Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 130

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132→Archive 135

Is this particular DYK review enough for QPQ?

In Template:Did you know nominations/St Silin's Church I've raised the question whether Template:Did you know nominations/A Wizard of Earthsea is a sufficient DYK review, given that WP:DYKRULES #4 requires that the article be compliant with WP:V and I didn't see any comments on it. The review appears to be in line with typical DYK reviews, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it isn't compliant, but given that the reviewed article is clearly well sourced, it isn't something I personally would be bothered about. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Plus I have been using that for years as my normal sign-off and there has never been a problem with it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"Interesting" as a criteria

"Interesting" according to whom?[clarification needed]

This is most likely one of the most contentious criteria used to evaluate hooks. Given the amount of traffic the main page gets and the time that hooks air (what mid-day time-zones they are up for, is there is NO way for three reviewers to ever say a hook would or would not be "interesting". Watching the discussion page here, the only people that comment on boring hooks or too many of the same hook, are those of us who are on the site every day anyways, and we are, in reality a very small percentage of the total Wiki readership. I suggest removing the "interesting" criteria from the nomination process.--Kevmin § 19:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can't find anyone to think your hook is interesting, then it's a boring hook and we don't need those. "DYK... that Bob Smith is a 28 year old Virginian?" or "DYK... that Grande-Anse is a small village in New Brunswick, Canada?" should never appear on the front page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm 100% with this. Either the project take this subjective matter seriously, or they entirely erase it. Per the current primary eligibility criteria, The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. I don't see many reviewers focused on the second part of that criterion. Either make it happen, or remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Thats the problem, only three people typically look at a hook before its approved. There is no objective definable measure to the term at all, and never will be. The nominator thought it was interesting and there is no way to gauge what the thousands of main page viewers will think is interesting. Its not a viable criteria.--Kevmin § 20:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, I have no real problem with "DYK... that Grande-Anse is a small village in New Brunswick, Canada? Sure, the "Bob Smith" example is pretty useless, but DYK is to highlight new articles, not to write clickbait. I think that some subjects are just not going to have clickbait hooks. (Really, do we want to have "DYK... that Bob did something that was SHOCKING? Click here!"? ) The phrasing might be better phrased, "...and inviting wikipedia readers to the article." Or something. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't need Bob to do something shocking, just interesting, like juggle nineteen plates or unicycle unaided across five states, or ride a dinosaur for photographs for the progressive intelligent design party or something. Nothing superior or dramatic, just more than A is a B from C. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thinking on it further, "interseting" is actually utterly outside of what wikipedia is, Wiki is verifiable and notable, thats it. There is nothing in the criteria for a wikipedia article that say something need to appease the interest of x-amount of the English speaking world. Trying to enforce the extra, and indefinable, "interesting" is not in the wiki purview at all.--Kevmin § 20:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not true. We have one main page, upon which we should confer our best and most interesting pieces. Your opinion (aha, did I just click?!) would render the DYK section entirely redundant and therefore you're advocating the removal of such a section? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
How would it render DYK redundant, and to what would it be redundant?--Kevmin § 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Read on.... and thanks for your opinion, it's important that we clarify the mission of DYK, and removing one of its fundamental tenets rather undermines its raison d'etre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You did not actually explain. I am still waiting for how it makes DYK redundant, and to what.--Kevmin § 01:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think DYK hooks are called "hooks"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And we are a diverse lot, hard to get agreement on "interesting", some people find some topics generally uninteresting and thus would never pass their "interesting test". Not sure how to quantify this, would it be good to try and come up with interesting hooks? sure, but as a hard requirement?  MPJ-DK  21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with those who say hookiness is subjective. "Boring" is in the eye of the beholder. One of the most cringe-worthy moments for me when I first started at DYK was a reviewer (fortunately, can't remember their name}, whose entire review of a nomination was, "Why should I even care about this?" I thought it was an incredibly arrogant thing to say to someone who may have been a first-timer. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Then change the criteria which talks of "broad interest" because most of the stuff we post (minor La Lucha tournaments, Mexican politicians, Pennsylvanian streams, obscure yet common birds etc) are hooked in such a way that they summarily fail this. I created something like 150 articles on The Boat Race yet only a handful were nominated here because they had a genuinely broader appeal than just the Oxbridge readers/hundreds of millions who watch the race worldwide every year. There's also an endemic problem with such dull hooks having no context, i.e. political parties pre-abbreviated, with no clue who they are or what they represent. Yes, one argument is "well if you want to know, click on the link!", but another equally valid argument is "if I don't get it upon first reading, I can't be bothered taking it any further". Interesting has to be a fundamental tenet of this project, or else dismiss the criterion that talks of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Look, I get what you're saying. But in the southwestern United States, La Lucha tournaments are really popular on TV, and Mexican politicians is also of keen interest. We have enough people of Mexican heritage in this country to possibly sway this next general election. I'm pretty sure streams and birds are of interest to outdoors enthusiasts, of which they are a great many. We sure have a lot of television networks that run entire series on such things. Just because they don't post here doesn't mean they aren't reading. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Bingo, you hit a vote for removing the "for a broad audience". La Lucha is irrelevant, a pantomime which is secondary to WWE, which is ridiculed across most of the Western world, some even claiming it not to be sport (or entertainment even). I think you misinterpret what I said, I never said "Just because they don't post here doesn't mean they aren't reading", I said we need to pay heed to the criterion which speaks of broad interest. If not, remove it, because as sure as eggs is eggs, those items I've given as examples are not of broad interest in any way, shape or form. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Coupla points:

  • As Edwardx pointed out to me recently (I'd completely forgotten) the criterion is not merely "interesting", but "interesting to a broad audience". Interesting-ness will always be subjective, but I think that helps focus things a lot.
  • Most people participating here are likely unaware that the OP is mad about Template:Did you know nominations/Formica paleosibirica‎‎, where first Edwardx, and then I, objected to the hook
... that fossil Formica paleosibirica males may or may not be the same ant species as Formica biamoensis?
  • Let me repeat something I said at that nom, which at least puts a minimum requirement on hooks as something most readers ought to be able to relate to:
Very crudely, that is interesting which puts the reader in mind of something with which he's already familiar, or thinks he understands, then juxtaposes something surprising, unusual, or intriguing. If there's no aspect of the hook that's within the reader's experience then the whole thing seems remote and unintelligible. The problem here is that that you've got two mouthful latinate names of species, unfamiliar to all but specialists, and then you tell us that one might be the same as the other. Oh, so something I've never heard of might be the same as something else I've never heard of? Wow. Here's a (made-up) hook that would be a good deal better, just to give you an idea: DYK ... that there is controversy about whether the newly described species Formica nuevo is really just the common house ant? (I have no idea whether there's such a thing as a common house ant.) But you see my point? At least this ties something familiar to something new, and to a situation puzzling (to laymen) i.e. scientists aren't sure whether two things are really one.

The funny thing is that there have been very few situations I can remember (this ant thing is one of them, unfortunately) where, seeing a wretched hook, by examining the article I couldn't find material for a much better one -- many of you have seen me do that over and over. In most cases it's just a matter of the nominator trying harder. If we start rejecting dull hooks I have little doubt nominators will learn to sift the material for good ones. EEng 21:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC) EEng 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The funny thing is that there have been very few situations I can remember (this ant thing is one of them, unfortunately) where, seeing a wretched hook, by examining the article I couldn't find material for a much better one, here's one right now, in Prep 5: " that California High-Speed Rail's Kings River Viaduct is planned to be over 2 miles (3.2 km) long due to the effects of floods in 1861 and 1867?" Boy, that's a humdinger. Not. Yet in the article, we get the nugget that The Kings River Complex is part of Construction Package 2–3, whose contract was awarded to Dragados/Flatiron/Shimmick in December 2014 on a bid of exactly $1,234,567,890 that's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 dollarz. Brilliant, interesting, and something we could all get hooked by. A 2-mile long viaduct? Is that really amazeballs? Welland Viaduct was built about 140 years ago and is nearly a mile long. And that's in that little old England place. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to tweak and trim hooks at an early stage for some time now, to reduce time and trouble later on in the DYK process. Many people can write interesting enough articles, yet we can all struggle to find the snappiest most concise hook, or even spot the hookiest fact in the article. This is an area where collaboration can really add value. Of course, interestingness is subjective. Nonetheless, content creators tend to have significantly wider interests than the average reader, and if they find the proposed hook uninteresting, it seems reasonable to infer that it will not be "interesting to a broad audience". Edwardx (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Cite your source for "content creators tend to have significantly wider interests than the average reader", as in my 10+ years on Wiki that is not something I have seen to be true.--Kevmin § 02:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As a card-carrying fan of the World Pantomime League I find it a little disconcerting that there is a slight shift from discussing a criteria for individual hooks to taking swipes at whole topics. And it is really ridiculous to think that anyone here can actually claim what interests "broad audience" when basically expressing their own bias.  MPJ-DK  23:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree @MPJ-DK: As shown it very quickly boils down to the reviewer going saying they dont like it so clearly there is not going to be a broad audience. It brings the heart of the problem to the fore. There is NO way to empirically define the "interest factor" of any one thing. The argument that it removes a core tenant of DKY ignores the fact that it has since day one been one of the most contentious and wholly arbitrary points of review. There is no way it is a viable criterion, since unlike every other criteria, it can not be defined.--Kevmin § 01:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Two points: firstly, the phrase should not be "interesting to a broad audience", but "interesting, preferably to a broad audience". I have argued this many times before and, I'm sure, actually altered the rule as indicated once or twice, only to have some bright spark come along later and remove the "preferably". The nature of DYK, which often deals with obscure topics, makes it impossible to ensure that every hook is "interesting to a broad audience", but every hook should be interesting to at least some people, even if only to those with a strong interest in the topic.
Secondly, while there is always going to be a strong element of subjectivity in the assessment of "interest", there are in fact some more-or-less objective criteria that can be applied. Most importantly, any fact that is mundane or everyday is, by definition, uninteresting. Also, any hook which contains no useful information is uninteresting. For example, "did you know that Saturday and Sunday are called "the weekend" is uninteresting because it's common knowledge. Although DYK hooks unfortunately sometimes fail the interest requirement, ditching the requirement altogether would have disastrous consequences for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that in reality it's to prevent pedestrian "did you know circles are round" hooks from passing right? And yes it is subjective, so I would imagine if a nominator disagrees with one reviewer's assessment they can take it here for a 3rd, 4th opinion and perhaps get some suggestions for alternate hooks. Ideally most articles could produce 2-3 totally different hooks, increasing the odds that one of them would pass muster I know that personally I will be providing as many alt suggestions that I can for future hooks.  MPJ-DK  06:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's some fresh commentary on the issue by the professionals at QI. Andrew D. (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Anne Miller and Anna Ptaszynski, more elves, try to explain. “It makes you want to go and tell someone,” Miller says. Ptaszynski adds: “So if I said, ‘The capital of Peru is Lima …’” We all nod, having established the rock-bottom comprehension that this is not an interesting fact. She continues: “But if somebody said, ‘The reason it’s called Lima is that the first person to discover it loved limes, or it was full of lemurs and it’s the result of a misspelling.” Unfortunately, I am still not interested.

The bottom line is that EEng has it spot on. If reviewers read the whole article rather than just mechanically tick off the DYK criteria, we'd find ourselves in a better situation and, as I've already demonstrated above, standing a chance of some genuinely interesting hooks. If we're not aiming for "interesting" or "broad" then remove it altogether, better still remove this from the main page and allocate some more impressive work, like perhaps a second FA or a wider TFP. More encyclopedic, less error-prone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • So considering we're trying to figure out a way to deal with this - you know having a constructive dialogue, perhaps "burn down Rome" is something we can put on the backburner? How about we put a pin in it? *Boop* The challenge is still how we define "interesting" - the "broad audience" is impossible to hit as there is not one homogenous "majority" out there to constitute a "broad audience", or that qualifier is used as a tool people use to push their own bias against topics as a whole, we've already seen that rear it's head in this discussion. If we can figure out a way to be a little clearer on the "interesting" aspects and perhaps set up something to help nominators evaluate an article in case they don't come up with something interesting to start with.  MPJ-DK  20:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Sure, but as Kevmin has already pointed out several times, there's no purview for an encyclopedia to provide "interesting" information, so that naturally equates to DYK being defunct. I agree with most of the rest of what you've written, but please, don't just read what I've written all the time, consider the perspectives of others. Even Britannica avoids the trivia/nausea of the repeated and dull-as-dishwater hooks. Being a proper encyclopedia, perhaps we should cast a glance that way? Even consider something like a "Explore Wikipedia" or "Quizzes" section, rather than the lamentable effort we have going on at DYK right now where about 30 to 50% of the hooks are incorrect and not many of them are actually of any interest to anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    I sure hope you did not hurt yourself jumping to such a conclusion after what Kevmin said? I am considering the perspective of others who have commented here, none have said "get rid of it" as far as I can tell. Sadly I have seen too many harsh, condescending or rude comments towards hooks when commenting on the "interesting" aspect that I am not surprised some hookers have been turned off by that alone and thus reluctant to take a second or third look at an article. One option is to perhaps ask people to try to provide several distinctly different hook suggestions. If your article can only really produce one thing you can even think to put as a hook, perhaps that's a sign. More variety leads to more chances of the hooks being interesting.  MPJ-DK  22:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    No, I'm fine thanks. I didn't say anyone had said "get rid of it", I have simply made a logical sequitur to conclude that if "interesting" isn't required by an encyclopedia, remove it from the DYK guidelines or remove DYK from the mainpage because one of its raisons d'etre is to encourage people to click on the hooks (isn't that why they called "hooks" after all while all other sections refer to their one-liners as "blurbs"?) The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    Nominators providing multiple ALTs is not the answer. People just need to put more effort into crafting one interesting hook, and resist the temptation of nominating articles where they cannot find anything that would be of interest to a wide enough audience. Edwardx (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    Agree. As I have always said that "interesting" is so subjective, I would fully support removing that unhelpful surplusage from the guidelines. Plus it has been used as an unnecessary distraction in recent discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The distraction is a fair point, especially since decade we have been trying to combat errors. "Interesting" does not fix errors, they just make them interesting errors ;-)  MPJ-DK  10:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Question, if the government of a fairly large country declares a day "National # day", then is it safe to assume it has at least some broad appeal? Look out September 21, 2017 first official "Lucha Libre Day" in Mexico. I declare a "Fiesta Lucha Libre" year, starting today in anticipation of this day (masks are now part of the dress code). This tongue-in-cheek comment brought as a reminder that while wrestling is looked down upon by many it is second only to football (or soccer for the philistines) in Mexico. And yes I wil continue to expand everyone's views to be more encompasinc and accepting of other cultures, thatvis why I an the resident Professor Emeritus of Lucha Libre.  MPJ-DK  12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with others making my hooks more "interesting", just do not make it wrong and sensationalism belongs in tabloids not here. If anything, I suppose, we could add somewhere, "Your proposed hook is a proposal, which others may change in discussion (for example for factual reasons, or reasons of interest) and sometimes admins may do so without discussion, depending on where it is in the process." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanity

This discussion has run its course and is now descending into personal animosity. If you want to continue, I suggest a thread on WP:ANI Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 23 September 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.

In my opinion, some hooks are being pulled just so that Fram can exhibit his superiority to the rest of us. Take the Bruce Grobbelaar hook "... that Bruce Grobbelaar could not play for the Zimbabwe national football team for a decade, partly because he had a British passport?" which was pulled from the main page yesterday. The main facts were correct but the time period involved was 8 years rather than the decade used in both article and source. Fram set about disproving the hook, mentioning how difficult it was to track down information on Grobbelaar's national team appearances. Fram could have changed the wording in the hook to "for nearly a decade" but preferred to pull it from the main page and advertise this splendid achievement by calling the nominator, reviewer and promoter here to answer for their failings.

