Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 120

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122→Archive 125

Queue 1

If an administrator can get to this before it goes to the main page in a few hours, an editor has pointed out that the 1834 Poor Law refers to both English and Welsh workhouses. Here is the revised hook:

Done :) Shubinator (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Strange phenomenon on DYK Nathan Gafuik

Template:Did you know nominations/Nathan Gafuik is listed on December 22. You can open this template from the link I put here. On the nominations page, you can click on Article History and that will open. But if you click on "Review or comment", it goes to a Permission error page that says:

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

Strange stuff. Is it a coding error? — Maile (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Maile66: Probably fixed with this. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jakec: That did it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Kuomintang in Burma has problems

Not to be a party pooper, but Kuomintang in Burma is about to run complete with "orphan" tag, and lacking closing cites on a number of paragraphs. I have added two links, but lack a third to de-orphan it. Of course, I have no way of supplying cites.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, "about to run" in this context means it's in Prep 4. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I pulled it from Prep 4; it's back under review with the above issues noted. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The second hook in Queue 5 has a link to dab page Labor Party. It may be best to simply unlink it. If it must be linked, I'd recommend wikt:Labour Party. If you don't like that, I suppose it could link to Australian Labor Party, but to avoid a misleading link, it should pipe to more of the text than just "Labor Party". Sorry I didn't see this sooner; it hits the Main Page in about 40 minutes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that it's been linked to List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 3

@Animalparty: @SusunW:

I really question whether stating that a person died by suicide is the best hook for any subject, much less this one, who has been called "arguably the single, most influential figure involved in the early growth and development of plant pathology and the plant sciences generally in the USDA." Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Yoninah's assessment here. Why not just say: "... that Beverly Thomas Galloway was a pioneer in plant pathology and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture?" People should be remembered for what they achieved in life rather than how they died. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Makes no difference to me. As a reviewer, I don't see my job as one of censorship, but one of confirming the information. Whether it appeals to me or not is irrelevant, as there are those who would find the claim interesting. The claim was included in the article and was accurate. I concur Yoninah that his influence with the USDA is a more interesting angle to me, but I wasn't presented that option. Your hook Notecardforfree is less than the maximum and is confirmed by sources. SusunW (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll go ahead and shorten the hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
My 2 cents: As article creator and hook writer, I was simply trying to find an interesting/unusual aspect, to actually hook readers (DYK is for drawing viewers, articles are for informing), per WP:HOOK. A scientist committing suicide is unusual, and the majority of sources in the article don't even mention Galloway's cause of death. Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Review the hook says odd, unusual, unexpected facts are preferred to bland facts like "did you know that X is a Y"?. I will not challenge the shortening of this hook, but I urge all nominators, reviewers, and promoters to strive for more enticing hooks that are likely to appeal to a wide range of readers, not simply those already familiar with the subject or field. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
That's all very well, but making a "hook" out of suicide is a little tasteless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Tabloidy and quite tasteless. Montanabw(talk) 07:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

DYKcheck question

I've been working on expanding the benzylamine article, which is presently at 3451 characters according to DYKcheck. The version from which I started is 690 characters according to DYKcheck. Thus, I have reached a x5 expansion - just. There is more to add so exceeding the limit by more will occur, but I am confused why the DYKcheck tool is not catching that a x5 expansion has occurred. Am I just missing something obvious? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It's at 5X now since your edits after you posted above. However, I get the same thing you got with the above version. Odd. @Shubinator: would be the person to answer that quirk. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd imagine that DYKcheck is picking up the 710 prose character version that was in place prior to the edit on February 19, 2015, which reduced the article to 690 prose characters. That's likely why 3451 was insufficient for DYKcheck, but the current 3598 is plenty, exceeding the 3550 needed for a 5x expansion of the earlier 710. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile and BlueMoonset. That does seem to be what DYKcheck is doing... but, should it be? Am I wrong in thinking it should be counting from the 690 character version rather than the 710 character version? It doesn't matter for determining the eligibility of my expansion of the benzylamine article, but it does seem to me to point to a possible problem with the DYKcheck algorithm. EdChem (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@EdChem, BlueMoonset, and Shubinator: You are correct in that it picked up the wrong start date for 5X. Since DYKcheck is Shubinator's tool, maybe he can address whether that was a random fluke or otherwise. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
But DYKcheck isn't necessarily supposed to pick up a "correct" start date. Consider an article that was cut in half a week or two before the expansion started. It's important to know that the article used to be larger, and possibly even contained some of the material being added the latest expansion. By getting a result that indicates that the article used to be larger, the reviewer will (or should) go looking to see why DYKcheck says the expansion isn't 5x, and judge the particular circumstances with regard to this article. I'd want to have DYKcheck give me this information; I can judge whether it's germane, and I've done reviews where it was highly germane. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
At a technical level, DYKcheck assumes the article has been monotonically increasing in length. Without this assumption, DYKcheck would take exponentially longer to check for 5x expansion, rendering it nearly unusable. Shubinator (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
In other words, to be sure, check it yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. If DYKcheck tells you it is 5x expanded from on or after the appropriate date, you can believe it. If it tells you the article isn't a 5x, or not from the point the expansion started, look further to be sure. A quick glance at the article history is usually enough, and if not, then do further checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
In other words, check it yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Elephant & Castle tube station

Do you think we should nominate this on new year's day? A newborn baby represents a new year. VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 16:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I did a minor rewrite of the hook and it is now ALT2. Needs a review. As this was promoted to GA, there really aren't a lot of issues, other than wording of the hook, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There are issues around the name of the baby and her mother as sources seem to vary. I have updated the article from what seem to be better sources but this needs more careful checking to be sure. Andrew D. (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality check for DYK

So, just wondering, what's the quality check process for the articles linked to from DYK blurbs? For instance 22nd Crash Rescue Boat Squadron, linked to today, only has American customary units, without conversion, which is of course completely unacceptable for main page linkage. Also, there are frequent problems with ENGVAR and misleading blurbs. Can we please implement a better QA for DYN entries? Fgf10 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know For your reading enjoyment. — Maile (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Conversions are not required for a DYK nom. Often these will be added when the page appears linked from the main page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think conversions are even part of the GA criteria, which only require very limited MOS compliance. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding eligibility of Template:Did you know nominations/Death by Chocolate

I reviewed the above-linked nomination, and noticed that while Northamerica1000 expanded it fivefold in the past three days, there was an older revision that was considerably longer. WP:DYKSG rule A4 says that Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion., but this does not seem to be the kind of thing that rule was intended for. For one thing, the content was removed by another editor, and for another, it was several months ago. I'd like some further input on this. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If it were indeed several months, I'd say it was open-and-shut to allow the expansion to count. However, the deletion of the OR material was November 16, not quite six weeks before the December 27 expansion. As such, this is very much in a gray area, whether the person doing the deleting was the expanding editor or not, though because it was not and no deleted material was reincorporated, I'd be more inclined toward leniency. If it had only been a few weeks, however, I would have supported enforcing A4. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I got it into my head that it was removed on September 21, but that was apparently the date of the last revision before it was removed. Anyway, since I'd also lean towards leniency, I'll go ahead and move forward with the review. Thanks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Upanishad DYKs

We have these frequently, in the blurbs the Upanishad is invariably in italics. However the articles and the references to the Upanishads in the article are not in italics. What's the right answer? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that these are works like books or manuscripts, and therefore should be italicized. @Nvvchar:? Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah:@The Rambling Man:In about 60 Upanishad articles in the WP the title need to be changed. I followed the past practice. But you are right that they should be in italics since they are published as books collectively or individually. I will make the changes. Thanks.Nvvchar. 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us into early December. As of the most recent update, 88 nominations have been approved, leaving 218 of 306 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 30 from November, most of which are left over from last week's list.

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) 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm paying back some DYKs I owed from a very long time ago

I was a recipient of a 32-in-1-DYK a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. User: Doug Coldwell and I set a record, which has since been eclipsed. Under the rules at the time we were not required to do 32 DYKs as WP:QPQ. There was a controversy that developed, and to put oil on the waters I said I would do them as QPQs. I am doing this not because I have to (probably nobody remembers the antecedents), but because it is the right thing to do. It took a while, but there they are. I am relinquishing them, and will just have to do more when I have other nominations. They are my donation to the cause, and fulfillment of my promise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, everyone. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I remember that nomination because I was the one who passed it. I commend your honesty and willingness to play by the rules. Good work! Yoninah (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I had noticed you were doing a lot of reviewing, well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 5

Neither Rebbetzin Heller or any of her "thousands of students around the globe" are going to see her hook because it is scheduled to appear on Shabbat (Friday night January 1 – Saturday night January 2). Could this hook be moved to a prep for January 3 or later? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016

It's the beginning of a new year and the start of another WikiCup season. Its a competition that exactly suits content creators and improvers like those contributing to DYK. Signups are here, so why not give it a go? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sibelius 150 years on 8 December

Composer Jean Sibelius will be celebrated on 8 December, 150 years after he was born. There will not be only Sibelius hooks that day, as all-Sinatra a few days later, but a few would be nice, including two with an image, - his bio is under review for GA. Can we reserve a few slots for him that day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We have now one in each set for the day, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The preps were fine when I went to bed, but now his image is in Queue 5 which is scheduled for 9 December. We are still contemplating another hook, now that his article is a GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: After some rearrangement by David Levy, we have a pictured hook and a quirky one now (yes, it's already th 8th in the East), and a pictured one for the 9th (which will be the 8th in the West). We have the nom for the biography which needs a review. We have at present no hook about him tomorrow, by the argument that the TFA covers the birthday. It doesn't. It's about an obscure lost piece, and the image is rather private. I would love to see some Sibelius on DYK on the "real day", preferedly the bio pictured. I remember that when Kafka was TA, Kafka works was on DYK to add to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
As I noted on my talk page, we almost always seek to avoid covering similar subjects in more than one main page section simultaneously, including on special occasions. (For example, we list major holidays in OTD, but if an article related to a country achieving independence is TFA, we omit a mention of its independence day from OTD – even if it's a particularly noteworthy anniversary.) We don't purposely display two images of someone at the same time, irrespective of his/her fame.
To reiterate my suggestion, if the remaining Sibelius hook is approved in time, it would be suitable as the first in queue 5, with the one currently occupying that position shifted to the bottom.
Either way, forty-eight consecutive hours of Sibelius-related material on the main page (with his likeness appearing throughout) is a highly prominent tribute that very few individuals receive. —David Levy 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
All right, only it leads to the slightly paradox situation that on the very day of his birthday, DYK will be silent, although his biography is a GA now, and a more sophisticated article than the FA on the limited topic. A bit kafkaesque, especially compared to Sinatra with 14 DYK entries one day. I nominated one more composition, do with it what you want. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It's important to consider the entire main page, as this is how its content is presented to the general public. A vast majority of the page's visitors (including Wikipedia's editors!) have little or no knowledge of the page's inner workings. To them, TFA and DYK (among other sections) are simply parts of the whole, with the former occupying the most prominent position. They won't perceive a situation in which DYK has gone silent on the subject; they'll see one continuous tribute, including the birthday-timed presentation of a featured article (whose readers are likely to click through to our Jean Sibelius article and articles about his other works). Only when the editors maintaining the main page's individual sections fail to coordinate does it begin to come across as a hodgepodge of contributions from people doing their own things (instead of an elegant team effort). —David Levy 19:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a good suggestion for when to show the GA Sibelius within the next six weeks if not on his birthday? - Did you read above that TFA Kafka was supported by DYK Kafka works. I call that collaboration, not failure of coordination. Happy birthday where I live. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a good suggestion for when to show the GA Sibelius within the next six weeks if not on his birthday?
I offered a suggestion on my talk page and restated it above. (I don't know whether you consider it "good".)
Did you read above that TFA Kafka was supported by DYK Kafka works. I call that collaboration, not failure of coordination.
Via what forum did this TFA–DYK collaboration occur? I see no mention of such a plan in the TFA request discussion or in Bencherlite's talk page archives. —David Levy 05:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Forum? Bencherlite proposed the date for the most successful TFA so far (must be somewhere on my talk, or PumpkinSky's). The works were originally part of the biography until enough FA reviewers thought it was getting too long. I split them off and nominated them for DYK. Which other day would have been good if not the one his birthday was remembered??. - Waiting now which day will be chosen to show the biography of Sibelius, and what our readers will think of that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
To call it "collaboration" is to overplay it considerably. I suggested a TFA date to you, it was nominated by PumpkinSky and scheduled, and precisely one article appeared at DYK on the same day, nominated by you with no mention of the TFA. BencherliteTalk 06:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I have a language problem. David says that FA and DYK (and OTD) should not deal with the same subject, while I think that for special events, they should be allowed to complement each other (instead of some rivalry about which section should be the only one to celebrate), such as the Kafka example (which according to David's view should not have happened), St. Michael's Day which was mentioned OTD and DYK (same), and - if I had something to say - on the birthday of Jean Sibelius, when instead we did no DYK hook about Sibelius, but will eventually see his biography highlighted some arbitrary day. Can we change rules which don't allow that? (I still don't know where they are.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I have a language problem.
Perhaps so. In this context, "collaboration" refers to "the act of working with another or others on a joint project". The TFA and DYK scheduling occurred independently, not as a coordinated effort. Fortunately, only one relevant DYK hook (not an entire set of them) appeared.
David says that FA and DYK (and OTD) should not deal with the same subject, while I think that for special events, they should be allowed to complement each other (instead of some rivalry about which section should be the only one to celebrate),
Rivalry? Wikipedia is not about us. The main page's content is determined for the benefit of the site's readers, who expect topical balance and diversity. We try to avoid displaying two similar images (e.g., photographs of birds or satellite views of storms) simultaneously. The idea of purposely pairing two images of the same person is a non-starter. —David Levy 19:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we have Sibelius in 2015?

