Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 134

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136→Archive 140

Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt

The thread was closed. It is now closed again. Reopening it was singularly unhelpful. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 21 December 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.

  • ... that in the carol "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt", printed in 1622, the angels are requested to come from Heaven with instruments, to play and sing of Jesus and Mary, and for peace?
  • My version "... that in the carol "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt", printed in 1622, the angels are requested to come from Heaven with instruments, to play and sing for Jesus and Mary?
  • @Gerda Arendt: After promoting it, I made two changes to this hook in a single edit which Gerda afterwards reversed. One was changing the word "of" to "for" because this carol seems to have been written as a lullaby and is not about Jesus and Mary as such. The other change, which is the one Gerda objected to I guess, was to remove the last three words and their reference to "peace". I do not believe the lyrics mention peace; the word they use is "Ewigkeit" which seems to mean "Eternity". Perhaps our German speakers can check this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    German speakers like Gerda you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
There are others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Can we take a look at the nomination? I said there that the hook is mostly a translation of the lyrics, which was accepted. The refrain contains "von Jesus singt und Maria", "von" meaning "of", "of Jesus sing and Mary", not "to Jesus and Mary". The last stanza says "Singt Fried den Menschen", "Sing peace to the people". Without it, I wouldn't even have written the article. The carol was written during the Thirty Years' War, but I want to spar readers that on Christmas Day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Google Translate rendered the last verse:
Which would make a brilliant hook for April 1 perhaps, but is not really useful here... "Fried sings" is the part Gerda just explained (correctly) as being about peace. Fram (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Which says a lot about Google Translate, I am sorry to say. It's bad anyway, but especially when it comes to older poetry. "Fried" = "Friede" = "Frieden" means peace. In German, a poet can often skip a syllable for the meter's sake which doesn't change the meaning, Compare "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott", short for "Eine feste Burg ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Quite why anyone would consider Google Translate to be preferable to a native German speaker's version is beyond me. How insulting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Insulting is less the point than utterly unsourced. Look how easily you arrive at a term such as "God's reward". Nonsense. "Gott Preis" means Praise to God. Translate should at least say award ... - "Ehr" (honour) was left out anyway.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
General practice is if you personally do not speak another language, you take it on good faith that someone who does is correct in their translation. Questioning a translation using google translate over a fluent speaker is a waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If this thread makes people VERY cautious regarding Google Translate, the time wasn't wasted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Fram and Gerda, but not TRM. I still think the word "of" should be changed to "for". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have trouble thanking TRM even when he is clearly correct, like here or with that section higher on this page where you asked a stupid question and couldn't accept TRM's answer even when I indicated clearly that he was right, and you just had to ask the same question again from me. If you can't accept answers simply based on who they are from, then you are making a very clear ad hominem attack. Please stop doing this (and stop using Google Translate if you can't even look at it with a critical eye yourself). You have had trouble with German-sourced hooks in the past, when you were wrong as well, so perhaps stick to English-language sourced hooks only? Fram (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, no need for the pointedness, that you distrust a native German speaker over a German source and instead cite Google Translate as superior is truly worrying. I would certainly leave all the foreign-language hooks to those who know what they actually mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) There is no way "von Jesus und Maria" can be translated to "for Jesus and Mary", it's "of Jesus and Mary" (in a broader sense than the scene at the manger), in all stanzas the last word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It is amazing how Fram and TRM can turn on me for doing as I thought proper, checking on a hook I was promoting and then bringing up the wording of the hook in this forum for discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't "turn on" anyone, I was amazed and disgusted that you would prefer to use Google Translate over a native German speaker. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    I have not complained about you checking on this hook or bringing up the wording here: but if you then continue, after Gerda's 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply, to question here by bringing up the most ridiculous Google Translate version, and then insist on a) dismissing TRM just because he is TRM, and b) continuing to claim that your version is better anyway, then you shouldn't be "amazed" that anyone "turns on you". Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 128#Eleonore Büning hook in Prep 1 was a previous example of you trying to pull the same stunt. You are free to bring issues here for discussion, but you shouldn't change hooks where you lack the right knowledge and expertise, and the proper means to research it correctly; and you should accept the expertise of others when things get explained to you, unless you have a good reason to doubt it or them (and Google Translate is very far removed from being a good reason). I am amazed though that I have to explain such things to you. Fram (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree that one should not trust google translate over the word of a native speaker in good standing. But surely the point can be made without the unhelpful value judgements. In this case, I suspect Cwm thought a mistake had been made as the phrase is somewhat counterintuitive.

Getting back to the hook in question, it does seem a little too long and detailed to me. I would suggest dropping "with instruments" as I think it's redundant given that the angels are being invited "to play". Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The hook should reflect the article. The mentioning of specific instruments in this particlular song is obvious and unusual, even deriving a new verb from trumpet. ("trombt": wonder how Google Translate deals with that?) Lutes, harps, violins, organ, - imagine the sound! Is "instruments" as a summary really too much for Christmas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well it might be "obvious and unusual" after reading the article, but those qualities are not at all conveyed by the hook, where the phrase "with instruments" is conveying no information not already contained in the phrase "to play". You have to remember that new readers do not have the same familiarity with the topic as the author, and will therefore not necessarily grasp the intended meaning. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the kind of redundant "play", how is that? - "Play" is ambiguous, could also mean "play with the baby", "instruments" is clearer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a nice solution, Gerda :) I just added the word "musical" for clarity. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The point about the hook was already being made without the value judgments (why are they unhelpful? Sweeping stupidity and insults under the carpet doesn't make them any less stupid or insulting). The problem is that Cwmhiraeth then insists that he knows better, despite the clear fact that they obviously don't know better at all. Coupled with the fact that they have a history of this kind of stunts, it shouldn't come as a surprise that he gets some backlash. Fram (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Um, no, Cwm didn't insist that they know better, they brought the issue here for further discussion, which is the right thing to do when there is a dispute. And when somebody is constantly attacked from a given quarter they are bound to start getting defensive. In any case, I think the point has been made now and shouldn't need to be repeated. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think suggesting a native German speaker's word on a hook they themselves created based on German-language text is not suitable and instead Google Translate and a personal (yet incorrect) preference is entirely unsuitable behaviour. Once again, people should stick to things they do know about and avoid things about which they don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Given the number of mistakes native speakers of English make when interpreting their own sources, is it really so outrageous for Cwm to suggest that somebody other than the original author take a look at the sources? Why do we need reviews in the first place? Nominators make mistakes, and sometimes it takes a third party to recognize them. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you've missed the point. Cwmhiraeth suggested that Gerda was wrong and Google Translate was right. That's the problem. Once again, people should stick to things they do know about and avoid things about which they don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
All true, except that wasn't what Cwmhiraeth did here. They wanted to criticize the hook for mistranslating German, when they have absolutely zero knowledge of German (if you don't know what "er" means, then you have no business trying to translate German). Furthermore, normally when people want to check something in a hook, they haven't first changed the approved hook to their own incorrect version in prep, like Cwmhiraeth did here. If they had trouble with the hook, theu should have asked their questions at the nomination, not promote it. Why do we need reviews in the first place if nominators, who normally can't even be bothered to remove errors from hooks, start introducing errors because they know obviously better than a native speaker? They should have simply asked "I do not believe the lyrics mention peace; the word they use is "Ewigkeit" which seems to mean "Eternity".", to which Gerda or someone else could easily have replied "Fried, not Ewigkeit", case closed, everybody happy. But that's not really how this has been handled of course. Fram (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I already agreed it was an error of judgement. What I find disagreeable is the endless harping about such errors. But as nothing I have ever said on the matter deters you, it's clear I'm wasting my time here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Not only your own time either. What difference does it make if you and I agree that is an error of judgment, if Cwmhiraeth doesn't recognize this and learns anything from it? They didn't learn anything from the previous time they thought they could magically translate German better than everyone else, and have now added the "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll promote my version instead of the approved one anyway" attitude. But the main problem plaguing DYK is of course the harping about such things (though apparently not the harping about TRM or others?). Fram (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, everybody is somewhere on the learning curve, so I guess we could all use a little education somewhere along the line. In my experience however, attempting to publicly pillory somebody every time they make a mistake is neither an appropriate nor effective method. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Never mind your inaccurate description of reality, your more effective alternative is...? Fram (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you even have to ask the question speaks volumes. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did wonder if you were really advocating privately pillorying them instead, but I just wanted to check. Your refusal to answer seems to indicate that that is indeed your preferred method. Thanks, I'll pass. Enjoy your volumes! Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so "I still think the word "of" should be changed to "for"." should be read as "you're right, my knowledge of German is insufficient to know whether the hook is right or wrong and I'll accept your interpretation of it since you clearly do know German"? The point clearly needs to be repeated since you clearly don't get it either and only are in this discussion for poor Cwmhiraeth who is "constantly attacked from a given quarter" when they constantly make errors and learn nothing from it, but decide to attack TRM constantly without good reason (I don't see you jumping up and down when that happens, which seems a bit selective). Fram (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that sometimes people don't see the point immediately is not a reason to castigate them. This is supposed to be, you know, a collaborative project, where the project is advanced by the collective intelligence of all participants. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, and Cwm inevitably makes a few given their volume of output here. I wonder how often we'd be seeing similar threads on this page if you were the one doing the lion's share of the promoting? Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I at least wouldn't promote a hook which I doubted despited having no knowledge of the source language, and while promoting it change it to my own preferred wrong version. To claim that Cwmhiraeth makes "a few" mistakes is again sweeping problems under the rug. No one is obliged to do anything here, but if you do it, you have to do it right, certainly on high-visibility pages like the Main Page. Finally, Cwmhiraeth isn't castigated for not seeing the point, but for their arrogant atitude that they do see the point better than everybody else despite lacking the knowledge needed to even make a coherent point about this hook. Fram (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you are convinced you can do a better job, you are more than welcome to put a few updates together yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but no. I remember the stupid and vengeful criticism you and others tried to give the last time, including an incorrect pull you didn't seem to care about one bit (again the selective criticism). Like I said, my interest is keeping errors away from the main page, not so much having a DYK section on the main page. If the people who want a DYK section can do a good job, fine, otherwise just don't bother. Fram (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I just want to say how inspired I am at seeing how the spirit of Christmas has filled every heart with peace, joy, and love for all mankind. EEng 14:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Can't you hear us all singing fried? Like the 18th century Christmas carol says, "Harp, the angels sing" (hey, it's nearly correct, should be good enough!) ;-) Fram (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If we can all sing, fine, but Google Translate has only Fried sing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It's finger-lickin' good. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The proposed hook seems too unsurprising – lyrics about angels and the baby Jesus are the conventional stuff of Christmas carols. I think the fact about it being something of a reaction to the strife of the Thirty Years War works better as a hook for me. As for the strife here, I have some German myself and have access to expert translators but would not involve them in such an unpleasant fracas. Andrew D. (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Christmas spirit is all very well, but some of us don't necessarily "celebrate" Christmas at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, something we can all heartily join togther to celebrate, the good old Thirty Years' War. Sounds familiar for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The Thirty Years War and Witch trials come already two days earlier (now in Prep 2), - we don't want to bore the readers with the same thing twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't translate the German article, only parts I thought relevant. German readers don't have to be told about the peace bit, because they can read it in the lyrics. Regarding the other "Vom Himmel hoch", see the talk page: arguments, arguments. I tried to save this song from an existence as just a redirect to the bottom of the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Second break

@The Rambling Man: This discussion has all come about because you misunderstood my post with the Google Translate result. I did not prefer Google Translate to Gerda's statement and in fact found it amusing, but I was just demonstrating that it did not contain the word "Peace". Before changing the hook to my version I had earlier translated the whole carol with Google Translate and I also translated the whole corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. Neither produced the word "Peace". The relevant paragraph of the German article translates as

"The text is an invitation to the angels of heaven to come to earth and to make a new song to the newborn child of Jesus. In a playful way the musical instruments are listed in the verses, which can be used for this purpose."

