Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 136

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138→Archive 140

Pulled hook

Referring to a man who died 5 weeks ago as 'a dead minister' is extremely insensitive. It has been pulled. Stephen 05:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

For information, this was Template:Did you know nominations/Ted Meines, reviewed by Cwmhiraeth and promoted by Vanamonde93. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We report "recent deaths" every day in WP:ITN. Per WP:EUPHEMISM, we prefer plain language about such matters. The issue in the case of Ted Meines was more complicated because the dead minister referred to was someone else who died over 70 years ago. Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    The hook is slightly confusing, because at first I simply thought he is dead because he died recently, and was a minister 70 years ago. I think there could be a better way to phrase it so that it's clear what the hook means. But I agree we shouldn't pull things just because it seems insensitive to call someone "dead". We are an encyclopedia, not a funeral parlour...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5: Wen Shen

We can't present this as a fact. Firstly, does Wen Shen really exist? Secondly, the article uses a far weaker form, "Crab apples were regarded as talismans against Wen Shen." Harrias talk 07:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Just coming here to discuss exactly this. Once again, another hook reviewed and promoted which fails to meet the rules of DYK. Pinging reviewer Andrew Davidson and promoter Yoninah. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The source says "crab apples ... were also a resource for safeguarding communities, by virtue of their ability to appease the God of Pestilence (Wenshen)...". I was content with the hook's form of words but if an ALT is wanted, we should consult the article's author Yunshui. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the hook according to Yunshui's suggestion. The hook is in Prep5 not Prep6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

Pinging @Soman:, @Al Ameer son:

It's hard to see the hook fact in the article. The article seems to be referring to opposition from "CPI(M)", but does not identify who that is. Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention that "fell into oblivion" is hardly encyclopedic. But it's been reviewed, passed and promoted, so clearly three people think it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that as a problem. Do you want them to "became oblivious"? Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you should leave it to a native English speaker before making suggestions or claiming that "fell into oblivion" isn't neutral in tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be a humor-detection failure here, not to mention a courtesy failure. EEng 20:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, great input as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Funny you should think I'm not a native English speaker. Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the number of times you've mangled hooks which were in perfectly good English before-hand, it's an easy mistake to make. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
See WP:UNCIVIL. You've just lost another fan. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No, there's a difference between being "uncivil" and stating facts. On a number of occasions you have "tweaked" hooks to make them less readable. As for fans, I'm not interested in that idea, as you should already be well aware. I'm interested in maintaining the integrity of the stuff that gets pushed onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Could we link the nomination template please? I keep getting told off for not doing so. That way we can discuss the issue with the nominator, reviewer and passing admin. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Here it is: Template:Did you know nominations/Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Tagore). Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of anything else "fell into oblivion" is clearly not good English, unless all the party members became unconscious. I can't read the source for that sentence, but the next section of the article suggests it didn't disappear completely, but merged with the Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Das) before splitting into two further factions after Tagore's death. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"Oblivion" is a word used in the source, though I can only see a preview on Google Books and am not getting the preceding lines to give context. Taking Black Kite's point, "oblivion" is inaccurate. Agreeing with TRM, "oblivion" is not encyclopaedic. This hook either needs re-drafting or be changed to make the "oblivion" part a direct quote. As an aside, I am surprised that this language was not a red flag to the promoter. This may need to be pulled and returned to the nomination page. EdChem (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually checking the hook for this kind of things seems to fall outside the remit of the promoter. Pinging Cwmhiraeth and Al Ameer son who promoted/reviewed the hook in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The source used the phrase so I left it. An alternative might be "fell out of favour" and I have changed the hook. If a party is out of favour, nobody votes for it and it becomes defunct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
But you must appreciate this is an encyclopedia so neutral tone or quotations are required in such instances. Or is that not part of the promoter role? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Like it or not (you obviously dont) the promoter tick-box exercise that justifies their participation does not require that. It probably should. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Where I have been the promoter, The Rambling Man seems to think the role is multi-faceted and all-encompassing. Did I not notice that the article was an orphan, that the references include bare urls, that the lead was too short and that some information was unreferenced? Had I actually read the article? This link gives a good idea of his view of my actions as a promoter! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Then I don't understand what takes you an hour to complete a set when so many issues are overlooked. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Chenail Island

"... that a monument on Chenail Island honors the families that lived there before much of the island was submerged?" (nom.

The article says the monument was placed there to honor approximately forty families that once resided on the island before their land was expropriated by the government for the power station, i.e. it honours the fact the land was taken for the construction of the power station. I think the link isn't as causal as it it implies. MB, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Without looking at the sources, another part of the article states that the power station is twelve miles downstream, and its construction caused the water level to rise. I guess the government provided compensation, but the hook seems OK to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I just don't see the hook, as written, explicitly cited in the article per the DYK rules. Maybe I missed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth can you point me to the explicit inline reference sentence in the article that corroborates this hook please? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth this is now on the main page, could you answer my query please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth Ok, next time I'll just pull it back to noms. Thanks for not bothering to reply three times. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what your problem is. It would be better to ask the article creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't know what my problem is? I asked you four times to show me exactly the point in the article which directly corroborates the hook plus the inline citation, per DYK rules. You didn't do that four times. Now do you know what my problem is? I would spend more of that promoting time actually reading the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Cho Hŏn

Resolved
 – Found and added reference to the hook per the DYK rules. Shame this wasn't handled before promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
that Cho Hŏn, a Joseon dynasty official and Righteous army leader, died in the Imjin war? (nom)

I might have missed it but I don't see the inline reliable source telling me he was a "Righteous army leader". Is it implied elsewhere in the article? 7&6=thirteen, Yellow Diamond, Doug Coldwell, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of how you parse the sentence. He was not a righteous "army leader", but rather a "Righteous army" leader. I don't know if it's actually in the source, as the source is offline, but a priori it is not a problem: he is mentioned to be leading an army, (which is referenced) the same force which is later referred to as the righteous army (and also referenced). Vanamonde (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That explanation makes little sense to me, and if the claim isn't cited in the article, it shouldn't be in the hook, as you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I just explained that it is cited in the article: I am not personally nitpicky enough to require the entire hook fact to be in a single sentence, as long as each part is sourced, which it is. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see an inline reference for "Righteous army leader". And actually, whether you're "personally nitpicky" or not is of no relevance, this is about compliance with the DYK rules. Bright line. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let's spell it out for you, then. "Cho's forces [implication: Cho is the leader] took up positions outside the west gate. They defeated a small Japanese advance party, and approached the walls, but withdrew due to intense rain.[citation] The Righteous army [obviously the same force] lit fires and raised flags around their positions, so the defenders would think that they were a much larger force.[citation]" This is compliant with the rules. Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Vanamonde's interpretation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes you would because you pay no heed to the DYK rules. It's not "obviously the same force" and it contravenes the rules directly, but as you both don't care about that, I'm done here for this entry. I'll see you at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have reverted TRM's closure of this discussion. He may be done here, but I for one would appreciate the input of somebody else (besides me, I mean) who is uninvolved with the nomination, but will also engage in genuine discussion, without beginning from an axiomatic position of "I can do no wrong." Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Whatever, it's really not important. I have already resolved the issue by actually following the rules of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Added an in line and on line citation which shows he was a leader of the Righteous Army. Lee, Peter H. (Editor) (August 13, 2013). Source book of Korean Civilization: From the Seventeenth Century to the Modern. Vol. 2. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 526. ISBN 9780231515306. Retrieved February 2, 2017. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help) The other sources covered this, but you are correct that there was not an "in line citation." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks 7&6, much appreciated, and thanks for popping by to actually resolve the issue rather than just deny it existed. Result: improved article, compliant hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I knew what they said. Sometimes one loses the trees for the forest. Human error. Shit happens, especially when you do a lot of editing. Sorry. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No worries, that's why some of us are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Turnbull, Stephen; Dennis, Peter, Illustrator (November 20, 2012) [2002]. Samurai Invasion. Japan's Korean War 1592–98 (EPUB eBook) (1st Printing, Imprint ed.). London: Cassell & Co, Bloomsbury Publishing, Osprey Publishing. pp. 91–92. ISBN 0-304-35948-3. ISBN 9781782007128. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_id= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Updated this reference and added the link. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Update times

Would it be feasible to restore the 00:00/12:00 (UTC) update schedule, ideally by retaining a set for an extra two hours, thirty-eight minutes? (I'm not intimately familiar with the bot's operation, so I don't know what this would entail from a technical standpoint.)

Certain maintenance tasks (such as image cropping/enhancement and column balancing) are easier when the main page updates are as synchronized as possible. Also, it's more intuitive for readers when DYK is updated along with TFA, OTD, TFP and TFL. —David Levy 01:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

David Levy I believe the bot automatically corrects to 00:00/12:00 (UTC), but it might take some time. It makes the 12 hour stint shorter by 15 or 30 minutes, until the update times go back to 00:00/12:00 (UTC). Joseph2302 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
David Levy, the bot will autocorrect 15 minutes per promoted set to get back to midnight UTC, so it'll be five days and a bit before it realigns there, unless we miss another update because a queue isn't loaded soon enough. A manual update could be done by an admin, but the bot's been self-correcting for years, per its design. Will it be painful to wait that long? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Joseph2302 and BlueMoonset: I was unaware of the self-correction mechanism in place, which seems reasonable. Thanks very much for explaining it to me. —David Levy 03:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the approved reserve (# in prep + # in Q + noms approved but not promoted to prep) has now dropped to 92 (from about 155 twenty days ago). According the protocol I have long promoted, when that # drops to 50 we should go back to one set (of 7 or 8) per day. At present rates that should happen about Feb. 12. EEng 02:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. In the context of main page maintenance, daily updates are optimal (though I understand why DYK sometimes requires greater frequency than that). —David Levy 03:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
What changed the update time to the non 00:00/12:00 ones?? HaEr48 (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Bot was out drinking and woke up with a hangover. EEng 03:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Holman Rule nomination

The article on the Holman Rule has been nominated for DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Holman Rule) by Antony-22 and I did the review. I am concerned about the accuracy of the hook and request input from others at the nomination page. I can see this one as being potentially controversial as the rule allows members of the US House of Representatives to add to appropriations bills the requirement to reduce the salary of anyone paid from the US Treasury, or possibly to fire them. It was re-added to the rules of the House in January 2017 (it was last removed in 1983). EdChem (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I welcome more eyes on the nomination—it's important to get it right. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing nomination

Doing a nomination for Ordnance Factory Board Mine Protected Vehicle, which is on the main page and it's new.

Dunno if further discussion should be on the main page or here since it was moved after I previously placed it on Feb. 2. Ominae (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ominae, you placed the nomination under February 2 when it was still February 1, so I moved it to February 1. (Note that DYK goes by UTC date and time, not any local time zone.) The nomination is still under February 1, but you have a bit of work to do on it. All hooks need to have a bold link to nominated article, and neither of the hooks you proposed have a bold link. Let us know if you have any further questions about your nomination. (I'm not quite sure what you mean about the "main page", unless you mean the article's page, Ordnance Factory Board Mine Protected Vehicle, or maybe the DYK nomination page, Template:Did you know nominations/Ordnance Factory Board Mine Protected Vehicle.) BlueMoonset (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mention that I was referring to the DYK page. I did the bold like as mentioned. Sorry about that. I was needed someplace else. I'll be waiting on the assessment. Ominae (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Main page problems

I've already corrected the leading hook, as apparently no one noticed during reviews and promotion that 1572 and 1574 aren't the same. I'm not too happy about the "on this day" either, as that isn't correct around the world, but oh well...

But I have serious reservations about the last hook:

Template:Did you know nominations/Cowan Hyde @TheGracefulSlick, FrB.TG, and Cwmhiraeth:. The source[1] just says that he "tried out", which is not the same as "played". Another source also claims a "trial" only[2]. You can try out at training or informally, no evidence that he really appeared in any play for the pro team in 1924 seems to exist. Fram (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps you could replace "played" by "tried out". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the hook wasn't sourced properly has nothing to do with the promoter Fram, you know that by now, surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pulled. Promoter doesn't seem to have an explanation for the hook. Incorrect info has been on the main page for 10 hours or so (also the wrong date for the lead hook, which had different nominator, reviewer and promoter though). Trying to rapidly change it now to something perhaps more correct but hardly remarkable (young players are tried constantly by professional teams). As a bonus, the linked article Memphis Red Sox is a partial copyvio of this. Fram (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To me the difference b/w tried out and played didn't seem like deal breaker, but I must analyze more carefully in the future. Also, the copyvio tool linked in DYK didn't reveal any sign of close paraphrasing. Sorry if I have caused inconvenience. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Where I'm from, having a trial with a club and actually playing for a club are worlds apart. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

.. that sacred water from India's Yamuna river was brought and mixed with the water in the pond called Yamuna Eri in Jaffna, Sri Lanka?

I'm not sure I understand why this is interesting. Sacred water from all over the world is taken and placed in other places in the world. What is the specific relevance here? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK hooks are supposed to be relevant? To what, exactly? People would find these thoughts easier to use if they had links. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The article concerned is Yamuna Eri. I would guess the addition of sacred water makes all the water in the pool sacred. It was important enough to have been recorded in an ancient historical text, Yalpana Vaipava Malai. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well that makes the hook seem even more irrelevant. If that's the case, I would include it in the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that more context would help understanding what it is about. I mean, I can also say that "Sacred water from so-and-so was brought and mixed with the water in my house's pond". That doesn't make my house's pond worthy of any special attention, because people move sacred water all the time. HaEr48 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Precisely the point I'm making. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that the proposed hook (with links) is "... that sacred water from India's Yamuna river was brought and mixed with the water in the pond called Yamuna Eri in Jaffna, Sri Lanka?" I would agree that putting water into my house's pond would certainly raise serious notability questions, but the bold link is to the pond in question, so starting from the impression that the pond is notable is reasonable. If it is not notable, nominate the article at AfD and the nomination will be suspended while the discussion is held. If it is notable, then the question is about whether a more interesting hook is available. EdChem (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, some suggestions:

Do any of these seem better, The Rambling Man, HaEr48, Johnbod, and Cwmhiraeth (as commenters on this thread)? Any thoughts, AntanO (article creator / nominator), and Vivvt (reviewer)? Do we need to move this back from Prep 2 as it goes live in about 10 hours, and I have taken the facts for these suggestions from the article without checking if there are inline citations where required or from checking the sources themselves? EdChem (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem. From reading the article, it seems the king personally mixed the water? If yes, that's kind of impressive. Can we reword ALT3 to say that? HaEr48 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
HaEr48 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
(ALT3) Seems to me OK. I would like to reword ALT5 if you prefer ALT5.

--AntanO 03:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the timing is relevant. Bringing water from India to Sri Lanka is pretty easy now but was much more difficult in 1200 AS. So, I would tweak HaEr48's ATL5 suggestion and, with a minor copyedit, produce:
I have also done a copyedit on the article, there were some language issues that should have been addressed during the nomination stage, but they are fixed now. AntanO's addition of "now a monument" at the end is good, too, so ALT5c, though I don't favour removing "Sri Lanka" as that gives a better sense of how far the water was transported to reach Yamuna Eri.
EdChem (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like --AntanO 04:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think ALT1 is fine. Now that I actually look at the article, I think calling it a "pond" is a misnomer - these walled things are normally called water tanks or tanks, I think in both Indian & British English (of course water tank is no use at all). I'm guessing, but I imagine the quantity of water carried from India was relatively small and symbolic (a large jar perhaps), & the mixing rather symbolic - pouring it in and giving a bit of stir. It's still a ritual practice among Hindus. So the mixing probably isn't that exciting. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm around and can make the switch, but I'm not seeing clear consensus for any one ALT over another as yet. Since there are a few hours remaining on this, I'll hold off at the moment. I personally prefer ALT5. Vanamonde (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominations in need of promotion

This is a list of approved nominations made in December that for one reason or another I am unable to promote to Prep.

Could someone else please promote them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ordnance Factory Board Mine Protected Vehicle DYK nomination

Asking on the DYK notification on the Ordnance Factory Board Mine Protected Vehicle article I recently wrote up on. Thanks. Ominae (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ominae: Your nomination (Template:Did you know nominations/Ordnance Factory Board Mine Protected Vehicle) was nominated on 1 February, and is properly transcluded to T:TDYK, so you have done what you need to do to submit the nomination. I see this is your second DYK and the first in several years, thanks for your contribution and I hope you will continue to provide nominations. I understand your enthusiasm, but for your information, it is not unusual to wait at least a week, and regularly several weeks, before a review is done. If there is urgency as you are seeking your nomination to appear on a specific date then you should add a note to that effect on the nomination page, and post here noting what date is being sought, and why. The editors here at WT:DYK are generally pretty responsive to requests for urgent review when there is a good reason to seek a specific date for the main page appearance. Otherwise, it is the usual practice to wait until someone chooses to review your nomination. Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
No worries. I just need to make sure it wasn't ignored since it's the only one that's not reviewed. Ominae (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ominae: currently there are 278 nominations on the DYK page, and only 71 have been reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so here's an updated list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through January 2. Right now there are 291 nominations, of which 89 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 17 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) 03:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Koh-i-Sultan

that Koh-i-Sultan volcano in Pakistan last erupted approximately 90,000 years ago and still displays fumarolic activity? (nom)

I can't see that precise claim inline referenced, I see something that says "Although the last activity occurred during the Pleistocene (probably a large eruption), volcanism began earlier.[26] The youngest date, obtained from K-Ar dating of pumice, is 90,000 ± 10,000 years.[19] ", so if that's what's citing the claim, (a) it's only "probably" an eruption and (b) it's a bit of a stretch for a non-expert like me to understand that those two sentences combined form the citation for the first claim in the hook (to which I added "approximately" since +/- 10k years is quite some range). Cwmhiraeth, KAVEBEAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus too. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I took the "probably" to refer to the size of the eruption. I agree with your addition of "approximately" to the hook, I was going to add "about" but was called away. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oy wey. That was a big error on my part. Yes, the approximately is necessary there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It also should have "probably" in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"Approximately" was definitely needed, but I'm not sure that "probably" is needed. Pumice is a volcanic rock (as confirmed by this text and so the statement "[t]he youngest date, obtained from K-Ar dating of pumice, is 90,000 ± 10,000 years" is giving the formation of the pumice which occurs during an eruption. Consequently, it is my understanding (as a scientist but not a geologist) that this age must date an eruption, and if there are no other volcanoes nearby, it is logically dating an eruption of the volcano near where the rock was found. I suggest we seek input from the Geology WikiProject (I'm assuming we have one) to see what if anything is needed to support the hook statement and to include in the article. EdChem (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no real problem with the facts of the matter, just that the read-across from the hook to the article is challenging for a novice. I would prefer to see something like the same text in the hook used in the article, along with an inline citation, rather than have to rely on our readers having to either go through this kind of discussion or just assume it's all ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


The "probably" is in reference to the size of the eruption, not if an eruption happened.--Kevmin § 17:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Train of Tomorrow

... that the Train of Tomorrow (pictured) was the first new train to consist entirely of dome cars? (nom)

I can see this claim in the lead, but not inline referenced anywhere. Cwmhiraeth, Johnbod, Michael Barera. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I just moved it to the queue (before seeing this post). It took me a while to find it in the text while performing my check, but here it is: "The Train of Tomorrow consisted of four cars: a chair car (Star Dust), a dining car (Sky View), a sleeping car (Dream Cloud), and a lounge-observation car (Moon Glow), all featuring "Astra-Domes"."[1][2][6][17] Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not doubting it was consisting entirely of dome cars, but the hook says "the first new train to entirely consist...." The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Several hooks were approved and one of the others could be substituted, but ALT0 is not entirely satisfactory and ALT2 uses a different, less interesting image. How about:
(edit conflict) Hmm. Yes, this appears to be a problem. Very many of the sources discuss how the train had a pioneering role with respect to dome cars, and how the train used some of the first dome cars, but I didn't see any going out on a limb and saying what the hook does. I have moved it to Prep 5, which gives us about 14 hours, and replaced it with the lead hook from there. If there is no satisfactory response we can return it to the noms page (or fail it). Vanamonde (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I have replaced the hook with ALT0, another approved hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you checked the hook and its citation before you promoted it though....? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Stray nominations

I've found a few stray nominations that should either be closed (most of them) or properly nominated. They are:

Uh...enjoy? Mindmatrix 02:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Two more:
  • I've gone through them all, and nominated all but two for speedy deletion; the ones struck above are completely ineligible: generally not expansions at all, and some even without hooks. (One article was changed to a redirect a month later; it had previously been redirected after an AfD, and suffered the same fate here.)
It looks like the Henri Beau nomination was made in time, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be pursued, though the hook needs formatting and typo correction. For Wayzata Bay Center, it was a first-time nomination after a GA promotion, and was made about a week late, but the nominator does ask for help, which was given in fixing the template but didn't extend to noticing the failure to transclude it. I'd be inclined to have this one pursued as well, especially given how we handled the last batch of these. Are there any objections to either of these nominations being reactivated? I can make arrangements for doing so; I think if we proceed we should transclude them as of today's date. Someone might have to adopt the Henri Beau nomination if any issues arise during the review, since the nominator hasn't edited since last May. (Beau was a painter.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I'll take on the Henri Beau and Wayzata Bay Center reviews. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

18 more:

DYKHousekeepingBot routinely checks for orphaned nominations, and it's pretty easy for me to manually run it and generate a list (like I just did). Feel free to drop a note on my talk page in the future :) Shubinator (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and for the curious, here's last year's cleanup + discussion: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 120#Orphaned nominations. Shubinator (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

All of the nominations have either been deleted, closed, or transcluded. Shubinator, do you think you might be able to run this list every two or three months? This way, we can deal with the untranscluded nominations before they get so very long in the tooth. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure :) Feel free to remind me if/when I forget. Shubinator (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Coming changes to DYK nomination procedure

For those who are not yet aware, a previous discussion found consensus to move approved nominations to a separate page--Template talk:Did you know/Approved--in order to solve the problem of new nominations not being transcluded on the page due to technical limitations. A bot has been in the works for about a month now and after a first stage trial has been approved to run a live trial for 14 days.