Another example in 2014 I remember clearly because the hook concerned was mine: "... that the eggs of the coppery-tailed coucal are probably incubated only by the male of the species?" The hook was sourced to the Museums of Capetown website, but this was not good enough for Fram who found an online book called Cuckoos of the World which stated that "both parents carry out nesting duties, but perhaps more by male". On this basis, Fram pulled the hook from the main page [1]. Well done Fram!

Fram does not seem to realise that other editors also play a part in checking hooks for errors. These editors raise their concerns on the nominations page or return hooks there if they have already found their way to Prep. They do not announce their achievements with fanfares and call all the editors concerned to account. Isn't it about time that Fram stopped indulging in histrionics on the DYK discussion page? There are ways to improve the standard of hooks without trying to humiliate other editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you cant see the difference (and I assume since you brought it up you cant) between "the eggs of the coppery-tailed coucal are probably incubated only by the male of the species?" sourced to the Museums of Capetown and "both parents carry out nesting duties, but perhaps more by male" sourced to a book on cuckoos... It probably explains a lot of the quality issues. To quote EEng "Hooks are allowed to run when it's clear they're right, not when it's not clear that they're wrong." there were two seemingly contradictory sources so it was rightly pulled. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Did I really say that? How wise I am! EEng 16:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, if the book is talking about cuckoos generally, than it is not talking about the coppery-tailed coucals specifically, and "nesting duties" is that really the same as incubation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Who the fuck knows? None of the sources were going out on a limb on it, absent a Coucal expert showing up and saying 'Read my book/paper on it', the best we had was two useable sources which were both uncertain and which contradicted each other in part. Although from the discussin, the museum source was actually referencing a book which didnt contain the information anyway. Incubation is a subset of nesting duties which is a broader term that includes other tasks, given the difference, it should not have been used as the hook. There was probably other hooky material available. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Parasitic cuckoos are funny birds, aren’t they. Merrily slinging out the host’s eggs before they have a chance to hatch. And then voraciously devouring all the food the hosts bring back to the nest. It even encourages the host to keep pace with its high growth rate with its “rapid begging call”. It’s no wonder the other birds hate it and will even “mob” the cuckoo, tyring and drive it away from the territory once and for all. The poor meek cuckoo. It really deserves our sympathies, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. I think Delia has a very tasty “roasted cuckoo with sour grapes” in her Economical Bedsit Meals for One' (1990)?
That "rapid begging call" is not unreminiscent of the DYK bot telling us the Q is empty. EEng 16:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nah, you're thinking of mid-DYK-life-crisis. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Were not all the sources out on a limb? But no matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Just take him to Arbcom. That seems to be the ultimate way of removing people trying (in vain) to maintain some level of quality control in this project. Errors should be pulled, as noted above, in case they are trotted out verbatim by third parties. How humiliated would those users be if their erroneous hooks were quoted by others just to discover they were wrong? Fram's doing the project a favour, the sooner it's seen that way, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Agreed @Cwmhiraeth:. I made that exact same point above when he made the post yet it got ignored without any reply. At least when Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club got pulled, the person who did it had the courtesy to reply and allow me time to fix the issue rather than killing the hook outright. I do have to say that the fact that he claims he had to dig so deep to find a minor error to justify pulling the Zimbabwe hook (though I bet if we ran the other one, he'd look just as deep to find any black players playing for Rhodesia before 1965) suggests there may or may not be more than quality control he is concerned about here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was going to make some feeble joke about being "on the pull" but figured that EEng was better at that sort of thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that Fram is being purposefully disruptive to hooks that could often be fixed to his satisfaction with a simple word change or addition. Just make the change, stop pulling hooks. SilverserenC 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    Well you're wrong. Fram is trying to maintain a serious and high quality bar for the main page of Wikipedia. We don't just do "simple word change(s)" because the hooks should have been vetted by at least three editors before being posted. That's the problem, that despite these quality checkpoints, errors are still regularly being posted to the main page (your bold vs my bold). Pulling hooks is not a bad thing, why would anyone in their right mind consider a cautious error-free approach by pulling dubious hooks to be a bad thing? We're here for our readers not to succour editors who want to see their name in lights. If a hook is erroneous or even dubious, pull it and work out the root cause analysis as to why it made it so far. All the hand-wringing and exercised-and-furrowed brows at these pulls is wasted; focus the energy on reviewing the hooks properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    Many of the hooks he's complaining about aren't even wrong, he just dislikes the context. And I don't really care much about your opinion. You have a long, long history of degrading DYK in general and all the editors involved in it and you take every opportunity to complain about it. Honestly, i'm surprised you haven't been topic-banned from DYK a long time ago. SilverserenC 21:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    Odd, isn't it? Perhaps it's because I'm one of the few people, along with Fram, who care about the quality, the accuracy, the interest. It's not about "degrading DYK in general and all the editors involved", it's more about demanding a higher level of quality, a lower number of errors (seriously, right now you're talking about a 20 to 30% error rate in each set!!), so your little outburst is fine, I can handle it, and of course I'll be topic-banned in due course, but in the meantime, the apologists for the shambolic nature of most the DYK project should be suitably ashamed for the ongoing dismissive approach to the lacklustre quality demonstrated. Fram is doing you all a favour, trying to put you back on the straight-and-narrow, and the reward he gets is universal hatred. Shame on you all. I know you love your pet project and its hundreds of arcane rules, but seriously, we're talking about the main page of Wikipedia, not someone's blog. Make a difference, mandate quality over quantity, make reviewers accountable, stop the race to the lowest common denominator, work harder on "interesting" hooks (or stop calling them hooks). This isn't news. The project has been in the mire for a couple of years. Vive la revolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • With respect, TRM, that's bunk. You, and Fram, and some others have a remarkable eye for detail, which enables you to find errors that others may have missed. This is a useful skill, and I for one am glad you apply it at DYK. But the fact that you find errors that other people have missed does not mean that those same people: Cwmhiraeth, for instance: don't care about the errors. I can't think of a single regular contributor here who is simply interested in getting stuff on the main page with no regard for accuracy. And IMHO it is the implication that others don't care about accuracy that makes folks so allergic to your input here, or the comments that Fram makes. Surely errors can be pointed our without associated editorials about the motivations of the editors here, or the fate of the project as a whole? Vanamonde (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The only people who are having their motivations questioned are those trying to maintain the quality of the main page. With the current error rate of two or three hooks wrong or pulled per set, there is an endemic problem. Ignoring it is not going to solve it. I'm not interested in people's opinions of me, I'm interested in quality control. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And perhaps that is part of the problem: how people respond to quality control depends a lot on their opinions of you: in other words, the effectiveness of your quality control depends in party on what it is accompanied by, and insisting that the two are not connected is not helping anybody. Yes, DYK has its share of errors, and this is a problem that needs fixing: but you cannot create content without making the occasional error, and so equating mistakes with "not caring about quality" is not helping, either. Let's knuckle down and fix those errors, shall we, instead of insisting that every error is further evidence of how DYK is the very worst. Vanamonde (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Um, that's what we have been doing? This thread is a direct assault on Fram and his pulling of erroneous hooks. The ensuing discussion talks of the project as a whole. I don't think you're being reaonsable. I started numerous threads on problematic hooks and problematic articles and those have mainly been solved, so I don't think you can argue that I argue that DYK is the very worst upon the discovery of each of these. Personal opinions and differences should not get in the way of maintaining the quality of the main page. If that happens, people should think twice or do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The only time I discuss whether people care enough about accuracy and the like, is when they indicate in replies and reactions that they don't see a problem with an error appearing on the Main Page, or consider fact checking too much trouble for a one line hook, or show that they simply lack the competence to write about certain subjects since they can't recognise an error even when it is spelled out. In e.g. the two examples that started this section, I said " The source used for the hook did say "a decade", and it isn't easy to find a list of his national team appearances (or the squads for specific games), but it looks as if the "decade" was an exaggeration." and "The hook was sourced to a website in the article, but the current research seem to contradict that information." In both cases, I thus explicitly said that the problem was not that the hook didn't match the source (which happens often enough though), but that the source was contradicted by other sources. I made no comment at all (explicitly or implicitly) about the editors involved with these hooks, their attitude or competence or anything else. Note that in that 2014 discussion, I did not even name the editors involved, but another editor felt that the article nominator needed to be pinged (which I have done in similar situations since, but turns out to be another reason why I'm evil incarnated for some people). Not sure how that is evidence of my histrionics and trying to humiliate others, but there you go. Fram (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact you went to such depths to find a minor quibble with the article as an excuse to pull it rather than taking a better approach of making an alteration and leaving it, shows there is a little more than quality control here. If that hook is wrong, then you had better write to The Guardian newspaper and get them to publish a correction for "exaggerating". The correct thing to do would be to post on MPERRORS or here expressing your concerns first then only pull if there is consensus that it is too misleading rather than killing it outright. As you have noted before, some people might not share the feeling that such a minor thing needs to be pulled and can just be altered; but you don't know unless you ask. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You still confuse "the article" and "the hook". But that you consider "nearly 8 years" vs. "a decade" a "minor quibble" says all one needs to know. As for WP:ERRORS, why? All that does is slow down things. The hook was wrong, plain and simple (not "misleading", wrong). I have tried the "wait for consensus" approach, both at ERRORS and here, and too often this results in severe delays. It was in this case not an outrageous error, and I indicated that it was in the source, not with the nominator or reviewer. The hook was on the main page for about 8 hours, which was for years the standard time a DYK hook spent there, so what's the big deal with it not being there for an additional 16 hours? Fram (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanity: I promise I won't put a list of my DYKs on my user page (or add a "trophy chamber to it), put fancy DYK icons at the top of my user or talk page, add my DYKs to Wikicups and the like... happy? Oh, and "There are ways to improve the standard of hooks without trying to humiliate other editors." Yes, I suggested one such way to you a few times, but you have indicated that you are not willing to listen to that advice. Fram (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

When deciding on the heading for this thread I chose "Vanity" instead of "Arrogance" because it better described the thrust of the argument I was putting forward, - that you post here on the DYK discussion page in order to demonstrate how clever you are at detecting the errors that other people miss. I also considered heading the thread "Bullying behaviour", but decided to keep that one for another time.
I'm glad you like my user page. As a matter of interest, an IP told me you had been banned from posting at Jimbo's talk page. Is this true? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
And the relevance of this "matter of interest" for WT:DYK is ...? In any case, would you be happier if I simply pulled all errors without giving explanations here? Simply doing divine interventions which you had to accept on faith only? Or would you then be complaining that I was removing "correct" (because they were reviewed by three people!) hooks in an arrogant way without even notifying anyone? I somehow have the feeling that your problem is not with how the hooks are pulled, but with the fact that your many errors are found again and again in the first place. But I agree that you need a certain kind of arrogance to continue to nominate, review and promote hooks when you have been shown so often to be ill-suited for the job. You don't need to be very clever to find these errors, you just need some basic diligence and curiosity. Fram (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This user has pulled over 42 gazillion hooks (give or take a few) on Did You Know.

Just for you Fram, I've made up some bling for your user page :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and it wouldn't even break my promise made just above. Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
By failing to answer my question you've told us the answer. I wonder what you did to warrant such a ban? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
And the relevance of this "matter of interest" for WT:DYK is ...? Fram (talk) 12:29, 23 September 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.

"Descending into personal animosity" -- yes, it did seem like it was going a wee bit in that direction. EEng 15:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking for a moratorium on the Hillary and Trump hooks until after Nov 8 elections

I just recently found two articles with hooks about Trump. One already agreed to wait until after the election for it to be promoted, and I've just left a message on the other that is more political. WP:DYKNOT A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches). Right now, with both candidates, accusations are flying both directions about political affiliations, personal lives, anything and everything. Trump is under investigation because of his business dealings and political affiliations. Hillary is under scrutiny for her emails and every thing else. So the front page of Wikipedia doesn't look like it's covertly (or overtly) slipping in a POV about the election, could we please just delay any hooks about them until after the November 8 election? And, in fact, how about making it a blanket moratorium about any presidential or vice presidential candidate still in the running? — Maile (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea, but we need a bright line. Might be convenient to simply apply the "related to post-1932 politics of the United States" definition for the next 7 weeks (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29). Or maybe just post-1980 to cover the Reagan era forward. EEng 21:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If you're saying "US General Election Nov 8, 2016" describes the subjects to be embargoed, that leaves too much room for dragging up old scandals and headlines not directly related to the election. I again suggest we give wide berth by holding everything related to US politics post-1980. EEng 02:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd say, "topics related to any ballot issue or candidate standing for local, state, or federal office in the US General Election Nov 8, 2016, broadly construed. Any ambiguity in establishing consensus shall be decided in favor of embargo until after Nov 8." That should take care of Clinton/Trump and the rest. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It's only 7 weeks. I still think it's wiser to hold everything related to modern (1980+) US politics. EEng 01:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So what's our policy going to be?

I think Montanabw has it about right. I don't see much of a need to withhold articles about political events prior to the current election cycle, but if any come up they can probably be discussed here on a case-by-case basis. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about two hours ago, so here's a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through September 5. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 36 nominations have been approved, leaving 157 of 193 nominations still needing approval. The last few lists haven't attract many reviewers; I hope we'll do better this week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the seven that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over six weeks old:

Over a month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

US Election day holding area

BlueMoonset and everyone else, I have changed the special post-election day holding area to "November 10 or later". If Wikipedia is still doing only one set a day on November 9, at 00:00 time period, that means election polls will still be open in most of the United States for several hours past that time. It will still be election day in the US.— Maile (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

Prep 6 currently has no lead image (per removal of Rock-Olga two sections above). In my mind, it makes sense to change my nomination, Saltwick Bay, to the top DYK, as it has an image that I don't see why we're not using. Thoughts? Joseph2302 10:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets wait and see what happens to Rock-Olga. Problems seems to have been solved.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's see what happens. Peppersoup in the second slot also has a nice colorful image. — Maile (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The DYK for Rock-Olga has been reviewed and approved again. I suggest the article is placed back in the section it was before.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy for you, BabbaQ I just love it that such a great image will be on the front page. — Maile (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!Maile66. It feels great, and I agree the image is something extra :)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 26 September 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) 02:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Corrected error in hook on Main Page, then removed it completely as it turns out to be wrong

Not really, no. Actually, the correct hook would have been

Template:Did you know nominations/CMLL 83rd Anniversary Show @MPJ-DK, Cwmhiraeth, and Maile66:

I haven't verified the actual hook, I'm not going to sit through a 52-minute press conference in Spanish to find the moment this factoid is mentioned. But looking for a counter-example wasn't too hard.

Dragon Lee II, born May 15, 1995, Apuestas match September 2 2016, so 21 years and 3 months old.

