Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 140

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142→Archive 145

Prep 1 - "superb mastery"

"... that Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz acquired a superb mastery of horsemanship, once riding a wild stag and another time riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing?" Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, Auntieruth55 (nom).

This is a nice hook, interesting and all, but "acquired a superb mastery" without attribution or without being a quotation is way POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I had already tweaked the hook before I saw this comment, but I did leave the word "superb". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, so the problem is still there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That phrase - "superb mastery of horsemanship" - appears in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. See s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Seydlitz, Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.66 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying the phrase didn't exist somewhere, I'm saying it needs attribution since in our modern encyclopedia's tone of writing, it would be considered highly POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The source talks about him doing daredevil stunts on horses. I edited the hook in prep to read:
I like mostly, apart from "and another time" which reads a little clumsily.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes but without the "and another time" it suggests he rode through the windmill sails on a wild stag. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt that, I'm simply saying "and another time" is the sort of language my three-year-old would employ. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Could be the start of something new. "It took me four years to paint like Raphael but a lifetime to paint like a child". Perhaps "also" could be substituted. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "and another time" is repeatedly used by Shakespeare. If such phrases are used by great authors and works like Britannica, we should not waste time second-guessing their use in approved hooks. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No good. The word "once" is not appropriate for the windmill feat because he did that repeatedly. Drive-by copy-editing of hooks like this is dangerous if you don't go back to the original source, which states "They frequently rode between the whirring sails of a windmill while at work – a piece of skill in horsemanship which Seydlitz repeated many years afterwards...". You see he learnt these tricks after learning to ride early at the age of seven, rather like skateboarding and cycling children do now. We should wait to see what the main author of the article, Auntieruth55, has to say about all this before turning it into a free-for-all. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's hardly a free-for-all, more like a community-based discussion. See the section below for how we resolve such clumsy hook issues, it's a good idea to get more input than from those involved in the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it's not a good idea; it's disruptive. See WiR where a number of editors expressed their dissatisfaction:
  1. "quibbling ... I'd rather ... avoid all the conflict."
  2. "avoid DYK as Byzantine & capricious"
  3. "they have to find something wrong"
  4. "Too much nitpicking"
  5. "The winner is whoever is able to grind everybody else down until they give up."
  6. "The nitpicking has gone beyond the pale."
  7. "needy personalities ... so out of control."
  8. "fiddling on the queues"
  9. "And as a result, we are losing more and more enthusiasts."
Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I see multiple people there who were among the most active DYK participants, and among the most active noms, promotors or reviewers of incorrect hooks (like the people involved with the Italian provinces fiasco, and the people working together with Nvvchar without realising or caring how much nonsense was in his articles, and an admin who is still active on DYK but seems to have problem with people aiming for accuracy as well). No wonder that these get quoted here as evidence of how checking hooks for accurarcy is "disruptive". I can indeed imagine that it is disruptive for people who want to have "wife-beating" in a hook because it is used in some books, even when the books have no relation to the article and the context of these uses is not the same as the context for the hook. It is indeed disruptive nitpicking to prefer correct hooks instead of click-baity, lazy, and/or simply wrong ones. I do love the arguments they use; "they do it out in the open, to get attention" "yes, and they do it hidden away, to avoid attention" "boo, boo!" It's the same tired old arguments one sees here: if you ping people, you are only here to name and shame them and not working constructively and collaboratively. If you don't ping them, you are trying to do it behind their back and not working constructively and collaboratively. Apparently this is all about ego, getting DYK credits and main page exposure, and not so much about getting it right or encouraging new editors. Nothing new there. Fram (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz was a daredevil horseman, whose feats included riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing and, on one occasion, riding a wild stag. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
On the nomination, I suggested just going with one of them for more punch:
ALT1: ... that Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz was a daredevil horseman whose feats included riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing?
But if you want both, it should read:
ALT2: ... that Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz was a daredevil horseman whose feats included riding between the sails of a windmill in full swing and riding wild stags? Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Huh? The article clearly says that he rode a wild stag as a dare once, not that he repeatedly did it. I quite like the increased punchiness of your ALT1, but ALT2 seems to be unambiguously worse than Kingsindian's version. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Since no one else is commenting and the prep is inching toward the queue, I will be bold and trim the hook to ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WTF?

Too late now, but how on earth did "... that the 2017 French presidential election was not fought between left and right, but between open and closed?" get on the main page? This is merely one [1] political analysts opinion, stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice for 12 hours, yet not mentioned at all in the presidential election article. If DYK wants to be removed from the main page as some have suggested, it's doing a good job with complete nonsense like this. User:Smurrayinchester's original hook was OK - why was it changed to ALT1? Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

When does the clock start ticking?

"DYK is only for articles that have achieved one of the following within the past seven days... Created...". But I recently made an article, and it was nominated for deletion and is currently under discussion. Yeah I know "nominated for deletion" doesn't sound like a good recommendation for a DYK, but in this case article quality is not an issue (it has plenty of material, notability, good refs, etc. to meet all the DYK criteria) but rather other questions (whether WP:NOTNEWS applies, basically). I assume we don't want an article currently at AfD to go to DYK. For all I know the discussion will be extended, but even if not the "seven days" may have expired by the time the AfD banner is removed, so if they article passes AfD it will have "aged out" of DYK. Is there an exception for cases like this? De facto by practice or written down somewhere? Or no exception? Herostratus (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You can still nominate it for DYK within 7 days of creation even if it is under AFD, it just means the review gets held until the AFD finishes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks. Herostratus (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived many days ago; here is an updated list of 37 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 202 nominations, of which 75 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the ones from early April that need a reviewer's attention.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Are articles padded in order to meet length requirements

Brownheaded ash sawfly was recently featured on the main page. Now that points have been scored, can it be edited? Specifically can non-reliably sourced, non-notable information about how a researcher once, in 1933, observed a specific species of bird bash its larvae 18 times against a tree trunk before noiselessly eating it and noted it in notes to an some unnamed article, but not the article itself, be removed now that the length requirement for being on the main page has been met and awards passed around, and since the actual source of this singular observation is not in the citation?

Seriously, is there any limit to what one can pad an article with to meet the length requirements? This improperly cited, non-notable (even the researcher didn't elaborate or include it in the actual article) information has now been copied to hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors. You're creating cyber hits, which appear to amount to notability by spreading non-notable information in order to pad articles to meet length requirements.

Shoot the messenger. But some if us get tired of reading crap that originated on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great idea, but it is not a social network. Get your kudos on Twitter and Instagram.

That a researcher once saw two birds do something 18 times does not make it notable and encyclopedic information. Every single thing ever published in a research article (welp, the source is not named, so it might not be a research article, this is an assumption), does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Can I remove this now, or does the length have to stay for DYK after it has been on the front page?

--2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

<personal pet peeve mode>Say WP:UNDUE as "notability" does not apply to article content.</personal pet peeve mode> You are absolutely allowed to remove that content at any point if you think it is undue information. I can't say that I am familiar enough with bird behaviour to know whether "bashing larvae against twigs" is noteworthy behaviour - to me one would simply chew and swallow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I mix up the lingo, but this is a real distinction. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I very much doubt this information was added to "pad" the article, even without it, it would be bordering on the minimum 1500 characters, and you don't need permission to edit articles on Wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, no, I was told on the article talk page that the article would be too short if this information was removed. Only if I found real noteworthy information am I allowed to remove the padding. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't try to pad the article. I even said multiple times that I was fine with the DYK not running if the hook was considered to not be acceptable. SL93 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This wasn't the hook, thankfully, that was run. Can you either remove the information or fully source it at the very least? An anonymous page from an archive is not a source. The pages you selected don't say the journal name, if you are the one who added this info. It essentially says, "Two birds hit an insect against a tree according to notes at the end of an unnamed book in a library." --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"At this point, this is a relatively small article, so I'm all for bringing in more sources and adding more info. .... If we can find better material, than I'm all for replacement. I don't think just removing it actually benefits the article in itself though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)"

Replacement with better material, but not removal. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominations

I am completely new at the DYK section .Can anybody tell me if Narada sting operation can be made into a DYK now.I know its time limit has expired but since I was unaware of this process can some leeway be given⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 05:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The article seems to have been moved into mainspace on 4th May and there was some sort of merge on 11th May, so the nomination is outside the time limit of seven days. However, some discretion is given, especially to editors new to the DYK process, so you might get lucky! However, I should warn you that the hook would have to be carefully chosen so as not to be unduly negative about living people or allege criminal activity, unless the people involved have been convicted of the offences. If you decide to nominate the article, you should do so as soon as possible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Done a day ago.But as per the message underneath the date at which I placed my nom(May 4) is already archived@Cwmhiraeth:⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 07:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The nomination has been made satisfactorily and someone will review it in due course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Special holding area

How long ahead can one hold a DYK hook? I have one for the end of Novemeber that I am waiting on to expand and promote.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, we just had this question a little ways above. As it says in the Special Occasions area, six weeks is the maximum. So if you really want to hold it for the end of November, wait until mid-to-late October to start expanding it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I wasn't around for that discussion, but it is kind of perverse incentive to set up a system encouraging editors to hold off on improving the encyclopedia. We hold up to a year for April Fools. ~ Rob13Talk 04:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13, why is it so important to wait for an anniversary? We could run the hook in June. April Fools' Day is an odd duck, and the sort of oddities that one gets for that date aren't that easily come by, if I understand the rationale behind it. Special occasions used to be special; now it seems any old thing can be saved for a certain date. I wasn't around when this aspect of DYK was set up very many years ago, but I imagine the reason we don't save things for months and months is that DYK is supposed to be for recently created/expanded/improved work; having hooks then sit around for months on end rather defeats the purpose. We actually don't encourage people to hold off on improving the encyclopedia; if they decide they'd rather work on something else now and save an article for later, well, I suppose that could be perverse, but that particular improvement does eventually come and others come sooner than they might. Or the planned occasion could get pre-empted by someone else who expands the article sooner. WikiCup has its own incentives that I imagine have delayed the appearance of improvements; I'm sure people have worked on articles offline so they could come out swinging on January 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I doubt that, since the early rounds don't require many points. I suppose people could hold back contributions between rounds, but I haven't noticed that. I don't find it important, but some article creators do, and ultimately we should be encouraging content creation in any way possible. I don't have particularly strong feelings here, but I do think the incentive structure is weird on this one. ~ Rob13Talk 04:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I'd agree the incentives were weird if this were a widespread occurrence; but it's not. There really isn't a generic incentives to delay improvement at DYK, unless a person is really hung up on a specific date, and as far as I can tell there's only a handful of such hooks. Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

Not going to pull this, because Tachs is in my pool for the Wikicup and it could be seen as a COI. But, our hook for Vijay Kumar Kapahi seems to be based on a dodgy web source and on Kapahi's own paper. This is not, in my opinion, enough to credit a scientist with evolving a new anything. With no disrespect intended to anybody, all scientists tend to think that they have got something new. We need reliable secondary sources for this kind of stuff. @Tachs, IronGargoyle, and Cwmhiraeth: Vanamonde (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, IronGargoyle, and Cwmhiraeth:, ALT1, the selected hook, is referenced by the citation of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize, one of the highest Indian science prizes, given by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the apex body scientific research in India as well as the scientist's profile on Indian National Science Academy, which is one of the three major Indian science academies. For the other hook, the science paper related to the hook fact was only a secondary source. Since that hook was not the one promoted, it would be inappropriate to discuss that matter here, so, I am not commenting further on that. --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. On further examination, it would appear that IronGargoyle only approved ALT1, but the original hook was promoted. Cwm, would you mind fixing that? I'd question whether this hook is interesting enough, but that's a much messier discussion. To a non-specialist, the hook reads "a physicist did some physics". Vanamonde (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the hook to ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/A Christmas Carol

Two reviewers questioned the mundanity of the hook but the nominator refused to consider any alternatives. A third editor promoted the hook to the image slot. I initiated a short discussion at the promoter's talk page, which was joined by others. In light of a small sample of consensus, I returned the hook to the noms page. Anyone who wishes to weigh in on the hook can comment at Template:Did you know nominations/A Christmas Carol. Generally DYK reviewers are willing to concede to a nominator's hook if s/he feels very strongly about it, but to feel very strongly about a boring hook doesn't help the project at all. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the outcome was that the article turned to be ineligible as it had been repeatedly run on the main page before. That's something to look out for with such vital topics. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, Andrew D. It would have saved a lot of unnecessary effort and hard feelings had we checked that in the beginning. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fivefold expansion

Would a fivefold expansion of this article Anglo-Franco Proclamation include the primary source quotes into the initial text count before expansion or no?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I think I would say no, because an extended quote wouldn't be counted in a new or expanded article, so it would seem logical to discount such quotes in an article prior to expansion. Others may have a different view however. Gatoclass (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
You will need to format it as a quote, though. As it is, it's counted as prose. Be prepared to refer to the version, - DYK check may not be able to calculate right in such a case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that the references in the old (and just-updated) versions also should not count, even though to DYKcheck they currently appear to be text. As Gerda Arendt says, be sure when you nominate to point out that neither the large quote nor the mis-formated references should be included in the base prose character count when calculating the necessary expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have established a baseline version of 626 characters for you, KAVEBEAR. A five-fold expansion is thus to 3130 characters as measured by DYKcheck. I made the bare urls into a dot point list under a heading of "Sources", hopefully they will become proper inline citations in a reference list once the expansion is done. I agree with Gatoclass, Gerda, and BlueMoonset that neither bare urls nor a block quote count for DYK characters / readable prose so also do not count for the base from which the expansion is calculated. EdChem (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I am just asking for assurance for the time being. I am not going to expand this until October though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@KAVEBEAR: @Mifter: @Cwmhiraeth:

I'm sorry, I just don't find this hook hooky or easy to follow. If you're trying to say that two people from Scotland worked in the Kingdom of Hawaii, why don't you just say so? Yoninah (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the hook either nor do I think rewording makes it any better. How about these?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
ALT3: he converted to 2? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, KAVEBEAR, ALT2 is great! Hook refs verified and cited inline. I'll go ahead and substitute it in the prep set. Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
From. Corrected.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 6 special occasion nom just approved – swap into prep area

@Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah: I just finished reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184, which was nominated on May 30, making it within the 5 day minimum for specially timed appearance requests. However, the prep area that it should occupy (Prep area 5, if I'm not mistaken) is currently full. Can the promoter please swap this hook into that prep area so that it will run on June 6? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You could swap it with Das geheime Königreich which would have made more sense in May but once we missed that, It doesn't matter by how much we miss ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK check not working