What will be changing?

Nominations that are currently approved will be moved to Template talk:Did you know/Approved. For nominators there will be minimal changes; continue to place your nominations on Template talk:Did you know and do QPQ off of that page. Most changes will affect promoters and those who like to check approved nominations. Approved nominations and, for now, de-approved nominations will be on Template talk:Did you know/Approved so those checking approvals and promoting hooks should use that page. If you would like to get a feel for it before the change, see User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/Approved.

When will the change take place?

The current (tentative) plan is to make the switch Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 5:00am UTC so that most users will be asleep for the change and any initial bugs can be worked out by the time people wake up so that there's minimal disruption. Depending on how busy I foresee myself being, it may be delayed by at most a few days so that I will be free in case problems arise.

How can I help?

Thanks for asking! Most importantly, if you see any bugs, report them by leaving a message on my talk page and/or emailing me so that I am promptly notified and can respond as soon as possible.

Secondly, if you know python and want to be a maintainer on Labs, having an extra pair of eyes and hands would be very useful. I'm not always on and may not be aware when the bot goes down, so having other people who can find the problem and fix it (or at least restart it) during an absence would be helpful. If you're interested, drop a message on my talk page or email me.

Why doesn't it do X, Y, or Z?

The bot's a minimal implementation of consensus; there are a lot of great ideas that aren't included in this first version. Once the bot and process stabilize, I think it would be good to have a discussion about features to add and processes to update. There have been ideas like moving de-approved noms back to the nomination page, more obvious markers for the status of a nomination, and changes to the process or promoting hooks. So look for that in the coming weeks.

Thanks, and if you have any questions, feel free to leave them here or on my talk page. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Good work! I see great things flowing from this. EEng 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Things are starting to move. Positive vibes about this. And awayyyyyyy we go! — Maile (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking forward to the change. Thanks for the work to date, Wugapodes, and I appreciate the reminder that it is still a work-in-progress and we should be mindful of what has been achieved while any bugs are eliminated and that further updates / enhancements will be coming. As for helping with a python, I'm sorry but I don't like snakes; all I can do is call the ASPCA if it escapes and starts eating hooks instead of bugs – don't want a python with a tummy ache! EdChem (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kvetching and complaining

I see the Approved page is divided into sections by date. Under what date is the approved nom listed? Please don't tell me it's "the date the article was created or expansion began". EEng 03:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping Wugapodes. EEng 01:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean, you said don't tell you... but yes, they're organized by creation/expansion date. It's the way the nomination page is currently set up and how promoters are accustomed to looking for hooks. I think discussing new ways to organize the page and new procedures for promotion would be a great discussion once the nomination page transclusion problem is fixed. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
<sigh> So at this final stopping point before noms are selected for prep, instead of having one point of arrival (i.e. simply add newly approved noms to one end or the other of the page) so QA people can give each newly approved nom a going over as it arrives, they're popping up all over the page so you have to keep eyeballing the whole page over and over, trying to remember what you've looked at already and what you haven't. All to preserve this ridiculous notion of priority, which has no meaning anyway given that noms can spend as little as an hour and as much as three months awaiting approval anyway.
BTW, I added /Approved to the shortcut box at the top of various DYK project pages. EEng 03:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Slight Delay

A storm rolled through and my power and wifi are out. So for obvious reasons, I can't start the switch tonight. I'll try tomorrow evening when it will hopefully be fixed. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't let my kvetching obscure the fact that we really appreciate your hard work. EEng 06:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, feedback is important! Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Will implement tonight

Power has stably returned to my house so I'll be able to implement the trial tonight. The bot will start running at 4:00 UTC on 6 Feb 2017 It will run 4x more often than usual tonight, so half-hourly instead of once every two hours, in order to catch any bugs that arise as quickly as possible. I'll be around for about 3-4 hours keeping an eye on it before setting it back to bihourly when I go to sleep. If you notice any problems (at any time, but most urgently these next few days), email and/or ping me (links above). The bot will be v0.5.1 (the one currently being run on the test pages). Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK issue at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Doug Weller posted an excellent question at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#My ignorance about portals and maybe DYK, which I think we as a project should address. He notes that Portal:Creationism has a DYK section (hosted at Portal:Creationism/Did you know and Portal:Creationism/Previous did you knows) which look like DYK hooks (in format) but I can find no evidence of them in the archives and I suspect they are actually unrelated to the DYK project. All opinions / suggestions / corrections welcome at the FTN thread, where I have also expressed my view. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Beryl Rawson

That she used "computers" to "analyse" stuff is in no way remarkable at all. Unless you realise when it happened. The hook desperately needs a timeframe to make it more effective. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added timeframe. Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Beryl Rawson, Prep 2

@Yoninah:, your edits about half an hour ago on Beryl Rawson dropped the article below the 1500 prose criteria. Instead of yanking it out of Prep 2, I'm posting here in hopes you or some other editor can bring the article back up to 1500 prose, so it can go on the main page in another 12 hours. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. EEng 01:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Now at 1521 prose characters according to DYKcheck. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this. — Maile (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

New Approved nominations page open for business

Just about all of the DYK approved hooks have successfully made the trip over to the new Approved nomination page—including the Special occasion holding area—so prep set builders will want to look there for noms to promote to prep.

There are a very few nominations where their approval is noted inside a "DYK checklist" template; the bot doesn't yet know how to handle this special case, so there will be some temporary measures put in place until it can.

The bot will typically run every two hours and move approved hooks from the regular DYK nominations page to the approved page. There is as yet no mechanism to move them back if the approval is superseded by a problem icon. If there are any issues, such as nominations disappearing along the way, or not getting moved, or being moved when they shouldn't be, please let Wugapodes know. Thank you.

We'll do our best to update the processes and procedures in a reasonably timely fashion, but some explanations may be out of date for a little while. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Small update, the bot just made an edit automatically like it is supposed to and didn't break anything. It seems stable, so I'm going to go to sleep now. If something goes terribly wrong, User:WugBot has a shiny red block button that you should use before trying to contact me. Changes to the DYK pages are rather difficult to revert, so block first ask questions later is the best strategy.
How to handle the DYK checklist template is perhaps a discussion to be had soon as that will probably require some wider consensus, but I'll update on that after some sleep.
Last, but not least, a big thanks to BlueMoonset and all the DYK editors who've been giving feedback for the last few months, and especially over the last three hours. Knowing editors were doing such thorough reviews of the edits left me free to fix the bugs as they came and really made this a smooth start to the trial. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
For obvious reasons I'm not going to try it (tempting though that is) but I'm guessing the red button works only if an admin pushes it? EEng 07:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's just a link to Special:Block. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable April Fools hooks

Can somebody help me out here? In Template:Did you know nominations/The Winker's Song (Misprint), I've rejected the original hook "... that I'm a wanker" because that's not something factual that can be verified to a source. But apparently we allow this for April Fools' hooks, which this is queued up for. I can't remember any AF hooks off the top of my head, but can I just confirm these are usually accepted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 your questions may be answered on Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know, which has the various explanations and rules regarding how that annual feature functions. If not, we should probably discuss it here. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I can point out the "he was gay" and Computer says no from last year, Polish girls getting wet and spanked and Elvis' greatest shit from 2013, Fucking becoming Fugging in 2014 and Nick Clegg is sorry from 2015. It is a long standing tradition that things like that are allowed on April fools day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's also a long-standing tradition that the Wikipedia gets a proper spanking from editors and readers alike for promoting usually such juvenile and puerile schoolboy "humour" nonsense to the main page. "Think of the children!" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Surely the Wikipedia can stand a proper spanking as long as it doesn't get wet? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC) I think you'll find that was Elvis' Greatest Shit, with a big G and a big S.
I never said it would stop, I just said that inevitably it will descend into a "think of the children" carnival. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Updated hook removal procedure

Because we have a new bot moving hooks from the Nominations to the Approved page when they've been approved, and deleting them from said page when they've been promoted to prep, the procedure for removing hooks from prep or queue and reopening them has to be modified. I've just adjusted the "how-to" explanation on both pages; here's the gist of what's changed:

  1. When you reopen the template page for that nomination, you need to leave a comment that starts with a new, non-tick icon. If you don't, the bot will immediately move the nomination back to the Approved page based on the existing tick, and since the article is clearly not ready for promotion if you've just removed it, that's not good.
  2. You'll need to add the nomination template back to the Nominations page, so potential reviewers can see it. Please transclude it under the date is was originally created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add a date header as well if the date had previously been retired. There is no longer any need to restore the previous date header together with the full set of hooks under it, as the bot will have deleted the hooks when they were moved to the Approved page.
  3. I'm recommending—at least for the first several weeks under the new bot—that people record their removals on the Removed page. This could help in reconstructing things if there are subtle bot issues during this initial period.

If you have any questions, please post them here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, suppose we are reopening a nomination that was listed under 1st February on the Approved page; we add a non-tick symbol to the template, delete the template link in the Approved 1 February section, and place the template link in the Nominations 1 February section. Is that correct? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO, that's right except don't move it back; leave it on the Approved page. Think of the Approved page as "Got approved at some point even if maybe some snag's come up". Part of the point of the Approved page is to bring certain eyes onto noms that need them; I've long called these the "Eagle Eyes". What noms need those eagle eyes? (a) Noms that are about to go to prep, for QA; and (b) noms that show signs of being problematic, and that would include anything that got approved then unapproved. There aren't enough of class (b) that prep builders can't work around them and (I repeat) by leaving problematic noms on the Approved page it focuses experienced attention on them. EEng 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, there hasn't been any decision on whether to leave the hooks on the Approved page should they run into trouble, or to move them back to the Nominations page. I've seen both methods advocated, but am not aware of any consensus. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I mentioned that in #New Approved nominations page open for business earlier on this page. Wugapodes will probably have to add code that can handle looking within the template for the "status=y" field/value if there are no superseding icons after the DYK checklist template. (If the template has a way of indicating an AGF tick, I didn't see in the documentation what that that value is.) For the meantime, we can move those approved hooks by hand. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3 - A Sacropop Musical

Minor point, but the article doesn't hyphenate "sacro-pop" in its translation, nor should the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The hook quotes the German subtitle, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The article calls it "Sacropop", to whit: "Ein Sacro-Pop-Musical (A Sacropop Musical).[3]" The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We'd need a second hyphen in the quote, or translate to "a sacropop musical", but then probably can't say "subtitled" because the English has not been a title, afaik. He used hyphens, and was the first to use the phrase (as the hook originally said), - only later it became one word, sacropop [de]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It needs to reflect the article, whichever way you choose. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The article has Ein Sacro-Pop-Musical (A sacropop musical) now. - I don't like the German "Ein" (A) too much in the original, therefore tried to get it before the quote of the term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Reminder: if staying with German, we still miss a hyphen in q3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3 - Carlos Enrique Díaz de León

... that Carlos Enrique Díaz de León once refused a bribe of US$200,000?

My first thought was "who is he, so what?" but by far and away the more interesting fact is that he was president of Guatemala for a single day. I would suggest that fact be added to the hook in order to (a) provide context as to who this individual was and (b) make it far more interesting. Particularly as it is speculated that he only refused the bribe because he didn't want to be recognised... Vanamonde93, Yoninah. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@TRM: yes, in isolation that's probably true: and I don't have any objections to somebody swapping in the ALT hook, as such. The reason that was not the first hook in my nomination was that I had nominated Elfego Monzon shortly before that, and I had used the short president hook there (Monzon was Diaz' successor, fyi). It just so happened that Diaz was promoted before Monzon, thanks to that reviewer disappering and leaving the job half done. TL;DR: no objections to a hook switch. Vanamonde (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I would merge the two facts, double whammy hook. "...that Carlos Enrique Díaz de León, president of Guatemala for one day, once refused a bribe of US$200,000?" or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with the combined hook, but the reason I didn't promote the part about being president for 2 days (as in ALT1) was because I couldn't find it in the cited source, and noted that on the nomination. Is there a clear source for him being president for a day? Yoninah (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well if there isn't, it shouldn't be in the article...... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources will say he is President for a day, because he was actually president for two days, which is what the ALT hook says. The infobox and first sentence in the article are wrong, and that's my bad for not changing the text that predated my editing the article. The fact is very much sourced in the body, however, as the article describes in detail how Diaz was forced to resign two days after becoming president; as a point of interest he was only actually president for about 32 hours, but the sources are not precise enough for us to say that. I've corrected the date, and, to be doubly sure, duplicated the source into the lead and infobox. Vanamonde (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Vanamonde93, that's an excellent source. His two-day presidency is verified and cited inline.
Calling on an administrator to change the hook in Queue 3 to:
BRILLIANT STUFF. Thanks both. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, a bit belatedly. Fram (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Help, please

I closed this nomination when I promoted it, but another editor added a comment afterwards. I tried to re-close it, without success. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: You never properly closed the nomination in the first place, because you forgot |passed=yes when you substed {{DYKsubpage}}. I've fixed the close, which thus resulted in my sig appearing there. If you want to correct the sig, I don't object. Pppery 01:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Failed DYK nominations

Category:Failed DYK nominations has been nominated for merging with Category:DYK/Unsuccessful nominations. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Pppery 21:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a bad idea: merging the currently used category (Failed DYK nominations) into a category that hasn't been used in nearly four years (DYK/Unsuccessful nominations, last used in March 2013). I've got to ask, Pppery, why you didn't ask here before proceeding. It would have saved time and trouble if you had. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Then just do the merge the other way. Pppery 12:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanity check

Ok, I need to sanity check myself. Looking through Template talk:Did you know, I spot-checked January 28-30 to get an idea of how many noms we have coming in a day. For those three days, it was 1 nom, 4 noms, and 5 noms (not in that order). That's lower than average, but a "good" day is probably no more than 15 noms. Meanwhile, we're supposedly promoting 14 hooks a day (7 hooks per prep on a 12 hour cycle). How is it that we have a backlog as long as we do? Is it just delays in promoting preps? Have I missed some incredibly good days with 20+ successful noms coming in, which balance out the 1 nom days? The explanation isn't that important, I suppose, but the numbers are confusing me here. ~ Rob13Talk 13:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We've been running 2x7/day for a while to clear the backlash g, which is now almost gone. the 3 days you sampled appear to have been unusually quiet. EEng 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, they certainly were below average. But when we account for a few low days and where our "high" days wind up, we don't average 14/day. ~ Rob13Talk 13:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Q5 beetle

In the name of all that's holy, can someone please fix aquaphobia to hydrophobia? There are times I despair... EEng 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In which case, the article is wrong too. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure it doesn't actually mean rabies? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course it means rabies. That's the point. But now that you mention it I suppose the direct rabies might be a better choice. EEng 13:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Problem with that is that it'd be reinterpreting the source which explicitly states hydrophobia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
So you'd need another WP:RS to avoid that WP:SYNTH? Of course. And there is no direct link to hydrophobia, only a DAB page. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've made a minor tweak. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
So what link should the hook use? A tasty rabid Easter egg? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
...and I see no mention of "traditional medicine", and Leach was only reporting someone called "Mr. Hunneman." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure this was all thoroughly checked by the reviewer and promoter. Kevmin, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
These beetles can be tricky beasts. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
That would be John Hunneman (1760-1839), bookseller and dealer in plants and the like in Soho. Hunnemannia is named after him. Fram (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not reinterpreting the source to replace an antiquated name for rabies with rabies. They're synonymous in the English language within this context. ~ Rob13Talk 14:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that would be fine if we didn't have aquaphobia, hydrophobia and rabies articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to rabies. No idea how they decided that "hydrophobia" must refer to "aquaphobia", considering that the additional footnote in the actual source[3] states "a specific against the bite of a mad dog", which seems pretty convincing to me.