Just a reminder that we will hopefully see the biography featured on DYK during this month of his 150th birthday, not next year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Repeating the reminder, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Green tickY thanks to Yoninah, SusunW and Ipigott, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we have Übers Gebirg in Advent?

Template:Did you know nominations/Übers Gebirg Maria geht was approved, but a date found missing by BlueMoonset, I tried to fix it. It would not make much sense to show the pregnant Mary after Christmas.

Thank you, BlueMoonset and Yoninah, for bringing it on its way, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a Christmas cantata for Christmas?

I expanded Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110, for GA quality. When I ran DYK check it said it was expanded 5*, so I nominated, relieved that I don't have to press someone to a review on short notice. DYK check seems to be wrong, and we have rules that don't permit to show an article if we expand only by 6000 characters. The longest part of the article (Section Music) was copyvio from Allmusic. I will try to look for a GA reviewer, - does anybody who reads this feel called?? Or other kind of mercy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: my reading of the DYK check was wrong, sorry. A GA review is on it's way,so hope you can hold a slot for this music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: only two minor wording issues are open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: now GA, DYK review can go ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it Sibelius Day today, 27 December?

Today, 19 days after the 150th anniversary of his birth, the bio Jean Sibelius appeared, - how are we going to explain that to our readers who must think that we don't know the calendar? On top, the substantial article appeared without image,- same question. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2015‎ (UTC)

I'd also like to know what happened with the Prep 5 set scheduled for 12:00, 27 December 2015. User:Cwmhiraeth put the hook in the lead slot with an image, but it was somehow (later? in the middle of the 12-hour window?) pushed down into the set and a different lead hook and image ran instead. Nevertheless, it got 20,999 hits. How did that happen? Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Aha, I found it: User:David Levy took it upon himself to swap the hooks because: Sibelius's likeness has appeared on the main page three times this month. An appearance by a notable woman is a better use of the space than yet another appearance by Sibelius would be. Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) The hits of December of today don't yet include the two articles presented today. Hits were high around the anniversary, when the world was interested. I believe that the biography should have appeared then, with an image. Instead, the DYK section was kept Sibelius-free on 8 December, because the TFA mentioned him, and related articles were moved to a day before and after. Not a good reason, I think. I we have a rule to create such absurdity, we should look at it and hopefully change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The spike in views occurred primarily because of 8 December's TFA (which did considerably more than "mention" Sibelius, given that the article's subject was one of his works) and the Sibelius-themed DYK sets that appeared on 7 and 9 December. (Many readers clicked through to his biographical article for background information.)
I don't know why you believe that bombarding the site's visitors with as much simultaneous Sibelius-related material as possible was necessary or appropriate, let alone why our failure to do so was absurd. —David Levy 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fascinated by a description of the thought process that you believe underlies such perplexity among Wikipedia's readers, to whom you apparently ascribe an extraordinary focus on this particular subject. —David Levy 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I will disappoint you because its so simple. I think that we - like it or not - have a culture of celebrating "round birthdays" on certain days, not only on Wikipedia. Just look at Beethoven on 17 December, without any special mentioning on Wikipedia. Even the list of his works received a spike of attention that day. Why do you think that DYK should be the one place not to follow but highlight a person some other day? I guess that you don't typically celebrate your birthday three weeks later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to explain why "celebrating round birthdays" makes sense to people. I'm asking you to rationalize your belief that a substantial segment of Wikipedia's readership would see Sibelius-related main page content, relate it to the anniversary of his birth (nineteen days earlier) and "think that we don't know the calendar". Why, in your view, would most readers even make the connection, let alone find it jarring? —David Levy 00:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@David Levy: Am I correct that you re-ordered the queue set on an admin edit-only page about 90 min before it went live on the main page, overruling the judgement of Casliber who promoted the set to the queue, without consulting Casliber or anyone else? EdChem (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Double-barreled question. —David Levy 00:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
David, you are open to respond any way you choose - by breaking up the question as you see fit and responding in parts (if you prefer), or taking any other approach. I am seeking information, in that I cannot see whether you looked at and considered the discussion that led to a hook appearing on a particular date. I cannot see if you have communicated with anyone about it off-wiki, by email or IRC (for example) given that time was limited. I cannot know whether you consider changing a queue as over-ruling the promoting admin, nor whether others would agree with me that it is. I cannot know whether you considered seeking consensus at WT:DYK (or elsewhere) or see it as within your authority to decide unilaterally. It is obvious to me that moving a hook from the image slot will likely upset its proposer, and taking steps to address concerns pre-emptively would be wise, but whether you considered that is also unknown. I am not so much concerned with the specific instance as with the principle at stake, in that a queue page is open only to admin editing and like any fully protected page this means that changes that are likely to be of concern should require consensus. The admin ability to edit through protection should not be used to rearrange a queue, in my opinion, unless it is unambiguously necessary (fixing errors, for example, including pulling hooks if major issues emerge - as happens from time to time) or with consensus. What I seek to understand is (i) your view of when changing a queue unilaterally is justified (ii) whether the change here was unilateral or some discussion occurred of which I am unaware (iii) whether you considered you did over-rule Casliber, and whether contact with him was necessary / appropriate / courteous but not required / unnecessary / something else (iv) whether contacting the hook submitter(s) was needed / desirable / whatever and (v) whether the time to main page (about 90 min) influenced your decisions. Please feel free to approach this in any way that suits you so as to not feel the need to link to an article as a response which does not help me or others to understand your decisions and thinking, etc. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The moving of hooks from preps to queues is pretty routine so I don't view that as an admin action per se. However some discussion concerning Sibelius as per here beforehand might have been prudent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: Thanks for putting in your thoughts, but to me your response points to a problem... moving preps to the queue is (as I understand it) supposed to be the last check on the set for the main page, and involves the admin in question taking some sort of responsibility. The queue page, fully protected, should not be something that an admin can change without consensus unless a clear error is present, just like any other fully protected page. If that is the present practice, then I think a discussion should be had to see if there is consensus for a change, because as it stands apparently admins can change queues for any reason and the rest of the editing community is powerless, and that is explicitly something that full protection is not supposed to allow. Casliber, please correct me if I am wrong, but the admin who promotes a set to the queue is effectively setting the content at the point where full protection kicks in, and changes beyond that point to any other fully protected page without discussion / consensus or a clear error would be prohibited. I hasten to add I am not suggesting anyone should be "punished" in this case as I think it likely this is a systemic issue, I am just seeking to understand. EdChem (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@EdChem: having three checkpoints meant that people were assuming vetting would occur elsewhere. The main vet-points are the initial tick and the promotion to prep. If I see something in prep to fix I will but am not doing a detailed check there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
In my view, the matter was addressed thoroughly earlier in the month (here and on my talk page). I saw no new ground to cover. —David Levy 04:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my curt reply. I misread your tone and mistook your message for rhetorical censure.
I checked Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Sibelius and found no indication of any particular reason to display the image on that date. There was some discussion of how to handle the matter if the hook ran on 8 December (Sibelius's birthday), which didn't occur. The actual scheduling wasn't date-specific, and the only relevant mention of the image's use was Gerda Arendt's comment that Sibelius would be "hopefully pictured". Having discussed the Sibelius hooks with Gerda extensively (on-wiki), I was aware that he/she sought "to celebrate [Sibelius's birthday] with as many hooks and images as possible" (greatly exceeding that which the community allows), and I'd gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate his/her preferences in a manner reasonably consistent with our normal standards (but, nonetheless, unprecedented in its duration).
I don't regard changing a queue as overruling the promoting administrator, provided that the modification is in line with the spirit in which the original edits were made (in other words, if there's no reason to believe that it constitutes a material alteration of something done a certain way for a specific reason). In this instance, I saw no evidence that the hooks' order or the image selection had special significance or that swapping the two hooks and replacing the image contradicted the admin's fundamental intent (and, therefore, no need for consultation).
I agree that such edits should reflect consensus. This includes the longstanding consensus to avoid displaying similar images on the main page in a short time frame. Excepting ITN (for which our image selection is relatively limited), it's highly unusual (and generally considered undesirable) to display the likeness of a particular individual more than once in the span of a month (longer than that, really). The fourth appearance of a person's image on the main page this month would not even be borderline in its inconsistency with Wikipedia's conventions.
Time sensitivity was not a factor. Otherwise, I'd have extended the window by swapping the entire set with one from another queue. —David Levy 04:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Being involved in the recent "campaigns" for Frank Sinatra Day and Christmas Day for DYK, I was under the impression that DYK is an independent entity. There is a lot of collaboration and consensus among DYK editors on the nomination templates and, especially, on this talk page, as to how to present and promote hooks and sets. Now it seems that there is a "power that be" that can stop a hook from reaching the main page, notwithstanding all the collaboration and consensus that has gone into it until that point. I agree with @Gerda Arendt: that this new rule needs to be spelled out and written into the DYK codebook. Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I would wish that we don't get a rule that nobody needs. David, do you understand that I am ashamed that a short article I wrote on a composition (not much more than an expanded infobox), had an image, twice, while the substantial biography had not (because of you)? The first time ever that an image proposed by me wasn't taken (in 2009), I was told that one reason to choose an image is quality of the article. Your change was unfair to Ipigott who carried most of the load to expand the biography to what it is: an article Wikipedia can proudly show. To do that late, and without an image, seems wrong, twice. - I don't understand why you think your understanding of a "conversation" (see conversation on my talk) you can't point to, can overrule a hook assembly by the community. - Let's look forward: we are working on a TFA for Easter. If I understand you right, David, you would object to any DYK hook on Easter then, and I would object to that. Why not celebrate that feast on both TFA and DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
David, do you understand that I am ashamed that a short article I wrote on a composition (not much more than an expanded infobox), had an image, twice, while the substantial biography had not (because of you)?
It wasn't my idea to dedicate two entire DYK sets to Sibelius, nor was it my decision to exclude his biography from said sets.
Do you understand that displaying an individual's likeness on the main page four times in a span of three weeks is wildly inconsistent with Wikipedia's longstanding practices?
The first time ever that an image proposed by me wasn't taken (in 2009), I was told that one reason to choose an image is quality of the article.
Yes, that's one reason. It isn't the only reason. Another is the pursuit of variety and topical balance.
Your change was unfair to Ipigott who carried most of the load to expand the biography to what it is: an article Wikipedia can proudly show.
I find it disconcerting that you regard a hook's appearance in a slot other than the first as a slight. All of the bold-linked articles should be a source of pride – for one reason or another – but most are not accompanied by a related image. Do you regard WikiProject Women's 2015 Women in Religion virtual edit-a-thon as unworthy of recognition?
Of course, as I noted previously, Wikipedia exists primarily for the benefit of readers, not for us. Do you recognize the logic behind favoring the appearance of a notable person's image on the main for the first time ever over that of someone whose likeness appeared in three previous instances that month? Are you aware that only 16% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women? Have you considered any goal other than "[celebrating Sibelius's birthday] with as many hooks and images as possible"?
I don't understand why you think your understanding of a "conversation" (see conversation on my talk) you can't point to, can overrule a hook assembly by the community.
Firstly, that might be because I made no mention of a "conversation". Secondly, I don't understand why you think that a subset of a subset of the Wikipedia community can overrule the Wikipedia community at large.
Let's look forward: we are working on a TFA for Easter. If I understand you right, David, you would object to any DYK hook on Easter then, and I would object to that.
We've made exceptions for holidays, which differ greatly from an individual's birthday (apart from instances of overlap). —David Levy 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Being involved in the recent "campaigns" for Frank Sinatra Day and Christmas Day for DYK, I was under the impression that DYK is an independent entity.
Such autonomy simply doesn't exist at Wikipedia. DYK functions as a subcommunity, whose decisions must be consistent with the standards and practices of the community at large.
There is a lot of collaboration and consensus among DYK editors on the nomination templates and, especially, on this talk page, as to how to present and promote hooks and sets.
Absolutely. Please don't interpret anything that I've written as dismissive of the hard work that takes place here.
Now it seems that there is a "power that be" that can stop a hook from reaching the main page, notwithstanding all the collaboration and consensus that has gone into it until that point.
Firstly, I didn't stop any of the Sibelius hooks from reaching the main page. In fact, I personally promoted one (which was accompanied by an image).
Secondly, this isn't about a "power that be". My personal preferences have no bearing on the edits in question. When participating in an administrative capacity, my goal is to act in accordance with Wikipedia consensus. Any failure to do so is unintentional.
I agree with @Gerda Arendt: that this new rule needs to be spelled out and written into the DYK codebook.
There is no new rule. —David Levy 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
But you seem to be representing some kind of rule, which you're calling "the Wikipedia community at large". At the very least, you should have posted what you were going to do on this talk page before doing it. Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
But you seem to be representing some kind of rule, which you're calling "the Wikipedia community at large".
I'm referring to the Wikipedia community's longstanding practice of seeking to maximize variety (and minimize repetition) on the main page. Excepting ITN (for which our image options can be painfully limited), displaying a particular individual's likeness more than once in a three-week span typically would be indicative of a lapse in quality control (albeit an entirely understandable one). Running four such images in that time frame – purposely, no less – is unheard-of. I'm not one for hyperbole, but the phrase "off the rails" comes to mind.
At the very least, you should have posted what you were going to do on this talk page before doing it.
On what basis? I checked for relevant discussion and found only a single comment by Gerda Arendt that Sibelius would be "hopefully pictured". Having discussed the Sibelius hooks with Gerda extensively, I was aware that he/she sought "to celebrate [Sibelius's birthday] with as many hooks and images as possible", and I'd gone to great lengths to accommodate his/her preferences in a manner somewhat consistent with our normal standards (encompassing an unprecedented forty-eight consecutive hours of Sibelius prominence on the main page – including a featured article, two DYK sets comprising nothing but Sibelius-related hooks, and the aforementioned three images). I don't see why it was necessary to consider the possibility that this was insufficient (and a fourth Sibelius image was called for), particularly given that this radical departure from the norm wasn't discussed in the first place (apart from Gerda's remark, quoted above). —David Levy 19:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I am a woman. Please note when you quote me, when I said something. My wish for an image with the biography dates back to the beginning of December, when I still hoped to see the bio on the birthday, the substantial article with an image please, if even a small composition article gets one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I am a woman.
Thank you. I'm not fond of writing "he/she" or "his/her", but I don't want to misgender someone.
Please note when you quote me, when I said something.
Pardon?
My wish for an image with the biography dates back to the beginning of December, when I still hoped to see the bio on the birthday, the substantial article with an image please, if even a small composition article gets one.
Yes, I noted in my reply timestamped "04:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)" that the matter was discussed in that context. In my message timestamped "19:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)", I was referring to the period after the hook was omitted from the two special sets. (To reiterate, I was not involved in that decision.) —David Levy 20:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