According to DYK check, my nominated article Batman and Harley Quinn is 0 characters long. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've notified Shubinator, who created DYKcheck; it's happening to me when I use it on a number of different articles. In the meantime, I noticed that the article has two bare URLs, so you'll want to fix that as soon as possible, since that will prevent approval of the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that. Other editors are doing an overall good job of adding content, but they have been adding in bare urls. SL93 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived; here is an updated list of 38 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 207 nominations, of which 81 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the ones from April that still need a reviewer's attention.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK Check tool

I am experiencing some problem with the DYK check tool. Whenever I click it Prose size is shown to be "0 characters". Please help me out. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Royroydeb, it is a known problem and the bot creator (Shubinator) is working on it – see this discussion. It is apparently due to some change in HTML structures. It effects some articles but not others, and it is effecting everyone.  :) EdChem (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I was unaware of the problem. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - "mated/unmated"

... that mated female Diprion similis produce young of both sexes, but unmated females produce only male offspring? Cwmhiraeth, Hanberke, 97198, Kevmin

Just a minor issue here, I think the first clause is a statement of the obvious (it's rare for anything that mates to produce just one sex offspring), but the second clause is absolutely precisely what the hook should be about in its entirety, that the Diprion similis can produce viable eggs without the need to mate. That should be the focus of the hook, and it's somewhat lost in the dull start. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually their are some quite bizarre sexual strategies among sawflies, but taking your point, let's reverse the hook and have
I saw nothing wrong with the first part, since under many situations mated sawflies and other insects will produce only one sex, and adult aphids are known to change sex. There was nothing wrong with the first part as it gives context. --Kevmin § 18:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I have labelled Cwmhiraeth's suggestion as ALT1, and so offer some ALT2 variations:
  • (ALT2): ... that female Diprion similis can produce male offspring without mating, but mating is required for female offspring?
  • (ALT2a): ... that female Diprion similis can produce male offspring without mating, but mating leads to both male and female offspring?
  • (ALT2b): ... that female Diprion similis can produce male offspring asexually, but mating leads to both male and female offspring?
I suggest ALT2a if ALT2 is seen as implying that offspring after mating are exclusively female, and ALT2b to avoid repetition of the word "mating". The "both" in ALT2a and ALT2b could be excluded. There's nothing wrong with ALT1, I just think one of these might be hookier.  :) Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I like 2b Ed, precisely as it avoids repetition. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Unlike ALT1, the first part of all the ALT2 variants is an incomplete description, as "can produce male offspring" doesn't exclude the possibility of producing female offspring. I agree with Kevmin and see nothing wrong with the original hook, though ALT1 is also OK. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite, what about "... can produce only male offspring ...", such as:
  • (ALT2c): ... that female Diprion similis can produce only male offspring asexually, but mating leads to young of both sexes?
  • (ALT2d): ... that female Diprion similis can asexually produce only male offspring, but mating leads to young of both sexes?
This takes out the repetition of "male", "female", and "offspring" (in line with The Rambling Man's preference) and clarifies the ambiguity you mention. 2c and 2d just alter the position of "asexually". EdChem (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really mind which hook is used, but ALT0 and ALT1 seem simple and straightforward to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem:It depends whether or not we want to introduce "asexually" into the hook; ALT1 contains no extra links and is probably understandable to general readers, whereas the ALT2 variants might necessitate readers having to look up arrhenotoky directly from the hook (rather than deciding they want to read more about it having seen it briefly described in the article). I prefer ALT1 (or the original). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I say go with Alt0, as there is no reason at all to change it. One editors preference should not be taking precedent over three other editors when there is nothing wrong.--Kevmin § 18:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It was a suggestion designed to make the hook more interesting and accessible to people who aren't aware of the myriad bizarre ways of insect reproduction. Tis is English language Wikipedia, not Insectipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hook removed from the main page

DragonflySixtyseven has removed the following hook from the main page:

Hook credit went to ComputerJA, and there has been previous discussion of this nomination here at WT:DYK, in which an ALT without "suspected Mexican drug lord" was agreed. This was also supported at the nomination, where the idea of re-adding the drug lord part was mentioned. At least, maybe a consensus version could be restored:

Thoughts? As far as I can see, there was no report to WP:ERRORS and DF67 acted unilaterally and without any notification of the action. Notifying Yoninah, The Rambling Man, and Cwmhiraeth as participants in the earlier discussion. EdChem (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Two editors – Vivvt and 97198 – apparently ignored or overlooked the explanation that the claim was removed because of a BLP issue, and a third – Yoninah (who personally proposed an alternative hook in light of this concern) – neglected to bring this to their attention.
I'm not here to blame those users (or anyone else) for what I assume was an honest mistake, but any one of them could have prevented this situation from arising. DragonflySixtyseven was correct to act "unilaterally", in the interest of upholding an important policy. I would have followed the hook's removal with a message on this talk page, but that's a courtesy, not an entitlement.
BLP issue aside, if we can't mention the squirrels' exceptional fertility (because the claim isn't attributable to reliable sources), the hook simply doesn't make sense, as it contains absolutely no explanation of why the quantity of siblings gave rise to such a nickname. —David Levy 05:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@David Levy: No, I did not ignore or overlook the issue here, and I don't appreciate being accused of a BLP violation that I had no part in, even if you thought it was an honest mistake – please check the facts more carefully next time. I promoted the alternate hook which made no mention of drug lords here. You say that Yoninah suggested a better alt hook but in fact it was she who re-added the offending phrase here after the hook had been promoted. 97198 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
97198: My sincere apologies. The reviewer expressed an intent to insert the language in question (and Yoninah went along with this instead of pointing out the BLP issue), so I incorrectly assumed that it occurred at that time (before the hook was promoted).
Please note that I wrote "apparently" and pinged all involved to confirm that I had the facts straight (which I didn't, obviously). I'm genuinely sorry that I erred, but it wasn't (and isn't) my intent to shame anyone. The "honest mistake" was mine.
I'd like to hear from Yoninah, particularly given the edit that you brought to my attention. —David Levy 09:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I completely forgot about the BLP issue that we discussed at WT:DYK a month earlier, and inserted Vivvt's addition because it put the hook in some kind of context. The hook as it stands, without mentioning who Valencia is, and without verifying the squirrel's fecundity, doesn't work IMO. Yoninah (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I would have followed the hook's removal with a message on this talk page, but that's a courtesy, not an entitlement.
it was late, I was tired. DS (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Understood. The hook's removal from the main page was the important part. —David Levy 18:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
ALT - ... that U.S. citizens are prohibited from engaging in business transactions with Elvis González Valencia?
Since the claim of the squirrel's fecundity is based of a source from El Economista (a reliable newspaper, but not for scientific claims), the two articles are probably better off separately. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
As far as my squirrel article is concerned, it has had its brief time in the sun and is happy to go and hide away in the bushes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reopened the nomination with a single-article hook here. Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that Shinnyo was the first fully-ordained bhikkhuni in her order for several hundred years? Yunshui, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, Jo-Jo Eumerus

I looked at the article to determine what "in her order" meant, and found nothing. It doesn't seem to mention that at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I have had anything to do with this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
So delete "in her order" from the hook, then. The source says "the monastic community", but obviously there's no way to verify that this applies to all orders in the country at that time; I felt it was safer to assume that it refers to the Nara-based risshū order than to the entire Buddhist community of Japan, but if you don't like it, just excise it. Yunshui 雲水 08:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, it's not that I "don't like it", it's that I simply didn't understand it so I went to the article to read more. And found nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I did infer it from The following year, Shinnyo decided to seek full ordination as a nun, an honour that had not been granted for several hundred years which can either mean "nowhere" or "in her order", thus I passed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
But it's not in the article, per the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? I see that exact quote in the article. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
"in her order". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I figured it was obvious what the sentence meant and I was told that the exact hook does not need to be in the article as long as the information is there. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
No, the hook needs to be in the article. This "in her order" is just made up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, then two experienced DYK contributors lied to me. Fine. Just be bold and remove "in her order". SL93 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I promoted it per the above reasoning, but I guess that part can be removed if there are any issues. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4

" ... that Indian quantum physicist Shasanka Mohan Roy developed an exact integral equation, now known as "Roy's equations"?" How can an equation (singular) now be known as equations (plural)? The article and its reference don't explain it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because there are three possible pions so the equation has different forms for different cases? EdChem (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Something like that. See Roy equation analysis of pi pi scattering. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, EdChem, and Tachs: Then shouldn't "developed an exact integral equation" read "developed a set of integral equations" or whatever the correct term is? HaEr48 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The cited source calls it both "Roy's equations" and "Roy's equation". Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A few new articles to consider if you like

A few new articles to consider if you like:

  1. Think Big and Kick Ass
  2. Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?
  3. The Plot to Hack America
  4. Defeating ISIS
  5. The Terrorists of Iraq
  6. An End to al-Qaeda
  7. Terrorist Recognition Handbook
  8. TrumpiLeaks
  9. The Case for Impeachment
  10. Disinformation (book)
  11. Dezinformatsia (book)
  12. The KGB and Soviet Disinformation
  13. Clint Watts
  14. Michael R. Caputo
  15. Great America Committee
  16. Memorandum of conversation
  17. New York Journal of Books

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, I have nominated Disinformation. In case you have more suggestions for hooks on Disinformation's nomination, you can add them. Since you haven't made any DYK nominations yourself, you are exempt from doing QPQs for your first 5 nominations. So you can yourself nominate all of these. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm writing another new article right now. Will be saved live in a short while. Maybe others would like the opportunity to nominate some of these. Sagecandor (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Skr15081997:Or if anyone else wants, I wrote and created this new article: The Plot to Hack America. Let me know what you think if you want. Sagecandor (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: welcome to DYK! Asking other editors to nominate your articles means asking them to do a QPQ for each nomination, which is more work for them. As Skr15081997 mentioned, you have 5 free DYK nominations before you'll have to submit your first QPQ. Why not go ahead and nominate them yourself? Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I thought people like to nominate stuff. I'll have to go read about what WP:QPQ is I guess. Sagecandor (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: Some editors patrol new article creations and nominate them for DYK just to help the project, but most nominations here are done by the page creators themselves. After all, they're the ones who will benefit from the thousands of hits for their article on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I see. I guess I thought if someone else nominates, it would be yet another form of review of someone to look it over and see if it merits that. Sagecandor (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not everything needs citations?

At Template:Did you know nominations/Samborombón Bay, the nominator is refusing to cite three sentences because they think that not everything needs to be referenced per DYK rules. Something about a rule of thumb that articles need only at least one citation per paragraph and that even featured articles don't need to be thoroughly referenced. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that it's necessary to reference contentious facts, but not "everything", and the rule of thumb. (Have no time to look at the specific case, need to nominate two today or not.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Loading of Queue

Queue 3 is empty . Yet the Queue is to be shown at the main page from 00:00 UTC tommorowFORCE RADICAL (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Review request for nom I want to run next week

I have another one of my true-crime date-specific noms in: Murder of Dee Dee Blancharde, whose body was discovered in her home on June 14, 2015 ... two years to next Wednesday (If this one sounds familiar, it's because the case is the subject of the HBO documentary Mommy Dead and Dearest, which has been getting a lot of Anglosphere media attention this month).

I think now would be a good time to initiate a review so that we can have it in the queues by the weekend. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Given this conversation, this probably requires wider discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion there pertained to a grisly cult murder scheduled to run on the anniversary of the murder. IMO, ALT1 of this nomination, with the family flushing the woman's ashes down the toilet, is a little too visual and vindictive, but the first hook is pretty tame. I think this review can go ahead without any problem. Yoninah (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Same article different names

Why is there both a Tonkotsu ramen and a Hakata ramen article when both articles admit it is just another name for the same dish, and the former, larger article contains most of the text of the smaller unsourced article? Again, smacks of .... --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hakata ramen is a redirect to Tonkotsu ramen. It should not be linked in the Tonkotsu ramen article. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to a redirect and removed the wikilinking. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Muthusamy Lakshaman image

"... that Muthusamy Lakshmanan, K. Murali, and Leon O. Chua developed a non-autonomous circuit based on chaotic behavior (pictured)?"

This image is confusing, what they invented was a non-autonomous chaotic circuit, which is not what is pictured, but, because the focus in the hook is on their invention, and only "chaotic" is wikilinked, it appears we are illustrating the circuit not their research on chaotic behavior. The image way overpowers the content of the hook, then you read the hook and it's like, huh? It's illustrating chaotic behavior in a double pendulum in the image, but talking about guys who invented a circuit in the text?

Also this article, like the last one on an Indian scientist needs some strong editing and organizing for flow of the science topics and achievements. Good for whoever is writing them, though, that they are writing articles on famous Indian scientists.

But again, odd attention grabbing but contextually confusing image, smacks of WikiCup time. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The hook says the circuit is "based on" chaotic behavior. The image illustrates chaotic behavior. If the image illustrated the circuit, we would put the word "(pictured)" after "circuit". It works for me. Yoninah (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is it wikilinked to "chaos," not chaotic behavior? It's deceptive imagery. I get to the article and it doesn't tie it all together. These Indian scientist articles are good, some of them are very famous for important contributions that are difficult to understand, but the articles need major context editing for clarity and focus. I edited one, but don't have time to fix more. Gratuitous images take away the focus on the actual achievement and put it on to something different, a cool picture of a double pendulum, the main chaos article, but it's a circuit. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wishes for image and timing

Another wish for an image, see Template:Did you know nominations/Andreas Schager. It's now in Prep 1, without image. We have few operatic scenes, we have few great tenors who are convincing actors (and here it's even in the opera mentioned in the hook), we had a promoter who wanted this for an image position and then got involved in the writing of an article section and ALTs. IF without image, please take a hook developed then (unrelated to the image), but I think the Bayreuth Parsifal of 2017 deserves an image.

Other concerns: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Stephan, Baden, would be best on 15 June and still needs a review. This man Template:Did you know nominations/Pascal Rophé has his birthday on 16 June. Same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Experienced folks, image help needed...