Considering that that same source indicates that it was prized by Frederick the Great and the "medicine" published in Germany in 1781, it would perhaps be even betetr to indicate that it was used as a medicine for rabies in the 18th century, instead of highlighting the 19th century like the hook now does? Fram (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just need to ".. preserve 25 in honey and then add two drachms of powdered black ebony, one drachm of Virginia snake-root, one ditto of lead filings, and twenty grains of fungus Sorbi, to be reduced to a very fine substance; the whole, with two ounces of theriaca of Venice (and if necessary with a little elder root) to be formed into an electuary.” Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@Joseph2302: @Epicgenius: @Cwmhiraeth: Is this a hook? Can we improve it before returning it to the noms page? Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hook, but not an interesting one. At least it's accurate and sourced though. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
ALT1A: ... that Carlos Fernández Gondín fought against Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista and America in the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and afterwards helped found the Communist Party of Cuba? Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
ALT1A sounds more interesting. I guess we should use that instead. The hook above was a slight improvement over the original, but I agree, if I were lazily browsing Wikipedia I'd still generally find it uninteresting. epicgenius (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: could you check it and approve it so someone can promote it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I officially approve ALT1A (the alternate hook above). It has been renamed because there was already an ALT1 on the Template:Did you know nominations/Carlos Fernández Gondín page. epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, fine by me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the wording in Prep 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

QPQ check

On Template:Did you know nominations/Last Mountain Lake Bird Sanctuary, the reviewer used QPQ check to determine whether I needed to provide a QPQ, and concluded that I did not as I only had 4 DYKs. However, I have nearly 100 DYKs (see my DYK tracker). It appears the script fails in certain circumstances, and in my case, it's likely the way I archive my talk pages. The script ought to check all available subpages of a user's talk page, which can be easily found via Special:PrefixIndex; for example, here are my talk page subpages. Can somebody fix this? Mindmatrix 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a problem specific to you: it has always undercounted my DYKs by a couple. I have 40, and right now it's counting 38 of those. Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The credits of mine that it misses are those where the bot was down and the update was done by an editor manually. I suspect it only counts edits by the bot to your user talk page, so archiving by moving the page and starting a new one will also remove the edits it counts. EdChem (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It only seems to go back to 2010, if that's a factor. I'm undercounted by over 100. Johnbod (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with the QPQ check tool. The first is noted above: it doesn't always see archived notices of prior DYKs. The other is that it can't tell whether the recipient of the notice did the actual nomination or not. If the tool says that there have been 5 or more prior DYKs, the person probably owes a QPQ, but may not if someone else did enough nominations. If there are fewer than 5 prior DYKs, check their talk page history and see whether DYKUpdateBot has a bunch of posts; these may indicate previous nominations that the check tool has missed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
My concern is less about accurate count for those with more than five DYKs, as it is about some users avoiding QPQ reviews or using the same review for multiple QPQs (2014 example: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Forced_seduction). As an aside, reviewers really ought to check 'What links here' for all QPQs, and this should probably be mentioned in the reviewing guide. Mindmatrix 16:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

... that "Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit", a hymn by the Protestant reformer Martin Luther on Psalm 124, appears in the current Protestant hymnal shortened and included in another hymn derived from the same psalm?
@Gerda Arendt:
I tried to make the first half of the hook clearer by adding "Protestant reformer", but just succeeded in increasing the character count from 201 to 211. Meanwhile, the second half of the hook takes a lot of brain power to figure out what it's saying. Is there some way to trim this down and make it more hooky at the same time? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
How about:
ALT2: ... that a shorter version of Martin Luther's "Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit" hymn based on Psalm 124 appears in the current Protestant hymnal as part of another hymn derived from the same psalm? Yoninah (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, it was "Protestant reformer" before, shortened because of the char count ;) - Now, "a shorter version" doesn't work, because it suggests (at least for me) that it is shortened at the end, but it's the beginning that's missing. I like to get to the bolded subject sooner. another hymn doesn't say by a different author which I think is interesting. It's not without irony that a hymn by Luther who kind of of founded Protestantism (and therefore we need "reformer") doesn't appear in the hymnal any more, especially one about Bach wrote a mature chorale cantata. I'd think it's cruel, but the reformers handled things the same way in the 16th century, compare Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort, BWV 126.
ALT3: ... that "Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit", a hymn by the Protestant reformer Martin Luther based on Psalm 124, appears in the current Protestant hymnal only partly, within stanzas from a colleague's hymn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: that's much better, thank you! I'll make the change in prep. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why we'd link Protestant reformer over Martin Luther, I don't know why we need to say he was a Protestant reformer at all in fact, it makes the revised hook clunky because it repeats "Protestant" in quick fashion. The original hook was just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I think there's much more irony in the fact that the hymnal treats the hymn of a founder of the movement that way, than that of anybody else. No need to link Luther, he will be linked in the hymn's article. Normally I'd not link Protestant reformer, but the other day we had the wish to have sacred music linked because it reads like the music is sacred ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 8 February 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 #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 13:21, 14 February 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) 10:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - book cover

... that Lenni Brenner's book Zionism in the Age of the Dictators has on its cover a medal commemorating a visit to Palestine by Nazi SS Officer Leopold von Mildenstein?

A quick Google search reveals that there are other versions of this book cover without any medals on it. One version of the book has this medal depicted. Cwmhiraeth, DanielJCooper, Yoninah The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I did actually notice that when checking the source before promotion. I have edited hook and article to indicate that it is one edition of the book that has this feature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question on unassessed DYK hook

I got a question on an unassessed DYK hook for a new article. Will it be held against me in case it takes a while for someone to assess it after 7 days? Ominae (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

With over 200 waiting to be reviewed, it often takes several weeks before anybody reviews a nomination. However, I have now reviewed it, but it may well be some time before it goes through the next part of the process, being moved to the Prep area and on to the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Allowing general references in DYK articles?

DYK's supplementary rule D2 requires that "The article in general should use inline, cited sources". However, this produces some rather inelegant results if the entire article relies on a single source, as is the case of Super V-2, which I nominated here. It shouldn't be necessary to put an inline citation at the end of every paragraph if there is only one source in the article. In fact, Wikipedia:Inline citation does allow for this situation:

The opposite of an inline citation is what the English Wikipedia calls a general reference. This is a bibliographic citation, often placed at or near the end of an article, that is unconnected to any particular bit of material in an article, but which might support some or all of it. It is called a "general reference" because it supports the article "in general", rather than supporting specific sentences or paragraphs.

WP:GENREF likewise supports the use of general references "especially when all article content is supported by a single source".

In the DYK supplementary rules, we do say that in general we should use inline citations, which implies that there may be times when exceptions may be made. I'd suggest adding an explicit exception to permit general references in situations where an article relies on a single source, to avoid the inelegant alternative of having to pepper the article with redundant identical references. Perhaps something like this:

  • The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. If all article content is supported by a single source, a general reference at the end of the article may be used.

Any thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END IN A CITATION! THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD REFERENCING! THIS IS A RECORDING! <bleep! bloop!> EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END IN A CITATION! THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD REFERENCING! THIS IS A RECORDING! <bleep! bloop!> EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END IN A CITATION! THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD REFERENCING! THIS IS A RECORDING! <bleep! bloop!> EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END IN A CITATION! THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD REFERENCING! THIS IS A RECORDING! <bleep! bloop!> EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END IN A CITATION! THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD REFERENCING! THIS IS A RECORDING! <bleep! bloop!> EVERY PARAGRAPH MUST END IN A CITATION! THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD REFERENCING! THIS IS A RECORDING! <bleep! bloop!> EEng 20:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD REFERENCING!" - I would have said "minimal referencing", not "good referencing". Mindmatrix 22:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
At the very least, the hook definitely needs that inline citation. The rest of the article is, well, up for grabs. There's little-to-no emphasis placed during review or promotion on "overall quality" so any of the arcane rules relating to that might as well be deleted since they're seldom enforced. General references are all very well, but per the rest of Wikipedia, that's why {{inline}} exists. We should be able to allow our readers to verify any claims made using reliable sources. "DYK articles" (and no such things exist, they are merely articles nominated at DYK) are no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, it's a rare case in which new sources aren't added as the article develops, and if you start with the one-general-ref approach, suddenly you have complete confusion over what material relies on what source. EEng 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As others have stated or alluded, the primary failing of general references is that when new text is added without a source, the average reader has little indication that the new text wasn't sourced along with the original text; experienced visitors and Wikipedians would inspect article diffs, but why should they have to? What about when more references are added; how does the average reader verify information then? (For example, one new sentence cited to a new source; would the reader assume everything preceding that sentence in the paragraph is sourced to the new ref?) Then there's the case I came across about 8 or 9 years ago (albeit an extreme example) - an article about 6-8 paragraphs long with a general ref to a book about 1200-1400 pages long, and not a single page number citation; the author may as well not have bothered providing the reference at all. See also WP:INTEGRITY. At the very least, such articles should cite page numbers. (Yes, I know Super V-2 is based on two pages from that book, but most cases don't have such a narrow page range.) For the record, I prefer all non-intro sentences to have citations, and all articles I write use this referencing system (for a recent example, see Dredge No. 4). Mindmatrix 22:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your proposal, I disagree with it, but only because I disagree with the broader concept of general references. I prefer something that says "It's right here, on this page", rather than "It's in this book, somewhere." Mindmatrix 22:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you need to provide inline citations, not because it's a "DYK article" but because it's an article on Wikipedia. The above "advice" is interesting, but it's all about site-wide policies like WP:V and WP:RS. The reason we ask for inline citations is to assist our readers to find the information they need when looking to verify a given fact. You should actually turn that general reference into a couple of inline references, maybe three if a claim spans the two pages of the single source you're using. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Related: general sources in a translated article

General questions regarding a returning problem, shown in a specific recent example, Martin Greif (poet).

  1. I translate a German article (just because the red link for him looks ugly) which comes without inline citations, but with sources on the man, named "Literatur". I have no access to these books. I decide that the person is interesting enough for DYK (partly because he has several links from other articles), so search for references I use inline. I keep the section on the German sources, renaming it "Literature" and translating a bit. It's part of the history of this article, to my understanding, and other people may have access to these books. - Now I am requested to source these sources. Really? Why? For whose benefit? - I don't want to see a tag on an article which is linked from the Main page, so removed the section altogether, but think that's distorting the article history, so will revert once DYK is over.
  2. I am requested to source his works, while they are neatly arranged, each one individually sourced by google entry or digitalisation, on the German Wikisource which is in the article, and now right next to the works. Can we find a better way to point readers to that entry. Copying the works section from there to the articles of individual languages seems pointless, on top of being a waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. (no 1 reverted) More often than wikisource, we have a writer's works in German referenced by the German National Library. The link can be found when {{authority control}} is enabled, under GND (example our poet). Can we get some connection from the works to that reference without having to copy the link as an inline citation. (I don't like redundance when not needed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - potential issue??

From Prep 5:

  • ...that, objecting to World War I, Georgia O'Keeffe painted The Flag, but it was not displayed until 1968, partly because anti-war sentiment was criminalized with the Espionage Act of 1917?
But reading the article on The Flag (O'Keeffe painting) I don't actually see that stated. It does state the "anti-war" part, it does state it was displayed in 1968 - but it never actually states that this was the first time it was displayed. That may be true or it may not, but the article currently does not actually state this?? @CaroleHenson, Johnbod, and Cwmhiraeth: I am mainly asking it here since it's already in the prep area.  MPJ-DK  01:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, The 1968 reference came up when discussing the DYK. Yes, it needs to be added. I'll take care of that.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done I added it to the introduction. Later in the article it says, "Anti-war sentiment was criminalized with the Espionage Act of 1917,[6] and people living in Canyon were uneasy due to her anti-war position.[3] It was in the private collection of Mrs. Harry Lynde Bradley in October 25, 1968, when it was part of a Milwaukee Art Museum exhibition".—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you for the quick response to adjust the article. With it being sourced in the lead my concerns have been addressed.  MPJ-DK  02:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, both! Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This now has three sources: [4] (which more or less confirms that it wasn't exhibited until 1968). [5] mentions the Espionage act, and mentions the painting, but not in relation to each other. The O'Keeffe is given as an example of "political content in places you might not expect.", not "paintings hidden from view because of the Espionage act". The final source[6], doesn't seem to mention the Espionage act. So where is the evidence that it was not displayed "partly because anti-war sentiment was criminalized with the Espionage Act"?

While it wasn't part of a museum exhibition until 1968, it seems also highly doubtful that it wasn't displayed (publicly) until then, considering that it was, according to the Smithsonian[7], in the collection of the Downtown Gallery, New York before 1960 (Downtown Gallery represented and exhibited O'Keeffe between 1952 and 1963 or thereabouts). Fram (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have for now shortened the hook (now in Queue5, the next queue to go live) to the undisputed bits

Please only readd the other two claims once they are thoroughly sourced. Fram (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

prep 6

Readers get the word performance in two consecutive hooks, can we avoid that? I would try myself but reviewed nominated one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have swapped two hooks around. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The new approved bot

@Wugapodes: The bot seems to have stopped moving approved hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: what do you mean? It ran just 10 minutes ago and moved 4 nominations. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Well, it appeared to have stopped at February 4th with about twenty recently approved nominations not moved across. So I clicked "purge" and that made no difference, but it looks OK to me now so I suppose it was a problem with my cache. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: I now understand what happened here. I had bookmarked the test page but had not realised that when the new system went live, the url had changed. After this, the bot regularly updated the Approved nominations page but not the Test page, which thus decreased in size every time a hook was moved to prep. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

DYKUpdatebot is still down

Shubinator has been notified. I just did a manual update for the main page, the second one in a row, and manually updated Recent additions. I manually put the DYK templates on the article talk pages. I did not do the individual editor credits on their talk page, as I don't have time for that. @Casliber, Schwede66, Materialscientist, Graeme Bartlett, Vanamonde93, and Harrias: For any admins here who are willing to do a manual update in another 12 hours, I won't be on line then. If the bot is not fixed, it will need another manual update. Thank you for all your eagle eyes on this. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I shall be fast asleep when the next update is due. Schwede66 02:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back up and running, we're good to go :) Thanks Maile! Shubinator (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator. However, I should point out that the queues are empty, so we'll need to promote Prep 1 to Queue 1 sometime in the next ten hours so the bot has something to send to the main page. Any admin around to do that? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1

Is there a reason why the lead hook was swapped around? I thought the original image was more interesting than the one that has been changed into it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be a question for David Levy, who replaced the image. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Is @David Levy: around? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I love M&M's, but at thumbnail size, some of this image's key details are largely unrecognizable, so I switched to an aerial view of Sark. (Secondarily, this also compensated for the previous DYK set's loss of an aerial photograph.) Subsequently, BlueMoonset swapped that image and the related hook with those of another set – replacing Sark during the German occupation of the Channel Islands with Hrithik Roshan and vice versa – because of a {{refimprove}} tag in the former. (Then I cropped a different photograph from the latter, wherein the titular subject's pose is more DYK-friendly.) —David Levy 14:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, the Presidential M&M's hook was just pulled. —David Levy 15:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I forgot about that history, and thought The C of E was just referring to the final step, the crop of a different Roshan photo. Apologies. (The Presidential M&M's are back.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Michael Allen (Canadian football)

... that defensive back Michael Allen set a Canadian Football League record by returning five blocked punts for touchdowns?

Not sure this is explicitly stated and referenced in the article. But the fact it has been passed by review and promoted with phrases like "... Allen again terrorized the Argonauts on special teams..." means this needs more attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I found this and this which mention the five fumble returns for a touchdown however I am trying to find something about the blocked punts. Mifter (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Scratch that, those sources were already in the article. Mifter (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
After looking at it, it appears the hook is based off the two sources I found above as well as an old newspaper article that appears to be offline ("Bombers stumble past Riders". The Toronto Star. Canadian Press. August 3, 1991. p. B4.) that would qualify it under AGF to pass review for the hook being cited though we could modify the wording to make it more clear this was a career record and not a single game. The concern about neutrality I'm looking at now. Mifter (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I reworked one of the sections a little to try and make it more neutral however I have to run for a bit if anyone else wants to take a swing. Mifter (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"Terrorized" was my bad. Got a bit overly creative there. On the other hand, I do think comments concerning his usage/production in a season are important to avoid a sports article just becoming a page full of statistics. Reliable sources identify when a player had a less-than-average season, and it's standard to include such assessments in sports bio articles. In fact, I've been prompted to do so before an article was passed for GA before. After some of Mifter's revisions, I would struggle to say this is a well-written article, as it reads like a stats table in prose rather than a summary of the player's career. As for the sources, there is a citation that indicates he recovered five fumbles for touchdowns, and reliable sources identify that each of these fumble recoveries were blocked punts. (A blocked punt is considered a fumble, for those unfamiliar with gridiron football.) The sources are accessible via LexisNexis Academic if anyone has access to that database and cares to verify, or via various other academic databases which archive Canadian newspapers. ~ Rob13Talk 01:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Paul Dibb

Hi, I am concerned that the Paul Dibb hook that was reformulated makes it sound like the report was always named Dibb Report. The fault is mine. The original hook should have said:

"...what later became known as the Dibb Report." OR "...later known as the Dibb Report."

The "report" was actually called Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. Maybe, I am being overly cautious —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well since the article is called Dibb Report and therefore that's the common name, I don't see a major issue. Plus I don't see why the current prhasing makes it "sound liek the report was always named Dibb report". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hooks Vanished

I approved two hooks and was curious when they would appear on MP, but I can't find them anywhere, not ever after going through "Where's my hook?". One of them was requested for April Fool's holding but it's not there either. I'm sure @Mindmatrix: and @Mifter: would like to know. The hooks are:

Thanks. HalfGig talk 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@HalfGig: the hooks have been approved but have not yet been promoted. (This might take some time.) If you watchlist each of the template pages, you will see when someone promotes them to prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
They should be here, - we have now a step in between, because the nom page got so long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
ps: when you look for any connection, go to the article/template in question and click on "What links here" in the leftest column. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As an aside (and as mentioned by HalfGig), before someone accidentally promotes Waterloo Pioneer Memorial Tower, note that it should be moved to the April Fools Day nominations (the hook is a play on words on an individual's name). Mindmatrix 20:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah:@Gerda Arendt: I see the Samsung one here: Template talk:Did you know/Approved but not the waterloo one. HalfGig talk 20:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Bluemoonset put the Waterloo one on the April Fool's page about 12 minutes ago. Thanks to everyone. HalfGig talk 20:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Didn't receive a credit?

One of my articles, Jeff Allen (gridiron football), is currently on the main page. The bot didn't provide any credit, however, which I generally like to keep track of. Can someone look into why the bot screwed up? The credits were listed on the queue (Queue 5), but maybe they were in the wrong place? Or was it a bot hiccup? ~ Rob13Talk 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

None of the nominators received credits as far as I can see. The bot does not seem to have been involved in transferring the hook set to the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, it did add these hooks from the queue to the template on the main page. It just didn't do anything else, I believe. A bug, maybe? ~ Rob13Talk 10:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I also didn't get a creation credit for Anna Stanisławska, although the other editor listed in the creation credits for this article did get one. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


The bot pooped out some 20 hours ago, having expired after updating the above-mentioned hooks to the main page, but before giving out the credits. The update to the main page earlier this morning was a manual update, but there had been no prior notification that it was late. Shubinator has been notified. — Maile (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Where are the credits for those of us who check and find errors in each and every set promoted to the main page? Or is that a bridge too far for the project?? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we really have to turn even a report about a bot malfunctioning into an adversarial situation? ~ Rob13Talk 00:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's an updated list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through January 17. Right now there are 256 nominations, of which 60 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 13 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) 08:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Images

