Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 144

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

→

Archive 150

More haste, less speed

It may be a coincidence, but we're already seeing basic errors creeping in from hooks being promoted, etc, because of the change to two sets per day. Seriously, if people can't verify each hook properly, (and there have been some _fundamental_ issues in the last two or three days), we shouldn't increase the throughput. Sod the backlog, quality trumps junk, even in light of WiR and WikiCup. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I also note that four queues are being loaded at a time. We need only 2 queues for a 24-hour cycle. Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense to have three queues loaded because we don't always have admins stopping in every day to do promotions. Sticking with two queues doesn't always make sense, especially those times recently when we had filled all six preps and had only one or two queues loaded. However, we seem to have fallen behind: we had eight sets loaded between preps and queues when we went to two a day, and we're down to five full sets. We should aim to have preps available for scrutiny for at least 24 hours before going to queue, and even longer is useful, and I think four days worth of sets is a minimum level we should shoot for, though we need to check the hooks thoroughly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that each prep should have at least 24 hours of scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that too. For example, Gatoclass just moved a set to a queue three minutes after completing it. I tend to review "complete" sets (especially as they change so frequently once built), so this kind of behaviour is extremely disruptive to assessing the quality of hooks and articles about to head to the main page. Indeed, I've questioned one of the hooks in that set on this very page, but it was clearly unobserved before the set was promoted to a place where now pretty much none of us can do anything about it. And why? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Three minutes? Excuse me, but I just spent an hour verifying that set, including tossing two hooks for outstanding issues. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you start accusing people of being "disruptive". Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You completed the set and three minutes later made it impossible for most of us to edit it. That's a fact, and that was disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

So now I'm a miscreant for doing what administrators are expected to do, namely, move completed preps to the queue? Sorry, not buying today. Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. We generally don't build sets and then send them straight to queues. There's no point in creating the middle stage if you're going to do that. What's the mad rush? By the way, it's evident that the "admin" verification of these sets is currently not enough to ensure quality, so please, listen to others like Alex, who are requesting a 24 hour wait between completing a prep and moving it to a queue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The preps are not a "middle stage", they exist so that anybody can build a set. The queues are there to ensure that sets are not tampered with before going to the main page, and there is more than one to ensure that sets are promoted on time. There has never been a rule that sets must sit for a given time in prep before they are promoted to the queue, that would be an absurdity given the difficulty we already have finding administrators to promote to the queue in a timely manner. Sets are promoted to the queue when an administrator is available to do the job, it's as simple as that. The last thing we need on this project are yet more arcane rules discouraging participation by administrators or anybody else. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See above. Admin quality control is inadequate, and having to post requests here and post requests at ERRORS is not the best of way of doing things. You need to relax a little, there's basically zero evidence of "tampering", and people have created queues with minutes to go, or minutes gone, so there's really no need to be 36 hours ahead of the game. If we could rely on decent prep set verification, it wouldn't be a problem, but look above, queues are being promoted with multiple issues. You need to deal with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If I thought leaving sets unpromoted in prep for 24 hours would solve DYK's "multiple issues", maybe I would agree with it. However, it relies on the fantasy that there is an army of eagle-eyed quality controllers out there who just need a little more time to identify the issues. The reality is that a tiny number of mostly the same people do almost all the work around here, and almost nobody is doing any verification of sets after the prep builder anyway. So again, the last thing we need to be doing is adding more rules that will only have the effect of discouraging participation by the tiny handful of people who keep things running. Gatoclass (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I check every single hook when it's in prep, along with making some usual adjustments to the articles which are completely overlooked by admins etc. Leave the preps as preps, there's a clear problem with admin quality control here at the moment, the last thing we want is to have to keep posting error reports either here or at ERRORS. Just keep Queues with at least one in advance, and then leave it at that. Just from the reports of problems in a single queue above, we really don't want to have to keep mopping up. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We're not going to leave the queue with only one full set just for your convenience. If you want to make changes in the queue and can't be bothered asking other people to do it for you, get permission to edit templates, then you won't have to ask. Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Bonkers. This is for the convenience of Wikipedia and the readers. You weren't buying today, but it seems that didn't last long. Just leave the preps in situ for a bit to allow some proper quality control to take place before it becomes limited to the realm of the beloved and special few. They're not doing a good enough job, as evidenced by the comments on this page, since the rate increase. Do us all a favour and slow down. More haste, less speed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree in principle with Gatoclass that we should not be adding anymore rules; DYK at the current state is already discouraging, in my opinion, for editors to submit, for reviewers to review, and for admins to promote. Comments about best practices are helpful, but there is no need to impose opinions on others. Alex Shih (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What....? I agree that each prep should have at least 24 hours of scrutiny. Alex Shih (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again TRM, why not just get template permission? Then you can edit the sets anytime, anywhere, without having to ask anybody. That certainly seems to me like a more logical solution than insisting we promote only one queue at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, it doesn't work that way Gatoclass, I thought you already knew..... certainly not for the templates that are protected through cascade protection. That's why I have to sadly rely on the current status quo and feel obliged to review everything, hopefully before it becomes protected in a queue in a matter of minutes. It would be a lot simpler if things weren't just rushed through, as evidenced by the sudden decrease in quality in queues that we're now seeing. I could ignore it all and just post dozens of ERRORS per month I suppose, that way we'd get to close DYK sooner rather than later, but I was hoping we could be more practical than that. Apparently not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me clarify. I agreed/and still agree with 24 hours waiting time for preps, but as best practice. There is no need to impose this as a rule. Alex Shih (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, who mentioned rule? Gatoclass certainly railed against a rule, and you have now clarified you never intended to mean a rule, but did anyone actually suggest adding another rule to DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately TRM, we have a backlog, which means that throughput must be increased. But that should attract additional helpers - it's always done so in the past, indeed I for one have returned from sabbatical to assist, so I think things will even out. But I've run out of time to discuss this further today as I am about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We had a backlog about six weeks ago and we should have gradually incremented the number of hooks. But we didn't, and then we doubled the throughput and surprise, surprise, quality went to rat-shit. Reap what you sew etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, per your assertion Again TRM, why not just get template permission? Then you can edit the sets anytime, anywhere, without having to ask anybody, that's plainly false. Would you kindly retract it and offer a different solution? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Retracted, apologies for the error. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

