the DYK template and here (and which I responded to at some length there) is typical WP:OR, and wrong to boot. Apparently he C5 did not break the world record for a three-wheeled electric, it didn't even match the speed set some 30 years before by such a vehicle[6] (record included in the list given above by Hawkeye7). If we don't get a good source that states exactly which record was broken, we shouldn't go with this hook at all. Trying to push it through anyway with some textbook examples of OR is really beyond the pale. I removed the same thing from the article as well. Fram (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how ridiculous! Like moths round a flame, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Fram is engaging in exactly the same OR that he's complaining about. It's clear that there are many different classes of electric racing vehicles [7]. The one he's highlighting here is one particular type of electric racing vehicle - something called an electric rail dragster. The C5 is not one of those, as even the most cursory look should confirm. The Wired article I quoted above, which Fram appears to be trying to ignore, speaks of a world record that stood at 106 mph. That is clearly not the same 175 mph record in the page that Fram's highlighting. We don't need to know which world record was broken, for the purposes of the hook or the article, merely that a world record was broken, for which we have multiple sources. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Blimey! I think we're all just getting a Lidl carried away. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Mulitple sources stating that a world record was broken? Please provide them. So far we have one, and that one is clearly incorrect. Fram (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And let's not forget that Hedlund is listed in the above long FIA list. Harper, or the C5, aren't. So we don't know what record he claims to have broken, nor when or where this happened, and it certainly wasn't certifieed by the FIA. We also know that his claimed speed wasn't the world land speed record for an electrical vehicle (claim of the single source we have), nor the world land speed record for an electrical three-wheeled vehicle (second attept by Prioryman to save the day). So we are left with a single claim in a regional newspaper that he broke an unofficial or uncertified world record in an unknown category at an unknown date and place. I don't get why you are fighting tooth and nail to get this as the hook. I do love it though that when I removed your OR from the article[8], you first revert me[9] (and claim here that no OR happened), only to then change the meaning completely one minute later[10]. Fram (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not willing to let this discussion become yet another outlet for your toxic, passive-aggressive approach to collaborating (a word with which you seem unfamiliar) with your fellow editors. I've suggested an alternative hook instead. Prioryman (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to have a dog in this fight, but I'm happy to assume good faith that Fram simply wants a hook on the main page that isn't going to trip up on WP:ERRORS, and I really think you should too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I was just about to highlight the irony of the statement "toxic, passive-aggressive approach" in such a toxic, passive-aggressive note. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I could get hold of a suitably toxic dog? Maybe it's just a case of sour grapes. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Fram's tone comes across, too often for my liking, as one of contemptousness and passive-aggression - as in this edit and summary. If he wants to be constructive he shouldn't be using denigratory language. He has a habit of doing this, e.g. "Please keep your patronising bullshit to yourself" and suchlike, and others have repeatedly asked him to keep the tone of discussions constructive, which he seems to be unable to do. I'm sure many DYK regulars will have noticed similar behaviour. This kind of needlessly confrontational approach isn't helpful and doesn't contribute to an amicable discussion. Prioryman (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want constructive editing instead of contempt, then don't waste my time. You can check all my entries here for the last month or so. I always keep them neutral and to the point, pointing out the problems (either that the source doesn't support the hook, or that other sources disagree with it), with a ping to the involved editors but without pointing fingers, commenting on editors, or otherwise acting hostile. Most editors seem to appreciate the effort (in finding and documenting the error) and try to find a correct alternative hook. This may need further tweaking or discussion, but that's normal. Just look at how this discussion proceeded until your ill-informed attempts appeared. You, on the other hand, try to save your hook with some complete misreading of sources (a source from 8 years before where he claims to want to break some particular records, is used by you as evidence that he broke those particular records?) and then go on to claim to have more sources to back you up ("for our purposes we have reports (not solely the one in the article, either) stating that a 150 mph drive in a C5 set a new record.") but fail to provide these, even when asked to do so. You can try to paint me in any bad light you like, but I have only contempt for people who make up stuff to protect their preferred hook. When you aren't interested in a constructive discussion (the kind where you listen to the position of the other, and present actual evidence for your own position), then don't expect an amicable response. Fram (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
....Think I'll just stick to painting the fence. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I know I speak for others in saying I appreciate your efforts, and understand an occasional show of exasperation at so many illogical, half-baked "facts" getting waved into the preps. EEng (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks Fram for trying to get things right. I'm a bit annoyed that my completely different ALT has been ignored. The worst case scenario is that Fram, EEng, TRM or someone else could say "that hook's no good because of x,y,z" and give me a valid reason, and I'd say "okay, fair enough, looks like we're not doing to get a DYK, time to drop the stick". Which is what you should do in those instances around here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Take care, Rambler, writing those letters...
If only we had a really meaty press headline in the article that we could hang an ALT3 on. (sigh) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
<Cue EEng>
ALT4 ... that The Sunday Times termed the Sinclair C5 electric vehicle (pictured) a "Formula One bath-chair"?
EEng (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Gah, hate the hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
We look forward to your angry letter to the Times. EEng (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean The Times? Heathen. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, you're like a full-time article police. EEng (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"Gosh"! You're like someone from a Billy Bunter strip! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
GOSH!, not "Fear and Loathing in DYK" again. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm bricking it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, not the C5 comfy (bath)-chair"! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ok hang on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC) done now. if some folks can fill up preps and check I can shift them as well a bit later on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder, but it is probably about time the Thanksgiving items be prepared for the main page. There is a special section on the nomination page. Preferably to appear daytime in the USA since it's a USA holiday. Thank you. HalfGig talk 19:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Just completed preps 1 and 2. Prep 3 needs filling, if anyone wants to have a go. Thanksgiving should be prep 4 if the queues are updated in time (it's been terribly erratic lately). Fuebaey (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Both Thanksgiving hooks are now in Prep 4 – hopefully there are no hiccups in the timing. 97198 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about a nomination

Whether it's worth a DYK credit shouldn't come into it, but apparently it does, so I've closed the nomination and this discussion is moot. BencherliteTalk 11:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

About this nom: I didn't know such a rule existed. I could've sworn I've seen other DYKs where that's been let slide. Anyway, what if I rewrote the entire article from scratch without copying anything from the Catawissa Tunnel article. Would that work? --Jakob (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to sound like a broken record, Jakec, but there's no earthly reason that Catawissa Tunnel and Hydrology of the Catawissa Tunnel should be separate articles. EEng (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It's my opinion that there's waaay too much stuff in the hydrology article to be crammed into the Catawissa Tunnel article (which is why we split articles). --Jakob (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Purely independent view: there is no reason at all to have separate articles. Both are barely above stub quality/length. Merge them back together and make a half-decent article thereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to be legalistic it's written in the first criterion, under New (part 1a), and in the Supplementary rules, A5. If half of it is already in another article, is there a particular reason to paraphrase it in a new one? Both are less than 10kB. If you summerise the main points from the Hydrology article it'll fit into the main one. Fuebaey (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: I didn't split it per the size guidelines, I split it per the undue weight guidelines. There was too much information on the hydrology of the tunnel. It'd take of 80 percent of the main article if it were merged. --Jakob (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE has to do with the balance of mainstream and minority/fringe points of view -- not this situation. If there's a lot of special stuff to be said about the stream's hydrology, and it's worth including at all, it belongs in the stream's article even if it seems, aesthetically, to overbalance what little else there is to say about the stream. These absolutely should be merged. EEng (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but what we're telling you is that it would be worth it just to better serve readers who want to learn about the subject. Whether it's worth a DYK credit shouldn't come into it. EEng (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I meant that I would have little interest in rewriting it from scratch unless it would be likely that the nomination could proceed as normal. This seems unlikely (no one has even given me a straight yes-or-no answer). --Jakob (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog in the Queue

An administrator needs to work on promoting the hooks in prep areas 5 & 6. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look... Victuallers (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Done Q5 Victuallers (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Muslim philosophers

In Queue 2: " ... that the new development of philosophical thought among Muslim philosophers was due to a treasury of knowledge left behind by the Shi'a Imams?" Is the word "treasury" NPOV enough for Wikipedia, or should we omit "a treasury of"? In other words, would we approve "... a treasury of knowledge left behind by rabbinical commentators", or "... by early Christian saints", or "... by Joseph Smith", or "... by L. Ron Hubbard"? "treasury" at dictionary.com: "5. a collection or supply of excellent or highly prized writings, works of art, etc.: 'a treasury of American poetry.'" Art LaPella (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have less trouble with treasury than with knowledge -- I'm not sure I'd refer to the works of Aristotle as (purely) knowledge, since a lot of what Aristotle said is nonsense. If we said treasury of commentary or treasury of writings I think it would be hard to argue that the commentaries (or writings) aren't highly valued, at least by some. EEng (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot not updating hooks

It seems that DYKUpdateBot did not update as it should have about 2 hours ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Tony, the bot's working just fine, but it can't update if there's nothing in the queue. That's why the bot posted the warning just above. Until Crisco 1492 moved preps to queues at about the time you posted this, an update wasn't possible; the bot did just what it ought when there was a queue to work with. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 22 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the remaining 19 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 71 nominations are approved, barely enough to fill the empty queue and prep slots, leaving 306 of 377 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What can I do?

Subject says it/wangi (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What can you do at Did You Know? Perhaps Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK answers your question. Art LaPella (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Renomination after becoming a good article

Many new or recently expanded articles which appear on DYK subsequently become good articles. Is it possible to nominate them for DYK again once they obtain good article status? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, all articles can only be featured once on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Is that mentioned anywhere in the criteria? I couldn't find it myself (or else I wouldn't have asked here). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Psychonaut, Articles that have been featured on the Main Page's In the news section or that have previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in DYK are not eligible. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.) Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide — Maile (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the key idea is that every article gets at most one DYK appearance. So if a delisted GA has recently returned to GA status, and hasn't appeared in DYK before (for any reason), then I would say nominate away. Do others agree with me on this? EEng (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with that. If it hasn't appeared on DYK before then regardless of whatever happens with its GA status, it can be nominated as normal. (though personally, I do still think that GA should have its own section on the MP instead of being mixed with DYK) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Local Update Times table formatting disagreement

EEng and I are having a disagreement over the formatting of the Local Update Times table on the DYK queues page: I believe we only need the six columns during the five winter months that British Summer Time is not in force and London time and UTC coincide, so I removed the extra UTC column for these months in late October when Summer Time ended. EEng thinks doing so is a "bad idea" because it depends on someone remembering to restore the extra column at the end of March, so he reverted to the version that, for the next four months, will have two columns with identical times, London and UTC. I called it "silly" in my edit summary to revert his first reversion (he then reverted again) and will go further: it's ludicrous to have two columns with identical times, especially when they have historically been combined during such periods.