Nothing about "peace", and also suggesting the angels were to sing "to" the newborn child not about the child. I sought a third opinion, I thought Fram would probably provide that, and look where it got me! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No, you asked for a German speaker to help, but Gerda is precisely that. Then your recalcitrance in accepting the word of a subject-matter expert made matters worse. Seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it, leave it to others, or at the very least, have some respect for those who do know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fram and The Rambling Man: Would you two care to fucking drop it already. You both are on a crusade to purportedly "improve" the quality of DYK, but all you have consistently and purposely done is hound anyone that is actually doing the labor of construction and promotion, while actively AVOIDING doing any of it your-self. Its seems clear at this point that your purpose is to not improve the project, but to run it into the ground by chasing anyone away that is doing the work. Your methodology is not productive an you actively are killing the project.--Kevmin § 20:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
No, sorry about that. If you think preventing errors getting to the main page is "killing the project" then perhaps the project raison d'etre is flawed. Thanks for your comment though. For what it's worth, I've noted several times (i.e. more than six) that preparing sets etc takes a lot of time. And if you don't have that much time, you shouldn't do it. I don't have that much time. All I can offer is a filter on errors and other such issues getting to the main page. Because obviously none of us want to see errors getting to the main page. Of course, you're welcome to help here, I'm not sure if I've seen you specifically working on hooks, sets, error prevention etc. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Nevertheless, it's much better to make proactive comments on the hooks in the preps and sets rather than to resort to childish swearing which really only makes you look like you're not capable of dealing with a sensible adult discussion. Please refrain from such outbursts in future and let's deal with the issue at hand, i.e. the numerous mistakes being made here, almost daily. Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Preventing errors is great, but you are not doing that anymore. you are actively hounding the only person that is doing work, and then being very vindictive and rude (against the warnings at the arbcom we just had) when the one person misses the tiniest thing. BUT you refuse to step in at take up any of the work load that you so vociferously are complaining about. The project is not flawed its being actively strangled by you and Fram, (who both have stated that the project should not exist. It seems pretty clear that you have motive to kill the project through your "help". Also swearing does not make someone childish, it is a way of accentuating a point, and used by people of all ages that are frustrated at a situation. If you want to help the project stop being purposefully vindictive about it. I will not refrain from outbursts when I see a situation that is killing a project.--Kevmin § 20:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no, you're mistaken once again. No-one is actively hounding anyone. We are just making sure we have fewer errors going to the main page. Sure, if you'd like to pursue this through Arbcom, go for it, that's your right, and you'd be better off doing that rather than aimlessly shooting off here if you really believe it. Fram and I (and I speak for Fram here tentatively, but I'd like to think we have at least a little bit of similar mindset) are doing our best to prevent this complete joke of a process from continually spoiling the main page with errors. Now, just because we have one dedicated user pushing stuff into preps and sets, it makes little difference. The onus isn't on Fram or me to get the promotions right, we've both already said that's not our bag. But what should have been take on-board by now is that much more care and attention should be taken when promoting sets. Especially, e.g. in this case, when it comes to reviewers or promoters taking unilateral decisions, even though they don't know the language, to modify hooks. If you ever get properly involved Kevmin, perhaps we'd be able to take this conversation forward. Feel free to outburst as much as you like, but be aware that most of us are used to this kind of thing, and we usually ignore it and continue to strive for excellence on the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I dont think I am though. You are showing just how little regard you have for the project and those who contribute to it when you call it a "complete joke of a process". Please outline your next step if Cwm leaves the project, given that all other promoters have stopped exactly due to the castigation they are given for missing anything that is deemed an an error.--Kevmin § 20:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I have utmost regard for the intention of the project, the implementation is completely broken as has been the case for a couple of years and has been clearly publicised by more than just me and Fram. The two of us (and a few others, e.g. Black Kite) do our best with limited time to reduce the number of errors promoted to the main page, despite the various "quality gates" needed to pass a DYK. That, on average, there's error in about one in every two sets means the project isn't working, its QPQ function is failing, there are reviewers and/or promoters who aren't doing the job properly.
In answer to your question, if Cwmhiraeth leaves, then the project will have one fewer individual promoting badly conceived or erroneous hooks to the main page. If that means no erroneous hooks are promoted, so be it. The hysterical and hyperbolic "castigation" claim is nonsense, I impart advice on erroneous hooks daily and do it neutrally until such a time that it's clear that the point hasn't been made. As before, I look forward to you, Kevmin, helping out here. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I see you have carefully avoided the point of my question. I will ask a second time: Please outline your next step if Cwm leaves the project? when you step up to take up the slack. You are the one that has constructed the massive time frame for promoting, in that you assert, with no backing data, that a DYK review needs to have more attention given it then that of a GA or FA, with a micro examination of every reference, every sentence, and every word, to make sure that no possible ambiguity exists. However you have attacked Cwm for doing just that in the above section, asserting that Cwm should have just assumed good faith on the nom even though there was question of the wording. If AGF had been applied you would have asserted that a second or third person should have reviewed it, (based on your exact actions in the past month alone, and the closed "questioning" of Cwms actions less then a month ago. You are far from neutral in the wording you continue to use, and have used for over a year now.--Kevmin § 21:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I haven't "carefully avoided" anything. As I said if Cwmhiraeth leaves, then the project will have one fewer individual promoting badly conceived or erroneous hooks to the main page. Perhaps you didn't read that? I, amongst others, have strived to avoid sending erroneous DYKs to the main page. You seem to overlook that very key point. What's more interesting is that you seem to do absolutely nothing here other than to commentate on other people's actions. Why is that? Are you actually actively engaged in making DYK a better place or are you just here to attempt to lecture those of us who are actively making it a less erroneous project? I think before you lecture me (or at least poorly attempt to do so) you should look far more closely at your own contributions. Thanks! By the way, please provide diffs for when I said in that you assert, with no backing data, that a DYK review needs to have more attention given it then that of a GA or FA. That would be very helpful!! In the meantime, your "fucking" swearing is not needed (...You are far from neutral in the wording you continue to use... - funny!), and really exemplifies that you need to work harder on your communication skills, despite your subsequent censoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you are striving for 0 errors on the main page (something that will never happen, and something that is contributed to by every section of the main page). But you are laser focused and and rude in your attempt, which gets you nowhere if you want collaboration. You are oddly fixated on the use of one word, and you are attributing to me a level of knowledge about me and my communication/maturity that one would only have if they spent a notable amount of time interacting with me, which you have not. How you come to that conclusion, based on one word, I dont know, but you are using it to avoid my question again. I saw your response, but it is not an answer to the question that I posed, it only is a purposeful bad faith assertion of how the project would be. I will ask a third time: Please outline your next step if Cwm leaves the project?--Kevmin § 22:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kemin, you moved my comment which was in response to the beginning of this subthread to above it. Please fix that. I may make little sense but please not that little. Look at the time stamps. Better don't touch other users' posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm trying to reduce errors, zero is impossible, obviously, but let's try to get it below one per day, eh? Not rude, just direct, and I'm not sure if you've ever done anything around here but commentate, but I could be wrong. I'm not fixated on anything, your lack of communication skills is not my problem at all, that you felt the need to give me a "fucking" lecture is your issue entirely. My next step if Cwmhiraeth is to continue in exactly the same manner as I have been doing, to ensure a minimum number of errors hit the main page. There's no "purposeful bad faith assertion of how the project would be", there's a simple statement of fact, the project would have one fewer individual promoting errors to the main page. That's a simple pure honest statement of fact. The world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows, and we've been putting up with dumploads of issues from the DYK project. If you contributed here, you'd realise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I did reopen the thread, but Fram reverted my action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Typical displacement activity. Unwilling to answer the question asked by Kevmin, Fram attacks me instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, no question in there. What are you aiming to achieve with this line of enquiry, other than the exacerbate the clear divisions which already exist in the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

With peace and joy

Postlude: I find the above discussion closed with my comment which has been moved still above the question that it answers. I came to present another occurrence of Fried, in my latest FAC to which I welcome all you quality-watching users ;) Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125! Google Translate says "With Fried and Freud I go there", "go there" being a very harmless euphemism for "die" ;)

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.

Cwmhiraeth and the role of the promotor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The DYK project has ongoing problems with review quality and promotions. Discussions started with specific examples are easily derailed, as this one has been. Cwmhiraeth has made mistakes but also devoted considerable time and effort to the project and is one of the few editors doing the necessary task of set building. Fram and TRM have located many errors, a valuable contribution towards quality control at DYK and for the encyclopaedia as a whole. There are examples of less-than-ideal communication from numerous editors, though hopefully we all agree on the importance of producing high quality encyclopaedic content. I strongly suggest that a future discussion approach topics of QPQ, review quality, hook choice, promotions, and set building from a general perspective in the hope of a discussion that actually progresses towards addressing ongoing problems. EdChem (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

At User talk:Cwmhiraeth#List of Mormon missionary diarists, User:Cwmhiraeth just said about a disputed hook he promoted: "I am just a functionary that collects approved hooks and moves them into sets."

It has been pointed out to Cwmhiraeth in the past that a promotor has a totally different role, as explained in Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook. This doesn't seem to get through to them, so could someone please emphasise this again (and again and again if necessary). The accuracy of hooks and reviews is also the responsability of the promotor, not just of the reviewer and nominator. Too many hooks have to be pulled, and if the main hook promotor doesn't fulfill that position in the way it is supposed to happen, we have at least one part of the explanation of why so many problematic hooks reach preps, queue and main page. Fram (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You have taken my comment out of context. In this instance I was explaining to TRM that the function of the promoter did not include a consideration of whether the article's title was the best available. In fact I have followed this up by seeking the article creator's approval for the article name to be changed, but this goes way beyond the basic functions of a promoter. The comment was also a single sentence and in no way completely covers the steps I take before promoting a hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It was the fact that the title and and the lead of the article were simply incorrect, not just not the "best available". Factually incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure. The article needed to be renamed and the lead needed to be rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And you still promoted it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
As I explained above, I did not consider whether the article's title was the best available when I promoted it. Now that you have brought the matter to my attention, I have moved the article to its new title and rewritten the lead, a thing you could perfectly well have done yourself, and certainly not part of the duties of a set promoter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The point is you promoted an article with a fundamental failing. You didn't need to edit it but you certainly shouldn't have promoted it. I guess you didn't read it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Out of context? It matches your view exactly. You can compare it to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 130#Should I be topic banned from DYK?: "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." Fram (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this. Template:Did you know nominations/Richard L. Alexander appearing on Queue 4 was reviewed by Cwmhiraeth (hence why I choose here), but it says in the nom that User:GrinandGregBearit was the article creator; they weren't, User:TeriEmbrey was. I assume this mistake was made because of Grin's inexperience but a simple check of the page's history by the reviewer would have picked this up. Could TeriEmbrey be added to receive credit for this DYK too please? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: He's a new editor of Wikipedia and my intern. This article was mostly his work. I do not need the credit on this one. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks TeriEmbrey for clarifying that (though you do deserve a co-credit if you wanted it). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Move to Close Thread Cwmhiraeth is obviously an exceptional promoter who has voluntarily self-accepted a heavy workload for the benefit of the project; a spirit of volunteerism for which many of us are appreciative. I'm unclear what this thread is about other than complaints of a general nature involving things that are essentially, within the overall pantheon of his work, minutia that could be better handled by a quick and cheerful, one or two sentence "hey buddy, FYI!" on a Talk page. I'd suggest it be closed. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We can remove Cwmhiraeth's name from the section head but it seems important to keep this thread open to talk about exactly what is the role of the prep builder. As Fram notes, too many mistakes are flowing through to the queues. We cannot rely on the reviewer (many of whom are newbies or just trying to get in their QPQ so they can nominate their own hook) to assure that everything's fine. Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's do that. And examine the role of the promoter. Right now we have just about one person promoting hooks, and as demonstrated above, making numerous errors in doing so. Or ignoring numerous in doing so. Depending on your expectation of the role of a promoter/set builder. For what it's worth, I read through whole articles and discover fundamental problems with around about one every set or two. So I'd approximate that to a 10% error rate. Now I'm told by Cwmhiraeth that it's not her job to actually react to errors in articles, just to build sets using erroneous articles. I find the whole thing somewhat odd. I will continue to monitor every single DYK that goes through here, but I'm more focused on article quality while Fram (as you can all see above) is doing a fine job of analysing the hooks for veracity. Too many mistakes at the moment, thank goodness we're down to just one set per day.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, many of us are aware that you consider a promotor deliberately ignoring the requirements for promotors and too often promoting erroneous hooks (including errors introduced by you) "things that are minutiae" (if you want to use big words, make sure you get them right). This has gone on for years and clearly isn't solved by a "cheerful" talk page message (this is a talk page, by the way). If the main promotor of hooks here doesn't care enough about having correct hooks, articles where the title matches the content somewhat, BLP policy, and so on; with the result that way too many hooks need pulling (and many others correcting in preps, queues and while on the Main Page from WP:ERRORS, like today). Fram (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It may be a talk page but it sure ain't cheerful! Even the spelling of participants in this discussion is subject to withering scorn from the OP (speaking of which, minutia is correct; minutiae is the plural form). LavaBaron (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As this is specifically about one editor who does most promotions here but doesn't follow the requirements coupled with that role, I have reinstated the section header. If you want a general discussion of the role, start another section or a subsection please. Fram (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"The pressure is becoming too much"? Oh goodness! LavaBaron (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Are you ok? I simply suggested that the pressure on Cwmhiraeth to fill these sets is getting too much, hence the increase in errors. I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you don't care about others or have a different view, but your discussion style is inaccessible, at least it is to me. You attempt to use big words and get it wrong, and you seem unable to empathise with others. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi TRM! If you want to discuss my vocabulary I encourage you to use a non-DYK forum to provide diffs about how I "use big words and get it wrong" [sic]. As a topic, that may not be 100-percent relevant to prep building, or DYK generally. Thanks so much! - LavaBaron (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Noted! Please now desist. Your previous comment: (Oh goodness!) was at best unhelpful. As I mentioned before, your posts aren't doing you any favours, and I imagine if they continue in this manner, it won't be long before you're out of the game again. Thanks so much!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
This tête-à-tête is not topical; self-collapsing to keep it from derailing thread. LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
TRM, your comment, to which that was in reply - "the pressure is becoming too much" - was also not helpful. Cwmhiraeth is an adult, experienced editor, not a quivering wreck. Your comment about my vocabulary - "you attempt to use big words and get it wrong" - was simply a drive-by insult that has nothing to do with prep building (and was incorrect, as the absence of diffs show) of the exact type for which you were de-sysoped. (And, to clarify, I've never been "out of the game".) Now let's agree to stop here so we can pay attention to topical matters. Cool? In a spirit of cooperation I'm happy to let you hat this sub-discussion from my 22:09 comment on, if you like. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: the pressure comment, that's a huge part of why I stopped doing it - I stopped trying to fill the role of "getting a mixture of hooks put in front of the prep reviewers" when it became more about blaming the person who moved an approved hook than the two people who actually made the error in the first place (nominator and reviewer). I would love a clear definition of what is expected of a prep builder because I got different input from different people and frankly just dropped it when I got fed up with being pulled in 7 different directions. Kudos to Cwmhiraeth for sticking with it at least.  MPJ-DK  22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Definitely second the kudos to Cwmhiraeth. Hope she sticks with it, I really appreciate her work! LavaBaron (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Getting back to Fram's original criticism of my prep-building, I routinely do all the things mentioned in Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook, with the possible exception of (2) in the first section. Do I seem to remember when Fram tried to build a hook set and we ended up with an unbalanced mass of country houses, several of which had to be pulled? TRM has yet to have a go at prep-building I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that; didn't know who was responsible, though. Just remember I thought I'd logged-in to Zillow, instead of Wikipedia. Ai-yi-yi! LavaBaron (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Strange, because only one country house was in that set. Yet another unhelpful comment from you, as expected. Fram (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No, on numerous occasions I've stated to you that I don't have the long periods of availability you seem to have every morning to dedicate the required time and effort to building a hook. Therefore I'm not going to do a half-arsed job of it. That's why I would recommend to others that if they don't have sufficient time to do it accurately, checking each article and hook, then they shouldn't do it either. Just a quick glance at this page indicates that the prep-building standard, and associated promoted hooks/articles, is still in need of drastic improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to remember incorrectly, none of them had to be pulled: Ritchie333 mistakenly pulled one based on an error on his part (not knowing the difference between portable computers and laptops). Only one hook was about a country house. Getting back to your prep building, if you now routinely do the things required from prep builders, then that's an improvement. Now if you could also reduce the error rate in doing your checks, DYK would really get a lot better, and we wouldn't have days with 5 pulled hooks (all of them with you involved in one of the three main steps, twice as the reviewer and three times as the promotor). Of course, with better nominations and reviews the problem would also be reduced, but if we can't even remove people like LavaBaron (also involved in one of the 5 pulls) from DYK, then there is little hope of that happening. Fram (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It has been stated above that too many hooks are having to be pulled. Actually, I think hooks are only pulled to any extent when Fram is "on duty". Fram provides a level of hook scrutiny that others don't. In the first half of 2015, Fram was absent from Wikipedia for about six months. I doubt whether the level of DYK ERRORS reported by members of the public rose during that time. If there were errors, nobody noticed them. So, let's survey the present field:
  • Hill-Crest; the source appeared to support the hook until you looked at it more closely. An error.
  • Going out on a limb; you chose to interpret the word "limb" in the source as not meaning a bough. You were wrong.
  • Filibus; you will see that guidance 4 for promoters states "Hook [fact] must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." It does not state that the promoter should check whether the hook fact is still true, or should look for other sources to disprove it. That is a level of scrutiny provided by you; without your intervention this hook would have passed through the system without objection.
  • Egypt at the 1906 Intercalated Games; this was a pedantic quibble. The first ever opening ceremony at a (quasi)-Olympic Games more than a century ago and you think two Egyptian athletes might choose not to take part, on the basis seemingly that at modern games, some athletes avoid the opening ceremony. Really?
  • A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons; this pull involved a DYK rule that the community has recently been discussing and that several people thought should be abolished, so policy rather than error.
  • Irene Garza; This also involves a policy matter, BLPCRIME, and is not an error.
So how many of these are actually errors? I would say two, Hill-Crest and Filibus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"Limb" wasn't pulled, I asked whether it was correct or not, some others agreed that it was ambiguous, but together we concluded that the hook was right after all. So I was right to question it and right not to pull it. Good work all around. This one wasn't counted in the 5 pulled hooks, as it wasn't pulled to begin with.
The others: trusting a 1997 source for a current claim is always a bad idea and should always involve a search for more recnt counterindications. "Egypt" was not "a pedantic quibble", and it is this kind of thing (among others) that makes you ill-suited for your promotor or reviewer role. Egypt was at the games, there was an opening ceremony, so (goes your OR synth which has troubled you in the past on DYK as well) the Egyptian athletes all must have walked in the opening ceremony. The sources say nothing about who walked behind the Egyptian flag though. The hook was also incorrect in its claim about contemporary sources.
But the worst is Irene Garza: so putting a hook that violates our BLP policy rather badly on the main page is not an error on the part of the reviewer and promotor? (The nominator specifically indicated his misgivings about the BLP aspect of that hook in the discussion). As the reviewer on that hook, it was your responsability to ensure that it didn't violate our BLP policy (Wikipedia:Did you know rule 4). You made a serious error in this case.
I do love your argument that if our readers don't notice that our DYK hooks are incorrect, it's not a problem. This of course makes the assumption that every reader who sees an error will run to WP:ERRORS or here, and not simply go to some more reliable website instead and leave with the conviction that Wikipedia is an amateur club. And this of course makes the even worse assumption that it doesn't matter if we get it right or wrong, as long as no one notices it. Fram (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, folks, this is going nowhere. If we want to have a focused discussion about the role of the promoter, then go for it, but this has degenerated into a polite slanging match, and is not productive. I am sorely tempted to close the thread myself, but can you both not recognize each other's utility to the project and move on? Vanamonde (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Great point. Not sure there's a positive terminus to this thread, it will probably just accumulate a few additional weeks of back-and-forth and then peter out. No actionable proposal has been advanced and the discussion seems largely to have failed to capture the interest of third parties. LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I recognise that Fram has some utility to the project but I am not sure that Fram realises that I have too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, if I thought you had no utility to the project I would have started a topic ban discussion at WP:AN a long time ago. Of course you have some utility here, the question is whether that justifies disregarding the requirements for DYK, not caring whether the readers get correct information or not, or e.g. considering posting BLP violating hooks and articles on the main page "not an error". People can have some or a lot of utility to the project but ultimately cause too much problems to be allowed to continue unchecked. And of course, utility to "the project" (DYK) is always subordinate to the effect you have on Wikipedia and what we present to the readers. Showing incorrect information or BLP violations to millions of people can not be justified by reasons like making DYK run on time or creating balanced sets of hooks. The latter are a bonus, the former are what should be avoided at all costs. Fram (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
With regard to Irene Garza, I mistakenly thought I had promoted the hook whereas I now see that I was the reviewer. In that case I was indeed in error. I tend to avoid reviewing BLPs as I am not particularly familiar with policy in this area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
"I recognise that Fram has some utility to the project". Facepalm Facepalm Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yup. Un-be-lievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A certain degree of utility. We may have more accurate hooks but in the process we have lost so many people who don't like to be humiliated. The people who used to build prep sets and no longer do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd stop digging yourself deeper now. This process is flawed, you do a job in promoting flawed articles, flawed hooks, the QPQ process means people are just here sanctioning hooks to self-enable. Humiliation is emotive, I'd prefer that you recognise that Fram points out to people where they make mistakes. In your case it's in double figures for the few months. And that's one set per day. We used to be at 3 sets a day, wow!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth doesn't strike me as being in any kind of hole, deep or shallow. In my opinion she's responded to the concern of another editor in a way that is polite, receptive, compelling, and factually and analytically correct in every way. And, her efforts have been applauded by other editors both in this thread, and in other threads currently open on this page. LavaBaron (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Noted, but actually Fram has demonstrated time and again that her responses are not compelling, factual, or correct in "every way". Please read all the threads before making such inappropriate claims. And for what it's worth, I applaud her "efforts" but the results are simply not up to scratch, time and again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No opinion can be an "inappropriate claim." It is possible for two rational beings to look at the same set of facts and form different opinions based on those facts. I appreciate and respect your different opinion in this matter. LavaBaron (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, your opinion is 100% factually incorrect. Let's leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
... annnnd scene. I'd suggest, having established one side is "100% factually incorrect", this is probably a good place at which to wrap things up and for Vanamonde93 to revisit his previous suggestion of closure. LavaBaron (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well it suits me. It's about time we curtailed this ongoing fanclub for someone who continually promotes errors. Especially from those who create such drama in the first place. I wholeheartedly support this thread's closure, without prejudice of starting yet another to analyse, yet again, the behaviour of those who continue to poorly review or poorly promote hooks. Scene! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 8 December 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.