See below

Quality is now way down on what it should be (and, to be fair, what it has been lately at DYK), all after this rush to two sets per day. PLEASE, admins slow down and stop promoting queues immediately after completely the sets. I registered half a dozen issues with a queue yesterday and nothing was done until I then had to list them all again at ERRORS. That's absolutely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again, a plea. Stop it. We're getting back to the bad old days of poor quality and crap hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Trivial facts as hooks (queue 5)

• ... that five Art UK listed paintings are held in the collection of the Historical Model Railway Society?

Template:Did you know nominations/Historical Model Railway Society @The Bushranger, Callanecc, and Yoninah:

Art UK lists all "paintings in public ownership in the United Kingdom" (approximately 210,000 of them, according to our article). Only a handful of public collections don't participate in it, the most important being the Royal Collection. But no institutions are excluded, and no paintings in thir collections are excluded either.

Being included is not an achievement, even the most worthless paintings are listed as long as they are in public ownership. What this hook in reality says is "The Sciety own 5 paintings". Which is utterly dull of course. None of the paintings (or their artists) are in any way remarkable. The fact should probably not even be included in the article, as it is utter trivia and not an important or noted aspect of the Society or its collection; but as a hook, it seems to be a sever case of WP:UNDUE, highlighting something as if it is special when it is in fact comletely trivial. Fram (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Scanning the article, the only thing that might make a remotely interesting hook could be derived from "One of its early members, and for some time its Vice-President, was the railway writer and artist C. Hamilton Ellis, whose 1962 book Model Railways 1838–1939 was said by The Times to have "led the way in charting the early history of this ... hobby".[4]" The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

An excellent demonstration of how to make a trivial fact interesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I substituted with a hook about the number of photos and drawings, which is quite impressive IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm always more than happy when someone can come up with a better hook than I can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - couple of things

Midair collision

... that the fuselage of the Yakovlev Yak-40 airliner involved in the 1976 Anapa mid-air collision was never recovered? PlanespotterA320, Cwmhiraeth, Feminist, PlanespotterA320

Isn't it more impactful that none of the 18 people onboard were recovered? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. An airliner is physically much larger than a person. feminist (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

