Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 124

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126→Archive 130

"Most popular" lead hook removed from Queue 5

Template:Did you know nominations/Jacky Lafon @Checkingfax, Intelligentsium, Yoninah, Maile66, and Casliber:

Familie is not "the most popular soap opera in Belgium"; the claim is not made in the article, and wouldn't be true anyway, as Thuis generally has about 30% more viewers, with days that it reaches double the audience of Familie (e.g. [1]. This has been consistently the case since about 2004[2] so not a new development. These are the numbers for a recent week. At the same site we can see that for the whole of 2015, Thuis was #9 of the most viewed programs in Flanders, while Familie was #80. You get the same kind of results for all previous years (going back to 2009). (I only discuss the viewing figures in Flanders, but viewing figures for Flemish series are minimal in Wallonia anyway) Fram (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Why not just reword it as "... while filming the soap opera Familie"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Because, if the review missed something as basic as this (a fact that isn't even mentioned in the article!), I would very much prefer a new review, not a fix for the most obvious problem which may miss other problems. The review clearly wasn't done correctly, so needs to be redone. Fram (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Fram. Can you please trim it and then restore it as such:
Thank you for your consideration. Cheers! (Ritchie333 and BlueMoonset) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Checkingfax, can you please restart the nomination so that a correct review can happen? Thank you! Fram (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: (or any other admin for that matter), please remove the unreviewed hook from the queue. The nomination was already reopened when you readded the changed hook to the queue, meaning that you essentially added an unreviewed hook from an open nomination to the queue. That's not the way to go for DYK... Fram (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed that hook, but it does need to be replaced by something with a pic in less than 10 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, why not replace it with the lead hook from either Prep 6 or Prep 1, to avoid this very fate? Admins are not always thick on the ground when you need them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
OK I will give it a go. I have never built any prep before. If I move the hook I will ask you to check the result is correct!
Done, @BlueMoonset: can you check prep1 and q5 are correctly altered? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Handling close paraphrasing / plagiarism issues

I recent did a review in which I identified close paraphrasing issues. I wonder, given that these can be copyright issues as well, whether raising it for the nominators is sufficient. I would appreciate advice, both for this specific case and the general case. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is another. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have copyright concerns, I'd suggest tagging the article and spotchecking the editor's other contributions for potential issues. That being said, I think some of the examples you're citing are unproblematic - there's only so many ways to say "He became Managing Director of the merged Hazlitt, Gooden & Fox in '1973 and succeeded as Chairman in 1992", and IMO "He was managing director of Hazlitt, Gooden & Fox from 1973, until 1992, when he became chairman" is a reasonable paraphrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Longnose eagle ray

In Queue 1, in the hook

  • ... that the longnose eagle ray, which is caught unintentionally during fishing activities, is listed as being a "near-threatened species"?

"Is listed as being" sounds awful - simply "is listed as a near-threatened species" works. I'm not a huge fan of "is caught unintentionally during fishing activities" either but can't think of a good rewording (could also link bycatch). Intelligentsium 22:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion... EdChem (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so here's a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current hooks (through May 28). As of the most recent update, 60 nominations have been approved, leaving 117 of 177 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 02:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

I had just finished accumulating hooks in Prep 2 and was going to edit one of the hooks (Pleas Jones) when the prep set was moved to the queue. Please could someone change the word "person" to "justice" in the fifth hook of Queue 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Image for Autonomy Cube

I recently added an image to the article, it might fit better than the current image in Queue4. Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The image in any set of hooks comes from the lead (top) hook. In Queue 4, Hove Town Hall is the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the hook should be moved to a set without an image. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep/Queue template formatting

I don't know how many people have utilized this, but if you click on any filled prep or queue (not on the edit link) so it opens in its own page, there is this message down on the bottom of the page:

See how this template appears on both today's Main Page

(Queue 1) (Queue 2) (Queue 3) (Queue 4) (Queue 5) (Queue 6)

(Prep Area 1) (Prep Area 2) (Prep Area 3) (Prep Area 4) (Prep Area 5) (Prep Area 6)

...and tomorrow's Main Page

(Prep Area 1) (Prep Area 2).

Viewing the template on the current day's Main Page works fine. But if you try to see it on the next day's Main Page, it's not as advertised. I can't help but think this used to work better and somewhere got messed up. Can this be corrected in some master template? — Maile (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

that Henry L. Haskell invented the game of carroms (1900 vintage board shown) to keep young boys out of pool halls where they might develop bad habits?

The "game of carroms" is misleading linked to the Carrom Company and not the "game of carroms" (which has its own article Carrom, variously capitalised and uncapitalised, and is described in the singular). Suggest the game itself is linked (and the text is unbolded), or the hook is modified to actually discuss the company itself so the link is not misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Providing an alternate revised hook.

... that Henry L. Haskell patented through the Carrom Company a game board (1900 vintage board shown) to keep young boys out of pool halls where they might develop bad habits?

Superlatives

DYK seems to regularly have some issues around "most', greatest", all the "-est's" should we have a rule or guide, here. Eg., 

  "In general, try to avoid unqualified or un-contextualized superlatives ([examples]) . . . When in doubt, leave it out."

Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Examples please. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was the one right above that triggered this. I recall awhile ago, one I was reviewing a nom where the claim was 'greatest woman athlete', and I just suggested an alt (which became the one approved) because although some laudatory source had written 'greatest woman athlete', it just seemed too puff/nonsubstantial/gimicky. (Maybe just require multiple substantial sources in DYK articles for such most/oldest/best/earliest/latest/ claims.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It ought to be down to the reviewer to realise that unreferenced hyperbole is not encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
But there is no good reason not to tell the reviewer and the proposer what to look for, when it is an issue that naturally arises - superlatives are just in their nature 'click-baity' of the type that would warrant a word of general skepticism and restraint. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I queried just such a claim here, but my intervention has been very unwelcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There's plenty of stuff a reviewer and proposer need to be sure of when writing encyclopedic articles. DYK is not the only place these things need to be carefully monitored. We would be better served (if absolutely required) to point our reviewers and proposers to the relevant portions of the MOS or various policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
We already do that in the DYK instructions, so that's not helping. Moreover, we are also more specific with the hook instruction at Wikipedia:Did you know#Content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Well we should monitor our reviewers and proposers more closely. We can't give them instructions on all the minutiae they need to consider, either they're good enough to recognise encyclopedic writing or they're not. More importantly right now, we should be having a rule or a guide: "don't promote unreferenced hooks to the main page". That, by far, supersedes any need to worry about the tinier aspects of hook writing. In fact, as you pointed out yourself, you based this comment on the preceding thread. A thread which demonstrated that, yet again, the review process failed because a reference wasn't checked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That's already stated on the DYK page, so that broad statement is not helping - specifically people are not being skeptical and reticent in dealing in hook superlatives (which is an easy thing to advise them to be with the hook) and sure may have the added benefit of reinforcing the broad language.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern on this. We don't have the man (woman) power to enforce this. Rules and guidelines are on at least three different pages, and doing a single review already takes considerable time. Even the best volunteers miss the obvious now and then. Not all nominators and reviewers have English as their primary language, but Wikipedia doesn't discriminate. Everybody tries to notice things like close paraphrasing, copyvio, licensing. But if you look at enough hooks and articles, you miss things. It happens. We're all human. But as important as this is to you, we don't need to add one more rule. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's nothing special here at all. All articles, hooks, blurbs etc should be written encyclopedically. If reviewers and promoters aren't doing it then they should be asked to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I just picked out one of these: "... that the country of Jordan was the first Arab state to recruit women to its police force?". In that case, Oman seems to have done this first but it's easy for sources to miss such counter-examples. I agree with Alanscottwalker that any superlative should be especially checked because they are so often incorrect. It's not enough to check that there's a source for the claim. You also have to check for counter-claims of a similar sort. Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    This is not a DYK-exclusive issue, it's about the encyclopedia, but DYKs are queued up at WP:DYKQ. Feel free to check them before they get to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why the admins are arguing that this is just "one more rule". We have been inundated with women "firsts" and men "firsts", and so many of them are shot down on this very talk page. We definitely need to add a rule like Alanscottwalker has suggested. "You have to be very sure that it really is the first before suggesting it here. Often, you can find another fact that is just as, if not more, hooky." Yoninah (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If reviewers and promoters are incompetent enough to not thoroughly check a hook, they should be advised not to perform the task going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
True, but writing out an extra rule that for such hooks (and many others, by the way), not only we require the basic check that the hook is supported by the source should be done, but also the additional check that the hook fact isn't contradicted by other reliable sources, will help reduce the number of such incorrect or at least disputed hooks. Fram (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it. The current massive swath of rules doesn't seem to help with even fundamental issues of referencing hooks, so I can see no tangible gain from adding yet another one. In fact, it's more likely to be hinderance as it will turn even more people off trying to understand the various esoteric aspects of this arcane process. We could use just one rule: "Write interesting hooks and make sure they're not erroneous." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that works for me. Many hook writers don't understand the word "hook". Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK is WAY overdue

I guess the bot went awry and didn't notify us, but the last update to the main page was over 20 hours ago. No prep areas are full to promote to queue. I can only answer for my own method, but checking each hook against the article and source is time consuming, and probably should be. I have pulled hooks and asked nominators for various corrections. So, maybe we will miss the next deadline. The world won't end. But please make sure the hook is stated in the article in a way that is easy to spot, and sourced. Especially if the hook is about a subject matter that has its own unique terminology - science, sports, religion. And the more eyes on those hooks the better, because I come across subject matters that I have no background on and end up crossing my fingers that I checked it all correctly. We all need each other checking. — Maile (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you spot the section immediately above this? BencherliteTalk 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Are you kidding? The bot left a message for you 10 hours ago. See the preceding section. As I said, slowing things down right now wouldn't be a bad thing, as it's happening organically in any case. Might as well formalise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Bencherlite I saw the mention above, and I was not online for hours before and afterwards. But there's usually more than one bot message. The one above was the 2-hour advance "almost overdue" warning, which is often left up even after it's been taken care of. There's usually more warnings, and sooner or later somebody starts filling preps before the deadline. If not, there's a bot that tells us we definitely missed the deadline. That's what I'm saying...all those other bot messages just didn't happen. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There have been three such warnings in the past two weeks. I guess the process is trying to work too quickly for its own good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Maile66, I rather suspect that you're wrong in thinking that there's usually more than one message: see the last 499 edits the bot has made to this talk page going back to December 2012 show no such warnings. BencherliteTalk 21:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Really? Maybe that was selective memory, since I've only really had to pay attention to filled and promoted preps for about a month. Amazing what we believe happens, when other people are the ones keeping an eye on things. This is O/T, but I just noticed this talk page has 690 watchers. So many looky-loos, and so little participation. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There are two full preps now. Even though it doesn't have that functionality, it might be an idea to ask the bot owner to implement the overdue notice. An alternative would be to have a ping list of users to massmessage in case of a backlog like this; I'd be willing to be on it. Intelligentsium 21:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I pulled one of the hooks from Prep 2. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Beat me to it! I was about to pull that one as well. Intelligentsium 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We are so late. We might as well let the current hook-set on MainPage sit for another hour or so, and then let the next hook-set go on MainPage at midnight UTC. BTW, are we really going for 24-hour shifts? We need a decision soon. We have to handle the upcoming date requests accordingly. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have one set in queue. Do I need to do anything else, or it will just load on the main page an hour from now? — Maile (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Too late. The bot just moved it to the main page. But no other queues are filled, so it can't replace it in an hour. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

...that the grassland sparrow is a "secretive" bird? Why are there scare quotes around secretive? Are scare quotes not frowned upon in the manual of style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.27.138 (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think those are scare quotes, that's the wording in the source. They're there to show it's not the Wikipedia author anthropomorphizing the bird but a quote from The Birds of South America. Intelligentsium 00:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Earwig is down

Earwig's copyvio detector is currently not available on the nomination template. It was off the template for a month, and just recently restored. However, no matter what article I try to search, even if it's not DYK, I get an error message: An error occurred while using the search engine (Yandex XML parse error: Opening and ending tag mismatch: meta line 39 and head, line 70, column 8). Try reloading the page. If the error persists, repeat the check without using the search engine. And no matter which article I search, the error message always has meta line 39 and head, line 70, column 8.— Maile (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It worked for me tonight just fine, though rather slow.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Earwig's Copyvio Detector has been restored to the DYK nomination template toolbox. Earwig made an update on June 7 that seems to have resolved the issue. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Too many cooks

Look, look, c'mon ... surely everyone on the planet knows me by "Boris" these days. I know I got into a bit of a sticky wicket with my best mate David Cameron but y'know all's fair in love and DYK isn't it?

There's a topic up at the moment: Gaby's Deli. The hook which I wrote for this was approved by the reviewer:

this was then substantially altered in a series of edits in the preparation area.

The result of this transformation is awful. What started as a tight hook has been bloated with redundant links and asides to the point that the main subject is pushed into the background. Such extensive editing was not subject to any formal review or discussion. Neither myself nor the original reviewer were notified or consulted. Instead, we just find out the hard way that our work has been butchered and, now that it is on the protected main-page, we are unable to revert this.

The work people do to assemble hooks and put them on the main page is appreciated but please can they resist the temptation to tinker with the hooks. This is an affront to the original editors who approved the hook and risks introducing errors. We have a formal review process for hooks and so out-of-process changes are therefore quite improper.

Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good to add context to hooks, but in this case I would agree that the bastardisation has resulted in a turgid and thick hook. Please, be judicious when "improving" hooks prior to them appearing on the main page. As for introducing errors, that happens regardless of whether the hook is changed. In fact, those changes are indicative that a few more reviews of the hook were made, hopefully making it more accurate rather than less. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Making those who made these edits aware of this discussion: @Maile66, Intelligentsium, and Yoninah:. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I promoted the original hook and thought it was fine. Boris Johnson, at least, is pretty well known around the world, and he was linked. I agree that the titles were superfluous, but when I saw him referred to as "former Mayor of London", I changed it to "then-Mayor" for accuracy. Since no prep sets had been prepared and the set on the Main Page had been up for over 12 hours, the preparation of this set was a total rush job and the time usually spent on tweaking and informing the nominator was non-existent. Thanks to Hawkeye for loading 3 new prep sets so everyone has time to look at them. Yoninah (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I did an image search for "boris". The first 20 results were for Boris Johnson, then Boris Kodjoe, then another 20 Johnson, then Boris Godunov, then 25 Johnson, then Boris Becker. Okay, Google will skew results in the UK but even so I think we are on safe ground just linking Boris without having to explain who he is in the hook. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
How soon they forget Soviet chess grandmaster Boris Spassky... Yoninah (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering this further, please note that the last form of the hook was inconsistent. The campaign to save the place took place in 2011 when Boris was the mayor but Jeremy Corbyn was not yet the Labour leader. If the process of progressive pedantry had continued, we'd have had:
Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I see your point about concision; apologies, I thought your point was to highlight two politicians who are otherwise polar opposites uniting for this cause. However I do agree with Maile that we can't assume readers (especially *cough* US readers *cough cough*) know who these people are, even good ol' Boris. Intelligentsium 13:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Andrew D.'s version still contains imprecision, because the then and now status of the Deli is unclear, plus what about people who might be unclear of "Deli" and "Labour Party"... and does the Mayor of London and UK Labour Party offer sufficient precision on location? I don't know. Thus, I propose a more precise (and even under the 200 character limit) hook:

EdChem (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That's no good, I can never remember where Charing Cross Road is. How about ALT397 ... that the then-London Mayor Boris Johnson and the then-future UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn campaigned successfully to save then-open Gaby's Deli, a Jewish delicatessen owned by Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury and located on Charing Cross Road, a major throughfare running between St Martin-in-the-Fields and St Giles Circus in Central London? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a reference that the deli was actually open when both (or either perhaps) of those individuals made their campaigns? What if they had done it on a Sunday or perhaps a late afternoon/early evening when Gaby took early leave? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, Ritchie333, if you are going to exceed 200 characters then it should be "then-future and now-current UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn", you would restore my wikilink of campaigned to advocacy group, and provide a link for "major thoroughfare". Recognising TRM's point, we should also have "then-open and now-still-open (within the context of standard opening hours) Gaby's Deli". EdChem (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hang on, standard according to whom? What's standard opening hours for London is completely different, to say, Lochinver. We need to be specific, in case somebody accidentally drives to Latheronwheel expecting Gaby's Deli to be there. These are important considerations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it seems obvious to me that the only meaningful standard for Gaby's Deli must be Gaby's standard, so the hook might need a mobile number for checking with Gaby, but we might have a verifiability issue. EdChem (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not putting Gaby's mobile number on Wikipedia, I'll get blocked for outing. No thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Musheirifa Musmus Salim, Ma'ale Iron Zalafa, Ma'ale Iron

The above template was created on 28th of April, but it does not appear on the list? What is wrong? And could someone please check if it is "promotable"? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It has now been restored to April 21, which was where it originally was. I think the confusion came when it was originally promoted to prep on May 20, then the promote reverted on May 21. Whatever happened there, it looked like the hooks under April 21 were all complete, and the section got deleted. But it's back. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Huldra (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Request Input on Sourcing of Hook

There is a discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/James Bond (naval officer)‎ about whether the hook fact is adequately cited. I request input from uninvolved editors as the two reviewers (myself and Andrew D.) have different views. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we need one more hook

The DYK section looks quite empty with 7 and there is an unsightly space at the bottom. Maybe today's ITN and OTD are especially long? It's probably possible to cannibalize one from one of the preps. Intelligentsium 02:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. I have mentioned this above and was shot to pieces by many of the DYK regulars who claim no such problem exists. DYK being short of a hook and using particularly short hooks (and oftne having to have hooks pulled from the main page) causes a main page inbalance. That's why I've advocating going back to 8 hooks and slowing the update rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I've charged three more prep areas, so you can move some to the queues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Can we go back to 8 hooks please, for the reasons given above and in preceding sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't following that discussion but I'd be in favour of making the decision on a case-by-case basis (as it seems we've done in the past and which the guidelines seem to imply), adding or taking one off to preserve the balance. The seven we have right now (leading von Neumann) seems quite well balanced for instance and adding an eighth would be too many. Intelligentsium 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not about preserving the balance of DYK, it's about making sure the OTD/ITN sections are balanced with it, and therefore the main page isn't lopsided. DYKs are "credited" to people so no-one likes to have them removed prematurely, while ITN/OTD entries are just encyclopedic and not about the badge. It's far better for DYK to stick to eight hooks and allow the rest of the main page to accommodate its various shortcomings on a 12-hourly basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I know it's to keep the main page balanced; what did you think I meant? I was thinking pull one from prep or bump one back into prep if there's an imbalance rather than remove it altogether. Not sure I follow what you mean by "allow the rest of the main page to accommodate its various shortcomings" - in my browser at least the seven hooks we have now keeps the main page perfectly balanced (and in fact DYK is slightly longer than ITN/OTD but not too bad). Adding an eighth to this set would make DYK much longer and leave an unsightly gap at the end of OTD. Intelligentsium 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It's far easier and much less controversial to re-add the oldest item from ITN (or drop the oldest item), or drop an item or include another one from OTD. Editors don't self-combust when that happens, yet dropping a DYK item would cause a near-apocalypse. Hence, keeping DYK with eight hooks and allowing the rest of the main page to be gently balanced around it is much easier. The seven hooks now makes the left side shorter than is helpful, especially when hooks are short, and more so when hooks are pulled through errors (which happens regularly). Stick to eight hooks and let the rest of Wikipedia get the main page right. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that when the Hydraulic Press Channel, a YouTube channel, tried to fold a piece of paper more than seven times with a hydraulic press, the paper exploded?

The single source referencing this (Gizmodo) states "... the paper to explode and then disintegrate in spectacular fashion on the seventh fold" in other words, it wasn't "more than seven times", it was when the paper was folded for the seventh time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Yoninah (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Yoninah: Thanks for catching that. I think I originally meant to emphasize that the channel tried to fold it more than seven times but was unsuccessful (failing at the seventh fold). However, the new wording is definitely more clear. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The hook now says "that when the Hydraulic Press Channel, a YouTube channel, broadcast the folding of a piece of paper seven times using a hydraulic press, the paper exploded?" I doubt that it exploded at the time of broadcasting, it most likely exploded at the time of recording (unless it was broadcasted live of course). Perhaps another correction is needed here? Fram (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Too right. And how could you ever broadcast on YouTube using a hydraulic press?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please create a nomination template for Promo Azteca (created June 3)

  1. Did you know Promo Azteca TV was an attempt by TV Azteca to compete with Televisa's monopoly on lucha libre programming? (source: Fragments of a Golden Age / Adictosaldeporte.com)
  2. Did you know that Promo Azteca was founded as a place for luchadors splitting their time between Mexico and the U.S. to work? (source: Rey Mysterio: Behind the Mask)
  3. Did you know that Promo Azteca introduced American-style pro wrestling to Mexican audiences? (source: Rey Mysterio: Behind the Mask / LUCHA SPOTLIGHT: Remembering Promo Azteca)
  4. Did you know that La Parka was blackballed by Asistencia Asesoría y Administración after jumping to Promo Azteca? (source: Pro Wrestling Torch)
  5. Did you know that Konnan and other Promo Azteca stars were denied work by Mexican promoters after the promotion's close? (source: Pro Wrestling Torch) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.205.250 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Template:Did you know nominations/Promo Azteca Please follow the link to the nomination template and watch for any questions that might be asked there. Thank you for submitting this here. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin swap order?

Is it possible to swap the J. Keith Desormeaux DYK to Queue/Prep 6 so it is on the main page on the 11th in the USA? (I popped it into the special occasion holding area for the 11th due to the 2016 Belmont Stakes which runs in the afternoon of the 11th). If need be, the DYK for 1973 Kentucky Derby could be put into the Queue/Prep 5 spot. Not the end of the world if this can't be done, but asking, and Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 07:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

How many people can be the first to have the same achievement? Removed NASCAR hook from main page, again

  • ... that in 1988, Shawna Robinson became the first female racing driver to win a NASCAR-sanctioned race?

Template:Did you know nominations/Shawna Robinson @Z105space, Cwmhiraeth, PFHLai, and Casliber:

Anyone remembers Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 123#Main Page: Nascar hook corrected, a discussion from 30 May 2016? Same page creator, same promotor (the other two pinged persons are not the same as then, so they are excused).

Z105space, you then incorrectly claimed

  • ... that racing driver Diane Teel was the first woman to win a NASCAR race at Langley Speedway in 1979?

so how come you didn't realise that it is impossible for another woman to be the first to win a NASCAR-sanctioned race ten years later? You created Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Teel at 06:42, 22 May 2016, and commented on Template:Did you know nominations/Shawna Robinson on 07:48, 22 May 2016. Even if you hadn't realised the incompatibility of the two hooks at that time, you could perhaps have checked this hook after the Diane Teel issue was raised here? What's the point of even starting a discussion here if some people carry on regardless. Fram (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused...I know nothing of NASCAR races and (?) the Robinson article looks faithful to the sources. And so does the Teel....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Those two hooks don't say the same thing. The first one says Shawna Robinson was "the first female racing driver to win a NASCAR-sanctioned race". The second says Diane Teel was the first woman to win a NASCAR race at a specific speedway. The first hook is NASCAR-specific. The second hook is speedway-specific. — Maile (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Except that Teel's was 9 years earlier...so how does that work? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Casliber, you are absolutely right. The years makes one of those hooks incorrect. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It took me a while to realize the ref provided in the article was not reliable. Good catch, Fram. --PFHLai (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
And the Robinson one supposedly happened after the Teel one, which is obviously impossible. It's like saying that the first man on the moon landed in 1969, and the first man in space only happened in 1988 or so. You can't have a first woman to win a NASCAR-sanctioned race anywhere ten years after another woman already won a specific NASCAR-sanctioned race. Fram (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless perhaps the first one was not sanctioned - ie. a race in NASCAR-type cars conducted in NASCAR-manner but not NASCAR-sanctioned, for some reason? I have no idea, but if there is not something like this then Fram is right that the sequence is impossible, and no matter which, Z105space should have noticed and addressed the contradiction. EdChem (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Follow up: I think the issue relates to different NASCAR Series. The series in which Robinson won is now known as the Xfinity series. Teel drove in a different series when she won, before moving on to what is now Xfinity in which she never won. So, the Robinson hook needs a re-write to say first female winner in series X, it's present wording is wrong. Good catch, Fram, and poor effort those involved with both hooks in missing the inconsistency. EdChem (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (ALT1): ... that in 1988, Shawna Robinson became the first female racing driver to win in the NASCAR Budweiser Late Model Sportsman Series (now Xfinity Series)?
Proposing an ALT1. EdChem (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with the ALT 1 and I admit the issue with the hook had slipped my mind and should have dealt with it before Teel was nominated. Z105space (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not just the hook. The wikiarticle needs to be fixed, too. --PFHLai (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Actually, both wikiarticles (Shawna Robinson and Diane Teel) need to be fixed. --PFHLai (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@PFHLai: @Fram: @Casliber: @Maile66: I have looked at the article again and have made adjustments. The sources in Robinson's say that she was "the first women to win a major NASCAR race" while Teel's state she was "the first to win a NASCAR-sanctioned race", but the latter was at a local US state level. Z105space (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what refs to trust now. If the "first woman..." issue is such a problem, perhaps we should use something else in the hook. --PFHLai (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we un-promoting this nom? The offending hook was on Mainpage for merely 27 minutes. If we are giving this nom another chance for DYK, a new hook can be discussed on the nom-template. Otherwise, discussions on referencing and consistencies, etc. should go to Talk:Shawna Robinson. (And Talk:Diane Teel, too.) --PFHLai (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed areca nut hook from main page

I think we need to change the previous section title to "looks like we need 2 more hooks". This is the result of not having anything in the prep areas and thus not having enough time to check the hooks before they hit the main page, I suppose.

Template:Did you know nominations/Areca nut production in India @Maile66, Nvvchar, Biruitorul, and PFHLai:

This may have been true at one time (the source seems to be about 1990-1991), but has steadily dropped since. This article from an IOSR (International Organization of Scientific Research) journal from 2013 cites the FAO estimate, which gives India 53% of the world production, still impressive but far removed from 75% of course. Going straight to the FAO, they give a 2013 world production estimate of 1224125 tonnes, of which India produced 609000 tonnes, or nearly 50%. Fram (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

To give an idea of the short timeframe for hook checks: this hook was promoted to the preps at 20.40, and put on the main page at 23.03. This is 2 hours and 23 minutes between promotion and main page appearance, which obviously isn't enough by a mile. 06:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The hook and article won't be getting a second chance at DYK, they were up there for way too long already. Fram (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Whitehaven (house)

Does the hook about Hillary Clinton's "fortress of solitude" in Prep 3 constitute election coverage, and if so, should it be pulled to the holding pen with the rest? There are technically still primaries left until June 15th. The hook is

Intelligentsium 01:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The primaries are practically done, so IMO, it's okay. BTW, quite a few of the noms in the holding pen have been sitting there for many weeks. Some of the nominated articles have received many edits since getting approved for DYK. It's best to have them re-reviewed before the hooks go on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The link in the hook is wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Now disambiguated. --PFHLai (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick fix

I asked Fram, who made the change, but in case Fram isn't around, also posting here. The DYK hook for 1973 Kentucky Derby changed the time from 1:592⁄5 to 1:59.4. [6]. Can someone please change it back to 2⁄5? The reason is because in 1973 races were timed in fifths of a second and the time recorded in those records was in fractional form. I know that the decimal is equivalent, but it looks funny for that historic race. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Never mind, I see it is being debated above. Still, would prefer 2/5, but shall accept consensus above. Montanabw(talk) 20:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It was confusing given written as "1:592⁄5 seconds". No one mentioned the measurement in fifths of a second as the historic standard of the time. EdChem (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hard to read time

Prep 6:

Is there a reason that the time is given in such a strange format? It's barely readable, with the small "59", and at first I thought that 1.xx seconds was meant, instead of 1.xx minutes. Wouldn't "1 minute 59 2⁄5 seconds" be clearer? Or "1 minute 59.4 seconds"? Fram (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think either numerical record needs to be included, just the record itself. Delete the times, they're meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Fram that "1 min 59.4 s" or similar would be much clearer. Alternatives might be:
EdChem (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't use ALT2. Multiple records were broken by Secretariat that day. Maybe we should focus on the most notable one -- getting under the 2 minute mark. We should get input from Disc Wheel (talk · contribs). --PFHLai (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the fraction is getting too much negative attention. Considering the previous record was exactly 2 minutes, how about:
  • The "offending" hook is now on MainPage. I don't think I should post the hook I came up with onto MainPage -- it's like promoting my own nom. Can someone review and post it, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have now made a simple change to make it readable (but without changing the hook otherwise), as that seemed to me the most urgent. I have no objection to any further changes if they have consensus of course. Fram (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking good. Thanks. I'll let The Rambling Man decide if we should "delete the times". --PFHLai (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't really change it to my own personal preference. What I cannot understand is why we would need such intricate detail on the main page when only those intimately interested in the race will actually get the significance. Stick to the records being broken and delete the actual times. It's not like the World Record in the 100m sprint, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The "one-fifty-nine and two" is probably the most famous race time in all of American horse racing. It matters. It's a Kentucky Derby record that has now stood for 43 years. I saw that someone changed the fraction to a decimal and if it's the end of the world to use a fraction we all can suck it up, but horse racing in 1973 measured times in fifths of a second and hence the fractional time is how it was reported and how it is famous. Montanabw(talk) 20:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Well it's been and gone now, but honestly, that fraction and the hook presentation was pretty ghastly. I hope we can do better for a global in future. The time in most horse races is insignificant, unless that's an American thing. The going, the conditions of the race etc make it so changeable that any time is subject to massive fluctuation. For "general interest" in future, I'd stick with something that doesn't delve into the minutiae that almost no-one really cares about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see that 1:592⁄5"seconds" did read funny. But as far as the time goes, that particular time is actually quite significant as a record was broken with Secretariat, and it still stands. Perhaps the concern about time is an American thing, beats me if that's unique, I'm American... It was just good to see the article in DYK. Montanabw(talk) 06:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Request review on Hook

I hate to come here to request a hook review but I requested it being posted for 18 and 19 June (the coming weekend) but as it seems, this has fallen to deaf ears and it looks like I am going to miss my requested hook date and the last reviewer is being plain slow not matter if I have tried to ping him a few times.