A new issue

This discussion appears to have run its course at this point in time. North America1000 16:20, 21 December 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 nomination was erroneously "fixed" by Cwmhiraeth before heading to the main page. Is there a pattern here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The error was introduced by User:Yoninah, not by Cwmhiraeth.[1] Fram (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Fram. I was going to attest my innocence here but now have no need to! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
What was my error? What does "notionally illegal" even mean? Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"Theoretically illegal" I guess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The error was changing the hook from the one that was written by the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
O-kay. But I thought it was a typo. I did look in the article first to see what it was talking about, and saw: However, because Mazuism is not officially recognized as either Taoist or Buddhist, Chinese law considers it a tolerable but illegal cult, which to me means "nationally illegal", so I thought I was fixing the error. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"tolerable but illegal" == "notionally illegal". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you understand it. Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. In cases like this it's better to consult the nominator before making a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec)When in doubt, come to WT:DYK and ask (like I did in the "Going out on a limb" section). Some people may react badly if your concern is unfounded, but that's a lesser problem than incorrectly correcting an article (even pulling is better than erroneously correcting it). Fram (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Fram. I hear. I will try to do that in future. Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 14 December 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 1

"... that her sassy, self-confident performance in the "Soy Yo" music video has turned 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez into a Latina icon?"

"sassy, self-confident"? Is this a quote? If so it should be in quote marks, if not it's not encyclopedic or neutral in tone and needs rephrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • It comes from the Fox News source which says "In (the video), she plays a sassy and confident girl.." which I would say is not the same thing as the hook is claiming. There are lots of possible hooks here, it should be easy to find one that is accurate. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The hook wording has been extensively discussed on the nomination template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me repeat the issue: the hook is neither encyclopedic in tone nor neutral. If it's a quote, fine, mark it as such, if it's not a quote, it needs rewording. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In addition to the point TRM has made, I am concerned that the hook is not actually in the article. The hook describes Sarai as giving a "sassy, self-confident performance," but the article uses that phrase to describe the character she portrayed. So, is the source describing the character she portrayed or Sarai herself? It seems to me the article is referring to the former and the hook to the latter. EdChem (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
How about we leave the adjectives out entirely:
That just gets us out of the adjective frying pan into the noun fire. EEng 11:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I think "performance" is good, but if you have a different suggestion, please mention it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I think "icon" needs to be attributed or at least quoted. (Sorry, I didn't notice that icon was in the original hook anyway, so I guess we were already in that fire.) And the article lead should not be deadpanning that she's an icon, as if that's her job description. Talk about PEACOCK! EEng 12:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
EdChem is right; I mixed up the hook and the source. I don't understand what's PEACOCK about how I wrote the lead. Here is an alt suggestion for the hook in prep:
ALT1: ... that 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez plays a nerdy-looking girl with a sassy, self-confident attitude in Bomba Estéreo's "Soy Yo" ("That's Me") music video? Yoninah (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator needed to change hook in Queue 1. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah I don't mind doing the swap. But given that it's your nomination, and your suggested new hook, it needs to be approved by another editor before I do the swap. There's plenty of time, since that queue isn't due on the main page until Wednesday the 28th.— Maile (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah, my apologies, I hadn't noticed the need for input, thanks for the message. From the point of view of my issue, ALT1 addresses the problem. However, I don't see that the issue which The Rambling Man raised is addressed, so I am pinging for comment. Describing the performance of an 11 year old as sassy in Wikipedia's voice is not something I am comfortable with, but it is a word used by the source, so I suggest quotation marks, such as:
  • (ALT1a): ... that 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez plays a "sassy and confident" but "nerdy tween" in Bomba Estéreo's "Soy Yo" ("That's Me") music video?
@Black Kite, EEng, Cwmhiraeth, and Maile66: as others who have commented for thoughts / comments / further issues / approval / etc. Thanks, and Merry Christmas, Greetings of the Season, and other appropriate felicitations to all! EdChem (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
PS: I've made a couple of further tweaks. The descriptor "nerdy" is not used by the Fox source but it is in the New York Times source (the other one used for the relevant sentence in the lede of the article). The character is described as "the nerdy, round and confident tween" which I have parsed as "nerdy tween" instead of "nerdy-looking girl." Having made this much of a change, I feel unable to tick, my quotes and re-ordering can be seen as enough to make me involved / conflicted / whatevered. EdChem (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Since I've agreed to switch the hook with what is approved, I'm neutral on this. I'm still puzzled by a comment on the nomination page about the word "spunky" not being a comfortable word. Spunky is so commonly used (in America, anyway) in a complimentary way about any youngster with a lot of energetic spirit. I guess it's a regional objection. Whatever is agreed on here, just let me know when it's time to switch out the hooks. — Maile (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Maile66, here is a dictionary definition for "spunk." You are referring to definition 1, but I am certainly familiar with uses 2 and 3, and those certainly make the term "spunky" problematic for an international encyclopaedia front page. Sassy does not have the same geographic connotations (none I am aware of, in any case), and it is used in the sources so is acceptable as a quotation, in my opinion.  :) EdChem (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow...Assuming the Mary Tyler Moore Show ran in England and/or Australia, there must have discomfort when Lou Grant told Mary Richards, "You've got spunk!" and she took it as a compliment. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Why just England and Australia? Here in America we read 19th-century English pornography too, you know. WRT the new hook, my only concern was calling the subject an "icon" in WP's voice, so I'm good. EEng 22:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's why. This kind of stuff would cause a coronary in midwest America, and the Westboro Church would be all over it too I'm sure. This is why care should be taken when using the word "spunk" or "spunky" from a British POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's input, but I object to using all those quote marks in ALT1a. The reason you don't see "nerdy" and "self-confident" in the sources is because I paraphrased them. Yoninah (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and created an unverifiable NPOV hook. Hence the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: We could reduce the quotation marks by just leaving the title of the video in italics and removing the translation. I didn't put "sassy and confident [but] nerdy tween" (or anything like that) as the quotations are from different sources. Removing the quotations changes the descriptors of Gonzalez' character from that provided by a source to one offered in Wikipedia's voice. This is less problematic as a description of a character than it was as a description of the 11 year old herself, but it is still arguably inappropriate to use in that way. "Sassy," "confident," and "nerdy" are used in the Fox and NYT sources so can be quoted without raising concerns. This would all amount to the following:
This is also tighter, and we now have confirmation that Maile66's and EEng's concerns are addressed, as are mine. EdChem (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: OK, fine, I guess. It's funny, I review so many hooks a year but I don't quite get why it's important to put these character descriptions in quotes. I notice you haven't changed the article at all. Shouldn't you be putting these descriptions in quotes in the article, to match the hook? Yoninah (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I know you do a lot of reviewing, which is appreciated. For me, describing a child with a word like "sassy," which can be taken as having sexual connotations, in Wikipedia's voice is at least problematic. Using the word for a performance by a child is potentially justifiable in WP voice if supported by multiple sources, or as a quotation from a single source. And yes, you are right that related article changes are needed too, but I am unsure why I alone would be responsible for them, as appears to be your suggestion. Given your objection, however, I was waiting to see what consensus was and I also feel like I am juggling many issues at once – not just on WP, either. Your question prompts me to investigate whether broad sourcing exists to remove quotation marks.

  • In addition to the Fox News source (sassy, confident, and nerdy) and the New York Times (nerdy and confident), there is:
    • The Tico Times [2] – uses "sassy"
    • Latin Times [3] – uses "nerdy" (obliquely)
    • Remezcla [4] – uses "confident", gives a description that fits "nerdy" but does not use the term
    • Hipgive (Hispanics in Philanthropy) [5] – uses "nerdy," "confident," and "sassy"
    • Peru this week [6]] – uses "sassy"
    • Huffington Post [7] – uses "confident" and "spunky"
  • Yoninah, any more sources you are aware of? I am inclined to say these do support a description in Wikipedia's voice, but will seek TRM's perspective.

@The Rambling Man: Do you think these sources collectively would support the description of Gonzalez' character and performance as that of a "nerdy-looking girl who is sassy and confident" in Wikipedia's voice, both in the hook and the article? Perspectives / Input from others here at WT:DYK welcome too. EdChem (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am asking whether you consider this sourcing would allow their use without quotation marks. In other words, is there the breadth of sources to support them as a neutral description reflecting a breadth of sources rather than an opinion needing attribution to a specific source by the use of quotation marks? The requirement for references is a given. EdChem (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll reiterate then, the language is not encyclopaedic so either needs paraphrasing into neutral tone, or quoting. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: OK, I put the character descriptions in quotes in the article and added the relevant cites. Here is my ALT2 with each character description quoted separately:
ALT2: ... that 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez plays a "nerdy" tween with a "sassy" and "confident" attitude in Bomba Estéreo's "Soy Yo" ("That's Me") music video? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the argument can be made for removing the quotation marks based on breadth of sourcing, but TRM evidently does not agree, so I think using them is the low-conflict way forward. Yoninah's changes to the article match the hook ALT2. I see no objections to it other than stylistic. @Maile66: is this sufficient to make the change to the queue set? EdChem (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah and EdChem: Hook now in queue 1 swapped with Yoninah's ALT2. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all. I admire and appreciate all the work you put into this, @EdChem:. Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah, it is always nice to hear when one's efforts are noticed and appreciated, and especially as I was concerned that you might feel I was being an obstruction to your nomination moving forward. I'm glad we have reached a solution that avoids the hook being pulled from the queue. EdChem (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hook pulled