I have tried to rephrase the current rules over the current lacklustre approach to image licensing and have twice been reverted. My opinion is that, no matter how the instructions are reworded, the spirit is that all images in all DYK articles should have their licensing checked, in particular looking for the abuse of non-free images. Hopefully the community here can come to an agreement to ensure this happens going forward and we stop promoting things to the main page with clear license violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with your edits is that they didn't accomplish what you say you wanted to do, and didn't make sense in places, since you were conflating DYK-specific needs such as the nominated image being in the article and also being relevant to the particular hook in the nomination with requirements for images in the article. I have no objection to specifying that all article images have to be checked, not just the one in the nomination (and even if there isn't one in the nomination), but that isn't what your edits did. I also have no objection to strengthening and revising the current third bullet in the Images section, which would seem to be most germane. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I was delineating between the use of the DYK image on the main page, and the use of images in articles themselves. The current ruleset achieves basically nothing, and cements into DYK doctrine absolute common sense which is a completely over-the-top approach. Keep it simple stupid, remember? No fair use images on the main page, no incorrectly licensed images on any DYK article. There, that's actually all there needs to be. Everything else is obvious to anyone capable of editing a Wikipedia page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's only the image for the lead hook – the one that will appear on the main page – that should get special attention. The state of other images used by the articles is covered by the general check for policy compliance: "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP, or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text." Per WP:CREEP, we should not overstate this in a repetitious way because the more verbiage we add, the less likely people are to read it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    Well in that case please remove all the other "rules" of DYK that increase verbiage. All images should get special attention, just as they should do at TFA, TFL, TFP, ITN and OTD. This project has a proclivity to promote things without due diligence, so these checks need to be reiterated to those doing the promoting. Just as rules stating things like the image "must be relevant to the article." Start with those ones if you really want to separate the wheat from the chaff. Yet somehow I know you won't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The "Back to T:TDYK" link on approved nominations links to the main nom page, rather than the approved page. Pppery 22:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe the code in question is in Module:DYK nompage links, which was originally created by Mr. Stradivarius to do the bulk of the work of Template:DYK nompage links, which now calls the module. The module is currently protected so that only template editors and admins can modify it; I don't know what would be involved in having that link return to the nominations page, Template talk:Did you know (T:TDYK), or the approved nominations page Template talk:Did you know/Approved, depending upon where it was invoked from. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pppery, The Rambling Man, and BlueMoonset: I don't think there's a way to distinguish between whether the DYK subpage is listed on the nominations page or the approved nominations page. At least, not one that's feasible in template code or Lua. If there was a category or some other string that always appeared in approved nomination pages but never on non-approved nomination pages, then we could load the whole content of the page and search for that string to find which link to use. But there doesn't seem to be such a string, and it's quite a convoluted way to do things anyway. Assuming that we don't want to go down that road, we have the choice of linking to either the nomination page, the approved nominations page, or both (or neither). Perhaps linking to both would be the best compromise? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: It might work to find the last occurence of the regexp [[File:.-|, and see if the image mentioned is File:Symbol confirmed.svg, but as you said that is still somewhat hack. Perhaps another (slightly) less hacky solution would be to look at the wikitext of Template talk:Did you know and see if it contains a transclusion of the nompage? Also, where should the "back" link to for already promoted/rejected nominations. Pppery 00:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If the nomination is already promoted or rejected, there should be no need for anyone to edit it, and if someone does go to the closed template, having them end up at the top of the nominations page because that template is no longer transcluded within the page is as good a place as any. The closed link has been this way and not been identified as a problem since this was set up, so I don't see any need to worry about it now. As for looking for the tick, it's far from foolproof: there's also the AGF tick, and the DYK checklist template has its own internal tick. Linking to both nominations and approved may be the best compromise; in that case, we'd want to come up with a nice shortcut link for the approved page similar to T:TDYK, though there seems to have been a bit of movement away from T:TDYK, which has itself been supplanted by WP:DYKN in the DYKbox template. (WP:DYKA is the DYK archives/recent additions page, so it can't be used for the Approved page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking WP:DYKAN, but that's used by Wikipedia:Did you know/After nominating (although we could usurp it if we really wanted to). Maybe WP:DYKOK would also work? Or there's always WP:DYKAPPROVED. We don't have to have a shortcut, but having one will reduce the post-expand include size of all the subpages transcluded on the nomination pages, so we would theoretically be able to fit more subpages on without going over the limit. (It would have to be a big difference in title length to make an appreciable difference, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Another, less hacky, idea: add a |approved= parameter to {{DYK nompage links}} and make WugBot set that parameter when it moves the nom to the approved page. Pppery 21:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If it's a module I think the change is best made there. It should be able to figure out the name of the page the template's on and produce the links to the proper page. I think that may be an easier/better solution than editing the bot. I'll take a look. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Actually, this change is impossible to make in the module. Modules can figure out the page that is being viewed, and the name of the template they are being called from, but that's it. The proposal here is to show a different link based on where the template the module is called from is transcluded, and modules don't have access to that information. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Likely copyvio image

I just noticed an image of dubious origin transcluded in the DYK set queued to appear next. It's an aerial photograph, uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons at a low resolution and transcluded at the Portuguese Wikipedia by a user with no other contributions to either project, who claims authorship. A reverse image search led me to a version with a higher resolution and less cropping.

Did this file not seem suspicious to anyone else? Did the confirmation of its copyright status go beyond checking the description page for a license tag? Pinging Mike Peel, Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah. —David Levy 21:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not part of the process to assess such things I'm afraid David, and individuals like Cwmhiraeth will link you to their "responsibilities" which don't include checking for illegal image usage. There's a general laissez-faire attitude to all this kind of thing here, despite the million-and-one arcane rules with which DYKs are mandated to comply. There is a talk page thread about this above but there seems to be a feeling that it's "too much" for reviewers and admins to assess such things in this specific project. The rest of those who contribute to the main page, of course, pay heed to this kind of thing, but DYK is ... unique. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It didn't look out of the ordinary to me: this is the kind of image we should often have access to under a free license. Since the concern has been raised, then it makes sense to change to another image for now though. If need be, then delay this by a few days and I'll go take a new photograph of the structure. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Whether we "should often have access" to it or not is not relevant. The misuse and abuse of image licenses at the DYK project is a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I've already replaced the DYK image with the other photograph from the article.
For obvious reasons, aerial shots are far less common than those taken on the ground. Even rarer is one whose authorship is attributed to a Wikimedia project user with no real-world identification or unrelated contributions. Rarer still is one uploaded at a low resolution and with no Exif metadata embedded.
To be clear, I don't expect everyone to know all of that. But if none of the above raises any red flags – even among those responsible for verifying that an image is available under a suitable license (Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah, in this instance) – I find this highly concerning. —David Levy 22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw that discussion, but this image wasn't merely used in the article; it was slated to appear on the main page. If "images selected for the first slot in the set need to be checked by the reviewer and the promoter for correct licensing" (as stated by Yoninah in the aforementioned thread and noted by Cwmhiraeth on the hook's nomination page), I'm curious as to what this check entails. —David Levy 22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In my mind, all images for DYKs should be checked, but yes, your point is spot on. Apparently DYK reviewers/promoters are already expected to do too much, such that a check on image licensing is simply a bridge too far. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And, in retrospect, given the juggling that goes at at DYK, any hook can replace any other hook at a moment's notice, images can be switched in and out similarly. We need a more thorough check, even if to err on the side of caution, or to ask someone who has a clue, would be better than to risk the project's integrity with the continual abuse of non-free or incorrectly licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, David Levy for spotting that. Although I've been working on the editorial side of Wikipedia for over 10 years, I have little understanding of how image licensing works or how to spot irregularities. You're saying that an aerial image should have tipped me off, but I don't know how to do the "reverse image search" which you executed. Now that TRM has told us to check all images in a DYK-nominated article for image licensing problems, I'm afraid I'm really at a loss. I wish we could do away with the finger-pointing and work as a team as the prep sets are built and promoted. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah Reverse image search. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In this instance, I found the higher-resolution/less-cropped version of the photograph via Google (convenient method: Chrome browser → right-click image → "Search Google for image" → "Visually similar images"). —David Levy 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Our procedures require the reviewer to verify that the image has an appropriate licence. I have sometimes been suspicious of the supplied licence and noted that. If the file is on Commons, we are absolutely prohibited (per WP:NOCONSENSUS) from taking things any further. It's up to Commons to determine its status, not us. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 Thank you for this clarification on our procedures. And I might add that participating over at FAC and FLC indicates that not a lot of seasoned editors (even admins) are clear on the intricacies of image licensing. So, it's always good to have a second set of eyes on the images. Even a third and fourth set of eyes. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Our procedures require the reviewer to verify that the image has an appropriate licence.
What, in your view, does this entail? Anything beyond checking for a tag?
I have sometimes been suspicious of the supplied licence and noted that.
That's a start. What happened next?
If the file is on Commons, we are absolutely prohibited (per WP:NOCONSENSUS) from taking things any further. It's up to Commons to determine its status, not us.
I'm taken aback.
The Wikimedia Commons is the WMF's shared media repository, not a walled garden under someone else's control. For the most part, the Commons community exists through the various projects' combined participation and cooperation. If you spot a Commons image with a potential copyright issue, please raise the concern there (or at least check whether someone else has).
And address the matter here too, if need be. That an image is hosted at the Wikimedia Commons doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to use it properly or not at all. —David Levy 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
We can't compel Commons to delete a problematic image; we can decide not to use it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've certainly questioned Commons images before; indeed, I've nominated some for deletion, and in more than one case it was an image that was part of a DYK nomination. Commons isn't some magical place with perfectly safe images; it's a repository where not all images have been correctly identified or licensed. As English Wikipedians, it is absolutely our prerogative to speak up when questionable material is being included from anywhere, including Commons. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for doing your part. It's genuinely appreciated. —David Levy 03:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
And please ensure that the Commons community is aware of the issue (and nominate the image for deletion, if appropriate).
A Commons file's mere existence doesn't necessarily mean that a trusted user verified its copyright status and licensing. And if one did, he/she may have erred in some way or lacked pertinent information. (The task is no easier at the Wikimedia Commons than it is here, even without sister projects' editors disregarding copyright violations on the basis that they're someone else's problem.) —David Levy 03:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: @David Levy: surely we are all (or all can be) commons editors as well and if we are suspicious of licencing there we can ask for it to be looked into...? Just because I don't have a big admin hat on over there doe not mean I can't discuss things...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, discuss away. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Without the various WMF projects' collective participation and cooperation, the Commons community (as we know it) wouldn't exist. We're all in this together. —David Levy 03:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


FWIW, I see a couple usable images on Flickr to replace it for example. Just needs to be uploaded to commons. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. We do have a ground photograph of the planetarium. (I replaced the previous DYK image with it and shifted it to the article's infobox.) —David Levy 03:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks, it's now on Commons and included in the article. Mike Peel (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To re-state:

  1. We ask the reviewers to check that the licence tag is valid. An image can be used in an article but not be permitted on the main page because fair-use images are not permitted on the main page. The reviewer also checks that the image is actually in the article (a surprisingly common error), and has something to do with the article. This falls well short of the image reviews that we conduct at FAC or A-class. Considerable expertise is required for that.
  2. What normally happens in a questionable case is that a note is placed on the DYK review. There is no requirement for an image to be run with a DYK hook. So the hook can still be run without the image. Just as there is no obligation for a reviewer to raise an AfD on an article that they think should be deleted, there is none to raise an issue about a suspect image.
  3. Only Commons is allowed to determine the status of an image on Commons. Their procedures are different, and images that would not be allowed on Wikipedia may still be hosted on Commons and vice-versa. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
While Commons can only deal with copyright, we at en.wiki need to have awareness of things like Flickrwashing and outright copyright violations and not use those images while Commons debates their deletion. That's a step done at FAC for images in pages, it should be done for DYK. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Just as there is no obligation for a reviewer to raise an AfD on an article that they think should be deleted, there is none to raise an issue about a suspect image.
This isn't about DYK reviews in particular. Any editor who spots an apparent copyright violation – under any circumstance – should make a good-faith effort to address the problem, if only by reporting it. Every DYK contributor is also a Wikipedian and Wikimedian (and should care about the integrity of Wikipedia and its sister projects, not merely about ticking the boxes on a DYK-specific checklist).
Only Commons is allowed to determine the status of an image on Commons.
Again, I don't understand this sense of detachment. All Wikimedians in good standing are welcome to contribute to the Wikimedia Commons at any time. No mutual exclusivity exists.
Of course, I don't mean to suggest that anyone is required to actively participate in the decision-making processes there. I'm stressing the importance of informing the Commons community of copyright/licensing issues.
Their procedures are different, and images that would not be allowed on Wikipedia may still be hosted on Commons and vice-versa.
Copyright violations aren't permissible on any WMF website. —David Levy 05:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No, that is not correct. Fair Use images are permitted on several projects, including Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair use ≠ copyright violations!
The English Wikipedia (among other WMF projects) permits limited usage of non-free media meeting certain criteria. It does not permit copyright violations. I seriously hope that you understand the difference (and simply misread my message).
A file that would violate copyright if hosted here almost certainly would at the Wikimedia Commons as well. If you notice one in either location, please don't ignore it. —David Levy 09:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the discussion here underlines the fact that most DYK contributors don't know what they're doing with image licenses. Nor do I but we must check them and ask experts rather than just accept the status quo as correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Forshaw

Just for information I have just tagged an image File:Jeff Forshaw.jpg at commons as it has an issue with permissions, I have no idea how you work here on DYK but it appears in some of your preparation areas, suggest it is not used until the matter is resolved, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the hook without the image to Prep 6 and replaced it in Prep 3 with another hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The reviewers and promoting admins have no interest in enforcing correct image licensing here I'm afraid MilborneOne, and actively work against more stringent rules against illegal image abuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have just seen this, sorry for not answering before. The image permission was sent by the owner to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 14/12/2016 and I have resubmitted it on 12/02/2017 as soon as the photo was flagged with an issue. I don't know what I (or the author) did wrong but it was certainly uploaded in good faith and to the best of my knowledge following procedures, so i think 'illegal image abuse' is a bit strong. By all means you have to do what you need to do regarding the dyk, if it goes without the top spot that's absolutely fine. If there is something else I need to do please let me know, thanks Mramoeba (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Good faith is all very well, but images need appropriate licenses when they're added, not sometime later. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
So where did I go wrong? Did I do things in the wrong order, because I uploaded the the photo on December 12th or did I use the wrong license? It's a serious question, i'm trying to learn how to do this properly so I get it right next time. Mramoeba (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As the current tag says "This media file is missing evidence of permission" so you need to work through that and license it appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm sounding dumb but permission was sent within 48 hours of me uploading it last december, and then re-sent as soon as that tag appeared yesterday. If there's something else I need to do then I'm happy to do it. And to be fair to the person who reviewed the article for dyk that tag wasn't there when they green ticked it. Mramoeba (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Presidential M&M's

Enough. We're all, believe it or not, on the same side here. There's no point wasting any more time on this one, it's gone. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2017 (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.

Removed from main page by RockMFR, who purported to pull the DYK from the main page because of this. You said there was "poor sourcing." YGBSM. Lots of good sources. Particularly for the hook. Severe overstepping, IMO. In addition to the edit summary, see here, which involves a small tangential dispute. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I do think this was an overreaction on something that didn't even affect the hook. I'd like to ask @David Levy: if he could restore the article to the main page given that this pull was made without discussion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree and was about to report this too. M&M's should be back on the main page. It's a very nice article with good sources. This article and User:The C of E did not deserve this. Hopefully someone can fix this, which I think requires admin rights. This is the precise sort of total BS that drives editors away from wiki. HalfGig talk 15:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Also being discussed on article talk page. HalfGig talk 15:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've put it back. It'd be nice if the first sentence of the main section "Under President John F. Kennedy, large quantities of cigarettes were supplied to the White House and Air Force One. President Ronald Reagan, as part of his anti-drug campaigns, replaced most of the cigarettes with jars of Jelly Belly jelly beans." was sourced, but the rest is fine. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Black Kite I see you edited the template but on the main page it doesn't show up even though I hit reload. HalfGig talk 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Now it's there. Thanks for righting a wrong. HalfGig talk 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Another busybody admin screws the pooch. He could have just tagged or removed the info he questioned. Had nothing to do with the hook. EEng 16:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Another parade of article owners and credit-hungry users. Why not just work together on these things, or at least work together on getting things right for a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, I think you have noticed people working together in this situation here where a perceived injustice occurred. Consensus was that the admin had taken an extreme step on an issue that was very minor and not pertinent to the hook that was on the main page. As a result it was restored with amendments made to the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Not fair, TRM - there was one very small, unsourced section (which, as it turns out, was sourced by a source already in the article). Yes, we should be removing hooks that have major sourcing problems (and I've done that myself, regularly) but this one was unnecessary. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, why the indignation at me, and not at the "Another busybody admin screws the pooch"? You people need to work out what's important here, and demonstrate more tolerance for people trying to stop all the fuck ups and less tolerance for the clowns who do nothing at all but commentate. The fact that it's still tagged means more work is needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It isn't tagged. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It was. I'm sure you know articles can be edited and therefore things change, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Another parade of article owners and credit-hungry users." Neither of the above The Rambling Man. I was simply affronted by the haphazard way this was pulled from the main page. And it was corrected PDQ. FWIW, I corrected the alleged (and tangential) claim regarding Obama's affinity (or lack thereof) for M&Ms. You need to rein in your generalized stereotyping and personal attacks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not one thing I said was "personal", but why let the truth get in the way of a good story? Unlike the direct and unabashed personal attack from EEng above, where's your warning for him? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
7&6, most people find when he gets like this it's just best to ignore him. EEng 18:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
His comment didn't implicate me. You painted with a particularly wide brush which did. I was not trying to tilt at windmills and right the world generally. I don't pick disagreements, but I may remonstrate to pointless (and fallacious) brickbats. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hang on, one minute it's a "personal attack", next it I've "painted with a particularly wide brush". Make your mind up, be consistent, and if someone yells at someone else in a direct personal attack (e.g. by directing a personal attack at an admin), please address them directly! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, you're not talking to me, I assume. EEng 18:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification as both 7&6 and EEng seem unnaturally confused here. EEng said "Another busybody admin screws the pooch" in relation to an admin action by RockMFR. That's a personal attack, any way you choose to spin it. In most situations, we ignore EEng, but it's getting to the point where his outbursts and personal attacks will soon need to be addressed. (ROLLS EYES) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And calling people "article owners and credit-hungry users" isn't a personal attack? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obstinate, but the accusation of personal attacks related to a general comment, whereas the commentary from EEng clearly related to one individual. Perhaps you need to re-read it all. In the meantime, no, it isn't a "personal attack", please refresh your understanding of "personal attack". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Enough already. WP:Drop the stick. Let's create an encyclopedia, which is something we can all agree on . 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, enough once you make a false claim of a personal attack while deliberately ignoring another overt personal attack. Well played. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2017 (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.

Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg (prep 5)

Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg is the lead hook in prep 5. Hook, after two people tweaked, right now

That is long. I would like to avoid the reference to Advent which was in December, also think we are not obliged to show the translation of the complete official name. The article has problems, like a lead that is not a summary, but a detailed list of similar institutions which we possibly don't need at all, other than a see also. - You read in every line of the article that it is a translation, but I - being German myself - am not the right person to improve ;) - My hook might be (Limburg is downroght misleading because it's not in Limburg, but in a suburb of Frankfurt):

I think that is a better hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done Corrected in prep. Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you also take a look at the prose, the lead (s. above), excessive translations and unnecessary details such as how to get to the place? I feel I should not do it because I started the article, - it might be regarded as ownership. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done I did a thorough edit. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
That is nice, thank you! More volunteers? I simplified a bit, and cut this sentence: "The entrance for this area is formed with a door case made from wood." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Age of QPQ - How Old is Too Old?