So, is there anybody who could give my nomination a review, I'll be thankful of that.

Template:Did you know nominations/Ferrari 330 TRI/LM. Donnie Park (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot forgot to clear Q2 and Q3 after update?

Why is the current Template:Did you know/Queue/2, which goes up at 00:00 UTC, identical to T:DYK? Did the bot malfunction? The queues probably need to be cycled manually now. Intelligentsium 17:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I just manually cleared it, and left a note for Shubinator about the bot missing it. — Maile (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Shubinator the bot just updated the main page with the next set of hooks. However, those hooks are still sitting in Queue 3. I've purged the page several times, and nothing changes. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 Queue 2 - Michael O. Tunnell

Prep 2 contains the following hook:

  • ... that Michael O. Tunnell unsuccessfully submitted his first children's book over 30 times, but is now the author of many published books including Wishing Moon?

Nomination, editor Amgisseman, reviewer Raymie, promoter to queue Hawkeye7

This strikes me as awfully wordy. I wonder about a short hook like:

I also wonder if the fact that he was on the Committee for the Newberry Award (for "the most distinguished contribution to American literature for children") for nearly 20 years doesn't make a more hooky juxtaposition. Maybe:

  • (ALT2): ... that author Michael O. Tunnell was on the committee for the Newbery Award for children's literature for nearly two decades despite his first children's book being rejected for publication over 30 times?

Maybe too wordy too, but I find it hookier, especially not knowing the book Wishing Moon. Thoughts, re-writes, suggestions, comments, criticisms, etc, welcome. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


How about a slimmed down ALT3, based on ALT2:

  • (ALT3): ... that Michael O. Tunnell was on the Newbery Award committee for children's literature for nearly two decades, despite his first children's book being rejected over 30 times?

That should do the job. Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just making a comment, but am comfortable with Edwardx's suggestion or any other consensus. EdChem (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Queue goes to the main page in 67 minutes, so this needs rapid action if a change is to be made. EdChem (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@PFHLai: this goes on the main page in 3 min. EdChem (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, EdChem, i was offline and away from a computer for much of the day. --PFHLai (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 - Assault of Daniel Nivel

This article has been nominated for deletion and it's unlikely to be resolved before it features in the hook in queue 3. Suggest it is switched out and put at the back of the preps. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Although this was obviously approved before the AFD began, there is no way to determine how long an AFD can be open. Could be days, could be weeks. I've pulled it from queue, replaced with James Bond, put the nomination back on the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: the James Bond hook seems like it is suited to last hook in the set to me. What do you think? EdChem (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
EdChem Queue 3 already has a quirky hook in the last slot. I'll leave this issue, and any further Queue 3 diddling, to other admins. — Maile (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wish another hook from P4 was moved to fill the void on Q3. Good quirky hooks for the final slot are hard to come by. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Two student DYKs would benefit from quicker reviews

As the course I am teaching is almost over, and the expected student attention to their DYKs will vanish as soon as I post the grade, it would be beneficial to review the following to DYKs while there is still the chance that the student nominators will reply: Template:Did you know nominations/Korean student movement, Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of South Korea. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Ricky Williams trade

"that after Mike Ditka traded for Ricky Williams, the two posed together as a bride and bridegroom?"

Would read better as:

"that after Mike Ditka was traded for Ricky Williams, they posed together as bride and groom?"

And we should not be linking common words such as bride and bridegroom. Edwardx (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. The preps are not protected though so you don't need to be an admin to edit them. Intelligentsium 21:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I know that I can edit hooks in prep areas and have done so before, but as I was seeking to make relatively significant changes, I thought it might be a good idea to document it and seek some consensus here. Normally, I try to catch these things earlier, but sometimes miss stuff, not just noms that get reviewed and promoted very quickly. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, no. That's totally wrong. Mike Ditka was not traded for Ricky Williams. Ditka engineered the trade for Ricky Williams. The original hook is correct. (This is my DYK article.) @Intelligentsium: I removed the word "was" from the hook in prep. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Muboshgu. Reading more of the article, and looking at the lead more closely, I can see where I might have gone wrong. Perhaps you could mention in the article lead that Ditka was the coach? I don't know much about American football, and had assumed he was a player. And I wasn't "totally wrong", just the "was" bit, although "was" was far and away the most significant change! Edwardx (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry, I noticed that and meant to delete "was" when I copied the hook over. Thanks for catching that. Intelligentsium 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I've changed it to "... after Mike Ditka, head coach of the New Orleans Saints, traded for running back Ricky Williams, ..." I hope adding some context would help. --PFHLai (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That does the job nicely, PFHLai. Thanks. Edwardx (talk) 09:49, 13 June 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 #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

The hook set currently in Queue 5, the next queue due to be promoted, is already displayed on the front page. The bot would appear to have failed to clear the slot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 14 June 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 #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the American election over yet?

Can the hooks sitting in the 15 June holding area be moved to the queues now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The primaries are practically done, so IMO, it's okay to use those hooks in the holding pen. However, quite a few of the noms have been sitting there for many weeks. Some of the nominated articles have received many edits since getting approval for DYK. It's best to have them re-reviewed before the hooks go on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The last presidential primary is Tuesday June 14th in Washington DC, and polls close at 8pm eastern. So if things are being held till after voting is over, 00:00 UTC on the 15th is the earliest they should go up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that Tour DuPont (nomination) was moved to Prep 5 by Hawkeye7. The hooks involve Donald Trump. Now that Trump is a presidential nominee, these should probably be held over until after the general. Thoughts? ~ RobTalk 21:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It was previously discussed to hold them at T:TDYK#Special occasion holding area till the primaries are over on June 15th. We'll have another "embargo" in October prior to the general voting in the US. --PFHLai (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I also think that even after the primaries, he's not officially the nominee until the Republican National Convention in July. He just so happens to have the right amount of delegates who have to vote for him by law, though faithless electors may or may not come into play. Nevertheless the time between the last primary and the Convention is probably the time to run it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Did you know#Content, "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates." The last Republican primary for this election cycle was last week while the final Democratic primary is occurring today. With the primaries over and the conventions over a month away, this is a good time to burn off our backlog of nominations containing ties to U.S. Presidential candidates. --Allen3 talk 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm putting in one per day so we don't overdose. Could someone go over the ones still in the special prep area? Some have queries etc on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC - Reviewer DYK symbol explanation in nomination templates

Symbol Code Status Description
{{subst:DYKtick}}

{{subst:DYKyes}}

Approved No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Approved Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language, offline or paywalled hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work. Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}
{{subst:DYKno}} Rejected Article is either completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible.
{{subst:DYK?again}} New review Requesting a second opinion or fresh review

An article cannot be officially promoted until a reviewer has given approval ( or ) to at least one of the article's hooks.

Towards clarification for new and old reviewers alike, I propose the above collapsed review notation symbols template be substituted for the one now used in the DYK nomination template. It gives more details on which symbols are to be used in each situation. The wording was copied from DYK Reviewing guide. And I've made it collapsible, so it does not take up anymore room on the nomination template. Please add your comments below. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Intelligentsium Please post here before doing anymore editing on the template. Don't edit without discussing, please. What you changed was set up to automatically detect the article name when that notice is posted on the user's talk page. As the current template is. What are you trying to accomplish? Please explain here. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I was editing for formatting as the template appears to have loose wikisyntax ({{subst:{{subst: ... }}}}|Article}}). Sorry, I thought this was just a mockup for the proposal - to detect the article name, I believe you would want {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}. Intelligentsium 21:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for this, and for noticing. I should have been more clear that it was the actual template and not a mockup. I believe I've corrected the coding now. — Maile (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Test run in process I just inserted this in the review template as a bit of a trial run. If it works out, we can just leave it. If it doesn't work, we can remove it. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Comments

  • I think all of this is reasonable, and would clarify to reviewers (especially QPQ reviewers who aren't otherwise involved the process) when to use each template. I would take out the nominator notification from the last one {{subst:DYK?again}}, not {{subst:DYKno}} since there's nothing the nominator can do about that. Intelligentsium 22:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it went though my mind that it isn't needed on that last one. I've removed it. If anyone thinks they have a valid reason for it to be there, they can say so. But I believe you are correct about that. And I fixed DYK?again. — Maile (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No support. I just came across this collapsed box and wondered what happened to the colorful icons. Then, after figuring it out, I immediately thought, "No one's going to see this". Especially new editors, who already don't know the difference between a Green tickY and a . Please bring back the clear view of icons atop the editing window! Yoninah (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Blatant profanity in DYKs

Can somebody remind me what the policy is on bad language in DYKs. I created You're Breakin' My Heart yesterday, but it should be obvious from reading the article that the hook is going to contain "fuck you", or at least allude to it. It's kind of the crux of the song's notability, after all. Should I go ahead and set up the nomination, or give it a miss? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, but expect a "more heat than light" discussion as people get uppity and pompous about the use of such language ("Think of the children!" &c.), we had a sweary hook not that long ago (memory fail, but within the last fortnight) and it just upset the usual suspects. Probably got a shedload of pageviews though... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I received no concerns about my moderately aromatic arsoles. EdChem (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Fucking Hell, not this again! The thing is that including a hook with Fugging swearing is rich grounds for a page making it onto DYKSTATS and we should fully support it because after all, Wikipedia is not censored. (By the way, the two I mentioned there went on the main page with swear words on it so don't worry about it). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Editors should be well aware that there is a delicately-balanced and finely-tuned system in place, that allows only the best material onto the front page, thus ensuring that no ever gets to feel exploited. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, DYK has, in the past, rejected nominations found to be extremely lewd and without redeeming features. Cunt (video game) comes to mind as an example. --Allen3 talk 22:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Article moved

There is a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Pennsylvania Shell ethane cracker plant‎, but I have moved the article page to Pennsylvania Shell ethylene cracker plant‎ as cracking produces ethylene, not ethane. I have posted a note at the nomination. Is there anything else that needs doing? I don't want to confuse the bot when the time comes. EdChem (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? The sources say ethane. Little chance of confusing the bot as we're the "bots" who move the nominations to prep... Intelligentsium 17:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the Shell reference, you'll see they use the correct term, ethylene (or ethene, it's the same thing). Cracking has to introduce double bonds or the law of conservation of mass is violated - see the cracking (chemistry) article. I know the news sources are wrong, I looked at them, but Shell knows what the process is and uses the correct term. As for bot confusion, I meant if the name of the article and that used in the template nomination page are different. EdChem (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Line about "pirated products" could be better

Please see the recent discussion. If "pirated products" appears more often than the alternatives in reliable sources, that still seems moot here because hooks do not have citations. If an admin sees this before the DYK turnover, I would say "products they refer to as pirated". Connor Behan (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sending notification to DYK nominator to inform them about alteration of hooks

I have had three of my hooks altered after being passed in the Did You Know Template page, without my knowledge. For example, when a hook was pulled out while it was online because there were conflicting sources, I could have had explained the issue. Sometimes the alterations are not completely correct and they are done without knowledge of nominator who probably has a solution to whatever is wrong. I would like to propose this. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the admin who changed one hook. And the reason I did it is because of Superlatives talk thread. I'm not going to oppose any admin who wants to change it back.
Original hook: that the Aqaba Church in Jordan, is the world's first purpose-built Christian church?
Prep 3 hook: that the Aqaba Church in Jordan has been described as the world's oldest-known purpose-built church? This particular change in wording was made by Gatoclass with an edit summary that said "per source - "oldest known" is not the same as "first". — Maile (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Queue 3 hook as I changed it: that the Guinness World Records lists the Aqaba Church in Jordan as "oldest known purpose-built Christian church in the world"?
I don't care if an admin wants to change it back. But the reason I changed it was to avoid it being pulled from the main page, because of the issues raised at the Superlatives talk thread. Admins and others, please post your opinions here. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: I don't see anything wrong with the Prep 3 hook, considering that it's reliably sourced to the Guinness Book of World Records. The Queue 3 hook is much too wordy, and if anyone questions it, they can just click on the article and see a superior source. The problem we've been having with superlatives is when they don't reflect the source. Please change it back to the Prep 3 version. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I prefer another admin do that. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
But the Aqaba Church hook is supported by more than GWR, and doesn't have any sources conflicting with it. Two small examples, including UNESCO.. [7], [8] Makeandtoss (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that The Rambling Man is the one who pulled this hook from the main page, in response to a post from Andrew Davidson. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It's too late by the time erroneous hooks have made it to the main page. They shouldn't get there, so pulling is most often the best remedy. It's not up to admins to go about fixing hooks which are incorrect I'm afraid, the key is to try to preserve the integrity of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that nominators and reviewers should be consulted about changes to hooks. This is both courteous and sensible as they will be familiar with the details. As for the particular cases listed above:
  1. I don't like the phrase "one of the first" as the word first usually implies a singular distinction. "One of the earliest" would be better.
  2. The revised hook for the Aqaba church does indeed seem clumsy but some caution does seem warranted. Reading the source New Perspectives on Late Antiquity in the Eastern Roman Empire, I notice that tentative language is used such as "putative" and "so-called". My understanding is that this would have been one of several similar buildings constructed around that time and no-one is sure if it was the first of them. Most of them were destroyed in the persecution of Diocletian. This one was destroyed by an earthquake. What we have now are remains or ruins, not a living church, right? See list of oldest church buildings for some more context.
When hooks are put into play like this, it would be good to centralise the discussion and clearly identity the versions with the usual ALTn tags. Perhaps when hooks are amended we should require a corresponding update to the nomination page and the change listed as an ALT. That way, there would be a better audit trail and the nominator would get more warning that something was up. Andrew D. (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrator requested to change hook in Queue 3 ASAP

Per previous talk thread, please change hook back to:

... that the Aqaba Church in Jordan has been described as the world's oldest-known purpose-built church?
This fact is reliably sourced to the Guinness Book of World Records, and the addition of that name is just weighing down the hook. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The hook is due in 5 minutes I assume? No action was taken yet.. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6, hook 3

"... that the Shoubak Revolt (1905) was sparked after Ottoman forces started to put women of the Arabs of the town into forced labor?"

would be more concise and read better as:

"... that the 1905 Shoubak Revolt was sparked after Ottoman forces started to put the town's Arab women into forced labor?"