So I confess that it's rather odd for me to be asking this as an admin, but the fact is the only time I have to do adminny things with images is at DYK, and it's never seemed to be a problem before. I moved prep 3 to the queue, which included this image. Now I've always thought that when a file url began with en.wiki, that meant the page was within the en.wiki, and so cascading protection would apply to it. However, a user stated today on my talk page that that was not the case; and that files with the "file from commons" tag are actually still at commons. However, when I attempt to upload a local copy, I am given a warning that a file with that name already exists. Can somebody explain what is going on here? Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The file is at Commons and effectively transcluded on enwiki (hence the enwiki in the URL), the reason you get a warning is because you are trying to upload over the Commons file. The Commons file is currently cascade protected by a bot since it's used in the enwiki mainpage system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hang on, how does the bot cascade-protect a commons file? Also, does this mean that I do not have to upload a copy, or does it just mean I'm doing it wrong? Vanamonde (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The bot has admin privileges on Commons. I don't know exactly how the bot detects the files but from what I know the only reason we still do any local protection is because the bot isn't 100% reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert J Cenker DYK stalled?

Hello... After the article was reviewed and approved by a reviewer and moved to the Approved page, another editor (who picked up the GA review)[2] added negative comments to the DYK.[3] I have responded and believe I fully rebutted the criticism, but now I am wondering what happens next. Has this conflict blocked the DYK from progressing? If so, what has to happen to unblock it? RobP (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the nomination. Vanamonde (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Now what if RadioFan just doesn't respond? RobP (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Queue 4

Queue 4 needs a new hook to replace the one that was removed. Just posting here for some admin. SL93 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the reminder. Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean (other than it's probably Wikicup)

Diprion similis is native to central and northern Europe and Asia, as far north as Fennoscandia and the Lake Baikal region of Russia. Why is DYK so geographically challenged all the time, on top of the OMG science issues? Just read the article, it might give you pause to read the citation, in addition to the checks. Basic.

It's native to central and northern Europe as far north as Fennoscandia? In addition it's native to Asia as far north as Lake Baikal, so from Vietnam and India to Lake Baikal? It's native to Europe and Asia except for Eastern Europe, as far north as two locations with huge latitudinal differences? What do you mean here?--2601:648:8503:4467:7C4D:C064:7680:BE33 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering the map in the source, a better formulation would be "in Europe, North America and China". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
How about actually helping with the project rather then denigrating anything you feel is below your standards ip?--Kevmin § 19:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the IP is trying to uphold a basic level of quality here, no-one is obliged to do anything about such issues, and that's why we have so many quality checkpoints at DYK, to prevent such errors getting to Prep sets and then Queues and then the Main Page. It's surprising how frequently those quality checks don't pick up on basic issues. Don't be discouraged, IP, from making such comments in the future. We all welcome the opportunity to improve the project's overall quality standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, would it be helpful to not point out silly geography? To let it shine badly without notice?
Speaking of denigrating what is below my standards, what's with this year's inability to use the word "endemic?" Did Websters change the definition? If it's found only in California it's endemic to California, the article can even be linked to the term. The word is overused on Wikipedia except in DYKs for some reason, where it is frequently replace with tortured phrases. Is there some harsh standard for the word on Wikipedia?
Please as Jo-Jo suggests, just use a simple sentence, but don't make up strange geography. I can't even figure out what is being said. Kevin, if you wrote it, please just read the source and rephrase it to something understandable and correct. It would be helpful, imo, not to have to correct such strange writings in the first place by keeping them off Wikipedia.
--2601:648:8503:4467:E421:2C59:199:8E97 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The article mentions Fennoscandia and Baikal because the source does. If you can think of a better way to describe the insect's range, please feel free to change the article. What connection your comments have with either DYK or the WikiCup eludes me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why. DYK is a really easy route to gaining WikiCup points, as you know, because DYKs just get passed eventually, it's not like GAN, FLC, FAC etc were nominations are routinely failed. And as such, lots of our nominations are bodge-jobs which are thrown together just for WikiCup points. We've even seen a number of content forks artificially created to serve precisely such a purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and that's no secret. It's been discussed all over Wikipedia many times. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:81 (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Cwmhiraeth is no longer a Wikicup competitor, and hasn't been, for a while...she's a judge, now, actually. Which is not to say this is a stellar hook sentence, it's not. Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's pertinent to my response. These kind of articles and those content forks I mentioned are being created to gain DYK points at WikiCup. That's the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it seems as if you're saying because she's a judge now she has less familiarity with DYK? Although that could be why she didn't know that DYK articles on the main page in the DYK section are DYK articles. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:81 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
All I am saying is that Cwm is no longer a competitor, and so the cup has nothing to do with why this hook sentence is a problem. I completely agree that spinoffs have been used to generate points (not just at DYK, by the way: there was a certain FLC that was created for the cup in this way, too) but that is a separate discussion, and one that should probably be had in a different venue. Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "Fennoscandia and the Lake Baikal region of Russia" is from the article. The hook asked "... that unmated female Diprion similis produce only male offspring while mated females produce young of both sexes?" if you remember? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth is correct that this is not about the hook. There has been an error in the article about the species distribution. However, the source is worded in such a way that I can see how it could easily be misinterpreted or misrepresented, particularly by someone trying to summarise and avoid copyvio issues. The source states: "D. similis is native to Eurasia [...] It occurs in central and northern Europe up to the northern parts of Fennoscandia, in Russian Siberia to the Baikal region, and in China". The first part of the last sentence describes the European population by defining its northern limit, but the Siberian population by defining its southern* limit. Then there is a population in China. Mistakes are made in articles all the time, and they should be corrected, but I'm not convinced that general hectoring is the best way of moving forward. A correction and a note on the article creator's talkpage seems more profitable to me. I have adjusted the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
[*Note: the source might actually be saying that distribution occurs in Siberia as far east as Lake Baikal, but it is vague. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)]

Oh, I have to apologize, I didn't realize the sign at the top says this page is exclusively for reporting DYK hook errors.

No, wait, that isn't what it says. DYK creates a lot of unnecessairly sloppy articles. The DYK editors don't seem able or even willing to correct errors.

I gave up correcting because editors get angry when their sloppy science is corrected. Also, sometimes I'm clueless what the nonscientist Wikipedia writer is trying to say, as clueless as they are.

Thanks for making it intelligible. It's not really hard. If you don't understand what you're reading, don't write from it. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

People tend to become resistent to the points of an argument if they are feeling attacked or hectored. You might say that people shouldn't react like that, but it's just human nature. That's why I stated that I'm not convinced that general hectoring is the best way of moving forward. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The hectoring arose years after the failure to correct. "Anyone can edit" was never intended to mean that if you use the same words as in the source you've created an article. The lack of responsibility for creating bad content continues to chase good editors away years after I left Wikipedia. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

More sawfly confusion

"A(n apple sawfly) population has been present on Vancouver Island, British Columbia where it had been contained since detected in 1940,[4] but had reached Quebec by 1979 and Ontario by 1987.[3]"

Has it been contained or not? What is being said here? --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Certain varieties of desert apple such as Discovery and Worcester Pearmain are particularly susceptible, but pears are unaffected."

The article says it is a pest of apples. Are other fruit unaffected? Are pears dessert fruit? This outta what I mean by just throwing out words. Some desert apples are readily infested, but a non-apple isn't. Write two sentences! --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And here we are advising farmers how to protect their orchards:

"The use of approximately 3–4.5 kilograms (6.6–9.9 lb) Quassia amara extract per hectare seems to be optimal to minimize the damage of apple sawfly on apple trees."

This article used as a source is primary research. It did not conclude any such thing as advice to farmers. Also, most people would think that 6.6-6.9 kg of Quassia amara extract meant quassia. The source uses ground wood chips. Many good reasons for not making Wikipedia a do-it-yourself. Getting info wrong just one of them. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have adjusted the article regarding quassin use, to reflect the commercial reality. I have split the apple/pear sentence into two. I have asked a question at the article talkpage regarding the Canadian distribution. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
But you have now put Quebec, which hardly seems to want to belong in Canada at times, and Ontario,in the "northeastern United states (sic)." --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C1 (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't put anything anywhere, apart from a couple of commas. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a couple of comice, you say? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
From what I found the Vancouver population (island after all) is contained, with the NE US population moving further northwest into Canada, Its not hard ip--Kevmin § 20:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No, no, tell whoever garbled it in the first place that it's not hard, they could have got it right. Conversation ended before it began.--2601:648:8503:4467:CC8F:C4F:75DE:C74 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

More sawfly confusion redux

Prep 3: ... that male willow sawflies are unknown in the Southern Hemisphere, where the insect is invasive, despite being present in its native range? Well I'm not seeing that hook referenced inline in the body of the article, moreover I'm actually having difficulty in parsing it. These flies are "unknown" in their "native range"? Is this even actually interesting? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to mention the Southern Hemisphere at all. So that's a claim supported only by the absence of information? Also the lede does say "where it became invasive" not "where it has become invasive", although the later 2011 omafra.gov.on.ca source does seem to support the claim. But I don't see why the distribution of insects can't be considered interesting, especially if you're a Canadian fruit farmer. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Can the sentence be rewritten, the hook. It's so badly written it is hard to understand and initially appears to say the insect is invasive in the Southern Hemisphere despite the insect being present in its native range. Also in the text of the article, "In South America, all adults are female and reproduction is by parthenogenesis.[3] The same is true in other parts of the Southern Hemisphere where it has been introduced,[5] but in its native range in the Northern Hemisphere, both males and females occur." It's an encyclopedia article, simple, easily parsed sentences are not just allowed, but preferred. Where the sawfly has been introduced, only females are known, and reproduction is by parthenogenesis. In its native range both males and females occur, and reproduction is .... Did you know that only female willow sawflies are found where the species invaded the Southern Hemisphere, while both males and females are found in its native Northern Hemisphere range. Something clear.--2601:648:8503:4467:CC8F:C4F:75DE:C74 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Now you've explained it to me, it doesn't look so bad. But you seem to be proposing an alternative, which looks clearer. Personally, I'd find a link to parthenogenesis interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Aren't sawflies fascinating? The article concerned is Nematus oligospilus, and TRM will find all parts of the hook there with citations, and the Southern Hemisphere is mentioned, but if someone wants to formally propose a different hook, they are welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. For some reason I was looking here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the hook. Please come up with something clearer and make sure it is all inline cited per the DYK rules. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I promoted the article, but I figured it was just an issue of me not understanding insects too well because I only worked on a few of them and didn't add things I didn't understand. Personally, I do find the majority of species articles and sports articles that go through DYK to not be interesting, but I figured that was just me because others love them so much. SL93 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
How about:

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived; here is an updated list of 36 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 220 nominations, of which 92 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the ones from April that are over two months old now.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks awaiting promotion

I have reserved slots in Prep 1 (June 14) and Prep 3 (June 16) for Special Occasion hooks waiting for promotion. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Old hooks balancing the MP

I know we have to balance the Main Page when there are less than the required number at DYK but resurrecting old hooks I think could do with a little more variety in what we bring up. For example today we have had the same mosque burning hook on DYK for the third time, one from its original run in May and one from a week ago. I am not complaining, I am just saying we should be mindful of which hooks we bring back and check that there isn't a go to default backup hook. Maybe an unofficial suggestion would be that hooks that have run can only be repeated as a backup once after the original run. Otherwise it could get 2 entries or more in STATS as a side effect. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I try to follow that thumb rule; I'm sure others do as well. It just so happened that I missed the original use of that hook today, because the original use was in the previous month. And I hardly think extra entries at STATS are a big deal; there's any number of missing entries in all our statistics pages, including the page views, the DYK counts, the barnstars, etc etc...Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The impact of seeing the same hook too many times is negative, so that should be avoided. The impact on "stats" is completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Question: Why are hooks being added to the DYK section to balance the main page? Right now I see 10 hooks in the DYK section. If you need 10 hooks, we should promote 10 hooks. If you need a certain line- or character-count, then please tell us and we'll promote accordingly. Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: My understanding is that the other sections are even more variable in length than DYK; especially ITN, where changes are totally irregular. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely the problem. OTD blurbs vary in length as do DYK hooks, so it's easier to re-add hooks that have already been sanctioned by the quality control process here (plus the 24 hours on the main page). There is no "line count" or "character count". But by all means go to nine or ten hooks a day if you think the project can sustain it, ITN and OTD will have to match up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're going to go to 10 a day, then you may as well go to 2x5 sets because otherwise it will look silly to have 1x10 and I'm sure OTD wouldn't want the extra work unnecessarily just because we decided to super-size DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
No that's patently silly when we're talking about the fact that DYK is already too short. Taking it from 8 hooks to 5 would be crazy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
We could increase to nine hooks, seeing as the number of approved hooks has been creeping up over the last few weeks from around 70 to its present count of 106. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Did the average OTD length increase recently? If so, increasing to 9 seem a good idea and would help clear the backlog of approved hooks too. HaEr48 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Also as an (unimportant) aside, seems like people like the mosque burning hook. The first appearence got >15k and the second one >8k hits [4], don't know what today's will be. But of course not an excuse to run it too many times. HaEr48 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that's a good way of judging what to re-run, like a repechage, so the winningest hook gets a dog's life if required to balance the main page. After all, not all readers will visit Wikipedia's main page every day, so the audience might have missed it the first time round! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hook awaiting promotion to Prep 4

I have reserved a space in the prep set for Template:Did you know nominations/St. Stephan, Baden. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Added to Prep 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 13 June 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 #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Check DYKCheck

DYKCheck seems to be buggy -- not working for many articles. Shows 0 words (0 characters). For example Mr. Miao and even things like Fate of the Furious. How to rectify? Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not working for everyone on certain articles. The creator Shubinator will be working on a fix. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
This should be fixed now, let me know if you're still seeing issues. Shubinator (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Viking raid on Seville (844)

The article Viking raid on Seville (844) has been posted on the Main Page three different times, with the same hook. May 2, June 5, and June 12. Why is this happening? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that was against the rules. I think this might be discussed a couple of sections up, but I want to express my displeasure. There are plenty of approved hooks which could be promoted instead of recycling stuff that already appeared. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't think DYKs were meant to run more than once? And three times is just stupid and unfair. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
See the "Old hooks balancing the MP" subthread above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1

Because I have included an eleven article hook in Prep 1, I have limited the number of hooks in the set to seven so that the set is not too long. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Admin role: RFC

Against my better judgement, I am withdrawing this RFC, as Gatoclass has suggested that the wording of the options is inappropriate. I will begin a discussion below about the wording. Vanamonde (talk) 14:37, 16 June 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.