Ideally, what would happen is that someone who's good with coding could revise the Local Update Times template so it would automatically produce six or seven columns depending on whether London's on GMT/UTC (six) or BST (seven); while I've made straightforward modifications to that template, doing an elegant and efficient version of this is not in my wheelhouse. (There is an expression already in the template that calculates whether London time is equivalent to UTC; I'm sure that could be reused for this purpose.) I'd very much appreciate it if someone could add that code, and render this disagreement moot.

In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy to pledge to personally switch back to seven columns in late March if the coding hasn't been yet done to handle the process automatically, so we don't have to look at two adjacent columns with identical times all winter.

While I was away earlier, after the first reversions, EEng and Bloom6132 got into an edit war over this—Bloom6132 seems to have agreed with my reasoning—and EEng is on a 24-hour block due to a WP:3RR violation. In his last edit summary, he wrote, Separate UTC&London cols were agreed to long ago, which is a stretch: the relevant discussion is here, where TonyTheTiger requested a UTC column on July 29, 2014, at a time of year that there was no UTC column, and EEng decided to provide it; they were the only two who "agreed". The notion that the combined London/UTC column is not currently adequate to the task seems bizarre to me, as is the supposed requirement that the columns be separate all year long. What do the rest of you think? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep both UTC is a timezone standard, which is used as the time standard on Wikipedia and thus it is useful to always have to synchronise events on the project. London is a city. Both should be kept because they fulfill different purposes. One indicates the standard, while the other indicates the city. That they coincide half the year is irrelevant. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Dr.K.'s rationale. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Combine – at least from November to March, as UTC and London time are exactly the same during that period. If people feel there's a problem with switching between six and seven columns, simple solution would be to keep UTC all year round. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both - UTC is an agreed standard to avoid any arguments, but for almost everyone it's not the time on your watch, so a quick conversion on screen stops you from having to do it in your head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm honestly confused here: UTC is on the screen now in a joint column with London, and would be there in a separate column at the end of March when the two times diverge. Do you see a benefit to splitting the two all year, because that's what "Keep both" means. I'm proposing both UTC and London listed for the whole year, but in a combined column as now when summer time is not active, and separate for the other seven months. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both - as per Dr.K. (... but meanwhile, folks, campaign to end this crazy bi-annual clock-changing mularkey - see 10:10 for the "Lighter Later" campaign.) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep both The idea that it's going to be someone's job to remember to change a template twice a year at 2am on a Sunday, or that the already overtaxed DYK hive mind should add this to its collective burden, is the sort of thing that leads, in other contexts, to shocking official reports on why this or that plane fell out of the sky. If someone cares enough to craft machinery that will automatically combine columns during part of the year, fine, but in the meantime showing the correct time, all the time, takes precedence. I want to thank BMS for bringing the issue of my small block out in the open. As everyone knows, many guys who have small or even average-sized blocks are embarrassed about it, but I've come to accept my small block, and even embrace it in a way (see User_talk:EEng#Without_doubt_one_of_the_lamest_edit_wars_ever). EEng (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Predicting the future?

Template:Did you know nominations/Fashizmi, now in Prep 3: @Soman, Antidiskriminator, and 97198:

I have found no evidence that the hook is incorrect (nor any definite evidence I could understand that it is right), but it is sourced in the article to this. I don't see how a 1938 publication can predict that the Italians would invade Albania in 1939, shut down all existing daily newspapers, and create a new one called "Fashizmi". Fram (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Very good point. I did not pay attention at the year of publishing of the source. I tried to find other sources which confirm this, but with no avail. It is better to replace it with some other hook. Sorry for this inconvenience. It is strange that volume 10-11 which was used as source was in 1938 while next volume (12) of this publication was published in 1940 (link). It is also strange that this 1938 publication extensively (53 times) mentions year 1939 with several 1939 sources cited in the text (link). It also writes (link) about the Albanian Fascist Party (established in 1939). Taking that in consideration, the year of publication might easily be wrong here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
True. A bit strange though that Fashizmi gives no results [11], even though the page used as a reference in the article (page 301) does appear as the result of your first search[12]. Fram (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The quality of the print is bad so it is probably interpreted by GBS as Fashizni (link). As far as I can see, all other papers are published weekly, so the source probably does support the hook after all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Great find! I'm glad I didn't pull the hook but just brought my concern here, it's nice to get a good result. As far as I am concerned, this hook can go ahead as planned. Fram (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Actually, I put a comment in the article code, saying "<!-- This looks weird, but has an explanation, Vol 10 would have been published in 1938, Vol 11 in 1939 -->" --Soman (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for feedback: editor making numerous poor nominations

Looking at T:TDYK, I see several instances where similar issues have occurred. Template:Did you know nominations/Eva Beem was nominated in this condition: as with the Pettakere nomination, it was barely over the minimum length, used blogs for sources, and had such rough prose that copyediting it would have brought the length below 1500 characters. Again, Yoninah ultimately had to save the nomination; the nom tried to withdraw. Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Paris has similarly questionable referencing (devote.se, Miinto.se, etc.). Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Valentin is under the minimum, and again many of the sources appear to be blogs. Template:Did you know nominations/Rosa Grünberg; again, too short, poor referencing (uses Geni.com, a wiki which has never been affirmed at WP:RSN). This is just from the first five noms (let's not get into the user's reviews, several of which have been overturned because of issues like close paraphrasing which were missed)
Are there any people willing to mentor BabbaQ? The individual appears willing to contribute to DYK, but the quality of this user's contributions needs to be increased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This user who have made "numerous poor nominations" have had DYKs only on the month of November with views of over 40,000 in total. This is nothing but an attempt of provocation but a user feeling scorned. If anything Crisco could need assistance on how to make correct Reviews especially considering that he/she doesnt take a look at the article in question before making additional comments on its DYK eligibility.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have to agree with Crisco 1492 here. I'm the one who initially reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Eva Beem; I found the nomination bizarre considering the frankly abysmal quality of the article, but I chalked this up to a good-faith mistake by a new user. That this has turned out to be part of a much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations is concerning. I think you really ought to consider seeking the advice of a mentor before further involving yourself in DYK. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry but you are definitely entitled to your opinion but, you sounding like you are assuming bad faith on my part. And you seem to be making a overall review of my DYK history. While the evidence proves the complete opposit of DYKs since December 2010 that are enjoyed by users and right now for example I have the highest view DYK article on DYK stats for the month of november. I might be reading your comment wrong but you can not make a comment about my DYK history based on your opinion about one DYK. I will certainly not "seek advice" on the merit that I can not make DYKs, especially since I seek input from users at times for articles to help with improvements. Because any suggestion that I am not a great contributor for the DYK is a blatant lie. I might be reading your post wrong but I take offence anyone claiming that I am not to make DYKs considering my track record overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd say it's a fair bet that you're reading my post wrong. I am not assuming bad faith on your part, and I am not basing my assessment on a single nomination of yours. In fact, I pretty explicitly wrote the exact opposite. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • But you talk about a much "a much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations". I wonder what the "much larger pattern" is, I do see that the mentioned articles were a bit early to nominate. But you can not state an opinion of a much larger pattern if you had actually looked at my track record of DYKs since 2010. If anything there is a pattern of articles that recieves over 5,000 views and are enjoyed by readers. Of articles being added to DYKstats every month. I think you should take a look at all my DYKs before making a judgement of my contribution to the DYK process. Because it is apparent that you have not done that. Sorry, but I do not take unfounded comments by users who has not taken a look at the overall picture lightly. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No one is complaining about the many good nominations you have made. It is the bad ones we are worried about. It's an issue of precision versus recall: it's very easy for someone to hit on some excellent DYKs by indiscriminately nominating every article they find (or more realistically, by simply not being judicious enough in their nominations), though this comes at the considerable cost of wasting the community's time with a disproportionate number of low-quality nominations. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • But I am still wondering were the "a much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations" are coming from? Why have you not contacted me then to give me your opinions about it until this very point? You seem to indicate that I am a "burden to the project" and as I say, I do not take unfounded accusations lightly. And I can tell you as much, I will not be hounded away from the project just because some users suddenly have the urge to complain and disregard a track record of DYK articles that have been well-recieved. If you have had issues you could have raised them a long time ago. Now I feel you are just disregarding a lot of factors because the opportunity arises. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The "much larger pattern" was documented by Crisco 1492 above. I didn't contact you about it previously because this thread was the first place I learned about it. And as far as I can tell neither I nor Crisco 1492 is trying to "hound you away"; we are just asking you to get some tutelage to make your nominations more constructive. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And I have again and again told you why I will not accept the offer. So why continue the hounding? I have told in great excess as to why I already get the help needed by several friends on Wikipedia. I still am wondering were the " much larger pattern of ill-conceived nominations" are, atleast you admit that you had no prior problem with me until you got the opportunity to jump on the "bash babbaq bus" heading to infinity.. follow the pack sir :). --BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I contribute to BabbaQ's articles and find the process enjoyable. It would be a pity if we hound out a contributor who is adding to the wiki. I helped with the von Sykow article - which is an interesting and valuable article. I find some editors articles uninteresting or to too tricky to fix. I leave them. Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I will not be hounded out of the DYK project. Do not worry. Thanks for the support.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Crisco, I'm sure the tone of your comments on the Pettakare cave review, starting from the very first comment, was atypical, but you must admit that anyone would develop a "battleground mentality" from such confrontation.
My experience with BabbaQ's nominations is that they are usually on the short side, not heavily sourced or necessarily using reliable sources. His reviews, too, are brief and must be rechecked by the prep builder. But I have also found this user to be infallibly polite and quick to make changes and bring articles up to par. When he is shown, in a constructive manner, where his articles/reviews need improvement, he always responds positively.
I don't know if BabbaQ wishes to be supervised by a mentor. But this editor should be encouraged to develop his articles to a decent length and solid content before nominating them. Otherwise, there is no reason to hound this productive editor off the DYK page. Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I was not aware that it was a "problem" Yoninah. Considering the very positive feedback I get from many users and the DYK views tells that my articles are overall interesting and enjoyed by the Wikipedia community. As I said to you, am I perfect by any mean no. Am I productive user who makes an effort yes and are contributing to the DYK process in a good way, yes. I will definitely take your advice to heart , I am not particularly interested in getting supervised because I am already having support by several users when it comes to DYK articles and improving them. But I will say this, I will not be hounded away from the DYK process. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And might I just remind you all that a review is just that, a review. It is supposed to be that another user checks through the article and find problems that needs to be solved. And I always or most time solves them within hours. Again, my track record from December 2010 and until present day shows a history of great contributions to the DYK project.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This was also my last comment about this, as user 7&6=thirteen says my record speaks for itself.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Since the user keeps referring to his record since 2010, it should be pointed out that in 2011 it was discovered that he used his sockpuppets to verify his own nominations. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And that is a factor as to the quality of my articles how? :) Yeah, do not point out all the hundreds of great contributions and help that I have given. Point out the worst of the worst. I did admit it and I took my punishment for it. And it does not give again any justification as to why I should not be able to do DYK articles. All I have to say is, if users are trying to hound me out off the DYK project, you have failed. :) --BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have always found it interesting to see how we humans throw each other under the bus at the first best opportunity. Rather bringing out all the bad, than all the good. I guess that is why it is called hounding. It is just human behavior to take the opportunity to "bite the weak party" when the opportunity arises. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I only brought it up because you kept bringing up your record. When you tell people over and over about your record, you can't expect them to ignore such a shameful, despicable incident in that record. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The only really shameful thing here is that you bring something up that happened over three years ago. So do not expect me to treat it as something else than it is, an attempt to throw me under the bus. Even your response here is filled with some sort of hatered. I think it is sad to see actually. These kind of threads bring out the worst in people. And it never fails to happen :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are the one who repeatedly brought up your record from 2010 until the present. I would not have mentioned your sockpuppetry otherwise; it was only to give some perspective to that record you kept talking about, over and over again. There's no hatred; I simply characterized the situation in a pretty frank manner. Is there anybody here who doesn't think that using sockpuppets to approve your own nominations is "shameful"? Aside from having to format almost every one of your nominations, I only recall one nomination where we interacted. I tried to fix a hook that didn't make sense, and I asked you to add information, which I believed was in a Swedish source, to support the hook. When you failed to do so, I found an English source and added it. I was nothing but helpful. So please don't imply that I hate you and am attempting to throw you under the bus. All I did here was to attempt to show some balance regarding the record which you kept bringing up. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, no need to bring up your record when a) you have skeletons in the closet, b) most of the people commenting have longer and/or better records, and c) it is actually more embarrassing for you, since you've edited DYK for four years and yet these problems still exist. Does that mean four years of nominations with poor referencing and a lack of content?
Yoninah, considering the tone of the editor's comments both on my talkpage and on that of Hawkeye7, I am not too sure "infallibly polite" applies. Saying an editor is "butthurt" and accusing that editor of stalking are polite now? I don't think so. And as for "quick to make changes and bring articles"; you personally had to rescue one of the editor's nominations after they withdrew it, apparently unwilling to fix the referencing themselves. The other two, which were too short, were likewise withdrawn immediately. And before someone says they didn't want to deal with me, remember that I was completely uninvolved in the first review.
I may have been more polite, but the editor's recourse was not to say so to my face and thus resolve the issue. Rather, it was to dispute that there was a problem with referencing, and to run to another admin. When Yoninah finally stepped in (and removed the poor reference), BabbaQ was actually smug about it. There's a serious problem here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: So how you are going to change your ways when it comes to contributing and nominating articles for DYK? I believe that you should try expanding your articles a bit, if there is a limit of 1500 characters, how about you try 2000 or more? Sometimes the subject is contentious or common that it will require more than 1500 characters. The article is more preferable when you write in the context and together with references that could be accessed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lady Hutton