Bárbaro Cavernario, born November 6 1993, Apuestas match won at CMLL 81st Anniversary Show on September 19, 2014, i.e. 20 years and 11 months old. Fram (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Going back over this I believe the reference was to the "mask vs. mask" version of the Apuesta, Cavernario won the "hair vs. hair" version - I should have used "mask vs. mask" instead of "Apuesta", damn. as for the two versions, I am not sure what you're saying? He is not billed as "Dragon Lee II", he is the second wrestler to use the name "Dragon Lee", his older brother was the first Dragon Lee. The "II" is for disambiguation purposes just like "(politician)" or any other article where there are multiple people who have used the name.  MPJ-DK  10:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please wait until you're out of public view before doing that, thanks. EEng 22:49, 27 September 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) 22:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed to fix Queue 4

When Queue 4 was filled from Prep 4, the top {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} line was not replaced with the necessary

As it says on the queues page when displaying Queue 4 now, "When the hooks are added they MUST be approved by adding {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the page; the bot will not update unless this is added." What we need is an admin to replace the DYKUpdateBot template with the DYKbotdo template as noted. The bot will not move Queue 4 to the main page without that DYKbotdo template. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't know how that happened BlueMoonset, I'm sure I replaced that line with DYKbotdo last night when I promoted the set but must have inadvertently restored the line somehow, my apologies. Now the sets are no longer aligned with the start of the new day, I'll take a look to see if that can be rectified somehow. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I have reduced the display time for this set by 3 1/2 hours using Template:Did you know/Next update/Time and will do the same tomorrow to bring the changeover time back to midnight UTC, otherwise the bot will take forever to get back to the right changeover time. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger

Issues resolved. Hook amply cited and carefully worded. New reviewer needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Democratic Alliance List

This approved hook was added to the Special Occasions holding area for "after October 9", as the Palestinian elections are scheduled for October 8. I fail to see how posting this before the Palestinian elections is going to affect that election. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, but I'm not keen on the notion of adding caveats to the rules for foreign elections, and I don't see what harm it will do to leave this one to run until after the election. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, better safe than sorry. EEng 01:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

... that singer Rock-Olga (pictured) recorded an album, Rock Olga Today, with three members of ABBA: Benny Andersson on piano, and Agnetha Fältskog and Anni-Frid Lyngstad on backing vocals?

Now then, the hook may be alright (although a little too much to go into Benny, Agnetha and Anni-Frid's various contributions in a hook), but I've read the article. Some things stood out:

  • "She was one of Sweden's first rock musicians during the 1950s." is a claim in the lead. This seems to be neither expanded upon or referenced in the main part of the article. It also goes on, in the article, to state "At the beginning of her career, in 1958..."
  • "She was a member of two bands Trio med Olga and Hafvsbandet." in the lead, but the article and infobox clearly states she also performed/was associated with "another rock band called Rockfolket".
  • "Her first hit song was a cover of "What You've Done to Me".[1] " - the song linked appears to have been first performed in 2012 by an Australian X Factor singer. There is no reference in that article to Rock-Olga or a version she may have performed".
  • "Rock-Olga performed the song "What Have You..." and won the competition..." is this, by any chance, the same song as previously linked to the Australian X Factor singer, just abbreviated and rejigged?
  • The infobox (and categories) claim she was born in Gävle, yet this is entirely unreferenced.
  • As is her birthdate.
  • The infobox and categories also describe her as a soul artist, yet nothing appears to be substantiate this claim in the article.
  • And finally, the ref used to source her death doesn't work.

I know we're all worried about getting the hook right, but when reviewing these articles, (and this one is barely above stub in size), it would be helpful to make sure that so many issues are at least picked up upon before the articles are in with a racing chance of heading to the main page in such conditions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree, this is not quite ready for the front page. I did a five minute search and found sources to give more details around her death and her career - including the fact that her song was a Paul Anka cover, not the song it mistakenly links to. With a little work it could get there, but it should not be in a prep if it's not ready. BabbaQ this is not to say the hook cannot be featured, but the article needs some work. Including all comments listed above by TRM. Since I speak Swedish I will try to help fill in some of the blanks etc.  MPJ-DK  23:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In 20 minutes and mainly by reading the provided sources I found several things that can be added to improve the article, it's already better than the Swedish version of the article ;-) The dead link confuses me though, even the website is not found, not just the link??  MPJ-DK  00:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it's possible for someone to take a look at the article in it's current state. I have done some work on it and I believe it's addressed all issues listed above and added in enough information to not be a stub article.  MPJ-DK  00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Helene Ripa

Sorry to harp on, but seriously, I'm looking at Helene Ripa in Prep 1, and I've made about eight or nine adjustments to the lead alone, this sort of thing must not be promoted prep sets. Come on guys, I know you're all trying to be inclusive etc, but articles should at least be written in basic simple English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I made a a few tweaks. Seriously. Promoting this kind of stuff is really not appropriate for the main page. Does anyone read the whole article that they promote? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You make a fair point on this, personally I will spend a little more time reading the article when building preps, I mainly focused on the hook and left article quality to the main reviewer, an assumption I will stop making.  MPJ-DK  21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
DYK articles do not have to be GA quality, the standard has always been that they can be understood, they don't have to be grammatically perfect so long as the meaning is clear. I didn't have any problems reading or understanding this article in spite of its obvious grammatical flaws. Could it have been better? Sure, but you could say that about almost any article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall making any such argument. Repeatedly claiming we're looking for Good Article quality articles won't just simply make it true. If you remove all the vowels from a sentence you can still parse it, but we wouldn't post that to the main page, so items with so many flaws as those I have picked up in the current couple of sets should not be being promoted. Please stop trying to equate basic grammar and spelling with Good Article status, that's really unfair on those of us who have worked extensively in that area. Because of the shortcomings, an iitem of this quality wouldn't be classified above stub in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
There have been some substantial edits since this was "promoted". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (iii)

" ... that the runway of the Akıncı Air Base was bombed during the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt by anti-coup aircraft to prevent the take-off and landing of pro-coup fighter jets?"

I mentioned, back on 16 August, that this blurb was somewhat bloated. It's pretty clear that bombing a runway is intended to prevent its use, so the final clause of this hook, namely "to prevent the take-off and landing of pro-coup fighter jets is somewhat redundant. Plus the endless repeat of "coup" makes the current hook somewhat tedious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but bombing an airport during a coup attempt is pretty standard. A better hook would be the plans to turn the base into a "democracy park" since it was bombed. Returning to noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (i)

Minor issue, but Prep 3 has the lead hook as follows:

... that Jordan (Wadi Rum pictured) has remained one of the safest countries in the Middle East, despite regional turmoil?

I see absolutely no correlation between the hook and the image, besides the geography. I imagine a more relevant image for a different hook can easily be found, e.g. even that airborne image for Akıncı Air Base trumps the currently irrelevant picture. Also, a modicum of concern over The Daily Beast as an WP:RS here, particularly as later in the article we read phrases like "he just doesn’t want to see the crazies replace him if he falls" and "the monarchy has always been something of a charity case". It looks like a decent article, but more of a blog than anything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the current precarious political situation, please steer clear of talk of "trumping" things -- some editors may become frightened. EEng 22:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello? Is this thing on? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
<sniff><sniff> This microphone is defective. EEng 19:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We have too many image hooks to run something this tangentially related in that spot honestly. I can see several image hooks that make more sense, here the image does not add anything at all. Move it to a non-image slot IMO.  MPJ-DK  19:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done Moved and replaced with another lead image. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (ii)

... that Hong Kong's 1985 victory over China in the China–Hong Kong football rivalry led to China's first recorded case of football hooliganism?

Do we really think a hook with China mentioned three times (and Hong Kong twice, and football twice), is hooky? And since when did football matches take place "in a xxx–yyy rivalry"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The hook is inaccurate and I'm returning it to prep. Teams don't play games "in a football rivalry". Rather, the rivalry is what has led to the first case of football hooliganism. Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
A minor grammar error that would be better suited being changed in the prep rather than the sledgehammer/nut approach. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@The C of E: For such a wholesale change of the hook, it would need to be approved by you and then by a new reviewer, rather than me changing the whole thing in prep. Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not much of a wholesale change when the crux is the same (ie. China's first hooligan incident), The only difference is that your change focussed it less on that match and more on the rivalry as a whole. That I am happy to support. Personally I'd have thought a better way to manage something like this would be make the change and then tell the nominator that you have done it. Then they can say if they approve or not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works, nor should it be. Besides, the project is often frequented by nominators who are chagrined by having their hook changed without discussion. Pull was correct, the hook was actually nonsense and poorly phrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The new hook has been approved, please restore it to the prep. The Royal C (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@The Royal C: since I wrote the ALT hook, I can't promote it. Yoninah (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam hook removed from main page

Template:Did you know nominations/Girolamo Maiorica @Mxn, Cplakidas, and Cwmhiraeth:

The source for the hook is [2]: the note referenced (note 25) says "The extant works of Maiorica are the only surviving Nôm compositions for which an author can be identified", and the body (same page) says "All but one can conclusively be attributed to a single primary author, Geronimo Maiorica". Fram (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: So what, is your objection that the hook should say "all but one" rather than "all"? Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
"The extant works of Maiorica are the only surviving Nôm compositions for which an author can be identified" is not the same as "all extant 17th-century Christian works written in the Vietnamese language's chữ Nôm script are attributed to". <removed per my comment below> Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
My objection is that once again an incorrect hook, contradicted by the source given, has been promoted to the main page. Fram (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay Fram, fine, I am just trying to clarify that your only objection to the hook is that it says "all" rather than "all but one". If so, I can restore the hook with the amended text. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
See my comment above. All extant is not the same as all extant for which an author can be identified. -edit- Although the source does explicitly say only 14 have been found, of which all but one were Maiorica's however the article says all extant. So both the hook and the article itself are incorrect compared to the source material. The hook does reflect the article content, if not the source's. Is it a requirement of DYK that the hook is fact-checked against the actual source? or just the article. -edit 2- From looking at the DYK rules it does not appear to be a specific requirement that the hook *supporting* is checked, only that that hook is required to be cited inline from a reliable source. In this case it was, but as the article was written, the fact was not supported by the source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but if both the article and the hook say "all but one", the issue is resolved, no? Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
There are some other issues someone might want to look at. I have amended the article to reflect the hook, but a section later down indicates only 15 of his works have survived. Given 13 of those are Nom texts, and he wrote extensively, that number seems off. The prose indicates that the 15 number refers to Nom texts only, which makes it more likely there is a counting error somewhere. My limited French is not up to translating the sources, but someone will probably want to check that. It could be a case of time-difference in sourcing. Earlier sources only attribute X works to him etc, later ones differ or vice versa. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Or you could just leave it off the main page. I don't get why an erroneous hook and article needs to be reposted to the main page as soon as possible. It has had its 7 or 8 hours of fame, it was wrong during those hours, now just drop it. The message you are sending is "never mind that you nominate, review, promote incorrect hooks, we will do all we can to keep it on the main page anyway". What's the benefit of this for anyone? Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well Fram, I don't get why you feel the need to continually pull hooks that have readily resolvable issues. As I've noted on many previous occasions, it's needlessly disruptive. You could have fixed the issue yourself and still brought it to this page for comment regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what is actually "disrupted" by not having that hook there anymore? As I've explained on countless occasions, if the hook is wrong, there is a fair chance that the remainder of the article needs further checking. Take e.g. the wrestling hook I removed earlier this week: at first I did what you propose, I corrected the hook in situ. Luckily I continued to check, and found that the error I corrected was only one aspect, and that the hook was wrong in other ways as well. If I had followed my instinct and usual routine of pulling it immediately, the wrong hook would have been gone a bit sooner. But in any case, my main question remains: what is actually "disrupted" by pulling the hook? Fram (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I decided not to restore the hook in any case because the set looks about the right length on my screen. Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "you're right, nothing is disrupted". Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
On this occasion the removal wasn't too disruptive, but that would be an exception. Gatoclass (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Then please explain what in general is so terribly disruptive about it. Fram (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not in the mood to have a sterile debate with you about this issue. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Then don't expect me to change my approach based on some unsubstantiated and "oh, but not this time" claims. I have explained my reasons, you have neither shown the problems with my actions nor the benefits of not pulling (or swiftly reposting), so i'll continue to pull hooks whenever they are wrong. Fram (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the point he was making was that grammatical errors or minor errors like that are better suited being fixed where they are rather than the sledgehammer to crack a nut approach and killing something off just because of a small thing that can be corrected easily. As for disruption, from a personal view that if you take out a picture hook, the quirky (last) hook or one that is long but interesting, then it can disrupt the flow of a set. Such as you may then have 2 wrestling hooks next to each other or two American BLPs next to each other which set building guidelines advises against. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't pull for grammatical errors. I don't pull for minor errors either. The difference between "all" and "not all" is not a minor error. Fram (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The difference there is one word, which could easily be added or removed rather than killing the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
See my comment above. The article would also have to be changed (which I now have) however it also appears to conflict with other information in the same article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I see no long-term benefit to Wikipedia in changing such hooks instead of pulling them. And seriousness of error obviously isn't counted in the number of words that need to be changed. E=mc³ Fram (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fram and Only in death: Thanks for spotting this error. I've corrected the Vietnamese Wikipedia article from which this article was translated. I'm pretty new to DYK and don't have much insight into the editorial process here, but note that the chosen hook was the second of three I proposed in Template:Did you know nominations/Girolamo Maiorica. The other two are much more defensible and read much better (fewer qualifiers). In hindsight, I should've triple-checked the facts mentioned in the proposed hooks. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

We currently have on the main page a hook about Battlebowl (Template:Did you know nominations/BattleBowl, @MPJ-DK, Coin945, and Cwmhiraeth:. The main source for this article (used 17 times, including for the hook) is a self-published book by Graham Cawthon (another self-published book by him is used one time as well). This book or the author doesn't seem to have been cited a lot by other reliable sources (which would potentially indicate the reliability of it despite being self-published. From WP:RSSELF: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine). The exception is "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.", but this doesn't seem to be the case here. Outside of Wikipedia, this book gets 42 Google hits[3], mainly from ebook sellers like Amazon.

Can we please try to check the sources a bit more carefully for DYK articles. The rules state that "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources", but this seems to be largely ignored.

I have not pulled the hook, as there was another source for this hook (although it is an offline source, and AGF hooks should be forbidden). Fram (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now removed the source from the article. It should probably be removed from all other articles that use it as well. Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources, second entry under "Websites proven reliable" is the website of book author Graham Cawthorn. The pro wrestling project has him and his site recognized as a reliable source.  MPJ-DK  09:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    WP:V with clarification at WP:RS are the required standards. Not an individual wikiproject. The section on self-published sources that would apply to Cawthon would be "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." If it can be demonstrated that Cawthon is an expert who has been published by third party publications, then his self-published material can be used for non-contentious claims that are not about living people (which as far as I can see he is being used to support historical material on events rather than individuals, may not be an issue). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    On more than one occasion I have banged my head against a desk after expanding an article, and while filling out the citation template discovered the Google Books extract I was taking the information from was published by lulu.com, meaning I've wasted my time and have to throw the work out. Anyway, the point is that if information is truly worth putting in the encyclopedia, it will exist in more reputable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    That is an unfortunate problem with some culture areas due to the lack of 'reliable' sources on it. Large parts of wrestling were just not covered in the 70's and 80's due to, I guess you could call it entertainment snobbery. I own Cawthon's history, I would personally call him an expert and reliable (having lived through some of it). I am not sure he qualifies per the strict wikipedia criteria of V and RS as I have no clue if he was published in the area by third parties (demonstrating other people consider him an expert) or it was a sideline for him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So I believe the PW project went through the process of assessing if Cawthon could qualify as an "industry expert" several years ago, which led him to be listed on that page. And no that page is not to just say "this is what we consider reliable" as if it superseeds any guideline alphabet soup people may quote - it is simply a way to help people if they question the reliability of a source they are not familiar with or to try and eliminate some of the clearly unreliable website sources some people use.  MPJ-DK  11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If they did I cant find a record of it in the talk pages. The only reference in the project talk appears to be the RSN request in 2015 by GCF which does make a case for the 'expert' exemption. However no real resolution to that discussion. There is an earlier one from 2010 that makes the same claim, but again little response beyond 'yes for basic information but not as a major source'. It may be worth re-opening a discussion at RSN and asking for further input. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The other issue is of course, Wrestling sources 'used all the time' have been knocked back at WP:FAC quite a bit due to not being able to demonstrate reliability per WP:V and WP:RS. WrestleView in particular has been rejected as a reliable source there in the past, and GCF uses that as an example of a site that has cited Cawthon to demonstrate Cawthon's expertise. FAC is much more rigourous a process than DYK so if they are questioning the reliability of the sources in general use, I dont think it can be dismissed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Who is dismissing it? I am sorry if my explanation of why it was used in the first place was seen as a dismissal, those actions are not synonymous.  MPJ-DK  15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that Charles Matthews preferred the trombone and skateboard to basketball in his youth?