New Year

As if we had not enough special occasions this time of the year ;) - I prepared music for New Year's Day which needs a review first: Template:Did you know nominations/Gott, wie dein Name, so ist auch dein Ruhm, BWV 171. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Still, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Now the hook is questioned, and the queues are ready. Any chance to find an acceptable hook and move it to the first set on New Year's Day (the second has music already)?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016
peace bell

Now a hook is found. Can an admin please get it to the queue for 1 January that has no music related to the day yet? Sorry for being so late ;) - Happy New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Casliber did it, thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Easter

Thoughtfortheday and I prepare an article to be TFA for Easter. Please don't tell me that if it comes to pass, no other image or mentioning of Easter is permitted on the Main page that day. Did I perhaps misunderstand you, David? If having a TFA related to Easter excludes other sections from the celebration, I would sincerely refrain from improving the article further, to not be in the way of other editors who want to contribute. How do others feel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, the community has made exceptions for holidays. The key distinction is that holidays (unlike birthdays, apart from those that are widely observed as holidays) are traditionally recognized as special occasions, so we're simply reflecting this treatment among reliable sources (not creating events ourselves). In other words, Wikipedia doesn't celebrate Easter; we deliver content about the celebration of Easter.
Systemic bias remains a concern (and a measured approach is prudent), but I don't believe that an Easter-related TFA would impede the appearance of Easter-related DYK hooks or an Easter-related TFP. A minor omission would occur at OTD, where observances covered elsewhere on the main page aren't included in the list of links at the top of the section.
As an aside, your desire to avoid making Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 TFA on Easter if this were to preclude the appearance of other Easter-related material (which, to reiterate, I don't believe to be the case) is commendable, but do I understand correctly that the absence of TFA consideration would eliminate your interest in improving the article? —David Levy 20:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I will not easily understand a difference between a holiday and let's say a centenary. For the aside: Thoughtfortheday and I improved the article to GA. We would go further only for TFA consideration, because the effort that takes could improve (rough estimate) ten articles to GA, - which overall might be more desirable for the community. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

New Year music needs help

I probably bore you: Bach wrote a cantata for New Year's Day, BWV 171, which is now approved and in special occasions for 1 January. Ideally, it should appear in the next update, which would take an admin to add to the queue or replace one. If that is not possible, I suggest to use it instead of In Memoriam, which is still in prep. Otherwise it's too much Sibelius, another boring topic ;) - Happy New Year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Green tickY thank you, Casliber! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Gerda?! You know you will always be our "graceful musical swan"! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Next Month

Nearly every month, the new month is not set up until a few days into the month. Couldn't this be done automatically? 154.5.153.168 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Short-term review request

I have a nom Template:Did you know nominations/Biblical Magi that I would like to run on the 6th. Could someone review it for me please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done already done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 has DYKnom templates that should be deleted

Can an admin please delete both of the DYKnoms in Queue 3? Each of these have a DYKmake for the same user, and DYKnom should only be included if someone other than one of the creators/expanders (who already have a DYKmake) nominated the article for DYK. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Allen3 talk 18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid, BWV 58

The article Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid, BWV 58 is in the special holding area for January 3rd, where it seems to have been forgotten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really forgotten, - I am behind, "otherstuff" exists, such as family. The cantata for yesterday appeared today, after pushing (see above), and I'm a bit tired of pushing. As long as this appears one before the next (working on it, composed for 10 January, premiered 13 January), it's fine. It was premiered 5 January, - could we perhaps squeeze it in there? It would make sense to have the flight into Egypt before the baptism, 6 January which is early (I thought that date was about the wise men from the East) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done Added to Prep 5 for January 5. Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Stats on the DYK Toolbox

There has been more than one good-faith editor adding Henrik's stats tool to the DYK Toolbox. Both have been reverted. Stats are only appropriate to DYK after the hook has been on the main page, and serve no purpose whatsoever on the review template. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Stats for article views pre-main page appearance can be useful for building prep sets. sst✈ 17:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I've never used them, and didn't know anyone did. How are they relevant, and why should we encourage prep set builders to take them into account? I'd be inclined to discourage their use, frankly. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The below message was posted to the Template talk page. I've moved it here. — Maile (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mandarax:@SSTflyer:@Maile66: This template, {{DYK tools}}, is used on multiple DYK pages. When it is used on subpages of Template:Did you know nominations (the nominations themselves), it is useful to help determine the popularity of an article that has completed the DYK process.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said in my edit summary when I removed the stats: "The DYK toolbox is exclusively for tools to assist in reviewing nominations. It should not be cluttered up with things such as page view stats, which have absolutely nothing to do with reviewing." Anyone wishing to "determine the popularity of an article that has completed the DYK process" can easily use the link in the {{dyktalk}} on the article's talk page (or the link in the user talk page credit), without having to find the nomination template. Regarding the stats supposedly being "useful for building prep sets", I agree with BlueMoonset. Viewing stats are completely irrelevant to the set-building process and I see no reason why they should ever be a consideration. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Next pictured hook is wrong.

So, back from the holidays, I decide to check the queues again to see what's new. Nothing, apparently. Judging the rather ridiculous discussion above where whether a hook has or has not a picture is apparently a token of disrespect to the editors involved and nearly the end of the world, I don't get why so few people here seem to care about the disrespect shown to readers and to all other editors when we put incorrect information on the main page.

Currently in Queue next to hit the main page, we have as the main (pictured!) hook Template:Did you know nominations/Limassol Carnival Festival. @Nvvchar, BabbaQ, and Miyagawa:

  • ... that the Limassol Carnival Festival's (parade pictured) starting day is also known as Taikopetti, a name attributed to the cooking aromas of meat?

This is sourced to [1] which doesn't contain "Taikopetti". Basically, not a single source outside Wikipedia seems to use this term. The article says "They call it "Stinky Thursday." In Greek, "Tsiknopempti." " And we have an article on that exact feast, Tsiknopempti. How anyone could transcribe it as "Taikopetti" is not clear to me, nor how three (or four, including the admin that filled the queue) people could find this in the source when it isn't there... Tsiknopempti Limassol] is easily found, Taikopetti Limassol doesn't exist outside Wikipedia. Congratulations, the new year is off to a good start. Fram (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hook removed from Queue. Fram (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked too, and the term is not in the source given, so it fails verifiability. As the hook has not hit the main page yet, I have pulled the nomination, struck the hook and asked for another one. I have promoted Christian Ramsay to the lead image, via the review here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Any chance of promoting a hook from Prep 2 or Prep 3 to bring Queue 5 back up to eight hooks? It would need to happen in the next three hours. Since the first two hooks are now bios, perhaps a non-bio hook could be chosen and inserted between the two: Manav Vikas Mission from Prep 2 would fit there. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Think I did it. Not sure about credits etc, but hey. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, thanks. I don't see the DYKmake credit in Queue 5, and it needs to be there. You took it out of Prep 2, but didn't insert it into Queue 5. Any chance you can go back for it? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Think I've done it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

February 14: Template:Did you know nominations/An Open Letter to Honey Singh

Could somebody please re-review this. It had been delayed because of a malformed nomination (which has since been cured). It only bounced (opinion) because I became a creator. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

"that "Episode 7202" is the first three-hander episode of the Australian soap opera Neighbours?"

Perhaps it's just my lack of brain, but I have never heard of the expression "three-hander" so I'm wondering if this hook makes a lot of sense to everyone else? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Only thing that comes to mind when I read "three hander" is Zaphod Beeblebrox. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand it to mean "the first episode to feature just three characters".... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I watched Neighbours as a child, and have scanned the episode article - and I still don't know for sure what a three-hander episode is. EdChem (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It didn't take me very long at all to see that the article says "an episode that features just three characters". I know what is meant by a three-hander though, because I'm familiar with two-handers. AnemoneProjectors 14:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with that, I think a better hook could be found. Perhaps something about the shot with Terese pushing Lauren into the pool could only have been done in a single take? Is it worth pulling the nom to add ALTs, or is everyone okay with it as it, albeit with reservations? Sorry, I haven't seen Neighbours since Charlene Robinson was a regular and I watched it to dodge exam revision. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI... Template:Did you know nominations/Episode 7202 EdChem (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw this on the main page and just assumed "three-hander" was one episode longer than a "two-parter". I could just be being a buck idiot but it still seems like something clearer could be used, even just by phrasing it "the first episode of the Australian soap opera Neighbours to feature only three characters". GRAPPLE X 15:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
As there's discussion ongoing here I think it's only fair to pull the nomination from prep while we sort things out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling DYK regulars who are admins

Could one of you visit WP:ERRORS asap? Much appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First first-class cricket match in Australia fit for Main page for 11 and 12 February 2016

Hello. I have nominated the article First first-class cricket match in Australia for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/First first-class cricket match in Australia. As the first first-class cricket match in Australia was played on 11 and 12 February 1851, may I humbly suggest that this article – if reviewed successfully – be timed for the two said days, that is 11 and 12 February 2016, for the Main Page? Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy of science DYK opposition

I would like to appeal the closure of Philosophy of science a couple days ago. My complaint is about the stubborn opposition of Victuallers and then Antony–22 to the topic of my hook. Antony-22 graciously acknowledged my frustration, saying on Dec. 10, "Sorry for the runaround you've gotten..." As of December 3rd, I had proposed and revised (with Victuallers' help) a hook which no one has objected to, to my knowledge, "... that there are no criteria for distinguishing science from non-science that are widely accepted among philosophers of science?" The hook states a specific fact from the article that is a paraphrase of a specific sentence in the source cited for it in the article. My guess is that the problem was a (quite understandable) lack of knowledge about the topic of the article. In any case, I took a step away for a couple weeks out of frustration. Now I am back and I have addressed the side concern about uncited paragraphs in the article (which also frustrated me since the article had just passed a good article review by someone who had likely spent more time comprehending the article and where cites were needed--still, I think my edits today improved the article and I am ultimately grateful for the prod). I asked the reviewer who closed the nomination to reopen it and he has declined. Thank you for your consideration. -hugeTim (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the article and discussion briefly, I would go for reopen, collapsing the discussion so far, and going for a super-simple new hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I reviewed the nomination. The main issue was that there were a lot of uncited paragraphs; this hadn't been dealt with during the two-and-a-half weeks between my request and the nomination close, but I see Hugetim has been actively fixing this over the last few days. I'm fine with a reopen. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Reopening: I have read the nomination and saw the comment abandoning the DYK, and would usually consider that sufficient, especially combined with the referencing issue Antony mentions. However, the discussion was not exactly smooth and this was (as far as I can see) Tim's first DYK nomination. Further, Tim is correct that the issue discussed in the hook is not a simple one (I am a scientist and would be willing to contribute to finding a suitable hook). In addition, this DYK is for a new GA on a valuable topic. Tim has only made about 1200 edits so he is a "young" editor even despite having contributed over several years, and new-to-DYK and comparatively inexperienced editors can be forgiven for getting frustrated and being challenged by a new on-wiki process. Helping the DYK for this new GA over the line is, in my view, in keeping with the collaborative spirit of the project, even despite the bumps in the process so far. EdChem (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, beat me to it. Yeah, an esoteric subject like philosophy of science is hard to make hooks for, whether you're new to DYK or an old hand. I actually minored in philosophy of science, so I'm happy to suggest more hooks, though the nomination would need a new reviewer. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure the previous discussion should be collapsed, though Gerda did suggest it. There would be no hook to review in that case, among other things. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've reviewed and approved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Please reword this to make it clear that there is consensus on many particular practices being pseudoscience. And on that topic, it's ridiculous that today's top DYK uses the passive voice to lend undue credibility to a reincarnation claim. Connor Behan (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us into early December 2015. As of the most recent update, which is unable to count the most recent days because there are too many nominations to transclude, 135 nominations have been approved, leaving 197 of 332 nominations still needing approval, and another 14 untranscluded. Thanks to everyone who reviews nominations from this list, especially those from November that are left over from last week's list.