Hi everyone, I wanted to gather some input about how old is too old for QPQ. I was reviewing a hook here with a QPQ nearly a month and a half old. The hook itself is fine however I was concerned about the age of the QPQ - I flagged it and another editor posted that we don't have "stale QPQs". If I recall we introduced the QPQ req due to a perpetual backlog of hooks (which we still have to a certain degree) and while I don't believe anyone is concerned if a QPQ is from a few days or maybe a week old I'm concerned that if we allow old QPQs we are undermining its original purpose for introduction. For example, I've volunteered at DYK on and off for the better part of a decade, if we have no limit on QPQ then conceivably I would never "have" to review again as I could use hooks from years ago. Thoughts? Mifter (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Each QPQ review is "attached" to a nomination. One can't attach the same QPQ to different noms unless it was a multi-review or something. It may well be over a month old if the nomination takes ages to be reviewed itself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
But what about reviews that were done three or six months ago, Cas Liber? Over a year? Two? I've seen some quite old reviews used; I always felt a bit odd about using some old ones myself, so I supplemented them with more recent review work, but there's nothing to indicate that anything could be too old. (Anything from before the QPQ requirement would be, but that's Truly Aged.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that's a different matter I suspect. It's not too hard to tell whether a review has been used more than once with "what links here" I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Cas Liber I've seen a few "double dips" for QPQ from just leafing through and I think we can handle those easily enough. I was thinking along the lines of BlueMoonset in as much as I have seen some QPQs that are from a while back (months or more). Might we want to discuss having a loose guideline that a QPQ should be within the 2 prior weeks (or some other duration) of a nom? That would still allow for flexibility but achieve the goal of QPQ of cutting current backlog. Mifter (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry... you're suggesting that a QPQ has to be a review done within last 2 weeks? Where in the world would such an idea come from? EEng 04:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I was suggesting 2 weeks as an arbitrary example. My concern is that QPQ was created to help cut down on DYK's perpetual backlog and that having editors use QPQs that are months old does little to help us achieve that goal. Mifter (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to throw my two cents into this conversation to say that I am generally opposed to the idea of restricting "old" QPQs. If the purpose of QPQ is to maintain a theoretical mathematical equivalence, where there is one completed review for every new nomination coming in, then the time at which the review is completed won't make any difference with respect to the size of the backlog. I suppose you could argue that editors may "stockpile" QPQs and then unleash a bombardment of nominations all at once, but I think that's exceedingly unlikely. On the other hand, many editors are busy professionals who need to step away from their volunteer efforts for weeks (or months) if other obligations arise. Editors will also occasionally take extended breaks for health reasons, and some simply do not have stable, reliable access to the internet. Because unforeseen circumstances sometimes prevent editors from returning within a few weeks, and because we generally don't operate under strict deadlines, I don't think we should deny editors the opportunity to utilize an "older" review for QPQ. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
As someone who is himself just coming off an over a year long break I agree that we don't want to penalize individuals, however we already don't have an equivalence as we have the exception for users with less than 5 DYKs. My understanding of the purpose of the QPQ is that it was instituted to help cut down our seemingly perpetual backlog (as we luckily do have volunteers who review outside of the QPQ to help balance the scale so to speak), if you reviewed a hook months ago then what harm is their in doing another review to help out? I've reviewed well over one hundred hooks in my years with DYK, should I just de-facto be exempt from QPQ going forward no matter how long the backlog is (that I am adding to with a new nom) for past service? Mifter (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
What's wrong with stockpiling QPQs? I keep a stockpile here. It's sadly empty at the moment but has been large in the past. This was because I released large numbers of articles created for the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
With the current system, nothing. My question is to see what the thoughts are on old QPQs. In my estimation if the purpose of QPQ is to reduce the backlog at DYK then stockpiling QPQs undermines that goal and we should consider restricting the QPQ to something more recent. If QPQ is something more esoteric or a general sense of sharing the burden then the current system may be fine as it is. I originally supported QPQ as a way to try and cut our backlog hence why I am interested to see what others thoughts are. Mifter (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
My 2c, take age out of it. Use "what links here" and challenge someone if they are trying to double dip and recycle a review. Period. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
On that, how do we count hooks with multiple articles, as one QPQ or the number of article? Mifter (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Mifter, the rule is article for article QPQs are required (see WP:DYKSG#H4). So if there are four articles in a hook, four QPQs must be supplied (or it uses up four of the five initial freebies). BlueMoonset (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't see how the behavior in question undermines the goal of reducing the backlog. If a review was carried out properly, the backlog was reduced. Why does the amount of time since this occurred matter, and how is banking reviews harmful?
Instituting a time limit might even increase the backlog, as an editor would have no QPQ-based incentive to review nominations in excess of the quantity that they create within the window specified. (And those who want to review nominations purely to help out will do so regardless of what QPQ rules are in place.)
When people kindly volunteer their time and effort, being told that they did so in the wrong place or at the wrong time is disheartening and discouraging. QPQ is a necessary evil to begin with, so just let people fulfill their end when they're ready, willing and able. Some barriers to participation are unpreventable, but an arbitrary deadline isn't among them. —David Levy 07:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
How I view it is that 2 month old QPQ DID complete the purpose of reducing backlog, as it took care of a nomination at that time, and in fact, did not add a nomination then. There should not problem with the use of older QPQs.--Kevmin § 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I fail to see how it's a problem if the nomination is a couple of months old. In fact if it's that old then the hook has probably run on the front page, the nomination page should reflect if there were any issues with the review found later on. After all if I do a subpar review but put in in for QPQ and then later on an issue with the QPQ review was found it may not be noticed in the DYK hook.  MPJ-DK  07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
QPQ cannot effect backlogs. For every new nomination, there is one QPQ. Backlogs accumulate when articles are marked to be re-reviewed. Backlog reduction requires volunteers to review these without QPQ. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I complete agree with many of the points above, a review done at the time did reduce the backlog. Check to see whether QPQ has been used a credit before and if it hasn't it is good to be used. Done. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: The backlog is chiefly due to the QPQ-free nominations given to DYK nominators with fewer that five nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Not "chiefly": by simple arithmetic the first-5-free rule is the one and only reason there's a backlog. As long as we have that, something has to happen to balance the books. (To some extent volunteering helps, but isn't doing the whole job.) I've long advocated that everyone with 10 (or maybe 15) or more DYKs should do two reviews per nomination, as long as the backlog is 50 or more. (The nice thing here is that people with that many DYKs are experienced reviewers for whom an extra review isn't all too hard.) EEng 19:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "chiefly": some reviews require more than one reviewer. The original reviewer, having done a complete review that showed up more work to required, moves on or makes significant edits to the article or suggests a new hook, and then a second reviewer is needed to recheck the updated article and hook. (Or the article is pulled from prep, ditto.) What causes the backlog to diminish is people supplying sufficient non-QPQ reviews, as is happening at the moment thanks to Mifter's efforts. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize one nomination could emit more than one QPQ credit. I stand corrected. My suggestion that those with more than X DYKs do double-duty when there's a backlog (which wouldn't be often, once the current backlog is cleared) stands. EEng 20:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Help required

Can someone please fix a nomination I've just made to Template talk:Did you know - it's for Vivien Neves, under the 11 February nominations. The article won't link. The instructions (which are absurdly complicated) said not to link the article in the template, as the template would do it all by magic. So I didn't. And lo and behold, the article isn't linked in the hook on the nomination page. I subsequently linked the article on the template, but the nom page hasn't changed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Showing up fine under 11 Feb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
So it is. Well, it wasn't before - even after I'd closed and restarted my browser. How odd. Must be the software trying to make me look stupid. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It was wrong for me too when I first looked at it. I fiddled around a bit and did nothing at all and it then resolved itself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It could have been be due to a long job queue, if its too long it can take time for templates to transclude (or existing transcluded template to be update.) Mifter (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a link at the top of the nominations page that will refresh the page and force all transcluded templates to reload; it reads: Click here to "purge" this page. Works like a charm. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources in BLPs

Please, when reviewing DYKs, be aware of reliable sources. A BLP I have just looked at uses both The Daily Mail and the Mirror to reference claims. These are not RS and should not be used, nor should BLPs which use them be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The article in question is Yasin Ben El-Mhanni and the nominator of the hook has made some changes to the article. Are you happy with them? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
That's just one article. All BLPs need to be reviewed for the use of unreliable sources. And no, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express are not reliable and yet are still being used. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Why are reviewers and admins promoting BLPs that fail WP:V because of lack of WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
An unreliable source takes into account the source itself AND the material it is being used to reference. Not all sources are unreliable for all material. The recent Daily Mail issue is that the Mail is so very very bad that it is considered, formally, unreliable for anything. You would need to get a similar determination at RSN for the Mirror/Express - otherwise they are judged on their own individual merits. The Mirror and Express appear to be referencing basic sports coverage which appears uncontentious - while it can probably be sourced elsewhere, there is certainly no consensus its unreliable for that material either at the article or elsewhere (RSN etc). To answer your actual question, I dont believe the DYK process requires a line-by-line review of the entire article (even if it should). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Well if the Daily Mail is definitely not RS, then The Mirror fails that too. It's more tabloid than the Mail. As for line-by-line reviewing, if it's a BLP and it's going to be on the main page of Wikipedia, it should be reviewed with such scrutiny. If the facts are notable enough, they can and should be referenced by genuinely reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In fact, in the RSN archives, I note many discussions in which The Mirror, The Sun and the Daily Express are considered of lower reliability than the now outlawed Daily Mail. And actually, one editor puts it rather well: If you post something sourced to the Mail which can't be easily sourced elsewhere, any editor is absolutely correct to remove it, because there's a good chance it's unreliable. Ditto the Sun, the Mirror and the Express. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll mention this here pre-emptively, because I'm sure this will come up if I don't. I've nominated Butch Allison for DYK, which cites The Daily Mail. It's not that Daily Mail, though, but rather a little-known newspaper out of Hagerstown, Maryland which went defunct in 2007. Just a heads up to those who patrol for these sorts of issues. ~ Rob13Talk 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In such circumstances, probably best to add a location to the citation, e.g. location=Maryland. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
And I would totally back you if you went to the RSN noticeboard now and opened that RFC to declare those sources equally unreliable. But you may need to get in line - I dont know if you have been following the Daily Mail bruhaha, but there is a queue of 'But so-and-so is just as bad!' - which was actually covered in the RFC by people pointing out that in objective measurable metrics the Daily Mail is far worse than almost anyone else (or is at least, caught more often). I would also back you if you want to try and get an RFC through that any linked article on the main page has to satisify certain minimum standards. As it stands now however that just is not the process due to the mainpage being made up of a group of cabals with their own interests and requirements. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that's why we have tags like {{unreliable sources}} and {{unreliable source?}} which I can add inline to all these tabloid references. If it's notable, it can be sourced reliably. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In this specific case, I can easily find information currently sourced by the Mirror sourced by Newcastle United F.C. (here) for instance. Barnet F.C. also has references to him on their official website, his debut appearance for NUFC is easily sourced to the BBC... Let's use real RS that we know are real RS when they're so abundantly available. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Club sites should be used with care because they are self-published, lack editorial independence and have a conflict of interest – they will obviously cover their team and players in a promotional way. The NUFC example above is especially amusing, as it cites the Daily Mail. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Not amusing at all. It cites direct quotations from the player published in the Daily Mail, not the editorialised (or otherwise) opinion piece of the Daily Mail. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A couple more sources that don't use The Mirror, The Express or Daily Mail...

Just two seconds on Google can remove this dependency on British taboid junk. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New process: Pulled hooks must always re-transcluded

Now that the new bot automatically deletes promoted (and rejected) hooks, whenever you pull a hook from prep or queue, you need to add it back to the nominations or approved page. (There's currently no consensus on which page because of a disagreement on where it's more likely to get reviewer attention, but if it isn't on either, then it won't get any attention at all.) Please remember to add them back: I've just had to do so with two pulled hooks today, one of which I put on the nominations page, and the other on the approved page, based on their current status. (I just hope I haven't missed any other pulls since the bot started running ten days ago or so.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hooray, another hoop to jump through when you pull a hook. I fear I will often forget this. Fram (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this just won't happen, just like most pulled hooks eventually never made it to the pointless "removed" page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If you find the edit where the hook was promoted to the prep set (in the promoter's "Contributions" page) you can simply "undo" it, adding a note of why the hook is being returned to the approved nominations page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure nobody said it was difficult or that they didn't know how to do it, just that it wouldn't be something foremost on anyone's mind who's removing yet another error from a prep set. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 request

Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ocosta Elementary School#Co-creator is a late DYK credit request for the item now in Prep 2. - Brianhe (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Being oversensitive?

I may be oversensitive here, but the following hook from Queue1 seems (probably unintentionally) rather postcolonial or patronizing to me:

  • ... that the British anthropologist Karin Barber started her academic career by teaching at the University of Ife, where the language of instruction is Yoruba?

Template:Did you know nominations/Karin Barber @Gaia Octavia Agrippa, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, and Mifter:

I'm just trying to imagine the reaction to an opposite hook:

  • ... that the Nigerian anthropologist Ifi Amadiume started his academic career by teaching at the University of London, where the language of instruction is English?

We consider it perfectly normal that anyone would be able to speak English and that someone teaching at the University of London would do so in English, and explicitly pointing out that a Nigerian is able to lecture in English would probably be considered racist (and rightly so). Then why is the opposite, that an anthropologist specializing in Yoruba is able to lecture in Yoruba, somehow remarkable and noteworthy? Fram (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

From looking at the university's website, it seems to me that the language generally used at the university is English, and that the Yoruba language is used in the African Languages and Literature Department where she taught. If you search for "English" and "Yoruba" on this page, you will find that English language at "O level" GCE is a general requirement while a similar Yoruba qualification is restricted to a few courses. Maybe we should have
Not only is this a better and more interesting hook, it'd diffuse potential problems as mentioned. HalfGig talk 12:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • How about the following (calling it ALT5)? I used the information found by @Cwmhiraeth: and have added that info to the article, and cited the page they found as a citation so that it is supported. It's acceptable length. @Fram:, does it address your concern? It's more factually accurate and assumes less. @Gaia Octavia Agrippa:, as the creator of the article, are you comfortable with this? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT5 ... that the British anthropologist Karin Barber started her academic career by teaching at the University of Ife, where African Languages and Literature classes were taught in Yoruba?
  • If Cwmhiraeth's ALT4 is accurate, I would much prefer ALT4. With all due respect, ALT5 has precisely the same problem that Fram flagged in the first place (and I would agree that that is a problem). Vanamonde (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. That does see more correct and neutral at the same time. Fram (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Fram for picking this up. I agree that ALT4 is best. ALT5 has the additional issue of assuming that the current practice of using English in other departments of the university was the same 30 years ago: it is ambiguous in the original source if its referring to the department or the whole university. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed the hook for now to Alt4:

  • ... that the British anthropologist Karin Barber started her academic career at the University of Ife, where she was required to teach in Yoruba?

If further discussion is needed or more changes warranted, it might be wiser to move the hook back to prep. Fram (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues with the rephrase though I also don't mind the original. Mifter Public (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree, Alt4 is the best one for several reasons, but I also agree with Mifter that I don't mind the original either. HalfGig talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The official language of Nigeria is English. Yoruba is a minority language in that country, being native to only about 20% of the population. There are only about 32,000 articles in the Yoruba Wikipedia. It is therefore fairly remarkable that someone from England should be able to teach in this language. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm with those who think the original both fine and interesting (rephrase is fine, too) - English is a ubiquitous world language (especially in academia), Yoruba has the advantage, here, of not being a ubiquitous, world language (one supposes if we were writing in the Yoruba language, we might pick out something different, here, but we are writing in English). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Dizzy heights

Now in Queue2, which is set for the main page in a few hours time:

  • ... that Licancabur (pictured), despite being smaller than many of the neighbouring volcanoes, stands out among them?

Template:Did you know nominations/Licancabur @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Philroc, and Cwmhiraeth:

Licancabur: 5916 metres. Neighbouring volcanoes listed in the article:

Higher

Lower

By the way, the GA links to volcanoes named "Putana, "Inca", "Lascar" and "Jardin", which are not the right targets...

Something like Llullaillaco, which is considerably higher, is more than 50 miles away apparently (if the coordinates are correct on both, they are separated by nearly 2 degrees, or some 150kms), so hardly a neighbouring volcano . Tacora (5980m) seem to be even farther away (5 degrees or some 400 km).

I may have missed something, but it seems as if Licancabur is the second highest volcano in the neighborhood, with only Sairecabur being some 50 metres higher. The hook is sourced, but it doesn't seem clear on what the claim was based. Fram (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

4 Minutes left until this probably inaccurate hook hits the main page as the picture hook. Fram (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: I think you can solve this quite simply by substituting the word "mountains" for "volcanoes" in the hook. I have studied my Philip's Atlas of the World and there are lots of peaks of over 6000 metres in the vicinity. The article and source both state "mountains" and it is the hook that has transcribed this into "volcanoes". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that all these high mountains are actually volcanoes, a small search (albeit only on the Chilean side, not in Bolivia) didn't reveal any of the peaks in the region which aren't volcanoes. Can you name a few of the mountains close by (say, within a radius of 50km) which are over 6000m? Most of the higher peaks seem to be considerably (as in more than 100km) to the North, at first sight. Fram (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The Uturunku, at 6008 metres, is so far the only other mountain (again a volcano) in the vicinity) I can find which is actually higher (it isn't mentioned in the Licancabur article or the Andes volcano navigation template, which is why I missed it at first). Which makes 2 volcanoes/mountains in the vicinity which are somewhat higher, hardly the "many" claimed in the hook. Fram (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The source states "This is lower than the height of many other peaks in the vicinity, yet Licancabur dominates the landscape." If these peaks are volcanoes, then the hook is good. If many are not it is inaccurate. It's your call. I posted this matter on ERRORS because I thought you were no longer online. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I see you have been answered at ERRORS as well, but let me just reiterate: the source and the hook differ wrt "peaks" vs. "volcanoes". This could be corrected with your suggestion. But my complaint is that the source and hook seem to differ from reality, i.e. that it simply isn't true that many hooks in the vicinity are higher, unless one stretches "vicinity" to peaks very far away, or unless one interprets "many" as "two" (there may be more, but I haven't found them so far). Fram (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Our article on the lake states it is "one of the highest" lakes in the world, rather than the absolute highest, based on this source that ranks it at number 5 in the altitudinal hit parade (and also classes it as a "pool" rather than a "lake"). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again demonstrating the weak review process and the necessity to bring hooks back out again from sets for a proper and extended discussion over suitable hooks and claims and referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hook pulled (while on main page)

In future, could we pull contentious hooks instead of letting them onto the main page? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

<Sigh> I can't send a hook about the lake as I've already sent one under Licancabur Lake. "Highest lake in the world" is wrong given the lake on Ojos del Salado. Perhaps "Licancabur volcano was worshipped by Atacameno people" but that's fairly bland. Or just strip out the "despite" part of the previous hook. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Reopened the DYK review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That's cool, but can we please be more cautious and not let items with concerns like this drift onto the main page for an hour or so as we did today? I know the number of errors at DYK is creeping up again, perhaps as a result of the heightened turnover, but it's better to be safe than sorry, chucking something back to the nominations area is not a "fail", better to be safe than sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep set balance

Is it my imagination, or are we promoting an overabundance of non-bio hooks and hardly any bios? Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am finding a scarcity of approved bio hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's okay, we have plenty of 1950s/1960s Indian politicians, obscure birds, and distant relatives of US military materiel to post every set! Our audience must be loving every minute. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4 - Amaryllis Garnett

This contains a [citation needed] for a potentially controversial and very bold claim that "while suffering from deep depression, she was drowned in the river". Now there may be a little ENGVAR at play here too, she was drowned and she drowned could be interpreted differently. However, suffice to say that kind of claim is controversial enough to warrant its own inline reference. Moonraker, Cwmhiraeth, Mifter. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The "citation needed" tag was added after the hook was reviewed and promoted and the matter is best dealt with by Moonraker as the article's creator. Of the two citations after the next sentence, one is available to me and covers the suicide/accident aspect but not the "life fell apart" or "deep depression" aspect. Failing any other action by the nominator, those claims could be removed before this goes to the main page in 24 hours time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The claim should have been caught by reviewer/promoter as this is a controversial one and needs verfiable reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
.The Rambling Man, the source was there, but had just been removed, as explained by Cwmhiraeth. I have now restored it and left a note on the talk page of the editor who took it out to explain how it meets the reliable source test. Moonraker (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That isn't what she said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It also isn't a reliable source. This now has a {{unreliable sources}} tag and should probably be pulled. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Now there may be a little ENGVAR at play here too, she was drowned and she drowned could be interpreted differently.
TRM: Does British English require the inclusion of "was" in this instance? In American English, that seems to imply that an unnamed person or thing caused the drowning. —David Levy 19:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Same, "she was drowned" usually means someone else was involved in the drowning in Brit Eng too. Is that backed up by the source? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Both of the Web-based sources refer to the death as a suicide. In the article, the next sentence is "Thought to be probably a case of suicide, it is also possible that her death was simply an accident." Hopefully, the third source (a book, of which I was unable to find a relevant excerpt) corroborates the latter claim. Regardless, it appears that the wording "she drowned" would be more appropriate. —David Levy 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks for February 20

The Washington's Birthday hooks need to go into Prep 4, which is almost filled. Images are available for both hooks. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah, I decided to move Prep 4 to Prep 5, which leaves an entirely open set for Washington's Birthday on February 20 (the holiday, that is; his actual birthday is February 22). So the special occasion hooks should have plenty of room in the now-empty Prep 4. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Film hooks

How are film and in-universe details handled for hooks? I'm currently reviewing LAbyrinth (2017 film) (see DYK nomination), in which the hook makes a statement about an actor performing an action, instead of the character portrayed by the actor ("...Johnny Depp will be investigating the murders of..."). Is there a rule or guideline to follow for such instances? For the record, I don't find the current hook phrasing acceptable, but I don't want to base a decision on only my opinion. Mindmatrix 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you in that review. Sure saying Johnny Depp is doing so-and-so is more hooky, but that doesn't mean we have to make Wikipedia's front page contain an inaccurate statement. HaEr48 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 DYK reform proposals

I've been saying for a while that once the nomination mover bot is up and running, I'd like to start an rfc to further improve the DYK process. It's finally time to put my money where my mouth is, but first we need ideas! I've created Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals (WP:DYK2017) as a way to garner proposals from everyone. Once proposals are drafted, we'll slap an RfC tag on it and see what changes have consensus. If you have an idea, add it to WP:DYK2017! I'll be adding ones I've been mulling over and seeing around as well. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Change in reviewer rules?