But a midair collision is hardly likely to end with a fully intact fuselage in any case. Neither aircraft in this case were particularly large, and a collision at 17,000-odd feet which sheered the tails off both aircraft would mean that the impact with the sea would be utterly destructive. That bits of the aircraft weren't found isn't interesting. That all of the occupants of one of the aircraft were never found is. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's verifiable from the hook, so IMHO (as the checking editor) it should be able to be changed (perhaps to "the fuselage and none of the passengers"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but it's still not interesting that the fuselage wasn't found. What about the wings? What about the cockpit? But no people..... that's the real interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I did consider adding "occupants" to the hook but, is the source for the hook up to scratch? It looks to be from a diving site, not exactly impeccable. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but the same source references the existing hook, so it can either be pulled or modified. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Drivers trying to qualify

... that Wayne Jacks and Ben Hess were among the 86 drivers who attempted to qualify for the inaugural Brickyard 400? The Bushranger, Cwmhiraeth

Well since 86 people tried to qualify, these people didn't, and they are hardly known, how is this broadly interesting? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact they are hardly known is the point: it's making them known. Also I had, originally, hoped to make 1994 Brickyard 400 a GA for a threefer, but it turned out it wasn't as close as I'd thought it had. As, independently, neither Jacks or Hess had a "jumps out at me" individual hook, the shared attribute was the best choice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It isn't though. It might as well say "... that A and B were among the....". This is simply not at all interesting. This is an example of articles who have little or no real DYK value, and ought to be failed for not being of interest broadly, I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not a very good hook but it does at least have the virtue of getting rid of two ho-hum articles in the one hook. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not promoting that to the queue... surely y'all can find a more interesting hook than this. It's called a hook for a reason: to catch readers into the article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's a better hook than I gave credit for. It does after all end with a link to the inaugural Brickyard 400 which is surely an intrinsically interesting topic even if it is not a featured link. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that that link will get substantially more hits than the featured links - I'm tempted to look at it myself and my interest in car racing is minimal. Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Can we really not find a better stat or piece of any data to put into the hook though? The linked articles aren't where I see the problem, although I wasn't under the impression that hooks were supposed to draw readers to old articles. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We might be able to come up with marginally better hooks if the nominations were split into two separate hooks, but the topics themselves are pretty marginal - minor figures in the industry so far as I can see - so adding an extra hook would probably only double the disinterest factor. And we are after all trying to reduce the backlog. I'm prepared to go with consensus on this, but IMO we are unlikely to gain much by going to the trouble of splitting the nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

From Jacks' article: "...known for competing on a shoestring budget..." surely something can be made of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

From Hess' article: "...he sold a service station that he owned to raise money for his racing career..." surely something can be made of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Those both sound exponentially more interesting than the current hook, and would give both articles their own hook (we can keep one in this Prep and move the other to area 6). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As it happens, I already considered using those facts for a pair of alternative hooks, but as I said above, the subjects are not exactly rivetting regardless and we are supposed to be trying to reduce the backlog. However, if there's consensus for the proposed substitutions, I'm not going to stand in the way. Gatoclass (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to matter whether the subject is riveting, but at least we try to come up with hooks which are interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the source for the first proposed hook, it says Jacks, whose racing budget is a pittance compared to the $2- and $3-million efforts of top Craftsman Truck teams ... I'm not sure this exactly equates to "shoestring budget". Gatoclass (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, but I can't understand the sources for the original hook - is there somebody here who can explain them - The Bushranger? I can't see any mention of a "Brickyard 400" in the supplied source. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait - I think I figured out how to search for results in that source - I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That is considered "shoestring" by stock car racing standards - Jacks' budget was the sort where "if we finish good in this race, we can afford tires for the next". As for the source, I'm not 100% sure what the confusion is? Overall, unfortunatly, most of the sources about Jacks and Hess would be offline, as Hess' career ended just as the Internet took off, and most of Jacks' references would be on "RS, but barely" sites that are long since dead. The frustrating part is that with Hess, there is something that would be interesting (if, perhaps, raising grumbling about the "negative hooks about BLP subject", but...): he and his father were once indicted for bank fraud to finance their race team. The problem is that the indictiment got news...and that was it. I finally managed to find one court document that detailed his father's court case, but it made only passing mention of Ben and falls foul of WP:BLPPRIMARY anyway, so all I could do with that was pull my hair out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bushranger, they pled guilty. U.S. v. Hess, 982 F.2d 181, 182–83 (6th Cir. 1992) ("The criminal case involved allegations of bank and bankruptcy fraud against Homer Hess, Donald Georgeoff, Diane Georgeoff, and many others. In August 1991, Homer Hess and Donald Georgeoff pled guilty to various charges, and the charges against Diane Georgeoff were dismissed."); U.S. v. Hess, No. 91-00032, 1992 WL 322381 (6th Cir. 1992) ("Co-defendant Ben E. Hess pled guilty to Count 13 of the superseding indictment."). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Thank you! Unfortunatly, being transcripts of the court documents, they're probably still WP:BLPPRIMARY cases, but at least that mystery is no longer in my unsolved drawer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - congressional record