Could an admin kindly look into this please. Edwardx (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kairana migration row

I had submitted this nomination on 17 June, but it was deleted the same day and the nomination was rejected on 18th. Now, the page has been restored and moved to Kairana and Sardhana migration row. I think the nom should be reopened now and reviewed. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Reopened nomination. Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Credits for current hooks

Some of the creators/nominators of the hooks currently on the main page (from queue 5) did not get credited. I don't know if anyone else noticed. Random86 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm lacking a credit for Trinity Green Almshouses. Doesn't the bot usually do it? Joseph2302 (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The DYKUpdateBot that handles these functions stopped working, and we had to do manual updates for the last two sets on the main page. I don't think anybody got their credits posted on their own talk pages, and the articles didn't get their talk page notices. Shubinator has been working with Tool Labs, and believes it will function correctly with the next update. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The credits added manually don't show up with the QPQ check tool. I don't know if it is possible to change that. Random86 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016 nominations

Do we need a special holding area for the approved Wiki Loves Pride nominations? Andrea Jenkins, approved, has a request to run before the end of June. I'm not sure all of Wiki Loves Pride has the same calendar, except the edit-a-thons seem to be ongoing through October. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, a special holding area is useful to delay till a later day. But instead of delay you want haste. But if it is approved and ready to go the chances are high they/it will fit in before the end of June. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I opened a June holding area for LGBT Pride Month so prep promoters will see it. Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

"Omar Fayad, Governor-elect of Hidalgo and the husband of actress Victoria Ruffo, tapped her to be the local director of the DIF in Pachuca". What on earth does "tapped her" mean? I have no idea at all; is it an Americanism? That needs to be re-written so that it's globally understood. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Better wording: "Governor-elect Omar Fayad of Hidalgo appointed his wife, actress Victoria Ruffo, to be the local director of the DIF in Pachuca" EdChem (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pity that 3 editors suggested a change but none was made.  :( We need more DYK editors with a +sysop bit. EdChem (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You should have used WP:ERRORS, far more admins around there. Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but this thread was discussed to a resolution before the queue went onto the main page. EdChem (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, if it's going to imminently impact the the main page, there's no reason not to highlight it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS has more traffic than this page, hence an urgent fix is more likely to happen if you post there. I'd recommend posting the report on ERRORS and then providing a link to it here; that covers all bases. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed staircase hook from Main Page

The hooks have been removed from the main page and there is general agreement that Fram's actions were appropriate. If he wants to continue debating with LavaBaron, I suggest the pair pick a suitable user talk page to do it on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 22 June 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.

Template:Did you know nominations/Howe Street Stairs] @Coffee, LavaBaron, Bobamnertiopsis, and Hawkeye7:

It is reliably sourced, but not correct. It seems to be about outdoor public stairs only (and even there it is sometimes ranked 5th or 6th only[9]), but excludes indoor and non-public stairways, like those found in every skyscraper. Howe Street has 388 steps: the Empire State Building has 1576 stairs (to the 86th floor), the Willis Tower has 2109 steps, and so on. The Space Needle in Seattle (hometown of the Howe Street Stairs) has an 832 step open air staircase[10]. I have removed the hook from the main page. Fram (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumably, length is measured by linear distance, not number of steps. The staircase steps referenced in this article are substantially wider than a building staircase, aligned at a much more gradual incline than those of a skyscraper, and, as noted, are intersected by several wide landings that include multi-lane streets. I think it's customary to measure length by linear distance, not quantity of geographic features. But, whatever. LavaBaron (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Describing the steps of a staircase as "quantity of geographic features" is weird. And having a hook about the supposed linear length of the staircase, without any indication of what that actual length could be, is even weirder. All sources discussing the length of staircases discuss explicitly the number of steps, never the length one has to walk to completely mount it. I have even less idea what the width of the steps has to do with anything. If your reaction to this is unfounded speculation plus "whatever" then please don't suggest any further hooks for DYK. Fram (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think LavaBaron was simply implying he understood your point of view and thought there was no point challenging the removal of the hook. While I personally would describe the stairs at the Monument to the Great Fire of London as 202ft high, not 202ft long, I can see how it would confuse non-native English speakers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
See below, he doesn't understand the problem at all, he simply feels that it would take too long to challenge my claims, and that his article has had it's eight hours of fame anyway, accuracy be damned. Fram (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Great points. A staircase would be X-meters "high" measured vertically from top to bottom. The same staircase would be X-meters "long" measured by distance one would travel to traverse it (in the sense one might differently question either "how high is the road" or "how long is the road"). Depending on the depth of each step and other factors, these two numbers will likely not be identical, nor would they likely match quantity of geographic features such as steps, handrails, landings, etc., one would cross while traveling the staircase. But, like you said, I don't think there's any point in challenging removal of a hook that would have expired in a few hours anyway. LavaBaron (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that you haven't understood anything about the problems with your hook. In an encyclopedia that took accuracy just slightly serious, you would now have been disqualified from contributing to DYK any longer. On Wikipedia, you can probably continue as before and believe that you are right because you say so. "How long is that book?" No one with any common sense will seriously answer "5cm", everyone will say "800 pages". Length can be measured in many ways, and the length of a staircase is normally measured in steps and/or in height. Neither measure puts this stairway as the 4th longest in the US. One would think that you would have learned that much after writing an article on a staircase and adding a hook about its length (assuming you didn't know this before this). Fram (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm certain no one would say "How many stop signs is that road?" They would say "How long is that road?" I'm certain most people would find a road more analogous to a staircase than a book. (Also, please be more careful to place your comments in proper thread order; you've elevated your own comments above mine in thread order, as above with Ritchie333, which makes it confusing for other editors to participate. Please also be careful to sign your comments.) From your comments, I understand and acknowledge you've conducted original research that disputes the RS that support the claims in the article in the form that they were reviewed and approved during the DYK process. However, I really think you should redirect your fury towards the authors of the RS (and explain your research to them) instead of at me. I neither agree nor disagree with your OR and, as you seem very upset, am disengaging from this topic and article completely. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow. That escalated quickly. LavaBaron (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article. After removing some errors, duplication, unreliable sources and irrelevant stuff, it now sits at some 1160 characters and would not qualify for DYK by a wide margin. Please take a lot more care in the future when writing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

As I've previously said, (a) I disagree [and so, apparently, do the RS] with your understanding of the word "length" as a measurement of quantity of steps instead of linear distance, and, (b) am unwilling to comment on other editors' original research into staircase lengths in the U.S. or other topics. While I respect your personal interpretation of "length", the fact is it has a fixed meaning on cartographical topics and it's not a good use of my time to argue over alternate definitions. It seems, from your previous comments, you may be confused over staircase terminology as it appeared you misunderstood "width" for "run" (in non-technical verbiage this might be called "depth") or possibly the "riser" (the height of an individual step from its nosing descending down toward the lower step).
In any case, you might get more satisfaction with your warnings by aiming them at the reviewers of this DYK, Bobamnertiopsis and Hawkeye7; they may agree with your interesting take on this and be willing to accept "banning" from reviewing DYKs, I don't know. Personally, however, I generally shut-down when people try to taunt me into agreement. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Many words to disguise that you have nothing to support your position. I don't try to taunt you into agreement, your first replies made your position very clear. You could start with indicating which of your RS discussed the linear distance of the stairs. Right, none. You could also indicate why you included those other errors in the article, things where you completely misread a source, or used an utterly unreliable source (a "record" from a site where people can email their best time to the webmaster? Really?), and so on. Basically, you are taliking bollocks. Please, in addition to disengaging from this discussion, and this topic, disengage from DYK totally. The reviewers may have a responsability, but the first and biggest responsability lies with the article creator, who should know the topic best. You used publicstairs.com in your article (I removed it). This site explicitly states [11]: "A few of the longest stairways (most number of stairs): " so apparently my definition isn't so unusual. Where's the evidence for yours? You have none. Fram (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
"Right, none." - Actually, the source is "Seattle Stairway Walks: An Up-and-Down Guide to City Neighborhoods" by Mountaineers Publishing. I would have been more than happy to tell you that had you asked, but you chose instead to jump into what should have been a mild and easily resolved edit question about a painfully tame and vanilla topic (a staircase) by name-calling and demanding I quit Wikipedia. I remain completely confused as to why you've got yourself so worked up and upset. The entire matter was resolved the moment you pulled the hook; I disagreed, and still disagree, with your unconventional interpretation of the word "length" but the perogative is yours and I deferred to you to exercise it. If you need to know I agree with you and to see my public genuflection, well I'm not sure what to tell you. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Right. Let's link to that source, shall we? [12]. Please indicate which page you believe supports you, as at least the article on the Howe Street Stairs has nothing of the kind. It does show that your claim that the stairs are 1.3 miles long is utterly ridiculous though. But then again, you claimed at the same time that the stairs are "spanning approximately 1.3 miles", and that the record time for running them bottom-to-top was "one-minute and 44 seconds". Anyone with some common knowledge and critical insight would notice that these two statements are mutually incompatible. Your supporting source actually supports my claim that length of stairs is commonly addressed in number of steps though, and here as well: "With the 106 steps under Colonnade Park you've already walked, you've covered all 388 steps - the longest stairway in Seattle!" Did you really think no one would read that source and everyone would simply believe you? When in a hole, stop digging. (oh, and don't lie about what other editors have said either, it doesn't become you). Fram (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You could start by putting a sourced length of the stairs in the article! There was originally an unsourced 1.2 miles that I removed because it was inconsistent with Google Maps measurement. I don't think I'd count the flat streets between sections as part of its length either. A more primary source than the WTA magazine would be more reliable. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: I think he's offline so, as a courtesy up-to-speed - Fram's contention is that both of the RS are incorrect because skyscrapers have a greater step-count and length of staircases is measured by step-count. He is absolutely correct on the first point, that skyscrapers have a greater step-count. I'll defer to him to argue the second point; I'm a SME on staircases so probably can't represent that point well as it's outside perspectives with which I'm familiar. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be an SME on staircases, but you have in this whole discussion been utterly unable to read and interpret a source correctly. Even the source you claim supports your position literally disagrees with you (see my reply above). Hint: the "length" of the Howe Street Staircase is not 1.3 miles by a very wide margin. The "length" of the staircase (in your definition) is also not given in any of the sources. Doesn't it strike you as weird that sources discuss the number of steps in a staircase, and call it the longest or fourth-longest or whatever, but never actually give a distance for it? Perhaps our SME can explain this discrepancy? Fram (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, I never claimed that the sources didn't make that claim, I only demonstrated that they are wrong (or only right for a specific subset of staircases). LavaBaron makes a desperate attempt to claim that it is right after all, based on some unsupported (and actually contradicted) reading of the sources and some definition he invented. Coupled with the number of basic errors he introduced in that article, I'm not inclined to believe him on his word, even though he is a self-declared SME on staircases. Fram (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The "contractions" you've found are from publicstairs.org, a source you've previously (and correctly) said is non RS. Speaking of contradiction. LavaBaron (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean "contradictions"? Anyway, no, I've used your own source, "Seattle Stairway Walks", linked to it, and quoted from it. Your own, reliable source contradicts your claims. I note that you make no effort to find anything in that book that actually supports your position, even though you presented it here as the source you base your statements on. Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, actually it doesn't. Simply repeating that it does, and injecting ad hom attacks like calling my opinions "weird" and lacking "common sense" doesn't, I'm afraid, change that. But you can try to shout something into a fact, I guess. In the meantime, you're citing publicstairs.org - a site you've previously said is non-RS - to support your claim I'm contradicting myself. Anyway, I'm out-of-town at the moment so can't invest any further time in working through this with you. I already said I don't object to the to your removing the hook, so I don't know why you're so terribly upset. Why don't you make a RfC at the Talk page of this article to resolve the question of whether "length = step count or linear distance", and spare the good people of DYK this spectacle? Whatever you decide, good luck, I'm out of here. LavaBaron (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I have not described any opinions you may have as "weird" (I used it for a description and for some hook-article discrepancy). I have also not described anything you said or did as lacking "common sense". That's not the first time that you've made incorrect claims about what I said in this discussion. Leaving aside that distraction: reread my previous comments please. I'm citing (in my post of 06:57, 22 June 2016) from "Seattle Stairway Walks", the book you presented, not from publicstairs.org. I quoted from that book, from the relevant chapter on this staircase. That book, your reference of choice, contradicts your claims. I've asked you to present some section, some quote from that book which actually would support your claims (perhaps the book is contradicting itself and we are looking at two different sections?). I ask you now again to do so. Fram (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, you're right about everything you've said. I agree with absolutely everything. Have a great day. LavaBaron (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Coffee this is a case of where an otherwise reliable source says definitively 'X is ...' but then fails to provide evidence, and is also generally contradicted by other evidence available. Yes sources describe it as '4th longest' etc but that is, as Fram has pointed out, easily verifiably incorrect. Generally this would result in a discussion on the article talk page as to if the material, which while sourced, should be in the article. However its clearly completely inappropriate for it to be linked on the main page while that is happening. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
agreed ... Disputed content should be removed from main page pending discussion. Questions of this type are why we have the RFC process.LavaBaron (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Aplets & Cotlets

Yesterday, we also featured on the main page a hook from Aplets & Cotlets, written by the same editor.

Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets @LavaBaron, Yoninah, Hawkeye7, and Amgisseman(BYU):

The source for the hook is either [13] which is a blog, or [14] which is also a blog. So, for starters, the hook isn't reliably cited at all. The second source states "[...] ultimately couldn't win support from legislators whose home districts were partial to Almond Roca, a Tacoma-made toffee coated in nuts." which doesn't support the hook as written. It's not that they refused to support an eastern Washington candy, it's that they preferred another. And no claim is made of East vs. West (yes, one is located in Eastern Washington, and one in Western, but that doesn't mean that support or opposed are based on that distinction, or even that it can be matched to it).The first source is just a satirical blog piece, a column, not a reliable source; and it has nothing in it that supports the hook.