So? How many of our readers have a clue who Charles Matthews is and why his youthful pursuits were more important than basketball? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The hook is suggesting that he's now best known as a basketball player and so it proves. Even if readers can't work that out, that's fine too because an element of mystery will encourage them to click through. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Two problems

I have promoted the University of Dundee Medical School nomination but am unable to archive it, presumably because of some template error.

@Cwmhiraeth: I re-closed the nomination. You accidentally typed "start" instead of "subst" on the first line of the template. Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. How dippy of me! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to promote bioRxiv, I get only a blank page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, there was an error on the nomination template which I have fixed. Be sure to refresh your browser first before clicking on the link, or go directly to Template:Did you know nominations/biorxiv—it was the difference between the upper- and lowercase "r" in the name that caused the problem. Let me know if you have any further problems with promoting the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Can proton radius puzzle be added now?

Per this discussion, can the proton radius puzzle nomination (found here) have the suggested changes done (using the suggested Alt2 proposed in the WT:DYK discussion), be re-checked, and be added into prep again, please? SilverserenC 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"A followup experiment by Pohl et al. in August 2016 used a deuterium atom to create muonic deuterium and measured the proton radius again. " The article still contains this basic error. Has it been rechecked at all? Fram (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I have placed the green tick. The statement about the followup experiment is easily fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

... that Dan III of Wallachia was forced by Vlad the Impaler to dig his own grave?

This hook on Prep 2 seems to be a good candidate for use on MainPage on Halloween. --PFHLai (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it back to WP:DYKN. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron's editing restrictions

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

  1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
  2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
  3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
  4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
  5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction. --Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this addition to the header section of T:TDYK really necessary? It feels to me like a scarlet letter. LavaBaron has agreed on his or her user talk page to note that double reviews are needed in his nominations and reviews, which is where the reminder is needed, so is a header notice necessary and appropriate? EdChem (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary given Lavabaron's commitment to add a note to his contributions, so have reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass - thanks, but I don't have an issue with it. It may be better for everyone involved if it was still in place. I'll defer to your judgment, though. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, EdChem, I very much appreciate your comment. However, by way of explanation, I don't have any issue with the header, personally. This restriction will eventually slip off other editors radars and I don't want to risk getting blocked if another editor doesn't notice my own warning notes and accidentally promotes anyway. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with being publicly exhibited in the stockade for awhile if the alternative is the hangman. I'm probably wrapping things up here anyway, so it's not really a big deal. LavaBaron (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity, I think LavaBaron is wise to include reminders on his nominations and reviews. Just because something is objectively unreasonable doesn't mean it won't happen, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, however, I was just blocked on accident the other day - which I've just learned can't be WP:REVDEL from my log and will be part of my permanent record as long as my account exists - so I would like to be extra careful in any edit I make, or any edit anyone else makes that may in some way reference me by name. (I apologize, in advance, for publicly disagreeing and if the preceding comment seemed insolent; it was not my intent to be but rather to observe a personal experience as a possible reason for maintaining the header alert so that as many people as possible know that my DYKs require extra scrutiny. I appreciate all the work you do for WP as an admin and will defer, without further debate or objection, to you judgment on this question.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EdChem you claim Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity..., could you provide an explanation for this including diffs please? As far as I could tell, most people who are pulling hooks are doing it based on the fact that they are erroneous, or ill-sourced or malignant. Of course, you could correct me if I'm wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I expressed my opinion. I am in favour of higher quality and minimising inaccuracies in articles on WP. I am not, however, comfortable with the discussions which come across as disdainful of the contributors and contributions to DYK. Examples, quotations all being from you, FYI:
  • "Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything" is the exact attitude of image patrollers who tag and notify when fixing the problem was as easy or easier, and ignoring the disruption caused. It comes with an apparent belief of superiority which is really irritating. That you can just pull a hook rather than fix does not mean that that course of action is appropriate or wise. Also, you signed as an admin who "participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page" but reserve the right to disregard the structures of DYK ("DYK rules are non-binding on admins", "I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK") - hardly helpful. Maybe things wouldn't be so oppositional if hooks were corrected rather than pulled (by all means discuss here or with the nominator / reviewers afterwards) or returned once corrected. You could build some goodwill by protecting the main page and advancing the goals of DYK within that broader goal, rather than always coming across as critical. Admins are supposed to be editors with extra buttons not rulers, and while I have no doubt you can make a case for being uninvolved, from my perspective you come with a pre-existing opinion and bias against DYK - you come across as disdainful ("DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation").
  • "... not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here" - good to see your healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here.
  • "... the review process is up shit creek" - this is an over-broad generalisation which does not acknowledge or recognise the good work being done by many reviewers. Take me, for example... I've never had a hook pulled from the main page (nor do I recall one from the queue) and I don't recall one of my reviews being subsequently faulted. I've noted problems with paraphrasing and sourcing and I believe I am thorough (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - you can look at all my DYKs if you like). In some cases, I have posted after a tick is given to address a problematic review. Is my work "up shit creek" too? Or are there people here who could use some acknowledgement and who can serve as examples for new reviewers to follow? The QPQ system has its flaws and I favour removing QPQ credits from poor reviews so that another review is needed for their nomination to proceed, but the flaws don't make DYK worthless. There is some high quality work done here, both editing and reviewing, and that seems to go unnoticed. For example, I am proud of this case where what was brought to DYK was inaccurate and low quality and what went on to the main page was much higher quality (IMO).
  • "The answer: slow the rate down" - you said this in the context of the JetBlue hook which you described as "dreadful and promotional" (an accurate assessment, IMO). You have posted repeatedly about section length and rate and built no consensus for change. I suggest that is, in part, because your approach leads to a high degree of defensiveness. I can't see why 8 hooks rather than 7 is a problem for DYK, and if that is better for balancing the main page then it is something that should be collegially achievable. Isn't it better for WP and our readers if we can work together?
All of the above are from the last two weeks or so. In that time we've also had a proposed topic ban at AN, and you are not alone in having an approach which I see as counter-productive. DYK has problems with reviewing, there is no doubt, and at times hooks need to be pulled from the queue and (sadly) sometimes from the main page - sadly because they shouldn't get that far - but what feels like a "gotcha" approach even in cases where a small edit would address the issue is IMO leading editors to feel threatened and attacked when what is needed is for them (and us) to understand how things get missed and to learn from mistakes. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually it got quite a bit of reasonable support, including from Fram. But your comment shows either a lack of the wisdom of self-awareness, or just plain hypocrisy, you act as if everyone who does not agree with you is suddenly a borg, when what's true is they just individually disagree with you and you can't handle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Off topic-discussion
Then I wasn't the only to object by a long chalk. I can handle all of this, unlike the whinging DYK owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Your whingeing ('to complain persistently in a peevish way') shows otherwise. Sure, the borg is the boogeyman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, I've offered several ways the process can improve, and indeed I actively engage in improving each and every DYK myself, including preventing copyvios being posted, including removing non-fair use images, including actually reading beyond the hook, checking for grammar and other minor improvements. I have no idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't surprise me. Now either focus on the discussion at hand, or chase me to my talk page to continue in your lame attempt at berating me, but either way, stop wasting time here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, you argue you don't know what people are talking about and then continue with extended arguments that are oddly excited and bizarrely preachy, wise up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I asked you nicely to stop wasting time here. Please continue the attempt to berate me elsewhere. Otherwise stick to the program, improving DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not wasting, anytime. Your way of asking things is decidedly not nice, don't fool yourself. Regardless, this is about improving DYK, as we are discussing the matter of proposing, discussing, and making changes in DYK. As your complaints persist about a borg in charge, here, you've been pointed to how to handle that complaint appropriately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I've really got no idea what you are continually going on about. I have suggested solutions and actively work on problematic issues here. You? Nothing but odd and meaningless analogies. Try to be part of the solution, and stop eating time here failing in beating me up for telling the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved hat this worthless diatribe? We can return to trying to fix the many problems, rather than bizarre Star Trek comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It just cannot be true that you don't understand you whine and complain the "DYK guardianship" or "regulars" "ownership" obstruct your proposals for reform. Just stop and handle it the appropriate way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Alan, you've missed the point entirely. Unlike you I make positive contributions to every single DYK that passes to the main page, sometimes I have to stop them because they're junk for one reason or another. Sometimes other diligent editors have to pull them because they're junk. Those of us concerned with quality will take whatever steps necessary. Now, I urge you, please stop beating yourself up and saying the same meaningless things over and over again, and let some capable people try to handle the problem, and that includes stopping this meaningless guff. Now, over to you for the final word (and then a (ce)) and we're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, here's my take, speaking as an on-again, off-again DYK participant: First, EdChem is right that there is a sense of a "gotcha" approach that does discourage people from reviewing and promoting DYK hooks. We fear being slamblasted for a good faith error and fear reprisals. On the other hand, if The Rambling Man spots a problem and removes a hook, groovy, so long as I'm not slamblasted for a good-faith error, I can live with that, he does a good job of spotting problems others miss and so long as he wants to do that job, I'm good with it. Similarly, when Moonriddengirl sends an approved hook bac for another round, she does what she does best. At the end of the day, I am fine if I make a mistake and others have to fix it, as long as it is acknowledged that I did the best I could at the time and intended to do a good job -- we all are human. But finally, having created about 200+ articles for WP, and about 50 of them have been DYK, I do hope that everyone here who criticizes content also creates it from time to time and so understands the challenges we face. (I know that TRM does...which is one reason why I'm not too upset if he has a high standard; I've done GAN reviews for his articles, and he DOES create content) Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Obviously, as my sometimes contributions on this page attest, there is no objection to re-running a review, where others take a look and find an issue that needs more discussion or reversal. Such additional review rarely need to be an accusation (or a gotcha) and in extreme cases where it does need to be an accusation, those should go to AN/ANI. And policy reform proposals should either be accepted or rejected here or at VPP, and then move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Query on editing restrictions

Deryck C., I was wondering about the fourth restriction, which starts with "(To balance the maths)". I initially thought this explanation meant the second QPQ would be requested to make up for having two QPQs used to review a single LavaBaron nomination, but the way this reads, LavaBaron's second QPQ can be of a nomination already approved by another reviewer. Is this what you meant? While sometimes this means simple duplication of results (as here, which would not normally be eligible for QPQ credit), it can mean LavaBaron finding issues with an approved review, which does help the process. Also, so far as I can tell, the first review doesn't actually need to start from scratch, but simply that the DYK review has not yet been approved/accepted, unless by "accepted" you mean "accepted for review (but not necessarily approved)". Please clarify. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your interpretation is correct. One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". Rule #2 has essentially side-stepped LavaBaron from the review chain, so I tried to find a way to balance out the reviewer effort while allowing LavaBaron to participate meaningfully and receive oversight at the same time. From the reviews linked above, I think LavaBaron has been using the requirements of his restriction to participate constructively, which is encouraging. Deryck C. 23:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
#4 is struck per discussion. Deryck C. 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Élizabeth Teissier

This discussion has been rendered moot by a sourcing issue. The discussion of hooks continues at the DYK nomination page, all input welcome. EdChem (talk) 05:10, 5 October 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/Élizabeth Teissier is our oldest open nomination, proposed by Adam Cuerden in June. The discussion amounts to 40 kB of text, and a resolution is needed. The only issue remaining concerns the proposed hook and the DYK Reviewing guide requirement to Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook. Teissier was awarded a PhD from a respected French university for work defending astrology, and both her thesis and the university have come in for heavy criticism. Before promoting to the queues, it seems wise to seek broader input on whether there is undue emphasis under BLP in the proposals. BlueMoonset and StAnselm have been expressing concerns in the nomination but seem to see my recent proposal as having potential. So, I ask the DYK community for views on these proposals:

BlueMoonset suggested that "[p]erhaps if you specified that these were Nobel science laureates, it would be less negative? The negative aspect seems to me to be more about the awarding university than the person who was given the degree," leading to the proposal:

StAnselm commented: "I don't think "in science or medicine" is a good addition. It makes no difference to neutrality, it makes it unwieldy, and it sounds like we don't know which field the Nobel prizes were in." So, Adam proposed:

And I add

I added this to address StAnselm's point about clarity while retaining the softening BlueMoonset suggested by including the laureate's fields; I also copyedited for brevity to stay under 200 characters. All input on the acceptability of these suggestions for the main page, and preferences between the alternatives is welcome. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Following further discussion at the nomination page, we've ended up with another tweaked version:

I invite StAnselm, EEng, and BlueMoonset to reconsider their preferences, if they wish. I also invite the nominator Adam Cuerden to comment, and as the concerns about undue negativity of a BLP on the main page are best resolved before posting, I invite Fram, The Rambling Man, and David Levy to provide input. I have chose these three admins as editors who have recently acted to protect the integrity of the main page and so can provide perspective on main page suitability. Opinions of all other editors here at WT:DYK are both welcome and encouraged. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 2 October 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.

This time I am hoping to get my nomination of Rico Harris approved in time for the two-year anniversary of his disappearance on Monday—I notice that the queues for that date really haven't been put together yet. If this doesn't work, I can always amend the hook to use a date later next week, as outlined in the nomination (And this time I made sure to do a copyvio check on my QPQ). Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Approved and ready to be promoted to Prep 6, which could use another bio. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hooks with pictures

Just curious, on what basis are hooks with pictures chosen over others? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's usually just a matter of somebody liking the picture. When I am building a hook set, I am also inclined to give preference to better-than-average articles for the image slot, all other things being equal, but I don't know whether others take the same approach. Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
What about the Jordan hook? Its both a better-than-average article, and a great picture. Certainly more interesting than an air-raid shelter at St Leonard's Court in prep3.. If not, well at least add the Jordan pic separately in another prep area. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Makeandtoss The image is always from the lead hook. Jordan was the lead hook when it was promoted. What happened to that is in This Thread. The people who commented in that thread are the ones you need to address your question to. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There are more image hook nominess than spaces, some will at times run without the image. In this case the hook was in no way related to the image, as pointed out in the discussion above. In my opinion that made it a more logical choice to run without a picture over some with more relevant imahes. No judgement on picture quality, just my opinion about the relevance of the image.  MPJ-DK  00:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Makeandtoss: In my opinion, a hook that was related to that image would have been a strong contender for the lead slot - maybe something like:
You would have needed to reference "Valley of the Moon" as an alternative name for the Wadi Rum and noted filming of multiple pictures like The Martian and Red Planet, but that wouldn't have been difficult, and I think the moon as a stand-in for Mars is nicely hooky. Too late now, though.  :( EdChem (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I was keeping that hook for Wadi Rum separately. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Where presumably you would use the same picture? For that it is logical and relevant to use it.  MPJ-DK  16:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

The lead hook should have a (pictured) after the subject, and I suggest adding "the" before the name of the plant. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Added (pictured), but "the" in that spot would not be necessary in American use of the language. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm no botanist, but I think even in American usage you'd say "the Australian Pink Rose is [etc]" or whatever, not simply "Australian Pink Rose is [etc]". The usual fight is whether to say "Economist John Smith" vs. "The economist John Smith". EEng 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking back through the archives, it seems it's been a bit of a mixed bag in the past, so although I'm inclined to the view that the definite article would be more appropriate, I think I will leave it as is. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah EEng, you truly are a a rose among the grammar thorns. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

... that the Grand Theatre was the first in Australia to be lit entirely by neon lights?