... that Barnet Nover's 1939 Washington Post article "British Surrender – a Munich for the Holy Land" was inserted into the congressional record by then US Senator Harry Truman? Feminist, Chetsford, Gulumeemee

Re-reading this, it became obvious to me that I have no idea what "congressional record" means, and it turns out it should be Congressional Record, so I suggest it's capitalised and linked, for the benefit of the readers outside the United States who have no idea what the significance of that hook really means. And why it's not Harry S. Truman, per just about every other article about him in recent history, I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There should probably a hyphen somewhere in "by then US Senator" too, but hey, with the problems we're seeing on the meat of the hooks, forget the tendons for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Chetsford (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. feminist (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - comments of a non-notable surveyor

... that when he saw the jagged peaks of the Black Buttes, surveyor Thomas Gerdine referred to them as "Sawtooth Rocks"? Ceranthor, Feminist, Yoninah

So Gerdine doesn't even have an article, so why would anyone be remotely interested in his opinion on what a set of jagged peaks looks like, especially when he made a truly basic comparison between "jagged peaks" and "sawtooth"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Could go for something "Black Buttes' amphitheater is partially occupied by Deming Glacier?". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. ceranthor 20:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Replaced. Hook verified from source in article. feminist (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dull, but it has no glaring inaccuracies. I'm not a geologist, though. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:91E6:99:606:5750 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - "IB Ridge"

... that in memory of Joginder Singh, a Param Vir Chakra recipient, the Indian Army built a monument at IB Ridge? Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Cwmhiraeth, Mifter

This might be interesting if someone could actually tell me what "IB Ridge" is, or its significance. It has no article. The target article mentions this factoid but once again provides no context or significance to "IB Ridge". Really, it's just not interesting in its current state I'm afraid to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

While macabre, I would have thought something relating to "The Chinese sent his ashes with full military honours to the battalion on 17 May 1963." would be far more interesting, considering the context of this individual's heroic actions and having killed a bunch of Chinese soldiers, the respect shown is incredible. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hi, IB Ridge is just name of a place. If doesn't look interesting I'm happy to propose the following hooks:

• ... that Joginder Singh, a Param Vir Chakra recipient, took part in World War II, First Kashmir War, and also Sino-Indian War?
• ... that the Chinese sent Joginder Singh's ashes with full military honours to his battalion on 17 May 1963, who is also a Param Vir Chakra recipient?

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• The second one is more interesting, but it'd need to be

• "...that the Chinese sent Param Vir Chakra recipient Joginder Singh's ashes with full military honours to his battalion on 17 May 1963?" (or you could just leave out "Param Vir Chakra recipient"). Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Replaced the original hook with the one proposed by Black Kite. Citation duplicated at the end of the sentence involved to comply with hook eligibility rules. feminist (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick and thorough review requested

I'd appreciate a quick and thorough review of Template:Did you know nominations/United States federal government shutdown of 1980, which also includes the article about the current shutdown. Quick, because of its timeliness and the fact that we don't know how long the current shutdown will last. Thorough, because the nomination requires some care due to the status of the 2018 article, and because the hook contradicts an apparent error contained in many current, otherwise reliable sources. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The current shutdown will last for ages. Don't be such a pessimist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have the feeling they're getting close to a resolution.  :-) Thanks Hawkeye7 for the very quick review. It's ready to be promoted. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - "first major political protest"