So please, enlighten me: which source supports the hook (perhaps give us the quote that does), and is it reliable? Otherwise this is two out of two problematic DYK hooks by the same editor. Fram (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Stranger is a widely used RS weekly newspaper. Epicurious is RS for culinary topocs. I'm not interested in entertaining this crusade further. Request a TBAN at ANI. LavaBaron (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That the Stranger article is a satricial blog post, not a journalistic piece. Even in WP:RS, many blog pieces and opinion pieces are not considered to be RS. And of course the basic problem that these sources don't even support your hook remains... Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's incorrect. It's an article in a RS newspaper written in a punchy style, as is typical for weekly papers. It is not a "blog post" except in the sense that's the branding many RS newspapers use for digital-exclusives (but, of course, you know that already). Your attempt at deceptive framing underscores your previous ad hom attacks. (But, if you like, here's WNYC-FM with substantially identical information [15].) I'm out of town ATM so, frankly, don't have time to entertain this toxic crusade you've taken upon yourself. You were clearly having a bad day yesterday and decided to dump on the first editor you came across. Anyway, our differences aside, I think you're a fine contributor and genuinely do hope you feel better. All the best - LavaBaron (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
So, nothing to support your hook? Thought so. And please don't discuss the editor (for someone complaining about ad-hom attacks, you are very keen to deduce what kind of day another editor had, and how they feel, "redirect your fury", "you seem very upset", "try to taunt me", "name-calling and demanding I quit Wikipedia.", "you've got yourself so worked up and upset", "shout ", "you're so terribly upset", and the above post...) I have discussed edits and sources, and have provided sources to support my statements. You have very rarely done the same, and in these cases they didn't support your claims at all. When one strips alls irrelevancies from this discussion, the end result is that neither hook that appeared on the main page yesterday was acceptable (the first was sourced but the sources were wrong: the second one isn't sourced at all), and that you seem to be unwilling or incapable of accepting this, which means that none of your edits can be trusted. The problem is not that you make errors, we all do: the problem is that when they are pointed out, you try all kinds of rhetorical tricks (from the strawman defense to the argument from authority) to derail the discussion, but when you actually present something tangible, it turns out that your claim and your source don't match at all. Fram (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
"So, nothing to support your hook? Thought so." - *sigh* OK, correct on all counts. I need to stop being a trickster and what not. I agree with all your points completely, unambiguously, and without hesitation or mental reservation. Ritchie333 - this discussion has been resolved, would you mind closing the thread? LavaBaron (talk) 12:42, 22 June 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.

Queue 6 High heels hook makes no sense

Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy

"...that high heels (pictured) were once illegal in England and Parliament is being petitioned to act again?". I looked at that and went "WTF?" - the petition to Parliament is about banning company workplace policies that force women to wear high heels - not making high heels illegal at all! Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, badly worded hook. Perhaps the authors could do something about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless there's a better suggestion, I suggest just keeping the first part of the hook and dropping the second. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) I have pulled the nomination and taken it off the queue. I commented at the time in the nomination that the hook was confusing and suggested an ALT, but was overruled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please list the removal at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The hook does not say or mean that Parliament is being asked to do exactly the same again. It just says it is being asked to act, i.e. pass an Act of Parliament. This was something of a pun but I suppose people are too busy jumping to conclusions to see this. Exactly what might result from this hypothetical legislation remains to be seen. Perhaps they will outlaw such shoes at work, just as they have outlawed smoking and other vices. Andrew D. (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes the problem is that the hook suggests that Parliament is being asked to make them illegal again. I think either the hook just needs to be "...that high heels (pictured) were once illegal in England?" or something about the workplace argument but I can't see a way to conbine the two without it being horribly wordy. Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, rather than JTC, it was a simple case of following a logical sequitur that turns out to be fallacious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) @Andrew Davidson: I don't think this is a matter of anyone's jumping to conclusions—or at least, not to any greater extent than the readers of the DYK hook might do. For myself, I think the reading that several people here have reached is the most natural reading, i.e. that parliament is likely to act to reinstate the previous situation described, rather than that it may act in any unspecified manner. But in any event, a hook that is likely to mislead a significant portion of readers should be reworded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, a hook that is perfectly clear tends to be a poor hook. Let's consider some examples. Laura Jamieson does not seem to have done a DYK so let's look at NYB's most recent hooks:
  1. ... that in 1973, U.S. District Judge Orrin G. Judd issued an injunction prohibiting the United States' continued bombing of Cambodia, but a higher court stayed the ruling before it could take effect?
  2. ... that during his 31 years as a federal judge in New York, Henry W. Goddard heard cases including William James Sidis's invasion of privacy suit against The New Yorker and the second perjury trial of Alger Hiss?
These hooks are very clear and explain their subject quite well. The trouble is that they already tell me more than I want to know about the subject and so there's no incentive to click through. The hooks duly got just 17 and 389 hits – view stats which are so bad that I had to double-check them. A hook that causes someone to wonder "WTF?" is better because it encourages them to read the article to understand the topic better.
Andrew D. (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Well a hook that deliberately misleads is a hook that doesn't belong on the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. There's a difference between a hook being odd or nebulous--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC) and being misleading.

Admin needed immediately to replace now-empty lead hook in Queue 6

An admin is desperately needed to fix Queue 6: please move in a lead hook from prep, since with the high heels hook pulled, the queue now has no lead hook and is only six hooks long. There is one available lead hook in Prep 2, Gateway Tower, so it should be available for moving. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC: A bot to review objective criteria

T:TDYK is currently two months backlogged. Some of the DYK criteria, such as article length, 5x expansion, and copyvio checking are already automated. However, as it stands reviewers need to manually use Shubinator's tool and Earwig's tool to perform these standard checks. These issues could be pointed out easily by a bot for nominators to work on, rather than having to wait several days/weeks until a human reviewer gets around to raising them. Performing these standard checks on top of more nuanced ones (close paraphrasing, neutrality, hook sourcing, etc.) is also time-consuming for human reviewers and every once in a while an article slips through due to a new or lax reviewer. I have an offline script already written that I currently use to assist with my reviews and I believe I could automate it completely into a DYK clerk bot to check automatically for length, expansion, and hook length and leave comments on the nomination pages. I wanted to see if this is something there is consensus for - if so, I can take it to BRFA. Intelligentsium 02:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. This would also be helpful for hook nominators themselves to use, to check that they have met all the criteria. Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This will certainly help, particularly when it comes to working out those 5x expansion count nominations. Though there would need to be some way for the bot to distinguish between the nominations where its an expansion and the nominator accidently puts it as a new article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, these are things amenable to automation. As to the above comment about new articles, it would also be relatively straightforward for a bot to check if something submitted as a new article actually meets the "new article" requirements, either from creation or from the article's move to mainspace. That would also be one less thing to be manually reviewed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support You betcha!! Not only would it help regular reviewers, but it would also cut to the chase for new reviewers who haven't quite gotten the hang of all the review criteria. And there's another benefit - we have to take it on faith that a reviewer covered what they say they did. With a bot, the specific issues mentioned above would be checked on every nomination. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Switch to support per below for Copyvio, support for the others. 5x and article length are easy objective criteria. As wikipedia defines 'Copyvio' there are a number of issues (close paraphrasing etc) where the tool has been known to be less than stellar. I suspect this would result in the situation 'Oh BOT has said no copyright issues, next'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not intended to confirm or deny a copyright violation, simply to link the reviewer to Earwig's copyvio tool. I have added a note that there is low confidence in the copyvio detection and users should still manually check for close paraphrasing. See the BRFA Intelligentsium 13:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah right. Switched to support then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've done an example run in my userspace. Any feedback is welcome.
Intelligentsium 19:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Intelligentsium I really like what you've done with this, and believe it is a leap forward in the DYK process. The only addition I'd like, if possible, is that with GA the date it achieved that is important, and with expansions it's important to know what date that was completed. Even though both of those show up with DYK Check, there's no guarantee every reviewer uses DYK Check.— Maile (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support seems reasonable, so long as we caution folks that the tools sometimes go awry (such as Earwig's tool with Wikipedia mirrors, for instance). Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sounds like a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can a QPQ check be added? EdChem (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Questions: Looking at the marine mammal report, I can't figure out which version the bot used for the pre-expansion size. The one I think is the appropriate one has a different length. Also, the report says Earwig gives 70.0% but when I ran it, I got about 6%. I'm confused. EdChem (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The bot uses what the article looked like 7 days before the date of nomination - that would be this version. By my count (DYKcheck and Shubinator) that's about 14kb, consistent with the bot's report of 14,593b. Note that the bot parses wikitext while Shubinator's tool parses HTML so there may be a slight discrepancy between the counts. Can you link the Earwig report that said 6%? The link the bot provided shows 59.9%; yesterday it showed about 70% but I have no control of the copyvio tool. I've added the chars needed feature, thanks. Intelligentsium 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support looks accurate and has the potential to be very helpful. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC) EDIT: It looks like there's a small bug in the marine mammal review: it claims paragraph 3 is without a citation, but it is part of the lead, and the lead does not require citations. Can that be fixed? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the issue and have implemented a fix for this. However in general it's not trivial to tell what counts as the "lead", especially since some articles that come to DYK don't have sections. Intelligentsium 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: will the bot handle nominations like this one with multiple hooks proposed and multiple articles so the hook length can be over 200? EdChem (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I thought about it. The problem is that multiple nominations can be ambiguous, especially if malformed. Can you think of an easy way for a bot to determine if a nomination is a multiple nomination (as opposed to, say, a nomination of an article with a comma in the title) Intelligentsium 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, but I do see 8 QPQs but the bot did not. Also, on hook length, my understanding is that we only include the longest of the linked nominee articles and keep to under 200. I would be interested to see how the bot handled the multi-article case I mentioned earlier (even though I know it is now promoted)... is this possible? EdChem (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The bot only saw the multinom Template:Did you know nominations/Bradlee Ashby, Matthew Hutchins, Corey Main, Helena Gasson, Emma Robinson (New Zealand swimmer) as one review. It would be too much effort (for marginal reward) to ask it to parse QPQs recursively. I went off WP:DYKSG#C3 as the consensus standard for multinom hooks but am open to changing it if that doesn't reflect common practice. Intelligentsium 14:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: Sorry, I didn't see your other comment. See User:Intelligentsium/Radu Budișteanu, Victor Gomoiu, Gheorghe N. Leon, Gheorghe Mihail, Constantin Nicolescu, Vasile Noveanu (1) for what that review would look like. Ignore the comment about not being expanded - the expansion is calculated from the date the nomination page was created, and I just created the mock nomination page in my userspace today. Intelligentsium 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: Thanks, very helpful. What I see with the hook lengths, though, is likely accurate but less helpful. Saying a hook of X is too long but Y is ok hard to verify in light of the 200 characters, IMO. Perhaps something like hook length of X less uncounted links for bolded articles after the length gives adjusted length of Y. We can then look at Y in light of the 200 limit. For example, if the adjusted length is 202, I might be willing to ok it or look to change by a few characters. Does this make sense? EdChem (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, that seems like a good idea. I'll put something like a "corrected" length for multinoms. Intelligentsium 22:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination page trial

There seems to be pretty clear (unanimous actually) consensus here that this is something people want. If there are no objections then, I'll go ahead and request approval for a live trial at the bot's BRFA. Any additional comments related to the bot's tasks the technical aspects of its functionality should go on the BRFA page. Intelligentsium 00:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Icebar Orlando

I wonder if readers may think that a popular culture style article about a bar in Orlando, Florida may be inappropriate appearing on Main Page after the serious nature of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting that occurred. I improved the Icebar Orlando article in late May and nominated it for DYK, (before the tragedy occurred). I'm concerned because some readers could misinterpret the article's appearance on Main page as a form of Wikipedia or myself taking some sort of editorial stance to somehow lighten the topic of bars in Orlando via presence of the hook and article link, or that it may be an editorially poor decision for whatever other potential reasons. Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but a lot of casual readers won't open the Revision history page and notice that the expansion date of the Icebar Orlando article occurred before the tragedy. This makes me a slight bit uneasy, so requesting community input here. I don't like the idea potentially giving out any wrong impressions. The nomination was recently promoted here, and the hook is presently in DYK Preparation area 3. North America1000 07:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep area 3

I have filled Prep 3 but am unable to resolve a template issue with one of the credits for the I.O.O.F. Centennial Building hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Questions about Kepler-1647b planet hook (pictured hook, removed from Main Page)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kepler-1647b @Hexafluoride, Hawkeye7, and 97198:

The hook is reliably sourced (NASA statement widely repeated in reliable sources), but is it really correct? It seems that the hook may be about transiting planets only, not about all planets in such an orbit. Or perhaps it is aonly about Kepler-designated planets, and not about all known circumbinary planets?

  • DT Virginis has a circumbinary planet with a "year" of 33,081 earth years (Kepler-1647b has an orbit which takes only 1107 days)
  • DP Leonis b has 6.28 Jupiter masses (1647b has 1.52) and an orbital period of 23.8 years
  • The two NN Serpentis planets also seem to beat 1647b
  • NY Vir b as well
  • PSR B1620-26 b has a 100-year period (and according to NASA 2.5 Jupiter masses[16])
  • ROXs 42Bb is heavier as well
  • The planet around RR Caeli is heavier and has a longer orbit

So, again, we seem to have a hook which is perfectly sourced, but wrong. I'll remove it. If it turns out I'm wrong, it can be reposted to the Main Page of course. The DYK will now be without a picture hook, so be it. Fram (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The original NASA announcement, despite the shorter title, makes it clear that the claims are only about Kepler-type transiting planets, not about all planets.[17] Fram (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The preprint of the official paper about it is titled "Kepler-1647b: the largest and longest-period Kepler transiting circumbinary planet."[18] That all news sources uncritically copied the shortier, snappier and incorrect NASA title doesn't mean we have to follow them, of course. Fram (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you pse list the removal at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. — Maile (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Maile, while that page is, um, interesting, does it serve any real purpose? Pulled DYKs retain their notes on the talkpage, editors retain their credit notes on their talkpage, no lessons are being learnt from this hall of shame, and it really isn't down to an admin who is protecting the main page from DYK's shortcomings to then fall into DYK's bureaucracy. Anyone can add the removed items to that page, if it's actually deemed useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Fair question. Nikkimaria created it in 2011. If it still serves a purpose, perhaps it would be helpful to enlighten us. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: It was created as part of the discussions back in 2011 around DYK reform, and was intended to provide for transparent recordkeeping - we have categories for DYK nominations according to whether they passed or failed in the end, but this set was unique in that they passed but then failed and then maybe passed again, so they aren't necessarily well-reflected in that categorization scheme. There was discussion at the time about supplementing the list by a standard notification to reviewers that one of their passes had been "unpassed", but AFAIK that never came about. (The question of removing talk-page notes for pulled DYKs perhaps warrants a separate discussion). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like there's no real reason to try to mandate this list, nothing is gained from it at all. I suggest we deprecate it and, as Nikkimaria has said, start a discussion about removing the DYK credits if a DYK is pulled from the main page. After all, if something is removed for being factually incorrect, the very least we should do is acknowledge that in the article talkpage history. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like the hook would be correct if it was changed from "... of any known planet orbiting two suns?" to "... of any known Kepler planet orbiting two suns?" possibly with a link to explain "Kepler planet". If so, should the updated hook be returned to the main page? EdChem (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I apologize for the incorrect hook. I didn't know what a Kepler planet was, and I quoted the NASA article, then dove in the paper for more facts. In fact, there's no Wikipedia article on Kepler planets. Couldn't the hook be modified to reflect that, such as EdChem's suggestion? ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, the hook was well-sourced to reputable organisations, but the epsidoe just shows the problems with simplifying things (as done in the press), making a specific "record" more and more general with every retelling. In general, it's a good idea to not only check if your hook is sourced, but also if you can't find sources which contradict your hook. A bit more work, but a better result (or, if no such sources exist, the same result but with more confidence). Fram (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep area 3: the village of Oxfordshire

  • ... that the sixteenth-century Doria Atlas was saved from fire by Oxfordshire residents forming a human chain?