Well, I don't know if the blame in this case rests mainly with BabbaQ, or the others involved in proposing the hook, reviewing and promoting it, but Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Hutton, now in Prep 5, should not be run with this hook (or the article and sources need a through check). @BabbaQ, Yoninah, 97198, and Fuebaey:

  • ... that the hotel and restaurant ship Lady Hutton was owned by American socialite Barbara Hutton, who received it as a present on her 18th birthday?

Seems quite correct, as evidenced by this. However; Barbara Hutton was born in 1912, which puts her 18th birthday in 1930. But the article claims that she "received the vessel in 1939", which is supported by this. I can find further sources for both statements (18th birthday or 1939), but they obviously can't both be true. This author also found it very hard to find the truth of the matter. Fram (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As promotor, I checked the hook and glanced over the review. The original reviewer did not raise any additional concerns with it. Mistakes happen. Having said that, I would leave out "in 1939". I have yet to see a reliable source state that fact. Fuebaey (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note

  • Just a note for DYK regulars and interested parties: I've split the introductory text from T:TDYK into a new page, Template talk:Did you know/Header, in order to ease the editing of T:TDYK. This is similar to the header used at the FAC and FLC processes, and means that we can use the same header on other pages if considered necessary.
I was actually thinking it might be nice to split days onto their own subpages as well (reduce edit conflicts, and the time needed to add nominations), but that's a much larger task, and would need consensus beforehand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about lists

Quick question: all of the information about nominating for DYK refers to "articles". Are articles which are classified as "lists" eligible for DYK? --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it says here under 2c). Lists: Proposed lists need 1,500+ characters of prose, aside from the listed items themselves. Fuebaey (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Yes, look at this for instance. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that I did my first DYK nomination correctly

Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages don't automatically transclude onto the nominations page. Templates have to be manually added under the day it was created/expanded (step 3). Fuebaey (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - hope it's correct now - listed under November 27. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Just curious, is there a reason that the templates don't transclude?--¿3family6 contribs 17:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Guess that's how it's designed. You create a page, you fill in the page and then you stick it in a book. Maybe someone could create a script to do it, like the one for AfD's on Twinkle. Fuebaey (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Richie Farmer (Prep 1)

... that Richie Farmer holds records for most points scored in the KHSAA championship game (51) and most ethics violations by a Kentucky executive branch officeholder (42)?

@Acdixon:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @G S Palmer: If we're going to put negative facts about a BLP on the main page, lets make sure we get it right. According to the article, Farmer was charged with 42 violations. Later in the article it says that he admitted to 35 of the charges in a plea bargain, which presumably means that he was not found guilty on 7 of the 42 charges. WP:BLPCRIME says that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law", thus he does not have 42 ethics violations, he has 35. 137.43.188.220 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually what you say is not quite correct. According to the article he faced 42 state ethics violation charges to which he pleaded not guilty but several months later his attorney "filed a motion to allow Farmer to change his plea to guilty and announced that Farmer had reached a plea bargain to settle all federal and state charges against him." The 35 that were "acknowledged to the Executive Branch Ethics Commission" was quite a separate matter. However, five hooks were approved, so it might be best to use one of the others instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we should switch the hook, unless we qualify the hook with charged. Farmer did pled guilty to all charges but in his settlement there were only 35 counts, because 7 were merged into other pre-existing indictments (see here - under Issuing Year: 2014, Executive Branch Ethics Commission v. Richie Farmer). Technically, he still has the most ethics violations because the previous highest anyone else has ever been charged with is 16.[13] Fuebaey (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Acdixon, Cwmhiraeth, G S Palmer, and Crisco 1492: Given that it's factually incorrect, can someone explain why this hook is running on the main page? Fuebaey (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
By the time it gets to the Queue or the Main Page, it needs an admin to make any alterations. Such a change could be simply made by substituting 35 for 42 in the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I know, I just think that it should've been changed before it got into the queue and onto the main page for 10 hours. Can we please check WT:DYK next time for any outstanding issues before we approve hooks into the queue/main page. Fuebaey (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm obviously late to the party here. I was offline due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Seems like this got resolved (or not) without me, but that's why I provided several potential alternate hooks and expressed no preference on which one ran. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that I did my first DYK nomination correctly

Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages don't automatically transclude onto the nominations page. Templates have to be manually added under the day it was created/expanded (step 3). Fuebaey (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - hope it's correct now - listed under November 27. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Just curious, is there a reason that the templates don't transclude?--¿3family6 contribs 17:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Guess that's how it's designed. You create a page, you fill in the page and then you stick it in a book. Maybe someone could create a script to do it, like the one for AfD's on Twinkle. Fuebaey (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that I did my first DYK nomination correctly

Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages don't automatically transclude onto the nominations page. Templates have to be manually added under the day it was created/expanded (step 3). Fuebaey (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - hope it's correct now - listed under November 27. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Just curious, is there a reason that the templates don't transclude?--¿3family6 contribs 17:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Guess that's how it's designed. You create a page, you fill in the page and then you stick it in a book. Maybe someone could create a script to do it, like the one for AfD's on Twinkle. Fuebaey (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Queues empty again.

 HalfGig talk 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Queues empty again.