Now this may be what the sources used say, but neon lights don't tend to be able to be dimmed, nor would they usually be used in bars, toilets etc. Was the theatre really lit entirely by neon? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought about that, but its what the sources say, and I feared the Thought police would be after me if I promoted the hook without adding the word "entirely". There may have been theatres elsewhere in Australia that were partially lit by neon lighting at that time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 (Ensign)

The "ensign" hook, containing the phrase "it contained the Jersey Arms with Plantagenet crown" should probably be "it contained the Jersey Arms with the Plantagenet crown" (my emphasis). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Now at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 (volcano)

"... that Russia's Aluchin volcano is thought to have formed around 1000 CE?"

Now, once again I know that there's no requirement for an article to be a GA (before I'm reminded) to feature at DYK, but a quick read of this article led me to ask a few questions:

  • "The volcano was discovered in 1956–1957 along the Aluchin river, with another volcano being discovered in 1957 along the Bolshoy Anyuy river" the other volcano being relevant how? Or is this article actually about more than one volcano?
  • "The Alpha cone is composed out of two cones." grammar aside, this makes no sense.
  • " The cone is 70 metres (230 ft) and it has a diametre of 450 metres..." which of the two cones? And is this the "height"? It's not specified. And diameter isn't spelt that way.
  • "The Gamma cone is constructed by agglomerates" I don't even know what that means, but I am stupid, so perhaps everyone else understands it fine...?

These are all in just the first main paragraph (after the single-sentence "lead" paragraph). Again, I'm sure I'll be quoted a {{sofixit}} approach, but I honestly don't know how to do that in this case. And one minor point, the article uses the terminology of 1000 AD, not 1000 CE for the hook sentence. That should also be aligned. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There may not be a requirement to be a GA, but I'll work on these... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I think I got the dot-point-ed issues. The hook needs correction as well, true. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I have reported it at ERRORS because MOS:ERA states that the article should be consistent with the date format. If AD is used in the article then AD is what should be used in the DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I changed the article to "CE" to match the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you address the other issues relating to DYK at ERRORS please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't changed it to "the Plantagenet Crown" because I'm not sure if it is correct, but you can change it if you want to. I didn't change the Humphrey Stafford one because I couldn't see it on the main page, but I see it is in the queue - again I don't know if this is a legitimate concern and will have to look at the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I can't change that, hence my errors reports. The ERRORS page should incoporate a "next" DYK too, particularly as the set is protected. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the relinquishment of the extra bit, if I'm not mistaken there is now an additional permission specifically to allow template editing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I clealy don't have that enabled in that case. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Well I suggest you apply for it. I can't imagine anybody opposing, since you have always done plenty of useful work in the templates. Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, in the meantime it would be very useful if you could address the other issues, particularly as at least one is live on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1

Not an error

"... that the number of traffic collisions at the TEDES-monitored intersections and fast lanes in Gaziantep, Turkey, declined by about 40% within two months of its installation?"

If I am reading the translation of the source correctly ([4]), it says that the number of traffic collisions reduced by 68%, and the number of deaths and injuries by 40%? I could be wrong (the translation is vague), but ... Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hard to tell from that translation, but it looks to me that it refers to traffic accidents rather than casualties, ie "the intersection in traffic accident 40 up reduction was observed". Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I've got a better translation now - it says that 68% percent of accidents at Gaziantep were due to people speeding, and that when the TEDES came it, that reduced by 40%, so we're all good. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Date request missed?

I've noted that the Prep for 14 October has been filled, however it appears to have missed out Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Guernsey which was being held for that date for the 950th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. Could this be swapped in (preferably with the picture) so that the date request is not missed? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)  Done — Maile (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived just under an hour ago, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through September 6. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 58 nominations have been approved, leaving 147 of 205 nominations still needing approval. The last several lists haven't attract many reviewers; I keep hoping we'll do better. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 14 that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

Over six weeks old:

Over a month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we ought to close Élizabeth Teissier's DYK as being past its sell by date. I'd do it myself but I've already pulled the nom once. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I knew she'd never appear. It was just in the stars. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I unstruck it from the list earlier, noting that no conclusion had been reached and more eyes were needed. It was restruck without addressing either point. The article is ready and has been for a long time, the issue being the hook. Many seem to think "unduly negative" means anything negative, which is incorrect. We seemed close to consensus on a hook which directed the criticism towards te university, but ran into a sourcing issue, so I've offered an alternative which should not have the same issues:
Is this really unduly negative for an astrologer that was awarded a PhD contending that astrology is unfairly persecuted by science, to say that her work was critiqued and the awarding university criticised? Am I really so wrong about what is truly undue negativity about a living person ? EdChem (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's a fact, isn't it? Or does it allow en.wiki to laugh along at those silly French Associations awarding PhDs about pseudoscience? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and Automated Review

I like the new recommendation that nominators directly include sources supporting hook claims. However, doing so using the recommended format confuses the automated review bot: it read the hook "... that Gadis Arivia (pictured) established "Indonesia’s first journal of feminist theory"?" as being 476 characters in length (actual length: 92) owing to its inability to differentiate between the sources and hook, and left notification that the nomination had issues. Can we either a) use a different format, which won't confuse the bot? or b) teach the bot to ignore text prefaced by "small"? I'm worried that this discrepancy will confuse new editors. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Intelligentsium (the bot operator). Pppery 00:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Similar issues with this and this and I also found an unrelated issue with this (the {{EngvarB}} bit). - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I hope we can find a way to keep the source quote on the same line as the hook, since I think having the two hard together is essential to making sure they are consistent. It would be a cringeworthy hack (DYK machinery is already rife with such) but having the bot ignore everything starting with < small> would do the trick. EEng 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree EEng, I think the source should be on a different line, indeed each cited source should be on a new line, to make them easier to read. Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, < p> could be used to break the line between the hook and its sources, and between multiple source for the same hook, while still keeping it all in one parameter of the nom template. EEng 08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
EEng, why on earth would you want to keep it all in the one parameter? It seems to me that's just a recipe for having people forget to include it. The source should have its own field. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me that we'd change the template for something that's still in the experimental stage. But if people are for it I sure am as well. EEng 14:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have the technical skill to add a new field? I'm not really that good with templates, and I'd rather let someone who knows what they're doing handle this rather than crash DYK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I can have the bot ignore small text for now, but over the long term I do think it would be better to have a dedicated field (especially as many hooks do incorporate information from multiple sources). Intelligentsium 06:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you do exactly what you're saying: the quick hack now, and if the source-quote experiment becomes permanent, then create appropriate parms to accommodate. EEng 06:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I be topic banned from DYK?

Over at the TRM workshop page Fram has made certain proposals in relation to me.

  1. Cwmhiraeth is topic banned from DYK.
  2. As an alternative, allowing him to nominate his own articles, but banning him from nominating and reviewing, and from discussing all but his own articles at WT:DYK may also be workable.
  3. Cwmhiraeth is admonished for the use of personal attacks.
Comments:
  1. I think if Fram were to analyse my misdemeanors he would find very few of my nominations have hook errors. In the most recent 100 DYKs for example, I think only one was "pulled" by Fram, Notiomys, where we disagreed over whether owls or humans were best at catching mice.
  2. I am inclined to AGF not-easily ascertainable facts when reviewing hooks whereas Fram is dedicated to finding errors in them, so a few of my reviews are later proved to be incorrect. Most of the hooks that Fram has pulled with which I am associated are ones I have promoted to Prep. I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook.
  3. I would not object to being admonished for making personal attacks if Fram, having initiated the attacks, were also admonished.

Would others think these sanctions are appropriate? (Sanction 2 is pretty stupid anyway as it would enable me to continue building prep sets.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanction 2 should read "banning him from promoting or reviewing, thanks for catching that. The fact that you still don't understand what the problem with the Notiomys hook was, is very telling though. As for the personal attacks, feel free to provide your own evidence at the arbcom request. Simply accusing people without evidence is in itself another personal attack though. Fram (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
"I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook." Really? Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook has (among many other requirements) "4) Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." This clearly is not a thing only the reviewer must do, but the promotor as well. That you still don't get this (despite this having been explained here before) is yet another reason why you should withdraw from reviewing and promoting. Fram (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The last time the two of you banged heads here, I said go to ANI. Anyway, I dug around to see if you'd been there before and found Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. Rather than piggybacking on the back of TRM's witch hunt case, may it be worth reviving that thread on ANI instead? Neither of you are parties to the case, and Arbcom tend to toss out anyone who isn't a named party who hasn't been to ANI first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Arbcom made a case with a rather unclear scope, asking for DYK (and other) issues related to TRM to be addressed as well. Cwmhiraeth launched personal attacks at TRM and me, seemingly because he is often on the receiving end of hooks being pulled. Instead of removing one of the people maintaining standards on the main page, the more logical solution to prevent part of the problems the Arbcom case was about was to remove one of the people fighting the removal of hooks (and the people getting rid of the errors) and promoting incorrect hooks (as nom, reviewer and promotor). ArbCom recently admonished someone else in a case where they weren't a named party (IIRC), so I see no reason why this can't happen here as well. Cwmhiraeth's personal attacks were added in the evidence phase, and despite a claim that that bit of the evidence should be disregarded, no clerk or arb seemed to have any problem with it remaining. It is a bit useless to allow evidence but then to disallow FoF and remedies based on it. Fram (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I was specifically thinking of this (note I make no comment as to the appropriateness of that finding of fact, apart from "desysopped" normally has two Ps) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Please take this to Arbcom as a formal separate case, where after all evidence is presented, it can be dealt with fairly. To bog this talk page down with this issue makes it look like a personal spat that one or both of you are trying drag others into. And since most people here already have experience with both of you, pro or con, their views are subject to personal interactions with same. The appropriate place for this is Arbcom. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    No, the scope of the Arbcom current case does and should include examination of certain users on both ITN and DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, this kind of post could be considered canvassing. I should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

TRM is correct, this sort of proposal was always going to be possible in the ArbCom case framed as it is (and notwithstanding the name it has been given); it was nearly inevitable that some regular DYK contributors would be targeted. Also, to be fair, Fram and TRM are correct that there are problems with standards and referencing, and part of that is the failure of DYK to agree to an approach to erroneous reviews and promotions and examples of poor judgement - and that failure opens the door to ArbCom-style approaches where topic bans are a default "solution". Cwmhiraeth, ArbCom are not the type to be much influenced so showing them concerns here would likely have little effect on how they view Fram's proposal, and TRM is also correct that this could be taken as canvassing, which would be viewed unfavourably. My advice is if you want to argue against Fram's case, do so on the case pages with diffs and as dispassionately as you can manage. EdChem (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, thank you for your advice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pyst