Template:Did you know nominations/Doria Atlas @WWB, Geni, and Cwmhiraeth:

Looking in detail at a random prep area can raise quite a few issues. Two other hooks have been pulled, and we haven't even had the discussion yet whether Tiffany Trump should even have a separate article (as she really hasn't done anything notable apart from being the daughter of). But let's focus on this one, which can probably be settled here and may not need pulling and reopening.

The hook isn't technically wrong, but (at least until today) one could say "saved from fire by inhabitants of the European Union" and it would also be correct. The source [19] states "villagers formed a human chain"; other sources about the same event include The Independent [20] "a human chain of village inhabitants", the BBC [21] "Villagers formed a human chain", and the Oxford Mail [22] "a human chain of villagers formed". It seems more logical to give tribute to the villagers of Wardington (pop. 602) than to the general residents of Oxfordshire (population: 654,000), no?

"* ... that the sixteenth-century Doria Atlas was saved from fire by villagers from Wardington forming a human chain?

or something similar should do the trick. Fram (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(shrugs) I could go either way. it's more exacting to describe them as locals of Wardington if the sources used "villagers"...more opinions welcome here...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You could also drop the locality altogether, none of the two will raise curiosity. - I looked at the article and was surprised to find it illustrated by the image of a manor house. You have to read to find out that it's about a book. {{infobox book}} would help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

New reviewer needed for Karak Revolt

Reviewer withdrew. Template:Did you know nominations/Karak Revolt Makeandtoss. (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC April Fools Day

RFC April Fools Day future — Maile (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3: miniature?

Template:Did you know nominations/I.O.O.F. Centennial Building @TonyTheTiger, Doug Coldwell, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is not a "miniature version" of a flat iron building, and even less (as was originally proposed as hook) " a miniature version of the 22 story triangular shaped New York skyscraper Flatiron building". The Flatiron Building was completed in 1902, the building from the hook was completed in 1876, so it would be hard to be a miniature version of a building that didn't exist yet. "Flat iron" buildings were a long-established type of building in the US, and often were small (before the time of the skyscrapers). This is a perfectly standard flat iron building, not a miniature version. See e.g. the Carroll Building (Norwich, Connecticut) from 1887 for a comparable building, or Rufus Barrett Stone House (1903), Flatiron Building (Portland, Oregon) (1916), Pullman Flatiron Building (1905). The Flatiron Building is the exception, and could be called a gigantic version of a flatiron building. But the reverse, calling this a miniature version, is not correct: it is the standard version (I also couldn't find "miniature" in the sources, but I may have overlooked it).

I could change the hook instead of posting here, but

is a particularly dull hook. I propose removing it from prep and reopening the template discussion instead. Fram (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I had never heard of a flatiron building before, but on investigation decided that it was a three-sided building with a plan the shape of a flatiron. I guess buildings of this shape are uncommon so I would not object to your suggested and rejected hook. I was more concerned about other aspects of the approved hook which originally read "... that the I.O.O.F. Centennial Building (pictured) is of the Italianate architecture and a miniature version of a flatiron building?". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
We've proposed lots of alternative hooks that may be more to your liking. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK credit

My hook for Zikhron Tuvya is on the Main Page now, but neither I nor the article talk page received a DYK credit box. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep area 3: the fourth installment

Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro @Raymie, LavaBaron, and Cwmhiraeth:

Cwmhiraeth, have you really checked these hooks before promoting them? The error rate is getting quite high here... In this case, the problem is "September 1". No date is given in the source that supports this hook[23], and our article on the job, Governor of Durango, gives 15 September instead of 1 September. As the date of 15 September 2016 is supported by another reliable source[24], it seems clear that the hook fact is not only unsupported but also false. It's easily corrected (and in the grand scheme not that important), sure, but not easily found once the reviewers have done their work, as most people would then assume it to be checked and thus correct. Fram (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Since Yoninah wrote the hook, I'm pinging her. As everything prior to the comma is a preamble, and the hook-proper comes post-comma, I see no problems whatsoever with it. LavaBaron (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
(watching:) I don't think it's a great hook, even if corrected (for example by just saying "in September" without a day). I would not click because of PRI. "Institutional Revolutionary Party" sounds much more interesting. Anything else besides what he is not? - Btw, no need to pipe for a capital letter, you can simply say governor of Durango, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
No surprise that you consider having a factual error in a hook as "no problem whatsoever", certainly when you were the reviewer of the hook. Are you deliberately providing more reasons to topic ban you from DYK or do you genuinely believe the stuff you write here? Fram (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In interest of avoiding the threatened TBAN, I hereby strike my previous opinion. I apologize to the community for expressing WrongThought. My opinion is hereby refactored to RightThought and I agree, in total, with Fram on this issue. I affirm that I agree with anything Fram has said now, or will say in the future, about this issue, and do so without hesitation or mental reservation. Thank you. LavaBaron (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
So, you agree that it would be best if you stopped contributing to DYK completely? Fram (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that if any ban should be brought before the ANI peanut gallery, it would be a two-way interaction ban between Fram and LavaBaron. I think Fram has been right to bring the nominations here for discussion and pulling, but I also think it would be good after he makes the initial criticism of a nomination and any announcement of removal from the prep, queue or main page, to then drop the stick and let other people decide whether the criticism should stand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333, you might have had a point if you had actually tried to note in these discussions "whether the criticism should stand" and whether LavaBaron or I (or neither, or both) had a point. In reality, we have one editor creating too many errors, and then trying to deflect criticism with nonsense, sources which don't support his statements, and a severe case of IDHT; and one editor who tries to remove errors from DYK and tries to prevent more errors from happening, and who supports his statements with actual evidence. a two-way interaction ban means that LavaBaron can continue producing crap, and I can't comment on it. How does this help DYK and Wikipedia one bit. If you have a serious proposal, I'm willing to discuss it, but an ill-thought-out proposal like this really doesn't help anything or anyone (but LavaBaron, presumably). Fram (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize, again, that my contributions are "crap." LavaBaron (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Uh oh. I saw the source in Spanish and just AGF'ed it. I am learning very fast that I need to run these foreign-language sources through Google Translate, as there is such a high percentage of errors in nominated articles. I agree with User:Gerda Arendt that PRI should be spelled out. Yoninah (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I always use Translate when attempting to verify foreign-language sources where possible and if such an approach isn't mandated by the rules, it probably should be. Gatoclass (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, it shouldn't be mandated by rules (just as checking the veracity of hooks with multiple sources), it should just be standard editing procedure, and should be something that promoting admins take full and 100% responsibility for. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Fram is having fun today! I'm sure you can find errors with the three other hooks in the set if you try hard enough. It is almost as if you are trying to undermine my efforts, a sort of war on DYK. And many of the faults are such piffling things, like the Oxfordshire villagers! In this instance I see a reliable member of the DYK community who has added a date to amend a hook and I assume good faith. No, I do not check every fact in every hook, to do so would be excessively time-consuming for someone who prefers to write articles. If Fram wants to do this obsessive nit-picking, that's fine. But don't keep blaming set-preparers who are only trying to create balanced sets of already approved hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually it's not "obsessive nit-picking", it's quality control, something which DYK has lacked for some time. You don't like, of course you don't, it upsets you personally because you are implicated in being one of those people who promote garbage to the main page each and every day. Fram is simply doing his best to make sure we stop trying to rapidly push crap out to our readers. If you don't like it, do a better job of promoting hooks, or get someone else to do it, or change the way DYK works so this repeated level of woeful quality is stemmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
~:Cwmhiraeth, if you don't check "every fact in every hook", then stop reviewing or promoting articles here. The Oxfordshire one isn't an error, just a hook that can be improved, and I never claimed it was an error: the other three are errors. 3 out of 7 hooks having an error is a dreadful result. No one forces you to do anything at DYK, but if you do, you should make sure that you do it correctly (at least a lot more than in this set, I'm not asking for perfection). Fram (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't feel bad Cwmhiraeth, I've also been told I should stop "contributing to DYK completely." I think the list of people who haven't been threatened with a TBAN at this point can be counted on one hand. LavaBaron (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for catching this...can we edit the hook? (I guess I'm used to thinking about other Mexican governmental positions, namely president, that do take office on the first of the month...) I won't comment on the other issues here. Raymie (t • c) 19:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, just change the hook (and article) to say the right date, nothing more needs to be done. Fram (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The hook was changed earlier to read "in September"; I thought Gerda's suggestion made sense so I implemented it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

DYKReviewBot going live

Per the above discussion and the BRFA, the bot is going live for a two-week trial. During the trial, I will be running the bot several times a day rather than continuously. I will be monitoring the bot's operation closely during the trial, but I would appreciate any help in double-checking the bot's reviews. Any issues or discrepancies can be reported at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DYKReviewBot. Note that the character count may differ from Shubinator's tool as the bot is parsing wikitext, but if the discrepancy is significant, please let me know. Thanks, Intelligentsium 23:06, 23 June 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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination ready to go—now what?

This is my first time being involved with a DYK. It looks like it's ready to go. What's the next step? Who has to do it? Thanks. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset - quick look needed from you

BlueMoonset Please take a quick look at Template:Did you know nominations/List of public art in the City of Sydney. This is the lead hook in Prep 3, the next prep due to be promoted. The way I look at this, after the second approval tick by the same Piotrus, other questions were brought up by other editors. And while it looks like nominator Whiteghost.ink gave explanations, the only one who eventually signed off on those was the article's nominator. And then it was promoted to prep. — Maile (talk)

Maile, it looks like Hawkeye7 promoted it directly without approval, which is not exactly standard, but he put himself on the line for it, effectively approving and promoting in one go. Intelligentsium clearly had issues with the article; I don't know whether they have been satisfied, and no one seems to have pinged him to see. I did swap this hook earlier into Prep 3 because it was a special occasion request for June 25, and if it had stayed in Prep 4 it would have run starting at 21:00 in Sydney, far too late in the day; the only check I made at that time was whether Australia's freedom of panorama included outdoor artwork, and from what I could find it did, so I didn't believe there would be copyright concerns. I'm trying to get out of the house now, so I can't stick around; it's up to you whether you think this is sufficient to promote, or it it will just have to miss the ideal day. (If it needs to be delayed, so be it; there are the lead hooks in Prep 4 and Prep 5 that can be substituted in—though I haven't checked the latter.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so it's not just me. I don't have time to deal with this or the other hooks in the set this evening. There is nothing in queue at the moment, but I don't have time to check all the hooks for promotion. So, either another admin does it, or it will just be late. Thanks for looking at it. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, Crisco 1492, Casliber, Coffee, and PFHLai: Any admin who has time to deal with the above issue on the lead hook, as well as check out the other hooks in that set. There is nothing in queue, and I don't have time to take care of it this time. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Whiteghost.ink, Hawkeye7, BlueMoonset, and Maile66: I wasn't even aware this was promoted - last I checked I was waiting for the author to add some sources. I just did a review again and the article seems to have several examples of close paraphrasing; please pull immediately. Intelligentsium 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done Pulled. Now I'm out of here until tomorrow my time (or...today in Australia, but several hours later). — Maile (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, I was unexpectedly called out today and saw this ping on the bus, otherwise I would have done it myself. I'll try to go deal with it. Intelligentsium 00:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, this is a mess. The hook was pulled from prep, but the prep had already been/was just being promoted to the queue and is now on the main page. Will be posting to main page errors to ask for the lead hook to be pulled. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Need an admin to do cleanup: Queue 3 needs to be cleared and the next queue set to be Queue 4. I'll clear Prep 3 myself, and then shut down my computer; I'm late and getting later. Note to Shubinator: the DYKUpdateBot failed to clear Queue 3; I'm not sure at what point in the process it actually stopped, and have no time to investigate. Best of luck! Doing another DYK admin ping: @Gatoclass, Crisco 1492, Casliber, Coffee, and PFHLai:. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Q3 emptied - I see all hooks bar one are now on mainpage from Q4 I take it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Update

Have moved the nearly-full Prep 5 to prep 3 and recalibrated so Prep 3 should be next to go into queue. I am pressed for time so if someone can check (carefully) and fill preps 3 and 4 (or more) that would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK review and promotion quality - time to slow down (yet again)