The Rambling Man has pointed out to me on a few occasions (e.g. here) that articles which include incorrectly licensed images should not appear on the main page. According to the rules as they stand, only images selected for the first slot in the set need to be checked by the reviewer and the promoter for correct licensing. Should we make a change in the DYK review rules to require that all images in a DYK-nominated article be checked for correct licensing, and alert the promoters to also check these images? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. It should really be part of the checklist as it's really important aspect of the review, particularly if we're going to direct people from the main page to article which are making illegal use of non-free images. All image licences should be examined and confirmed for suitability. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm very dubious about this, especially as such checks are more difficult than most people realize. Are images on Commons just to be accepted at face value? In fact Commons is full of incorrect licensing. Where does it say that "that articles which include incorrectly licensed images should not appear on the main page"? Obviously ideally this is the case, but is it a rule anywhere? Reviewer workload has increased considerably already. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not just Commons images, it's fair use images too. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I've just been having the same conversation on Talk:Regent Street/GA1 which features an image uploaded to Commons over 10 years ago without being challenged, but doesn't appear to have the correct licence on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I can understand that the vast array of license terms on Commons would be difficult, although admins who are prepared to put this stuff linked on the main page should take responsibility for it. In any case, fair use is reasonably easy to spot, and should be done by default by either the reviewer or the promoting admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, WP can also be complicated. Look to WP:NFCC, which is stricter than fair use (although fair use is perhaps also complicated, depending on the issue). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
As a minimum it is simple to see if a fair use image has a rationale included for inclusion in the specific DYK article. Slightly more complex, like the one I found this morning, is when you believe a fair use rationale to be invalid, e.g. a photograph of a house in the UK which still exists, and no freedom of panorama issues prevent a photo being taken of it right now. Then onto the more complex Commons issues, PD etc. Let's start with fair use. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
And a little perspective, it's far from all DYK articles that even have images, new articles have maybe 40% ish? And GAs should (operative word is "should") have been checked for licenses already. We should not be linking to an article from the front page that violates copyright. With commons having more control and validations I agree that the "fair use" images would probably be the priority - is it a valid "fair use"? Usually only takes a minute or two to check it out, and if in doubt post it here for a second set of eyes.  MPJ-DK  12:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I also got some really good (and quick) advice at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

HELLO PROJECT? This needs to be addressed as, per another thread below, this is becoming a visible problem. Stop burying heads in sand and decide whether this is a genuine quality-based project or if it's just a school project run by kids who don't care about measly things like correct licensing of images. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Step back and try again without the blatant breach in Civility TRM. --Kevmin § 22:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I've reformatted your comment so it flows. There's no civility breach, but there is a clear and obvious responsibility breach by the project. Get with the program, stop promoting articles with illegal use of images. Continuing to ignore that is exactly as I've suggested, like a school project gone wrong. Try working on that rather than continually spending your time attempting to get at me. Alternatively, take this to ANI and show them the "blatant breach in Civility [sic]" that you have experienced. Either way, I'd suggest the problem is still a real one, and one that the project isn't working hard enough to resolve. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to ensure you realise that I'm not the only one worried about this issue, see below. If you feel able, please contribute to it constructively so we can avoid these abuses of the law from occurring in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed this image in Joe Thompson (musician), an article linked from the next DYK set in the queue. Seriously, folks, it doesn't take a super-sleuth to spot some problems here.

The article's subject is deceased, but he was a musician who performed publicly in recent years, not a recluse or someone who died before photography was commonplace. The mere absence of a free substitute doesn't justify fair use; there must be no reasonable likelihood of obtaining one.

Does "Google Images" strike anyone here as a valid description of the image's source? Does the claim that "the article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work" seem remotely accurate? Does the appearance of "n.a." under the "Not replaceable with free media because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities" fields not raise any red flags?

Not that it's directly relevant, but simply searching Flickr's free images for the keywords "Joe Thompson fiddler" yielded five relevant photographs (one of which I uploaded and placed in the article). They're of lower quality, but that doesn't matter.

What does matter is the impression given to Wikipedia's readers when they click through to an article. We're leading them to believe that such image usage is okay, thereby encouraging them to act in kind. This needs to stop.

Pinging TheGracefulSlick, Mifter Public and Cwmhiraeth. —David Levy 02:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

David, I couldn't agree more. Those who review and promote articles must pay more attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is even controversial. Because it entails additional effort? We don't get to ignore copyright law for the sake of convenience. If DYK's current framework cannot accommodate a reasonable image check, perhaps alternative approaches should be explored. —David Levy 11:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess the argument is that this should be covered by site-wide policy and guideline, and people will shout WP:CREEP at you if you try to propose some level of indoctrination of these checks into the DYK ruleset. It something that should be taking place by default during reviews, and checked upon promotion, but it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
David Levy doesn't understand. Well, our procedures are not that complicated. In fact, at DYK we need to make the review process simple enough for any contributor to handle. But our rules about images are more inconsistent, illogical and ideology-driven than most editors can handle. So we keep it simple. We have no interest in checking all the images in the articles submitted, only the ones that actually need to run on the front page. The readers have no idea about our non-free content rules, and it is much better that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 does not understand. This is about Wikpiedia articles, not just DYK. We must not abuse fair use images on Wikipedia. It's is completely 100% irrelevant whether our readers are aware of non-free content or otherwise, the encyclopedia and its editors are duty bound to avoid the unlawful use of such images. Sticking your head in the sand claiming it only impacts those images on the main page is borderline negligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but it wouldn't be unlawful to run a fair use image on the main page, just a breach of our policy on the use of fair use images on the main page. And when I'm reviewing an article or assembling a prep area, that's exactly what I'm checking for. A full FAC-style image review usually generates tweaks to the licence tagging and problems with link rot of the source pages, all correctable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So we must check to ensure it doesn't happen. We should also be diligent enough to prevent the misuse of fair use images on DYK articles linked to from the main page (just as we should be careful to avoid this abuse throughout all of Wikipedia). If you and others can't be bothered or aren't able to assess images for their suitable use, perhaps we need to look again at the qualities of those who are enabled to nominate and promote items there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing it would be awful close to the edge, and maybe right over the side of the cliff, to try a fair-use image on the front page. Part of the idea of fair use is that the image plays some essential, irreplaceable role in helping the reader understand something. But on the front page it's just advertising the article. EEng 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, a Foundation-level policy barring the use of non-free media on a project's main page was established at some point after the Scooby-Doo incident. —David Levy 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the transclusion of fair-use images on the main page. I'm referring to invalid invocations of "fair use" in the articles themselves (such as the example cited above, which lacked anything resembling a rationale and would have been a copyright violation even if one had been included). Articles with flaws as fundamental as that should not be spotlighted on the main page. —David Levy 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7: You seem to be under the impression that DYK is an autonomous entity that needn't concern itself with Wikipedia's general policies and guidelines. It isn't. Every section of the main page must adhere to the overall requirements thereof. That you "have no interest" in doing so is not a valid excuse.
Of course, this isn't merely a matter of community-driven standards. There are legal implications. You're arguing that a rudimentary check for unlawful content is too much trouble, so you can't be bothered. This is unacceptable.
One of the primary purposes of the main page (and DYK in particular) is to encourage readers to become editors, in which case ignorance of our non-free content rules is not "much better".
But let's not get ahead of ourselves; I'm still waiting for you to confirm your understanding that fair use isn't the same as copyright violation (and the latter is entirely impermissible throughout the WMF projects). —David Levy 13:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
COPYVIO ≠ copyright violation. The former is our policy, the latter is a legal issue. Strictly speaking, we are supposed to concern ourselves with the former and the latter is WMF's problem. In practice, the former is supposed to cover the latter, as it is generally more restrictive. But this is not always the case; the two can be in conflict. Expertise is required. We do encourage you to create articles and submit them to DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
And we encourage, nay mandate you, to take responsibility for the correct use of all images in DYK articles promoted to the main page. If not, we will need to summarily remove images from DYKs until an "expert" can assure us that the images are suitably licensed. This isn't a game, this is something that needs absolutely serious and real endeavour. Claiming "non-expertise" is fine, so we just take the problem away by removing images. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
COPYVIO ≠ copyright violation.
WP:COPYVIO is a policy shortcut. "Copyvio" is an abbreviation of "copyright violation".
But how is any of this directly pertinent?
I stated that "Copyright violations aren't permissible on any WMF website." Your reply: "No, that is not correct. Fair Use images are permitted on several projects, including Wikipedia." I'd hoped that you simply misread the message to which you responded, but I'm beginning to wonder whether you've actually conflated the two concepts (and believe that "fair use" is an acceptable form of copyright violation).
The former is our policy, the latter is a legal issue. Strictly speaking, we are supposed to concern ourselves with the former and the latter is WMF's problem. In practice, the former is supposed to cover the latter, as it is generally more restrictive. But this is not always the case; the two can be in conflict.
Please cite a scenario in which something constitutes a copyright violation (legally speaking) but is permissible under Wikipedia's policies or those of any other WMF project.
Expertise is required.
How much expertise is required to spot any or all of the irregularities cited in my 02:37 (UTC) message?
We do encourage you to create articles and submit them to DYK.
Ah, I was waiting for that. —David Levy 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, David Levy, this will definitely need revisiting, particularly in light of the recent kick-off of the 2017 DYK reforms package discussed below. You should both contribute there to ensure this vital concept isn't lost in the wind, and that we continue to dedicate ourselves to an excellent encyclopedia which doesn't summarily abuse free use images or illegally use copyrighted images, regardless of how "difficult" the DYK project and its contributors may find that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Scottish record long jump

... that from 1973 until 2012, Myra Nimmo held the Scottish women's national long jump record?

Yawn. So it lasted a while, that's interesting but I'm not sure most people care less about the "Scottish" record here. What really is interesting is that it was broken by an athlete called "Jade Nimmo" who is not related in any way to Myra Nimmo. So perhaps something like "Myra Nimmo's Scottish women's national long jump record, which she held for 39 years, was beaten in 2012 by Jade Nimmo?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, The Scotsman has it nicely written: "39 years on, Nimmo loses long-jump record ... to Nimmo". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree; for me, the name coincidence is the more interesting fact. Although Nimmo is a Scottish/Irish surname (according to our article), I don't think it has the prevalence that Smith has in England, or Jones in Wales. (And your suggested alternative hook includes the info from the first hook anyway). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinging creator Joseph2302, reviewer User:7&6=thirteen and promoter, HalfGig. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't review this. My putting my review (which never did occur officially) on hold was due to my fascination with the name coincidence; they are not related. I did substantial research on Jade Nimmo and compiled a lot of information. My intent was to create an article on her; and then propose a double DYK. However, the breaking of the Scottish record seems to have been the apogee of her career. She suffered a serious injury and her Olympic dreams fizzled in the rain. So there is a question of her notability, and my interest in doing the article on her receded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Well your name was in the nomination template as being satisifed with it. I'll ping Vivvt too for what it's worth. We know they're not related. We know that Jade won't have sufficient notability. None of that is important. The hook simply would be far embellished to carry the fact her 39-year-old record was beaten by her namesake. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. The hook would be embellished if the naming coincidence were put in play. "Namesake" might be a stretch, however. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not in the hook, so it's not important. The fact is in the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The names could be in the hook. But "Namesake" is not, and it generally has the specialized meaning of: "A namesake is a person named after another." We have no sources for that.
Notwithstanding, your rewrite of the hook is accurate and supported by the sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the namesake thing is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So I disagree the original hook was "not interesting", as it was the longest standing Scottish athletics record for a while. However, I'm fine to use an alternate hook about Jade Nimmo beating it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The current hook doesn't say that! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WELL DONE ALL! This is running in its tedious, lack-of-context format. Despite a unanimous agreement here to actually improve the hook to something that would be interesting, nothing doing. Brilliant work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

HalfGig you can do something about this right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Heures de Charles d'Angoulême

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Heures de Charles d'Angoulême. This was assigned to prep 6 without the image. I (not an author) vote for having it later with the image for several reasons:

  • The image is unique.
  • The image illustrates the hook better than the link to "historiated letters".
  • To show the image was the reason to create an article about the book, which was done, which turned out to be the wrong book (to increase the irony of the story: that hook was pictured), so another article on the right book was done, which caused extra efforts because the original French article was copyvio.
  • One of the authors is harassed because of his brave initiative against the Daily Mail.

Please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I was going to move it to an open image slot, but they're all filled now. Perhaps someone could move this when an image slot opens up. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's now in Queue 6 and needs an admin to take it to a picture slot. Please! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sad update: the harrassed user retired. Look before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I hate to hear the news... the hook has been replaced in the queue and moved to prep 6 with the image in place. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Decorated my talk with the image. We do "need illumination", - that was the title of the thread that started it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, for me the "brave initiative against the Daily Mail" is a childish initiative by childish people. Like all newspapers, the Mail is good in parts, and I guess the focus of politically-correct criticism is on its current affairs. However, its reliability as a source depends far more on the particular author than on the publisher, and the "brave initiative" leaves far worse newspapers around the world unchallenged, including some organs of totalitarian states. Moonraker (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
By all means raise such sources for discussion at WP:RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

background discussion from WT Village Pump (technical)

This problem has existed for a few months on Template talk:Did you know. Once you get down to the newest subsection dates, the templates don't transclude very well. We were told back in September that the problem was that page is exceeding Template limits Post expand include size. At that time, we had a large special occasion holding area for various special events. The holding area has very little in it now, and the number of nominations we have are otherwise a lot less. The problem is worse than ever. Regardless of what is causing this, can it be fixed? As the internet expands, so does the size of everything programmed into it, and DYK won't be the only ones this happens to. How do we fix it for the future? — Maile (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Abandoning Template limits would be a decision that would need to be taken at WMF level, and they're vanishingly unlikely to authorise it since it's not a bug, it's an intentional feature to prevent DDOS attacks. The way around it is to use fewer transclusions; remember that each DYK nomination includes {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK nompage links}}, {{main page image}}, {{DYKsubpage}} and {{DYKmake}} plus whatever else the reviewing bot adds, so each transcluded nomination counts as six or more transcluded templates. ‑ Iridescent 22:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The standard fix for template size problems is to substitute templates and to remove any nested transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly how would DYK go about that? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
On a quick skim, the {{DYK conditions}} template doesn't appear to have any great use and has three nested templates of its own, so getting rid of that would save four templates-per-nomination immediately (with the current 53 nominations, that's an instant saving of over 200 templates, which will probably solve the problem on its own). Basically, go through the five templates I list above, and anything that's not actually both essential to your process, and essential that it remains unsubstituted, think about whether it would be possible to do without it or enforce substitution of it. You could also probably shave quite a bit off by ruthlessly enforcing a "no untranscluded templates in discussions" rule, and clamping down on anyone who uses {{od}}, {{tq}}, {{done}} etc in discussions. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Neither {{DYKmake}} nor {{DYKnom}} should be of concern, since they're commented out. I imagine that increased use of the {{DYK checklist}} for reviews is also contributing to the problem. Does the use of the {{*}} template contribute to the problem or not? It's currently being used by the DYKReviewBot. One template that we absolutely need to retain is the {{DYKsubpage}} template, since it is the final substitution of that template that closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Every time this happens I hope it will finally be the motivating factor to do the seemingly obvious and move the reviewed/approved nominations to a different page. DYK that nobody can read that thing on a phone? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and the answer is yes, templates that are actually transcluded all count, so if there's a bunch of templated bullets then that's definitely contributing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Then calling Intelligentsium, to see whether the templated bullets can come out of the reviews done by the DYKReviewBot, and any other avoidable templates. Also pinging John Cline, who created {{DYK conditions}}, to see whether there is some way to get the job done more efficiently templatewise, assuming that the job still needs to be done. I have no idea whether the 2015 conversion of {{NewDYKnomination}} to invoke a Module with the same name rather than do the work in a template would have affected the need for DYK conditions or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you BlueMoonset for your kindness and astute manner; inviting me to join this discussion. I was not aware of it until now, nor did I know anything of the circumstances forbearing it. I am therefore disadvantaged from giving an answer; ore the research I've yet to do.
When I catch up with the topic, however, I am confident that the answers being sought will be found.
If I wasn't so Spock-like, I can imagine myself getting all butt-hurt about not being notified of questions being asked of these templates, perhaps others as well. I was told in the past, things about my style in writing; and before that, of many ill effects that style was cursed to engender. Here, it seems that enduring months of template malfeasance was preferable to enduring discussion where I would invariably be. Being all Spock-like; and all: I feel terrible that this may in fact be. I really do.--John Cline (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We have to do something soon. The nominations page is quickly dissolving into nothing but wikilinks with no transclusions. Yes, I know the Prep/Queue page has always been used as the holding area. We cannot control how other people edit nomination templates - i.e. large amounts of text, template comments, additional image suggestions. The way it has always been is not the way that will work for the future.

Below is my suggestion. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested solution

  • The nomination page stays but only includes those which have received no approval whatsoever.
    • Reviewers who only are only interested in non-problem hooks have less to scroll through to find something of interest.
    • This would make a cleaner page for first-time reviewers who get confused by the glut we now have.
  • The Prep/Queue page stays exactly like it is, nothing changes about how it works.
  • A new subpage is created where any nomination that receives an approval is moved there by a bot (or human).
    • Special occasion holding areas, including April Fools' Day, appears at the bottom of this page. It stays consistently as is, in the fact that hooks are only moved here after approved on the main nominations page.
    • Prep promoters draw from this page.
    • Reviewers who like to check for problem areas on approved nominations look here.
    • Any disputed approval and any post-approval ALT hooks added are worked out on this subpage
    • Any hooks pulled from Prep, Queue, or the main page are put back here.