I've pulled the current pictured hook due to a blatant error. The transmission of the tank weighed 5 tons, not the steering system. Please process accordingly, thanks. Stephen 22:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I can only imagine the onslaught of Facebook posts taunting us over this. EEng 06:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are on about. Is that supposed to be a joke? Stephen
That you pulled a book based on something in a children's book would make my adding a joke superfluous. EEng 11:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
That the kid's book was used as a reference for DYK content featured on the main page is the biggest joke here. Nice to know you've found your place to contribute. Stephen 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I had checked that, and the kid's book -- the one you quoted at Errors to justify pulling the hook -- isn't cited in the article. On the other hand I now can't find the book fact in the article either, so I'm not sure what's going on. Nonetheless relying on a children's book at Errors is naturally going to invite incredulity. Nice to see you've found your way of contributing, too, after a fashion. Gatoclass, what's going on? Where's the hook in the article? EEng 13:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Its complicated - The original nomination was failed/had a number of issues. The eventual hook was not the original. Tank steering systems does contain the basis for the hook: "While moderately successful, these early systems were large and extremely heavy; the one in the Saint-Chamond added five tons." however that is only if you accept the 'transmission' as being the steering system (its not by itself, its part of it). And it is not mentioned at all in the Saint-Chamond (tank) article at all, but as it is not the focus, that is not technically against the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Uh oh, I was looking at the Saint-Chamond (tank) article, so Stephen, my apologies. (A) How did we end up with a hook sourced to a children's book, and (B) when did they start naming tanks after saints? EEng 14:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Presumably after the S.Herman was named after St Herman. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I did exactly the same thing as you for five minutes looking through the history before I realised a)the fact there was an extensive history meant it wasnt the DYK target, b)it was clearly never in that article because tank afficiandos are unlikely to source tank specs to a childrens book! The original nomination was back in September and the Saint-Chamond was never part of it. It was proposed as an alt due to the original nom having issues, lots of other issues etc. The Saint-Chamond picture was never even in the article to start with. Clusterfuck all round I would say. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Most tank steering systems steer via the transmission - that is a major point in the article. And it appears you neglected to read the other source in the article, which says (page 92): "The transmission was described in the program: a single generator coupled direct with the engine supplies current to two motors in series. The independent control of each motor is accomplished by shifting the brushes. Each motor drives through a two-speed gearbox to a worm-reduction gear and from thence through a further gear reduction to the sprocket wheels driving the road chain wheels."[8] I think it should be abundantly clear from that description that the transmission system is the steering system in this type of arrangement. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The reference didn't support the fact. It was raised on errors, it got pulled. I'm not going to read through the article and concoct my own original research. Just do things properly next time, OK? Stephen 09:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is asking you to "concoct your own original research". However, before you decide to disrupt the main page by pulling the image hook, it doesn't hurt to check a couple of adjacent sources to ensure the hook fact isn't partly contained therein. It took me all of two minutes to find the above quote. I'm not saying you weren't within your rights to pull the hook, but this is a pull that might have been avoided with a little further investigation, so I hope you will bear that in mind for future reference. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
But its not. The relevant source makes no mention of the 'steering system' it just says the petrol driven electric transmission weighed 5 tons. Which is not necessarily the same thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know, the point I was making is that the adjacent source contains a much more detailed description, and that checking that one might have prevented the hook pull. Even if that wasn't the case, the main point is that checking one or two additional references can sometimes clarify the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I just looked at the adjacent source and I cant see any mention of weight of the transmission or steering at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The weight of the transmission is supplied by one source and a description of it is supplied in the other. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
So you used source A and source B to reach conclusion C which wasnt listed in either? Sounds like WP:SYNTH to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think there is sufficient information in the two sources to reach the given conclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that this hook has done the rounds twice now. For it to be pulled is an abject indictment of DYK and yes, Happy Christmas, but get your house in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Problematic nominations

The hooks for Eriksen M/25 and Zorobabela Kaʻauwai bring up blank pages when accessed from the Nominations page. I'm not sure about the first, but the second of these is because @KAVEBEAR: has moved the template page to a new name, which I know is discouraged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Erikson M/25 isn't opening from the nominations page because of that extra slash. It tries to find a nomination named 25. Looks like it's been approved: Template:Did you know nominations/Eriksen M/25. Wonder how Shubinator's bot will react to that? — Maile (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Both of these have now been fixed (Mandarax handled the Erikson M/25). I'm not sure why Shubinator's bot would have problems with either of these, since it doesn't depend on the DYK nompage links template, which was the source of the above issues in both nominations. Of course, if KAVEBEAR moves the template again, all bets are off. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived nearly a day ago, so here's a list of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through November 18. Right now the nominations page shows 281, of which 104 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 39 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. Only a few of these have initial review info from the DYK review bot and still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over six weeks 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) 23:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

William V. Thompson - problem in queue about to go to the main page

Urgent, admin action required for Queue 2

Floquenbeam has pulled the William V. Thompson hook from queue 2, which is due to go on to the main page in under half an hour. That queue now has a vacant slot and the credit templates for the pulled hook are still in place. We either need to fix the hook and return it, or move another hook into its place. The William V. Thompson nomination page has been re-opened and the prior discussions are here at WP:ERRORS and above in the Queue 2 thread. Discussion at ERRORS included The Rambling Man, Floquenbeam, EEng, me, Doug Coldwell, and others mentioned include Maile66, Jsayre64, SounderBruce, and Cwmhiraeth. Suggested alternatives are available in the ERRORS discussion. EdChem (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "credit templates for the pulled hook are still in place". If something needs to be removed from somewhere, point me to where, and I'll do it. If the DYK set goes out with one less hook than normal, that's not really a crisis, is it? I'm not competent to add a new hook; I'd want to make sure I was comfortable with everything, and there's no time for that. If someone else can do it comfortably, more power to them.
Also, while I'm here, I assume just reopening Template:Did you know nominations/William V. Thompson was ok? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, reopening the template was good. Thanks. What you also need to do in Queue 2 is go to the Credits section, and remove the sixth and seventh DYKmake templates, the ones that have "William V. Thompson" as their second field. This is what EdChem was referring to by "credit templates". Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

@Edwardx: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair point. In defence of the image, one could argue that the company and product are already very well-known, and the image quality is high. The problem is that we will struggle to find any other image related to Jim Delligatti that would be suitably licensed for the main page. Edwardx (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I doubt the use of the image will make any difference to their sales given that they spend billions globally advertising it. It's the only appropriate picture for that hook apart from Delligatti himself, which we don't have. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
You miss the point. I'm not saying it'll have any tangible effect on McDonalds, but it will have a tangible (negative) effect on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: I'd actually disagree that everybody knows who the CIA is (we aren't writing to a solely western audience) but I can't be bothered to argue. I'm travelling and am therefore on a phone. If there is a change to be made I'd be grateful if you would make it. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 15:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I'll hold off on any changes. I agree with you that it is an assumption that "we all know" what the CIA is. Who is the "we"? I think it should stay as it is. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Please, you didn't link hula yet you expanded out CIA? Nonsense. Most of the western world knows what the CIA is, the point of hooks is to be hooky, not verbose. Would you expand NASA? I doubt it. So the same applies here. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with TRM here, the CIA is an extremely well-known organization, for those few people who may somehow never have heard of it, they can follow the link. I have therefore trimmed the hook accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done it appears. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, he was a boy when he was born. But n.b. he was not the first settler child, there was a girl born before him. I try not to call people 'male human' and 'female human' when we have other words for that. - Brianhe (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought about this some more. Would "...was the first baby boy born to the settlers of Seattle" work better? - Brianhe (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Why can't we speak encyclopedically, e.g. male child? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It is specifically at odds with the guidance at WP:GENDER which says to reserve 'male' and 'female' for discussion of biology. This is not such a case. Brianhe (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The guidelines on these pages are often written by consensus of a tiny number of people, and should not necessarily be considered the last word or be followed slavishly. I think I would much prefer "male child" in this context as "boy" just doesn't read right. In the absence of consensus however, I have rephrased the hook more or less to Brianhe's suggestion above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, well I'll tag it at ERRORS in two days time, because right now it's not encyclopedic reading, it should be "first male child". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
"was the first son born to a settler in Seattle"? EdChem (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: which criteria says that? I thought Rule D2 calls for at least one cite per paragraph. In any case, I added the cite and moved some things around. Yoninah (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done it appears. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • " both towns connected by the 1931 opening of the Perley Bridge declared a half-day holiday to start at noon?" no, both mayors declared it a half-day holiday. Also, this could use some context, i.e. what date is a half-day holiday, and actually, whether the mayors declared it to be the case, is it real? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@MB: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Saying the towns declared the holiday is a summarization. I don't know all the mechanics - perhaps the mayors did it unilaterally, or perhaps the entire town council (or whatever the government of a Canadian town at the time was called) was involved. The "town" refers to the government entity with the authority to declare holidays. The date is implied as the date of the opening of the bridge, when the opening ceremony/dedication was held. The exact date is in the article. I didn't think that detail was needed in the hook. MB 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it would be nicer if you just said "deemed X Y" where X is day and Y is month, to be the holiday. And I still maintain the mayors did it, not the towns themselves. That needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Checked linked. — Maile (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done it appears. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Checked — Maile (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done it appears. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@HazelAB: — Maile (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Come on, Maile66 just fix this yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello? Maile66 are you going to fix this trivial issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This hook also uses the phrase "first book" twice, some copyediting would help. EdChem (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of providing the source quote on the template, but it's not required. You have to squint a lot at the tiny source. p 1 says "By the time her first published novel Under the Net appeared in in 1954, she had already produced a small book on Satre." A footnote on pg 182 of the source says "Murdoch is the author of the first book-length study of Satre in English..." — Maile (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Coldwell: — Maile (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 you need to remove these hooks. If you can't take responsibility for minor tweaks per house style and sources, you shouldn't be promoting sets. As is clear from the array of issues in just two queues, you should leave it to someone else please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 hello?? Are you going to to fix this? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion now at WP:ERRORS, this is the current status. Some tweaking is definitely needed, starting with the quotation marks around "Father of Bowling" as TRM mentioned. Doug Coldwell and Maile66 invited to comment given prior engagement with this nomination / discussion. EdChem (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the hook was just pulled from Queue 2 at ERRORS, meaning that we have a seven-hook set and less than half an hour to move in a new hook from either Queue 3 or one of the preps, preferably a hook that is not currently under discussion on this page. Maile, Cas Liber, if either of you are around and can do the honors, great. Otherwise, it is a set with comparatively long hooks, so having only seven won't be the end of the world. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
And, now that I look at it, the DYKmakes were not removed for this hook. Admin needed to do this at least, as well as adding in a new hook if at all possible. Many thanks. (I'll take care of reopening the nomination.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: — Maile (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Related discussion on TRM's talk. Sorry, I have other things to do on Christmas Day than source published works that are mentioned in authority control. In Germany, we still have Christmas even today. Patience please. It will be solved by the time it appears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: — Maile (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
They were floor-to-ceiling windows which I suppose you could call walls. I suppose it's best to follow the source and say "glass wall" user:SounderBruce do you have a thought on this?. - Brianhe (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Brianhe: I believe glass wall would be the best term to use here. I'll change the article to match the source. SounderBruce 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Um, yep, that's what I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, no building of any size can actually have glass walls in the normal load-bearing sense of the word; so TRM has them both ways. It's like it's Christmas all over again. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I'm just going by the reliable source used to verify the claim. Cheers! (And if you're unaware of the term glass wall, used architecturally, better do some reading up before putting your foot in it!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 are you going to fix this? It's "walls" not "windows" per the source. Seriously, should I take this to ERRORS? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

Comments have been actioned and the prep in question no longer has these hooks within it, meanwhile discussion is veering dangerously off-topic. Any editor may raise issues with preps and hooks here and editors may choose to engage or not with those suggestions so long as everyone abides by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:53, 29 December 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.