 HalfGig talk 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look Victuallers (talk) done Victuallers (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The Rambling Man and Casliber, here we go again......and no I have nothing in the prep setups. HalfGig talk 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 25 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 56 nominations are approved, barely enough to fill the empty queue and prep slots, leaving 287 of 343 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Need another reviewer

I've just made a number of changes to Computer Engineer Barbie in response to comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Computer Engineer Barbie. As this means I'm probably now too involved to sign off the article, could another editor please complete the review? Prioryman (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bot messages that tell project members that something needs fixing are valuable

I must be misunderstanding, but do we really want to delete the message that warns us that we need to take action to keep our project going? This project supplies a DYK publication for the main page and the incredibly clever and useful DYKbot does an enormous amount of the grunt work. (Yes I remember when we did it all by hand). This change here seems to indicate that there is an edit quarrel going on. We do need this message. I responded to it last time and filled the queue slot from a prep. OK! Some bots are annoying but this one is valuable. Please do not delete valuable messages that others (me at least) find useful. Victuallers (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's be more precise: A bot message warning project members that something needs fixing is valuable so long as the something still needs fixing. After that it's confusing and counterproductive to retain it. (The bot issues a new warning should the condition recur.)
For months I've been deleting "Q empty" warnings once someone's acted on them (except if an editor had posted something to the thread -- I wouldn't delete a thread to which a human had contributed). I do this partly (as mentioned) to reduce confusion, and partly to make the archives just that little bit less clogged. Is there something I'm missing? EEng (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. If you think the notifications have some kind of statistical value, that information could more conveniently (and more reliably) be culled from the edit history.
Thanks! I was misunderstanding. If someone has acted on it then I can see that deleting it does little harm. Although I remember conclusions being drawn when the bot was chasing us too frequently. However I'll stand down :-) Victuallers (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
FTR, I have asked EEng to stop deleting these messages. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
... but you've done so without explaining why. When Victuallers and I are in complete agreement that ought to tell you something. Care to let us in on your reasoning, FTR? EEng (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You've answered your own question: for the record. If you don't delete the messages, the archive is reliable, and provides context. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
[Oh brother. Good: we've cleared up the subtly different uses of FTR on display here.] "The archive is reliable" -- what does that mean? "Provides context" -- what does that mean?? What context??? EEng (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

These bot messages are useless. There's already a template to inform members that a DYK update is "needed" although we've ditched this stupidity at WP:ITN as it's not (and never should be) about how quickly you can update the main page, it's about how much high quality content you can provide. The bot message is a hangover from an era where quantity superseded quality. Whatever has already been discussed, I agree with EEng's removal of such scare notices, designed to accelerate poor quality content to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

When TRM and Victuallers and EEng are in agreement, then truly the lion will lay down with the lamb, and the Age of Aquarius is upon us. Anyone else want to join the love-fest? EEng (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Not I. The bot messages are not useless, since they show up in Watchlists when they're added to this page. They don't necessarily stick around, since this page is used for other reasons, and an edit to delete a previous message can obscure the very real need for someone to promote an existing prep to the empty queues: nothing about quality, and everything about timing. Admins aren't always checking the queues page, but my experience is that they do sometimes notice the bot messages. I agree with Nikkimaria on this point; we shouldn't be deleting bot messages from this page, but letting them be archived in the usual way. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What part of your reasoning militates against their being deleted once the Q-empty condition has been remedied, and assuming no human has commented on it? EEng (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What you really need is a realistic update rate, and no major stress if the 8-hour/12-hour/24-hour period elapses. I have always struggled to see the urgency and desperation of this project to update the main page so frequently that some portions of the globe never get to see some of the updates. Just relax a little, kill the bot notices which do nothing but encourage stressy people to update with poor blurbs and badly reviewed nominations, and discover a brave new world where it's only this project that wants the update rate so high – can anyone tell me of one single instance of a casual reader complaining because DYK wasn't updated within the 8/12/24 hour period? Or are we just trying to convince ourselves that this is what our readership expects? Evidence on a postcard please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Reignited? When did it die out? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the bot-notice issue, provided that the issue that the bot highlights is resolved. Whether the notice is deleted or archived after the queue is updated, I don't think really matters. As for the time period for hooks to run, I'm all for letting them run longer if it means higher quality in what goes on the main page.--¿3family6 contribs 01:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the Bot notice provides us with a record of how often DYK runs late. The urgency comes from the fact that articles are scheduled to be shown on certain days, and this is not affected by the frequency with which the articles change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The page history gives that same information, without clogging the archives, or leaving the notice up when it no longer applies. But Jesus, what a lot of fussing over nothing this is. EEng (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Above you said "I wouldn't delete a thread to which a human had contributed" and you later reiterated that sentiment ("assuming no human has commented on it"). But, about a week ago, you did exactly what you said you wouldn't do. And it was intentional (not a case of accidentally deleting without noticing that a human had commented); your edit summary makes that very clear. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I guess I should have written I would never do that unless the human post is quite routine and made by an editor who I'm pretty sure wouldn't object and who's just about about always here watching and I accompany the deletion with an edit summary to attract his/her attention. I also should have a better memory. EEng (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
If I'd noticed, I would certainly have objected. Please don't do so again. Certainly, my earlier reversion of one your bot-message deletions should have indicated that I was not in favor of such deletions. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Again my apologies. Can we stop talking about this whole thing? I had imagined I was doing everyone a favor by removing defunct warnings and slightly unclogging the archives, but it's really not important to me, and apparently it is to others. So let's drop it. EEng (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

T:TDYK Error

I've just noticed that from 6 December, all the templates on and after that date are coming up as links instead of showing the full nominations. Is there a scripting error on here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Display as normal for me. Harrias talk 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Same here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Now coming up fine. Must have been a glitch. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 10:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Preps loaded to queues - if folks could prepare more that'd be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There is one queue filled and no preps with any hooks. I can't edit queues but will try to help by filling two prep sets. I apologize in advance if I goof anything. HalfGig talk 13:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OK for 2 sets. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Notifying bot

This is a courtesy notice for those who have been awaiting a bot to place notices on talk pages when an article is nominated by anyone other than the article creator. For those who unaware of this request, it approved by a vote on this talk page January 2014, formally requested on the bot requests page by Matty.007 on Feb 24, 2014, and begun by Ceradon who dropped it and has not been active since April 1, 2014. It was then picked up by APerson on June 6, 2014. Progress of that is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 2. Because of inactivity, the bot request has now expired. Should anyone else like to have a stab at this, good luck. Matty.007 is not among us these days. I've bowed out of DYK for all practical purposes. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't like notifying someone of an ANI lynching, so how about a lighter-weight mechanism: just insert {{U}} in the nom template as its saved. EEng (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That wouldn't do it. For notification purposes, {{U}} is functionally equivalent to a simple user page link, which we already have in the current system. What I think would work is to sign the "Nominated by" line with "~~~~". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize we were already doing that (never had an article I wrote/etc. nominated). If so then as far as I'm concerned that's enough notification -- it's not critical. EEng (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I keep getting misunderstood today. What happens already in the current system is that nom templates have links to the user pages of creators/nominators. I mentioned that in response to you because, for the purposes of the notification system, those are equivalent to having {{U}} for those users, so adding a {{U}} wouldn't help. The reason notifications are not currently generated is that another requirement – the presence of "~~~~" – is not met. The current DYK system creates a username (talk) timestamp which looks the same as a signature (for users without personalized signatures), but it does not trigger a notification. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Okey dokey. EEng (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, Mandarax, here's the fly in the ointment issue: Anything that is not automatically generated is dependent upon individual nominators to (1) Know they're supposed to notify the creator/expander; (2) Remember do to it; (3) Have the courtesy to do it; (4) Not object to it because articles have no ownership; (5) (the most important factor) Not believe they're too (insert adjectives here) good, smart, superior or otherwise above and beyond the other mortals. Since the current set up leaves the whole issue up to the nominator, it isn't working. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think one or both of us may be misunderstanding what the other is saying. What I'm talking about would be automatically generated. When someone makes a nomination other than a single-creator self-nom, the template would include a line saying "Nominated by ~~~~". When saved, a "<nominator> mentioned you" notification would be automatically generated for anyone whose user page was mentioned – any user named as a creator/expander. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I did misunderstand you Mandarax. I believe you have come up with the perfect solution. Am I correct that the only thing necessary to bring this about is for someone with access to make a little adjustment to the nomination template? — Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:NewDYKnomination is only semi-protected, so any autoconfirmed user who knows what they're doing can edit it. There may be some issues, though. The notification system can be finicky, and it's possible this won't work. And there may be problems with users who have special characters in their username or signature. For example, a visible "|" (not used to pipe a link) in a signature will probably break the template. (You're supposed to use "&#124;" to display this character in signatures, but some people don't.) The current template escapes usernames to prevent such problems, but the notification system needs to see "~~~~", so the signatures can't be processed before saving. This would probably be an extremely rare problem. (I suppose we could have an editnotice comment telling people how to fix their signature if they've broken the template.) I'm not really sure about any of this, so let's see what Rjanag, the original creator of the template, has to say about it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
One other aspect that you mentioned on Feb 24, Mandarax is the feasibility of having an opt out feature for editors who aren't interested in getting such notifications. And just to refresh everyone on how this subject came up - a long time ago in a cosmic thread far, far away - is because some nominated articles may seem ready by the nominator, but the editor working the article sees it as an unfinished work in progress and not ready for DYK. Or just because some editors like having such a courtesy notice. — Maile (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not instead put a nominator notice/banner on the Talk page of the article, like a GA review does -- presumably all interested parties will see it via their watchlist, and it's probably a good idea to have it on the Talk page anyway. (It doesn't need to be one of those permanent-history banners like for failed GA noms and so on -- just for the duration of the nom, and then if it does go to main page of course there's a permanent "featured on Main Page/DYK" banner.) And this way, you don't need any kind of opt-out -- the watchlist is the opt in/out. EEng (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's already suggested in the instructions on both the main nominations page and the page you go to when creating a new nomination, but I think few people do it. As Maile pointed out, when something's not automatically generated, it often won't get done. I wouldn't be concerned about the inability to opt out of DYK "mention" notifications, since they're so much less obtrusive than talk page messages, and people do have the ability to opt out of all "mention" notifications. In most cases, I don't think that notifying the creator is very important, but it would have prevented a recent incident in which a user was unaware the article he'd written was nominated, and the hook turned out to be incorrect. Of course, now that QPQs are required for all nominations, I wouldn't be surprised if we get significantly fewer non-self-noms. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I meant have the bot automatically put the notice on the article talk page. EEng (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, this thread started as a notice about the inability of getting someone to make a bot do our bidding ... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Understood. I was simply suggesting a natural and (I think) desireable way to simplify that which is being bid. bidded. biddinged. Whatever. EEng (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@all, especially Maile66: I apologize for being out for so long. The bot currently works fine, although sometimes it doesn't place notices on the pages of people who need to be notified. I plan to fix this bug soon, but do you guys think I should just get what I have up on Labs? APerson (talk!) 03:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Put it on Labs - APerson, since you already have something that works, in spite of that little glitch, put it on Labs. The worse that can happen is that somebody somewhere doesn't get notified. I take you at your word that you'll fix the glitch. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just fixed the bug (off-by-one error, anyone?) and requested a review of the expired BRFA. As soon as that goes through, I'll put it on Labs. APerson (talk!) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping at this. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd add an update on the bot's progress: the extended trial is going swimmingly and I hope to see it approved sometime in the next few weeks. (Depending, of course, on how quickly the BAG decides to act on it.) APerson (talk!) 05:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a limit on the number of nominations a single self nominator can have active at one time?