MPJ-DK, Coin945, The C of E, just a heads-up, the Pyst DYK has been removed from the main page by David Levy after some complaints at WT:MAIN. I assume this renders the associated QPQ null and void, please ensure the appropriate arcane bureaucracy is completed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Reviewer did not chose hook, hook was not incorrect so I am not seeing why QPQ is "null and void"? it was performed correctly and in good faith - I chose the "Pissed" version. And by "arcane bureaucracy" are you actually referring to your modern day use of the talk page as the stocks or your misguided attempt to get a QPQ taken away for not making a mistake?  MPJ-DK  21:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    No, I'm simply reporting that yet another DYK has been removed from the main page as a result of poor decision-making along the way. What you do with that is up to you lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
No you're not, I assume this renders the associated QPQ null and void is not "reporting".  MPJ-DK  22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Setting aside the QPQ matter, I'm curious as to why usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to a quotation) was deemed appropriate. Does that strike you as formal prose, suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia?
Coin945 explicitly labeled the hook a "joke", and The C of E predicted that "it wouldn't be looked on too kindly outside of April Fools Day", but it was placed on the main page without even soliciting broader feedback (with the understanding that a non-joke hook could be substituted "if the no-fun police [came] knocking"). The main page isn't a playground, let alone one existing for the benefit of a tiny handful of people dismissively mocking the rest of the community. —David Levy 00:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not riding that tude' train.  MPJ-DK  00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Pardon? —David Levy 00:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in any discussions that is served with such a negative attitude that puts motives on people without knowing anything. So yeah I put it in the prep queue, you can ascribe whatever "motives" you want on me, it is a free country.  MPJ-DK  00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to my "dismissively mocking the rest of the community" comment? I was referring to The C of E's "if the no-fun police come knocking" remark. —David Levy 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to my reference to the hook as a "joke"? That's its author's description, not mine.
I've merely asked you to explain why usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice was deemed appropriate. —David Levy 01:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Good God Levy, what is the point of drawing this out further? Wikidrama? Someone tried to lively up a hook in a forum where that's demanded- DYK, as formatted now, invites trivia to draw in clicks. Instead of bashing other users for poor judgement, why didn't you review the hook before it went to the Main Page? If you didn't, time to drop the stick and move on. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Why didn't I review the hook before it went to the main page? Is that a serious question? Are you suggesting that I should personally check everything scheduled to appear on the main page, that it's unreasonable for an editor to express concerns regarding material prepared in their absence, or something else?
I'm participating in this discussion in the hope of gaining a better understanding of (and then addressing) the underlying problem that led to this incident. If you disagree that such a problem exists, you can express your opinion without attempting to invalidate mine and telling me to go away – a reaction indicative of the type of dismissiveness noted above. —David Levy 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Another stupid pull of a perfectly good hook because some spinster schoolmarm, or grumpy old man, complained. This isn't the first time that this particular original complainant has fussed about something perfectly fine and even amusing (something desperately needed throughout WP) [5]. EEng 02:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you can answer my questions. Why should usage of the word "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to a quotation) be considered appropriate? How does that constitute formal prose, suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia?
Also, please explain how it was "stupid" to replace a hook with an alternative version proposed by the same editor and explicitly deemed "the fall-back option" (to be used in the event of controversy) by the reviewer. —David Levy 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The main page isn't an article, and not everything in/on it needs to be formal prose. The purpose of a hook is to draw the reader in -- create "buzz", even -- and the hook under discussion did that (or would have, had the schoolmarms and grumpy old men been taking their naps pr taking their Geritol at that moment). The reviewer wisely provided a fall-back option because there's been a history of said schoolmarms and grumpy old men imposing their hidebound sensibilities on everyone else. EEng 03:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The main page is a gateway to the encyclopedia, intended to present material representative of the better content thereof. On what do you base the assertion that its tone is held to a looser standard?
Had the website in question (or a reliable source describing its article) used the word "pissed" in the relevant context, that would be one thing. For Wikipedia to say it is another matter entirely.
The hook's author described it as a "joke". That isn't how the encyclopedia is supposed to be written.
What I find most troubling, though, is that hook was run despite the reviewer foreseeing that "it wouldn't be looked on too kindly outside of April Fools Day". Irrespective of the hook's appropriateness or lack thereof, that's absolutely unacceptable. Persons compiling the main page's content have a responsibility to do so in accordance with a sincere understanding of community consensus. When reasonable doubt (or something exceeding it, as in this instance) arises, wider consultation is needed. Dismissive name-calling (a penchant for which the reviewer and you apparently share) is unhelpful.
As an aside, why do you regard the alternative hook as inferior? It avoided the issue cited above, despite containing essentially the same wordplay (better wordplay, actually, as it made sense in more varieties of English). —David Levy 05:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the main page is held to different (not "looser") standards than articles, because it has a different function. Hooks shouldn't be swapped out once they're on the main page because someone thinks one of the ALTs would have been better. There's has to be something wrong. EEng 05:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I referred specifically to the main page's tone. If I understand correctly, you assert that material appearing on the main page needn't maintain the formal tone expected of Wikipedia's articles. On what do you base this claim?
In my view and that of several other users, there was something wrong with the hook. We don't use descriptions like "pissed" in Wikipedia's voice. That simply isn't encyclopedic in tone. The hook was purposely written as a "joke" and accepted despite the the reviewer's knowledge that it was inconsistent with established consensus within the Wikipedia community. —David Levy 05:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
On what do you base the claim that the main page is supposed to maintain the formal tone of articles? Where do you see the "established consensus" that intriguing or amusing items cannot appear there? EEng 06:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
On what do you base the claim that the main page is supposed to maintain the formal tone of articles?
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view + ~11 years' experience editing the main page's content in accordance with consensus
Where do you see the "established consensus" that intriguing or amusing items cannot appear there?
Where do you see such an assertion on my part? —David Levy 07:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • NPOV begins, "Articles must not take sides..." The main page isn't an article. And no one cares about your mighty experience.
  • You wrote, "The hook was purposely written as a 'joke'...", as if there's something wrong with that. (I love your use of quote marks, as if humor is something you've heard of, but is still strange and exotic to your experience. See the green box at User:EEng#get the joke.)
I tire of this nonsense, as I'm sure do many others. Toodle-oo! EEng 08:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
NPOV begins, "Articles must not take sides..." The main page isn't an article.
Try looking past the nutshell tag and reading the first four words of the actual policy. Then proceed to the rest.
And no one cares about your mighty experience.
I'm not boasting. I'm answering your question.
You wrote, "The hook was purposely written as a 'joke'...", as if there's something wrong with that.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a hook provoking laughter. There's something wrong with a hook provoking laughter via a Wikipedia-manufactured claim absent from the sources cited. Nowhere in the website's article is the word "pissed" used. That's a vague, English-variety-specific slang description of the author's attitude, inserted at the expense of clarity.
I love your use of quote marks, as if humor is something you've heard of, but is still strange and exotic to your experience.
The quotation marks denote that I'm quoting someone else (not writing a description of my own). —David Levy 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I have long been aware that some users object to informal English being employed in hooks, the term "pissed" for "irritated" has become so ubiquitous and so broadly accepted that I am quite surprised to find there are still people who find it sufficiently objectionable that they want it removed from the main page. In normal circumstances of course slang terms should not be used but given this was an obvious play on words I thought it acceptable in context. DYK hooks are supposed to be eye-catching after all, and I thought this one a harmless bit of fun. I might add that the two news websites I most commonly frequent - both of them of the highest journalistic standards - frequently employ such playful headlines for their own stories. We don't need to be relentlessly serious in presentation in order to maintain credibility. Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, journalistic writing styles differ greatly from those of an encyclopedia.
Secondly, did you read the website's article? Its author expressed disappointment. This does fall under the broad meaning of the word "pissed" in American slang, but it wasn't the inference that I (or you, perhaps) drew. The use of slang terminology absent from the sources cited rendered the hook misleadingly vague. —David Levy 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
journalistic writing styles differ greatly from those of an encyclopedia. Maybe so, but the main page isn't encyclopedic content per se, it's an invitational portal.
With regard to the review itself, yes I did read it and I felt "pissed" was an accurate enough description of the reviewer's reaction. One additional point I think worth making is that use of the word drew attention to the pun in the game title itself, which otherwise might have been read as Pyst as in rhyming with "sliced". Having said that, I might well have selected the original hook rather than the ALT myself, I just happen to think that use of the word "pissed" in the given context was pretty innocuous. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so, but the main page isn't encyclopedic content per se, it's an invitational portal.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. The main page functions as a portal, but it's very much a part of the encyclopedia. Its formatting differs from Wikipedia's articles in various respects, but we aspire to maintain a consistent tone. "Pissed" is not an appropriate description written in Wikipedia's voice. (I don't object to quoting a reliable source's use of the word, given a suitable context.)
With regard to the review itself, yes I did read it and I felt "pissed" was an accurate enough description of the reviewer's reaction.
I inquired because you mentioned the interpretation "irritated". That was mine as well, but I didn't sense such a reaction in the website's article (not that our personal assessments constitute valid sourcing).
One additional point I think worth making is that use of the word drew attention to the pun in the game title itself, which otherwise might have been read as Pyst as in rhyming with "sliced". Having said that, I might well have selected the original hook rather than the ALT myself,
Indeed, the original hook emphasized the pun through the mention of "Myst". It also made sense in multiple English varieties, with the "get Pyst" wordplay evoking one of two concepts (irritation or intoxication).
I just happen to think that use of the word "pissed" in the given context was pretty innocuous.
I respectfully disagree.
But as noted above, I'm more troubled by the acceptance of a hook that the reviewer anticipated "wouldn't be looked on too kindly" by many within the community (flippantly labeled "the no-fun police"), despite the availability of a hook recognized as more consistent with Wikipedia consensus.
Like the rest of the main page's dynamic content sections, DYK part of a larger collaboration, wherein insularity is not acceptable. We all need to work together. —David Levy 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"Pissed" certainly isn't used in British English (it's "pissed off"), in fact I would go so far as to say it's unique in that sense to USEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That's an unsubstantiated assertion, but regardless, I'd be very surprised if Brits weren't fully cognizant of the meaning of "pissed" even if it isn't the most commonly employed variation of the expression in that country. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've never heard "pissed" used in that context in British English (and I consume a great deal of UK media). On its own, "pissed" means "intoxicated". —David Levy 15:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and I already stated, Brits say "pissed off". David is spot on, "pissed" means drunk. You know what they say about when you assume something, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Is isn't an "unsubstantiated assertion", it's a fact. In my 44 years I have never, ever, heard someone here in the UK use "pissed" to mean anything else but "drunk". Whilst I'm not bothered about formal tone, we do need to consider ENGVAR on the main page, like we do at ITN. Running something that doesn't make a lot of sense to a large section of the English-speaking world is not really a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Believe me, being British myself I was fully aware that "pissed" in the American dialect of English meant angry or annoyed which is why I agreed to it (Of course I would prefer the Queen's English being used universally but; when in Rome). But I did make it very clear, after my own Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands DYK was run as an AFD hook on a non-AFD day (my non-consent for it to be run outside of AFD notwithstanding), that I knew that there would be PC or no-fun viewers who might not have liked it. That is why I had said that the fall-back hook would be good if there was contention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the main point here is that it is unsafe to assume that English-language readers will understand such "quirky" hooks. Do not "assume" that just because Americans understand such a turn of phrase, that the rest of the English-speaking world (e.g. India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc etc etc) will do too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Equally you could have a hook that mentions bollocks and I'm sure most Yanks wouldn't get that. But the main page does state there is no preference with regard to WP:ENGVAR so therefore it stands to reason that while there may be some quirky hooks that the Americans specifically may understand, there will equally be quirky hooks later run, that the British clearly understand. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The point remains, and your own post qualifies it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
But the main page does state there is no preference with regard to WP:ENGVAR so therefore it stands to reason that while there may be some quirky hooks that the Americans specifically may understand, there will equally be quirky hooks later run, that the British clearly understand.
When feasible, the use of commonly understood terminology is preferred. —David Levy 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Everybody knows what "pissed" means in the given context. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I was responding to the quoted portion of the The C of E's message, not addressing this instance in particular. —David Levy 15:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Believe me, being British myself I was fully aware that "pissed" in the American dialect of English meant angry or annoyed which is why I agreed to it
Did you read the website article in question? As discussed above, its writer expressed disappointment, not anger/annoyance. Do you disagree with this assessment?
Dictionaries include disappointment in the broad American slang meaning of "pissed", but I've never known the term (or "pissed off", which is used interchangeably in American English) to refer to disappointment alone. The hook conveyed a misleading description of the website's write-up.
But I did make it very clear, after my own Flag of the United States of the Ionian Islands DYK was run as an AFD hook on a non-AFD day (my non-consent for it to be run outside of AFD notwithstanding), that I knew that there would be PC or no-fun viewers who might not have liked it.
Argumentum ad hominem. You anticipated controversy and preemptively belittled people's concerns through name-calling. Even now, you continue to dismiss actual users' good-faith input by attributing it to political correctness and humorlessness, thereby ignoring the actual criticisms raised.
That is why I had said that the fall-back hook would be good if there was contention.
I remain baffled as to why said hook – which incorporated essentially the same humorous wordplay in a manner that accurately reflected the source material, avoided inserting slang in Wikipedia's voice, and made sense in multiple English varieties – wasn't simply used instead.
This isn't about a quest to suppress naughty words or humor from the main page. In perceiving it as such, you've missed the actual issue and denigrated those who seek to address it. —David Levy 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Revoking QPQs

Regarding the invalidated QPQ, the hook was pulled so it's a logical sequitur that the QPQ is invalidated. This is something that's been overlooked I believe, and it might actually help focus the minds of the reviewers if QPQs are revoked and subsequent hooks promoted based on them are pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why should a separate hook be punished for the review of a previous one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It's very simple. If a QPQ is awarded for a review that is subsequently demonstrated to be inadequate, the QPQ should rightly be revoked, and any associated promoted hooks should be removed until a satisfactory QPQ is performed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No reason to invalidate a QPQ here. The C of E completed his review in all respects, validated all the hooks, expressed a preference for one and a fallback hook in the event that somebody further up the pipeline thought the preferred hook unsuitable. It's not his fault that there were several objections after it was promoted, and in any case, the fallback hook which the reviewer also verified was substituted. There might be an argument for invalidating an erroneous or incomplete QPQ, but this was neither. Gatoclass (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think any reason for hook being rejected from the main page or one of the queues should summarily render the associated QPQ invalid. The job wasn't done properly by the reviewer, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Being pulled based on a personal opinion (which is what happened here) rather than a policy based reason is hardly grounds for invalidating QPQs. Last time I checked, invalidating QPQs wasn't even in the DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I really can't agree that users should be deprived of QPQs over subjective issues such as personal preferences. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It was pulled, simple as that. Bright line. As for not being in the current rules, of course it's not, that's why the project experiences so many slapdash reviews because there's no responsibility taken for them, the absolute worst case is that from time to time these pulled hooks are listed at the Removed page. Otherwise it's business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • So Just reporting? Seriously trying to put this on the reviewer? He did nothing wrong, he provided a good review, he did not pick which hook went to the front page, and the other hook he approved was on the main page without a pull. I repeat the comparison to using this talk page as a modern day stocks. BTW you can invalidate one of my QPQs if it makes you feel better, I give you the 3-4 QPQ I had left over from the 70 DYK one that never ran. Feel better now? I know yuou did not get to punish someone who did no wrong.  MPJ-DK  12:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • And "not taking responsibility" comment is TRM ignoring facts to grind his axe with DYK. I took full responsibility for putting it in the prep, any "punishment" for this should go my way.  MPJ-DK  12:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
A crystal ball
  • Is the reviewer supposed to have a magic crystal ball to forsee that other users may object to the wording of a hook later on, even after another user promotes the hook? At the nomination, the reviewer even proposed using the first hook in anticipation of a potential disagreement about the wording. The nominator at the discussion also agreed with using ALT1. I don't feel that the The C of E's QPQ should be invalidated. North America1000 12:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF. That they were later rescinded is not the sole criteria. I understand the quest for 'bright lines', but sometimes that doesn't apply. This should not be an exercise in retribution. Rather, we are looking for good faith compliance.
This problem only arises if the approval has bounced in some form. If it successfully ran on the main page then the QPQ is conclusive. It only arises when we have relatively close in time reviews and QPQ use.
In any event, if there is a problem it should be called to the nominator's attention and they should be given a chance to explain, correct the earlier one, or substitute another QPQ. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a generic suggestion. Sure, if reviewers are content to pass a review and then ignore the fact that hooks get substantially changed afterwards, that's one issue. But a much larger issue is that of mediocre or sub-standard reviews going uncorrected. Currently there is no remedy for users who do not fulfil the requirements of QPQ properly, in so far as hooks they review are removed from preps, queues or the main page due to errors, one category being "factual accuracy". I know it's hard to take, but it's one of those things, if we continue to accept mediocre reviews, we'll continually see mediocre results. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidrama!

A hook on the Main Page as reworded, then the day passed and it fell off altogether, but the trauma continues, because life is unfair. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely wrong. This project needs a lot of help with errors, unexpected results from clicking on hooks, badly phrased hooks, dull hooks etc. David's pull was fine, we need to appreciate that things aren't the same the English-speaking world over, nor should we assume that everyone speaks American English. They don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The pull is fine, but this has been drawn out an insane amount (not just by David, don't get me wrong; we have a whole unnecessary and loud QPQ kerfuffle), and in the meantime, no one noticed DYK hadn't been updated for hours. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
DYK is updated once per day. What are you talking about please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Per day, or per 29 hours, in this case. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Big deal. Better to get it right than to rush it through. So your point is? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you under the impression that this was an isolated incident (as opposed to a reflection of an underlying problem that I seek to address)?
Did you bring up my former username for some reason in particular? —David Levy 20:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Doubtless a perceived power trip that has backfired monumentally. Old Ribbet has his skeletons, but we're far too polite to bring them up. Best for everyone to close this down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What's involved in a QPQ check?

I am seeking input on what is / should be standard practice in checking the QPQ requirement when doing a review. As an example, I have just done this review of Tom King (footballer) where the nominator (EchetusXe) had this review of Moise Poida as their review satisfying their QPQ requirement. In my review, I noted that the Poida QPQ review does not saying anything about a copyvio check, and the hook it describes as interesting is of the format "... that SOCCER PLAYER 1 has played against SOCCER PLAYER 2?" I know the 'interesting' requirement is an unsettled area, but my question is what I should be doing as a reviewer in checking on QPQ. Am I supposed to be just (as the bot does) whether a review has been done? Am I supposed to evaluate its quality / completeness? If I have concerns, do I comment at the Poida review as well as in my review of the King nomination? I also raised concerns about the proposed King hook, and would welcome other perspectives. Am I just overthinking? Thoughts / Opinion / Advice / etc. welcomed. EdChem (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think the QPQ review was complete enough, you should say so at the Tom King nomination and not pass it until a QPQ has been completed to your satisfaction. I would not take hook interest into account when determining whether somebody has satisfactorily completed a QPQ though, because hook interest is a matter of opinion and somebody may legitimately have a different view. Rather, if I thought the hook was uninteresting I would leave a note at that review, but I don't think I would be suspending the King nomination for QPQ non-compliance on that basis alone as that would essentially be imposing your opinion about hook interest on the other party. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, a QPQ review is supposed to check all of the various DYK criteria, which are helpfully shown above the edit window when updating the nomination page with, say, the QPQ review. If a review fails to mention any significant checks, like copyvio/close paraphrasing, neutrality, or image checks if an image is submitted, then it needs to be revisited so those criteria can be examined. I just found a copyvio in a DYK nomination that hadn't mentioned doing that check, and in addition to pointing out the issue there, I also disallowed the QPQ credit claimed by the reviewer, superseding that nomination's approval as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, thanks for that advice (and Gatoclass too). What is unclear to me, though, is whether in verifying a QPQ credit I am checking whether the other reviewer has addressed the criteria, or wether the review is correct by re-checking all the criteria myself. In my above example, I am concerned as the QPQ review mentions nothing about a copyvio check but I have not checked myself for a copyvio. Should I just mark the QPQ nomination with an "aspects missing" note so it is not promoted in the meantime? Also, BlueMoonset mentions disallowing a QPQ-credit - will you please tell me more about that? I think QPQs should be disallowed for cases of poor reviews (though not in the case TRM is complaining about below, which is why I am not asking about this in that thread). EdChem (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I'd appreciate your thoughts here when you have a moment. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to recheck someone else's QPQ (no need to re-review it yourself), just note whether it was complete—did it cover all the DYK criteria or not. If not, then the QPQ needs to be expanded upon, and assuming the reviewed nomination was given a tick, that tick needs to be superseded by another icon to prevent the nomination's promotion. By disallowing the QPQ credit, I meant that the inadequate review did not qualify as a QPQ, though if it was later supplemented to cover all the DYK criteria, it would then qualify. (Or another QPQ could be submitted in place of the inadequate one.) I'm not sure what we can do if the QPQ problem isn't discovered until after the article has been approved, promoted, and run. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

My DYK activities

Re-closing. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:33, 3 October 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.