... that the Revolution on Granite was the first major political protest held in Kiev's Independence Square, and its methods were copied in the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan? Yulia Romero, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah

The source just says "The square acquired this reputation after hosting three rounds of mass political protests: in 1990, 2004–2005, and 2013–2014". It doesn't say it was the "first major political protest" held there at all. While it may be true, the referencing is inadequate and the hook should be pulled, there's no way it should have been passed and promoted to a set. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I helped the page creator write this hook. The citation on the first sentence in the lead (footnote 1) identifies the Revolution on Granite as the one occurring in 1990, adding "One can say that it was then, in October 1990, that the Maidan tradition of the modern history of Ukraine originated". Why the rush to pull? Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Why the rush to pull?" because prep sets are being sent to queues in minutes, and then there's literally nothing us mere editors can do. And ERRORS is bereft of attention. We should be fixing this clearly obvious errors at review' time, not at the moment they're just about to hit the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect, we have a whole Approved page full of hundreds of approved hooks that will sit for weeks waiting to be promoted. It takes a prep builder about an hour to sift through the ones that weren't adequately reviewed and find ones that were. Yet as soon as these hooks are promoted to prep, you seem to find problems with many of them. Perhaps you could start visiting the Approved page to identify the ones that have problems with sourcing before they're promoted? Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect, if the jobs of reviewer and promoter are done properly, none of this should need to happen. Now we've switched to two sets per day, quality has nose-dived and we're rushing mistakes and junk hooks to the main page. That needs to stop. I suggest we go back to one set per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this too obvious?

... that hardware-based encryption is when computer hardware is used to assist software, or sometimes replace software, in the process of data encryption? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - more common than thought

... that the Javan frogmouth may be more common than generally thought? Cwmhiraeth

Wow. Firstly this is probably true of thousands of species. It may also be true that many are less common than generally thought. Even the IUCN have it listed as of least concern. So this is really bottom-of-the-barrel stuff for hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought that you wouldn't like it, but the reason behind the statement is that this bird is unobtrusive, nocturnal and silent and therefore seldom observed. However, you are welcome to propose a more interesting hook if you wish. Do you prefer "... that the Javan frogmouth may be under-recorded?" Most people will not know what a frogmouth is so may click to find out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually liked the hook, it makes a nice change from all the hooks about endangered species. And certainly, I didn't know that some species may be "more common than generally thought", so I think it's both informative and interesting. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool: nobtrusive, nocturnal, and silent, I want to read about it!! "More common than thought." Zzzzz. The lamer the DYK book, the less interesting the article. This is a no-click hook. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:82 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think even one adjective would help. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:82 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There are trivially simple hooks that could be applied, perhaps along the lines of "frogmouth doesn't eat frogs" or "the Wikipedia frogmouth article doesn't explain why it's called a frogmouth". Even just a quick search on the IUCN site shows nearly 600 species as "under-recorded", and in fact, in this case that claim relates to a work published in 1999, so it's altogether possible that it's no longer the case, what with that being 19 years ago. All in all, the hook is dull, and questionable. It needs to be pulled and work done to come up with something that is genuinely interesting and pertinent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's lame. 1999? Whoever okayed this hook should not have for that reason. The article is dull as heck. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:91E6:99:606:5750 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The webpage from which the information was extracted was last updated in March 2017, so there is no reason to suppose the information is outdated. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the report stating it was under-recorded was made in 1999, and that has not been updated since. It still doesn't make the hook in any way interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The IUCN is reportedly the world's leading authority on these matters and if they are quoting a 1999 source, that is probably the most recent source available. Regardless, the hook says may be not "is". And I'm sorry you don't like the hook but it looks acceptable to me and IMO nobody has given a compelling reason to replace it, indeed nobody has even bothered proposing a viable alt, so I see no reason for further action. Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You see, and with not a trace of irony, you have underlined the reason this is junk, it “may be”, then again it “may not be”, if that’s the best hook we can muster from this article, we should just fail it as bit of interest, except to you alone, and move on. Two contributors have said it's a boring hook, the primary author knew it would be criticised too, so in fact it’s only you who really finds it interesting, seeems compelling enough reason to pull. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, it was proposed by one user, passed by a reviewer, then a set builder, and then an administrator, so that actually makes four people who think the hook is acceptable as opposed to you (a perennial DYK critic) and the IP. So on the contrary you are very much in the minority here. But again, I notice that you'd rather complain about the existing hook than propose an alternative, I'm certainly not going to waste time thinking up new hooks for your benefit when I find the existing hook acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there's no need to propose an alt hook (although I did mention the idea of one relating to the frogmouth not eating frogs some time ago), it can simply be removed. As for the review process, well we all know that's a joke, as evidenced by the total shambles on this page here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree the hook is rather banal, though readers may be attracted to the article anyway purely because of the name; couldn't a hook use the fact that it's not related to frogs, doesn't eat frogs, and isn't confined to Java? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that was my thought too, but apparently a statement that could be made about every animal species on planet earth is more interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fact is, hundreds if not thousands of animals turn out to be declining or rare when researched. It makes a refreshing change when the odd one is more common (and it is unusual). But overall yes, I agree that a better hook is needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not true of the dinosaurs, that was the first mistake they made... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Onto Canadian geology, Prep 5