As exemplified by the previous half-dozen posts, we seem to be experiencing a surge in poor hooks, poor promotions etc. I suggest we slow down the promotion rate to the main page to reduce the rush to push sets out. One set per day until we can actually prevent such egregious errors being signed off by experienced DYK contributors is a good starting point. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - the reality is a slow-down will be self-actuating after all the assorted TBANs and demands to quit of the most active editors here come into effect. There's no need to artificially create what nature is about to deliver. LavaBaron (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well that depends entirely on whether or not the current malaise affecting DYK continues; if we keep having to pull hooks from the main page and from preps and reducing sets to six once posted, that's grossly unfair on the OTD and ITN side of the main page. Do better, work harder, work slower, there is no deadline, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there is a deadline (for submission) - six or seven days or whatever. Since most people are only reviewing as a QPQ, the submission deadline ipso facto creates an unwritten reviewing deadline. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That deadline is whatever, I'm talking about the turnaround time across the main page, where it actually matters. I'm sure you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As was pointed out the last time the OP called for a slow down, there is no evidence that arbitrarily reducing the promotion rate improves quality. Historically promotions rates have been loosely tied to submission rates. This is because basic mathematics tells us the rate of promotions and rejections must be roughly equal to the rate of nominations if things to remain stable in the mid to long term. --Allen3 talk 21:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, keep up the good work. After all, how many hooks have been rushed through by admins that have subsequently been removed in the past few days? Good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Speed has nothing to do with it. I've said it before and will say it again
  • There is no article on Wikipedia, no matter how many reviews and how many months/years it has slagged through reviews, that is error free.
  • I appreciate the efforts and concerns of ALL the DYK team volunteers who put in the time trying to catch errors.
  • Promoting to both Prep and Queue is a tedious, thankless and time consuming job. Stop targeting individuals who do it, because none of us humans are going to get anymore error free.
  • There will always be contributors who make mistakes, cut corners, believe no rules apply to them, and even try to slide by thinking no one will notice. Slowing down just isn't going to fix human nature.
  • One of the most productive efforts to cut down on these errors is being done at Requests for approval/DYKReviewBot
Anyone who is as sincerely concerned as @Fram and The Rambling Man: would serve this project well to putting in time at compiling sets and promoting sets from Prep to Queue. Walk a mile in everybody else's shoes. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The process is dying, so many errors and a permanent imbalance on the main page. Still, sorry to see you are all oblivous to the problems that causes Wikipedia. Good luck to Fram, looks like he's going to be busier and busier as the crap keeps on coming, faster and faster. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
okay LavaBaron (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Maile66, we have enough people willing to compile and promote sets, and a lot of them are doing a great job usually. We have very few people doing fact checks (not grammar checks, we have a few people doing these as well) in prep, queue and main page though. I'll not divert my limited time away from a much-needed job with very few volunteers, towards an equally-needed job with more volunteers already. And I doubt that DYKReviewBot will reduce the number of errors, but we'll have to wait and see. As for "targeting individuals", I only target those people who are either making too many mistakes (as it turns out in the case above, because of cutting corners in an unacceptable way), or who seem unwilling or unable to recognise errors, use sources correctly, or even discuss these matters in an intelligent and coherent fashion. In most cases, I note an error, and the problem (the error, not any editor) is dealt with amicably and peacefully. Some editors though react completely differently (often those who tried to slide by, as you describe it). These few editors need to change their approach or leave DYK. Cleaning up after people who are not willing or able to abide by the most simple rules (see above, where a reviewer doesn't see the need to change "1 September" to "15 September" or simply "September" even though it is demonstrably wrong) is a wasted effort and will only lead to more frsutration and pointless discussions. Removing one or a few of the people causing the most problems and unwilling to change their approach is much more efficient. Fram (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm also curious why you continue to blindly defend the indefensible. The continual acceptance of mediocrity, worse, the continual advocacy of rushing unsourced or erroneous hooks to the main page in a quest to fulfil some kind of mystery deadline is in direct opposition to the principles of Wikipedia. Anyone can build sets, and any admin can post those sets to the main page. But it takes a bit of time and effort to make sure those sets don't contain egregious errors. And that time and effort is not being expended correctly. It's all about the credits and not about the encyclopedia, and that's plain wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
There is probably no one more qualified to compile and promote sets than you and Fram. And it's obvious the two of you really care about quality and accuracy. If the two of you were doing it, we wouldn't have to be worrying so much about errors. Please, the two of you should really show us how it can be with two really eagle-eyed editors. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree 100%. If Fram and I were afforded the time to check each and every hook, we'd be in a much better state, but of course, you and your DYK buddies are mad keen on rushing things to the main page far too quickly. You accept mediocrity as standard and allow garbage through just to meet this invisible deadline. Slow it down, get reviewers to focus more, and admins to concentrate when creating sets on checking the veracity of each and every hook, and we'd be in a better place. The problem you have created through your desire for urgency is a mess of sudden rushes to keep the main page ticking over. Doing that creates problem after problem, as demonstrated here. Continuing to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist will not make it go away. And I bet you anything you like it will not make editors like me or Fram go away until you all start waking up and doing something about it. I'm sick of this "we're all human" crap. Slow it down and the errors will decrease. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As an admin, the community expects me to be responsible with tools and not mess up anything. Consequently, I am not inclined to touch the preps and queues, because while I know the technical procedure (I've pulled enough noms now to get it right), I look a set and do not have the confidence to know exactly what every single article is actually about and whether or not every hook is as good as it could be and is as factually correct as we can get it. It's not because I don't want to be yelled at by Fram, but rather I know what my limits are. As long as preps and queues are at this size and frequency, the situation will remain. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

But if you propose an interaction ban one of the admins who do touch the preps and queues and main page when there are errors in them, from one of the people who introduces and defends these errors, then you are actively hampering things and making things worse. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't want to edit any part of Wikipedia, there are enough admin areas I never frequent. I also have no problem with someone who tries to help but makes an error while doing so. I ping editors whose hooks and reviews seem to contain an error after I have been requested here to do so (people had a problem with such a discussion without being informed about it). Problems only happen with people who believe that DYK as a whole, or having as much articles as possible and a high rotation of hooks, or getting their own article or review on the Main Page, are more important than getting the hook (a single line!) right. Or with people who lack the competence to understand sourcing, reliability, and fact-checking of course. Fram (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe I said the interaction ban would not prevent you from listing errors about content here, nor would I want it to, and my rationale for such an interaction ban has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Anything we do that improves the quality of the encyclopedia is a good thing, broadly construed. However, If you cannot see the difference between what you say and how you say it, then to be perfectly blunt a little re-read through WP:CIVIL may be required. Or, to put it even blunter, "being right and being a dick are not mutually exclusive". Just look at Nigel Farage this morning.[1] (PS: I apologise for being blunt, it it not usually my style) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Being "right" like about the 350 million for the NHS? Getting 52% in a referendum doesn't men you're right (or else he would be right in England, but wrong in Scotland, NIreland and especially Gibraltar). In any case, making personal attacks about politicians in an effort to teach someone about wp:civil is not really a good idea. As for the idea you had, if you had many any serious effort to show how to deal with LavaBaron (like getting him to actually support his claims with anything verifiable, or getting him to retract obviously false statements about other editors), then you might have had a point. Now you are just standing at the side, indicating what others do wrong but not making any attempt to show the right way to do things. Fram (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Based on the threads on this page, my new feeling is that anyone who builds a prep set is taking on a Herculean job. Fram's posts have made me much more aware how important it is to check every line of an article to see if it's stating the sources correctly. I think my time would be much better served by going back to T:TDYK and reviewing individual hooks. It isn't as glamorous as building prep sets, but at least I know that the time I spend on each hook will make it that much easier for a prep builder to promote it. Yoninah (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to check every line of an article Yoninah - even FAC doesn't do that. It is important to check every aspect of a hook as thoroughly as possible however. Gatoclass (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, good FAC reviews do do that. And we're not talking about a line-by-line review, we're talking about making sure, as a minimum, the hook stands up to scrutiny, which it so often does not. It's pretty simple. Spend more time analysing, reviewing, promoting DYKs to preps and sets, less time trying to increase the throughput just because people want credits. There's no deadline. Why shouldn't DYK update once per day if the review cycle slowed down enough to catch all these problems? If we had a backlog of 600 hooks, so what? Post 9 per day, or 10. But slow down and encourage the QPQ reviewers to do a better job, encourage promoting admins to do more than simply collate a set, assuming the hooks are all good. DYK is sinking fast and it won't be long before it gets RfC'ed for removal from the main page, I can assure you of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
As a sometimes-prep set builder, I can tell you that the process is fraught; I worry a lot about making errors and sometimes I have. What we need is some forgiveness and recognition of imperfection; I have reviewed a DYK and screwed up. I have promoted a DYK and screwed up, I have built prep sets and screwed up. I've never meant to make an error, but I have. Luckily, I have been forgiven these errors and soldiered on, but each time, I have backed off of DYK work for a time. We need to just fix errors and apply {{trout}} as needed, but give out a lot of encouragement too. What Ritchie333 says about, basically, being afraid to even build a prep set is well-taken. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maile66. If you are concerned about quality, but don't have time to ensure your desired level of quality, that's your problem. You cannot force other editors to perform what you want when you are unwilling to do it yourself. Also, no evidence has been presented that connects the quality of DYK hooks and the promotion rate. SSTflyer 06:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    No, it's not my problem at all. It's DYK's problem, shoving garbage to the main page just to see it removed subsequently. That is a problem. Slow down and take longer over the reviews and the preps. That way fewer mistakes will be made. You have completely missed the purpose of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Nigel Farage's victory speech was a triumph of poor taste and ugliness". The Guardian. 24 June 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2016.

Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat

Template:Did you know nominations/Roya Sadat, Alka Sadat @Nvvchar, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

The "many awards" of Roya Sadat are sourced to The Hindu, Huffington Post (twice!) and IMDb. IMDb, apart from not being considered a reliable source, is the bio of Alka Sadat, not that of Roya Sadat, and doesn't help here. The Huffington Post has nothing about her many awards. And the Hindu interview has one line, "The film fetched me many awards and got noticed." We shouldn't claim that someone has won many awards only on the say-so of that person. Further down in the article (which doesn't list a single award she won!), the same film is said to have "received wide acclaim around the world." The source for this [25] only states "Three Dots was filmed after the Taliban regime fell and the hard-hitting film won rave reviews across the world."

It may well be that Roya Sadat has won many awards (and there may be sources for this as well), but nothing in the article discusses this and the only source for it is a primary one, not a reliable secondary source. Fram (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Now pulled and reopened. Fram (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support hook as written and retraction of pull - other sources in the article affirm the breadth of awards by confirmation of individual awards, that's sufficient - DYK is a fun little dalliance, not a mission to Mars; as long as it can be confirmed somewhere in the article it's fine, we're not going to argue the hook in front of the Supreme Court LavaBaron (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • What sources? Apart from that little problem, your statement is contrary to the DYK guidelines: a hook must be confirmed at the place the hook fact is stated in the article, not "somewhere in the article". Fram (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Fram. I used the IMDb source as it has been used in many film related articles in the past. Anyway, I have fixed several references with revised text in the Alka Sadat article. Please see if anything more is to be done.Nvvchar. 14:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your first source (Lumbersohn 2009) is a book published on lulu.com, a self publisher, so most likely not a reliable source. Your second source (Graham 2010) doesn't mention the Afghan Film Festival or ellipsis winning an award (not on the page indicated, and not as far as I can see on any other page: please provide a quote if I missed it), and the third one (Hindu) was already discussed above. So you haven't done enough, you haven't provided a reliable independent source indicating that she won many awards (or even one) so far. Fram (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • This section is titled "the many awards of Roya Sadat". Perhaps you can focus on that one? If the Alka Sadat article had similar problems, then it's fine that you try to address those, but my concern and remarks were about Roya Sadat. I note that [26] doesn't seem to say anything about any awards though. The Hindu gives me a 503 service unavailable error, the third source is an acceptable source for one award from Alka Sadat, but doesn't mention Roya Sadat. Fram (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Fram I have added some text and refrences to Alka Sadat to meet your concerns. I hope they are acceptable to you and gets green signal for the two articles. Thanks.Nvvchar. 03:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Did you know nominations/Amjad Sabri

This ended up in the AFC queue, but I don't know why. Can someone here please deal with this. I've removed the AFC template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Can an IP make a nomination? Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep area 5

Template:Did you know nominations/Nazario Collection @Old School WWC Fan, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66 (and courtesy pings to Fram and The Rambling Man for informational purposes)
Cmwhiraeth, your promotion of yet another bad hook is quite disconcerting. - The source does not backup this hook's claim. The archaeologist who launched the preliminary study this hook is referring to merely states that this "seems" to be the case, as quoted by the source. Furthermore, the whole point in the hook, hinges upon the collection's production actually having been done on the island, but the source does not use any certainty regarding the findings on the collection's origin... merely the type of rock used (peridotite). And the rest of the source is rather clear in stating that the authenticity of the collection has not been confirmed, or verified, by any scientific body at this time. Given that, I am hard pressed to believe even the article should be allowed to give the appearance of certainty it currently does. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No, he is actually quite clear about the source material being local: "“Lo que plantea esto, por lo tanto, es que la piedra que se trabajó es de origen local, o sea, que la escritura se hizo en Puerto Rico. Esto no fue que alguien lo trajo en barco desde Europa y la gente empezó a replicarla, sino que la materia prima es de aquí y la escritura se hizo aquí"
Also, "preliminary" was merely the word that I used while paraphrasing because other areas are still under investigation, so I had to thread lightly not to make it appear as if there is a final conclusion. The actual article uses "indicates": "Lo que parece indicar, por lo tanto, es que se emplearon métodos de hacer los trazos que no son originarios de la Isla, sino que fueron diseñados por personas que no eran indígenas de aquí."
He goes into a lot more detail about this in the latest conference, which went online *after* I completed the initial draft, but even the ENDI article notes that the composition and technique studies have been completed and that next in line are C-14 and other dating studies. And finally, this was an ALT not the main hook, the original hook is sourced by at least half of the references in the page (just ctrl+F "Agüeybaná" in any one of them). Quite frankly, I am more concerned that so many assertions were made based on my prose instead of the source content. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
BTW, nothing in the archeologist's quote makes use of the word "probable", the use of that word in that paragraph -which directly precedes the quote posted above- was made by the journalist that wrote the piece. The archeologist in question is more direct, as you can see in the quote. I have no intention of undoing the edit, but the premise behind it is erroneous. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Old School WWC Fan: No, Rodríguez is very clear about these being only preliminary studies, and in fact even uses that word himself: “He hecho algunos estudios preliminares, que me dan cierta información que puedo ir adelantando”. I was not ever relying on your wording of the article to come to these conclusions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: The statement about the source material is unambiguous. All of the studies are preliminary to the publishing of the final paper, but this part is most certainly clear and he never uses the word "probably", so your addition of that assertion remains inadequate. I used "preliminary results" when discussing every of the results even when the term is only used in that article to refer specifically to the study of the characters: "Y en cuanto al tipo de escritura, Rodríguez indicó que “todavía está por descifrarse”, pero estudios preliminares apuntan a que pudiera tratarse del alfabeto líbico-bereber, similar al identificado en las Islas Canarias de España."
Nevertheless, I am assuming that you understand Spanish, so please take some time to listen to the recording of the conference and you will see that he is straight forward about the origin of the prime matter, in it he discusses the composition of the pieces. If you do understand the conference, I would also welcome some help integrating the information in it to the article and modifying what could be ambiguous. You can also try contacting him directly at this e-mail address and make the relevant queries (and perhaps, also ask him if he could upload a few images to Commons).
About the authenticity, I do not make a direct statement either way, but (in the conference) he does discuss that the erosion pattern in some of the pieces is inconsistent with them being forged during the 1870s and then being stored for decades. I am most certainly skeptical about the Old World hypotheses (hence why I avoided using it as a hook despite it being mentioned in all references), but that does not mean that the pieces are fraudulent, several languages share characters out of sheer coincidence. In the conference, he discusses other odd characters found in the island. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, I don't see how this quote “Lo que parece indicar, por lo tanto, es que se emplearon métodos de hacer los trazos que no son originarios de la Isla, sino que fueron diseñados por personas que no eran indígenas de aquí” can be construed as anything more than it is. He only said that it "appears to indicate" such a thing, not that it was a certain thing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Semantics. Listen to the conference that I linked. In it, the author directly relays this in more detail without the interpretation of the journalist or the comments being placed out of order. Otherwise, an e-mail should be enought to get an answer straight from the horse's mouth. In any case, I think that verifying the references for verification on the assertion of the main hook instead of arguing the ALT would be the logical step. Anything else, I will gladly deal with in the page's talk page. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The hook certainly follows the article and therefore seemed OK to me. The source is in Spanish and lengthy. You perhaps speak Spanish and can pick out the salient points. It is unrealistic to expect a promoter to wade through a lengthy Google Translate text to satisfy themself that it confirms the points made in the article when there are seven hooks to form into a balanced set.
And while you are about it, you might like to ask why I am still promoting hooks having been roundly criticised for my efforts? The answer is that nobody else is doing it (perhaps they are too scared) and if nobody does, DYK will grind to a halt. Let's have some support for this thankless task, not endless criticism. And by the way, I also correct errors. Look at the history of this set at Prep5 and you will see two corrections I made. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps if we actually took some time to re-check the hooks and slowed the rate down, we'd make fewer mistakes. Right now the main page is down to six hooks and no image. Not for the first time this week. It's a really poor effort and is causing issues across the OTD/ITN side of the page. Please sort it out. It'd be better to not promote sets at all rather than feel pressured into doing so because of this arbitrary self-imposed deadline. Just a quick look at the removed page tells its own story, we're right in the middle of a serious quality control crisis. Reviewers and promoters need to be told to do a better job or stop trying. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
How does it "tell its own story"? What we have here is either the incapacity to understand the language properly, which is fine, or failure to notice that only that which is within quote marks represents the expert's opinion. The word "probably", never mentioned by the archeologist in question, is being taken out of context and used against the reviewer, when the opposing part ends up doing the same and failing to understand the language in the source material before making several direct assumptions. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't referring to "your" article at all; in actual fact I was referring to the "Removed" page which lists all the duff DYKs that have been removed. My comment was in response to Cwmhiraeth, hence the indentation, perhaps you missed that? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, never mind then. I retract my reply. Prior to my comments, his reply was indented directly below Coffee's and yours was under it, so it all looked like a series of direct replies (which I broke by replying to Coffee above Cwmhiraeth's rebuttal). Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
But to your hook, the article says "Preliminary results from this area suggest that the technique used was unlike any of the ones used by the known native groups of Puerto Rico" which is very much more vague and hand-wavy than the stringently definitive "established that the petroglyphs in the Nazario Collection were not made using any previously known local technique" in the hook, if nothing else. I'd tone the hook down a bit by reflecting the preliminary nature of the study. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as explained in my first reply, the language in the news source is more direct than my piece. I was cautious when writing the prose because I did not want people assuming that I was pushing for either authenticity or fraud. It was an attempt to be neutral on my behalf. The hook in question is more in line with the second quote (mentioned in the same reply) than my prose. Se emplearon métodos de hacer los trazos que no son originarios de la Isla, sino que fueron diseñados por personas que no eran indígenas de aquí literally translates as "methods that were not original from the island were used to make the traces, instead they were made by people that were not the Indians from here". Also, I don't mind it being reworded, but it was meant as an ALT. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing credits from pulled hooks