Please note that we've recently found a number of old nominations that were not properly transcluded, and some of them have finally been and are available for review. That includes one from back in February, and may eventually include ones that are even older than that. Please give them your attention, so we can get them properly reviewed and out of the backlog.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, BlueMoonset. This will make my life a lot easier when scrolling through old nominations to find ones which have yet to be reviewed. Encouraging to see we are almost out of November. Jolly Ω Janner 01:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Davina Delor in prep 2

We currently have Urgyen Tsomo in the image slot on the Main Page, which is similar to Davina Delor. I'm wondering if it is wise to move Davina Delor to the second spot in prep 2 or maybe move it to a later prep to mix things up. It seems like a nice hook with a good photo, which is worthy of the image slot, but it's only spaced two days from Uregyen Tsomo. I appreciate a second opinion. Thanks Jolly Ω Janner 21:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it could be moved but the subject matter and certainly the hook are quite different, although mildly related. We've gone through about one Pennsylvanian stream per day for the last year, I'm not convinced we need to get too worked up over two female Buddhism hooks in quick succession. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I think User:Jolly Janner has a good point. I moved the hook and image to Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally I am awaiting 'Houseplants of Pennsylvania'.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

errors in display

Beginning at the end of January 6, the nominations are not transcluding correctly. Can this be fixed? I looked for a formatting error in Rempo Urip, but didn't see one immediately. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we've hit the maximum number of transclusions on a Wikipedia page, given the huge number of active nominations and increased use of review templates on nomination pages. Until some more approved nominations are promoted to prep and therefore no longer need to be transcluded, the problem will continue; the recent uptick of nominations in the New Year has put us over the transclusion limit. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't even know that existed. Thanks for the explanation! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

In the first hook, "historically old" sounds awkward to me. Would "historic" or "old" be a better choice? Edwardx (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I've changed it to "historical". "Old" might lead one to think it has spoiled. Jolly Ω Janner 18:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I had the same concern with "old", thus the desire for a second opinion! Edwardx (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2016 (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) 22:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

The hook for Template:Did you know nominations/A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms, currently in the second slot, has an exceptionally good image with it. And on its own, the hook will not grab readers. I suggest moving this hook and its image to an image slot when a new prep set becomes available. Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is meant to tie in with the Sunday after the Epiphany (10 January), so slot four would be best (slot three may be suitable too). This would involve removing Al-Masjid an-Nabawi or rock reliefs from the image slot respectively. I'm not sure what the relevance of the Sunday after epiphany is, however. Jolly Ω Janner 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I moved it to Prep 6, not having seen Jolly Janner's comment, which would set it to run on January 11. (The nomination template simply said to run it after Epiphany.) However, the image in Prep 6, supposedly a corn stew, is actually a cauliflower curry with chickpeas (the linked recipe on the image page has no corn in it at all), so I think running that image, even if corn might have been added—I think those are the chickpeas, actually—would be misleading, which is why I swapped. Note that there's a special occasion hook for January 10 still sitting in that section; we should leave room for it in Preps 3 or 4. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I may have made a mistake in assuming that the painting was for January 10. It seemed odd at the time. Ditto on the corn stew. Jolly Ω Janner 18:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If we want a hook to run on a certain day, we usually add comment to that effect to the hook once it's in prep so it doesn't get moved. After seeing your comment, I thought about swapping the Prep 4 and 6 images, but that would mean three works of art in a row. We could swap Preps 3 and 6, which wouldn't cause that issue, or we can keep them as they are now. Yoninah, any thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I would make the following moves (3→6; 4→3; 6→4). This way there is a gap between each work of art and the painting falls at the prime spot for 10 January. Jolly Ω Janner 18:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I made that three-way move. I also swapped the leads in Prep 1 and Prep 2 so the statue was one set earlier, and didn't set up art images for noon UTC three days in a row. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We now have eight bio articles in prep 1. Admittedly, some of them are rolled into one hook. Perhaps some last minute swaps are needed. Jolly Ω Janner 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lena Gurr

I noticed a hook in preparation which makes aesthetic statements in Wikipedia's voice: "* ... that the American artist Lena Gurr made paintings with affectionate interest, piquant social satire, gentle humor, and compassion for victims of injustice?" This doesn't seem quite right but I'm not sure of the protocol for querying it when it has gotten this far. Please advise. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe they are quotes from sources discussing the subject (the "piquant social satire" is by critic Howard Devree of the NYT for example - as some of the others). DYK has generally not worried about 'in wikipedia's voice' unless its something contentious, in order to make it more 'hooky'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's still in a prep area, here is the best place (if it's on the main page, WP:ERRORS would get it seen faster). It seems to me that the hook (and article) are paraphrasing a source's opinion on something when it would be better to simply quote it directly with an attributed voice. Pinging the article's author @Delabrede: in case they are in a better position to rephrase it. GRAPPLE X 14:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Part of it comes from quotes in the article, and parts of that hook are not in quotes in the article. It's a nice article, but it should have been checked for neutrality of prose. @Gerda Arendt: did the Review and might like to comment here.— Maile (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Would it help you to say that all these a views by different critics, the first a quote (which could be marked as such, and we could end there)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • With thanks for the careful consideration being given to this DYK, here are my thoughts:
-- As has been noted, "affectionate interest" is an exact quote. The full sentence in which it appears is given in the reflist (no. 72). I agree with Gerda Arendt; I should have put this phrase in quotes in the hook.
-- "Piquant social satire" is a paraphrase. The sentence from which it comes reads: "She turns out a piquant bit of social satire, an accomplished still-life with warmth of color and with finish, or a romantic landscape." (ref. no. 30). I expect I could reword the hook to use the exact quote but again I agree with Gerda Arendt; why not just leave it as it is?
-- "Gentle humor" is not a direct quote from a source. It comes from statements made by newspaper critics in 1935 and 1939. The phrase given in 1939 is "quiet humor" (quoted in ref. n. 69). The 1935 article is generally about "Humor in Art" not specifically about Gurr's particular humorous style. I don't think the hook would be weakened by using "quiet humor" in quotes instead of "gentle humor."
-- "Compassion for victims of injustice" paraphrases a statement in the article which derives from comments made by newspaper critics in 1938 and 1939. The ref from 1939 is the one mentioned above (no. 69). The 1938 ref needs to be corrected. It should point to no. 46 not no. 43. The latter No. 46 refers to Gurr's "scenes of war and persecution" which are "clearly done with the full strength of conviction." The full statement is quoted in ref. 46. I suggest we leave this phrase as it is. -- Delabrede (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not all of it need be presented as a direction quotation from the words used in the source, but anything that gives a subjective view, even if we paraphrase it and inline-cite it, should be attributed. "Compassion for victims of injustice" is perfectly fine to condense the source's language, but could be better presented as "described by a writer for The Daily Whateverthepaper as displaying compassion for victims of injustice", for example. The same goes for the rest; the key is just using the attribution to show that this is not something we have said and found support for, but something someone else has said that we are relaying. GRAPPLE X 16:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have moved the hook from Prep 6 to Prep 4, since Prep 6 could be promoted to the queue at any time. This will allow plenty of time for this discussion to continue and for the hook to either be changed in place or removed while new ones are suggested and reviewed in the usual manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have edited the article to provide attributions for instances of subjective view, have changed the phrase "gentle humor" to "quiet humor," and have corrected my reference error. Delabrede (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I also noticed the unusual phrasing in the hook, and am glad someone commented on it. Looking at the sources, "gentle humor" is indeed a good paraphrase, and "compassion for victims of injustice" could be said by anyone, but "piquant social satire" and "affectionate interest" really should be in quotes. As these phrases are from different sources, the hook would then be peppered with quote marks – not an ideal situation. May I suggest a different hook altogether?
  • ALT1: ... that a reviewer at Lena Gurr's fourth solo exhibition said that the American artist "painted with the gusto of a Goya"? Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I love this ALT1 hook. I love it with the gusto of a Goya!!— Maile (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the gusto, but am no friend of the possessive "'s" attached to the bolded subject in a different colour, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, you may not be a friend of that possessive not being part of the bold link, but that is exactly how it is supposed to be done—see WP:DYKSG#C7. We do need to hear from Delabrede as to whether the proposed ALT1 hook is acceptable, and someone to actually check the hook to see whether the facts are properly sourced and in the article, and the hook is sufficiently neutral. I may have to push the hook back another day if it isn't ready to go in the next few hours, or perhaps even pull it back from prep if this is still not settled by Saturday mid-afternoon. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: According to the article this was at her third solo exhibition, not her fourth. The extracts from the sources don't seem to mention whether these exhibitions are the third of fourth though, so maybe we shouldn't use that in the blurb. Jolly Ω Janner 03:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The original hook was pulled from prep by The Squirrel Conspiracy about four hours ago, fortunately in time to keep it from being promoted to queue a couple of hours later. This discussion should continue at Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Gurr. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking the pee

I have a DYK up today – an article started at an editathon at the Royal Society of Chemistry. But it's vexing to find that, once again, the hook was spoilt by a busybody as it went through the pipeline. Again, it took some tracing to find where this was done but here's the diff. I protest again that reviewed hooks should not be altered without some consultation, discussion and consensus. Please see the Lena Gurr section above for an example of how to do this. Please can the original be restored while it's still up. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Pee" is a rather a juvenile word for an encyclopedia to use. --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It is the word which is typically used in this context. The source says, "Most beer drinkers refer to ribes as catty, or cat pee." There was a similar case in another DYK of mine which went through without incident: ".. that Cat's Pee on a Gooseberry Bush and Goats Do Roam are examples of wine humour?" Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I see that even Wine tasting tells us that Sauvignon blanc can taste like "cat pee (tasters' term for guava)". Very surprised that someone with such sophisticated tastes as TRM would not know this. (Before promptly spitting it out, naturally). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Any good stroke jokes? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yamaha's PW80 (Pee-wee). 21:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a busybody, just someone who respects an encyclopedia. "Pee" is a childish euphemism for urine. I don't care that the source uses the same childish term for urine. Per our own article on urine " Euphemisms and expressions used between parents and children such as "wee", "pee", and many others, arose." So yes, if we'd like to treat our readers like children, pee would be fine. Otherwise it's juvenile and non-encyclopedic, regardless of the pathetic wording in the source. The latter example given by the hilarious stroke joker is a false analogy (and is unreferenced in any case). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but in my opinion if a source uses that term and it is used as part of a quote, then it only seems right to me that if it is used in the article then it should be used on that article's DYK. Yes it is juvenile but I see no problem with having it on DYK if it is within the correct context and not being gratuitous and using it for the sake of using it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Any of you can list it as an error at WP:ERRORS and get an admin to change it back to the childish language which isn't shown as a quotation in the blurb. The hook itself is dull as dishwater, perhaps the use of such a pathetic term was to make it in some way childlike and fascinating to those with a piss or shit curiosity. Anyway, errors is the way ahead here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, as if wine tasting could ever be analogous to beer tasting. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that makes any sense in the context of this discussion. Sometimes you try too hard to be funny and it just doesn't work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
... make mine an amber nectar, cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. Time to crack on with more jokes about people's relatives dying of strokes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
We'll try and find "an admin" to change it back. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I said try WP:ERRORS. Otherwise get back to your sickness. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
But you said it's a "childish euphemism" and "juvenile and non-encyclopedic", not an error. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Correct. But there are more "admins" who monitor ERRORS who will look at your complaint. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I only commented here to defend the use of the word "pee" in the context in which it was used. I can accept that not everyone would necessarily find the addition of a link to Intracranial aneurysm, to the caption of an image of a kitten on their User Page, amusing. But your accusation that I did that (four months ago) just to "make fun of a relative of yours dying of a stroke" seems a little far-fetched. Martinevans123 (talk)
Just give up. Trying to be hilarious 100% of the time can be quite draining. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
100%? I didn't realise cite web formatting and correcting spelling mistakes could be that funny. But happy to aim for 99. Or were you telling me to retire? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think many (any) are interested in this "conversation" so best leave it here. Happily we seldom cross paths these days and long, long may that continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I refuse to have the last word just to give an impression of superiority. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Well done, now move onto something else that entertains just you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • By coincidence, I was just catching up with the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures and the lecturer, Kevin Fong, was demonstrating the recycling on the ISS. He was flip-flopping between "pee" and "urine" without making a big deal of it. I shall continue to use the word as I see fit. Those who disagree should please engage in discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    See urine. If you don't like to use encyclopedic terms and prefer the terms a child uses, please consider contributing to another encyclopedia, principally one for children. In the meantime, expect to have childish euphemisms changed without notice wherever you use them in article space. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Is Jancis Robinson "being childish" where she's cited over at Wine tasting? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, she's using childish euphemisms for urine. I don't know why, perhaps she thinks it's somehow endearing, or that grown-ups can't handle words like "urine". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Not just a Middle class affectation then? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Whatever, this conversation is no longer productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It's perfectly productive, thanks. But you're not responding to my question. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Not in the slightest, I've made my position clear, as have you and Andrew. We shall not agree, not for the last time I'm certain. Now move on to something useful. I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you're very welcome to move on, at any time. I was wondering if there is a distinction between UK and US usage? Brewing is obviously a global activity, so the Beer chemistry article need not reflect just British English. Could any US editor advise? I guess as the DYK is no longer on the main page, however, any further discussion might be best continued at Talk:Beer chemistry? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Pee isn't especially childish. Perhaps it is being confused with wee-wee for which the OED has "frequently as a child's word". There's no such history for pee which the OED traces back to Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, where it was used as a pun. The usage is intended to be light humour and that seems quite appropriate for a DYK hook. Andrew D. (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I wholly agree. But it seems light-heartedness is often misinterpreted as childishness by some editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
One. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added this and this. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've never heard of a "cat urine" or "cat pee" fault in beer. There is a fault in elderflower wine known as "cat pee"- it's caused by the flowers. American varieties of hops are different to European varieties- the source author is American and this fault may be a characteristic of American hops, given that the fault in elderflower wine is caused by the flowers. "Urine" might be a better term than pee; perhaps the hook could be altered to "DYK American beer tastes of cardboard and cat urine?" Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Like Coors, you mean? Bur you're a bit late to the cat party, Xanthome. As the DYK was up three days ago, I think we're just left wondering about the use of the term in the article now. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the frog