"The La Loche Formation marked the beginning of the deposition of the Elk Point Group at the onset of a marine transgression over the Canadian Shield."

If the La Loche Formation is part of the Elk Point Group, why doesn't the Elk Point Group article mention the La Loche Formation?

--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest this article be removed from the prep area, until someone with a background in geology can read it.

If I linked a formation to a group, that formation would be on the group page. I went to the group because the group stratigraphy seemed off in the formation article. I didn't see the formation on that page, could not find any synonymy, but the stratigraphy in the formation article appears to be off from the group article, too. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The diagram on page 3 of this source appears to put La Loche in the Elk Point Group. The fact that it isn't listed in the Elk Point Group article proves nothing, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Gatoclass (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess what it proves is that DYK reviews are a cake-walk and no-one really does any genuine checking of facts, they just do the QPQ-required minimum. Sadly, 2600:... we have no solution for this, it's been a problem for years, and every time they launch a contest or a project or double the rate of hooks, this kind of thing is rushed through to the main page without real diligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm sure reviewers were checking these geology articles much more diligently before we went to two sets a day, because ... um ... oh, I can't think of a reason. Gatoclass (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say. We're getting more of these because of competitions or a run on topics from one particular editor. If you dare deny that we've seen a quality dip lately, then what hope remains?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

None at all. So you might as well quit now. Bye then. Gatoclass (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That remark is wholly uncalled for @Gatoclass:. This talk page is directly for the discussion of the quality of the articles we're promoting to the main page. And that's what's being discussed here. Yes, we have slowed down the rate of promotion, but that only makes the case for there being no reason to not properly check easy (geology time frames can be seen in literal charts on our site) facts for errors even stronger. Arguing that less than accurate info in our articles should be okay on our Main Page just seems a bit strange to me. I think what we should be discussing is how to ensure that promoters actually check for basic issues, and that if they feel that's too much work, then they can find other areas of the site to help out in. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's okay Coffee, I'm used to dealing with Gatoclass and the others who take a while to accept that my complaints are founded in the pursuit of excellence (not perfection) and the protection of the main page. It's a sad fact that I spend so much time on this very page pointing out issues that are overlooked by the shambolic DYK review process, now exacerbated by the doubling of the set preparation rate. It's clear that those reviewing, promoting and creating queues are not paying sufficient attention to some of the fundamental requirements of DYK, let alone considering that these items appear on the main page. I won't be quitting, much to the disappointment of Gatoclass etc, I'll redouble my efforts to focus on the many shortcomings of the process that allows garbage onto the main page. Just take a look at this talk page, how many threads relate to poor hooks, incorrect hooks, incorrect articles? All in the last couple of weeks. Of course, we can just pretend none of it exists, or we can do something about it. I know which camp I'm in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• @2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:A3: I have  Fixed the issue you identified, the table in Elk Point Group now reflects the existence of the formation along with the correct data and sourcing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say the formation isn't in the Elk Point Group; I said the information in the La Loche Formation article was confusing as to its stratigraphic position in the group, and when I went to check the Elk Point Group article the La Loche Formation isn't mentioned, and it appears that the information in the La Loche Formation article is wrong. If the La Loche Formation was mentioned in the Elk Point Group article, or if that article contained the synonymy, then I could have verified, quickly, from another Wikipedia article (yes, perilous unreliable source) and quickly edited the La Loche Formation article. I still think the sloppy writing merits giving the entire article a review before pushing it to the main page. I will look at Coffee's article, maybe. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:706B:67B8:A648:F19F (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Now the two articles are visibly in disagreement because of short cuts taking in reading and writing knowledge of stratigraphy. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:706B:67B8:A648:F19F (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Other peaks in Oregon, Cline Buttes