If hooks are proven to be demonstrably incorrect, there should be some kind of note on the talkpage amending the DYK credit (or even remove the template) as it is entirely disingenuous to pretend an article was lauded on the main page when in fact it was shamefully pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles aren't "lauded" by the DYK credit The credit simply states a fact: that hook x appeared on the main page in the DYK section on date Y. Whether or not the hook was pulled, that still remains the case. Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Then we should amend the credit to state that the hook was pulled because it was erroneous. It happens frequently enough. It is the same as a FAC being demoted at FAR or any other such demotion process, which are noted on the talk page history templates. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
What would you say in the case of the Swedish opera singer whose article was improved and sourced in wonderful collaboration, but whose hook was pulled because it was worded slightly misleading? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm not making any comments on the subsequent article improvement, but if it was pulled from the main page, it should be noted in the dyk credit template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You could do it, with a link to the discussion. I just found it petty. - I am all for precise hooks, well sourced, and criticism if not precise and not well sourced, but in proportion please. - So far I was lucky, none of my almost 700 hooks was pulled, just an image once because (pictured) was missing (it illustrated the title), - I confess I found that petty as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well it's analogous to the other processes I've noted. We're getting a large number of hooks currently pulled from the main page, the credits ought to be marked up to reflect that they shouldn't have been on the main page to start with. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Repeating: The hook about the singer was not much thought about, - I guess we were tired after weeks of finding sources, and hook after hook rejected. Would you want to treat it like a pulled hoax? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Or in a case where a single word addition was needed, but even after the hook was pulled, wasn't made? Or when a hook is pulled because it is supported by sources but the sources turn out to be wrong? EdChem (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
These are all "pulled from the main page". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Will there be a "pulled from the main page by an admin more interested in making a point about a project they dislike than making a tweak to fix a minor problem" notation because some of the pulled cases are serious issues and some are not and will need it? EdChem (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you have examples of such abuse of tools? If so I suggest you take it somewhere where it counts for something. And no, if a hook is pulled, it's pulled, whatever the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

21 hours and counting... time to reflect

Well, the current set has been up for 21 hours (not the usual 12) and after all the errors have been removed, we're down to six hooks, and no further issues. What has been of interest that not one single soul has remarked as to the lack of rapid update, i.e. nobody has complained that there's not a new set of DYKs sitting there. Since there are so many errors at DYK right now, and since no-one apart from DYK regulars care about the main page update rate, wouldn't it be better to add another level of review for a while, e.g. two reviewers giving the green tick, before items are accepted for prep? Remember that old saying, "Two heads are better than one"... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Something has to be done. This is literally the worst rate of errors I've seen for years, and it's unacceptable to keep allowing it to continue. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm hearing rumors that the GA reviews are proceeding way too fast also. I'm kind of wondering if any of this is due to an upcoming WikiCup deadline (full disclosure: I'm a WikiCup participant, but I don't have any DYKs in the queue right at the moment other than one I nominated for someone else, and it won't count for WikiCup points) Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
There is years of research, going at least as far back as F. W. Taylor's studies, showing that rewards (or the modern gamification) based on quantity leads to a drop in quality. Stephen 03:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but some of the regulars here do not believe that all that research applies to DYK. DYK is unique, it doesn't succumb to this sort of thing! There is nothing wrong at DYK, insert head in sand, carry on! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as two reviewers go, no; but I'm beginning to have some openness to one set of DYKs per 24 hours, at least until we get to a point where we have two weeks worth of approved hooks getting piled up. (Last time I did up some prep sets, I couldn't fill all of them) I think the bigger issue is getting the backlog cleared. We had to institute qpq to get DYKs done (and to be honest, it's how I got involved), so asking for two reviewers is probably not going to solve the error rate. What I DO think needs to happen is for the promoters to be reminded of their duty to review the DYK hooks, and, frankly, for a few of the regulars here who aren't building prep sets, but who ARE putting up a lot of tags, to also build more sets BEFORE the problems hit, as, clearly, they are doing backup reviews already. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK Update way overdue

Folks, there is a loaded queue and a loaded prep set but no DYK update. Who has the mop and can do this? I can't, I'm not an admin. Montanabw(talk) 04:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

on it. damn the bot is down. this is what it does. I will do the mainpage but my kids are clamouring for foor. @Montanabw: can you see what needs to be done WRT credits etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin, I don't know if that is something I can actually do... but I did do up three more prep sets to queue up. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok - see contribs of DYKUpdateBot. It gives the credits for stuff on the mainpage. I did one, so there are several more to do plus the talk page of each article that appeared on teh mainpage. I have a few minutes, but have to duck off again. Check my contribs if I have to leave suddenly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Short Queue 1

This hook set looks rather short on my screen and i worry about messing up the MainPage layout. Can someone swap in some wordy hooks or add an 8th hook so that this hook set can take up more space on the left side of MainPage, please? I have to be away from the computer soon so i can't do it myself. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

CAN WE NOW GO BACK TO EIGHT HOOKS PLEASE. So the rest of us who give a damn can fix the main page every twelve hours to accommodate DYK's fluctuations, eight hooks is only fair on OTD and ITN. How many times? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's a matter of "going back to wordy hooks", I think we should go back to 8 hooks. Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the device you are using. In some cases TFA+DYK can still be much longer than ITN+OTD. [27] SSTflyer 01:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You can see how Queue 1 will look with today's layout (June 20) at Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Queue 1), though it won't show the June 21 layout, which appears to be two or three lines shorter between ITN and OTD because there are many fewer special celebrated days under OTD, even though it has the usual five bulleted entries. If we swap the fourth and seventh hooks between Queue 1 and Queue 2, that should improve the set length for the former and help balance the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Going to eight hooks will permanently help balance the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The Rambling Man, Yoninah, SSTflyer, BlueMoonset and Cas Liber . On my view of the main page, DYK is always taller than ITN which is to the left of DYK. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, since that page is not in production yet, it should not really matter how it looks there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Edokter. It is in production for me. . Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

that Steve Hamilton was a constant member of the UK Wheel of Fortune throughout its 13-year run?

I don't really understand what "constant member" means here. According to the article he was the only cast member to have been involved with Wheel of Fortune for its entire run. Perhaps that's what needs to be said in one way or another here. And I'm not sure we need a UK clarifier when the article is linked to the UK version of the show in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And what is hooky about this hook?
... that in 1770, Parliament considered an act concerning high heels (pictured) and now, in 2016, it is making a fresh inquiry?
The original hook spoke about high heels being made illegal; surely that is a much better hook element. Yoninah (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
No one seems to agree on how hooky a hook has to be, I found the hook of sufficient interest that I'd want to click on the link, and that perfectly good article has been through hook drama for ages. Time to, (in the immortal words of Richard Nixon), shit or get off the pot. I think that was about ALT5 or so... at this point, my view is that anyone who complains about a hook has to propose one themselves. Montanabw(talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"Languished too long"

Template:Did you know nominations/Romney's March 3 Speech has been failed by @Montanabw: with the reason "Article has languished in limbo for over 3-1/2 months and the topic is dated; no longer really one of Wikipedia's newest articles. I reluctantly have to fail this article" and with the edit summary "Very old news and outdated. Languished too long." But it languished due to actions (and inactions) of the reviewers, not the nominator or myself (another contributor). The topic is not dated, as efforts to stop Trump are still very much in the news, and there is no requirement that DYK subjects be topical anyway. The article currently has low readership (around 50 views a day), so if it appears on the main page it will still be new to almost all readers. And anyway the whole notion of DYK representing "Wikipedia's newest articles" sort of went out the window when GA articles started being included. I respectfully think this fail should be reconsidered. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This nomination, submitted near the beginning of the U.S. presidential primaries cycle, had to be slotted into the Special Occasions holding area for "after June 15" in keeping with the DYK rule not to run hooks within 30 days of a political campaign. I also questioned the wisdom of nominating a news event in March and having it run in June, but them's the rules. I am restoring the nomination and returning it to the Special Occasions area along with the other hooks that had to wait until June 15 to appear, and which are now also awaiting updated reviews. Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I support the restoration of this DYK nom. It was approved but held back due to elections-related DYK rules. We should re-review the nom before posting the hook on MainPage just in case we need to fix some bad edits made in the article since the approval months ago, or maybe updating is needed (housekeeping-ish stuff). I am not sure why timeliness of the topic is an issue here. We are not ITN. BTW, perhaps the hook should be in past tense and past perfect tense. --PFHLai (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm OK with the revert, and yes, the hook DOES need to be past tense, it is old news. I also wonder if the article title ("March 3 Speech") fits and if that speech is actually referred to by that name now. The open question, though, in general is this: How long DO we allow articles to "languish" (outside of an external deadline such as was the case here) before we just say, "never going to meet the standard" or "too much drama to ever be stable". Good point that DYK is not ITN. But sometimes, ITN may want to be considered as a more appropriate venue for some topics. Food for thought, anyway. Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The nomination should definitely have a chance to run after having to wait so long, and I closed up the special occasion area precisely because the occasion (hold for later) was over and the nominations needed attention from reviewers, which seemed more likely if they were in the main list, since nominations in the special occasion area are presumed to be approved and ready for promotion. Yoninah, there is no longer a special occasion—the primaries are over—so I don't understand why they belong there now. (In the past, if a special date came and went and all of the hooks could not be added, we slotted them back into the main list.) We can certainly note that as these were held for the special occasion, they should not be closed for age absent a consensus that they should be; a pointer to this discussion would illustrate why. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, now I understand what you did. I'll return them to the main noms area. Yoninah (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is over a week old, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all of the non-current hooks (through June 19). As of the most recent update, 52 nominations have been approved, leaving 132 of 184 nominations still needing approval. Please give special attention to the pre-May hooks, two of which are needed re-reviews for hooks that sat for months waiting for the presidential primaries to be over. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 14:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a while ago, so here's a new list of the 31 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current hooks (through June 11). As of the most recent update, 29 nominations have been approved, leaving 132 of 161 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, and especially to those who take on the ones from May.

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) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: What is our informal standard for giving it up and just failing the nom under the "or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible" criterion? Seems like we never fail anything, it just languishes for months. And months... I have occasionally failed some of these languishing noms... never sure if I did the right thing. Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, I don't know that there's an informal standard, but we don't fail noms that have a "review again" icon active, since it's not fair to fail when the only problem is that a reviewer hasn't come along in perhaps weeks despite being called for. When issues aren't getting fixed or the nominator isn't around, I typically post to their talk page and warn them that time is running out; a week is the typical time, but sometimes I give a shorter deadline if they're otherwise active. The only reason these very old nominations showed up a few days ago was that I closed out the special occasion area since we no longer needed to hold nominations due to the presidential primaries, but at the same time, some of these had been sitting for so long and had so many edits in the intervening months that a new review was needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
So.... pop out cake? Which has no connection to the USA election? Was tempted to fail it... Montanabw(talk) 01:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

@Casliber:, @Allen3:, @Maile66: This set has appeared on the Main Page for its 12-hour run, but has not been cleared from the queue, and so presumably will be promoted for another 12 hours. Yoninah (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeat of the known transient problem that has been affecting the bot for a couple of months (The bot operator is aware and looking for the cause of the problem). The work around for when this happens is an admin manually completing the update from the point where the bot hangs (clearing the queue file and updating the count at Template:Did you know/Queue/Next). --Allen3 talk 07:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK project success?

Two DYK regulars were made Wikipedians of the Year at Wikimania. Wooo! The "Women in Red" project is the 3rd biggest project and it started here. WiR creates literally thousands of new articles each year (and a few still come to DYK for review).... so thats good. WiR creates about 10x the articles you need to fill DYK each month, I quickly reckon.... and at one time I think we were supplying one or two to each load. Many of the WiR contributors learnt their skills at DYK - so well done. Victuallers (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That's good news. Who were the DYK-associated Wikipedians of the Year? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep and Keilana. Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations to them both! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Follow Wikipedian of the Year, nominate for here, anybody? Long enough, new enough ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2 - linked article is a copyvio

".... that Wesley P. Lloyd was the dean at the United States International University and later became the director of California Western College?". United States International University redirects to Alliant International University which (apart from the fact it has multiple article issue tags all over it and shouldn't be linked from the front page anyway) is mostly a copyright violation as it's copied from the University's own web site, so I'm about to copyvio-blank it. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@LauraJamieson: As the reviewer of the nomination, I approved both the hooks. The other hook could be substituted for this one, but as the hook is currently in a queue rather than a preparation area, this will have to be done by an admin. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Done, replaced with the other hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 28 June 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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Queue 4

"...that the House of Flavors' signature ice cream is the secret formula "Blue Moon" flavor (pictured) that they have been making available to their customers since 1935?". What's wrong with "that has been sold since 1935"? Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole hook a little gimmicky and smacks of advertising. It would be better and cleaner as something like: that the House of Flavors' signature ice cream is the "Blue Moon" flavor (pictured) that has been sold since 1935?. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124&oldid=1089919091"