I got an edit conflict of the Template:Did you know nominations/Pepe the frog being promoted while I was proposing an alternative blurb. I'm not sure what to do here, so I posted it to the nomination's talk page. As it's been promoted and no longer visible on T:DYK, I posted about it here if anyone is interested. Obviously if the proposed hook is a dud then never-mind! Jolly Ω Janner 07:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Queue edits

Some edits for Queue 3:

  • In the last hook, "to a be a" should obviously be "to be a"
  • In the {{DYKmake}} for Ruth B, the username should be changed from the nonexistent user "TaylorMoore2" to "Plz"
  • In the first hook, Lutyens was British, so there should be a "the" in front of "architect"

And in Queue 5, the credit for The Ghosts in Our Machine should be changed to:

* {{DYKmake|The Ghosts in Our Machine|J Milburn|subpage=Jo-Anne McArthur}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.
I now see that Plz has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. I don't know about DYKs for such users.... In addition to Ruth B in Q3, the user also has Pepe the frog in Prep 2. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Plus Template:Did you know nominations/Sprained Ankle (album) and Template:Did you know nominations/Julien Baker. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to change the hooks which have been promoted because he was banned. As for current nominations, it may be worth noting on them that the user is banned. If they require additional edits before being promoted it is likely they will fail and could be useful to notify anyone looks to close them. Jolly Ω Janner 22:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 edit

Template:Did you know/Queue/1: IMO beluga whale must be wikilinked: not very common term. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I DYK a former redirect?

I unredirected Abyssinian guinea pig and wrote an article two days ago. I'd like to nominate it for DYK, but don't know if I can because it was created as a redirect years ago. Does it count as a new article now? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It would also qualify as a (greater than) 5x expansion. The article is still a bit short of the minimum 1500 prose characters (1381 at last count) required of all DYKs. You have until January 17 (UTC) to nominate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It is now above 1500 characters and I nominated it last night. I am working on finding more for the health issues section, but it meets the required length now. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Sudan

This nomination was closed on January 11 after a week and a half of inactivity. The nominator just posted a note on the (closed) nomination, requesting that it be reopened. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like notable edits have been made to the article. May be worth re-opening. Jolly Ω Janner 00:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't have characterized the nominator as actively editing between the December 31 comment from Nikkimaria and the closure. I have no objections to reopening, but think that if the new edits have not solved the close paraphrasing problem, a final closure would be in order, or at most one more round of attempted fixes before closing. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that if this is reopened, it will need to be readded to the nominations page so it can be seen. Based on the Article History, it should be placed under a November 4 header. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done Reopened. Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all. Hope I can clear up any more needed fixes. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

15 years

When Wikipedia celebrated the 10th birthday, efforts were made to have substantial and positive hooks on the Main page. How about the 15th? I recommend Lena Gurr. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it to prep 2. The current prep 1 and prep 2 will be featured on Wikipedia Day. I was thinking of a picture of a dolphin cute whale would be nice for prep 2 (Template:Did you know nominations/Porpoise any further picture comments could go there). I will look around for any nice hooks, as I made prep 1 without this knowledge, although prep 2 is pretty much empty. I think we can at least try to avoid any death-related hooks! Jolly Ω Janner 06:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list of nominations which may be relevant. Some still needing review. Jolly Ω Janner 07:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about a gimmick? Use hooks with the number "15" in them. sst✈ 07:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea too, but we definitely won't be able to find 16 hooks for it. Does anyone know an efficient way to search for such hooks? Since 2015 contains 15 and all comments are dated virtually every nomination comes up as a match... A combination of that and uplifting hooks will work. Jolly Ω Janner 07:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
We have a category "Animals described in 2001". If you wished, I could expand an article such as Streaked dwarf porcupine with a view to a hook such as " ... that the streaked dwarf porcupine was first described in 2001, the year Wikipedia was founded?" (The last part would not have an inline citation however). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
February 14: Template:Did you know nominations/An Open Letter to Honey Singh — New Reviewer needed. Reviewer became a creator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Striking Max Deutsch, approved now and ready for promotion if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The DYKUpdateBot is currently not operating, and the main page updates are being delayed because there's no one around to make manual updates. As I write this, we're nearly six hours off of the usual noon and midnight UTC promotion times, and the delay is growing as I type this. It's almost certain that we'll need to make some sort of adjustment, perhaps including swapping the contents of queues, in order for these two hook sets to run on the anniversary as desired. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, please note that the hook set on Queue 2 currently only has 7 hooks, somehow. I hope the MainPage layout won't be too much out-of-balance. --PFHLai (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand Casliber's reason for clearing prep 2 and his edit summary wasn't descriptive. Hopefully he's intending to fill it out. There's a couple of hooks ready for prep 2 above anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I was surprised to see Prep 2 cleared despite having one unfilled slot. Cas Liber, I'd like to suggest that you promote the "Lt. Gov. You Gotta Love" hook directly to fill Queue 2; I think it would do quite well in the eighth, quirky slot. (The "Principality of Erfurt" is also ready, but the only potential hook would have to be cut in half to omit the negative conclusion, and I think it's a better hook at full length. Still, it's your decision which you want to promote.)
Jolly Janner, once both queues have eight slots, they're filled. The rest of the hooks will have to be promoted in the usual way, since we have no mandate to expand beyond the normal length of our section for the 15th birthday, and have recently held to eight slots for other special days. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. I overlooked the hook number - it looked the proper size on a cursory glance. I am in the middle of something but will get onto this soon. Sorry all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of distressing images on the Main Page

I recently stumbled across Template:Did you know nominations/Marianna Dolińska while updating the prep areas. I had an empty slot for the picture hook and the photograph for this nomination ties in nicely with the article. However, I seem to recall there being a guideline against using images which may be perceived as poor taste or distressing for the Main Page. I'm sure this isn't the first occasion some of our experienced members have had this come up. Any thoughts? Jolly Ω Janner 07:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd prefer it not to be on the main page, but that is my preference and will not object if consensus is otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I too would prefer the picture not to be on the front page. It adds nothing to the front page except shock value. The picture is directly relevant to the article, and is rightly included there .. but readers should be allowed to choose whether to view an article containing such a shocking picture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Not for the main hook with image. This verges on tabloid journalism - true incident, but with an image of horror to draw the reader in. Maybe a new hook is needed, because the current one is about that image. — Maile (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the arguments of the others above, and would object to that image being on the front page. Edwardx (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with using images like this prominently when they serve a purpose (if I recall correctly we used a graphic image for the lynching of Jesse Washington TFA), but at that scale the image is almost impossible to discern, so it's not like using it would actually be gaining us much. It can certainly be mentioned and then viewed larger on a click-through, but I'm not sure about the value of an indistinct black blur. GRAPPLE X 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There are better quality photos around for the article, but I think there's enough opposition to avoid using it as a picture hook. Thanks for comments. Jolly Ω Janner 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot has stopped working

I've just manually updated the DYK template on MainPage. I can't stay online. Can someone please take care of the credits, hook archiving and reset Queue 3. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've completed the update and notified Shubinator. Materialscientist (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Materialscientist. --PFHLai (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@PFHLai, Materialscientist, and Shubinator: The bot is still not working. The update is three hours overdue. -Zanhe (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Both DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot can't edit Wikipedia, presumably due to a software update on Wikipedia's end. It could take me a couple weeks to update the bots to account for the change since it involves rewriting pieces of the underlying library. Shubinator (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Shubinator, thanks for anything you can do to get the bots back up and working. Until you do, is there any chance of getting admins to sign up in advance to handle updates to the main page? They occur twice a day, and it would be nice if we could plan ahead: for example, there are the Wikipedia 15th birthday sets where it would be nice to have timely promotions at midnight and noon, January 15 UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I just found a workaround. I might be able to get both bots back online within the next few hours. Stay tuned. Shubinator (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Both bots up and running :) It looks like the bug only affected the edit codepath, but let's keep an eye out for strange behavior just in case I missed a spot. Shubinator (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, this is excellent news. I've noticed that updates are about 10 hours behind schedule. Is it possible for the current version to be live for 14 hours to get things back on track? We may need to swap queue 6 with queue 2 so that the current hooks in 1 and 2 align with 15 January. Jolly Ω Janner 06:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Done, the queues are now aligned to 00:00 UTC. I'm not sure which set should go where, and I'm headed to bed - can another admin take a look? Shubinator (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The plan was to have Q1 and Q2 on the 15th, not Q6. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The contents of Q6 and Q2 have been swapped: the hooks that were supposed to run on the 15th are going to run on the 15th. (I can't imagine that it matters which set hits the main page at midnight and which at noon.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
What I see is that only the lead hook from Q2 was swapped with Q6, nothing else, which means that the first set has six arbitrary hooks, one mentioning Nazi to celebrate, showing a typical DYK ;) - while the hooks selected for the day are left for the day after, which of course is still the 15th somewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned nominations

Looks like we currently have ~85 orphaned nominations that aren't transcluded on the noms page and haven't been touched in the past few days. DYKHousekeepingBot alerts nominators of orphaned nominations, so if they're still not making progress it feels like closing them out is the best course of action. Could another editor double-check and close these? Shubinator (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

At least one of these—Robert Burgess (rugby)—was approved less than a month ago but got lost in the shuffle; I've added it back to the T:TDYK page. I think we should certainly consider restoring and promote any that were approved but somehow got lost before promotion. I'm actually going to propose that the ones that were so badly filled out that they never could have been processed be put in for speedy deletion: the first on the list, Range-Frequency Theory, is from 2013 and has no hook or much of anything else. (I'll leave it as a Bad Example for about 24 hours, and then add the appropriate speedy template, probably G6, as it's a clear technical deletion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have closed some (and struck), csd g6'd some, and want to comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Medal of Valor. This article was created in May 2014 and nominated within 5 days by the creator / nominator (BlueSalix). BlueSalix has received only one DYK credit, also in May 2014, and so was a DYK-newbie when the transclusion to T:TDYK was missed. Most of the ones from below which I have looked at were malformed or obvious failures, but this one is maybe worth resurrecting. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC) PS: I don't see a bot posting to BlueSalix's talk page about the untranscluded nomination. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The bot did post a notice. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, I must have missed it. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I also suggest that Template:Did you know nominations/Sehadete Mekuli be considered for resurrecting. The nominator has not edited since the article was created and would not have seen the bot notification to the user talk page. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done I copyedited Sehadete Mekuli, added another ref, and entered it on the nomination page under January 5. Thanks for the tip, @EdChem:. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Glad you have rescued it, Yoninah. I have tagged the article talk page and noted the rescue below. Hopefully the Medal above can be rescued too. EdChem (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started a special occasion subsection at the top of that section to contain any hooks that were approved back then but not promoted. The first of these is Template:Did you know nominations/October 2008 Central America floods, which was approved back in December 2013. We can move any rescued hooks there once they've been approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Are we allowed to go ahead and re-nominate other hooks, even if the nominator didn't respond to the notice on their talk page? Friendship Way (Template:Did you know nominations/Friendship Way) looks in good shape. Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I have rescued some, but only within the current date range at T:TDYK. I think we should rescue some of the older ones, but think consensus might be needed. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I just reverted one of your rescues, since I'd already queried the nominator, who seemed to indicate that he wasn't going to actually complete the nomination unless the creator did certain things (that hadn't been done). We collided on some edits below. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was notified before you even posted. I don't agree with you as the article has no bare URL references and the creator was new to DYK so the credit could encourage a new contributor. Having said that, I'm not going to edit war over it. Hopefully articles like Friendship Way and Washington Medal of Valor will make it to DYK, but that will need consensus here. In practice, I suspect if you oppose it they will just get closed. EdChem (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
List of orphaned nominations

What to do with the remaining untranscluded nominations?

All but 20 of the orphaned nominations have been dealt with in some way, most by closing or deleting, with a few having been transcluded. We need to decide what to do with the rest.

I've grouped them into fairly arbitrary categories. The first section will include those nominations where the creator/nominator has not edited since around the time the nomination was made, and the remaining sections will group them by year nominated, in reverse chronological order. Each is dated, and I've added a short comment. Please add your own opinion, starting the line with a ":*" so it's threaded below the nom, as to whether it should be resurrected or not. If there's a consensus, we'll contact the nominator to see whether they're still interested. I think a week will be enough time to determine which nominations should be given a second chance.