We discussed the role of administrators in the DYK promotion process a month or so ago. The DYK admin instructions say that admins should check articles for verifiability, BLP, copyright, and image licensing, as well as formatting issues and "hookiness". The previous discussion, linked above, made it quite clear that current practice a) varies considerably, and b) does not always comply with said instructions. Without attempting to apportion any blame, I think we need to redetermine consensus here, so that admins can all follow the same procedure, and so we are clear about responsibilities for problem hooks/articles. As I see it, we have three options, which I have listed below. I would entreat you folks to keep comments on the question at hand, and avoid letting this degenerate into analyses of specific editors. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Option 1 The current guideline is reaffirmed. Administrators are required to check every aspect of the article mentioned in the current version of the guideline, including WP:V, WP:BLP, image licensing, copyright, and hookiness.
  • Option 2 Admins are only required to check those criteria for which violations are generally considered more serious: copyright, BLP, and image licensing, and whether the hook is in the article and cited. Admins would be signing off on these criteria, but responsibility for all the others would be with the reviewer and the promoter.
  • Option 3 Admins are only responsible for certain technicalities of the hook set (assumed to be the case in 1 and 2). These are formatting, number of hooks, and balance between topics for the hooks. Responsibility for all the others would be with the reviewer and the promoter. This is the option that current practice seems closest to for a lot of folks.

Survey

  • Option 3. Usually I'm all for "the more eyes the better" however I don't believe in admins as a "super group" who should have more responsibilities when it comes to content. The requirement that admins have to load the queues is a technical one because of the full protection of the Main Page. It should not mean admins to be more responsible for mistakes than any other user. On the contrary, any admin reviewing a prep area should be able to count on the reviewer and promoter to have done their job correctly. If we expect admins to do all the work again, we don't really need promoting users after all, do we? As a compromise we could consider creating "DYK clerks", i.e. trusted users whose judgment is known to be sound. Then admins can check whether a prep was filled by a clerk and only if it was not, would be required to do the full check as outlined in Options 1 or 2. Regards SoWhy 11:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • New option. Firstly, I don't believe administrators should be expected to check every criterion, because I think that's just too much to ask. I personally believe administrators should, at minimum, verify (a) the image tag, (b) the hook fact(s) and (c) hookiness. Given the number of hook facts that get challenged or shown to be erroneous, and the number challenged for hook interest, I think it's clear that a third pair of eyes is necessary to ensure the hook is factual. And while prep builders should also thoroughly check the hook fact, given their other responsibilities (selecting and creating a balanced set), I think it's inevitable that errors will be missed from time to time, which is why an additional pair of eyes is needed. If it turns out that there aren't enough administrators with the time or commitment necessary to keep the queues full with thorough hook checks, then I think we should look to permitting users with a track record of reliable hook checking to also edit the queues. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: I'm wondering if we could figure out a way to merge your option with option two above, which seems to me to be similar in intent. I do not personally think admins need to bother with hookiness; and I do not imagine one could check a hook and still ignore BLP issues; would you support a variant with admins required to check BLP, hook fact, and image license? Vanamonde (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said below, I think administrators should absolutely be concerned with hook interest as part of any minimum criterion. How difficult is it to take a moment to ask yourself whether a hook is sufficiently interesting or not? As for refactoring the options, I don't think I would have put any of the options in precisely the way they have been put, but I don't think I can propose much in the way of alternatives at such short notice. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Perhaps you would have phrased them differently; but the fact is that option 3 is what is currently happening, and is also probably the option with the most support. Since you don't want that, I do think you need to help formulate a viable alternative. I am firmly of the opinion that any check the admins do has to include BLP issues in the text of the article; thus my formulation, and support, of option 2. You are entitled, of course, to formulate your own option; but given that it's likely to be difficult to get consensus for any admin check at all, surely we should be trying to hammer out a compromise? Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If you wanted to go ahead with an RFC over this Vanamonde93, I think it would have been a good idea to discuss possible options for the RFC first. In fact, on reflection, I think the best course of action might be to abort this RFC and have a discussion about the wording of the options before proceeding with it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass I think it would be remarkably poor form for me to withdraw an RFC that was not going in the direction that I wished it to go. In any case, we did have a previous discussion, in which it became quite clear that most folks supported the current practice of admins rubber stamping the hooks. This RFC was an attempt to remedy that situation. If you are so bothered about the very existence of option three, when it is current practice, why then did you not say something about it? And why are you so averse to modifying any part of your proposal, or of mine? Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not averse to it, I just said I can't do it at short notice. Framing an RFC appropriately is something that generally takes time and a bit of discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, as I have said, I have some issues with the wording of the options, and if the RFC continues, I can see myself having to start a second one to deal with some of the issues. It would be better IMO to get an agreed-upon wording for the RFC first, so that we don't have to pester users with a second RFC on essentially the same topic. I am therefore requesting that you close this RFC pending a discussion of the option wording. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3. or another variant with two checks. The alternative would be that the approver and the admin moving from prep to queue are the two checkers, while the promoter is just putting them in preps. The idea of three checks just strikes me as too labour-intensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Option 3 shouldn't even be an option in my view. Even if a consensus was established that admins should not be required to verify hook facts, there can never be any excuse for administrators promoting inappropriate hooks, for example, BLP-violating or otherwise offensive hooks, or transparently uninteresting or ungrammatical or badly written hooks. The suggestion that admins should be permitted to promote sets without even bothering to ask themselves whether the hooks therein are appropriate, let alone accurate, should not even be entertained. Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
A !vote for option 3 is tantamount to a !vote for the eventual termination of DYK in my view, because the only thing that has kept this project on track in recent years is the willingness of certain administrators to verify sets when promoting them. Users should be careful what they wish for. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Asking administrators to do an entire review is possibly excessive, but as no experience level is required for any of the other tasks, saying that admins will perform no checks at all is problematic; for one thing, it allows an easy route for vandalism and/or blatant misinformation on the main page. We have to check the basics; and if we do not want admins to perform that check, then we need a set of trusted users to do it. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 16 June 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.

Admin resposibility RFC wording

Since objections have been raised to my wording of the options above, I am beginning this discussion here to deal with said problems. Here are my proposed options. Have at them. Vanamonde (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Option 1 The current guideline is reaffirmed. Administrators are required to check every aspect of the article mentioned in the current version of the guideline, including WP:V, WP:BLP, image licensing, copyright, and hookiness.
  • Option 2 Admins are only required to check those criteria for which violations are generally considered more serious: copyright, BLP, and image licensing, and whether the hook is in the article and cited. Admins would be signing off on these criteria, but responsibility for all the others would be with the reviewer and the promoter.
  • Option 3 Admins are only responsible for certain technicalities of the hook set (assumed to be the case in 1 and 2). These are formatting, number of hooks, and balance between topics for the hooks. Responsibility for all the others would be with the reviewer and the promoter. This is the option that current practice seems closest to for a lot of folks.

Thank you Vanamonde. I will not have time to look into this tonight, so I will have to come back to this tomorrow. My apologies for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think identifying what the current situation is, formally and in practice, would be a good start. I also think a comment that admins should look to see if the hook and article are main page worthy and appropriate (in general) would be good. I also think some consideration of the responsibilities of prep builders would be good. For example, promoting a hook when the nomination has a tick is not ok without reading the nomination. In the above Oscar Wilde case, the review is pretty thin so promoting was questionable, as was endorsing it as main page appropriate, IMO. EdChem (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If you start altering the responsibilities of admins when moving a prep set into the queue, you will need to reconsider the obligations of the prep set builder. If you make their duties too onerous, as in options 2 and 3, you may not get anyone willing to take on the task. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
So? Someone has to take responsibility. It is either admins, reviewers or set builders. If neither of those want to diligently check and control quality, then that is a choice in itself. And if not enough people are found to do a certain task then... i guess that is tough luck. Volunteering is a thankless task and if a certain aspect of a project does not encourage enough interest, in the beaurocratic side of things or otherwise, it is too bad but how it is. Someone HAS to take the responsibility in the end. 91.49.94.155 (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Plus, looking at the flurry of complaints coming this way, the work has to please everyone apparently. It's a tough volunteering task. I really respect Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and others who do it regularly. HaEr48 (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I think the onus should be on the reviewer to do a thorough review. For that to be become mandatory, though, we need more editors (which incudes but does not necessarily mean only prep builders) to contradict ticks on the grounds of an inadequate review. If a prep builder sees a ticked review which is inadequate (misses criteria) or neglects important considerations (interestingness, appropriateness), don't promote. I've seen reviews with ticks with no QPQ check, no mention of copyvio check, or controversy / issues raised but not resolved. It's not the prep builders job to fix these problems, but also not appropriate to promote to the queue despite them. (These comments are made generally, not thinking of any particular nomination nor reflecting on you particularly as a prep builder.) We also need a better mechanism for disallowing QPQ credits. Better standards are needed if the problem rate is to be reduced. EdChem (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem and Cwmhiraeth: While I appreciate the importance of the questions you folks have raised, particularly the issue of inadequate reviews, I think that's a separate issue. I started this to resolve one particular problem; that current admin practice is at odds with the guideline, and is highly variable. Given that the folks that this applies to are admins, it is possibly the best place to begin to fix the larger malaise. So could we address that question, and then build from there? Would you be okay with an RFC worded as above, or would you like to change it? Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, I did not ask for any change, though I would have made a response including how I interpret the options. If it were me, I would have constructed an Option 1 as what policy currently requires and Option 3 as what is currently done in practice as a minimum, recognising that actual admins act at 3 or with increasing rigour towards an option 1 ideal which I see as unrealistic. I would then present 2 as a compromise which removes the onus to do all of 1, but recognises that (for example) not noting a BLP issue in a hook is not ever acceptable.
Having said that, I think it is part of a larger problem that includes better reviews in the first instance, a greater willingness to refuse to promote inadequate / incomplete reviews, promoters having specific responsibility for making sure that the review is adequate and the hook policy compliant (and not just sourced). Promoters need to be supported in asking for further review or issues to be addressed by the option of denying QPQ credits. There is too much that is problematic which gets into the queues because the reviews missed important aspects and then these are not caught before promotion. The promoters do a lot, I know, and redoing the review is not their role, but if I am correct that the adequacy of first instance reviews is a significant part of the problem then promoters, as the next step, need to be sending more back. EdChem (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Sure, but the responsibilities of prep builders and admins must complement each other so that there is not excessive duplication in some checks while other checks get overlooked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can graphical timelines qualify for DYK?

I was considering writing a appropriately long lead for the Graphical timeline of plesiosaurs to qualify for a DYK, but I wanted to check and make sure these sorts of articles aren't excluded outright by policy for some reason. Abyssal (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you can as tables and bullets don't count towards the count. It just says 1500 characters, it doesn't say in which manner they must be arranged only that they not be bullets or in tables. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. A 1500-word prose introduction would certainly help this article, and qualify for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with nominator who choose to argue against the reviewer rather than improve the article

Because DYK articles run in the main page and often get complaints when aren't up to standard, I try to ensure that nomination meet the core policies/guidelines—this is what the reviewing guide says. In the nomination for Riwŏn, I pointed out that some facts in the article lack references, and that the lead contains only one sentence (that's not referenced), and asked the nominator to address these. In my opinion, this request is not unreasonable. However, the nominator chose to argue against the request and then hinted towards getting another reviewer. What's the point of the reviewer if you can "fire" the reviewer and try to find one who's willing to approve? How to deal with such a case? HaEr48 (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"If you don't understand," "If you feel incapable," .... This is why people just pass articles (see discussions above), if you mention a problem, you're subject to high nastiness. You raised legitimate concerns about writing a basic article, and the writer attacked you and made up stuff, you didn't demand English, you didn't even call him on uncited copying from other Wikipedia articles. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the lead needs to be longer, as this is a pretty stubby article. I do however think that the lead should mention that this locality is, specifically, a "town", which it doesn't at present. That would be sufficient to establish notability. Other than that, the two "citation needed" tags look reasonable to me, and should be addressed before the article is promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I more or less agree with Gatoclass. I have left a comment at the nomination, I hope that helps. Vanamonde (talk) 14:25, 18 June 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 #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture

Today's top DYK, on the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture, is insanely inappropriate. Who on earth decided it was a good idea to put idiotic local 'nicknames' calling one of the most prominent LGBT figure in British history—a man who was persecuted, imprisoned and ultimately died for his sexuality—a "fag" and a "queer" on Wikipedia's front page? I see it was nominated by The C of E, whose charmingly flag-plastered user page declares himself "politically incorrect" (you don't say), and given a cursory review by Royroydeb. If there is no more oversight than that then the DYK process is seriously broken. – Joe (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA and argumentum ad hominum here. As it has already been explained, context is key here and the context is clearly explained in the article that they are not slurs, they are tongue-in-cheek risque nicknames given to statues by Dubliners which they do for almost all the statues in Dublin. The Tart with the Cart, The Floozie in the Jacuzzi and the Prick with the Stick come to mind. I will also point out WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia run swear words on the front page all the time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
See WP:GRATUITOUS. The fact that some ignorant Dubliners don't consider them to be slurs does not change the fact that they are widely agreed to be slurs. As of this revision only two of the sources cited in the article actually mention the nicknames, and neither of them are reliable sources. The poor sourcing alone should actually have disqualified it as a DYK hook. Yet you not only chose to feature them prominently in the article, you decided they were the most interesting fact about this work of art and had them featured on the main page! That is not remotely encyclopaedic treatment.
And there's no personal attack here. Your user page makes quite clear the kind of person you are and I wouldn't have expected anything better. I do think, however, there should be a mechanism in the DYK process that stops editors with fringe views using it to vandalise the main page. – Joe (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
"Fringe views" What on earth are you on about? The reason why I chose to use those names was because they were the most hooky part of of article. A lot of people equally find those words harmless and context is clearly explained within the article. Furthermore, there is no "vandalism" when it has been checked by numerous people and no objections were made. Only when it gets on the main page, we suddenly get the IDONTLIKEIT comments triggered from those who clearly didn't check the context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'm sure some people find most slurs—homophobic or otherwise—harmless. The people using them, usually. But WP:OM directs us to consider the "typical Wikipedia reader", and there can be no dispute that the typical person in the English-speaking world considers fag and queer to be highly offensive slurs. "Context" doesn't make them magically not offensive – especially not when that context is "but they didn't mean it!" The only context that's relevant here is what I outlined above: our readers seeing an important figure in LGBT history, who was viciously persecuted for his homosexuality in his own time, today referred to as a "fag" and a "queer" on Wikipedia's main page. You're damn right IDONTLIKEIT. It's a disgrace. – Joe (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
You do realise that in the Commonwealth, a fag is a cigarette and likewise queer means strange and are used casually and often? So which interpretation of typical Wikipedia reader do you mean? The US-centric one or the Commonwealth centric one? Context does make a difference because if they make it clear that they are jokes without malice, then there is no intent of offence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm British. And you know as well as I do that that nickname is not calling Wilde a cigarette on a rock. – Joe (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's yet more evidence that DYK is irretrievably broken, and will almost certainly be a front and centre exhibit when it is inevitably removed (sooner rather then later, hopefully) from the Main Page. If I'd seen it this morning I would have pulled it on the spot. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Note I said Wikipedia not DYK, I seem to recall one of our main Featured Articles being "Fuck". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Not offensive, just a word (unless you're someone who can find mere words offensive). Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Fuck is just a word and I do use it - fuck this, fuck that, fuck it, but calling a subject a fuck would be different. Even then it wouldn't be considered a target for a group of people. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of any context, this wording is likely to come across to the reader as a gratuitous way to feature derogatory terms on the front page, or even as trivializing what could be reasonably misinterpreted as a much more hostile sentiment than is intended by the irreverent spirit of the nicknames. For DYKs involving such language, it would be helpful to take a bit more consideration of how the hook will read to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. A broader consultation, possibly by notifying relevant WikiProjects, might be useful in such cases.--Trystan (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with a hook like this, IMO, is not whether the article explains the intent behind the nicknames, it is how the hook may be seen by those who never look at the article. In isolation, the hook was potentially offensive to members of the LGBT community and to readers with strong views on equality and anti-discrimination. It could communicate to LGBT readers that homophobia is tolerated / accepted, and could encourage bigots into thinking such language is acceptable in general. At least, the hook needed to say the names were light-hearted / affectionate (supposing they were and the claim was solidly supported). Absent that, the hook being (arguably) policy compliant does not make it appropriate. EdChem (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Trystan states above that "this wording is likely to come across to the reader as a gratuitous way to feature derogatory terms on the front page", and it seems to me that there may be an element of that occurring here, particularly given The C of E's stated dislike of political correctness. On 12 May The C of E left a post on Ritchie's talk page, stating that controversial topics would never appear on DYK if hooks were decided by a vote. On 15 May, within that same thread, I asked a question about the word "poofs" appearing on Ritchie's talk page. On 17 May a link was made from that thread to a discussion at the LGBT WikiProject, where a heated discussion took place regarding use of such words, including the word "fag". On 19 May The C of E created this article and then this hook. The timing may be coincidental, but if not it suggests a lack of consideration in this instance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I assure you that there is no connection here between the controversial topics post and me creating the article. Half the stuff you mentioned here, I didn't even know about. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, thankyou for your assurance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What happened?

The discussion at WP:ERRORS has been closed, so pinging editors who might like to join this one: Shocking Blue, Modest Genius, Pawnkingthree, Dank, Iridescent, SL93.

It's now off the main page but, aside from C of E, we still haven't heard from anyone involved in the DYK project on how this happened. @Cwmhiraeth: you appear to have had the final responsibility for putting in on the main page, what went wrong? – Joe (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been the perfect example of where stripping away context, to provide a "catchy hook", has turned what was essentially a rather trivial fact into something unintentionally offensive. I'm sure all those involved in constructing and promoting the DYK hook acted in perfectly good faith, but that they had full familiarity with the context that explained this seemingly trite and insulting factoid. I'd just like to add that some of my best friends are statues. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I promoted this approved hook to the prep area five days before it appeared on the main page. I thought it an amusing hook and not in the least derogatory. I note that you think it "insanely inappropriate" to have it on the main page, but I think you are in a small minority. Other people will have reviewed the prep area and an admin implicitly approved it my moving it to a queue. People working on the front page content have a chance to preview tomorrow's DYK the day before it appears. Nobody objected to it in advance of its appearance, and yesterday, when it was queried, nobody took the objections sufficiently seriously to pull or amend the hook as far as I know. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
p.s. it wasn't me who thought it was "insanely inappropriate", Cwmhiraeth. I just thought it looked a bit unsubtle and open to misinterpretation. But that's not really unusual for DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict and I was replying to Joe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Six editors, including three admins, objected to this at WP:ERRORS yesterday, in addition to this discussion and the one at Talk:Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture. So no, I don't think I'm in the minority in thinking it WP:GRATUITOUS. I also don't think you are qualified to be approving material for the main page if you can't see how referring to Oscar Wilde as a "fag" and a "queer" is "in the least derogatory". But apparently the buck now goes to Mifter as he "implicitly" approved it. Is anyone going to take responsibility for this colossal fuck up? – Joe (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree that it's patently false to suggest those objecting are in a small minority. Iridescent pinged Royroydeb yesterday who was the editor who conducted the original review but as far as I'm aware they didn't respond - so trying again. I'm amazed that throughout this multi-stage process no one though that adding this to the main page without any context or sufficient sourcing would cause a problem. As regards admins pulling the item Black Kite has already said that they would have done so if they'd seen it in time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I will note I was very careful to include a disclaimer explaining the context in the article. Some editors later removed it for some reason. Furthermore, if he felt it was that bad he could have removed it at any time yet chose not to. The Royal C (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the "disclaimer" in the article because you made it up. None of the sources you scrambled to add after it was pointed out that your original source was a crappy blog said anything of the sort. – Joe (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I also saw the hook in prep and didn't see a problem with it, though in retrospect, I should probably have anticipated that it would draw the ire of some users. I certainly wouldn't agree that the hook is indefensible however. To begin with, the hook refers to a sculpture of somebody, not to the person himself. Secondly, while some people may find these epithets offensive, the DYK hook is merely reporting the fact that Dubliners refer to the sculpture in this way, it isn't endorsing the terms. Thirdly, I am sure these epithets are used affectionately by Dubliners rather than maliciously - Wilde is, after all, surely a figure of great affection in Ireland. And let's not forget that the Irish voted overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage. So I'm not sure these objections really have a lot of substance - though again, they should probably have been anticipated.

Other than that, having looked at the article, I would say it presents the epithets in a sensationalist and decontextualized manner, and the article should probably not have been featured in such a state. It probably made objections a virtual certainty, when a more mature treatment might have avoided offence. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The history of LGBT rights in Ireland is actually very troubled. Although it was one of the first western country to legalise gay marriage, it was also one of the last to decriminalise homosexuality (in 1993!) It's obviously a complex issue, but it would be extremely ignorant to suggest that Dublin is a bigotry-free utopia where homophobic undertones couldn't possibly exist. The statue has, in fact, been criticised for its stereotyped portrayal of a gay man. It's also been remarked that, despite Wilde being one of the country's greatest literary figures, he wasn't commemorated in Dublin until 97 years after his death. So no, I don't think he is universally given great affection in Ireland. Funnily enough The C of E—an editor who proudly displays his opposition to LGBT equality on his user page—didn't bother to include this peer-reviewed scholarly critique of the piece in the article, instead choosing to emphasise the hilarious derogatory nicknames he'd seen it given in tourist blogs.
It's entirely beside the point whether the people who came up with these nicknames think they are offensive, though. The fact is they are offensive to the vast majority of our readers and their prominent inclusion in the article and on the main page is unnecessary and WP:GRATUITOUS. It should never have happened. – Joe (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Joe, I think you've made some very valuable points here. That thoughtful piece by Sarah Smith in the Sculpture Journal certainly needs expanding in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

So now 1/4 of the article is about the statue's nicknames, when they couldn't be reliably sourced for the article's time on the main page? Is the article about the statue or the nicknames? Too many editors delight in emphasizing the most trivial aspects of a topic to get a rise. I'm sure it's scored its WikiCup points. Let's spend time adding info about the statue! --50.242.87.11 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the article I can see. There are only two sentences about the nicknames. But I'd be quite happy to remove the one in the lead. Please discuss further at the article Talk page, and by all means add info there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Really? Am I looking at the wrong article? It has two sections, History, and Nickname and Impact? Right now. And when I posted above. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Not since I changed it at 11:02 today here. Did you want me to change it back? I've relegated the nicknames to the very last sentence of the article. Not sure they can go any lower. Any further suggestions might be better placed at Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and when you posted the comment above there was still an entire section on the nickname. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting DYK updates back on track

I was bold and updated my first prep to a queue tonight (let me know if I did anything wrong). I noticed when I was updating it though, that the queue was already a bit behind its regular schedule. Is there a way to get the bot back fully to its regularly planned schedule (presumably with the update that would come from queue 2)? IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The bot automatically moves the sets 15 minutes toward midnight UTC with each update, so they will eventually get there. No need for special adjustments. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@Tachs: @Forceradical: @SL93:

Personally, I find this hard to call "hooky". It uses the word "model" 3 times, and the most interesting/unusual thing is the mention of the Abelian sandpile model, which will probably siphon off all the clicks. Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

--jojo@nthony (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not too sure that the article would siphon off all the clicks. I mean, we could always assume, but no one actually knows until it reaches the main page. SL93 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If the article hasn't been adjusted to deal with ALT2 in the next several hours, it would probably best to pull the nomination from the prep to allow plenty of time for the necessary changes to be made; right now the hook there is problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Many of these Indian physicist articles way understate the prestige of the scientists and, although well intended, appear to be written by someone with a minimal grasp of the scientific concepts. Maybe some project people could help out. Whoever is writing them is including good sources, and covering the main concepts, but they're clumsily written in the science and math. For all the effort and good topics, I wish someone knowledgeable could help. I have cleaned up the few in my area of mathematics, but I only have a working grasp of the higher level engineering mathematics I use, not broad background in math. These articles are a real gift. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4

I cannot seem to find the second hook from Prep 4 in either article (D. J. Wilson and 2017–18 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team) from the hook. It seems to be hinted at, but can somebody with more knowledge of U.S. college basketball fix this? Otherwise, I'll be forced to swap it out before promoting to the queue. Vanamonde (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, Cwmhiraeth, and 97198: Vanamonde (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking out of ignorance, I gather that players who join the NBA draft are no longer eligible to play for their college; the fact that he has joined the draft is cited. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth is correct. By entering the draft, he basically left college to play in the professional basketball league. Both articles cite the fact that Wilson played for Michigan and that he is leaving this year to enter the professional draft – the hook simply provides context. 97198 (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth and 97198: Maybe, but I'd need to see it in the article, with a cite, before promoting it...Vanamonde (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Queue 5 Dendroctonus valens

Queue 5 Dendroctonus valens

Has anyone read this article? It's very confusing. Here's a sentence about its host range, "Pitch tubes are found at the entrance to the tunnel system; these are formed of a mixture of resin and frass, and vary in colour according to the species of the host tree.[clarification needed]" Does it grow in lava tubes?

What about this section, "An area of 500,000 hectares (1,200,000 acres) planted with P. tabulaeformis since 1900 has been affected by the beetles, with six million trees being decimated. Older forests have been attacked while younger forests in general have not?" Is this what the source says? A 100 year old forest is a young forest. A newly planted forest. Why are we talking about it in the article if some other forest, an older forest, is the one that has been attacked?

I don't get it. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have clarified the sentence about "pitch tubes". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So now, is it an old forest or a young one? I am tagging it, too. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have rewritten that sentence, and it is cited later in the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2: reclamation

Another hook from the same prep 2

  • ... that the Ore Dock Brewing Company's flagship beer is named for the recycled material that was used in constructing the brewery?

Template:Did you know nominations/Ore Dock Brewing Company @The ed17, Bloom6132, and Cwmhiraeth:

It isn't clear why the name of that beer isn't given in the hook, but anyway, the source doesn't seem to support it. The reviewer explicitly noted that the original hook was verified, but Alt1 (which was chosen by the promotor) was accepted AGF. For me, the book used as a source is available online[5], and it says: "They added to the ambience by recycling timbers and metal from the garage into decorations and furniture for the pub. This inspired them to name their most popular beer Reclamation IPA". So not "construction of the brewery", but "decorations and furniture for the pub"... Fram (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: you seem to be splitting hairs here, but please feel free to alter the hook. No need for a big discussion here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The brewery and the pub are the same place; it's a brewpub. It's not necessary to explain exactly what was recycled and how; this is a hook, not the full article. Nor is the exact name of the beer required as some other busybody might then complain that we were advertising. Andrew D. (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Or worse: VERIFIABLE MATERIAL!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Constructing the brewery" sounds like making a building not furniture. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Added another ref. This hook is accurate as it stands. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

I changed the last hook in the set from:

  • ... that the Thunderbolt was damaged by lightning and then destroyed by a hurricane two years later?

to:

  • ... that the Thunderbolt roller coaster was damaged by lightning and then destroyed by a hurricane?

I did so because I thought the hook was too vague and could easily prompt readers to pass over it altogether. But the page creator believes that not identifying what the Thunderbird is gives it more "hook appeal". What do other editors think? Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK fail - it was supposed to be the quirky hook so it didn't matter if it made literally no sense whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
To this ESL person, "thunderbolt" is a thunderbolt whereas "Thunderbolt" is a name of an object. For me the change simply makes it less attention-catching, whether it's interesting is determined by the other parts of the hook. So I think this change was not a good one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, IMO the hook is not hooky in the first place ... Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I do think removing the "two years later" is a good removal as it made the phrasing tighter. Barring that removal however, the first version did a better job of "teasing the reader" (example 4 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Review the hook). The exceptional coincidence of lightning damaging something named "The Thunderbolt" is quite interesting. I'm not really too stressed either way, I just thought the first one worked better. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The original was fine, it was in the quirky slot. Reducing its quirkiness, might as well slot it anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all. OK, I'll revert my change (but leave out the "two years later"). Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1: Ahmed bin Abdullah Balala BLP concerns

I was thinking about moving prep 1 to the queue, but I had some concerns about BLP issues in Ahmed bin Abdullah Balala. I am not familiar with the reliability of many South Asian news sources. Is The News Minute a reliable source for negative BLP information? IronGargoyle (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle: It's not a mainstream newspaper, and it would not hurt to have a second source confirming this, but it is a news organization with editorial oversight and no overt agenda, run by a respected figure in south Asian news reporting; so I'd say it's okay in this case. It is also simply reporting an incident. In any case, I have added a second source for one of the statements. Vanamonde (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6

Queue 6

This article says it is open to debate and unknown whether the cooking method is supported by science.

""Whether the science behind this checks out or not is up for debate ...[1]""

But the hook says:

"that some people are avid proponents of beer can chicken (pictured), while others contend that the dish is overrated and not backed by science?"