  • "a Master Baker Certificate" which is so un-notable that it's not even linked, let alone has an article, so my question here is ... "SO WHAT?" Certainly there seems some discrepancies between the articles, one is "a ... certificate", one is "a Master Baker certificate".... is it like the 5m swimming certificate I earned when I was five? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this an error? EEng 20:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, given there's no such thing as "Master Baker Certificate", I'd say..... YES! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the sources, and a Google search, there is. EEng 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you missed the point, twice. We don't have an article on it, it's capitalised differently three times, and it seriously lacks real interest "to a broad audience". But thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree the reference is superfluous if we don't have an article on the topic, and the hook would be better without it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree the hook would be better off without it too, but that doesn't make the original hook wrong. There are probably very few hooks that I couldn't improve to some tiny iota of a degree, but that doesn't mean the entire works of DYK should be constantly gummed up with my last-minute insistence that everyone attend to my personal nitpicks. EEng 17:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
(a) no-one mentioned error (except you), (b) prep area is currently hardly "last minute", and (c) it appears that this "personal nitpick" isn't just personal, at least one other editor agrees. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Just because, once you've raised the matter, other editors agree that it's an improvement, doesn't mean it was an improvement worth raising at this late stage of the process. If it's not an error or serious deficiency, you shouldn't be bothering everyone here with it. EEng 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to refresh your memory as to the purpose of this page, as noted at the top: This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Thanks so much! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a place for discussion, but we have our hands full with actual errors without endless chewing over of every point -- very often trivial -- that happens to occur to you. EEng 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so you've changed your tune? And you've failed to respond appropriately. Never mind, that's something I guess we are accustomed to here. One man's trivia is another man's magnum opus. Now either be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem! Your audience awaits with baited breath! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No change of tune, and I've responded appropriately. Again I encourage editors to ignore The Rambling Man's comments unless they raise a signficant problem. EEng 22:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, your relentless unhelpfulness continues unabated! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Ignored Award Hey, it looks like you have won the Ignored award for being ignored by someone, well done! EEng 02:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Ironic!! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The piece is published Evening Hymn, no more, which could be anything related to evening. "Te lucis ante terminum" is much more precise, relating to "Te lucis ante terminum", and ringing bells with readers. Had the publisher known that 90% or more performances would be in Latin, he would probably have called it that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
So, is "Evening Hymn" actually part of the title? Or is it something else? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Trying again: The piece is published Evening Hymn, no more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Again I agree with TRM here, the fact that the piece has apparently been published somewhere as "Evening Hymn" doesn't mean that the hook needs to reference both names, why not just stick to the name of the article title? Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
My reason #1 was that Gardiner composed both English and Latin, and the English is even above the Latin in the Novello edition, below in Carus. However, I know of only performances in Latin, which thus became the common name. Reason #2 is that while some readers will immediately recognize the Latin, for others it will be Chinese, while Evening Hymn tells them something. It's always published Evening Hymn, afaik, not "somewhere". Quote from the Carus Foreword: The Evening Hymn "Te lucis ante terminum" is the best-known work by ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but as I understand it, MOS states that a song name is rendered in quotes not italics, and certainly, it looks weird to have a song name rendered in both. How about just having the Latin name together with an English translation instead? Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Only that it is no song. The Latin Gregorian chant is a song. Gardiner's setting - three different settings of the stanzas, + coda, + substantial organ solo - is no song. It's a Hymn but not a hymn. Compare Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (J. C. F. Bach) vs. "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I just added a pair of parenthesis to indicate that the Latin is an alternative name by which the piece is known. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Why should we deviate from the exact notation of a respected publisher from 2004? The incipit specifies (the all too general) Evening Hymn. When it's in brackets it looks like a translation, which it isn't. - I didn't look up yet who put this hook in prep for when the year terminates, - a wise placement! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
What works in one context doesn't necessarily work in another. This work is known by two names, its proper name (Evening Hymn) and its informal name (the first line of the Hymn in Latin). Running them both together in a DYK hook just confuses the issue, so in light of your objection to my previous solution, I have eliminated the informal name from the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
That's about the worst "solution", for me at least, because that way the article title doesn't appear in the hook - and the "terminum", corresponding nicely to the termination of the year, is lost. The work is known ("common name" = article title), at least by those who know it, as Te lucis ante terminum. - Now I wanted to help those who don't read Latin by supplying the official but not common name as a help in English. If that is not acceptable (but see above: why should we deviate from a publisher's notation, with the incipit as added precision?) an alternative could be: ... not his evening anthem Te lucis ante terminum. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have run out of time to discuss this now, so will not be able to return to this discussion until tomorrow, my apologies. Gatoclass (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggested now something a bit closer to the approved hook: "... his compline anthem Te lucis ante terminum", with compline also used in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The hook is now in prep 6. Forget what I said about wise placement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Gerda, I moved it out of the New Year's Eve slot along with other hooks that sounded very caustic and un-New Years Eve-y. I'd move it back if you could drop the "self-critical" bit. Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
How else can we word (positively) how much the composer cherished this work? - I don't care if it comes later, but thought that it made a fitting conclusion to a year that was sombre in many respects. - I just learned the word, thank you, Tim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: "Sombre" is just the British spelling of "somber". You're right, the year is ending on a very down note, which is why I tried to steer away from negative hooks in the Dec 31 set. Can we focus instead on this being Gardiner's best-known hymn and it also being a popular choice for evensong? Yoninah (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know somber nor sombre, always learning (English). Just leave it as it is. I hate "best-known", really ,) + it's no hymn, see above. Related discussion on my talk. We have to clarify that the composer is not (the well-known) John Eliot Gardiner, but his (not-so-well-known) relative, - JEG wrote no symphonies, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "that Joan Acker and Miriam Johnson of the Center for the Study of Women in Society found that "Do you shave your legs?" was the question most strongly correlated to identifying with feminism?" well according to the article, "In a tribute to Johnson she wrote, "The question that correlated most highly with who was most likely to identify with feminism was 'do you shave your legs?' We had a good laugh over that." so it wasn't anything like the two of them "found that". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
What the article says is
Acker remembered an early research project with Miriam (Mimi) Johnson, a "Feminism Scale". In a tribute to Johnson she wrote, "The question that correlated most highly with who was most likely to identify with feminism was 'do you shave your legs?' We had a good laugh over that."
So, yeah, in their research they "found that" (though "correlated with" would be better than "correlated to"). Your insistence on always finding something wrong with everything is completely out of control. You may now flame, as usual. EEng 20:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
No, if you like, I take a minute or two to check each hook, like perhaps a reader would do, and then I work on verifying it, like perhaps 5% of readers would do. I couldn't find it easily here. Your explosive response is fascinating. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Your momentary restraint is a pleasant change. The article supports the hook 100%. EEng 21:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe at some point in the future you'll realise that I'm checking every single hook and most of them need work. I actually do some work on those, unlike most of those who "contribute" here. Let's see how this goes.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
No, most hooks could be better, but I disagree that most "need work". So far in this set, one of your complaints may potentially have merit, and on that one we'll see. EEng 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, wrong again! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, right again. All these hooks could have run just fine as they were, with the possible exception of the minor change to formatting of the Hymn title. And even that wasn't a big deal. EEng 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy faces all round! Your badgering won't stop me I'm afraid. These days, I'm stronger than you ever thought possible. Mu-ha-ha.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
There's no badgering. I'm just trying to get you see that we have to use our limited resources in a more focused way. EEng 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As before, your badgering won't stop me, I'm stronger than ever before. I only see one person here failing to be constructive, and it isn't me! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
If we read stronger than ever as more determined than ever to find even trivial fault everywhere, then we agree. EEng 22:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No need to agree, I'm stronger now than you will ever be, your unhelpfulness is getting tonnes heights! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Ignored Award Hey, it looks like you have won the Ignored award for being ignored by someone, well done! EEng 02:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Ironic! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the hook? EEng 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Nothing. It has to do with promoting articles which are not in a fit state. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a very short article, so the length of the lead does not look inappropriate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It's in keeping with many of the Indian politician bios that Soman brings to DYK. Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not the absolute length, it's the fact it fails to summarise the major points in the article. And just because other bios have equally poor leads, it doesn't make it right, as I'm sure you're aware. Or at least you should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
To appear on DYK articles need not be perfect in every way, such as the lead being adequate. If you want to improve the lead, improve it. Or don't. But it's not a DYK issue. EEng 17:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
But the problem is that the article itself is little more than a summary of the major points of his life; he was director of this, supervisor of that. Nothing stands out, and if you summarize his various hats in the lead, you are essentially just adding a repetition of the article's contents. It does a disservice to readers by making them read all the same information twice. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, his exile isn't mentioned at all, for instance. He has sections relating to early life, education and family which aren't noted at all, etc. So plenty of stuff stands out to be summarised. The lead does _not_ summarise the salient points of the article, that is fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As I said, in my view the article is virtually nothing but "salient points", and forcing the reader to read them all twice is just doing them a disservice. But if you think the lead needs more information, go ahead and add it. I won't do it because I can't see that it would improve the article, but maybe you can see something I've missed. Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Well I can see a whole section about his exile to Pakistan which is covered in two paragraphs of text yet seemingly not worthy of even a passing mention in the lead. Seems clear to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
All right. It was just as quick to expand the lead myself as it would have been to spend more time debating it here. Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Well done. Hopefully all such other nominations will be improved similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


  • I suggest that, the next time Rambling Man posts such a list of scattershot points, editors simply skim it for anything useful and take action (by changing the hook, editing the article, etc.) or do nothing as they see fit. There's no need to rework things to his satisfaction or debate with him. If his comment deserves ignoring, just ignore it. (Well, I guess it would be useful for an editor who has reviewed one of the points to say, "I don't see anything worth bothering with here", and unless someone wants to give a second look, the rest of us can just skip it based on that review.)
Our goal isn't to make hooks and articles perfect, but to have high confidence that they're good enough. There isn't time for all eyes to be constantly diverted to TRM's often-trivial nitpicks, even if sometimes they lead to some improvement. I wouldn't be posting this if he would restrict his comments to concerns which, if confirmed, would be disqualifying. EEng 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, no-one need do anything about anything on Wikipedia, we're all unpaid volunteers aren't we?!! But your badgering and trivialising won't stop me, mediocrity is the enemy of the good and in fact you'll see that more than half of my comments on the recent three sets have improved Wikipedia. Meanwhile you spend all this effort trying to explain to yourself and others why it's better to not strive for improvements. I know how this concludes and it's with the continued improvement of the main page, despite what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that your improvements are seldom worth the editor time they consume. Thus to repeat: people should feel free to simply ignore The Rambling Man's often trivial quibbles. EEng 00:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
That's your personal opinion. That most of the issues I bring up are attended to, or generate discussion means that they are worthwhile and mostly result in constructive improvements, unlike your denials and badgering. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I feel like it was just the other week, after his TBAN run at me flopped, that EEng was yelling that everyone should ignore me, too (which, so far, hasn't really happened). EEng - you're welcome, as an individual, to choose to ignore people. However, some may perceive it as disruptive when you use the Discussion page to try to rally people to your cause-of-the-day, particularly if everyone always stays quietly seated while you're waving the battle flag and sounding the Horn of Gondor. Anyway, just a thought. LavaBaron (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure why EEng thinks he has some kind of superior ability to determine whether or not others should or should not respond to any post on a Wikipedia talk page. The lady doth protest too much, methinks!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Others will determine for themselves whether o respond; I'm simply reminding them that they need not, unless they consider the concerns you raise significant. You both have long records of wasting enormous amounts of others' time, though for opposite reasons: Lava Baron in trying to prove that erroneous articles and hooks are really OK, and TRM in trying to prove that just about everything is substandard. EEng 22:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If you truly believe what you're trying to say, why are you continually repeating the same thing, despite others telling you to stop? Honestly, I think you want to do the best for Wikipedia but you're just wasting your own time and that of others with your issues. Never mind, maybe set a new standard for 2017 where you can actively seek to improve Wikipedia rather than just tell other people how to think and behave? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The Ignored Award Hey, it looks like you have won the Ignored award for being ignored by someone, well done! EEng 02:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it may be best for you both to have A nice cup of tea and a sit down before things get more heated. You both are valuable to the project and DYK is better for you. The Rambling Man's suggestions come from a place of care and his attempts to make the main page of the highest quality are admirable. EEng's concern for prioritizing volunteer time is a helpful voice in making sure that our limited resources are well allocated. Let's all try to stay cool before things get out of hand. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB] DEATH TO THE VOICE OF REASON! KILL! KILL! EEng 03:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Apparently not! By the way, this isn't Facebook, so how about giving all the cute icons a rest? I know several editors here who are just very tired of such edits... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Obviously, TRM and my Jeckyl & Hyde routine is the only thing keeping DYK interesting. I think I speak for everyone here when I say we are both very beloved and appreciated for it and are generally considered invaluable treasures of the project. As for "Lava Baron in trying to prove that erroneous articles and hooks are really OK" - I'm not trying to prove anything. However, I do approach Wikipedia with a different philosophical perspective than TRM; my view of WP is a project that makes an effort to be relatively accurate but I reject the notion that the organizational architecture of WP permits it to be more than aspirational. I advise people who seek a higher standard to explore opportunities for participation in Citizendium or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, both of which are set-up in a way that makes them less fun and interesting than WP, but more surgically correct. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that certainly explains a lot. `EEng 05:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you still badgering?! Time for you to take a break I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 29 December 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 5 - La Mia

The article has seven references to the website El Deber used 19 times in total. Unfortunately, none of the links appear to work any more, merely taking the reader to the current front page of the website. It is possible that the links have changed, but I've had no luck in finding them. There's not a problem with the hook - I found another source for it here - but it does mean that a reader isn't going to be able to click through to many of the sources. This isn't a criticism of the nominator or promoter because it was probably OK at the time, but does it cause us a problem now? Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does. If we can't verify the sources, even with dead links (but worse, dead ones which can't be retrieved via archive.org or whatever), it's not referenced. Pull the hook. But as I'm being followed and chastened for every single comment I make here by EEng, I'll leave it there. I'm sure he'll have some positive commentary to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Well apparently this isn't an issue, so I'll just leave it here for the time being, before being forced to pull it just before it hits the main page and leaving DYK a hook short. Still... Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The question here is whether a nomination being referenced to a dynamic site like El Deber should be permissible for DYK. We routinely accept off-line sources AGF, so should we not do the same for on-line sources that are no longer available? Or to put it another way, if the sources work at the time of the DYK review, should the nomination be rejected if they fail by the time it reaches the main page? I am not expressing a view on this, just asking a question. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, all of the El Deber articles were available on archive.org. I've added the relevant detail to the article. Hack (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Well done - presumably I was doing something wrong when searching for them. I'll replace the hook in the queue. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 - Perley Bridge

Nothing wrong with the hook, but the article says the bridge was built between 1930-31, yet the image shows the bridge "circa 1920". Pinging nominator @MB: Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Black Kite:The bridge was built in 1930-31. The caption of the image comes from the source [[9]]. If it is an actual photo, then the circa 1920 date must be a mistake. I have updated the caption in the article (removed date). MB 15:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What's up with the template since December 21

Looking at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_21, at some point the nomination listing changed from transcluding the template content to only have a single link. What's up with this? I feel the old way is better because it allows you to see if the nomination has been reviewed, while the new format requires me to click before I can find out. Besides, the "List of DYK Hooks by Date" doesn't work anymore for 21 December onwards. HaEr48 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We've been having this issue for a while, because we're exceeding the number of transclusions on a given page. Some attempts are being made to fix this: look through the threads above and in the archive. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 06:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources in the nomination template: Bad idea? or terrible idea?

Suggesting that we're moving from the former to the latter is Template:Did you know nominations/Furra, wherein a nominator is insisting on adding information to the hook based on their (mis)reading of one of the article's (unreliable) sources despite the article not including the claim and the article's (different) source for the related information refuting it.

I have no idea whose well-intentioned but bad→terrible idea this was but it's moving from tolerable annoyance to something that should be killed with fire. The reviewers need to look at the article and they need to verify that the claimed info is there and that it is supported in the article by the sources used in the article. Adding a new field for them to look at is just going to (and now actively is) throw(ing) grit into the process, making nominators think unverified statements are OK and luring reviewers into not doing their jobs by looking at the article's own sources. — LlywelynII 15:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The idea was proposed by EEng and the discussion is in the archives: Another bright idea. My impression is that this is supposed to be a trial period but I'm not sure if there's supposed to be a formal review. Me, I'm lukewarm about the idea. I followed it in this case because there's some variation in the sources and so thought it would be helpful to point to the best one. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Main page inaccuracy

On the main page, I changed

to

Template:Did you know nominations/Semra Ertan @LavaBaron, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth:

The source in the article[10] and in the nomination[11] make it clear that she protested xenophobia in Germany in general, not just xenophobia against Turks. To reduce her death to a protest against xenophobia against Turks only seems cruelly nationalistic. Fram (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't protest about something, you just protest it, or maybe protest against' it. EEng 10:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In British English, you protest "about" or "against" it. Simply protesting it is US English. So I'd suggest that protest "against" is the best version for both UK and US dialects. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I wasn't aware of that usage. It sounds very strange to American ears, so per WP:COMMONALITY protest against might be better. But it's not worth fussing about. EEng 17:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It's worth getting it right. Or, at least, better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. "protest about" sounds ok to me, especially when talking about some thing rather than a sentient entity, e.g. "protesting about high prices" sounds better to my ears than "protesting against high prices" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Addendum - my daughter does not think "about" sounds any good at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Protesting "about" something is just fine. For all the bluster here, why not just do a Google search of these phrases. It easily demonstrates the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Those sources don't make it "clear" that she was protesting xenophobia "in general", they just don't make an outright statement about Turks in particular. However, the second source in the article does.[12] Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
On reflection, it's probably best to leave the hook as it is. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment from approver: Actually, you're all wrong. You need neither "about" nor "against". The version I approved [13] correctly read: "... that in 1982 Semra Ertan set herself on fire in a Hamburg marketplace to protest xenophobia against Turks in Germany?" (see "protest xenophobia" at Deutsche Welle [14],"protest intolerance" at the Hindustan Times [15], etc.). The addition of "about" or "against" is a regional anachronism, like the use of "whilst" instead of "while". What happens to the hook after I approve it is not my prob, not my job. I have no idea what happens other than somehow it gets spit out on the main page a few days later, usually in the form I approved it, sometimes wildly different. More often than not someone tries to TBAN me a couple hours later because the hook had a colon instead of a semi-colon. Then there's a big dust-up, some screaming and slammed doors, and everything resets. It's an arcane ritual no one can ever truly understand. LB out - LavaBaron (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Would you like some cheese with that whine? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017

Seasons' greetings! This is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2017 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than eighty users have signed up to take part in the competition. Interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

For those looking to help, without competing, watchlist Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed which will list requests for reviews, including DYK nominations, by participants during the competition. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

Thank you. I have added the word "honorary". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The "glassy" could probably be omitted. Would you prefer
Better. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
We agreed on "As boron monofluoride monoxide glasses lose boron trifluoride gas on heating beyond the glass transition temperature, they form a popcorn-like foam". Cwmhiraeth, did you not read the review when yo umoved things to staging? 158.93.6.11 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, that sucks big time. So at least the initial posting had a hook about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Betty Campbell)

Has a maintenance tag on it, a large number of unsourced or vaguely sourced statements. Also things like "The area was formerly known as Tiger Bay" - it was called Tiger Bay when Campbell was born there. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It didn't have a maintenance tag on it when I promoted it. That was added by TRM and the article was nominated by Fram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not attributing blame to anyone, just pointing out that it could do with a little bit of improvement for the main page. If I get time this evening I might have a crack at it myself. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
It should have had a lead per WP:LEAD before it was promoted, but that's not important to the project promotion "team". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, TRM. Which promotion instruction deals with that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That would be the WP:COMMONSENSE one which pretty much covers the fact that if you don't know about WP:LEAD or worse, aren't interested in enforcing it, then stop promoting such inadequate articles. But you already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ending the year with a bang...