General comments on resurrecting nominations can go immediately below this line and above the new collapsed section; individual comments on specific nominees can go after the entry in the collapsed section. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Paging EdChem and Yoninah, who commented originally: are there any articles remaining that you believe should be saved? I'm happy to be convinced if you feel strongly about any of these; indeed, there are a few that impressed me, but I'd be hesitant to go ahead just on my own with some of the older ones. The original week is almost up, and once this section gets archived off the DYK talk page it will be time to close any that haven't been reactivated. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to adopt two of them (noted below), and User:SusunW will take the Mexican one. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
List of remaining orphaned nominations to comment on

Nominators not active

As a general rule, I'm not in favor of transcluding these unless someone is willing to sponsor them.

2015

These I'd be more inclined to give them a second chance provided the nominator (or an eager supporter) was willing to commit to working on them; they may have been left untranscluded for a reason.

  • April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Teresia Sampsonia Khan — nominator is still active; article name in bold but not linked, article has since been moved. Looks like quite an interesting and significant article; I might given this one a shot, too. The quotes in the lede will need to be given source citations, however.
  • March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Ella Orr Campbell — nominator is still active; this was nominated right after some major copyvio was excised, so there's almost no article history to check. The article needs to have its header checks, since "Early life" covers everything through her death at 92 years of age.

2014

These are old enough that I wouldn't be inclined to consider them, but would listen to a strong argument otherwise, again provided the nominator (or someone else) was willing to make a commitment.

  • May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Medal of Valor — nominator is still active (last edits on December 27), hook link was not bolded, nominated on time and long enough. EdChem noted "orphaned and may be worth resurrecting"
  • May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Luke fon Fabre — nominator is still active; given the number of comments I have to assume that this had been transcluded, but somehow fell off the radar in June 24 after the original reviewer "handed it over" (no confirmation that it was picked up). On the other hand, comments on the article talk page subsequent to this seem to indicate questions of notability.
  • March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Tomnod — nominator edits only occasionally; the hooks, none of which have a bold article link, mostly depend on the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which may have been interesting back then, but certainly isn't now.
  • February 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Romona Robinson — nominator is active, article created on February 6 but not nominated until 10 days later; appears to have been a first-time nominator, even if editing Wikipedia for years, and has not had a DYK since. Article had 1989 prose characters at time of nomination and still has 1989 prose characters today.

2013

This one is over two years old, so that I'd normally say it was beyond the pale, but this is about a month older than the oldest 2014 nomination, so the strong argument criterion will apply here too.

Thank you for your participation. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

The lead looks more less like a food product advertisement for a well known company with somewhat boring visual; added to the linenup by Jolly Janner in this edit. I think we have better options available. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's no more an advert for a singular company than a hook on hamburgers is an advert for Mickey's; the article clearly covers the fact that this is a generic item sold by different places under different guises. I wouldn't be worried. GRAPPLE X 14:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Poeticbent. When I first saw the hook I also thought it was about the well-known restaurant chain, especially the article title is in caps, which implies it's a proper name. Shouldn't it be in lowercase if the article is about a generic term? -Zanhe (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that title casing is off, but it's nothing a simple page move can't fix (the hook would also need the casing dropped). GRAPPLE X 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I say simple, but you know what they say about foolproof plans. I botched the move and now it'll take an admin to move it again apparently. I should get back to work. :/ GRAPPLE X 16:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Neither the photo used nor the cake ordered by Obama has any affiliation with Bennigan's. The ABC news article covering the topic used the term "Death by Chocolate". I am unfamiliar with how closely it is associated with Bennigan's, having never lived in the US. Jolly Ω Janner 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's also a misleading photo, since it's a different type of "death by chocolate" cake altogether, nothing like the one mentioned in the hook. I'd like to suggest that this not be used as a lead hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I also suggested what BlueMoonset says while reviewing the nomination. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like there is consensus to move it from the lead hook. I have also taken on board Yoninah's comments on the nomination page and moved it to the quirky hook slot (moving Dry Run to prep 4 in the process). Jolly Ω Janner 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • But here is a high quality source that uses "death by chocolate" in a disinterested context. [9]. We should definitely prefer the lower case title. Edwardx (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To be fair, some of these are specifically referring to individual brandings of the name—particularly the Bennigan's version, which they used as a trademark. If the article were specifically on their take on the cake, it would certainly be capitalised. GRAPPLE X 11:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Are we going back to a 7-hook set in honor of Wikipedia's 15th anniversary? Yoninah (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope. We're finally all set: the set has eight hooks, and the queues have been swapped so we have the two sets of hooks intended for the 15th running on the 15th. To be clear, what was in Queue 2 is now in Queue 6, which posts at midnight UTC. Queue 1 will go up at noon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The only thing that's been swapped is the picture hook between 2 and 6. Jolly Ω Janner 17:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
... while the whole q6 should have gone later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, then there's a missing line space between the first and second hooks in Queue 2. Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just asked Materialscientist to fix both problems (swapping hooks 2 through 7, fixing the missing line space in the process). With any reasonable kind of luck, it will be done before the next main page promotion in just under an hour's time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm crossing my fingers! Jolly Ω Janner 23:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I've never done DYK before. Would you like me to try? Someone more clueful would be better, but it looks like you're running out of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, Crisco1492 did it. In fact, I edit conflicted with him and *almost* screwed things up again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry folks - had a deadline and my tax to do. Really had to knuckle down...and still have paperwork so will be somewhat patchy free-time-wise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody delete this one?

I created a nom page, Template :Did you know nominations/Racking Horse World Celebration. However, I forgot I was on mobile view and on it the preloaded template does not appear. I'd like for somebody to just delete the screwed up page and let me retry later. Thanks, White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)  Done tagged for CSD. Jolly Ω Janner 22:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK unintentionally aiding self-promotion

My concerns are not shared by any of the editors who posted here, so there is clearly a consensus that this DYK item should proceed to the front page.
I am not persuaded by any of the arguments for letting it go ahead, but will respect the consensus. Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment, and to User:Northamerica1000 for great work in improving the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 17 January 2016 (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.

I would welcome the input of uninvolved editors in relation to a case of self-promotion.

I reviewed the article and found it overly promotional in tone. The nominator did a very thorough and fine rewrite, and I have now ticked it as good-to-go.[10]. The nominator User:Northamerica1000 did a great job, and my concerns are no reflection on North's good faith and good work.

My concern is that despite North's good work, promoting this article through DYK will have the unavoidable side-effect of rewarding the self-promotional use of Wikipedia by an editor who appears to be the museum's founder and owner.

The article was created[11] as Draft:Museum of Goa (MOG). It was a piece of blatant self-promotion by an editor named User:Subodhkerkar, the same name as the museum's founder Subodh Kerkar.

Back in 2009, this editor had also created[12] in mainspace a self-promotional autobiography: Subodh Kerkar. That article was tweaked over the next 5½ years, before being userfied on 4 January 2016 [13] by User:JzG.

The draft of Museum of Goa was moved[14] to Draft:Museum of Goa by User:Aryan hindustan, and after some cleanup by other editors the submission was declined[15] by User:SwisterTwister. It was then improved[16] by User:Northamerica1000, who moved it to mainspace[17] on 4 Jan, did some more cleanup[18], and nominated it for DYK. After my review, NorthAmerica1000 did more great work cleaning it up. AFAICS, the article now meets all the listed DYK rules and supplementaries.

3 of the 5 goals listed at WP:DYK#Aims_and_objectives are about the article, but 2 are about encouraging editors. Promoting this article to front page would deservedly reward Northamerica1000's good work ... but it would also reward and encourage the self-promotion of User:Subodhkerkar, and create a vector for further self-promotion. (Write a puff-piece, let another editor polish it, and watch it get linked from the front page of one of the world's top-ten websites).

Is that trade-off acceptable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Listed[19] on WP:CENT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like the article was appropriate and non-promotional by the time it was listed. If the question is that an article having ever been promotional should forever disqualify it from DYK, absolutely not. Editors who clean up spamvertisements on topics that really are notable well deserve their recognition. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I honestly think this is a non-issue. I doubt User:Northamerica1000 is likely to begin creating many more coi articles (how many more organizations could he be that intimately involved with?), even if he is awarded a DYK. Even if he did, wikipedia is very effective at dealing with these sort of articles through the policies in place. Nor do I think the awarding of a DYK in this case is likely to encourage an increase in coi articles beyond what we normally get (who is going to widely broadcast the particulars of this case to the public?). It also isn't going to encourage self promotion by being on the main page because it is now in compliance with wikipedia policies. There's no harm done giving out a DYK. If anything, User:Northamerica1000 may see the benefit of having a properly written and referenced article in accordance with wikipedia policy through the DYK process. His future contributions, if he chooses to continue contributing to the encyclopedia, may improve as a result.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I suppose we could remove the article creator from the DYK credit, and keep Northamerica1000 as the only author. -Zanhe (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If this were an experienced editor, I would agree. But a new editor, even one with an initial coi motive, has the potential of becoming a valuable content contributor with a little coaching.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Subodhkerkar. It's a single-purpose account, editing only for self-promotion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
"So far". Sure, complete reform is not likely. But there's always a small chance that seeing what we accept will result in improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a rather extreme case of clutching at straws. This is man is adept at self-promotion — just look at the media blitz launching his gallery. His contribs to en.wp are part of that media strategy. This one has WP:NOTHERE written all over it, but on he very slender chance that there might be repentance, some editors are happy not just to allow en.wp to be used as the promotional vehicle he sought, but to thank him for it!
If we were living in a different world, such generosity would be healthy. But the reality is en.wp is a major target for abuse by unscrupulous PR people, and this enthusiasm for opening the door to them will not go un-noticed by the people who make a living out abusing the trust basis on which we operate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Realistically the horse is already most of the way out of the barn on this one. We can't object to DYKs being nominated from AfC (or Draft creations) especially when they've been cleaned up. I think the better solution BrownHairedGirl is to more actively and forcefully ejecting pages from AfC/Draft that are COI/Overly Promotional. Hasteur (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see this situation as rewarding self-promotion. I see it as rewarding a good editor for fixing the self-promotion. From the readers' POV, none of this self-promotion actually happened. They only see the end result. Like Hasteur, I support declining promotional (whether self- or otherwise) articles at DYK. But, like Seraphimblade, I can't support declining formerly promotional articles that have been properly cleaned up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with that article appearing on the main page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A new editor writes about what they know, as newbies do. What they know, in this case, happens to be a notable cultural institution in an area poorly covered on Wikipedia. The new editor, obviously not a native English speaker, makes some typical newbie mistakes, such as confusing the style of an encyclopedia article with that of a PR vehicle. An experienced editor fixes the problem, resulting in a neutral and factual article about a notable subject in an under-served topic area. What's the problem again? Choosing main-page articles based on what we suspect the motives of the authors to be, rather than the quality of the article, seems like a very slippery slope. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with the previous several comments that there isn't an issue here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the end of 2015. As of the most recent update, 119 nominations have been approved, leaving 205 of 324 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one remaining from November and the eight from the first half of December that are left over from last week's list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can make a dent in these over the weekend. Except for Richmond Cemetery, which is mine, but it shouldn't take more than minute to verify that hook if anyone's looking for low-hanging fruit! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Osier Pattern

I made a mistake setting this up, & have tried & failed to recocer it. Can anyone help? Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. There's still some hook and caption formatting, which I'll leave you to do. Jolly Ω Janner 04:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks - also User:Mandarax! Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

that Rattling Run is a Coldwater Fishery, but has no fish, as of 2001?

If a "Coldwater Fishery" is so significant, why isn't it linked to anything? I could hazard a guess that it means somewhere that you might find fish in cold water, but the proper noun capitalisation suggests something more official, without it being accessible to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I would ask @Jakec:, because I can't understand the use of capitalization. It is used in both the hook and the article, so maybe there is something to it. Jolly Ω Janner 23:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a government designation, as pointed out above. The definition is much too long to put into the hook. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you should write an article about it, if it meets GNG. sst✈ 00:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and if it doesn't meet GNG, the hook is hardly interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not find the hook especially interesting, but I can see how the hook was designed to be quirky. Now try to actually suggest a new hook instead of simply complaining. sst✈ 16:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you're being a little harsh on Jakob, SST. I find the hook interesting enough, but would prefer we go without capitalisation on Coldwater Fishery, as it is valid either way. If we have an article on Coldwater Fishery then sure, but it will just confuse readers without any explanation. Jolly Ω Janner 21:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Benzylamine and John Glenn

Ball-and-stick model of benzylamine
Ball-and-stick model of benzylamine
Spacefill model of benzylamine
Spacefill model of benzylamine

@EdChem, Guerillero, and Jolly Janner: The lead article (Benzylamine) in Prep2 uses an image of John Glenn that was added to the article solely for the purpose of DYK (see nomination page). John Glenn is so tangential to the topic I don't think his image should be used in the article or the hook. I believe "File:Benzylamine-3D-spacefill.png" (the image in article infobox) is far more relevant to the topic and should be used instead. -Zanhe (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a good suggestion. I prefer the ball-and-stick to spacefill. If there is consensus on these matters to use space fill over ball and stick then that is fine (File:Benzylamine-3D-balls.png exists). Jolly Ω Janner 04:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
As the child of chemists, I have a personal dislike of wire models. I am ok with ball/stick or spacefill depending on what other people like --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Considering John Glenn is still alive, I think he might also object to his image being on the main page for a hook about a drug. So he was given the drug for motion sickness? So what? Of all people, the image of "Mr. Clean the Marine" is being used in a hook about a prescription drug. This seems ill advised. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see a consensus on removing John Glenn's picture. Does anyone have an opinion on spacefill vs ball-and-stick? Spacefill is currently used in the article, so would need to be replaced if we go with ball-and-stick? Jolly Ω Janner 21:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Spacefill is the 3D image in the infobox? And ball-and-stick is that cute little red, white and blue one down the page. I like them both, but I would say whichever one is most eye-catching at the DYK size. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
We have a rule that allows cropped version of images to be allowed on the DYK template. I'm wondering is a similar parallel could be applied here. Jolly Ω Janner 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: The cute little red, white and blue one down the page is actually the model of a different molecule (HNIW), which I've removed from the article as it's not relevant and causes confusion. Since the spacefill is the only image now used in the article, I've boldly gone ahead and changed the image in prep2. I've checked the image license, and it's public domain. -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Queue updates