Who says it is not backed by science? The article does not say anyone does. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:9F (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is strongly implied by the phrasing in the Houston Press article. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I would say that if we're relying on the Houston Press to determine the scientific nature of a claim, we're all doomed. The hook needs revising as, as far as I know, Houston Press is not Nature or New Scientist or any other scientifically notable publication. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if I trusted them on anything science-related, it would be the science of beer can chicken, but I see your point. I think it's fine to cut the science bit. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It could just be something as simple as "... chicken is sometimes cooked with beer cans?" and leave it at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Following the above exchange, we were left with: "...that some people are avid proponents of beer can chicken, while others contend that the dish is overrated?"
This conveyed nothing more than "some people like beer can chicken, while others don't", a statement applicable to any dish in existence.
I've reworded the hook as follows: "...that proponents of beer can chicken claim that the grilling method enhances the chicken's texture and flavor, while others are skeptical of its efficacy?"
—David Levy 00:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That works. BTW, nothing of the sort is strongly implied by the Houston Press quote. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:9F (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Batman and Harley Quinn

"that in Batman and Harley Quinn, Kevin Conroy reprises his role as Batman?" How is this hook interesting? It would only be interesting if he didn't. Edwardx (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with either hook, but I posted the original hook because people would be interested in him voicing Batman. SL93 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What I'm getting at is that interesting shouldn't have to be used in the traditional sense in this case. Unless you're saying that a hook with Batman, Harley Quinn, and Kevin Conroy won't get main page clicks. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not interesting, but there's a general trend to remove this "interesting to a broad audience" requirement and replace it with ... nothing. So every DYK has its day, regardless of how dull it is, cf. the "insects with heads of not the same size" nom going through right now. As many have said, we should have the ability to say "no, this article literally has nothing of interest to a broad audience, fail" but it never happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok. I'm just getting a bit confused because I don't think that the interesting requirement should be replaced with nothing. I'm just saying that the general audience and popularity should be taken into more account in other ways on a case by case basis. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm saying that during the review process, very little attention is given to whether or not a hook is actually interesting. Some reviewers make a point of it, some just QPQ it because they need WikiCup points etc, some reviewers even openly state that "broad interest" is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's principles. All that being said, we still have a rule that says hooks should be interesting to a broad audience. This hook is not really interesting, even to a niche audience. The hook about the insects with marginally different head sizes is probably not interesting to a scientific audience. What I'm saying is either stick with the existing rule and consider a broad audience, or remove that rule altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • We will seriously just have to disagree. You lost me at Batman characters being for a niche audience, as if that niche audience is so small. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm as much casual Batman fan as the next man, but this is lost. Never mind, that's the problem with a subjective rule. At least it's not a insect head size comparison hook. Just out of interest, why is it actually notably interesting that Conroy "reprises his role"? Or is simply that he did and business as usual? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that it is notably interesting just because of the fact that he is back again at the role as someone in his 60's. No source says that this is his last role as Batman, but due to his age, it very well could be. Then again, I have been a huge Batman fan ever since I was in diapers. If this hook really is a problem (which I think it isn't mostly because this will for sure get views, not like that ant article), the hook about Melissa Rauch voicing Harley Quinn for the first time can be used or even Bruce Timm's return to writing an animated DC Comics property since 2006. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Aha, well then there's the hook, and there's the bit that's missing "since the 1960s" would add enormously to the hook and allow people like me to understand why it's interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"since the 1960s" SL93 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Mis-read, I meant he returned to his role in his 60s. That might be interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - within 2.5km or in a 2.5 sq km area?

... that the total known population of the critically endangered shrub Persoonia pauciflora is within 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) of the type specimen? Casliber, Gderrin, Yoninah, Sagecandor

The article actually states "It only occurs in the North Rothbury area and occupies an area of only 2.5 km2 (600 acres).[2][6][9]" which is not the same as being within 2.5 kilometres. Needs rewording to reflect the sourced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Aha, that is because of the coincidence of two 2.5's. One for the area and another for distance of any collection from the first. Have tweaked that now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - "smaller head"

"... that the fossil ant Cephalotes dieteri has a smaller head then its sister species?" Kevmin, SL93, Cwmhiraeth.

Sorry, this has plumbed the very depths of DYK: this is of absolutely zero interest. What would be really interesting would be if it had an identically sized head. But the fact that the size is different is undeniably dull and trivial. The article trivialises it further by saying it's not just "smaller" but "slightly smaller"... Why not talk about Dominican amber or something that might actually formulate something of note? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There were two hooks in the nomination and I just chose the more interesting of the two to recommend. I think that if both it and its sister species had an identically sized head, that would be less interesting just because they are sister species. I think that what is even more boring than both hooks that were in this nomination is what was recently on the main page - "that the ant Cephalotes alveolatus (pictured) is distinguished by its clubbed hairs?". Distinguished compared to what? Maybe I'm wrong about that one because it did get over 6,000 clicks somehow (maybe just because of the good picture). SL93 (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess people would be interested in the term "clubbed hairs". This hook relating to relative head size is not interesting at all. And no, sister species would still be unlikely to have "identical" sized heads, so that would actually be more interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Are these ants distinguish3d by head size at the species level? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't think many people would even care about head size in the first place, but I still reviewed it because maybe I'm not just understanding how great the species aspects are. I'm fine with this hook not being promoted. For my reviews from now on, I will just stay away from species articles or just make a comment that I think it sucks (but in nice way). SL93 (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you do with yet another of these boring animal and fossil hooks, please don't put "... that the fossil ant Cephalotes dieteri has a smaller head THEN its sister species?" on the main page. Then <> Than ...

But my preference would be not to run this, not even with the alternative hook. The article indeed says "Cephalotes dieteri was described from two fossil ants" and so on, but the first line of the lead says "known from a single Middle Miocene fossil ", so what is it? The article (just like the previous one that ran on DYK) continues with "In the study of Cephalotes by de Andrade and Baroni Urbani C. dieteri was grouped into the coffeae clade comprised of seven extinct species and four extant species." but the image below it only shows 6 extinct species. I note also for this species: "while the rear borders of the hind gasteral tergites have rare club-tipped hairs.": I thought the last one we featured was "distinguished by its clubbed hairs", but now it turns out that this one has clubbed hairs as well?

Considering all this, including the fact that the previous such hook was either wrong or at least misleading, and that the current one (and the one proposed here) have enough problems as well, I would just pull the plug on this one. Good effort, but no DYK this time. Fram (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the single fossil / two fossils discrepancy, but then assumed that "single fossil" refers to a single piece of material that contains two insect specimens. Though this is my interpretation and sentences shouldn't be open to interpretation; it needs clarifying if possible. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The material is the matrix, not the fossil, the fossil is the evidence of life. Single piece of material with two fossils, maybe. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
How about
I like anachronisms, but this one is perhaps going a bit too far. If this desperately needs to run, and you want to go with this hook, then at least use Hispaniola, not the Dominican Republic... Fram (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Reading ALTs 3 and 4 literally, I'd find them fascinating, but I suspect we are talking about problematic writing. If the tree was indeed extinct when it produced the amber, that would be amazing, but I think "... found in amber produced by a tree which is now extinct" is intended. Then, since amber is fossilised tree resin, "amber produced by a tree" is redundant. I think perhaps:
or something like that? EdChem (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, the pointless "interesting" criteria is used as a way to make openly disparaging remarks about nominations. There is nothing wrong with the hooks that I proposed, and "interesting" is NOT one of the criteria used ANYWHERE else in the encyclopedia. I oppose the changes based on editors not being personally interested in a subject and conflating that lack of interest as a valid reason to make a beurocratic mess on this project every change that can be taken.--Kevmin § 03:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, this hook is the first in about 60 or 70 that has been truly dull, I've reviewed them all. That so many other editors have agreed and proposed alts must tell you something about the original hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Quite apart from the hook, I have rephrased the lead paragraph of the article so that it mentions two specimens not one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It tells me that the arbitrary "interesting" requirement is only applied to things people do not like. The rule is not in line with the five pillars and not in line with any core principle of the encyclopedia.--Kevmin § 00:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of the DYK section of the main page was to draw attention to things that might interest readers. If that means DYK is not inline with "five pillars" or "core principle" then perhaps we should take it off the main page. I suppose another alternative is to propose the removal of the "interesting to a broad audience" rule of DYK to which nominations must comply. Either way, it's clear that this hook fails that, as evidenced by the subsequent discussion, so it should be fixed to comply with the rules until such a time those rules are amended or removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
NO, that is NOT what I said, and you are aware of that. I said that the "interesting" is not part of any section of Wiki Core or Five pillars. So your assertion that DYK is not in line with them is false. "Interesting" needs to be removed.--Kevmin § 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Do something about it or comply with the rules and stop being surprised when such hooks are picked out as being unacceptably weak for a broad audience. In other news, per Fram, these articles seem to be patchy in terms of accuracy, so we should get our reviewers to cross-check them with all the other "fossil ant" DYKs since there appears be conflicts between them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI the hook in question has been moved to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

About both ants having clubbed hairs in the prior hook, are the clubbed hairs somehow different from each other since one can be distinguished from the other because of it? It's not just about interesting, but also factually accurate. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: My reading of WP:DYKHOOK is that the hook should be interesting. While I fully agree that "interesting" is subjective, there are some things that are less subjectively boring than others, and if we aim to cater to the average online reader, we should strive to be "less subjectively boring" -- that one ant has a slightly smaller head than another ant is like saying a certain type of white paint is less white than another kind. Not so interesting! Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Queue 2 Hooded pitohui

Queue 2

If the main page is going to highlight the toxins, what does this mean, "The hooded pitohui is, with the variable pitohui complex, one of the most toxic species of pitohui," in light of an earlier statement that there were 3 species discovered to have the toxin? All three species that contain the toxin are more toxic than species that don't? Ha ha.

Please explain. The one article cited doesn't say this, and should be removed from this statement as a citation, and I don't have access to the other.

This should be fixed before it moved to the front page.

--2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:9F (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Next queue

Casliber and I both have hooks I have a hook in the next prep set, and cannot perform the update to the queue. In about 8 hours, we're going to have another overdue DYK on our hands. @IronGargoyle, Mifter, and Gatoclass: Any of you folks around? Vanamonde (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a hook in the prep set too (I'm not seeing which hook is Casliber's btw). IronGargoyle (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, my memory is deserting me, it would appear...Cas, could you do the honors, if you are around? Vanamonde (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass has dealt with it: many thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived; here is an updated list of 39 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 263 nominations, of which 132 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the one from April.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Since only a third of these have been reviewed after a week, I'm going to post here to prevent it from being archived with so many still needing review available for selection. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a process for getting a second opinion?

Andrew D. reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/X-Men Gold, X-Men Blue last week and marked it as not ready, citing the articles as advertising and a BLP violation. I disagreed, explained why, and pinged him for further discussion. He has not yet responded, but he has been actively edititing and indicated that was where he wanted me to respond. Not sure what to do next. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

To request another review, you use the template. The idea is that issues are supposed to be resolved not ignored but I've seen people bludgeon their article through such objections before so it might work. Andrew D. (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring issues - I'm questioning them. I appreciate you responding, but you didn't answer my questions or elaborate on your comments. I can't correct things when I understand the problem. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Special Occasion hook for Prep 6

Template:Did you know nominations/St. Anne's Market is awaiting promotion to Prep 6 as a special occasion hook for July 1 (Canada Day). Since both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on this hook, could another editor promote it please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Update for next queue

Echoing a similar situation to what Vanamonde said a few days ago, myself and Casliber both have hooks in the next prep. Is anyone else available to update? It will be due later today. @Vanamonde93, Mifter, and Gatoclass:, are any of you available? Thanks! IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Around: looking into it. Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! IronGargoyle (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is down

User:DYKUpdateBot seems to be broken and the update is overdue. Can someone please manually move the hooks at Template:Did_you_know/Queue/5 to the main page? I would prefer to avoid it, as I have a hook in the queue. I've cross-posted this to WP:ERRORS. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to get it done, so I did it myself. It had already been moved to the queue, so I decided it wasn't too much of a conflict of interest. If someone could send me a credit though, I'd appreciate it. Sending one to myself would just be weird. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Update done. Heck with weird. I just wanted to get that finished. Someone please fix the bot soon. That sucked, haha. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:10, 30 June 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 #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is now two weeks old and mostly used up; here is an updated list of 39 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 283 nominations, of which 158 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the lone holdover from April.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hook fact only appearing in the footnote

This nomination has an interesting hook, but the fact appears in the article only as a footnote and not in the body. Should it be required to include the hook's fact in the body? HaEr48 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I once read a fantastic bit of advice on academic writing. If you feel like something is important but meandering away from the main points, put it in a footnote. Then, delete the footnotes. If this is merely a fun fact, is it encyclopedic? If it isn't merely a fun fact, where does it fit into an encyclopedic narrative about this person's life? There's a strong case for including it in the main body of the professional career section if this actually received major media coverage. (Short answer, I think a hook shouldn't be only in a footnote.) ~ Rob13Talk 05:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree with such a "rule". There is precedent. In my recent DYK on Frieda Fraser, part of the hook fact appeared in a footnote. Lost letters, referred to in later letters were in the footnote and added with other data in the body to create the timeline in which letters were written. They could not have been part of the archive, nor discussed, having been lost, but were a fact needed to confirm when/why there was a shift in the relationship and letter keeping. In this article, PART of the hook is in a footnote, as well. The fact that she signed with an Israeli team in 2007 is in the main body and cited, as is the information on her surname and its meaning. What the press referred to Elohim as is an interesting fact, but irrelevant to her creating a life or career and better placed in a footnote as Yoninah did, IMO. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, HaEr48. I mentioned that she had an unusual name and gave the translation in the body of the article, but felt that mentioning the Israeli headlines from 27 years after her birth was off-topic in the Early Life section. According to WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria – 3. Cited hook: The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. Period. As SusunW notes, there is certainly precedent for putting in a hook fact that's not in the regular text, such as one in a caption, as long as there's a cite for it. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with SusunW and with Yoninah, the information is cited and confirmed and verified, and interesting. The hook should be used. Sagecandor (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is DYK check not working?