Please STOP promoting geological messes to the main page.

"The Cline Buttes are a volcanic structure created as part of John Day Formation during the early Miocene epoch, approximately six million years ago."

John Day Formation may be Early Miocene, but neither the John Day Formation nor the Early Miocene occurred 6 Mya.

If no one at DYK can read geology articles at a high school level, just stop promoting them.

Whoever wrote this mess should fix it, or I'll just delete the geology section. It's too painful to continue reading.

--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Who promoted this one to the prep area without catching this? I'm already chastising the writer of the article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cline Buttes should tell you everything you need to know. Reviewers and promoters tend to only worry about the DYK hook, rather than review the article for veracity. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The post above from 2600 refers to an error in the body of the article. We cannot possibly verify every fact in articles submitted to DYK, any more than can be done at GAN or FAC. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? I do usually check each sentence against the sources when accessible. Of course that only works for short DYKs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, when I do GA or FA reviews, I usually check every source, that's part of the point. But it's hardly ever done at DYK, there's a checklist which can be ticked off in minutes, for that QPQ reward. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's very commendable Jo-Jo, but it's not a requirement at DYK to check every fact, nor is it a requirement at GA, nor at FAC. When we identify nominators who are consistently nominating problematic articles, they can politely be shown the door, but we simply don't have the resources to thoroughly fact check every article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ironically it shouldn't be the nominator being shown the door, it should be the reviewer or the promoter who continually passes garbage to the main page who should be shown the door. Just take a glance up this page for a dozen examples over the past couple of weeks.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to check every fact or to be an expert. I'm asking for the most basic knowledge of the topic. If you are promoting geology articles to the main page, know rocks, minerals, geological ages, high school geology level, not even college. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea in principle, but the lure of a QPQ review is too much, people select items and do the checklist in minutes, and pass things which get close, if not onto, the main page, with errors in either the hook, the article or both. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wiki-teammates: I'm usually pretty careful about my facts. However, this oversight was clearly my fault. I think 6 Ma number came from earlier off-line draft that used source that said Cline Butte rhyolite came from Deschutes Formation. When I found more comprehensive source I changed text to read John Day Formation, but didn't change dates to match. My mistake! Thanks for correction article text! I’ve corrected infobox to match text.--Orygun (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ergo Sum: Care to explain how you missed this error when you gave this article the tick? Were you short on time or something? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Coffee: As has already been stated, it is not the job of DYK reviewers to ensure that every fact cited in the nominated articles are supported within the assigned sources, nor is that expectation realistic. DYK reviewers use a heuristic of, iter alia, making sure the hook is associated in the article with a reference that seems reliable. This is not a perfect system, but it's the best we have. Ergo Sum 21:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a perfect system, but it's the best we have. No, that's completely false. If DYK reviewers want to do the job properly, then review the article, don't just follow the checklist. Check for grammar, check for spelling, check for dead links, check for bare URLs, check for incorrect sourcing, etc etc etc. What is happening now is most 100% _not_ "the best we have". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Fram and The Rambling Man: (edit conflict) Apparently the new standard at DYK is that QPQs are just a minor formality and that reviewers are not required to even read the articles they are approving. This is extremely careless behavior IMO, but apparently just because our site isn't perfect errors are fine for articles the whole world can see. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, nobody said QPQs are a "minor formality", there is a long list of criteria that must be met, including checks for verifiability, neutrality, BLP and copyvio. What I said is that reviewers are not required to thoroughly fact check articles, we simply don't have the resources for that. But while you are reporting us to Fram for alleged negligence, perhaps you should also be blowing the whistle on ITN, OTD, GAN and FAC since fact checking of articles is not a requirement at any of those projects either. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: That comment was about what Ergo Sum said... not you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, not asking for fact checking. Again, if geology is such a foreign language to Wikipedia editors at DYK that they think the Early Miocene is 20 Mya, geology articles should not be put on the main page courtesy of DYK. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. I may not be able to dump alphabets at other editors, but I bet there is no rule saying if you don't know anything about geology, just throw down words, make things up. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:9F (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Cline Buttes looks to be a good effort and so we should thank Orygun for his work. It is not required to be perfect because we are not representing it as our best work; that's the FA slot. And while FAs are good, they are not perfect either. If 2600 and other grumblers want to achieve perfection then they have their work cut out for them. For example, note that our page on the Early Miocene is still quite poor, not having any sources at all. Andrew D. (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Noted, but how does that solve the current problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The Miocene article states that the Miocene Epoch "extends from about 23.03 to 5.333 million years ago", which doesn't correspond with the statement in the Cline Buttes article that they were formed "during the late Oligocene or early Miocene epoch, approximately twenty-five million years ago". It also might be worth checking with WT:GEOLOGY whether it should be Miocene epoch or Miocene Epoch. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's sad, but amusing to see how many DYK editors come by to scream that there are no rules for Wikipedia articles when it comes to DYK.