Queues need updating with the preps over the next 12 hours to keep on schedule. If any sysops are active, we would be very grateful in a volunteer for this task. Thank in advance, Jolly Ω Janner 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've done four. That'll keep us ticking over for a couple of days. The lead hook in prep 3 is my article so I'll leave that to another admin anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Heartache last Sunday

Template:Did you know nominations/Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid, BWV 3 (Ah God, how much heartache), the cantata was written by the composer for last Sunday. It was also the perfect comment to deaths such as this, but I was to absorbed to push a DYK. It is now approved. The next best day would be any time this week, because for next Sunday, Bach wrote a different one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

The lead image, File:Clara Henry 2015-09-26 A.jpg, looks oddly squished. Yoninah (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems grand to me; full size and scaled down. GRAPPLE X 12:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The original image is fine, but it looks distorted in the prep set. I think the size parameter needs to be tweaked. -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah and Zanhe, clear your cache (purge and/or hard refresh). I had to do the same. Jolly Ω Janner 19:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, that fixed it! Thanks, @Jolly Janner:. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bound for Glory IV

Currently this article is undergoing a review for DYK. I'm bringing issues here because from the very beginning of the process several reviewers have been getting information wrong and declaring it was not eligible for reasons not clearly defined. This article is on the verge of being failed for reasons that I can't accurately cover because I do not see any actual issue. It appears that editors not familiar with the subject do not understand the limitations of the subject matter. I'm trying to find a way to solve all the issues but no one is explaining them other than that I used quotes in a reception section that are cited and accurately depicted. Somehow this is a copyright violation because I am using quotes and covering the subject matter in depth. One complaint is that the quotes are not brief, when the longest one is around 20 words and that isn't even the full sentence and the rest are a fraction of that. I feel this article is being unjustly judged when it passes all the other criteria.--WillC 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a 59-word segment of the James Caldwell review that was quoted in its entirety, and identified by a reviewer on January 16; the article just adds a few transitional words between sentences to break up the quote. It's still a full 59-word chunk, and still needed to be fixed as of when you posted this. I see that you have subsequently reduced the material quoted from that source and elsewhere, but it was your insistence that nothing was wrong that led to the review being on the verge of failure. There was, to several people's eyes, a failure to meet Wikipedia's standard "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" criterion, most notably the aforementioned chunk from the review of match 7, which is almost the entire "WINNER:" paragraph. More paraphrasing and less use of quoted material is still the way to go: I've made a few reductions along those lines in the Reception section. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Go check it now since I copyedited after this post and I even copyedited it during the review. The only thing stated was there was an issue. How could I ever fix an issue that was not actually identified. Everytime that an issue was clearly shown I fixed it. I cut the Keller paragraph. Then it was said there were more issues but they were not listed. I can't read minds unless people show the issues. Now that you've said the same thing again, try looking at the article and the fact I have done exactly as you suggested. I cut quotes and added transitions. I suggested that there was no issue because the only issue that seemed to be brought to my attention was that I was quoting. It wasn't stated exactly what was wrong with my quotes. Editors were vague in their issues. I even brought it up that I desired the editors making the claims to give me actual examples of what to clean up. None were given. Just discussion on matches and not actual constructive comments. Now that you have made your own changes how can you suggest that it still fails the policy and should not be approved? Throughout the review I tried to find the issue. I constituted that there was no issue since I had no idea what was the problem other than wanting to remove quotes which to me killed the entire purpose of the section and meant I had to blow up the section and rewrite it. I wanted to fix the issue but was never shown the issue since I repeated I have never had the issue. Stating "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" does not allow me to solve anything. It leaves me at the same place I started.--WillC 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: looking at your copyedit of the section. I thank you. That was what I needed. Someone to actually show what needed to be changed and aided in bettering the article.--WillC 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

East Sheen Cemetery and DYKSTATS

According to [20], East Sheen Cemetery got 8800 views on the day it was on DYK, but the rules for WP:DYKSTATS seem horrible and complicated. Could somebody figure out if it qualifies and add it to the right place if it does, please? Thank you! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else follows the rules either for just that same reason. I would go with the 8,800 figure. Jolly Ω Janner 02:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming anniversary review request

Could someone review my recent nomination of Disappearance of Bethany Decker, an event which marks its five-year anniversary in a week, in time for it to make the queues for January 29? Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Done~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the syntax?

I've just noticed that nominations put forward yesterday and today are not showing the full nom subpages and are just showing links to the pages. Is there a problem with the coding or the syntax on the page? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a syntax problem. Template talk:Did you know is just exceeding the post-expand include limit. --Allen3 talk 11:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah so just a temporary case of computer says no! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That's what happens when you try to shove a hundred pounds of taters into a fifty pound sack. --Allen3 talk 14:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first week of 2016. As of the most recent update, 148 nominations have been approved, leaving 197 of 345 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one remaining from November and the eight from December that are left over from last week's list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldest reviews template at top of talk page

Might I suggest that we add an oldest reviews template to the top of this talk page. It would give the recurring problem more visibility instead of it being buried among all the other conversations. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you expand a little bit? Are you thinking of moving the subsection Nomination passed long ago, but was somehow never promoted (2013–present) to the top of subsections by day? Or were you thinking of creating a parallel to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog? Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 23:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe that 4meter4 is suggesting an equivalent to my "Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers" section, to be placed at the top of this talk page. It's been proposed before. I'm not sure how it would work, but isolating it at the top of the page would seem to make it less visible rather than more; don't most people typically look at the bottom of this page? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The template would be above the Contents box which most editors use for navigation. It would therefore be highly visible. A more pressing concern in visibility is having old noms discussion thread being buried in the middle of the page.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The TOC (Contents box) automatically appears below the lead, but above any sections. So, you'd have to have that list included as part of the Lead, but it doesn't belong in the lead. The minute you section it into its own heading, it drops below the lead. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be a template with it's own page. It would therefore not appear as a subsection under the contents box.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I personally look at the bottom of this page first, and scroll up a bit, but never to the top. How about a floating box on the right that stays at the bottom of the page? Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I also go automatically to the bottom of the page first. To each his/her own on that. A template/floating box would be a transclusion. Usually, "Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers" is a section opened on this talk page by one editor (BlueMoonset) and edited by individuals as they strike off noms they have worked on. With a transclusion, you could see it on this page but go to a different page to strike off what you worked on. Wouldn't it be less wrist action/key strokes, to just open this talk page and click on the section in the Contents box?— Maile (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I like that idea Yoninah. What do others think?4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

Thanks to User:PFHLai for arranging hooks in the prep sets to coordinate with Australia Day (January 26) and Holocaust Remembrance Day (January 27). I have just approved Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Peter, if anyone thinks it is suitable for the empty hook slot in Prep 5 (Australia Day). Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, User:Yoninah. Please also consider a hook on India for Republic Day (India) also on January 26th. Perhaps the ghostly seadevils can wait. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Since Republic Day is about the adoption of the constitution, I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Anant Dave, who ran in one of the elections. Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Women's history month (March 1-31, 2016)

Are we doing it this year? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

One would hope so. The 2016 theme (in the United States) is “Working to Form a More Perfect Union: Honoring Women in Public Service and Government”. — Maile (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yikes. Who came up with that title? It sounds like the slogan for a five-year plan of the Bulgarian Wheat Production Board c. 1975. LavaBaron (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, @The C of E:. I've created date slots in the Special Occasions Holding Area. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we should scrap the holding area for women's history month. I think it would be far more effective to squeeze all the hooks onto International Women's Day (8 March). We currently have no hooks in holding for either category, so I'm doubtful we will come up with enough over the course of February to noticeably cover a whole month. Gathering 16 hooks for the whole day seems likely, however. Jolly Ω Janner 18:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A bit premature to declare this in my view. We still have another month to go. If by the 26th of Feb we have't got a lot, then I would be inclined to agree but at the moment, lets just sit and wait and see what comes up. For example I currently have Template:Did you know nominations/Ballymena United Allstars F.C. as a request for March and I know that @LavaBaron: has one for that too. Get a few in there first then the floodgates should open (assuming the squash syntax allows us to see the noms in full) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good. I'm fine with anything, though - keep it, scrap it, whatevs. LavaBaron (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

The hook for Survival Island 3 is distasteful and offensive. We should print a hook about the criticism of the game instead. Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps change it to ... that the video game Survival Island 3 has been heavily criticized for tasking the player with killing Australian Aborigines? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There was another hook on the nomination:
I don't see how it's offensive, it's a plain statement of non-opinionated fact; and the fallout from this seems to take up a significant portion of the entire article (and so is the crux of "the criticism of the game) so it's not a minor point either. GRAPPLE X 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you think that Australians want to see us promote a game with the object of killing Aborigines? I suggest a more toned down hook, leaving it to the reader to click on it:
  • That's a much better hook, so I've made the change. Though according to the source, it was 60k, not 43k. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't see how we're promoting it like a feature. It's to-the-point and doesn't editorialise it—the reader then makes their own judgement on it, which is out of our hands, as it should be. We're not saying "go play this game, you kill Aboriginal Australians and it's a larf", we're saying "this game asks you to kill Aboriginal Australians" and no part of that is untrue or skewed to a conclusion. GRAPPLE X 18:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with this, but it's also hookier of we don't explain why tens of thousands of people are petitioning against it (forcing them to go read the article and find out!) --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The original hook is an important and interesting fact. Whether it is nice has no bearing on Wikipedia's decision to publish it. Other proposed hooks are no better. I personally find the change.org petition hook bland as video games often receive petitions. I think people are more inclined to read about the article with the original hook. Jolly Ω Janner 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that if it is nice or not shouldn't play a part. WP:NOTCENSORED comes into play here I would say. If the hook is good, then run it. I personally though have no opinions on either hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with The C of E. LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tomb (Silistra) removed

Was my nomination removed by accident or for some other reason? It was already reviewed and approved, but I got a bot notification that it's missing from T:TDYK and I see it neither in the preparation area nor in WP:DYKREMOVED... — Toдor Boжinov — 13:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It was apparently removed by accident. It's back in now. Everything is OK. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 08:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK views

The stats.grok.se page view count has been down since January 21. Any chance of restoring it? Yoninah (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Village pump thread. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

The lead image, File:Betty Brosmer (3856129097).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Commons on the contention that it is not a free image. Should I move it to a non-image hook? Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd say that that image is very likely to be deleted at Commons. Edwardx (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggest moving it to a non-image hook in Prep 2, and replacing it with an image of a person, since we'll be overdue for a person otherwise. I can't imagine that an image of a celebrity from 1959 is free, especially a posed photo like that. Thanks for staying on top of this, Yoninah. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Our current hook in queue 2 states "... that armed groups have occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge since January 2, 2016?" Unfortunately, this has just flared up in the news with many arrests. Don't know whether it should be pulled just in case or whether to keep an eye on it until the last minute. It is possible that if armed groups no longer occupy the refuge that the hook is incorrect at time of publishing. Jolly Ω Janner 06:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should elevate it in the order of precedence. LavaBaron (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The "have" is broken and should be removed. It is past tense. Apparently there are four occupiers still in place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hook pulled

It was pointed out at WP:ERRORS that this shouldn't have been on the main page, per "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided" (WP:DYK). So I've pulled it. Pinging BabbaQ, Nvvchar and Allen3 as nominator, checker and promoter. BencherliteTalk 10:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Surely it's just your opinion that it is negative? Some people would look positively at such a comment. I reviewed it myself while it was in the prep and didn't see a problem. The hook and article don't go into whether or not that was a bad/good thing to say. If the article is to be believed (it's backed up by a Swedish source) then he didn't appologise about it and said it to "provoke" people, so he clearly wouldn't view it as slander by Wikipedia. Jolly Ω Janner 10:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's my opinion that a hook on Wikipedia's main page accusing a living person of a racist comment is not acceptable. There's no point explaining the context behind it now, as nobody who simply glanced at the main page without reading the article would know that. I think the pull was good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(e/c with Ritchie) Calling a group of people "parasites" is generally not regarded as acceptable language, and if he said that he said it to provoke people then he clearly realised that it would provoke people because it was unacceptable. BencherliteTalk 10:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the pull. There's just simply no need for us to lower ourselves to re-reporting this kind of gutter-sniping. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I agree with the pull as well - it just comes over as gratuitously unsavoury. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As the original editor who brought this to errors for a second opinion, I agree with Bencherlite's pull. It's hard to see how making an offensive racist remark is positive, and increasing the bandwidth of such remarks does not seem to be the main page's function. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Broadhurst Park Queue 2

@Coffee. Template:Did you know/Queue/2 has the wrong ALT for Broadhurst Park. ALT2 was promoted from Template:Did you know nominations/Broadhurst Park. Could it please be changed to:

...that F.C. United of Manchester's Broadhurst Park (pictured) stadium includes a recycled stand previously used at another football ground?