Enough already. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 3 October 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.

This is a table illustrating the last three months of my activity at DYK as it relates to Fram's actions. I hope it is self-explanatory and I place it here to set the record straight.

Header text Articles promoted
by me in July		 Articles promoted
by me in August		 Articles promoted
by me in September		 Total
Prep 1 50 26 10 86
Prep 2 46 30 14 90
Prep 3 58 23 15 96
Prep 4 32 24 17 73
Prep 5 41 20 20 81
Prep 6 27 12 21 60
Total hooks promoted by me 254 135 97 486
Total hooks promoted by me
and pulled by Fram		 0 4 7 11 (2.3%)
My own hooks appearing
on main page *		 43 42 18 103
My own hooks
pulled by Fram		 1 0 0 1 (1%)
Hooks I had reviewed
pulled by Fram		 0 3 2 5 (4%)
Total hooks appearing
on main page*		 434 398 240 1072
Total hooks to which I contributed
that were pulled by Fram*		 1 7 9 17 (2.4%)

Notes

  • Based on 31x14 hooks in July, 25x14 + 6x8 in August and 30x8 in September. There were probably fewer hooks than this because of occasional delays in loading queues.
  • Based on my 103 DYKs, I would have done 103 QPQs, but in fact I do a number of voluntary extra reviews and so the total is probably at least 125.
  • For details of which hooks were pulled by Fram, and how the figures were obtained, see my sandbox1.
  • The total here is 11 hooks that I have promoted during the months of July, August and September 2016, and which were pulled by Fram, 5 hooks that I have reviewed and approved that were pulled by Fram and one hook (Notiomys) that I have nominated that was pulled by Fram. There have been a few other hooks that I promoted that were returned by other editors to the nominations page, but these editors do not publicise their actions in the same way that Fram does so are harder to track down.

I am really rather angry with Fram. Despite the tiny proportions of poor promotions (2.3%), reviews (1.6%) and nominations (1%), Fram has repeatedly been emphasizing my incompetence on this page, chose to blame me for the problems at DYK and tried to get me topic banned from DYK at the TRM case. Fortunately for me, ArbCom has more sense than to follow Fram's proposal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's nice you are wagging your e-peen and stroking your ego but all this means nothing when repeated errors occur. You also really should not feel as if you got any sort of blessing just because something between uninvolved users in a case is not reviewed and/or adressed. For me as a simple reader that tried to peek behind the veneer of wikipedia DYK is a shambles and quite frankly, the joke pages. No offense to anyone personaly of course but it is my oppinion. Now surely someone will take massive offense by what i said and probably remove it but watching this page for a few weeks now... its just getting pathetic by ALL involved. Ego battles and little else yet no part of the Wikipedia is about any of you and can go on without any of you. It's about the reader and nothing else. Regards, a disillusioned reader 91.49.71.28 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I, too, am perplexed to see this kind of outburst. You're not being dealt anything at Arbcom, so why not just let it slide and instead work on reducing the error rate? After all, that's pretty much all Fram and (formerly) I want. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Plus, I hardly edited in July (and not during some periods in August as well). Looking only at August and September, we get 16 of 638 hooks being pulled by me (how many by others?), which is closer to 2.5%. And this doesn't count things like The vulture and the little girl (Template:Did you know nominations/The vulture and the little girl), which you reviewed and approved, after which Yoninah noted that "There is close paraphrasing from several sources.", and after which I removed a hoax part(!) from the article[6]. Fram (talk) 07:12, 3 October 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.

(Post-archive edit conflict, important to note that the table above is clearly incorrect) Looking more closely at your table, you are giving "Total hooks to which I contributed
that were pulled by Fram*", but you achieve that number by counting the number of hooks I pulled with which you were involved (17, I haven't checked the numbers), compared to the total number of hooks that appeared on the main page in those the months, no matter if you were involved or not (or do you claim that every hook that appeared on the main page in those three months was either nominated, reviewed or promoted by you?). Basically, you "accidentally" took those numbers that resulted in the absolute lowest error rate for you, instead of presenting reality here. Looking back over the archives, it is obvious that I pulled or corrected hooks where you had no involvement at all, like Template:Did you know nominations/Freda Corbet, Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Burris, Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger, Template:Did you know nominations/Amafufunyana... So the percentage of errors you were involved with rises again. Next, you only counted hooks I pulled from the Main Page, not hooks pulled from prep or queue? Another inclrease of your error percentage probably... I'll better stop, or my method will give a 100%+ error rate, and that wouldn't be realistic either :-) Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The table above was posted here for the record and archived before I had a chance to respond to anything. I have corrected the sandbox link and altered the percentage figure that was disputed from 1.6% to 2.4%, based on 17 hooks out of a total of 714. The pulled hooks were from the main page, queues and preps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 4 October 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.

Kalanemi (Ramayana)

I've resolved Template:Did you know nominations/Kalanemi (Ramayana) from July 25. Is this sufficient for a QPQ credit? EdChem (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Normally, I would expect somebody to check all aspects of a nom in order to qualify for a QPQ, but given that you resolved the remaining issues on a long-delayed nom and it has already been promoted, I personally would be prepared to make an exception in this instance, though others may differ. Gatoclass (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Gatoclass. I'm not looking to push the envelope but it seems to me that some of the oldest noms will be addressed more readily if there is some recognition where it is appropriate. I looked at the top of the list and (as you are probably aware) have tried to push forward Adam Cuerden's nomination for the controversial PhD, I'm still trying to get a suitable hook for the Russian gay propaganda law (and I think we are close), and I've resolved the Kalanemi one and the Severn railway bridge one. Where suitable credit is available (like QPQ from Kalanemi and DYKmake for the gay propaganda), I'm in favour of it - but only within the consensus of the project, obviously. Hence my posting, looking for views. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, I suggest you just claim it as a QPQ and if it gets queried, refer back to this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2: Heaven and Hell?

Just noticed in Prep 2 we have the Church of England as the lead hook, yet right at the bottom we have reference to a satanic prayer. Is this an intentional contrast between good at the top and evil at the bottom or an unfortunately risky coincidence? Personally, I'm not too sure we should really be mixing a Christian hook and a satanic hook in the same set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? EEng 10:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Even if it was unintentional, it's an interesting pairing (both mix religion and legislatures, which is a rare coincidence) which I think we should retain. GRAPPLE X 10:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The Hell hook may be another good candidate for use on MainPage on Halloween. --PFHLai (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point PFHLai, but we don't seem to have a Halloween section on the nominations page, is it being maintained somewhere else? Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, adding special occasion dates like Halloween usually aren't done until there are hooks that should be saved for them, though sometimes someone opens the date in the expectation that hooks will follow. Please feel free to add an October 31 header in that section (it shouldn't go or be anywhere else); I think, however, that nominators should be allowed to decide whether their hooks are saved for Halloween, and be able to request that they be returned to prep right away if that's their preference. Pinging Borsoka for the Dan III of Wallachia hook, and Dustinlull and Sgerbic for this Sohor hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Suhor's page really needs to be listed on the Halloween themed DYK, I don't see it as a Satanic issue, but a Church/State issue. I do like the idea of themed DYK's, just don't think the Suhor page belongs there. BTW I don't think Satanists really believe in Hell, Suhor is an Atheist, so no belief in a God or Gods either. But whatever is decided, I'm fine with.Sgerbic (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with what Sgerbic said above: This is not a Halloween topic, but rather a church/state issue.Dustinlull (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I think listing of Dan III of Wallachia on the Halloween themed DYK is a good idea. Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka, I've just moved Dan III of Wallachia to the Halloween DYK holding area. Thanks for your quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, please repromote the Suhor hook to prep per the nominator and creator. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I took care of that. Now on Prep 5. --PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sgerbic, you are correct of course that your article concerns a Church/State issue, but when selecting hooks for a "theme" day, it is considered sufficient if the hook merely contains an element relating to the theme, regardless of the subject of the hook or the article. It would in other words be perfectly in keeping with usual practice to run a hook mentioning "Satanic prayer" on Halloween, so I would still like to run it on that day if you have no objection. Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, both Dustinlull (nominator) and Sgerbic (creator) have already expressed a preference that it not be run on Halloween. If both agree to change their minds, that's fine, but until and unless both do, it should remain in prep where it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed from prep once again

This time from prep6 (it was already in prep 2 and prep5, I believe). I don't know whether the hook was correct or not, but the promotion clearly wasn't done correctly.

Template:Did you know nominations/David Suhor @Sgerbic, Dustinlull, Gronk Oz, SojoQ, Cwmhiraeth, Gatoclass, and PFHLai:

Problems:

  1. Cwmhiraeth reviewed and promoted Alt1
  2. A source quote for Alt1 is provided in the DYK nomination: "Source:"On July 14, 2016 Suhor (now recognized as the co-founder of the local chapter of the Satanic Temple) sang a Satanic invocation before the City Council.[1]" The problem is that this quote is taken from the Wikipedia article, not from any separate source.
  3. The source given for the alt in the article, nor the additional source in the DYK template[7][8] mention anything being sung. There is a "prayer", an "invocation" being "delivered" or "given".

Now, there may well be other sources indicating that this was sung, but this can't be determined from the article nor the DYK nomination, so this should not have been promoted, and certainly not by the same person reviewing the hook.

I'm also not convinced that having a 400 word quote and a 200-word quote isn't serious overkill and more a copyright violation than true fair use, certainly considering that the two quotes are not the subject of much controversy or discussion (unlike the satanic invocation which is not quoted in the article). Fram (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Fram, it isn't prohibited to promote a hook you reviewed, it just isn't considered best practice, that's all. Regarding the singing - I think you are wrong about this because I checked that out myself only the other day and I'm sure there is at least one source that says he sang it (in a "mock Gregorian chant" if I recall correctly) and there is also video of the event which I didn't look at but which presumably also confirms it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's a source which confirms it.[9] Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass:, you're wrong, it is prohibited. "Nominations may only be promoted by uninvolved parties who were neither the article creator, nor the nominator or reviewer." And please explain to me: "Regarding the singing - I think you are wrong about this": what was it I said that was wrong? Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
That should have been @Gatoclass: of course... Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Fram, you said it "couldn't be determined from the article", but the article contains at least two sources that say he sang it. And if that isn't good enough for you, here's a video of him singing it.
Regarding the quote about promotion, I don't know where you got that from but it isn't correct and is contradicted elsewhere in the rules. This would seem to be another case of elements of the rules not being up-to-date with actual practice. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I meant "from the sources following the hook sentence in the article", not the article as a whole. I thought that was clear in the context of the full sentence, but apparently not. Please indicate where in the rules "reviewing and promoting by same person" is allowed, and how you determined that that was the right rule and my quote was a wrong one. Just saying that my quote "isn't correct and is contradicted elsewhere" is just a bit too easy. Fram (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Fram, WP:DYK/G states: Avoid selecting your own suggestions. When possible, it is also best to avoid selecting the same article that you reviewed. Also, Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas states: When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. So our rules are once again inconsistent. No matter, combining reviewing and promoting is something that should at least be "avoided" and at most is prohibited, so a good idea it certainly wasnt'. And this hook is an example in case, as the hook was not supported by the sources that supposedly should support it, and no one even noticed that the quote given in the nomination (which is a new and in theory good idea) didn't came from a source but from our own Wikipedia article. Two separate people making that same mistake of not noticing either of these problems would have been at least a lot less likely than one person taking on the two roles. Fram (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I honestly don't know when it is not possible to avoid promoting a hook that one has reviewed. It shouldn't ever be necessary—maybe if we're down to half a dozen approved hooks, but I can't imagine a situation when another hook would not be available. In actual practice, we've treated it as tantamount to a prohibition here for years, even if not specifically written down as such, and we've reverted approval/promotions in the past. From my earliest days here, it's been considered desirable to have a new set of eyes at every stage in the DYK process. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It might be "possible" to avoid it, but that doesn't mean it's desirable - if a hook is the best fit for a set, then that's the hook that should be promoted. It's a nice idea in theory to have different users for every stage of the process, because that should theoretically lead to better quality control, but the reality is that there's little evidence of it doing so. The bottom line is that there's no substitute for a thorough review at some stage of the process, and set builders are in the worst possible position to provide that. I think the current wording has got it about right - promoting articles you personally have reviewed should be avoided if you can reasonably manage to do so, but I think outright prohibiting it is just going to add more red tape and more work to the tiny number of already overburdened contributors who keep DYK running. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Back in the day when there weren't that many approved hooks in reserve, it was harder to avoid hooks that you'd approved. Nowadays, with 30 to 80 hooks awaiting promotion, it's doesn't take much extra effort to find one you haven't reviewed. Get down into the teens or below, and it does become a problem, but not otherwise. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: I did not review this nomination. It may have escaped your attention that the original hook was reviewed and approved by Gronk Oz. I then queried the second half of the hook and ALT1 was merely the first half of an already approved hook, the part I had queried having been removed. On that basis I replaced the tick and later promoted the nomination (it had already been hanging around for two months). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I know you didn't actually review the nomination. Why you then gave it a green tick and promoted it is beyond me, as both reviewers and promotors have to check the hook. Whether the hook was a day, a week or a month old is of course totally irrelevant, we shouldn't lower the standards of review because a nomination is older than most. You are the most active promotor, so if you don't know what you should do (or know what you should do but can't be bothered) this means that the two-level check we normally have is now effectively reduced to a one-level check. Oh, and the original hook was not approved or reviewed by Gronk Oz... Fram (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You are correct, the original reviewer was SojoQ and not Gronk Oz. I would have thought you might congratulate me rather than condemn me for my actions in connection with this nomination. ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron's editing restrictions - review

There is rough consensus that it wouldn't be in the community's benefit to renew the DYK participation restrictions on LavaBaron in case of his return to the English Wikipedia. Some editors opined that LavaBaron's contributions were problematic even up till his retirement, but reasons to let the restrictions expire include the inherent difficulties posed by these restrictions and the fact that LavaBaron had obeyed the restrictions "with some dignity". The restrictions are therefore considered expired. Deryck C. 12:08, 24 October 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.

Introduction

On 8 July, the following DYK participation restrictions were given to LavaBaron as a result of a previous AN thread:

  1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
  2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
  3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
  4. (rescinded on 16 August)
  5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

It has been 3 months so I'm starting this discussion to review the editing restrictions. The options would be rescind restrictions, continue existing restrictions (for another specified duration), or enact alternative restrictions. Since I'm not a regular DYK participant, I'm neutral on this matter.

This thread is cross-posted to both WP:AN and WT:DYK by transclusion. Deryck C. 14:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments

LavaBaron has retired, so I think this discussion is moot. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess we still have the question of "what do we want to do if he comes back". Deryck C. 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Deryck, indeed Wikipedia has a long history of editors who "retire" and then return. One thing I would suggest is to not return to the well-intentioned retriction that any review done by him needs to be checked again by another editor. Let's not go down that road again for any individual. It punishes good-faith nominators who had nothing to do with the situation. Our system is clogged enough now. What happens if he chooses to go the route of Clean start? — Maile (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • While he was still editing, LavaBaron obeyed the restrictions with some dignity. I would suggest that the restrictions are lifted entirely in the hope that he may return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Let bygones be bygones. We have had too much anger on this talk page already. Let's just focus more on collaborative editing with whoever willing and ready to work. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hardly moot. In past times, when people have left while restrictions were still in force, they remained in force on their return, which prevented some problems. There were about five weeks remaining in the three-month restriction when LavaBaron retired; I think the remaining five weeks should run if/when he returns. There were some problems with his reviews while he was still under restriction, and I'd like to see that problems have become a thing of the past before they are ended. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I must agree with BlueMoonset. The remaining five weeks of restrictions will act as a test of whether LB understands the problems that led to their being put in place. EEng 18:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the time is up and LavaBaron has caused no more problems, I suggest lifting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 11 October 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.