I'm curious if there is any limit on the number of nominations a single self nominator can have active at one time (so long as quid pro quo is done for each). Based on my search of the DYK talk archives, the answer appears to be no, but I would like to make sure. Out of respect for the system, I have refrained from having more than two of my nominations live at any one time. However, my last couple of nominations have been waiting for review for quite some time (since November 14 and 19, respectively), which makes me wonder if I could nominate a few more DYKs that are about ready to move to the mainspace as long as I fulfill my QPQ requirements. In the interim, I'm more than happy to keep reviewing more DYK nominations to help reduce the backlog. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no limit to the number of active nominations allowed at one time. Doing extra reviews to bring the backlog down is admirable. As the pool of reviewed and approved nominations gets larger, it should be possible to reduce the long delay between nomination and appearance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the clarification, Cwmhiraeth. I really appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviewers: Look on Talk Pages, too!

Numerous hooks have been promoted without any ratings on the talk page. This should be a routine part of every review. Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry... what? An article has to have a rating? Why? EEng (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The actual requirement is than an article may not be a stub. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It has always been interpreted to mean that the article has to be assessed if it is not assessed, and reassessed if it is currently assessed as a stub. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
And who's supposed to do that? <sigh> Is this formality really necessary? Can't we be content with the 1500-character minimum? EEng (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
One requirement I have never checked and will never check. I hope no one ever fails a DYK because of this silliness. Talk page ratings have nothing to do with article building, article quality, encouraging editors, ... Fram (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of that requirement. If it's rated a Stub, it's an issue (and is checked for in DYKcheck) because true stubs won't be of the minimum quality required for DYK. If it isn't rated at all, there's no issue (and DYKcheck doesn't care): the reviewer can judge whether the article deals adequately with the subject, which is in the DYK criteria, and proceed from there. It is not in DYK's remit to assess unassessed articles for the various WikiProjects. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
IF it is a stub, then it is a simple edit to change it particularly if it is an expansion. There is no need to nitpick over issues by being pedantic requesting the nominator change it instead of the reviewer doing it as it is just a waste of time and puts an extra barrier that slows noms down. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Accident waiting to happen

I removed a hook from Prep 1 for not being supported by the source. Template:Did you know nominations/Afternoon. @Tezero, Oceanh, Fuebaey, and BlueMoonset:

  • ... that in Finland, accidents in the agriculture industry are most common in the afternoon, specifically Monday afternoons in September?

For starters, the source doesn't claim they are most common, but that they are typical. But this is a semantics discussion; worse is that the source is not about "accidents in the agriculture industry", but only "access path accidents" "associated with the use of tractors", so a subset (of about 30%) of a subset (tractor use only) of all "accidents in the agriculture industry". Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

...and if we go to that afternoon article, as we able to learn any more about autumnal Finnish tractor drivers? (Or just learn more about what an afternoon is?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I must admit, an article covering such a broad topic should (in theory) have lots of potential hooks. I have taken a quick look; perhaps, based on the sentence As a result, this time of day is considered optimal for researchers studying stress and hormone levels., we could have a hook like this? Just a suggestion. (Wording could be less clunky as well!) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think best undertaken can possibly be justified as a sweeping generality, but maybe something like afternoons are often a good time to undertake or something like that. EEng (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
What the five-page paper actually says is: "A typical access path accident in Finnish agriculture occurs in crop production, on Monday afternoon in September when a male person falls, slips or trips and his leg is sprained. The injury is caused by uneven or slippery terrain, and the period of disability is 7 to 14 days." Not much mention of tractors there? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC) .. and the actual source in the McCabe (ed) book is “Accidents related to access path use of mobile machinery in Finnish agriculture” by T. Mattila, M. Lehto, T. Leskinen, J. Lehtelä, J. Suutarinen, J. Väänänen, P. Plaketti and P. Olkinuora.
Title of the study: "Accidents related to access path use of mobile machinery in Finnish agriculture". Text of the study makes it clear that "About 40,000 descriptions were read, out of 2212 accidents were discovered to be accidents in work during ingress or egress of a mobile machinery cabin". So, yes, not just tractors, but all mobile farm machinery... But not the access paths to the stables or things like that, and not accidents unrelated to the access path (e.g. your crop duster crashing). Fram (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not surprising that more accidents happen in September if that's when most crop harvesting occurs. And the Monday could be explained by the "weekend effect" (although typically less marked in agriculture which is typically 7-days-a-week). But obviously, if someome is injured on a Monday and they are "disabled" for 7 days, they are unlikely to be working the other days! There's also no attempt to control for fatigue in the stats - i.e. the poor Finnish farmers have been climbing in and out of their cabs since dawn, so they are probably pretty knackered by then. (But the paper's focus is on cab access design and coupling devices). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I really don't care one way or the other. I didn't even nominate it for DYK. Tezero (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure farming in Finland can be fun. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I like this. EEng (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@EEng: Yes, that wording would be better (mine was just a quick suggestion after glancing over the article). Crisco's would be interesting as well. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is citation required for the Cast section of a movie article?

I'm reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Gravity (film), and ran into the question of whether the Cast section requires citations. WP:DYKSG says the Plot section does not require citations, but does not say anything about the Cast, although the Cast, like the Plot, can be verified by watching the movie. Anyone has experience with this before? -Zanhe (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at various featured film articles listed at WP:FA, the cast sections only appear do not appear to be sourced for basic information ("... as ..."), but further information is sourced. In this article, an example of that further information would be "a medical engineer and mission specialist who is on her first space mission". So, I'd presume that the further information needs to be sourced, but the most basic information does not. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The cast section has to be sourced. It can't be verified just by watching the movie, as I may recognise none of the actors. Eric Corbett 23:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
lol, isn't that what the credits are for at the end of the film?! 109.144.219.174 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Best to save the LOLs for subjects in which you are well-versed. On-film credits are frequently incomplete or inaccurate, sometimes intentionally. EEng (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Prep 5

The Titanium in zircon geothermometer hook was promoted to the prep sets (not by me) while being tagged as an orphan. The article is too scientific for me to figure out where to link it. Can anyone help? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Who cares if it's an orphan? When it appears on MP, maybe some new editor will create some links to it. This is just another thing we shouldn't be worrying about here at DYK. EEng (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Easy fix, no longer an orphan. USchick (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine, but for the record I strongly support getting rid of minor, perfectionist concerns like this as DYK requirements. EEng (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
But when you open it, the first thing you see is the tag at the top. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and the purpose of that is to inspire people to take action. So what? This comes up so rarely it's just WP:CREEPy to even worry about it. We need fewer rules, fewer checks, fewer procedures. EEng (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
With all that talk of fewer regulations, you sound ready for a tea party!--¿3family6 contribs 03:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Gad zooks! I see how my quick comments might have made you confuse me for those fools. I should have said We need fewer rules, fewer checks, fewer procedures at DYK -- not where lives are at stake. EEng (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Now there's an interesting study - anti-legislative movements on Wikipedia compared with those in real life.--¿3family6 contribs 16:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay... my 100th DYK.

Now what? Will there be cake? Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There'll be an "attaboy", then back to work, you whippersnapper! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

QPQ - IP wrestling nominations

I don't really have a strong opinion on this but I thought I'd ask here for more info. There's currently three open nominations by IP 72.74:

Going through the archives here there are:

BlueMoonset has suggested that the IP start doing QPQs, assuming that this is the same user and that the IP is dynamic. On the flip side, it could just be a group of people in the same area writing about wrestling (akin to those academic wasp submissions). Given that we have a backlog, I wouldn't say no to more reviewers. What does everyone else think? Fuebaey (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a new rule that anyone who has more than 5 nominations after November 21, 2014 must submit a QPQ for every nomination thereafter. The DYKs in the archive are from 2012 and earlier. So per the letter of the law, the IP has to start reviewing QPQs after his fifth nomination since November 21. Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, it doesn't matter whether the earlier DYKs were before or after Nov 21 -- only that the nom is on or after Nov 21. If you have 5, you have 5, no matter when they were. EEng (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, if you look at the current three nominations, all of them have been worked on by at least two (and usually more) of these IPs, and that's even more clear when you look at the older ones. In at least one case, one of the later edits on the nomination template by a new IP is clearly by the person who nominated it, due to the use of "I". Mandarax frequently sets up the nomination, since IPs cannot create pages in Template space; Mandarax, would you agree this is the case? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It only seems fair that they should have to do reviews just as anyone else would. However, more scrutiny may be required when accepting a review by an IP. (Note that when I set up the nominations, I never take nomination credit. I've never read any of the articles, and I merely use the suggested hooks. They are the IP's self nominations by proxy.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 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) 23:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • If you want to post them there, please be my guest. I tend to have decent luck here, especially when my comment is the most recent, and the edit summary is showing on potential admins' watchlists. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Plural vs. singular

I corrected one hook in Queue3. Template:Did you know nominations/Efter badet (Stockholm) @Innotata, Valenciano, Cwmhiraeth, and Graeme Bartlett:

Original hook: * ... that local politicians have proposed removing a sculpture in Stockholm called After the Bath because one of the people it depicts is Mao Zedong?

Corrected hook: * ... that a local politician proposed removing a sculpture in Stockholm called After the Bath because one of the people it depicts is Mao Zedong?