Abyssal really wanted to get Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event research onto the mainpage on NYE (i.e. ending the year with a bang). However there have been delays and the sets are now set past that point. For this one to be on NYE (we're still on 12 hourly hooks, right?) it'd have to replace the lead hook in Queue 5. I was pinged about this and quite like the idea really. How do other folks feel? i.e. do folks feel it'd be good to put this one on NYE and replace the Queue 5 lead hook? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: if I'm not mistaken we're on a 24 hour cycle. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 06:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Call it starting the New Year with a bang. The image in Queue 4 should not be replaced because it shows a December calendar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary—will someone please replace that lead image? Readers will be completely unable to tell what it is at that size; we shouldn't be relying on the caption to inform them, they should be able to see something. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
They see something beautiful, worth clicking on, - what else can DYK do? A hook also gives a limited view of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Gerda, but just in case, I have just uploaded an alternative image, which is clearer but perhaps less appropriate. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In cases like these it can be best to crop a detail with the Commons tool & use that in the article, even if just over the DYK time. That should work very well for the calendar. Johnbod (talk)
Actually I see Commons already has this December detail, which would be good - ideally at full width, or trimmed again. The collapsing city is almost as doomy as the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt - Pseudo-Jacquemart has a second image added today that could be used. The "Manuscripts attributed" section was slapped with a Dispute tag on December 28. WP:DYKR "Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent edit history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem." — Maile (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've detagged it as the section is largely reffed now, barring a couple of works which I can't verify atm but which there is no reason to disbelieve. --Hillbillyholiday talk 19:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday Thank you for being so quick about this. Happy Holidays! — Maile (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
there is no reason to disbelieve yes, there is, it's been challenged by someone. Therefore it needs inline citations per WP:V. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there are eleven manuscripts listed and only two still require a citation. Perhaps we have to double check that all the page numbers are 100% correct and are presented in the correct format? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
That would be good, but what we should do is present verifiable material to our readers using reliable sources. I know that's not the sort of thing that bothers you, or many other users here, but it's policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Fwiw, I was fiddling with that article a few days ago, unaware it's been submitted for DYK. The artist contributed to manuscripts, i.e that list of manuscripts contains work he added, either to leafs painted by others or leafs he painted himself, but from what little I was able to find in a very quick check, we shouldn't be saying all those various manuscripts are his. If it were up to me, I'd want references there, and I tried to find them. I do have books available, but haven't been editing much and don't like the pressure of having to produce refs for something that's somewhat complicated in a rush, so I gave up. Short version: I think they should be referenced. Pinging Fram too, who's familiar with the subject area, and might have an opinion. Plus, to be quite honest, there are some other issues with the article. But it might slide through and except for this comment I gave up complaining here after the 2011 episode. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Victoria (and happy new year to you). Your view from outside the DYK microcosm is essential in helping those of us inside to understand what is really needed and important here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Late to this (there's life beyond Wikipedia): could we just hide the two unreferenced items until after DYK? We'd still have nine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't be taking short-cuts just for a DYK appearance. Either delete them permanently (perhaps move them to the talk page and request extra help in sourcing them) or leave it as is. DYK pays little interest in [citation needed] tags so it's bound to run, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well. I've taken a few moments away from family and pulled a book off the shelf and managed to add a sentence, [16]. Checking the existing source in the sentence, [17], I notice there's a list of which calendar pages Pseudo-Jacqemart contributed to in the Grande Heures. I do not see File:Grandes Heures du duc de Berry (BNF latin919) - Calendrier Décembre (f.6v).jpg on the list, but maybe I'm missing it. The problem with 600 year manuscripts is that they're 600 years old, and it's really difficult to hoover up stuff via the internet without doing some actual research. Anyway, maybe he contributed to the lead pic, but then again, maybe not. That, in my view, is an issue. I have serious doubts as to whether he contributed to the Milan-Turin hours, but he might have done. Still, he seems to be working in Paris and much of that mss. was produced in Bruges - or that's the more current scholarly position. My feeling is that this got a little rushed - and happy new year back atcha TRM! I have fairly strong feelings about getting sourcing right. Victoria (tk) 22:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Victoria, that's really helpful. A lot of stuff at DYK gets rushed through or is simply "accepted" at face value. Your efforts are much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never taken this page off my watch all these many years later but this is the first time in years I've poked my head over the parapet. Anyway, here's the actual image from the mss. It looks like [this source I mentioned in my earlier post refers to the Petite Heures and not to the Grande Heures. I have company and have given this all the time I can, so will stop now, but I've pulled some iffy assertions out of the article, and some iffy sources. As I said at the beginning, it might be ok but more time to do the research and get it right would have been nice. Victoria (tk) 22:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, it's great to get some people onboard who actually care about and are knowledgeable about the subject. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a shame this interesting DYK will have to be pulled at the last minute. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be pulled as long as it's right. According to Timothy Husband, page 45 in this book only one full page miniature survives by Pseudo-Jacquemart in the Grandes Heures, so we can't be certain the calendar page is one of his. We do know, per the Getty that the two leafs in their possession are attributed to him. My suggestion would be that Gerda Arendt, Hillbillyholiday and Martinevans123, or whomever nominated the DYK (I've not read the nomination), decide which of these two images to feature in the lead and upload. In the meantime, I'll finish what I was doing on the article. The issue is this: nominating articles that are incomplete or lacking in references is make work for others and not really fair, imo. Victoria (tk) 23:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't bother with Martinevans123, as apparently he's not bothered about presenting verifiable material to our readers using reliable sources. The other two might stand a chance, though. Unless they've got visitors. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that Martin. I haven't seen who made the nomination; either I mention someone and get slammed or I leave some one out and get slammed. I've rewritten and it should be ok now, but I'd suggest uploading a different lead image, though the world won't end if we run one that's not by the artist we claim its by. Yes, I do have visitors, and no, didn't intend to do this today. But it's best to fix so we can run it. I'm off. Happy New Year to all. Victoria (tk) 23:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it wasn't you, was it. Very sorry if you feel slammed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So, um, when are we going to run the Cretaceous-Paleogene article? Abyssal (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: @Gerda Arendt: @Victoriaearle: @Martinevans123: @The Rambling Man: Um, guys? Abyssal (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Abyssal, I wasn't aware when I posted above that we were minutes away from having that prep run and was surprised to see the Pseudo-Jacquemart article with its picture appear - for some reason I thought maybe a different image would be uploaded or someone would decide not to run it and run your instead. I don't know what the process is here, now that it's run. I should have made clear that I agreed with Casliber's original posting. Apologies for this late reply; have been away from the computer. Diplomacy prevents me from saying what I'd like to say, but I think if you wrote that article for a main page DYK appearance on Jan 31, you should have been given a fighting chance. I apologize if I muddied the waters, which is entirely possible. Victoria (tk) 15:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Abyssal I don't know. I now see a wall of text here and can't really gage a consensus for anything yet. Plus it is past NYE...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Epiphany hook

I have just created The Three Kings as a hook for Epiphany on 6 January however, I am slightly concerned that with the problems with the transclusion that is happening on the page that it might get buried or unnoticed, would it be possible for a review and promotion in time for then please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The nomination has passed been passed and is ready for promotion, Only listing that fact here due to the transclusion problems. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I have moved it to the Special occasions section. Whoever promotes it will need to supplant one of the hooks already in Prep 4, since that's the set that will ultimately run on January 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done Promoted to Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Spring District

Thought I should mention that I have a question for SounderBruce about Spring District. I expect it to be resolved due to misunderstanding of the way the Puget Sound megaproject rankings were calculated. - Brianhe (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also incredibly dull and parochial. If you've never heard of Puget Sound, why is this in any way interesting? It certainly isn't interesting to a "broad audience" per the DYK criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I'm unsure of where PSBJ are getting their numbers, but they have the Bertha/SR 99 project listed as fourth at $1.4 billion. That covers the tunnel itself and street modifications, but not the waterfront redevelopment (which could count as a separate project, as it's under the control of SDOT). @The Rambling Man: The second alt hook I suggested might have more broad interest. If the current hook is kept, Puget Sound could probably be substituted with the Seattle metropolitan area, a term that more people would be familiar with (but, again, not fixing the broad interest problem). SounderBruce 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Bruce, understood. PSBJ may not have included the seawall, park, and waterfront improvements - Brianhe (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Queue 5 copyedit

Can an admin please adjust the final hook so "eight-year old" is changed to "eight-year-old" (should also be a hyphen between "year" and "old")? Many thanks. (Pinging the two 66 admins, Maile66 and Schwede66, in case either is around at the moment and can make the fix.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Schwede66 00:27, 10 January 2017 (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) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Evita (1996 film)

If possible, would someone mind featuring this on the main page on January 10th? It recently occurred to me how that date is the 20th anniversary of the film's wide release. Posting here in case the original nomination wasn't already noticed by anyone who takes entries to prep. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Moved to special occasions holding area for January 10. Yoninah (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Gui Minhai

"that two Swedish citizens, Gui Minhai and Peter Dahlin, appeared in video confessions broadcast by China Central Television within two days of each other in January 2016?"

This is mildly interesting but it would be much better to focus on just Gui Minhai, his disappearance, his being held in custody for three months and actually what he supposedly confessed to, because the article makes it clear that the confessions where highly dubious. This hook doesn't seem to cover any of that adequately, and is actually much less interesting for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a problem if this isn't resolved, I'll just take it to ERRORS when it appears on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The hook has been returned to the nomination page. But surely referring this to ERRORS would be inappropriate; as I understand it, your only objection is that the hook is less interesting than it could be. That is not an error. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The hook, as it stood, wasn't fully reflective of the facts of the matter. Glad you've taken the appropriate action. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2017 (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) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/L'Histoire de Babar, le petit éléphant

This is not a last-minute nomination, but was just approved now. Could someone slot it into Prep 5 for January 7? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, both! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Founding

There is currently an approved hook on the nomination page that reads "... that when the theologian Patrick Dehm was suspended by the Bishop of Limburg, he founded an ecumenical association to continue the work for contemporary church music? ". Reading the article, one can see that following the suspension, Dehm founded the association jointly with others. His suspension may have been the trigger factor, but it was not a sole enterprise. Do other people think the hook is accurate as it stands? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Founding an association implicitly involves several people as it wouldn't be an association without multiple members. If Dehm was one of the prime movers then the hook seems ok. Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Usually we write "co-founded" or "helped found". Yoninah (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If the concern is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, "when the" could be changed to "after" so that the potential implication of the suspension as causative is reduced. Yoninah's suggestion of "co-founded" seems to me to address the action being a joint enterprise. EdChem (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have now promoted this hook to Prep6, incorporating your various suggestions to give

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about half an hour ago, so here's a list of the 36 oldest nominations that currently need reviewing, which includes all those through December 4. Right now the nominations page shows 288, of which 122 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 78 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. A few of these have initial review info from the DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the thirteen that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Alibabavum 40 Thirudargalum

I want it to appear on the main page on 17 January as it is the centenary of M. G. Ramachandran, the star of the film. But the DYK process is lagging, mainly due to the reviewer's long absence. Can there please be a new reviewer, so that the DYK can be cleared and the article can appear on the desired date? Here is the DYK page Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to review it, but to anyone interested, I'd say that this is an easy pass, the article is in very good condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done Reviewed and moved to special occasions holding area for January 17. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Jumping the queue

Im curious, am I the only one annoyed and put of by people jumping the nomination process by asserting a hook need/would be best on a certain day? It seems to be happening more and more often and when the nomination does not get eyes soon enough for a nominator, they post here, and their nom almost inevitably gets put ahead of the rest of the nominations, and bumps something else when placed. Its seems a little like gaming the system to me.--Kevmin § 21:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your DYK has been approved! – EEng
I'm sure more individuals than just you feel aggrieved when an already slow and arcane process becomes even slower and somehow selective, against your nominations. But if you've ever had an FAC or FLC or even GAN, you'd realise that a delay of two or three months before promotion is standard. There's no "gaming" going on, just prioritising DYKs which are date-related, which is good for our readers and perhaps not good for your patience levels. I'd suggest you get over it and do something more constructive, like write another DYK, or better still, head for the quality side of the encyclopedia and take a DYK you've made up to GA or FA. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, accommodating a date request is a nice way to welcome a newbie, or a minor courtesy extended to a longsuffering veteran. Either way it's fine. EEng 22:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware

I have proposed and received approval from the nominator for a new hook to get this (our oldest nomination) and its beautiful image off the talk page and onto the main page. However, now I can't approve it or promote it. Could 2 other editors please do the honors — ASAP? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have approved ALT6, which was originally proposed by Gerda, and I see no reason why you should not promote this hook to prep. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You're right! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Age of Kings

In Queue5, which will hit the main page in a few hours, we have

Template:Did you know nominations/John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Vanamonde93, and Yoninah:

Henry VI of England was born on 6 December 1421, so turned eight on 6 December 1429. Beaumont "was knighted by the eight-year old king on the eve of his coronation in 1429" (from the bolded article). The Henry VI article states "Henry was soon crowned King of England at Westminster Abbey on 6 November 1429". So at the time of his coronation (and at the eve of this coronation), he was a seven-year-old king, not an eight-year-old king, if my maths are correct. (I note that this error comes from the source[18] which incorrectly describes him as "barely eight years old" as well; let's hope the remainder of that source is not filled with errors as well!) Fram (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you put into uncovering this discrepency. This, however, appears to be a detail that can be fixed without messing up the larger picture: the "hook" here is that the king is young. If we tweak the article and hook to read "seven" instead of "eight", we should be fine. Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Agree that Henry VI was seven: "So it was that, on November 6th, 1429, a month before his eighth birthday and less than four months after the coronation of his rival, the Dauphin, in Reims, the young Henry VI was crowned King of England at Westminster Abbey", "with the king just a month shy of his eighth birthday" - and even the book by Ralph A. Griffiths has the dates of birth and coronation correct in the "some important dates" section. I think the explanation is that Griffiths is using "barely" in the sense of "not quite" rather than "only just", which are (perhaps confusingly!) both given as part of definition 5 by the Oxford English Dictionary ("Only just; hence, not quite, hardly, scarcely, with difficulty.") So we should just change the hook and article to say seven. BencherliteTalk 09:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done BencherliteTalk 10:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This time it is Murder of Pamela Werner, which I would like to run on January 8, the 80th anniversary of the crime. I see the queues are close to being put together for that date.