Prep 2

" that Jingdezhen, though a remote mountain town, has been the largest producer of Chinese porcelain (example pictured) for over 600 years?"

Minor point: the reference used to cite this claim is from an offline 1991 source, so 24 years out of date. It would seem, if the intent of the hook is to establish that it is still the largest producer, that a more up-to-date reference should be sought. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Moot point, Fram has removed the hook for another reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Any China tourism site, which most editors in this area seem to prefer as sources, will tell you it is still "the world capital of porcelain". Vainker's book is still a standard introduction. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't doubting the claim, I was simply noting the age of the reference. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A "remote mountain town" with 1.5 million inhabitants

  • ... that Jingdezhen, though a remote mountain town, has been the largest producer of Chinese porcelain (example pictured) for over 600 years?

Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware @Johnbod, Casliber, and Yoninah:

Jingdezhen is a city with 1.5 million inhabitants, easily accessible along river plains, with an elevation of 35m. Jingdezhen ware was first produced in remote mountain towns like Yaoli, Jiangxi[10], which is some 50km from Jingdezhen. "Jingdezhen" is either the big cuty itself, or (as in the name of the porcelain) a larger region surrounding the city, but it isn't nor ever was a "remote mountain town". Pulled. Fram (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I didn't look at that part of it - just checked the porcelain bit. Well, my vote would be to remove the "though a remote mountain town" and restore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The hook remains interesting even with the clause between commas removed, so I would support Cas' suggestion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever they tell the tourists, after poking around the sources, I can't see that anything produced at Yaoli, Jiangxi counts as Jingdezhen ware, which was produced in or very close to the town. The tourist site source for that article is completely non-RS. The altitude may not be high, but it would be lower still without the pottery sherds which apparently underlie the whole place. The pages following this, by an expert give much information, though their archaeologist hosts didn't think it worth stopping at Yaoli, and just drove them through. The source I used included, re the town "From its apparently remote situation...". Using "town" rather than "city" reflected the historical size, but I can see the hook needs altering. Please hold the thing while I find a better alt. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll copy this to the nom for the record. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Now added to the nom: ALT1 ".... that in Imperial China, a concubine of the first rank was allowed 121 pieces of Jingdezhen ware, that were yellow with a white interior? Source: pp. 211, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705
1.5 million is a backwaters town by Chinese standard. "Remote" is relative distance. (I was a resident of Jilin City, a "3rd-rate city" of 2 million inhabitants.) But since we're having a petty dispute of what is a "remote town" compared to a "big city", I approve the simplest solution which is to remove "though a remote mountain town" and restore, as Casliber suggested. Deryck C. 13:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the alt, particularly in relation to the age of the Vainker source and the concern I have over the promoted hook that I noted in the section above. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I prefer the Alt as well, given several issues with orignal hook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Emperor, empress and empress dowager yellow inside and out; first rank concubines yellow with white insides, and then it's dragons of various colours all the way down (Kerr, p 26). The yellow's a deep yellow, classed by Kerr (p 91) as a low-fired enamel containing lead and antimony, "very slightly poisonous", hence the white insides- except on the emperor's bowls! The potters appear to be aware of the risks, because bright lime green and brilliant lemon glazes were discontinued because they "were dangerous to both potters and patrons alike". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Cup in the imperial yellow, Kangxi emperor
I promoted the hook with the "remote mountain town" in good faith, as it was sourced to an offline source. However, I like Johnbod's alt1 better. It is also offline and therefore is AGF and cited inline. @Johnbod: Would you like to use this image for the lead slot? (Is this yellow cup in fact Jingdezhen ware?) Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Unless it is illegally using the imperial yellow, it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Quoting the source, which uses the word "remote" would not have helped, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. What exactly did the source say? EEng 04:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, you dismiss Yaoli rather out of hand, using e.g. the Gotheborg source. Looking at that source[11], I notice that the Porcelain Exhibition Hall in Jingdezhen, described as "an exhibition of what has been produced in Jingdezhen through the ages", has Yaoli porcelain in showcase 1 (1279-1436 CE), and nothing but Yaoli porcelain in showcase 2 (1436-1464) ("One cannot say that it was exactly at Yaoli they made the best porcelain, but Yaoli was the largest, so then quite a few should have been good." Emphasis mine) It seems clear that Yaoli was the first important site producing Jiangdezhen ware, and then faded as a pottery producer and just became one of the main clay providers. Fram (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • This site has photos of a couple of dragon kilns at Yaoli. According to Kerr (p 39) the climbing or dragon kiln was "sufficient for the needs of the smaller potteries". Larger concerns used the Jingdezhen egg-shaped kiln, developed from an earlier gourd type, containing a very large number of pieces at high temperatures in a reducing atmosphere (e.g. carbon monoxide) which enabled them to produce pieces with "high-fired" glazes. The yellow enamel was fired in a muffle kiln at lower temperatures on already-fired pots. I'm guessing from the photos of the area that there's no room at Yaoli to build large kilns. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
It isn't at all clear to me! Note, at the top of the linked page "All exhibited pottery here is called Minyao, meaning the People's Wares, in the sense of that this porcelain have been made at private kilns and for the use by ordinary people." All the pieces in the case 2, as described, come from well after Jiangdezhen was producing wares for the court, and look very popular in quality. None of the sources I have, including eg Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705, with over 40 pages on Jingdezhen ware, mentions Yaoli, either for kilns or clay deposits, though other places are mentioned. The museum just shows Blue & White, with no Qingbai, Jingdezhen's earliest high-quality ware, from some 400 years before the Ming onwards. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is the only hit for "Yaoli" in the over 2 million items in the BM database, and shows a popular Ming bowl just like those in the museum case. Note "Where the rim is ground down a dark red-brown body is revealed contrasting starkly with the pure white porcelain clays used contemporaneously at the imperial factory.". But they do call it "Made in: Jingdezhen (probably Yaoli.)". I think we're done here; I'll copy this to the article talk, as it has thrown up some relevant issues. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

48-hour cycle?

I'm thinking we may soon have to go to a 48-hour cycle. It's unprecedented, but since going to a 24-hour cycle several weeks ago to allow the number of nominations to increase, the number has actually declined with currently only 187 on the nominations page and nothing in prep. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Ick, that would throw off some of the calculations based on the time between updates I added on Wikipedia:Did you know/Lore. Pppery 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There are currently 45 approved hooks, that's five whole prep area that can be filled. Personally I've stepped away from prep building a bit due to the toxic environment where blame in instead of constructive cooperation seems to be the way to go.  MPJ-DK  14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    I suggest you leave it at a 24-hourly cycle for the time being, and I guarantee there will be 200 on the nomination page in 10 days time !! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    I would also leave it at 24 hours right now. As for prep-building, as I've said many times, unless people are prepared to spend perhaps up to an hour per hook re-reviewing the article and the veracity of the claim and searching for corroborating evidence, it's best not to engage in building preps as that way errors are less likely to be perpetuated to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Up to an hour? That is downright absurd, set builders don't have the time to spend an hour verifying individual hooks and you don't need an hour to verify an individual hook in any case. I do agree however, that if you are promoting a hook that you yourself reviewed, you need to thoroughly review it a second time to make sure you haven't missed anything.
    With regard to the cycle length, I agree it can be left where it is for now, for a few more days at least, but it doesn't hurt to draw attention to a potential problem in advance. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    I have to agree; we can't expect anyone to spend up to eight hours working on an eight-hook prep. No-one, no-one, has that amount of time to spend on Wikipedia. We would never have any preps filled if that was the norm. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    There is no rule or reason that a prep set should be made by one person only. We can have people promoting thoroughly checked hooks and articles one by one, and people shuffling hooks to other prep sets where necessary. And not all hooks and people require as much time for promotion, although they often require more time than is invested in them now. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    True but unfortunately it is often only one user building a prep set. And yes, judging by the posts on this page, more time per hook is required but an hour is excessive. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps the set-building mentality needs to change. No-one needs to build a whole set, in fact I often see individuals cherry-picking the "image" hook, so it's obvious that sets can be completed by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah sorry if I came across wrong because I defiantly agree that the attitudes need to be changed. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I, too, don't think there's reason to hit the panic button just yet: if the numbers drop further, then we can consider switching to 48 (or perhaps 36 is an option?) Vanamonde (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

File:Sunderland 2777w.jpg
Hook's pulled, and you know it is
Hook's pulled, and you know it is....

"... that the tune of the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was adopted by Arsenal fans for the football chant "One-Nil to the Arsenal"? No it wasn't. The tune adopted by the Arsenal fans was "Go West" by the Village People. The article points out that ""Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" has been noted as sharing a similar tune to the 1979 pop song "Go West" by Village People." but the tunes are only similar, not identical (after the first two lines they diverge), and the "One-Nil to the Arsenal" song follows "Go West", not the original.

Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pulled. Template:Did you know nominations/Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart @The C of E, EricEnfermero, and Cwmhiraeth: See e.g. [12], which explicitly notes "One Nil" / "Go West" as an exception to the many chants derived from hymns. Also [13]. Fram (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe how seriously you are taking this footy banter but I believe the better known version by Arsenal fans is the quaintly-titled retort, "You're shit, and you know you are" (same tune) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"... step up, arm up, you're offside!! Dud-duddle-duh-duh, duh duh!" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) But that wouldn't be true; other than the first couple of bars, the songs aren't the same. '... that "Go West", which has been noted as having a similar opening to the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was adopted by Arsenal fans for the football chant "One-Nil to the Arsenal"?' would be accurate, but that's stretching well into "did you care?" territory. (Which came first is irrelevant, since the relevant section of both songs—and the football chant—is lifted from Pachalbel's Canon.) ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec)The Arsenal fans adapted "Go West". Whether Go West was based on the older song or not is a different discussion, but it would be incorrect to post a hook as if the Arsenal fans were actively using the Christian song as the inspiration for their chant. By the way, your source for the hook says "They head off back inside the compound to a rousing rendition of “Give Thanks with a Grateful Heart” (which is, spookily, sung to the tune of “one-nil to the Arsenal”)." So the author notes, in a passing remark, that some people are singing the text of the Christian song but with the tune of the Arsenal chant. This is definitely not evidence that the tune of the Arsenal song is the tune of the Christian song, only that, because of the similarities, one can sing the text of one to the tune of the other. As far as I am concerned, the nomination can stay closed and remain that way. If you want it reopened to give yourself another chance at getting it right, that's your choice. Fram (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • THat's not in keeping with the spirit of collaboration. The fact is that Give Thanks came first and was then used by GW and then used by Arsenal. I may be third hand passage but it still comes from it. If you like I can include video sources showing both showing the similarities. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pachalbel's Canon came centuries before either, and (as is already noted on the Go West article, and implicitly by its inclusion in Category:Works based on Pachelbel's Canon) was the source for 'Go West'. You have no evidence that the Arsenal fans were basing their chant on 'Give Thanks', nor will you find any, since from the timings of when the chant appeared, it's obvious that it was prompted by the Pet Shop Boys' cover of 'Go West' which had been in the charts shortly before the chant appeared. It has nothing to do with "the spirit of collaboration"—you're asking us to feature your own original research on the Main Page, which is something we just don't do. ‑ Iridescent 09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec, agree with Iridescent) "The fact is"? There is no evidence that Give Thanks was even known to the writers of Go West, it seems from your article as if Give Thanks only became widely known after 1986, and GW was published in 1979. What you need for a start is good sources (not someone without any known music expertise claiming that the Don Moen version and the Pet Shop Boys version are somewhat similar, without apparently realising that both are covers, like you do now in the article). I have provided such good sources contradicting your hook. For some reason you seem intent on keeping the Arsenal link in the article. So much for the spirit of collaboration? Fram (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Jeez, Fram, lighten up a bit, but yes, you're right. A cursory knowledge of British football behaviour, let alone any reliable sources would lead you to conclude the "One-nil" / "You're shit" chant would be based on a pop song, not something that is unlikely for your stereotypical fan to have ever heard of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Why would I need to "lighten up a bit". Unlike the C of E (and others) I take accuracy on the main page serious. Whether it is about a serious subject or a football chant is not important. When people are only interested in getting their shit (to keep in the same spirit) on the main page, they should be told to leave. Instead, you again decide that the other side needs to lighten up (as if saying such a thing ever helps in any situation). Please do something useful like closing the "Give Thanks" nomination once and for all, if only because now that all nonsense has been removed, it is far below the 1500 character limit. Fram (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you having a go at me for agreeing with you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
No, for your useless paternalism ("I can't believe how seriously you are taking this footy banter", "Jeez, Fram, lighten up a bit"). What do you actually think to achieve by adding such comments? I don't even take "footy banter" seriously, no idea where you got that from, I take, like I said, the accuracy of the main page seriously. You should be aware by now that the hooks I pull are about the most diverse subjects, and that I don't pull because of the subject. Fram (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Fram, I'm going to make you an honorary Arbcom drop-out, is that ok? The number of times you've told people the way it is and upset them may not be on the same scale as me, but it's getting there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
It won't be "honorary" for much longer, if "AGF" Cwmhiraeth gets his way[14]. Fram (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Well that's a violation of WP:POLEMIC so it ought to be taken to ANI unless an appropriate timescale for its use is provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, let it be for the time being, it's brand new and in some aspects quite amusing. My "policy violation" in delisting a GA 1.5 hour after it had incorrectly been promoted (where according to Cwmhiraeth I should have "restore[d] it back to its former good article quality" instead, even though it obviously never had the required quality) is just one of the many chuckles I got out of it. Fram (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you take DYK too seriously Fram. There's a valid argument that DYK should not be on the main page as a feature, but it is intended as a bit of fun. I don't think many people take the hooks and the feature deadly seriously. You're right though that the main page of the encyclopedia should be taken seriously though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I for one take it deadly seriously. EEng 13:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

"... that Tony Award-winning Broadway actress and singer Lillian Hayman played Sadie Gray on the American soap opera One Life to Live for 17 years?". Sadie Gray says that she played the part from July 1968 to December 1986, which is a bit over 18 years. The article also says "continually for more than 17 years" so I presume this is simply an arithmetic issue? Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times says 17 years. The apparent discrepancy is explained by the fact that somebody else played the role in 1971. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
In which case the article is wrong, so I've removed "continually" from the sentence there. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hahvahd Hahvahd Hahvahd

Prep 6 contains: that Harvard University's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which Harvard pays $1 per year under a lease lasting one thousand years—​​after which Harvard can renew for another thousand years? which uses the word "Harvard" no fewer than three times. This should be reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Use "the university" in place of the second "Harvard". Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Or how about "that Harvard's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which the University pays $1 per year under a lease lasting one thousand years, with an option to renew the lease for another thousand years?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Not even Fair Harvard mentions Harvard that many times! The Royal C (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, "Fair Harvard" mentions Harvard exactly once. You learned to count at Yale, I assume? EEng 13:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the improved hook, everyone.
Indeed, though the comment was implying that the proposed hook sentence mentions Harvard more times than the official university song. The Royal C (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm duty-bound to add a dig at Yale at every opportunity. Perhaps you will enjoy History and traditions of Harvard commencements. EEng 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We could trim the last part a bit further to "that Harvard's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which the University pays $1 per year under a lease lasting one thousand years, with an option to renew for another thousand?" Edwardx (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Or:
... that Harvard's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which the University pays $1 per year under a thousand-year lease, with an option to renew for another thousand years? Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_130&oldid=1089832447"