The article and source only mention one politician who made that proposal, so having the plural in the hook seemed incorrect. For once, I thought it better to change the hook immediately instead of pulling it, but if there is disagreement about this action or the new hook, I'll just pull it as "contested" instead and we can discuss it further on the DYK template. Fram (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can change the hook to "a local politician", as you're right, the other councillor who complained wanted to erect an explanatory sign beside it. Valenciano (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem, apart from being too late for me to comment!
@Fram: Good point. Although I think some of the points you raise are somewhat trivial, they do make me more alert to problems with articles/hooks. This morning while reviewing Mandatory fun I happened to notice that the hook mentioned a 32-year career, the source 30+ years and the article, citing that source, 38 years (I have aligned them now). I nearly missed these anomalies however because the main hook fact was correct and cited. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Horae

Oh, and speaking of singular vs. plural, in the same queue we have

Horae is not a goddess, it is a group of (usually) three goddesses. The error is made in the sources, but do we really have to repeat such errors? Fram (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You could delete the word "goddess", which would leave: ... was inspired by the Horae?
At this point, with the hook (and queue) already promoted to the main page, that's probably the best solution: it's accurate, and might even make people curious about Horae. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, I've boldly done it on the main page, any admin is free to reverse if there are objections of course. Fram (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this. I didn't realise that it was a group (Greek mythology isn't my forte) or that it was that far up the queue. Note to self: respond faster to talk page suggestions. Fuebaey (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess this discussion is too hoary to bring this [14] in? EEng (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 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) 07:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 07:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

He or she, past or present, and so on...

Problems in Prep5. @Victuallers, Rosiestep, FunkyCanute, Yoninah, Graeme Bartlett, Wittylama, Cwmhiraeth, N2e, and Michael Barera: Fram (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Mackenzie

Source[15] states "While in prison he was visited by his sister, Lady Lothian, and by his wife, who, with Sophia Lindsay, had been placed in confinement on the first news of his landing." As far as I can tell from that source, her second husband was imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle, and she was at first confined (location not given) and later visited him in Edinburgh Castle. This should be pulled unless a good source for her imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle is provided. Fram (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Titanium in zircon geothermometer

Minor problem, but wouldn't it be more correct (factually and grammatically) to change this to:

Template:Did you know nominations/Autonomous spaceport drone ship

No. Attempts will be made in the near future to make this come true; but at the moment, rockets can not land on such a drone ship. It has never been done, and even the creators / supporters only give it a 50% chance to work at the moment. It may turn out to be one of these brilliant plans which never work in reality, or it may become standard procedure in 5 years time, but we shouldn't claim that it is now possible when it isn't yet. Fram (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Main page

All three hit the main page like this, even though the issues were raised here while they were still in prep, not yet in queue. I have accordingly removed the first one completely, replaced the second one with my proposal above, and further tweaked the third one (after a first change in the right direction by User:Floquenbeam). This rather defeats the prupose of bringing the issues here when they are still in prep areas, of course... Fram (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Its useful to see that these errors have been picked up Fram, but I cannot see where you say you raised these issues earlier whilst they were in prep. If you have raised them then I would hope that one of the active editors would have addressed the issue as only a few words need changing to resolved the matter (actually an extra crossref of a particular clause in a sentence). If it is too tricky to fix then there a few editors who could help. Can you tell me where you posted this information? I cannot find it here, on the talk page or the DYK nomination page? If you wait to post until its on the main page then it is going to cause unneeded and unproductive attention.... but I understand that was not your intention. How did we fail to spot it? Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC) I have added a reliable source to cover the precise place where she was imprisoned and as the article says it was Edinburgh Castle. So where was this point raised and when? Victuallers (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say Fram highlighted these problems here on this page above. Unfortunately, the next queue (this prep) was set up to go off at 13:05 UTC, leaving only 90 minutes for anyone to respond. I think the best option here would've been to pull, replace and fix. @Crisco 1492: Just to reiterate, please check WT:DYK for issues prior to moving hooks from prep. Fuebaey (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was just checking out the first case (Anna Mackenzie). My impression is that the ref for the hook sentence should have been the main DNB article (odnb) rather than the one for her husband (dnb) and so my fix was to add a single letter. But Victuallers got there first and I got an edit conflict. And now I get another edit conflict responding to this. Anyway, the hook was correct and so the article should be reinstated. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Mackenzie one has been readded to the main page, now that it is adequately sourced in the article (although I think it should be page 126, not 124, for the Edinburgh Castle fact). And Fuebaey's wild guess as to where I raised this was obviously correct :-) Fram (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 2 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 21 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 72 nominations are approved, leaving 255 of 327 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over six weeks:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why was Template:Did you know nominations/Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 894–896 listed as Nov. 8th? The template says it was nominated on the 19th.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
3family6, the dates listed here are the date of creation/initial expansion/GA listing, just like T:TDYK uses, and that article was created on November 8. The fact that it wasn't nominated until November 19 (four days late) has nothing to do with this list, except that nomination dates of unreviewed articles help determine which section (over six weeks, over one month, or the rest) the nomination appears in. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I had thought that the date given was the nomination date. Thank you for explaining.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

An editor made a comment about this nomination, after which it descended into interpersonal bickering, which I've now collapsed. Could somebody neutral please have a look at the nomination? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, hang on/will take a squiz. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

History of...

I wanted to nominate the new GA History of Briarcliff Manor for DYK, but I can't seem to think of an applicable hook. Most 'History of' articles would seem to be substantially harder to find hooks for than their overview article counterparts, and though there are some ways to make it work, I can't seem to think of any applicable to this article. Any ideas? Thanks.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

First two lines of the article can be good hooks. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
They'd be okay, I suppose, but it's nothing unique to the village, and it's not nearly as interesting as some of the more specific aspects of the village's history.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
After a quick look I'd suggest either the sinkhole or the local volunteers (?) guarding the Croton Aqueduct during WW1. (Check the sources -- if any cars, people, cows, or houses were swallowed by the sinkhole, that's always good for a hook.) There's another possibility: eight streets named for war dead. EEng (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
EEng - I know there are interesting bits of history, but I don't see how you can write in '''[[History of Briarcliff Manor]]''' into a hook like that.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 06:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
"Did you know ... that the History of Briarcliff Manor includes a 2011 sinkhole that swallowed a two-headed cow?" Something like that. But if you can't find anything you think is worthy of a hook, you may need to forego the DYK on this one and just be satisfied at the warm inner glow of knowing you brought the article to GA status. EEng (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly far from ideal, but I suppose something like that might work. I'll dwell on it some more. Thanks folks for all of the input.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 07:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ɱ: you don't have to use the title of the article: pipe links are also acceptable in the hook. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll be submitting a nom shortly.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A DYK that was promoted but never ran?

Hi DYK folks. Template:Did you know nominations/Netsmart Technologies was promoted on 16 November 2014. However it looks like it never ran – I did not get a notification on my talk page of it appearing nor is there any record of it on the article talk page. I looked at the queues and in the DYK archives and I don't see it. Can someone take a look and see what happened? Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think, but I may be mistaken that @Hawkeye7: promoted 6 hooks to prep1, but forgot to actually add 5 of them to prep1. The hooks are

The Cardamom, Pierce, Kolubara, and Shackleton hooks were added to Prep 2 in this edit, immediately before they were individually promoted (with identical incorrect edit summaries telling of addition to Prep 1 rather than Prep 2). As the edit summary for the Prep 2 addition says "Hooks - add five", but only four were added (and all four made it to the main page), I suspect this is where Netsmart was lost. I'll leave it to Hawkeye7 to complete the Netsmart promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I suspect so too. My procedure is to build the the prep area first, then finalise the promotion of the articles in rapid succession. This is to minimise the impact of an edit conflict with another prep area builder. It looks like there was one, causing a shift to a different prep area with one less slot available. And then I've accidentally promoted it with the rest. My apologies. I've added it to Prep 4. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Duplication detector is down (for good, probably)

I just found Duplication Detector not working. User Dcoetzee who created it is banned from Wikimedia. Don't know anything else about it. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just now been able to use the Duplication Detector at the regular tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ address. Since Dcoetzee has been banned since October 3, at least on English Wikipedia, the tool has clearly not been withdrawn, and seems to be getting some support to keep running... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Error in Queue 2

The final hook in Queue 2 (Glenwood Generating Station) has an error introduced by a change made after the review was closed. The rejection of the power plant was made before the town supervisor's comments, not after; this is clear from the source but not from the part quoted in the article itself.

In addition to this, the wording has been changed in a way that make it less clear, in my opinion. In general, such large changes to hooks should not be made in the prep areas. Either the approved hook should be restored or the review should be reopened. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This hook is due to go to the Main Page in about 2 hours, so it should be taken care of soon either way. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the change, and there's no way anyone could tell in what order the rejection and the comment occurred. If indeed the order is as you say, then we might change it to
X1 that after an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected, an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said that consumers were lowering thermostats and wearing sweaters?
The original hook appears to be in error as well, BTW. It was
that an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected in part because the Oyster Bay Town Board believed that consumers could instead save energy by wearing sweaters in their homes?
I can't see the entire source just now, but from its lead it appears the "energy conservation" (not specifically sweaters -- that's just one member's comment) was part of the rationale for the rejection. EEng (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That hook makes it sound like the sweaters were happening in response to the rejection rather than being a pre-existing rationale for it. If you want to discuss the hook further could you just pull it so we have time to come up with an acceptable one? My copy of the original source is on a printout at home and I'm at work now. I don't mind taking extra time to improve the hook, I just don't think it's a good idea to make such changes after the review has closed, and without notifying the nominator. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think you're overthinking this, but how about
X2 ... that in conjunction with rejection of a proposed expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station, an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said that consumers were lowering thermostats and wearing sweaters?
or
X3 ... that, commenting on rejection of a proposed expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station, an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said that consumers were lowering thermostats and wearing sweaters?
EEng (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
How about this: Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
X4 ... that after an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected, the Oyster Bay Town Supervisor justified it by saying that consumers were lowering their thermostats and wearing sweaters in their homes?
Justified "it" is a bit awkward, so howzabout:
X5 ... that an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor justified rejection of a proposed expansion of Glenwood Generating Station by saying that consumers were lowering their thermostats and wearing sweaters in their homes?
EEng (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think "justified rejection of a proposed expansion of" is more awkward than "justified it". X4 flows much better than X5. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you need do change "it" to something else (like "the action" or "its action") and do something about the fact that there's more than one supervisor. EEng (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is only one Town Supervisor; that is the name of the top executive officer for towns in New York. How about:
X6 ... that after an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected, the Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said the action was justified because consumers were wearing sweaters in their homes?
I removed the "lowering their thermostats" part because the hooks was above 200 characters. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. I apologize for misunderstanding re # of supervisors and thereby adding further to the confusion. EEng (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, there's still time to change it before it's done on the Main Page. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Done on MP. Harrias talk 08:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

vole

... that in the event of a severe flood, the gray-tailed vole will abandon its complex network of tunnels and head for high ground? (12/12/14)

— That vole won't be the only one... Sca (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Promo talk

In Queue 4, I changed

  • ... that demand for Zoe Sugg's debut novel Girl Online was so high that every bookshop started selling it before its official release date?

to

  • ... that the publisher claimed that demand for Zoe Sugg's debut novel Girl Online was so high that every bookshop started selling it before its official release date?