I expanded Nujoom Al-Ghanem from 905 characters to 4605 characters, but DYK check says "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days". 905 times 5 equals 4525 so I'm 80 characters over the minimum. SL93 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's working, SL93, though in this case 905 is the number you need to expand from. There are some versions from earlier years where the prose character count goes as high as 938, but since it has been 905 for a while, that's the number that matters, and 4525 prose characters is the minimum to meet 5x. Be sure to note this on your nomination page, so the reviewer knows to look beyond the basic DYKcheck results. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3

@Philafrenzy: @BabbaQ: @Cwmhiraeth: Sorry, I don't understand the connection between the two parts of the hook. Perhaps if you start by saying he had problems with women, then the punchline would make more sense. Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also contains a mostly unreferenced section of works. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be found the Streeter/Barker bibliography? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It was the contrast between the respectable antiques expert and having a girlfriend that assaults you by sticking curling tongs in your ear. I had a more conventional hook "...that Robert Symonds was described as "the pre-eminent 20th century scholar and authority on English furniture"?". Philafrenzy (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, the fact that the colonel himself has declared incongruent juxtaposition is enough for us all to sit up and demand this is changed. The lead itself has some excitement from which a hook could be generated: His complicated love life, before he married respectably, included affairs with two women, the first of which produced children he never acknowledged, and the second with a woman whom he discovered was already married and who was subsequently jailed for perjury in her divorce case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Incongruity attracts attention and that's the primary purpose of a hook. No change is required. Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • However, in this case, it simply attracts a "WTF" response, hence the origins of this post. There are so many more interesting facts, as I noted, it's a shame to go with this contrived one. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We're soon going to 12-hour sets so this hook will be promoted soon. As nothing has been done about it, I'm returning it to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Time to change the number of sets per day?

At the moment, each set of eight DYK hooks is on the main page for twenty-four hours. I cannot find the diff, but when we changed, several months ago, from two sets of hooks per day to a single set, I seem to remember that 100 approved hooks was mentioned as a reasonable number above which we should have two sets per day. Currently we have way over that figure and are currently at 154 hooks. That's nineteen days of hooks, with more being approved all the time. I suggest that we should move to two sets per day until such time as the backlog reduces to a reasonable size (80 hooks?). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it's a good idea. However, we need to be sure that we move any special occasion hooks already in the preps or queues so that they run at the proper time. At the moment, the lead hook of Prep 6 (the flag of the Solomon Islands) needs to run on July 7, so if we change to two sets a day as of midnight on July 6, that hook would need to be pushed back to Prep 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's make the change after that hook has run on July 7th then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, sounds like a good plan for when to make the change. Sagecandor (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Quick heads-up from "Quality Control Central" - project is working better, well done everyone, fewer errors, fewer bad hooks, better articles. Keep up the good work all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done all done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, not quite, Cas Liber. Your change from 24 hours to 12 hours caused an immediate update of the main page, since it had been about 22.5 hours since the last update (more than 12 hours), rather than waiting until midnight UTC. So the next queue that will go the main page is set for updating at 10:53 UTC on July 8. To get us onto a noon/midnight schedule, just change the Template:Did you know/Next update/Time value from "2017-07-07T22:53:00Z" to "2017-07-08T00:00:00Z" (note: it must be July 8; if you leave it on July 7, then we'll have yet another main page update, and a real mess on our hands). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hook needs to be inserted into Queue 2: admin needed

In the special occasion area of the Approved page, there's a hook for July 11 that needs to be included in Queue 2, since it's the set that will be running at the appropriate time (note that since this is about Mexican awards, that's the set that will be on the main page only on July 11 in the Mexican time zones). Can an admin please see about promoting this nomination to Queue 2 (assuming there aren't any issues found in the nomination during final checks), and moving a hook that's already in that queue to an available slot in a prep set? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it initially and was in the process of doing so. Done. Alex ShihTalk 15:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Alex Shih, thanks. There are a couple of things that still need to be accomplished:
  • In the hook, the " 's" needs to be just an apostrophe; since "Sciences" is a plural, there shouldn't be an extra "s".
  • In the Credits section, the hook was repeated, instead of giving the credit. Please replace the hook with this credit: *   59th Ariel Awards – Jaespinoza (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
This could be done by any admin. Pinging Casliber, Maile, Vanamonde, and IronGargoyle, in the hopes that at least one of them happens to be around. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Both issues fixed. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the late night mistakes. Thank you both. Alex ShihTalk 05:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominated 36 minutes past deadline

I just nominated an article which was nominated 36 minutes past the switch from July 9th to July 10th, in UTC time. As it is still, at the time of this post, July 9th in EST time, I was hoping an administrator could give some leeway, as the article's "day" in the template for DYK was redded out, and could perhaps move the article to say, the July 3rd section or something. Could there possibly be any excuse for it to be still valid after 36 minutes of time difference? Thanks. alphalfalfa(talk) 00:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

alphalfalfa, 36 minutes late for a first-time nominator should certainly not be an issue. I see you took the time to do a QPQ review prior to filling out the nomination template, which is most welcome (but be sure to sign your review!). Please be sure to finish the nomination process by adding the template to the nominations page, and do put it under July 2, the day you created the Daniel Tilton article, even if the date is red on the table. Thanks for submitting your article here at DYK! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There is generally some flexibility about the deadline, it largely depends on the reviewer. Perhaps someone could also consider this one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ikram Quresh

I am not happy promoting this hook. For a start, I don't know precisely what a "ticket" means in this context, but this is a BLP, and the hook seems to suggest there was something underhand about him getting elected. What do others think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what a ticket would mean either. I have noticed that several of the creator's DYK nominations have been problematic. I don't know if it's true or not, but it seems like these articles are being used to push negative things about prominent people. SL93 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Akhtarul Iman at DYK was also issued these tickets. SL93 (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
"Ticket" in this case is a term from Indian English, meaning that Qureshi was a candidate of his party for a certain election. Thus the hook is suggesting that Qureshi was made a candidate because he supported Akhilesh Yadav in his feud with the rest of his family. This statement is itself not supported by the article, and therefore is not an acceptable hook. This string of short politician has come to my attention, too, and there were a couple with which I flagged issues. Though the nominator has done solid content work elsewhere, these bios have generally been somewhat short and slipshod, with BLP, neutrality, and grammar issues. Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The shortness is not his fault .In India unless you are President/Chief Minister/Prime Minister/cabinet minister or a nominee for such a post you get only a passing mention by newspapers. Nevertheless the statement is certainly a not eligible for DYK as it focuses on the negative side of the said politician-⮘FORCE RADICAL⮚ 08:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are the preps being promoted to queues so quickly?

When we were on a 24-hour cycle, only one set sat in the queue at a time. Now that we're on a 12-hour cycle, I understand that two sets should be in the queue, but why three? The longer the set stays in the prep area, the more non-administrative editors can look at the hooks and correct the grammar. Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect so we're less likely to have overruns with the increased turnover. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I found four issues with one single queue, so the concern is justified. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Camino Island

This appears to have been add to prep by Yoninah with an empty section, now tagged. Today I've found an article marked as a stub added to prep, these things shouldn't be happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, this article looks unfinished. I'll pull it. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Compendium ferculorum)

@Kpalion: @Gerda Arendt:
  1. I think the long Polish title should be rendered into English: A Collection of Dishes, just as the caption has an English title.
  2. The connection between the image and the hook is not clear.
  3. Why isn't the proper name used for the Polish national epic? Yoninah (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I find "A collection of dishes" boring, while the epic plays a secondary role, therefore leave uninteresting. We will have to disagree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree that the Polish title is in some way more intriguing, while "the Polish national epic" actually serves to make the hook hooky. I'm with Yoninah about the image, though, it seems a bit of a stretch. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
The image illustrates "a collection of dishes" inspired by the book, no? I'd like the title page image also, it was the nominator who suggested the illustration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. I'm OK with either the English rendering of the title (A Collection of Dishes) or keeping just the Latin part of the original title (Compendium ferculorum) to make it shorter. No strong feelings either way.
  2. The picture is an illustration of the fictional banquet that was inspired by the cookbook and I thought it was more interesting that a simple title page in Polish. That said, I'm open to other options. The title page is also fine with me, as is no image at all.
  3. I agree with Vanamonde that "the Polish national epic" is more hooky than its actual Polish title. — Kpalion(talk) 21:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I like it. (I've pipe-linked the shortened title in ALT1 to avoid a redirect.) — Kpalion(talk) 23:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's okay I'll just go on to replace the hook with the new ALT 1. Alex ShihTalk 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Late, and only the reviewer: I would - if we can't have the love mix of Latin and Polish in the title - go for Polish, not Latin, and have no idea what the image caption means. signed late, better than never --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The book is commonly referred to by its Latin title in Polish literature, so I think it's OK as it is. As for the image caption – well, this really should have been raised during the review. — Kpalion(talk) 06:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right, I missed looking at the caption, sorry. - If the Latin title is the common name, the article should be moved but please not while on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Sofia Richie's football career

... that model Sofia Richie (pictured) played soccer competitively until she broke her hip in a Segway accident? IronGargoyle, Yoninah, Jupitus Smart

Now where I come from, "competitive football" (or soccer) has a distinct meaning, i.e. she played at some representative level. The source for this claim states "She played on an elite soccer team until she was 16, when she crashed her Segway and broke her hip." Now I have no idea what "elite soccer team" means (and I'm sure it's not necessarily equivalent to "highly-competitive"), and having done some more research, I can find nothing more about Richie and her blossoming soccer career cut short by a Segway accident. So (a) I don't think the source claims she played "competitive" soccer and (b) that source is the only one making such a claim, I can find no other such claims anywhere else. Happy to be proven wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point raised. The only solution that I can think off is to regurgitate what is mentioned in the article. I know that this is not the best solution, but the only other option that I can think off is to start over:
ALT1: ... that model Sofia Richie (pictured) played for an elite soccer team until she broke her hip in a Segway accident? Jupitus Smart (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Problem is, what is an "elite soccer team"? It's not Manchester United or Real Madrid, so who is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I am happy with the alternative hook, or just saying she played soccer. I don't doubt the source at all. Complex is a reputable source and it's based on an interview with the subject. There is no reason why this (or her soccer play) would have been covered at the time. She was a MUCH lower-profile figure at age 16 than she is today. I agree that I don't know what the writers of Complex mean when they say "elite". To me, the word "competitive" just means that she competed at the game of soccer. I understand that this may have different connotations in another culture, but we tend to stick to the English and cultural connotations of the culture that the subject of the article is about. She's not British. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I thnk sadly that falls into primary source territory. If not one other single reliable source in the entire known universe backs up the fact she played soccer, let alone at an "elite" level, we shouldn't be claiming it. Complex may be reputable, but I doubt they checked that claim, because I have and can find zip. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't know if I buy that it's a primary source. Even if it were, per WP:SELFSOURCE: "1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. The article is not based primarily on such sources". All of those criteria are passed. Beyond this, Richie's interest in soccer is mentioned in other sources that predate the Complex article, so this isn't completely out of the blue. I found this W Magazine article within a couple of minutes of searching for example. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I suspect she probably played for Oaks Christian High School Girls Soccer Varsity which apparently is quite good (!) but her name is nowhere to be found when I checked the roster for the years she might have been there. Alex ShihTalk 20:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you link to those years? I'm having a hard time navigating the website you linked to. This is one possibility, but she was also home educated for several years and it's possible she played on another team during that time. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but a claim she played for an "elite" soccer team is most certainly "exceptional". As for the "W Magazine" article, it says she "loved soccer", doesn't claim she played at an elite level, nor anything about a Segway accident curtailing her "elite soccer playing career". That there is so much doubt over this claim, it should be obvious this needs revisiting. P.S. high school soccer does not equate to "elite" or even "highly-competetive" soccer. Not by a mile. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'm fine if you just want to change this to "played soccer" and drop the word "competitively" and "elite". It clearly means different things in different cultures, and while I think that policy would govern these cultural differences in terminology, I'm happy to defer for the sake of convenience and clarity. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed the references to the high level of soccer from the hook and the article. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I think "played soccer" is ok, but I still can't find one single other source backing up this claim of Segway injury/curtailed soccer career. Can you find more than that one primary claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No, but there is no reason to expect that it would have been covered at the time. I think the Complex article is sufficient. It's a quality source and they had no reason to doubt Richie's claim of past injury. If you interpret "competitive soccer" the way that you seem to, I can see how someone might interpret that as being exceptional and/or self-serving (I don't, but I'm quite sure we interpret the term "competitive soccer" very differently and I was willing to compromise on that). I don't see an injury being the same thing at all. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I think if she didn't actually play properly competitive football, this hook is a dead duck. That the source claims she played "elite" level yet no other sources on the whole Internet substantiate that undermines the veracity of the other claims made... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You underestimate the American press and their ability to not give a shit about soccer. Yes, there is certainly some limited coverage of high school soccer in the press, but there are plenty of other teams and leagues which are not associated with schools and this organization has a bunch of examples. I googled a few of these teams in the Los Angeles area and many get almost no coverage, especially not at the player level. The rosters of these teams are not readily available (unlike the high school varsity teams that you can find on MaxPreps). I don't know which team Richie played on, but a non-school team would fit the rest of her biography with the home education seeming to occupy at least some of her time in the typical high school age bracket. It would also explain the lack of coverage. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"New" seems to have an odd definition here...

One of the current DYK entries had already been featured on the main page. As it had previously skipped directly to Featured status and not before been labelled a Good article the DYK rules as written appear to define it as "New". Does this strike anyone else as a loophole, or was this intended when the rule was written? --Noren (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The good article rule was fairly recent, and I think this is a rare example. It's interesting that Starship Troopers was actually both former featured and good article. There doesn't seem to be a rule that prevent this however. Alex ShihTalk 05:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this will not occur frequently enough to make an exception for, though I feel I should point out that rewarding articles for losing and regaining good status may create a perverse incentive to allow articles to decay and lose good status. Thanks for pointing out the previous Good Article status that I'd missed - it seems that the 2006 Good Article review process for this article lasted all of seven minutes, though that's way too old to be more than a curiosity at this point. --Noren (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Is a previously deleted article eligible?