Cheers, Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. I verified it, which does not seem to have been formally done before. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Maha Upanishad in Queue 4

I don't think "advises one to treat the entire world as a family" in the hook is the same as stating "the world constitutes but one family" in the article. Not sure how to fix this, though. --PFHLai (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

PFHLai, how about teaches that "the world is one family" to replace advises one to treat the entire world as a family; that's the quoted version (in English translation) at the end of the article's lede. I apologize for this one; I'm the one who promoted the hook to prep. If you prefer the version in the body of the article, then teaches that "the world constitutes but one family" would also work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
An admin will be needed to fix this in the next hour before it hits the main page, if it should indeed be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
An admin is needed more than ever for this hook, because though it had been (and still is) marked as a special occasion hook for January 29, David Levy has just swapped Queues 4 and 1 wholesale, including this hook, which will now run late on January 30 and into January 31, India time. We have 45 minutes, so I'm going to ping other admins who frequent DYK, such as Cas Liber and Chris Woodrich, in the hopes that one of them can move this one hook back to Queue 4 and fix the wording (they should quickly check the nomination page and article before making the fix) in the little time remaining. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Done and done. My internet's going a little wonky, so I'm not sure I'll be able to do any follow ups. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris. Sorry, Blue, i wasn't able to follow up earlier. Real life got in the way... --PFHLai (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. It would be very helpful if date-specific hooks were labeled as such within the queues, perhaps via hidden comments (<!--Special occasion: 29 January-->). —David Levy 02:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
David Levy, we were as helpful as we know how to be: date-specific hooks are routinely labeled with hidden comments to warn people who might otherwise move them. In fact, this particular one had the comment right there with it in Queue 4, and it stayed there when you moved it to Queue 1 and when Chris moved it back. Indeed, it's still there in the source for the main page even now: <!--special occasion hook for January 29-->. It's easier to spot individual hook notes when moving a single hook rather than a whole queue or prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
trout Self-trout
I don't know how I missed that (and I thought that you were referring to a label appearing on a separate page). Double apologies.
Regarding the option of moving a single hook, note that this has its own perils. It can be challenging – particularly for admins lacking intimate familiarity with DYK's customs – to avoid erring in some other respect (e.g., by throwing off the topical balance, disrupting a special sequence, or neglecting to copy and paste all of the relevant content).
To be clear, I'm not trying to make an excuse; I'm pointing out that I've struggled with that approach as well. In the future, my first step will be to Ctrl-F for hidden comments (and proceed accordingly). —David Levy 04:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No harm done, David. No worries. Please be encouraged to edit in any DYK areas more often. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Filling preps

Alright, have started but am busy IRL - if folks load preps I can move to queues later today. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Khedda lead hook

An editor complained on main-page errors that the lead hook, Khedda, is inaccurate in stating that Assam has the most elephants in India. This fact does seem to be incorrect, and moreover it looks as if that entire hook was not reviewed, with an alt being favoured. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nominating an article for DYK while an AFD discussion is ongoing.

Yesterday I found an AFD for Children's Village. The article was poorly written and poorly researched and unsourced. I did a little research and I believe I can save it from AFD and make a pretty decent little article about it. That said, I would like to nominate it for DYK; but since you only have 5 days from the article's creation to nominate it for DYK, and AFDs run for 7 days, I was wondering if the ongoing AFD would make it not eligible for DYK? Obviously we couldn't have on the front page while it's up for deletion; but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about nominating it while the discussion is ongoing. Is that acceptable? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing AfD not a problem (as long as it passes of course). And you get 7 days now, not 5! Edwardx (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, you should definitely nominate it within seven days of its original creation—no later than February 4—even if it's still undergoing AfD. Any review will have to be put on hold until the AfD ends (which could take a while if it is relisted), but assuming the article survives, it will be reviewed thereafter in the normal way. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Something fishy

I recently noticed User:D'SuperHero promoting his own nomination. It caught my eye, because I recently informed the user how to correctly promote nominations and was hoping he had learned. Unfortunately, not only was it his own nomination, but it was found to be ineligible by Karthikndr on the page. However a tick was later given by an anonymous IP (but signed by a register username?). I checked the IP edits and found a similar edit voting for D'Superhero's featured portal nomination (link). I really hope I got this completely wrong... Jolly Ω Janner 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The user does behave very suspiciously. They randomly added hooks which had not been featured on DYK to WP:Recent additions, which I just discovered and reverted (one had already been archived). -Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to India and the same state as the train station, so that makes some slight sense. The other January edit by this IP is to an article edited by D'SuperHero and ARNAB22 (user name used by the IP when signing). The edit to the portal is really odd though - completely out of the blue. Also, ARNAB22 has made no edits to any Wikipedia namespace so this is a substantial deviation. I would not be surprised if this is DSH - there is a gap in their editing times when the IP edited, this is a supposedly new editor but shows significant skill from the start and seems to have a strong interest in collecting badges and user rights. Ravensfire (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: why do you refer to him as "Jin" on his user talk page? Is there more history to this user? I was hoping this could be resolved here with an apology, but may need to be moved to ANI. Jolly Ω Janner 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm strongly suspicious this is a sock of TekkenJinKazama. I did file an SPI which found them to be technically unrelated. The behavior evidence is somewhat strong, but not enough to warrant a block. [Several] of TJK's [previous] accounts also got in to GA and had very similar interests as DSH. I'm still very certain it's Jin, but WP:AGF it's a new user that knows Wiki markup and policies pretty well right from the start, but is fairly helpful overall. Their habit of seeking user rights and privileges is concerning and matches the potential self-promotion by the IP. Ravensfire (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Surely there is enough evidence to check whether the IP is D'SuperHero and to block? Logging out to upvote nominations surely can't be accepted as good faith. Jolly Ω Janner 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
SPI won't connect an IP to a user for privacy concerns. The best option may be for someone uninvolved to review and determine if the IP's comment should be considered. Ravensfire (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Zanhe has rightfully removed it on the DYK nomination. I have also posted a note on my observation of this situation on the portal nomination. Will be interested to hear what D'SuperHero has to say. I guess that's all we can do for now. Thanks Jolly Ω Janner 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have just done a quick check of the nomination. While the article has been more than 5x expanded, neither hook is valid, and both contain errors in the facts given, which reflect errors in the article itself. At the moment, there is significant work to be done on both article and nomination for this to proceed, and it should never have been promoted, and certainly not by its nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Baleen whale DYK

I would like to obtain input here from other users regarding the DYK nomination at Did you know nominations/Baleen whale, as per concerns about extensive table content not being part of the prose count in determining DYK eligibility. Details are in my review at the discussion. North America1000 20:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've always thought of it as not being able to be counted because then you could have an article with a large table and a one sentence intro. Same as we don't count quoted text as part of the character count. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Same, C of E, but this article seems a bit different to your typical table. Jolly Ω Janner 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This simply doesn't qualify, unfortunately, as it's only a 2.25x expansion even with the table prose in the pre-rewrite version not counted (DYKcheck doesn't count tables), from 16331 to 36785 prose characters. It looks like an ideal candidate for the GA process, so it could come back to DYK if it is listed as a GA; for now, however, it's too far from qualifying, so I've marked it with the X icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first twelve days of 2016. As of the most recent update, 156 nominations have been approved, leaving 212 of 368 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four remaining from December and first nine from early January that are left over from last week's list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nominations page isn't transcluding properly

Beginning with January 27 and down, something is out of kilter on the transclusion of the nominations. On my system, anyway, it just looks like regular wiki links to the templates. It's not specific to my browser, because I see that no matter which browser is used. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

#Problems with the syntax?. We should probably add this to the FAQ. It gets asked almost weekly. Jolly Ω Janner 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The quickest way to solve this and keep it that way would be to fill another three prep sets now, and keep the total of filled preps and queues at seven or eight. We have too many unpromoted nominations on the page at the moment, which exceeds the maximum number of transclusions for a single page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Even when it's not over the transclusion limit, this page is frequently browser-stutteringly too long. Why not have a bot move the approved-but-not-yet-promoted nominations to a different subpage? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I support this idea. That could make it easier for potential promoters to see what is ostensibly ready to go. If a promoter sees a problem with the nomination, it could be moved back to the regular nomination page. Pulling an approved nomination, whether on the suggested separate page, or from the prep areas, would the same effort. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Maile. It would make it a lot easier to find hooks to promote, rather than scrolling through hundreds of nominations. Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: You might have previously offered some insight about a separate page for approved nominations, but I don't recall. If a bot could handle this, do you see any drawbacks? — Maile (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the DYKHousekeepingBot would need to be rewritten to a certain extent, since it currently builds that helpful Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count table at the top of both the T:DYK/Q and T:TDYK pages. And would we want the table to be a straight combination of the now-separated pages, so it contains the same data, or would we want two separate tables? I'd be worried about pages being moved prematurely: the key to moving is presumably having the most recent icon be a tick or AGF tick, but sometimes discussions are ongoing even at that point, with a new ALT hook having been proposed that still needs reviewing. (On the other hand, I don't see how this is feasible without a bot moving hooks between pages; I would consider the amount of manual work moving between pages to be far more onerous than scrolling down a page that already has a table linking you to dates with approved hooks in them.) Would I be correct in assuming that the special occasion section, since it only has approved hooks, would move to the new page as well? Pinging Shubinator, whose bots would need to be updated if some form of this goes forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The special occasion hooks open up an additional question, since we already have a separate page for April Fools Day. A lot of things to consider on the overall issue, but I think it's worth community discussion. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, people should probably stop using "approved" to mean "not really quite finished" then ;) Or make a new {{DYKready}} template or something to say "I'm definitely no-really-I-mean-it-this-time finished reviewing this and you can move it to the approved-hooks subpage." The table can be assembled on a separate page and transcluded into both the unreviewed and reviewed nominations pages. As for special occasions, those get missed or forgotten so often that I'd be inclined to add a parameter to the nomination subpage template for requested dates, which could easily be read by the bot. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis Reviews who say they've passed a nomination mean just that. What BlueMoonset is talking about, is that the DYK system allows anyone to come along after a nomination has passed and offer an alt hook, or question something about the review, which re-opens an already approved nomination. It's a good feature, because criteria gets missed in a review. The only way to get around that, is a system not in place at DYK - one or more designated persons who are the only ones who can give the final approval on a reviewed nomination. This idea has been floated earlier and met with resistance by editors who have seen it on other review processes and don't like it. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't need "official closers". If the reviewed ones are all on a single page, then people who want to give a second look to the reviews can focus their efforts. If they feel that their input is necessary, they can remove the "ready" template. Or, if this is really such a critical function, require a seconder before the review is considered complete. The most persistently annoying thing about the DYK Rube Goldberg machine is how difficult it is to follow a nomination's progress through the whole process, which results in things getting overlooked. Being able to actually read the nominations page would be a start. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

Just a quick suggestion. In Prep 6 the bottom hook on St. Paul's Church, Rusthall had a good image to go with it (better than the lead hook currently being used IMO) yet it is not being used as the lead hook. Can we swap them? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

An image of a building has been more recently displayed than a person, so replacing the person with the building isn't really appropriate. If someone wants to move your hook and its image to a later set, they can certainly do that. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Who's handing out the medals?

Someone give me a 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal or else. [21] LavaBaron (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to say "please". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone please give me a 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal or else. LavaBaron (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Havard Business Review says that's a bad idea. Will a pony do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be fine. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ha... You folks are funny.... Don't forget to update Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I need a 50 DYK award... just sayin'. Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ah, ah. You didn't say the magic word! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I almost just gave you one, but I checked [22] and you only have 48 DYKs. Sucks to be you. Meanwhile, I'll be trotting around the Teahouse on my brand new pony. LavaBaron (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Does the tool count DYK credits that were given out manually when the bot was down? --PFHLai (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't call me a tool. LavaBaron (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Disregard the preceding, I misunderstood. Anyway, supposedly it doesn't count DYK credits given out manually prior to 2001. I don't know that for a fact, though, that's just what I heard. LavaBaron (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The bot doesn't count manual credits. I know because I've had DYKs for Canterbury Cricket Week and Newry City Ladies F.C. done manually but the bot didn't count them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. In that case I've just GF awarded Montanabw a 50 DYK medal. LavaBaron (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
--PFHLai (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! And actually, it's 51: [23]. The old ones apparently didn't get counted or something... Montanabw(talk) 00:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know that these medals existed. Can I please get my goodies? I'm at 88 nominations so far. I'm not sure how many are for creations/expansions, and how many for just nominations, but I think it's about 2/3 for creations.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Please be encouraged to update Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The DYK notices tool says I have 25 DYKs while the ones I've manually listed out on my page say 26. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to put a note here

Hey there. I just wanted to put a repeat note here about Template:Did you know nominations/First first-class cricket match in Australia, as it was played on 11 and 12 February 1851. You may want this DYK to be placed on the main page during the said days this month. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: It's been added to the Special Occasion Holding Area for those dates. Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (Desert Rat & Silver Buckle)

"... that Desert Rat followed Silver Buckle?" I'm not commenting on the ambiguity of the hook here, but I noticed that Silver Buckle has its own nomination. I think common sense would be too bold it in this hook and reject its nomination. Jolly Ω Janner 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_120&oldid=1137408683"