It's bad enough that we repeat such blatant promo talk on our front page, but at least we can make it clear that it is promotional talk and not some well-established fact. I seriously doubt that literally every bookshop (in the UK, one presumes) did this, as many specialized bookshops won't even stock this item... E.g. this one doesn't seem to have this book, which doesn't come as a surprise. Fram (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would much rather we did a completely different hook that has quantifiable facts, such as "....that the novel Girl Online broke the record for first-week sales for a debut author in the UK, selling over 78,000 copies" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be much better, but I try to avoid pulling hooks except for factual errors (or BLP reasons, copyvios, ... and the like). Too many people get upset when a hook gets pulled. Fram (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's change it to:
  • ... that the promotional hype for Zoe Sugg's debut novel Girl Online ridiculously claimed it was "sold out" in stores that didn't even carry it?
EEng (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
But it is factually incorrect! As you say, I would be utterly astonished if this was a best-seller in Chaucer Books (a great place to get old book sources for WP, but that's beside the point). If you won't pull it, I will (although being cascade protected, that might be difficult) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is factually incorrect (at least the original hook was, the current one just says that someone claimed something), but as it was sourced to newspapers (who sourced it to the publisher), some people will object if I pull it anyway. Too much insistence on factuality (and neutrality) isn't always appreciated. Fram (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe change "every bookseller" to "booksellers." Although I suspect it is too late to change it by now. Neutron (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion hook needs promotion

Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Daniel Anthonisz was approved on 11 December. The nominator had requested that it should be featured on 17 December and the reviewer also approved the hook but it was not moved to prep. Now it should be moved to Prep 6 so that the it appears on the Main Page on 17. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First since...

Now in Prep 3, Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Helmand Province incident, a GA. @It Is Me Here, MelanieN, and Cwmhiraeth:

The approved hook was actually

but Cwmhiraeth changed it when promoting it to prep 3, matching the hook to the article which makes the same claim (murder), while the Daily Telegraph (one of the two sources, the other the rather less reliable Daily Mail) narrows it down to the first convicted for a battlefield murder.

As the hook (and the article) now stand, it is hard to see why e.g. the case of Leslie Grantham doesn't count. In 1966, he was a lance corporal in the British Army, and served in Germany, where he murdered a taxi driver. He was convicted and spent more than ten years in prison for it.[16] The hook and the article probably need to be changed to make the correct claim. Something like

Fram (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that "a battlefield murder" would be enough, since it rules out Grantham since Grantham did not murder the man on a battlefield/during a battle? It Is Me Here t / c 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
So what precisely is a "battlefield murder". I changed the hook when I promoted it to agree with the article and because it didn't sound like a battlefield to me. The soldiers dragged their injured prisoner across a field and then shot him. The soldiers were on duty but not on a battlefield in my view. The soldier you mention was presumably off duty when he shot the taxi driver? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No idea whether he was on-duty or not. "Battlefield murder" doesn't seem enough, the "while serving abroad" needs to be added I think, as there have IIRC been convictions for murders during fights in Northern Ireland. Whether that is more or less of a battlefield is debatable, but they certainly looked to be "on-duty" murders. Something like Lee Clegg (though later overturned) or Ian Thain, or Mark Fisher and James Wright[17]. Fram (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
When in doubt about how to describe something, follow the sources. The Telegraph says "Blackman was given a life sentence at court martial for the battlefield execution of a badly wounded Taliban fighter during a patrol in Helmand province in September 2011" and "The case is unprecedented in modern times, with no other serviceman having been convicted of murder on a foreign battlefield since at least the Second World War" - twice using the word "battlefield" and once specifying "foreign battlefield." The Daily Mail says "the first British serviceman to be convicted of murder on active service abroad since the Second World War" - specifying "abroad" while not saying "battlefield". Based on the sources I think the ultimate hook should include both "battlefield" and "abroad". The hook suggested by Fram does both, and I would approve it in place of the one I initially approved. I would also suggest adding the word "battlefield" to the appropriate sentence in the article's lead. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's go with Fram's hook, then, as you suggest. It Is Me Here t / c 01:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the hook in Prep 3 to Fram's version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

I suggest changing the hook currently in Prep 6 to this ALT because the picture is being exhibited from November 2014 to March 2015. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, and have just altered the hook in Prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 10:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, and promoted a couple more queues besides. Harrias talk 11:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise...

Prep 6, Template:Did you know nominations/Andries Jan Pieters. @Crispulop, Cwmhiraeth, and Fuebaey:

To me, this strongly suggests that if the Dutch hadn't executed him, the Germans would have done it. However, this is highly unlikely. If the Dutch hadn't arrested him, or if the war had continued for a bit longer, then perhaps the Germans would have executed him for desertion. But as the hooks stands now, the juxtaposition doesn't make sense. Note that Capital punishment in Germany states that it was abolished in 1949 in West Germany, while Pieters was only executed in 1952, making the hook even more unlikely. Can this be reworded or pulled please? Fram (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. What about substituting:
I have now replaced the hook in Prep 6 with ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed GA from the main page

I thought, when we allowed GA's to be in the DYK section, that they might have a positive influence on the quality of DYK. However, there seem to be a lot of problems both with our GA process, and with the GA hooks. The difference with other hooks certainly isn't really noticeable.

I have now removed a hook from the main page for being, well, nonsense. We claimed

This is not sourced in the article. (Sentence "The park encompasses Bibbins Pond, and the acreage to its north, but the park's name may derive from a beaver pond that was once present." has no source). This lack of source is logical, considering that the Park was created in 1955 around the Beaver Brook, a brook that had that name already in the mid-19th century[18] and still does. It starts in Beaver Brook Pond. Now where could they possibly have found the name for their park? Now, it could well be that Beaver Brook and Beaver Brook Pond were originally named thus because there was a beaver pond. But the park is not named "Beaver Brook State Park" because there was perhaps once a beaver pond, but because the center of the park is the Beaver Brook (pond and stream). Fram (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri, Bloom6132, Colipon, 97198, and Mike V: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaver Brook State Park. Fram (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As the reviewer of this article I am sorry for not doing more due diligence in this case. Since this wasn't a BLP nor a controversial subject I guess I let down my guard and Assumed Good Faith. In the future I will exercise more due care in reviews. Colipon+(Talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Colipon: and @Fram: Leary actually notes this connection, but I seemed to have jumped that over when editing for context and flow. It was just a missing book citation, but it is an attributed albeit speculative comment based on the name by the author. Feel free to re-add it to the list or do as you please. Sorry for the confusion, normally I cite every thing in-line, but this was until I edited it. Though normally I don't like speculative comments even based on conventional wisdom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

GA with copyvios in Queue

I have removed a hook from Queue2, as it was from a GA with copyvio additions during the GA process. I'll delete the article (the revisions from the start of the GA push that is) after this post. Template:Did you know nominations/Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu. @Ochiwar, 3family6, Georgejdorner, 97198, and Mike V: I pinged you all as one of the steps in the article-to-DYK process, but the copyvio was not easy to spot, so I'm not blaming you (or the system) for how this slipped through. Ochiwar, this doesn't apply to you of course, as the one that seemingly has introduced all these copyvio's in your push for GA status. I hope this is the only article with such problems.