Please add comments below

Comments

  • Yep, sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    The bot will now used the substed the template {{*}} - it's weird that the page exceeds the transclusion limit so easily though. The previous time involved {{hat}}, {{hab}} which were being used more than once per nomination, and had several transclusions underneath as well, whereas {{*}} seems to be just a Unicode character. However I think it may be a bit of a hassle to move hooks between two pages - if you move them the moment they are seen by a human, you would probably quickly get the same problem on the second page, but moving them back and forth would be a huge hassle. Intelligentsium 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I know you have worked hard on the bot, but we didn't have this problem before it was activated. If the problems with it can't be ironed out soon, I think we are just going to have to retire it. That would surely be a better solution than having two separate nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I agree it's more trouble, but I think having a place where approved noms are gathered, for further intense scrutiny by the "eagle eyes", will extremely helpful, as well as solving the overflow problem. EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    The bot had been down for a few weeks, and this problem continued even in its absence. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, and... can we add the provision that nom page stays open until the bot closes it (maybe at the moment the hook moves to the main page, or -- better -- at the moment the hook comes off the main page)? EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    And have any dialogue on pulled hooks happen there, so that any nominator, reviewer, or other participant on that nomination would be aware of it as long as they watch-listed the open template. I don't know the mechanics of having a bot close the nomination, but it's worth asking Shubinator if that's possible to do in conjunction with whatever else DYKupdatebot does. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    Exactly. I'd also like to add a further suggestion that adding the green tick (which is presumably what will trigger the bot moving the nom page to this new "approved area") should always be accompanied by a tentative designation of exactly one of the (possibly several) ALTs as the one to used. Further discussion in the "approved area" might change that, but this way once the nom moves to the "approved area" there's just a single ALT that the "eagle eyes" (our precious editors who focus on quality control) will have to focus on checking. EEng 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    If closing a nomination just involves subst'ing the DYKsubpage template and marking it as passed (with humans responsible for moving the noms between the various pages, except for queue -> main page), DYKUpdateBot can do this while promoting the set (not while taking it down). As BlueMoonset noted, the bot will not know about comments that should go into the "2" field. With this model, how will folks know which admin promoted the nomination into the queue? Shubinator (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    The promoter simply posts on the bottom of the nom page e.g. ALT1 to Prep4 (without image). ~~~~. The bot closes the nom as it swaps the hook set onto Main Page (i.e. at the same time the credit boxes are posted to creator/nominator talk pages) and the 2= could be Swapped onto Main Page 0800 22 Jan 2017 UTC. This way, all concerns prior to the actual main-page appearance can be discussed on the still-open nom page, where it belongs; concerns arising after that time have to go through ERRORS as now.
    I think it would be ideal if, while we're at it, we changed the bot actions of posting credits to editor Talk, and closing the nom pages, to the moment the hook set is swapped off of the main page. Then the nom page really stays open for the entire life of the hook, "cradle to grave". But I recognize this might be more complex to do. EEng 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Mark me as opposing the further suggestion: the reviewer should feel free to check and approve as many interesting hooks as seem appropriate and are properly support in both article and sources, but not all reviewers are the best judges of which is the best, and sometimes the person assembling a prep set will pick one good hook over another good hook because it better balances the prep set. To limit it to exactly one hook of the reviewer's choice also reverses the deference we've given to the nominator regarding proposed hooks.
    As for the promoter, may I suggest that the promoter be required to fill in the 2 field with their promotion message? The bot's closing of the page will cause the time of closure to be added to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    The reviewer can approve as many ALTs as he or she wants, but (my suggestion is) that just one of them will be designated, tentatively, as the one that will appear. Further discussion might change that, selecting a different ALT, but starting at this point there would be only one ALT on the table at a given time for a given nom, so that attention can focus on it for error-checking and so on. To increase quality and reduce errors appearing on Main Page, it's essential that the checking process begin further upstream than it does currently i.e. currently this doesn't start until Prep, and now it can start when the nom is moved to this new "approved area". But it needs to focus on one potential hook at a time; if multiple hooks are in play, the checking just can't be thorough. I don't buy that this constrains prep set assembly enough to outweigh the advantages, and again I say that the designation of a single hook is only tentative, subject to change. EEng 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It will make it so much easier to scroll through the set of approved hooks when building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sounds fine LavaBaron (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, since I have no major objections. I do have a couple of doubts though. First, my understanding of the technicalities is not great, but if this problem is arising from people using too many templates without substituting them, it would seem that this is relatively a small fix: and that unregulated use of templates in the review process is going to create a problem again sooner or later. So, wouldn't it make sense to create some guidelines for folks editing the nomination pages, to help with this? Second, I find that very many of the hooks that need reviewing at any given time, and indeed the ones requiring the most attention, are not "fresh" nominations, but those that have been reviewed already, but require a new reviewer for whatever reason. @Maile66: where would these fit in your scheme? Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93 Regarding the guidelines, it does begin to be instruction creep. We cannot control what editors really do, no matter how many guidelines we write. As we experience on this talk page, a lot of editors aren't reading the guidelines anyway. So, we can spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and complaining on the talk page about those who do what they want, but we cannot control others. As to your second question, perhaps I wasn't clear. The minute a nomination receives a passing tic, it gets moved to the new page. There it stays, and any further issues or comments happen on that page. That means turn-around ticks on review questions, pulled hooks that were already promoted. Anything. EEng has suggested we keep the template open until when/if the nomination is off the Main page. Keeping it on that page does not close out the nomination, but leaves it there in a way that anyone with a given nom template on their watch-list will be aware it needs attention. New (first time) reviewers will have an easier time with unreviewed templates than figuring out why an already approved nom is in the midst of revision for one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Mail66 and Gatoclass: I think you're right about the guideline creep, but I didn't necessarily mean another page or another bullet point in the current set. What I mean is that we can do minor things that should still add up to something substantive. For instance, some folks mentioned templates (DYK checklist) that are only used at DYK: we can add a note to the documentation saying that they must be substituted, and also possibly have a bot substitute them every time. We can add to the DYK template edit notice, asking people to minimize their use of templates. And so forth. I imagine that other folks can think of other options. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per Vanamonde, I think what we need to be doing is working out why this problem is occurring, and take steps to eliminate or minimize it, because it never used to occur even with 350 nominations and now it's occurring with just 150. If the number of nominations builds up again, the problem will recur. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments: Keeping the nom open up until (and even through) the main page appearance seems reasonable to me, so long as the technical template issues can be addressed. I think it is fine and appropriate for a reviewer to choose a hook, but also to leave the choice open to the promoter, but I would like to see some reasoning posted. I've had a few cases where I've wondered why a hook was chosen (or not chosen), which I find frustrating and yet asking the promoter every time could get awfully intrusive given the relatively small group of set builders. Having another approved hook available is also useful in cases where an issue arises, because sometimes swapping hooks rather than pulling might be reasonable and appropriate. I would also like to see an explicit requirement that all ALTs be reviewed because I've had at least one case of offering several and only the first being reviewed / promoted on the presumption it was my preference (an incorrect assumption on that occasion, but understandable and arising from poor communication on my part). EdChem (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    I believe you make a valid point about the ALTs being reviewed. I've noticed the same thing. If all hooks are not reviewed, then the review isn't complete. It does a disservice to both the nominator and the promoter. Also, I have no problem with the promoter leaving a small note on the template about why a given hook among several available was promoted. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, Maile66, with my Timothy N. Philpot nomination, only the ALT0 has been reviewed and it was my fall-back option if all the others (which I think are more interesting) are rejected on undue negativity grounds. So, I posted here at WT:DYK requesting input, but the thread attracted no responses. I'm not sure what to do because the rules technically require all ALTs to be reviewed but making an issue of my case will focus on the reviewer, who is behaving as others do and does a lot of DYK work. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Good idea. There are currently several structural problems and the proposal looks like a sensible way forward. If there isn't one already, it would be good to have a page to document the process flow so that it's clear how a nomination progresses from page to page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just converted Template:DYK checklist to use Module:DYK checklist, which makes each checklist take up about half the post-expand include size that it did before. This has resulted in 12 more nominations being visible at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know, but we are still quite a bit over the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it worrying that there isn't one bit about why this is happening - I don't mean technically, I mean temporally. The number of new articles continues to decline, there appears to be no (major?) change in the number of noms being posted per day, and I don't see anything about the technical limit being changed. This is the only time I've noticed it - it seems to have happened before but I assume for a short period? So why now, in 2016? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz We have actually been discussing this a great deal on this talk page. A year or two ago, our individual reviews weren't so complicated, except in the case of drawn-out threads. Most were pretty brief. But graphics, text, little check templates, and a lot of thing have increased the size of the individual nominations transcluded. We also now have the bot that does a preliminary review. However, that bot was down for several weeks, and the problem continued. When we pushed it to the limits, the visual kind of went kaflooey. Think of what happens with your browser if the cache doesn't get cleared for a long time - eventually things aren't working right on a given page. It's kind of like that. Have you read the green hatted text at the top? We've exceeded our Template limits Post expand include size, and only WMF can give us more. And that isn't likely to happen, because WMF has safeguards in place to prevent a Denial of Service attack. Little things help some, like not putting checkmark templates on the nomination. But in the long run, we'll be pushing the limits and need to come up with a solution. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I did, and also visited the link you have here. Neither stated this clearly, nor included any specific numbers or examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary and implementation?

So it's one thing for there to be a lot of support, but it's another for someone to do it. What next? EEng 01:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Just..." EEng 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The nomination page seems to have returned to normal. Has someone actually resolved the problem, or is this as the result of some faulty nomination being promoted and archived? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that interesting? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it's only a matter of time before the problem comes back, and there were other good reasons for doing this. Thus I hope the extensive paid and pampered staff in charge of doing things like this get right to it. EEng 05:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
EEng, the problem did not fade away gradually but came to a sudden conclusion. One moment there were a host of nominations not properly displayed and a few hours later, there were none. This happened, as far as I can tell, late on the 12th November or early on the 13th. I think it was due to a problem nomination which was promoted and archived at that time, and will likely not recur. I suspect, without good evidence, the Moses Bensinger nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been a problem in the past and (I repeat) there were other reasons for doing this. (Commenting mostly to keep the thread alive.) EEng 19:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is more than one theory about why this happened, and we don't know for sure. But at this point, it's not happening. This would certainly support the idea that exceeding Template limits Post expand include size was not the problem after all, or this would still be happening. We have recently seen how one background edit can affect DYK like the bottom card being removed from a house of cards. We don't know why this happened, and we don't know why it stopped. What I have proposed here about a separate page for approved nominations would be a large undertaking to implement and maintain, unless there was a bot involved. I think the above Supports are mostly because it would be easier for promoters if we had a separate page for approved nominations. I yield to the majority, however this turns out. But we still need to get it implemented if we go with it. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Maile, the number of active nominations (and therefore templates) has been steadily increasing, so it's natural that we'd run into the transclusion problem. It had been happening with 160 or more active nominations; now it's happening with 250/260 or more. That's quite a difference. If we had four or five prep/queue sets built at any one time, we wouldn't be having transclusion problems at the moment, though if the number of noms continues to build, we would regardless. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All hail Wugapodes!

I saw this and whipped together a script that managed to do the first part of the reorder: put any hooks that have been accepted onto a different page (and remove all the accepted/closed ones from the nom page). You can see the output on User:Wugapodes/Did you know/Approved hooks and User:Wugapodes/Did you know. If people like this and think this is something I should continue working on, I can make it so that the holding queues are on the other page like suggested. Let me know if this is helpful or not. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

YES! YES! YES! Everyone, please review what Wugapodes has done so far. (Wugapodes, by "holding queues" do you mean the special holding areas for e.g. holidays?) Also, let's all remember that this was a package of ideas about changing the sequence of events in review, approval, and promotion, especially with regard to when nom pages get closed and so on. Let's make maximum use of this opportunity to implement as many good ideas for improving things while this sucker wonderful volunteer Wugapodes is willing to dig in and do the work. EEng 23:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I did mean the holding areas. Poor phrasing on my part. Be sure to let me know of any ways I can procrastinate writing help. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I like what you've done. Please pursue this — Maile (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It looks good. One thing I noticed, at the moment the nomination José Antonio Raón y Gutiérrez for 23 October appears on your approved list. The template is splattered with ticks but the nomination has not in fact been approved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Awesome work! But yes, we do have to decide how to deal with "challenged" nominations, where the approval is superseded by a later comment. Also, perhaps approved nominations should remain visible until they reach the main page, to encourage discussions to occur there and not on the main DYK talk page if they get pulled from the queue. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Wugapodes, great idea. For your algorithm: it has always been the case that the final icon rules; that's how Shubinator's DYKHousekeepingBot builds the List of DYK Hooks by Date table on the DYK queue and nomination pages. So if the final icon of the six allowed is one of the two ticks, then the nomination goes on the approved page; if red arrow, question mark, slash, or X, it goes on the regular nominations page. I queried Shubinator a couple of days ago about updating his bot to combine the contents of the current noms page and a new Approved noms page, and he hopes to have something ready to test by the end of the week. We'd need to decide on a name/location for the approved page: I would suggest an /Approved page directly below the current nominations page (Template talk:Did you know/Approved). I don't believe we want to use the word "hooks" in the page name because each entry is an approved nomination, not an approved hook. Finally, because Special occasion hooks are supposed to be approved, they should be kept on the Approved page but in their own section where the new moving bot should probably not be allowed to make modifications. We may want a stub of a Special occasions section on the regular nominations page, also where new the bot should not go, with much the explanation that is there now, along with a link to the approved special occasion nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me suggest the following:

  • Once the green tick appears, move the nom to the Approved page.
  • If the green tick is later overridden, don't move it back off the Approved page -- too confusing and doesn't happen so much that it matters. Thus the Approved page is really the "got approved at some point even if maybe it's not currently approved". This way more eyes get on a "troubled" nom, and that's a good thing.
  • I thought about having a delay of X hours, after the green tick appears, before moving the nom to the Approved page, to give a little time in case the original tick is going to be overridden, but again I don't think it's worth the complexity (and sometimes we're trying to rush something through the process, so we don't want a delay).

Other points:

  • Keep the nom page open until the hook is swapped off the main page. In fact, all the ancillary stuff that currently happens as the hook set is swapped onto the main page (closing nom page, handing out credits to user talk pages) can be delayed together to the swap-off.
  • I'd like to make a plea for not importing, to the Approved page, the date structure of the main nominations page. Please, just add newly-ticked noms to the end of the page, so that those doing QA can simply watch for new stuff at the end. Please, please. This obsession with maintaining some kind of priority structure based on "date of creation or date expansion began" is completely stupid. (Having special-occasion holding areas is fine, and of course prepbuilders are free to jump around the Approved page in selecting hooks.)

EEng 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Antony-22: My interpretation of the proposal was like EEng's, even noms approved but later challenged would be on the approved page, and I think that's a good thing per EEng. Though if we'd like to discuss which is better, It's an easy change. @EEng: I'm not sure what you mean with your first other point, are you proposing a change to the way hooks get promoted to queues or is this something I can change in the script? I agree with your second point, and was how I wanted to set it up but I decided to not rock the boat too much. If others like that idea I would be glad to make that change. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The current procedure is that the prep builder selects a hook from a green-ticked nom page and adds it to a prep set; at the same time he/she closes the nom page (by changing some parameter in the enveloping template, and subst'ing it). Unfortunately, this means that if there's later trouble with the hook, there natural venue for discussing it (the nom page) is no longer available -- this is the main reason you see so much "pull" discussion at Talk:DYK. Also, in the current procedure, as the bot swaps a Queue of hooks onto the main page, that's the moment that the bot goes to the talk pages of the various involved editors for each article, to post congratulations.
My idea is this: when a nom is selected to donate a hook to a prep set, the nom is no longer closed; instead the prep builder simply posts a comment at the bottom of the nom, "To Prep 4 (without image)" or whatever. After the prep set becomes a queue set, and then is eventually swapped onto the main page, no credits are given as they are now. Instead, 24 hours (or whatever) later, as the hook set is swapped off the main page, at that time the bot passes out credits to editors (as it does now, just 24 hours later than it used to), plus (a new job for the bot) the nom page is finally closed. This way, the nom page remains open "from cradle to grave" for discussion of problems, no matter how late they arise. Also (hate to say it) if the hook is modified during its main page appearance, the credits that appear in various places will quote the final hook as of the moment it's swapped out, not the original (presumably inferior) hook that was swapped in at the beginning of the 24 hours. EEng 05:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
EEng, can I suggest that we take this in stages? There's an immediate issue: the nominations page is too big. There's going to need to be a lot of coordination between the new Wugapodes bot and the Shubinator bots. DYKHousekeepingBot is going to need to keep track of how many nominations there are between the pages, and be able to count both kinds (approved and not approved) on both pages. It's also going to have to figure out which nominations out there aren't yet transcluded, which involves checking both pages. Adding the rest into the initial separation stage is going to cause all kinds of delays in the separation. Let's concentrate on getting the pages separated before redesigning the whole process.
As for keeping the nominations open after promotion, I think this is going to cause more problems than it solves. Assuming we do keep the nominations open until they've been promoted to the main page and left it—remind me how we make sure that an open nomination isn't in one of the preps or queues or on the main page so it doesn't get promoted multiple times?—DYKUpdateBot (which puts the notifications on article and user talk pages) will have to do the close. The notification of promotion is now less friendly: instead of being told that the article you nominated is now on the main page and you can go see it there, you get notified after it has left the main page, so you probably missed it. I think you're being optimistic about the number of people who will see formerly approved hooks on the approved page; reviewers generally won't go there because the hooks are supposed to be approved. Special occasion hooks that run into trouble rarely find reviewers after the fixes have been made because they're in an area where only approved hooks should be; I think we'll be looking at the same thing here. Finally, the set builders select from both green- and gray-ticked nominations. It's the tick that counts, not so much its color. (With the gray AGF ticks, more care should be taken.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, for "green tick" I should have said "green or gray".
  • I don't care too much when the credits are handed out -- do them during swap-in if you want -- but I feel strongly about keeping the nom page open until the final swap-out. Right now Talk:DYK is far too cluttered with discussions that should be going on back on the nom page, where all the relevant background already is. [Later-added point]: I do see the value of having involved editors notified at the moment of swap-in to the main page, since they can monitor for vandalism etc. Of course, that assumes they log in and find the notice, but we can but try.
  • I'm not being optimistic about the # of people will be reviewing the Approved page, because I think there will be few such people -- people like TRM and Fram, our resident eagle-eyes (with eagle beaks and claws, of course). Right now serious post-tick QA doesn't start until the hook is in a prep set, by which time it's already a hassle to pull it back; this new Approved page, in addition to making prep-building easier and solving (we hope) the technical transclusion-limit problem, provides the perfect place for that final QA to take place. I think we'll find that most of the attention now directed at Talk:DYK (which should really be a place for policy and process discussions, not individual hooks) will switch to the Approved page. Obviously for any of this to work the nom needs to stay open until final swap-out.
EEng 06:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: EEng suggested writing a comment, but I think a template like they use for categories at AFD might be useful. It could keep track of the whole history, including who promoted it to prep and who removed it from a queue and when. Something like:
Wugapodes promoted this to prep 3 ~~~~
So it's obvious but not intrusive. I think the suggestion is a good one because I agree that discussions of a nom, even after being promoted, should take place there just so the history is easier to see. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
(All hail!, indeed!) @Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth: The two of you do the major lifting in promoting to prep, so your input here would be good feedback. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
When hooks are reviewed they are often clunky, ungrammatical or otherwise not ideal. As a promoter, I consider the wording of the hook and if I think only trivial alterations are needed, I will move it to prep verbatim, and make alterations when it is in the prep set. Afterwards, others may also think it needs rephrasing, so what appears on the main page may be far removed from that on the template. I think it would be useful for this history to be available from the nomination template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

make alterations when it is in the prep set -- We've all done this, and we've all gotten in hot water at one time or another for it; it's the wrong place to be doing that. I submit that if you think a hook on the Approved page needs tinkering with, you should post something to the nom like, "Isn't there a grammar problem with ALT1? I think this ALT1a corrects it...", then propose your ALT1a and move on to find a hook elsewhere, giving time for those watching the nom page to evaluate your suggestion. In other words, either take the hook as approved, or suggest a change, but don't edit it on the fly or in prep -- the people who know the article, the topic, and the nom's history best aren't watching there. Because this is all happening under in the "Approved page fishbowl", our sharpest eyes will now be on these final adjustments. EEng 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to be distinguish the noms on the approved page by their status: approved, challenged, in prep, in queue, on Main Page. This could be either by having separate sections for each, or having an index or some other visual difference between them. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Whether a nom is approved-unchallenged or approved-challenged or gone-to-prep will be apparent by the ticks and comments at the end of the nom. (Perhaps we could have a "gone to prep" tick, but again I emphasize that it should be specified exactly which hook went, w/ or w/o image, which prep set, who moved it, etc.) ("Gone-to-prep" includes three sub-stages, really: in Prep, moved to Q, on main page; and swapped-off-off-main page closes the nom and removes it from Approved.) Weparate sections would make it a little easier on prep-builders, but at the cost of a lot of complexity, and we can always add that later if experience suggests it would be worth it. EEng 17:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Question @BlueMoonset, EEng, Wugapodes, Cwmhiraeth, and Antony-22: Depending ... if the hooks are left on the new "approved" page after promotion, then I think we need to do a little rewriting on the how-to of promoting to prep, etc. Specifically this part:
In the DYK nomination template
1) Replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage
2) Replace |passed= with |passed=yes
3) Check in Preview mode - if it was done correctly, everything will be against a pale blue background. There should be no stray characters (like }} ) at the top or bottom.
4) Edit summary should indicate which prep area you are moving the hook to.
5) Save
So, will a bot actually close out the template once a hook has retired successfully from its main page appearance? — Maile (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. My proposal is that the promoter do step (4) when taking a hook to put in prep. (As I said before, maybe we'll invent a new tick/template for "gone to prep".) Then, as the hook comes off the main page, the bot does the other stuff. EEng 23:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Step 1 and 2 right now actually close out the nomination template, and that's done manually by the promoter. So, you can't have a step 4 without 1, 2, 3. But...yes...that was the question. The template will stay open until the hook has had a successful run on the main page. Then a bot closes the template. Yes? — Maile (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Um, ok... I guess. I still don't see what the confusion was, but I think we're somehow saying the same thing. EEng 23:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Maile, at the point that this goes live, we're going to have to have already prepared numerous revisions to the various instructions, not merely to that one section, assuming all these changes are made to the process. We'll probably also want to put warnings on the Prep pages that there are changes and promoters should familiarize themselves with these before building sets. You never know when someone who's been away for a few months will come back and use the process they know, unaware of the changes since they left. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess that was my main concern, that promoters wouldn't know the new routine. And I agree that the new process should be posted in numerous places. Even if promoters are currently active, and checking this talk page ... if they haven't participated in this wall of text on how it will be changed, they might be completely unaware. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You leave for a couple hours and suddenly there's a bunch of new stuff.