It isn't totally finished yet, but there's enough in there right now to support the hook and pass the process, and by Sunday I expect to pretty much have it done. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Dennis arrived in Peking by train, preceded by two of his underlings who would also work with him for a few days" Underlings? Surely subordinates would be more appropriate? (This is one example - there are others.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death:  Done [19]. And please, if you feel the prose needs further improvement, by all means follow EEng's example and actually dip your proverbial wick in the wax rather than making solitary suggestions on a talk page in response to a request for expedited review. Unless you're comfortable with someone else doing the review (to which I second Gerda's plea below; people here are usually more responsive than this. C'mon ... you've got to have gotten over your hangovers by now ). Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Could someone move this to Prep 6, preferably with the image? Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Another Template:Did you know nominations/L'Histoire de Babar, le petit éléphant

Nominated last year, I said that would be best on 7 January, the composer's birthday. Has not been reviewed yet, and the prep for the day is already full. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Review in progress. Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Pamela Werner

I have approved and moved this hook to the Special Occasions holding area for January 8, which corresponds to Prep 6. Could another editor promote this please, preferably with the image? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have done so but not included the image as I did not see why it should take precedence over other encyclopedic images. We should not be encouraging editors to create and nominate articles with such tight deadlines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Is nine days a "tight deadline"? Pppery 20:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Caspar Isenmann

Feeling pressed...

Since that great man may have died precisely on 18 January 1472, could the article feature as a DYK on 18 January? It would be the 545th anniversary of his sad passing (of course, he may also have died much later, but nobody knows for sure). --Edelseider (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

From the article: "Isenmann's dates of birth and death are uncertain." What's precise about that? Schwede66 20:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
From the article: "however the Bibliothèque nationale de France states that Isenmann died on 18 January 1472". @Schwede66: I assume bad faith. --Edelseider (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You should not readily assume bad faith when interacting with other editors. To say it in your own words: "nobody knows for sure". I don't think it's a good idea that we make a birthday feature out of it when "nobody knows for sure" when his birthday was. And the approved hook doesn't refer to 18 January anyway, so I don't know what you are trying to achieve. But if others think this is a good idea, let's by all means go for it. Schwede66 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the clarification about the bnf. As written it was confusing, and honestly I don't understand the huge discrepancy - my guess is that one of the sources is wrong (or there was a son) - and it should have a little more research to nail it down. Regardless, no, I wouldn't say at all that Schwede66's remark was bad faith. He was asking, rightly, for clarification. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I did research a lot on the Internet (using the different versions of the name: Caspar, Kaspar and Gaspard) but there is not much information and for the date of death it is always either 1472 or between 1484 and 1490. One biography says that he was registered as a Schöffe (lay magistrate) in Colmar from 1450 "until his death" but without stating when he actually died for sure, which is a kind of information we cannot include today! --Edelseider (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 Old Depot

Hi, I noticed that the Old Depot Museum that is currently in prep area 4 is using the "wrong" hook. It's using alt 1 when the reviewer chose alt0. What is the right way to go about fixing this? Thank you, and all the best, Kmwebber (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

Talk to the promoting user. Often as not, things get changed, sometimes a lot, because of personal preferences, MOS issues, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I promoted this hook, and here is a link to the nomination template. I agree that the reviewer expressed a preference for ALT0, but I didn't see all the elements of that hook in the article and there were no inline citations for it either. However, it seemed to me that the reviewer had approved both hooks, albeit with a slight proviso for ALT1 with which I did not agree, and I thought that referring to a permanent exhibit was better than to a temporary one that is already a thing of the past. If you are unhappy with this, the hook can be returned to the nomination page for further consideration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This hook appears to have been moved to Prep 1, and then Kmwebber changed it to ALT0 despite what was noted here. Since nominators are never allowed to change hooks in prep, I reverted it automatically, and then, seeing this discussion, I decided to remove the hook from prep and reopen the nomination per Cwmhiraeth, since Kmwebber is clearly unhappy with the original promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I did not mean to start a commotion or do anything that wasn't kosher with Wikipedia guidelines. I am perfectly happy and willing to go with ALT1, and I will go back and add the correct inline citation if necessary. I would love to see this as a DYK, and I like both hooks (I did write both the hooks so I really don't care, I just wanted to do what the reviewer wanted am and new at DYKing). Cwmhiraeth BlueMoonset Kmwebber (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

Check needed

After a few weeks helping out at DYK. –EEng

I promised that I would lend a hand promoting preps to the queue and have just had my first go at this. I've tried to follow the admin instructions carefully. Could an admin who has done this before please look over what I've done (especially the picture upload) to make sure that I haven't missed anything? Thanks. Schwede66 19:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

[FBDB]Welcome! EEng 20:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK reviews underway. Original title: A group of mentally ill patients sitting around and staring. –EEng
WP:ERRORS. Original title: A group of mentally ill patients dashing about a burning room –EEng
DYK drove him to it. –EEng
I used to be reasonably active at DYK up until 2014, so know that things can be a bit interesting here. But I wasn't an admin back then, hence the need for somebody with the mop to look over my shoulder. Schwede66 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've done my second queue and reviewed everything that's in prep1. I saw that there's been quite a bit of shuffling of hooks between the various prep areas. Hence I thought I better ask whether I shall go ahead and promote prep1, or whether there's a preference to have it sit there for a bit longer? Schwede66 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back to DYK! It does no harm to leave things in prep a little longer to enable non-admins to make the sort of alterations you mention. When hooks are moved from one prep to another it is often to balance prep sets or to make way for date-specific hooks. I can't comment on whether you did everything correctly, but your first queue seems to have gone through satisfactorily. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. Had a message on my talk page and the 'pedia is still going fine, even after my first queue promotion. Phew. Schwede66 09:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just had to send one of the Prep 1 hooks back to the drawing boards, so the set won't be ready until another hook is promoted in its place or a hook is moved in from another prep. Generally, there is more pressure to promote preps to queue if all the preps are filled, and also it's good not to wait until the very last minute to promote a prep when the queues are empty. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Being the "new kid on the block", it's not up to me to call the shots. But if I were allowed to voice a preference, it would be to keep the DYK queue out of the admin backlog, meaning that there are three queues filled. For that to be realistic, there need to be a few full preps, too. Maybe "three" isn't quite the right number when we run on a 24-hour cycle. How often do you change the frequency of promoting to the homepage? Should we drop the admin backlog threshold to "two" when we are on a 24-hour cycle? Is it a good thing to collectively aim for to keep the DYK queue out of the admin backlog? Schwede66 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the notice (and admin backlog) doesn't go away until their are four queues filled ("fewer than 3 empty queues"), which hasn't happened very often of late since we don't have as many people filling preps as we once did. I've never considered the admin backlog to be particularly germane because it doesn't seem to affect how often admins come by to promote preps to queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally,I get the feeling that speaking of backlogs, given that the nominations are continuing to come in regularly and the nominations page is already broken with transcluding the noms; it might be prudent to consider moving back to a 12 hour cycle at some time when we have full preps and queues. Just so we have a cushion to adapt to the change and to clear the backlog quicker. That way, admins know that when they have full preps, they can be moved to queues after their checks quicker. Either that or we suggest to some of our more prominent prep builders, that they may want to consider adminship to assist even further. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I can try and keep up with prep builders. But coming back to the backlog, I reckon that the threshold is set so high that it's permanently backlogged, and that's the reason that admins don't pay much attention. If the 'backlog alarm' actually meant something, maybe admins would swing by more readily. Hence my thinking: get the preps full a bit quicker and then keep it at that level, keep the queue somewhat fuller, but lower the threshold that triggers the backlog. Schwede66 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The backlog notice is a relic of a very naive idea of the way DYK would work i.e. that if there are queues that want filling, just any ol' admin can wander in and do it; in reality it takes a good deal of domain knowledge, which only a few possess (and good thing you're taking on the challenge of learning it -- we need you). It's certainly healthy to have 36-48 hours' worth of updates in Q. On the current 24-hour posting schedule, that means having 2 or 3 Qs filled at a time is a healthy goal; but aiming for all 6 to be filled may be counterproductive -- see next bullet point.
  • We currently have a barely functioning QA system here, which critically depends on certain eyes focusing on hooks once they've entered the Prep/Q stage. To maximimize the ability of these "eagle eyes" to pull a problematic hook back from the brink, it's desirable that hooks spend as much time as possible in Prep (not Q, which puts them out of most editors' reach). Therefore, moving sets from Prep to Q, just to keep the Qs as full as possible, is a bad idea, all other things being equal.

I would therefore suggest the following protocol:

  • If the number of full Qs is 1 or 0, promote a Prep to Q (assuming a Prep is ready, and ideally taking the oldest one); if there's still only 1 Q full, then promote another set..
  • If the number of full Preps is 5 or 6, promote a Prep or two to Q (ditto above) -- there should always be an empty prep or two available for builders to start on.
  • Otherwise, leave things.

EEng 00:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok EEng, thanks. Schwede66 03:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4

... that U.S. Representative Clay Higgins has been dubbed the "Cajun John Wayne"?

Please rework this per WP:SEAOFBLUE as there's no such term as Cajun John Wayne, but there is Cajun John Wayne. The consecutive blue links are confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed half the sea of blue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Although not necessarily the case here, please also note MOS, with relation to linking in quotes, which states "... As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may ... violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged ... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help fixing broken view on T:TDYK

Hi there. Somehow the inclusion of Template:Did you know nominations/Yazh Nool in the section for January 1 on T:TDYK leads to all following entries being shown only as links (removing this entry restores the others to normal). I can't figure out why this happens though. Can someone more knowledgeable with templates have a look? Regards SoWhy 20:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, SoWhy The page has too many nominations transcluded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Then when I find some time I should see if I can get back into promoting hooks to empty that page a bit =) Regards SoWhy 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 155 nominations currently awaiting promotion and 371 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order, and virtually all of the current nominations aren't transcluded at all. Our backlog is over 19 days and climbing.

The following are 22 nominations that were approved at least three weeks ago, and some much longer than that. Since we're promoting 56 per week, these 22 have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the hooks don't have to wait much longer than they already have. Also, since Cwmhiraeth has been the primary set builder, I've put an asterisk next to ones that Cwmhiraeth approved, nominated, or otherwise can't promote—over half of these—to let other set builders know that they should give them attention.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin cleanup needed for Queue 1

Queue 1 was promoted to the main page about an hour and a half ago, but the DYKUpdateBot didn't quite finish the job. An admin is now needed to empty the queue so it only has a single line—{{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}—and update Template:Did you know/Queue/Next from "1" to "2" so the next queue in line to be promoted is Queue 2. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to Maile, who has just done these two steps. We're all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hospice (main page correction)

On the Main Page, I changed

  • ... that Lucy Finch founded the first hospice in Malawi, a country where about a million people are living with HIV/AIDS?

to

  • ... that Lucy Finch founded the only hospice in Malawi, a country where about a million people are living with HIV/AIDS?

Template:Did you know nominations/Lucy Finch @Andrew Davidson, Gerda Arendt, and Yoninah:

Finch founded the hospice in 2005, but it seems that already in or before 2001, an American nurse, Mary Jane Lucas, opened a small hospice, as reported by Associated Press[20][21].

It seems to be correct though that at the moment, the Finch hospice is the only one remaining in Malawi, hence my change. Fram (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You might want to put 'remaining' in then. 'The only hospice' reads as if its the only one. Ever. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Fram (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The revised hook looks ok – thanks for doing this with a tweak rather than a pull. I have updated the article, adding a footnote about the other earlier hospice. A new editor, user:Honeydrudge, contributed a big block of content during the editathon so I'm pinging them so that they are in the loop too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead too short