Examples of problematic copying (there may be more, these were sufficient to delete the article revisions): Fram (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Source Target Link to target text
The appliqué as well as the geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found in Afikpo dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Igboland. The appliqué, concentric, spiral, and geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found at[...] dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Afikpo. [19]
The elegant design and refined details are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze casting of the same period. Its elegant design and refined detailing are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze-casting of this period. [20]
The occupant may have held the position of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but only limited political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century. The occupant may have held a position as a forerunner of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but not political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century. [21]
[...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads, relief sculptures of crickets and flies and covered by a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu. [...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads. The rest of the shell surface has a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu. Scattered across this are relief sculptures of crickets and flies. [22]
@Fram: I checked a few of Ochiwar's other contributions, and his other GA, Igbo Landing has a 93.4% probability of a copyvio according to Earwig's tool ([23]). I randomly sampled other content on his userpage and found Pilon fracture at 39% and Upper gastrointestinal series at 45%, which are low enough to not be considered an issue, but it does seem to indicate a possible problem with copyvios. On the other hand, the tool also reports Mersea Island (my most recent GA) as a 59% possibility of copying a Flickr caption, which it isn't (they copied from us, not the other way round), so I wouldn't read too much into the reports. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I asked him on his talk page whether he thinks there are other pages with the same issues. If he realises the problem, helps with the cleanup, and changes his approach, then we can continue without problems. Fram (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd just proceed with caution - a look at the sites that the bot is complaining about Igbo Landing violating shows they are quite clearly copying from Wikipedia. One explicitly attributes us, the other implicitly. I can't see the deleted revisions for Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu, but are you absolutely certain who has copied from whom? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
In at least three of the four cases, yes, as our article gave the source of the text as source for the information (an indicator, to me, that the copyvio problems are more ignorance of the rules or carelessness than deliberate violations). The Scribd article is from 2005, the book as well, so these clearly precede our article. Fram (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was not aware that this type of close paraphrasing constitutes copyright violation since I always attributed the source with in-line citations. Having looked at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in detail again, I understand the problem. It says: Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. So although I did credit the source per inline citation I should have also attributed in the text by saying "John Smith said...". By the way the third of the four examples you quote is most certainly copied from Wikipedia and not the other way round. If you look closely you will find that it is an almost verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article as it was in December 2013. For the other three cited cases I agree that I was close paraphrasing but did not realize it as a problem as explained above. But surely, I had added over 20,000 bytes and images to the article most of which was not in violation. Is there anyway I can get at the deleted content to clean it up and summarize close paraphrasing to my own choice of words or in-text attribute the source and salvage the article? It would be a great shame to see all the hours I had put into the article go to waste. I will also go through my other articles for corrections were they may apply. Ochiwar (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave the wrong source for the third one, I had seen the text in quite a few sources and choose the wrong "origin". It also appears in Britannica though, which makes it a lot more likely that it is really a copyvio of course. And as a rule, I never publish email, userfy, whatever) texts or revisions which are known to be (in part) copyvios. That is indeed a pity if a lot of work has crept into it, but it's better safe than sorry. We are now aware of these four, but chances are that there are more of them, and that not all of them would be corrected. Fram (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I see, but that particular quote from Britannica is still part of the article in its present version which you reverted to, which is a version that existed before my first edit of the article, so it is not from me. Though I understand your rule and the reasons for it, it would be a loss to the encyclopedia to have all that content gone, most of which was good. If you could make an exception, I promise a complete re-write of the article in my sand box and thorough check to make sure there is no possibility of any close paraphrasing. After that I would invite you to vet the result before going back to main. I am very sure that in my edits to the article prior to June 2014 there is no close paraphrasing, at least not from me. You can check that out and if I cannot get back at the deleted content perhaps you could revert to a version from December 2013 and I can take it from there? Ochiwar (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not catching these violations. I did try to look for close paraphrasing, but did not notice just how similar these passages were.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Listen, you guys, you gotta cut it out with these statements that some tool has determined there's an X percent "probability of a copyvio". That's ridiculous. No tool can possibly make such a determination. These percentages are nothing more than an ill-defined measure running from 0 ("seems like only trivial matches") to 100 ("boy, a whole lotta stuff matches!"). It's completely impressionistic and has nothing to do with probabilities. These tools detect smoke -- humans must determine whether there's fire. EEng (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly the point I made and why I decided to deliberately include the tool's results where it suggested I had violated copyright in a GA when I know I did nothing of the sort. Websites copy from Wikipedia all the time and consequently the tool is just that - a tool. It works well for brand new articles, but once an article is "mature", websites will copy it left, right and centre, and if you're lucky they'll attribute it. Trapping copyright is difficult and a bit of a black art if I'm honest, and the best thing you can do if you spot it is to copyedit it away, if possible. I don't mind concerns being flagged up, but I am a bit concerned that Fram may have cracked a nut with a sledgehammer here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Seriously there is no need to delete twenty to thirty thousand bytes I have added to the article, because the close paraphrasing is not extensive. Flagging the problem and notifying me might have been an adequate first measure. The third example was not added by me, the fourth example you cite is the description of an image. There are only so many ways you can describe an image, so it actually falls under WP:LIMITED. I plead to be given a chance to salvage. Ochiwar (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is now completely deleted, as indeed one of the copyvios predated Ochiwars additions, and the original version of the page, where this was a remnant from, was a blatant copyvio of [24]. Fram (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A cautionary tale. Did you know nominations?History of Briarcliff Manor was an important lesson in use of computer related copyright violations. It can tell you there was a violation, but not who is copying whom. The raw data is one thing; but careful analysis, with all available facts, is indispensable. Only then can you arrive at a reasoned and right conclusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the first that I've ever encountered Earwig's tool, but boy, is that a handy thing. So much less clunky then dup detector.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Can it be re-nominated?

So, now that the article was re-created, could it be nominated again, since the old history was deleted?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably only if it makes GA again. I would imagine that a fair amount of the non-infringing material is being reused in the reconstituted article, which would run into the 5x expansion requirement for previously existing material even if the article is "new". BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that GA reviewers should not also review the same article if it's nominated for DYK as a GA, so we can get another set of eyes on the article. We've had a number of GAs that were found to have copyvios or close paraphrasing issues by the DYK reviewer, and the problems might have been discovered here if the reviewer hadn't been the same person in both cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. That was one of the reasons, when I reviewed the article for DYK, that I indicated I wanted another review, to double-check that I hadn't missed anything. By the way, can we include Earwig's tool on the small sidebar for DYK noms, as it seems far superior to the dup detector?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, non of the previously existing material is being re-used because the old article had been plagiarized by a Nigerian newspaper that copied the article verbatim from Wikipedia as can be seen here, so in order to avoid being accused in future of copying from this source, whose writer will now be assumed to be the original author (since old versions of the article have all been deleted and there seems to be no way for me to prove anymore that it was copied from Wikipedia), I decided to re-Write the article from scratch. Some of the sources remain the same of course but the content and structure is not based on the old article. Ochiwar (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So...

@DocumentError:, @Mandarax:, @Hawkeye7:

Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum was closed as unsuccessful, and archived shortly thereafter. However, the reviewer left a note urging the nominator to resubmit it if they could promote it to GA, which they did. They then renominated it here, which I told them is not the right way to go. The question is, how is the nomination supposed to be reopened? Do they need to create a new nom page (Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2?) or do they have to copy-paste a blank DYK nom template into the old one? Is an article even eligible for re-nomination after being rejected once? Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

An article is eligible for renomination after being rejected. It was rejected for being insufficiently expanded. Having passed GA, it is now eligible on those grounds instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
G S Palmer, they should create a new nomination page. Once the old page is closed, especially as a rejection, it shouldn't be reopened. (Sometimes closed pages need to be reopened if the hook is pulled from prep or queue.) As Hawkeye7 notes, a new GA gives a new opportunity for an article that failed to qualify the first time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it hadn't been done yet, so I took care of it, using the title suggested above, the hook from the original nomination and the timestamp from the attempted renomination. DocumentError, you may, of course, replace the hook or add ALTs as desired. Also, it appears that you have six DYK credits, so a QPQ review will be required. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Mandarax thanks, I did a QPQ review here, however, I can't figure out how to add a link to the DYK review you kindly put up. When I open it to edit I just see the old DYK. DocumentError (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! I forgot to put the new nom page in {{DYK nompage links}}. I fixed it now, and I added your "reviewed" link to your nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 4 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 19 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 83 nominations are approved, leaving 215 of 298 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over six weeks:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Queue 5

...that the North Shore Towers, a gated residential community in New York, is powered by its own energy source?

should read

...that the North Shore Towers, a gated residential community in New York, generates its own electricity?

since clearly there is no "energy source" within the complex, merely a plant which converts one form of energy (diesel, natural gas, or something) into another form (electricity). EEng (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good spot, clarified. Harrias talk 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 December 2014

Item 1, Boticelli needs to be corrected to Botticelli.

Awien (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 talk 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas preps – Prep 3

I moved the "bullets fired at the White House" hook to Prep 6 because it didn't sound so Christmasy. I think a church hook would work well here, but none have been approved. Could someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/San Luis Obispo de Tolosa Parish Church, an article that I improved, and approve one of the alts? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Now somebody just needs to promote it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Christmas

This: Template:Did you know nominations/Madonna of the Book (Botticelli) was requested for Dec 24 or 25. I approved ALT4. Can someone promote it to an appropriate queue? It'd be great leading hook for that timeframe. Thank you. HalfGig talk 04:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Best way to ensure this is to put it in the Christmas holding area at the bottom of the nominations page. Harrias talk 11:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I"ll give that a shot. I'm surprised one didn't already exist. HalfGig talk 12:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)...Actually it is already there but doesn't show in the index at the top of the page for some reason. HalfGig talk 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi)

For some reason the template has misfunctioned here; I can't see why. Also it is a late Xmas submission. Now listed at 21 December. I'd be grateful if someone could sort this out. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, hook was not properly formatted. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, the problem was that you forgot the closing brackets on the article link. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This nomination has now been approved and can hopefully appear on Christmas Day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done: I promoted it to prep 2, along with the image, and made it the main hook. Grumpy Cat got moved to second place and lost the picture. (Now that's something to be grumpy about.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas preps

Just a note that preps 3 and 4 look like being the prime queues for Christmas Day hooks, and preps 1 and 2 will run on Christmas Day in eastern Asia and Oceania. Prep 1 is the next to be filled. That said, it doesn't look like we have many Christmas Day hooks in the holding area: we should prioritise any Christmas related hooks without review. Harrias talk 07:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A reviewer is needed to check the ALT hooks on one Christmas nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. It should be fairly easy to check. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have rushed in where angels fear to tread, and have approved ALT6 (and tweaked it). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Diminu-cat (and see [1])
Now we need someone to promote the hook to prep for Christmas Day before the preps fill up. (Neither of us can, since we are involved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it helps to know that the Magnificat was sung in Leipzig on two of the three days of Christmas, and Germany still has two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Hook promoted to Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What about this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Sony Pictures Entertainment hack? --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Somehow the subject matter doesn't fit with the feel-good hooks running in the Christmas preps. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
... --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to include it for Christmas, other than the fact that it's currently in the news. But that's not the purpose of this project. You could try over at WP:ITN/C. Fuebaey (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Another corporate CEO ready for grilling

Ready for grilling, sir!
Guineas not ready for grilling

He's well-"Prepped" for the witness stand. Yum! EEng (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC) DYK neophytes may look here [25] for a hint.

Forty Guineas buys a lot of hamburgers, even in Covent Garden!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Your turn to grill the witness, counselor!

No need to mock! I think that hook is very "punchy". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_112&oldid=1227106640"