  • @EEng: I'm not too concerned about edits that happen in prep. Like the guide says, we can't stop and ask the nom about every change, plus it's CC licensed so might as well take advantage of that. If it's a big change, send it back (or don't promote), but for small grammatical errors and rewordings that don't change the meaning, I think the way it's done is fine.
  • @Antony-22: I actually like that idea. I think having, minimally, an "approved", "promoted", and "pulled" section would be useful for promoters and reviewers. I'll think about how to add something like that in.
  • @Maile66 and BlueMoonset: I'm thinking about how to actually implement a lot of this and I think a lot of changes can be done on the back end of templates and bots to make procedure changes minimal. Essentially all that happens when the DYKsubpage template is subst'd is that it includes the archival template. If we just edit that template to not do that any more, we can keep it open but still keep the actual procedure similar.

If you need me, I'll be in template space trying to whip up some examples/proposals. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You know, actually, maybe the changes shouldn't be minimal? Perhaps this is a good time to actually streamline the process, simplify, and make it easier for editors. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about edits that happen in prep -- Unfortunately experience shows that judgment, by persons not previously involved in a particular nom, about what constitutes a big change vs. a small rewording has been (to put it charitably) unreliable. It makes little sense for a detailed review and discussion process to be followed by a silent tinkering visible only in the edit history of the Prep template, made by someone who's been looking at the nom and the article for 90 seconds. And yes, we can ask the nominator and reviewer about every little change (in the sense of posting a suggested change to the nom change and waiting for comment) -- part of the reason it's healthy to have, to the extent possible at any given time, a large pool of approved hooks awaiting promotion is exactly so there's no hurry to promote any given hook, and thus comment can be invited on even apparently minor changes. This is the main page, after all, and there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. The guide says what it says currently because the current process forced us to make many such on-the-fly changes, and we were just closing our eyes and hoping for the best. One salutary outcome of the current effort should be to put an end to that by keeping the nominator and reviewer in the loop until the very end. EEng 04:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng: Right now it takes some searching to figure out which puck is the most recent one; it's a minor annoyance right now when I'm scanning through the noms to find a hook to review. Even having a prominent banner at the top of each nom would work, if people don't want them divided into sections, though if a bot's controlling the page sections wouldn't be hard to maintain. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, if we rechristen the |passed= parameter as |status=, then it could take on values like some_hook_approved, hook_to_prep, appeared (i.e. has finished its main-page appearance, though maybe this is just closed), and these could manifest as the banners you're envisioning. Back on the giant concatenated nominations page, it could be the change to some_hook_approved that signals the bot to move the nom to the Approved page, instead of the mysterious scan-for-bottom-tick system used now. (We can still have the ticks, for humans.)
I really think having a bunch of sections is gilding the lily. Just add newly approved noms at the end, and prep builders should look for hooks, in general, near the top. Plus the special-occasion hold areas, of course. EEng 04:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I misread Antony's post as talking about promoting hooks, when he was actually talking about finding noms to review. Since the reviewed noms (|status=some_hook_approved) will move to the Approved page, what is now the Nominations page will have only noms that haven't been approved yet, so finding a "virgin" should be easy. EEng 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I was in fact talking about the new approved hooks page, but I was making an analogy with finding a hook to review. Just like people scan the noms page right now to find one to review, people may also want to scan the approved hooks to find one to promote or double-check, so it's important to be able to tell its status at a glance. Either displaying a prominent banner or having the bot keep them in separate sections would work for this. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

New template

For those interested in the idea I floated about an afd-like template, I made one that handles promotion and pulling. You'll want to see {{DYK moved}}:

{{subst:DYK moved|alt=1|toPrep=3}}

ALT 1 promoted to prep 3 – Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

{{subst:DYK moved|fromPrep=3}}

the nomination was pulled from prep 3 – Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It has pretty intuative syntax (looking only add human-readable parts, "DYK moved alt 1 toPrep 3" and "DYK moved fromPrep 3"), it pulls left so it stands out and starts a new conversational block, it produces a standard output that is easy for bots to look for and parse. It could also be incorporated into the current {{DYKsubpage}} template in addition to the "status" parameter EEng mentioned above to automate the process perhaps. That will be my next goal. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please pace yourself. We need you for the long haul. The benefits of all this could be far-reaching. EEng 04:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's all been rather simple. Believe it or not it's a nice break from my other work...not sure what that says about me. I tend to follow an iterative design model: prototype, seek feedback, and then scrap or adjust. I think it's easier for people to discuss changes when there's something to work off of which is more what I'm trying to provide than finished products, perhaps that wasn't clear. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Some comments/questions
(1) The blanks would be filled out by humans, for the bot to sense and do its thing. Right?
(2) If "alt=" is left blank, does it assume it's the non-alt hook?
— Maile (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better if the value was always explicit i.e. use 0 for "ALT0" i.e. the original hook. EEng 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
(1) That was my thought, yes. If you look at {{DYKsubpage/sandbox}} and Template:DYKsubpage/testcases you can see a mock-up of how it would work. Instead of subst'ing the dyksubpage template like previously, the promoter would fill in alt= and prep= which would automagically add this comment line. When it leaves the mainpage, a bot would subst the template closing it.
(2) For promotions it assumes alt 0, though that can also be explicit or treated as an error to leave it blank, for pulled hooks it just says what prep it was pulled from (if this gains traction, we'd want to add pulled from queue and mainpage also) but the specific hook that was pulled can be specified as well. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:BlueMoonset that we should take this in stages. As I've said previously, modifying DYKUpdateBot to close out nominations when taking sets off the Main Page isn't on the table right now. Let's focus on addressing the immediate issue of the nominations page, and then we'll have plenty of time to fine-tune other parts of the process. Shubinator (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
But it is on the table. We're discussing it now. Do you have any other reasons for not discussing it other than that you say we're not discussing it? EEng 22:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
EEng, what is being discussed here is going to require extensive modifications to DYKUpdateBot. Shubinator, the bot owner, has effectively said that this isn't something he can accomplish quickly: it's going to require discussion, specifications, and time to write and test, not to mention the necessity of getting the existing bot and Wugapode's proposed new bot not to get in each other's way. Right now, we have an immediate problem that needs solving: the nominations page is too big and dozens of nominations are not being transcluded, making it extremely difficult for people to work on them. To separate them, another of Shubinator's bots, DYKHousekeepingBot, needs to be modified to deal with two separate pages rather than one: a new Approvals page on top of the current Nominations page. Once that's done, we can safely separate the pages, the transclusion problem goes away, and the design of the new process can take center stage. It's a matter of priorities and time available to work them. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't care if the implementation is done in phases, but the design (rough, at least) should all be up front, especially if, as you say, it will require changes here there and everywhere, to avoid re-redoing stuff over and over. EEng 04:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

New page setup

"Conscience does make cowards of us all"

The native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pitch and moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
– Hamlet III.1

[FBDB]Can the poetry, you fobbing base-court lewdster! EEng 19:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Click here to refresh the Shakespearean Insult Generator

@Shubinator, BlueMoonset, EEng, Maile66, and Antony-22: It seems like we've all had wonderfully productive discussion, but what I think we need next is to decide what we are actually going to do and when. I think we all agree the first thing that needs to happen to get the nominations back in order is splitting the pages. I can do that literally whenever. What seems to be the biggest holds on actually doing it are (in order of my perceived importance):

  • How such a change to the nomination page would affect with Shubinator's bots
  • How a bot moving noms from one page to the other would interact with Shubinator's
  • How the approved hooks page would look/function
  • What changes to the DYK process would need to be made to document these changes

Given this, I have a few questions. The first is for Shubinator: what do you need from me to most efficiently modify the DYK bots so that they can work with the most minimal change of splitting the pages? The rest are general things to discuss, in order of imminent necessity:

  1. How should the approved hook page be organized: like in the example (retain date sections), like EEng suggests (just add them to the bottom as we find them), like Antony-22 suggests (approved section, contested section, pulled section), or some other idea?
  2. Are the more superfluous suggestions made so far worth discussion after the immediate problem is solved?
  3. If so, how and where should that discussion take place? Like we have been already in this section, in a new section on this talk page, on a subpage to craft a proposal RFC, or some other option?

Hopefully we can get the immediate problem solved asap, while also improving the project. The discussion has been great so far, and I hope for more, but let's not "lose the name of action". Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes
  • In some ways, I wouldn't mind if this went to a separate page RFC. But what usually happens then, is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and participation drops. On the other hand, this particular thread has been open since November 1, and it's down to the few of us to figure out the mechanics.
  • I think it is probably visually essential to retain the date sections, so that we can focus on getting the older nominations promoted. Otherwise, I think older nominations would fall through the cracks. IMO, when BlueMoonset started the regular updated sections on older nominations needing DYK reviewers, it was an improvement in bringing eyes to nominations that had been forgotten. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Wugapodes, I didn't see that there would be any significant changes to the Nominations page (Template talk:Did you know) itself insofar as the existing bots were concerned. There would be fewer hooks transcluded there with a bunch having been moved to another page, but varying numbers of transclusions are normal. (I suppose it might depend on whether the page changes while Shubinator's bot is reading it, but wouldn't that cause a collision error now if it could have happened?) There will inevitably be some textual changes to the instructions when the page splits, and then as the other proposed changes come on line, but it seems to me that the documentation modifications will take far less time than the design, specifications, coding, and testing. Please see below about the page split. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I had posted to Shubinator's talk page a while ago, while this conversation had been moribund for a while, asking what he would need in order to revise DYKHousekeepingBot to check through two pages, of nominations and of approved nominations, and still be able to build the List of DYK Hooks by Date table that appears on the Queues and Nominations pages and lets us know how many hooks are out there and how many of them are approved. Losing this functionality (and knowledge of how many are approved) by separating the pages—the bot wouldn't see any on the Approved page—seemed to me to be a very bad idea. Per our discussion there, I've just created the bones of an Approved page, and seeded it with four hooks from December 6 plus the Special occasion hooks for next year.

My assumption was initially that the Approved section would have subsections by dates, but when I created a page today for Shubinator to test with—Template talk:Did you know/Approved (which I figured we could then populate for real once the bot was working)—I noted that the discussion seemed to be veering away from dates, so it might be best to just combined everything on the Approved page into one line on the List of DYK Hooks page. (I didn't populate any dates, just the main section as a whole.) Since Maile seems now to be heading back toward dates, maybe Shubinator should allow for date and non-date headers in the bot code revision, combining the dates from both pages, and adding lines for each additional category on the Approved page (but only one line for the entire Special occasions section). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I noted that the discussion seemed to be veering away from dates to continue quoting Hamlet, "ay, there's the rub". I honestly have no feelings about how the approved page should be set up as all (except Antony-22's) would be trivial to implement (the sections-by-status would require some changes to the process to be viable, so perhaps we should stick a pin in that one). So trivial, in fact, I'll program it to do both and when we come to a decision on that, have it output the one we agree on. I'll get to work on that, incorporate the structure you have at Template talk:Did you know/Approved already, and should have something ready soon. Thanks for your response, it really helped clear things up. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
So, perhaps a stupid question, but how will the special holding areas work? Will they be nominated on the nom page and then moved to a section on approved when approved? If so, is there some consistent formatting that the bot can look for to know to move it to a holding queue? If not, then this may be a minor snag. Two solutions could be to have humans do it (for now or forever), or to modify the way dates are requested to make it bot-readable. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
After the bot moves it to the normal part of the Approved page, someone can then pick it up manually and move to the right special holding area; I really don't like locking too much structure into bot code. Since we're adding all the bells and whistles it might be nice to have a template parm |special_occassion= |special_occassion_requested=; it needn't be more than yes/no, and if it's yes that raises one of those famous colored banners to warn everyone it's not on the normal assembly line. EEng 06:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Special occasion should be a manual move: for one thing, it isn't an automatic grant. A human reviewer needs to take a look at it, and if they agree that this is indeed sufficiently special, and meets the criteria (it shouldn't be more than six weeks in the future, for example), then they can move it by hand to the Special occasion section and set up a new date section there if necessary. I would imagine that some of the time the reviewer will approve and move even before the bot takes action. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The date separations is a valueless complication for no purpose. If newly-approved stuff is added at the bottom, and prep builders work from the top, it will tend to be FIFO, which is good enough. EEng 04:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Re dates, after having just read BlueMoonset post beneath mine, it occurred to me that we need Shubinaor's feedback on what might be the best avenue to take on that. I'll go with the majority opinion on this, as long as it is workable for Shubinator. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
DYKHousekeepingBot can go either way on date sections. Right now it supports date sections, if we remove them the bot will need minor tweaking, definitely doable. Independent of the bots, when I was building DYK sets, the date sections were useful in reducing edit conflicts. Shubinator (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding something only the bot will be editing the Accepted page anyway (adding noms that have just transitioned to some_hook_approved, and removing them at the end of their life) -- the exception being the rare time a hook is moved from the main Approved list to a special-occasion area. So I don't understand the edit-conflict argument.
One of the things I find really annoying about the date sections we now have on the giant nominations page is that new noms are popping up here and there all the time within the current 7-day window, so there's nowhere to watch to just see new noms as they arrive. If the date sections are just "date moved to Approved page" that's fine, but please don't arrange them by date nominated, because that means new stuff will always be appearing all over the Approved page, and those doing QA will have no way to find new additions systematically. EEng 02:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologise in advance if this is a really bad idea, but what about a page that was a sortable table with a link to the nomination page, status, nomination date, etc. No transclusions, the bot could just add to the list, update entries, and remove items when they come off the main page. Length would be a non-issue. Wouldn't that help us a lot with working through the nominations in varying stages? An editor could sort by status if looking for pulled / needing review, or by date, or even by nominator / approver / promoter, if that was somehow useful. Include if there is an approved image, so we could look for older approved hooks with images, etc. EdChem (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If, as I think you're suggesting, this would be an auxiliary structure that summarizes and indexes the content of the other page(s), then that really is something we can add later without impact on the design we're developing. EEng 09:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
EdChem I'm not sure if you're suggesting the table as the separate page we're talking about, or converting the nominations page to wiki links instead of transclusions. For one thing, wiki links also add to a page's size and bog it down. But the big issue is the visuals. Promoters should be able to scroll a page to eyeball potential hooks to complete a set. If we make it a system where they have to click on each link to see what it is, we discourage the incentive to promote hooks. Did I misunderstand what you are suggesting? — Maile (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that when someone's scanning down the Approved page looking for a hook to promote, it's more difficult if the already-promoted hooks are mixed in. I agree that they should stay in date order within the sections, just without subsection headings. I know having the bot juggle noms between sections is a bit more work, but it also makes things a bit easier for promoters down the line. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The colored banners you proposed should make things easy enough. Maintaining the structure you're proposing will require constant bot intervention. It's technical rococo. Simple is better. EEng 19:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@EEng and Maile66: I didn't really have a concrete proposal, just an idea that was a thought-bubble. On reflection:
  1. I would keep the nom page with the transclusions for the nominations yet to have an icon added (ticked, needs work, no, etc.).
  2. I was originally thinking of the issue of which order is best, which a sortable table would allow each editor to tailor to their own needs. However, Maile's point on transclusions for the in progress / pulled / etc page is well made, so I guess what I am suggesting would be an adjunct.
  3. My table page suggestion could summarise both pages and allow anyone to see every current nomnination in one place, by oldest, or status, or whatever else in the table. Statuses could be something like "nomination" (for on the current page), "new reviewer needed", "pulled", "GTG", "GTG (AGF)", "Waiting for action" (for when the nominator has been asked with a ? or / icon, or has acted and waiting for further input from the reviewer), "Promoted" or "In prep / queue". Having a table with no transclusions but only links means we don't run into the issue we presently have with too many templates.
  4. Obviously any decision is contingent on consensus on the way forward, refinements / alterations / rejections / etc of suggestions made, and agreement from the bot operators on practicality and reasonableness, etc.
EdChem (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: have you seen Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report? It seems rather analogous to what you're suggesting in that it augments the GA process by summarizing the nominations and directing attention to the older ones in each category (and overall). Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I see that is one option. With nominations spread across two or more pages, a single page summary would (I think) be useful, and it needs to leave out the transclusions to be viable. I'm just throwing in an idea that seemed to me to address the concern over ordering and to be useful more generally, without advocating any single approach as the way forward. EdChem (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, DYKUpdateBot doesn't read the nominations page or the prep areas, so we're good on that front. DYKHousekeepingBot will need to be modified to 1) reflect the noms on the Approved page in the table generated at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count, and 2) not count nominations transcluded on the Approved page as orphaned nominations. DYKHousekeepingBot only reads the noms pages, so it shouldn't conflict with any nomination shuffling. #2 is a one-line change. As BlueMoonset mentioned, we've been iterating on #1, take a look at the modified bot's output here: User:Shubinator/Sandbox/DYK hook count. Feel free to provide feedback! Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

DYKMoverBot Prototype

Happy holidays everyone, I have completed a prototype of the nomination mover script. It is currently set up to out put two styles, with date sections and without date sections. I have a few more things to work out before I can submit a BRFA, but the formatting for each page is set enough for feedback. Take a look, decide which you like best, make that preference known to me somehow. A possible option is to quasi-A/B test it. Use one for a few days, use the other for a few days and determine which was best for your workflow. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have filed a Bot Request for Approval. Feel free to comment there. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_136&oldid=1089832346"