I'm working on an article that was previously PRODed and deleted. About half a year ago I had it userfied and I'm going to mainspace it soon. Will it be eligible for DYK then? Daß Wölf 23:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so as "new". I suppose a 5x expansion would be ok, but it doesn't seem to have reached that at present. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I've done away with all the prose in the original article, it was fluffy, referenced to primary and WP:SPS sources at best, and overall poorly written. Daß Wölf 00:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I believe it would as we do have precedence here where London Irish Amateur was deleted then recreated and ran. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to offer their input, I've decided to go ahead and nominate the article. Daß Wölf 03:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pulled lead image from Dorothy Hazard in Prep 6

@Yunshui:, @Gerda Arendt:, @Cwmhiraeth: I just wanted to let you know that I pulled the lead image for the Dorothy Hazard hook as it was not free. According to the file description it was created in 1923 or later in the UK and the artist died less than 70 years ago. I have replaced it with another image from the same prep. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks IG. That balls-up was totally my fault; I don't know how I managed to misconstrue the dates. I've removed it from the article and have solicited its deletion on Commons. Much obliged. Yunshui 雲水 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney Parks and resorts

Today's featured list commemorates these theme parks with the original Disneyland opening on July 17, 1955, and the blurb includes a picture of a green Disney locomotive. And guess what, Queue 2, going live at 12.00 UTC, celebrates the same thing with the picture of another green locomotive? Does this duplication on the main page matter? Would it be better to keep the DYK for a different day? @Jackdude101: whose GA this is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's on the main page now, and IMO it doesn't really matter. The DYK image is showing the Disneyland railroad and the FL shows the Walt Disney World railroad. Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In their defense, the locomotives in the images are pointing in opposite directions. Seriously though, both entries reference different articles (both of which have featured status), and their respective wikilinks on the main page are mutually exclusive. Similar? Yes. Duplicates? No. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible nomination?

I recently expanded a "stub" article - Bart Sawyer - and would like to know if it meets the criteria for a DYK nomination. The article itself could use some copy editing but the suggested hook is supported by a reliable source.

  • Did you know Bart Sawyer's pro wrestling gimmick was inspired by Bart Simpson? (The Encyclopedia of Professional Wrestling: 100 Years of History, Headlines & Hitmakers, pg. 228)

Regards,

72.74.204.110 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's well more than a 5x expansion, so definitely eligible. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Do I just leave the hook here until it gets reviewed? 72.74.204.110 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have created a nomination for you: Template:Did you know nominations/Bart Sawyer. Please keep an eye on it, as it gets reviewed. And please answer any questions that arise on that template. This nomination has also been added to the WP:DYKN nominations for July 16. Thank you for submitting this nomination, and good luck. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thank you. 72.74.204.110 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is now over a week old and is about to be archived; here is an updated list of 37 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 262 nominations, of which 143 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the two oldest that each need a hook to be checked.

Over two months old: (hook checks needed)

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been nearly a week, and a significant majority of these nominations are still unreviewed. Adding a note to prevent this from being archived while so many listed here still need reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about a potential DYK nomination

I would like to nominate the Jamaica High School article for DYK. It has been expanded from 2475 to 17348 characters in the previous day, so it qualifies for 5x expansion. But when I use DYK check, it says that the article has not been expanded in the last 10 days, and the tool refers to this revision in 2008 (a revert from a total page blanking, when the article was a little bigger than the revision right before the article expansion, in May 2017.

My question is, does 5-fold expansion count from the May 2017 version of the article, or from the larger 2008 version of the article whose unsourced contents were removed long before the May 2017 version? epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:I would strongly support it counting as you've done a great amount of research and writing and have helped Wikipedia readers for this effort. Sagecandor (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: It's actually not my article. It was expanded by Tdorante10. epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah my mistake, apologies about that. Yes, I think it can satisfy as DYK under these particular circumstances. Sagecandor (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. With the page size tool I use, it has been expanded from 2475 B to 18 kB. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I will nominate the article now. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump book hooks

Note to promoters: There has been a run of Donald Trump-authored books on the Approved page lately. Please space them out so they won't run every day. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I wouldn't mind banning such political stuff altogether per WP:SOAPBOX. I've noticed a lot of such hooks lately as a casual Main Page visitor, and none of them are interesting. Did you know that the book Time to Get Tough by Donald Trump was written with the assistance of editors from Breitbart News? Well, who'd have thunk!? Daß Wölf 23:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Daß Wölf You've touched on something that has been bothering me for the last year, but I'm not sure anything in DYK guidelines covers this. Adoring fan worship aside, DYK for the last year has featured this guy enough to be another publicity venue for him. Without even debating who or what is behind the push - fandom or planned publicity ploy, carefully planted editors willing to do it, a random orbit of fame - do we give this much free publicity to any other world leader? This is so off balance. Whatever it is, do we want to be the publicity outlet for any administration in any government? — Maile (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's invite a comment from Sagecandor, the main author of those Trump book articles. I don't think he has any promotional intent. Trump fascination is so pervasive (no matter your political views) that the chronicle of his deeds and misdeeds eats up a large share of the "current events" newly-minted articles, and by consequence ends up at DYK more often than balance would dictate. Not sure we should do anything about it; DYK reflects the centers of interest of article creators; I see no harm in readers seeing this. In fact, actively skewing the natural stats would be biased. However, we still need to exercise judgment about articles being interesting and not mere WP:FART news. Still, see how far the covfefe fart has gone in notability… — JFG talk 05:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to JFG for having the courtesy to notify me of this discussion, which, unfortunately, others did not do. No, I have no promotional intent. I've written articles about books credited to Trump himself [6]. I've written articles about books critical of Trump [7]. Trump is the President of the United States. As such, he's going to be more popular and/or more notorious than he was in years past. This is only natural. He was already famous, now he is more famous. We can't stick our heads in the sand and ignore reality. Sagecandor (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@JFG and Sagecandor: My comments were not about your personal work, nor was it specifically about the books. As far as I know, you are not the nominator of all the referred to subject hooks of the last year. It has nothing to do with anybody's popularity, or lack thereof. My comments were about balance. Wikipedia is a global organization. — Maile (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
In that case, the comments are inaccurate. It is not "publicity to a world leader", as some of it is positive commentary, and some of it is negative criticism. It is a balanced reflection of the secondary source coverage. It is NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: regardless of whether this is NPOV, many of these hooks fail the "interesting" criterion. E.g. "Did you know that the book Time to Get Tough by Donald Trump was written with the assistance of editors from Breitbart News?" Our article on Breitbart News says that this is a far-right publication. A right-wing president writes a book with the assistance of a right-wing website editor? I don't see how that's main-page worthy. Daß Wölf 23:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
He was not right-wing at the time of the book's publication. Sagecandor (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about nominating multiple articles at once, but with some of the alt hooks dealing with only a single article and others dealing with multiple articles

Sorry for the long title. I want to nominate Star Wars Hotel and Disney Skyliner for DYK status. One of my proposed alt hooks include both articles in a single hook. However, there is also another pair of proposed hooks that I am thinking of, where each article has their own hook. So do I nominate these using one template (Template:Did you know nominations/Star Wars Hotel and Disney Skyliner) or two templates (.../Star Wars Hotel and .../Disney Skyliner)? What is the policy on that? epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There isn't any strict policy on template names, just as long as it makes it clear what the hook is about. For example Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Tunbridge Wells didn't even have Royal Tunbridge Wells as one of the bolded links. The Royal C (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
For a start, whatever name you choose, don't try changing the template name part way through the process because that apparently messes things up. If you call it "Star Wars Hotel" for example, it can include a single article or more than one, or a further article could be added later. No problem.
However, I think there is a more fundamental problem. If you had a single nomination with a two article hook, that would be fine, but if there was a single nomination and you wanted to end up with two, single article hooks, that might cause problems. If the hooks were to be included in two separate prep sets, the nomination would be archived after the first hook was promoted to prep. Two separate hooks in the same prep set might be OK, but we try to mix up the hooks to have a range of subjects in each set. It would probably be best to nominate the articles jointly with one hook, and the nomination could be split at a later date if that seemed best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Oh, OK. I'm only nominating one of these articles anyway, so right now it doesn't matter, but it's still helpful to know for the future, so thanks. epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding another article to a DYK hook that has already been approved

I want to also nominate 2017 New York City ePrix as part of Template:Did you know nominations/Brooklyn Street Circuit. The revision to the hook consists of bolding the link. However, the original article, Brooklyn Street Circuit, has already been approved.

I have done a QPQ that I can add to this new hook. Is it possible to change the hook at this time? I already pinged the nominator Giants2008 about this. epicgenius (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You should open the template and add the additional QPQ. If I understand what you did, ALT4 is the same as ALT3, except that you bolded the 2017 New York City ePrix link. The hook has already been approved. So, I made note of that on the nomination template, and added DYKmake and DYKnom templates for 2017 New York City ePrix so the bot will see it when it goes to the main page. — Maile (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
epicgenius, there has been a (required) review of the new article, and I've also added the other major contributors to it to the list of DYKmake templates. It looks like only a little bit more is needed to be done for the nomination to get a renewed tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 22 July 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 #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you struggling to find people to help you review DYKs?

Well, you've put me right off.

Template:Did you know nominations/Carlisle Best. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to dance on this project's grave, but +1 to the above view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that particular nomination is a gold standard demonstration of how to dissuade anyone from contributing. Best to leave it to the WikiCup people. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
"Best to leave it to the WikiCup people." Please explain what you mean. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As demonstrated, this is no longer a project to encourage new editors to expand material, it's simply a badge-winning exercise with a high percentage of editors who return for those badges. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Seemingly, an article in pidgin English would sail through and appear on Main page, to Wikipedia's detriment." Not seemingly, has happened. A few years ago a trio of writers and promoters included a geology article in sub-pidgin English. WikiCup time means a main page filled with badge winning articles to the detriment of quality. There are a handful I tagged for major problems years ago that have never been fixed. Once the race is done, and the crap is spun, the writers move on. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:90 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is now about two weeks old and due to be archived; here is an updated list of 35 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 200 nominations, of which 62 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the two oldest from May.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Only new articles?

Can a recently enlarged article be proposed? I think there is no big difference between a totally new entry or a totally new set of paragraphs in an old article. Plus, the core activity of improvement nowadays is also sourcing and improving what already exists, it should be given credit to that.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Alexmar983 Yeah, sure. Please see Eligibility criteria. Must be expanded within 7 days of the nomination. 5X expansion minimum for most articles. 2X expansion for previously unsourced BLPs. Or any article achieving GA status within 7 days of nomination, does not necessarily have to also be an expansion. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Back to one set a day?

It was as recently as July 7th, with the backlog of approved hooks at 154, that we moved to having two sets of hooks per day. Well, that backlog has disappeared and is now down to 30, with 4 queues and prep sets currently filled. I suggest it's time to return to a single set of hooks each day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I've reset it to 24 hours. Alex ShihTalk 17:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Alex Shih, please reset it to 12 hours, at least until the next set goes out in half an hour. Otherwise, with the promotions scheduled for noon UTC, the next set will go out at 12:00, and the bot will diligently work to get it back to midnight (00:00) UTC in 15 minute increments, which will take forever. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Maile, Casliber, IronGargoyle, or any other admin, to make the change back to 12 hours, and then, after 00:00 (or after the update), then move it to 24 hours. We really need to have any 24 hour update based on an 00:00 UTC schedule. The page that needs to be changed is User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates‎. (AlexShih hasn't edited since making the above change over six hours ago.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope I did that correctly. I just reverted the page back to what said 12 hours. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks great, Maile. The update just completed, so if you could revert back again to the 24 hours number, we'll be all set going forward. Someone has already loaded up Queue 3 with hooks for July 31, which assumes 24 hour updates between now and then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Did I do the right thing by loading two special occasion hooks for July 31 into Prep 3? Yoninah (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Yoninah. That's the correct prep set for that date now that we're back to 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @Maile66: Sorry was asleep. Many thanks! Alex ShihTalk 01:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to have updates every 16 hours (i.e., two thirds of a day)? The difference between once and twice a day is much larger than when we were switching between two and three, or even four per day. Alternatively, could we perhaps vary the number of hooks and nicely ask OTD to vary their number of items accordingly, since visual balance seems to be of importance? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
That seems needlessly complicated. I appreciate knowing when hooks need to be added to the queue. If we switched to a 16 hour update, that deadline would cycle throughout the day. Also, given the current situation, it sounds like we have a small enough backlog of approved hooks where a 16-hour cycle might still exhaust them (and there is little margin for error). IronGargoyle (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - no doubt things will go back to normal in September. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 - quirky hook became dull (Matt Luke (American football))

"... that 22 years after he walked-on at Ole Miss, Matt Luke became its head football coach?" Yoninah, Fitindia, Mackensen

So I have a few issues here:

  • I don't understand "walked-on at Ole Miss", I get there are links etc but this is in-universe jargonese at its worst.
  • He appeared to become the coach yet coached no games? At least there's a whole section (!) of the article dedicated to the fact he hasn't coached the team in any games yet. Bizarre.

This should either be sent to the "quirky hook" or something better should be established about this individual that might appeal to all English speakers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: There are lots of things I don't understand at DYK; generally I rectify that by clicking the link and reading further. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's the whole hook which passes me by, hence my suggestion it gets the quirky position in a set. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind moving it to a quirky. The hook made sense to me, but I would rephrase it as "was a walk-on" rather than "walked-on". Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"Walk-on" would still be meaningless to many non-US readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
It's meaningless to me, too, but it's linked. I moved it to the quirky. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 29 July 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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Promoter needed

Since both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on these nominations, we need another editor to promote them to prep:

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex Shih! Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - fifth tropical cyclone..........

that Typhoon Hattie was the fifth tropical cyclone to hit Japan in 1990? Yellow Evan, Cwmhiraeth, TheSandDoctor.

Is this somehow interesting to a broad audience? Is it unusual that it's called Hattie or that there were at least five tropical cyclones in Japan? Or is it simply the most mundane statement of fact? I suspect that if that's as good as it gets, this should be one of those hooks which fails simply because it isn't interesting and there's nothing more the article can do to help.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well in direct response, the latter - Hattie was the fifth of the then-record setting six to hit Japan. I don't have a problem tweaking the hook to make it clear, if necessary. I'd link to an article on Japense typhoons to help appeal to a broader audience, but unfortunately we don't have a good article on the history of Japan typhoons. BTW, is there a reason why I'm having 2 DYK hooks appear on the same day? In the past, they've usually be spaced out for the sake of diversity. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Definitely embellish the hook to make that clear, to the rest of us novices, that fifth is meaningless I'm afraid. Thanks for your timely repsonse. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I moved the hook to Prep 3. @Yellow Evan: please add something to the article about the six typhoons that year and I'll adjust the hook. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done, "Typhoon Page was the 28th spawned in the Pacific this year and the sixth to hit Japan, a single-year record, the Meteorological Agency said." is the quote from the article behind a paywall. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm updating the hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_140&oldid=1147942070"