I am not an advocate of tagging articles by adding MOS-type tags such as "Lead too short". Adding such tags to DYK-nominated articles that have already been promoted to prep seems particularly undesirable; the article might proceed to the main page without the tag being actioned. The tag disfigures the article, and the DYK rules and supplementary rules include no requirement for these newly created or expanded articles to conform to MOS guidelines. What do others think of this practice? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the aims of DYK is too attract (new) editors to new articles. Identifying problems and issues with such articles, so people know more easily what may need to be done, seems to be a good thing for DYK, not a bad thing. The fifth aim of DYK is "To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors." Fram (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is covered by the supplementary rules under D6: "The article is likely to be rejected for ... the presence of dispute tags." One could argue that this is also covered by D7 (emphasis added by me): "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress." If the tagging happens after promotion to prep but before it goes into the queue, I for one will ping nominators and the reviewer to deal with it. I've done this twice in the last 24 hours if I remember rightly (here and here). If the tag were to remain, I wouldn't promote the hook to queue, or remove it from the queue before it goes live. Maile66, how do you handle these things? Schwede66 11:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwede66 "Lead too short" is not listed as a WP:DISPUTETAG template. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe "Lead too short" as a dispute tag. For articles to actually appear on the main page carrying tags is deprecated. There have been occasions when the queue is empty, and a prep set gets moved to the queue shortly before the deadline without the kind of detailed inspection you are referring to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, got that wrong. Had another look and you are right. This leaves us with rule D7. Schwede66 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwede66 That would seem to be in conflict with WP:DYKNOT. You asked that I would do. As an admin, you have to chart your own course on things like this. The best advice I can give you, is to try and take the high road, according to your own instincts. Hopefully, you take into consideration what it feels like to be the nominator. You will be pulled in opposite directions. No matter what you do, it's bitch-moan-blame from one direction or another. There are some who will say anything to get a reaction. Being a promoter to prep and being an admin can be a fast burn-out, because of this. I can think of one admin who did one promotion to queue and never another one. I can think of one fairly recent prep promoter who quit after a short time precisely because of the blame-laying that goes on with it. People quickly get tired of being the punching bag and move elsewhere. I refer you to the posts on this page Christmas Day. So make up your own mind how you want to handle things. And good luck. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I guess with 200+ DYK credits, I certainly know how these things can be like for a nominator. Schwede66 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: how would leaving MOS tags attract new editors to articles featured in the DYK section? If anything a tag would only deter a new editor from editing the article as they wouldn't understand MOS terminology and would probably leave it to a more experienced editor to deal with. DYKs are meant to set a standard for quality, leaving tags in articles when they've been promoted wouldn't set a good example for anyone. ("quality", heh) JAGUAR  11:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
DYKs are meant to set a standard for quality – are you joking? EEng 13:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes I was, did you not see the "("quality", heh)" in small print at the end? JAGUAR  13:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops, no I didn't. EEng 13:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The main point I am making is that if an article is going to be tagged with "Lead too short", this should be done on the nominations page so that the matter can be resolved before the article is promoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that. But fact is, these things will be overlooked by reviewers from time to time. In one of the examples I gave, it was overlooked during the GA review. If it slips through the net there, there is little hope to expect that all DYK reviewers will pick up on it. Schwede66 12:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Everyone can edit articles whenever they want, and a promotion doesn't immunize an article from getting tagged (whether this is "lead too short" or adding "dubious" or "citation needed" to specific statements, or even nominating it for AfD if this is done in good faith). You may try to get consensus at AN that DYK pages should get fully protected between promotion and disappearance from the main page, but I highly doubt you'll get agreement for such a change. Many people never look at the nominations, but may see an article linked from the main page, go to read it, and notice problems with it: are you claiming that they can't tag these problems at that time? Let's say that someone now goes to Moon Duchin and adds a section "Publications" with an "expand section" tag, would that be disruptive, problematic, whatever? No, that would be normal editing and the kind of improvement we hope to see from DYK. (By the way, I note that queue 3 is on the main page but still filled at Template:Did you know/Queue/3). Fram (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I would return articles to the nomination area if, upon inspection before promotion, their leads are inadequate. It's a shame you didn't let me know about this discussion Cwmhiraeth, but I'm not surprised. For you information, I will continue to tag items you promote if they fail to meet any one of a vast number of issues that are continually sent on their way to the main page. It doesn't matter much anyway, because everyone by now knows that DYK is in no way interested in article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I did not choose to personalise the issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't make much sense not to include the person doing the tagging though, does it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If people are promoting articles to sets for the main page which are clearly sub-standard then they should expect them to be tagged as such. Cwmhiraeth makes it clear that her job is simply to promote hooks that have been ticked by the DYK to a queue yet diligently spends around an hour or so per day preparing each set. That's admirable but the problem is that as soon as those sets are prepared, they are reviewed (principally by me) and numerous issues are found. Before anyone sounds the klaxon, yes I know that DYK has no quality threshold at all, and anything goes, but Cwmhiraeth maintains that it's not her job to review these articles and hooks in any detail. Just as an aside, I would estimate my "complaint success" at around 80%, so clearly there's work to be done here still. And we're going to two sets per day so that'll be good!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, while preparing a set, which usually takes me about ninety minutes, my main checks are that the hook facts are accurate and in the article, and are supported by inline references which I check. I then make any adjustments I feel are necessary to the wording of each hook. You then look at the set and make further adjustments to the hook (or ask someone to make them for you) and that's fine, you are doing a good job and it's just how the system should work. It's when you start tagging the article that I take issue with your actions.
A "lead too short" tag discovered by the admin moving the prep set into the queue involves a flurry of extra work, either to expand the lead, or to ping the nominator and ask him or someone else to sort it out, or to return the hook to the nominations page and replace it with another hook. There is nothing theoretically wrong with adding the tag at any time, but it does cause considerable inconvenience if it's done while the article is in prep, and if it is done when it is in the queue it would be even worse. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Well that's unfortunate, because that's the point where I review the articles and usually find numerous errors, grammar issues, technical issues and that's when they get highlighted. It would be far better to make these checks yourself and boot inadequately prepared articles back to the nomination area. By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, I will continue to review articles and tag them as appropriate, as is my right as a Wikipedia editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
May there be peace! I reckon it would be good to accept that over a large number of articles, not everything that is possibly wrong will be picked up the the initial DYK process. I also reckon that overall, it's better that outstanding issues are identified before articles hit the homepage. Yes, it may be inconvenient, but it doesn't necessarily have to be fixed by the nominator or reviewer; there are lots of editors around who can lend a hand. And if an admin has to pull a hook out of a queue because nobody found the time to attend to it before promotion to the homepage, well that's not really such a big deal either. We are all here as volunteers and if we always remember that, it's easier to concentrate on what everybody can contribute to the project. Show each other as much respect as you would like to receive yourself. Be king in your choice of words. We wouldn't be here if we didn't have similar goals to one another. It's much better to have fun doing this than stress. May there be peace. Schwede66 08:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and all I'm interested in is quality on the main page, not some blind adherence to some arcane list of project "requirements", and I have plenty of fun while I'm ensuring such quality. Now I'm not sure of the purpose of this thread, it certainly hasn't achieved anything so I'd suggest it's closed and we can all get on with improving articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hook wording

One of the hooks in prep 3 doesn't read right to me, but I don't want to tweak it myself for two reasons: I'm not a native English speaker (and it may thus be ok as is), and if I tweak hooks, I would then not be able to promote it to the queue (or would that be ok?). Anyway, here it goes:

... that 180-million-year-old dykes in the Okavango Dyke Swarm formed during the opening of the Indian Ocean?

To me, that appears to imply that the dykes were 180 million years old when they formed. Obviously, they formed 180 million years ago. If others share the concern, would somebody please tweak this? Schwede66 23:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's fine. Compare, "Those old men were born in 1930" -- they weren't old when they were born. I guess we'd be tempting fate to try to follow up the last hook here. EEng 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ... that the Okavango Dyke Swarm formed 180 million years ago during the opening of the Indian Ocean?
Based on the quote in this thread, this is an equivalent hook. Also, "180-million-year-old dykes" is an unfortunate phrasing, which prompted a wry smile from me given the alternative meanings of the term "dyke." Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing you didn't follow the link in my post. EEng 00:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The possibilities are endless, but even I dare not go in that direction again. EEng 06:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done adjusted hook per EdChem's suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Temporarily disable the reviewers template

I would suggest that we temporarily or permanently disable the reviewers template which is linked in the DYK toolbox. Given the current transclusion problems on the nomination page, reducing the number of misc templates such as that one will give a small amount of relief, and its not used often as it is.--Kevmin § 15:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so here's a list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through December 11. Right now the nominations page shows 303, of which 127 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 55 nominations, 11 of which have already been approved, that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 12 that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

Over six weeks 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) 20:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Time to move to two sets a day?

As BlueMoonset mentions above, there are around 150 approved hooks at the moment, and with new nominations being made at the rate of more than ten per day, this number is set to increase. Coupled with this, the nominations page is insufficiently large to transclude all the nominations, so all nominations made after January 1st are currently not seen in full on the page. This is not ideal!

At the moment we are on a 24 hour cycle, with a single set of eight hooks appearing on the main page each day. I propose that we increase the throughput, to a 12 hour cycle with seven hooks in each set. This would mean that 14 hooks reach the front page each day and we may then keep rate with the addition of new nominations or even reduce the backlog slightly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit concerned that this will mean extra work to check each one of them. How many hooks are pulled nowadays for an issue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Things have improved marginally, mainly because each and every single approved hook is being re-checked before it hits the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I certainly cast my eye over the hooks and the articles before I promote prep sets to the queue. Schwede66 10:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree that we have a problem, but we moved to a 24 hour cycle recently, essentially because the project could not handle the throughput. I'd suggested an 18 hour cycle at some point, but apparently that's technically difficult...I think 12 hours might be worth giving a shot, especially if we reduced the size of each set to 6 or 7. Alternatively we could expand set size to 9, or ten, and keep it at a 24 hour cycle...Vanamonde (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with the suggestion for a 12 hour cycle with 7 hooks per run, even if only temporarily. We badly need to get through the backlog of approved hooks. Prioryman (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's good to go. 2 sets × 7 hooks per day it is. Of course, if the error rate creeps back to its old level, we'll need to re-think it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree. Can we be flexible, and only do two sets some days, as the throughput allows? Anyway thanks to all who keep the railway running. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Since Queue 2, currently set to hit the main page on January 10 assuming one set per day, has two hooks specifically requested to run on January 10, can we please not make the switchover until that set has had a chance to run? The soonest we could change would be starting with Queue 1 (which will be promoted at 00:00 January 9), and we'd have to move the January 10 hooks if we changed then. Since those sets are already made and have eight hooks in them, let's save the change until Queue 3 and January 11. Sound good? Note to Johnbod: that kind of flexibility requires active and knowledgeable admins who know not only how to make the changes, but are keeping track of special occasion hooks so they don't run at the wrong time. It's generally better if frequency changes are done as infrequently as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Could another admin please show me where and how to change the frequency of uploads to the homepage? From my perspective, we can do that change now and if hooks and credits need to move to a different queue, that's easily done. Schwede66 18:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Shubinator has to tell his bot to change its schedule, I think. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it isn't up to Shubinator; any admin can do it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Could Shubinator (or whoever admin will want to change it) show me how that is done, please? Schwede66 06:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwede66 I was correct, in that it is the bot. Took some searching around to find this. Time Between Updates is protected so only admins can do this. But if you open the edit window on that, you'll find the secret instructions. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwede66, one thing I've never been sure about is what happens if you decrease the value on the User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates page, which the bot uses in conjunction with value of Template:Did you know/Next update/Time (which, counterintuitively, is the time of the most recent promotion to the main page) to determine when the next promotion is. If you're increasing the time between updates value, the next update will take place that number of seconds after the most recent one. If you're decreasing it, I'm not sure whether it will also update that number of seconds later (which could already be in the past, and could mean an immediate promotion). The safest thing I can suggest, absent a definitive statement from Shubinator, who wrote the bot, is to wait until after the DYKUpdateBot has completed its 00:00 January 10 run a few hours from now and promoted Queue 2 to the main page (it takes a few minutes for the job to finish), and only then reduce the Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 seconds, to begin the every 12 hours promotions. The subsequent promotion would thus be 12:00 January 10. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that has worked smoothly. Have changed the update frequency and then purged the cache on the Queue page, and it now shows the 12-hour update cycle. Thanks, Maile66. Schwede66 00:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record, your interpretation is correct - when the bot wakes up, it takes Next update/Time and adds Time Between Updates to figure out when the next update should be. If that's in the past, the bot will immediately update. Shubinator (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I built Prep 5 as a 7-hook set. Hope that's okay. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there some reason you want it to be 7 hooks instead of 8? — Maile (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Maile, the above discussion seemed to converge on two sets of 7 hooks per day, so at some point we ought to make the switchover from 8 hooks to 7 hooks. It makes sense to me to leave the completed sets at 8, and start with 7 at some point, which Yoninah has just done with Prep 5. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. I didn't read the whole wall up there. — Maile (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There's an additional aspect to this that hasn't been mentioned above. Getting an article through the DYK process with the QPQ requirement and the extra referencing required is a significant amount of work. The 24 hour sets double the exposure the article gets and the "reward" for that work. Aren't there regular complaints that hooks are dull and articles of low quality? How about culling more from the queue? (Not mine I hope!) Philafrenzy (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to matter how many times complaints about dullness are made, they are usually refuted/ignored. Article quality is not an issue for DYK, once again calls to improve this seldom make any difference. Realistically, all we can do is to ensure that actual errors aren't sent to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, remember that DYK? frequency varies over time. A few years ago it was three sets of hooks a day and noone complained about getting too little "reward". Regards SoWhy 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

But not forever

Please, the moment the approved reserve (hooks in Q + hooks in Prep + noms approved but not moved to prep) drops below 50, go back to one set (of 7 or 8) per day. We don't want to be rush-approving hooks like we used to in the old days. EEng 02:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to note that moving hooks to change twice (or more) per day really lowers the incentive to create hooks, and possibly to improve new articles at all. The last DYK that I submitted when it was up for a full 24 hours got over 11,000 views that day, and when my hook was up earlier this week for 12 hours, it only got 1,500 views. I know this could be due to a variety of factors, but I don't know that that few views is really worth it to go through all the DYK hassle. Just a thought to consider, although I understand why the 12 hours thing is happening. Kmwebber (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

Stubby stubs

Amy Satterthwaite
Amy Satterthwaite
Bisaldeo temple
Bisaldeo temple

The above item brings me to raise a concern that I have. I fully expect to hear about 'scope creep' in response, and I don't know whether it's been discussed before, but it concerns me nonetheless. Through DYKs on the homepage, we are drawing attention to articles, and sometimes a lot of attention. This is true for the DYKs themselves, which are covered by all sorts of rules, but in addition, we are wikilinking other articles, too. And some of them may get as much attention as the DYK itself, especially when it's the lead hook where an image may relate to a non-DYK hook. What I suggest is that the lead hook should not point to non-DYK articles that are stubby stubs. I'll give you a couple of examples.

The first one is currently in prep 1; the DYK link points to a nice and decent list article, but the hook photo goes with a supporting article that was in a dire state when it first hit the prep. Fortunately, I managed to attract the attention of members of the relevant Wikiproject and then wrote an article section myself, and the article is now looking quite respectable.

The second one is currently in queue 5. The non-DYK link points to an article of two short sentences. I put a note onto the article's talk page and posted links to this to the two relevant Wikiprojects (here and here), but so far to no avail.

What I suggest is that we don't draw attention from the homepage to stubby stubs through the lead hook. If linked articles are short stubs, we should not make that respective DYK the lead hook. Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Schwede66 12:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're drastically overestimating the number of people who actually click those links. As an example, this is what happened to Assyrian sculpture when it was a non-bolded link in the lead hook a couple of days ago. I'm sure the world has figured out by now that some Wikipedia articles are poor quality. ‑ Iridescent 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"What's short, green and curly and produces films?" - Stubby Broccoli. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent, we may well get similar page views with Bisalpur Dam. But when you stick a photo of a sporty woman on the homepage, the views will be way higher. Shall we have a look in a few days? Schwede66 12:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The temple and cricket articles have now both run and page view stats are available. And they are as I expected. The dam gets far few views than the temple (and the temple scored a good size view; well done!). With cricket, the bold link got significantly fewer views than the auxiliary link. Schwede66 19:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Schwede66, and applaud him for taking the time to expand Amy Satterthwaite before it hit the main page. Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
...and thanks to @David Levy: for switching the Amy Satterthwaite image. Now her article is going to get even more hits! Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Have also just destubbed Henrietta Harley, Countess of Oxford and Countess Mortimer, which is currently in queue 4.
@Schwede66: at this rate, you can figure in some double hooks! Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A kind fellow editor has 'come to the rescue' and Bisalpur Dam is looking rather presentable. Thanks, Utcursch! Schwede66 04:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was inspired to expand Oecophylla smaragdina by seeing that tomorrow's featured picture linked to a stubby ant article with citation needed tags. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
This is all wonderful collaboration, but I don't think DYK editors should be expected to expand every stubby link. Perhaps we should consider linking only the featured article in each hook, as Gerda Arendt has mentioned is done on the German Wikipedia? Yoninah (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No because many hooks contain technical or highly-specific terms which our general readers wouldn't not understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the Rambling Man, but stress that our focus of attention should be the bolded article. Technical terms could sometimes be avoided. We don't need links to familiar composers, as suggested in a hook I rejected as boring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If there's one thing the above discussion makes clear, it's that this is one of umpteen situations on Wikipedia where a rule is not the solution, but judgement is required. We cannot eliminate all links, per TRM; but links can be a problem, per Schwede. Personally I think it might be a good idea to tweak the instructions, but these are in such a mess anyway that I'm not sure I can be bothered...Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_134&oldid=1089832396"