1. The hook must be cited.

2. There must be words.

It's an article!

Factually Accurate? Who cares. Completely made up? Okay for DYK. Wouldn't know science if gravity made you fall? Start writing.

It is simply not true that all Wikipedia rules are cast away for DYK. Wikipedia should stop allowing DYK articles to violate verifiability. If it's wrong, it's not verifiable and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Stop making up support for misinformation. What is going on! --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:5D (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - difference between speed and closing rate

... that project officer Molt Taylor believed the rocket-powered Gorgon missiles, such as the Gorgon IIIC (pictured), flew at too high a speed to be properly controlled by a human? The Bushranger, Cwmhiraeth, Dumelow

No, according to the article, the issue was the " closing rate of the missile with a target aircraft", not the overall speed. There's a big difference, especially depending on what you're trying to destroy. The closing rate will naturally be a lot less than the speed of the missile. The hook is incorrect and should not have been passed, or promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Not commenting on the hook accuracy, but noting that closing rate / closing speed (v_c) can also be a lot more than the speed of the missile (v_m) – it depends on whether the target is stationary (v_c = v_m), moving towards the missile (v_c > v_m), or moving away (v_c < v_m). EdChem (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair point on the physics, but nevertheless, "closing speed/rate" is not the same as "speed" of an object. Most targets for Gorgon were air-to-air, so the targets would be moving with significant speed from the missile, and usually that would be slower than the missile. I can explain why if needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted The Rambling Man, I must have falsely equated speed with closing rate when I reviewed this (perhaps I had in mind air-to-surface missiles instead). What I can read of the source from Google Books is "Molt Taylor fretted about the Gorgon's speed, control difficulties and the chase planes staying within sight of the missile ahead of them. He wondered about the limits to human direction of a missile capable of such velocities: "The entire operation is of such speed that the human mind is not capable of keeping up with the flight"", so I think actual overall speed is intended rather than closing rate. I think the fix is to change the article to refer to "speed" as per the hook. Hopefully Bushranger will be along shortly to clarify - Dumelow (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

TRM, I completely agree that closing rate and the speed of the missile are often different, and always in the case of a moving target. And yes, if a target is fleeing from an air-to-air missile then the closing rate will be (typically much) less than that of the missile. So yes, there is a problem with the hook, and it appears from Dumelow's post that it will be addressed. I was simply noting that your statement was flawed as I did not want an alternative proposed that asserted the closing speed must be lower than that of the missile, as that too would be incorrect. EdChem (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I was viewing it purely from my own experience, so thanks for the correction. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled this until the issues have been resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, EdChem, Gatoclass, and Dumelow: Having pulled myself out of Real Life...I suppose that is a good point, well spotted. I've changed the wording on Project Gorgon accordingly. Does this better fit the source and hook? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Having gone back and checked the sources provided in the original nomination, "closing speed" isn't mentioned anywhere, just "speed", indicating that the problem was not with the hook, but the article. So the elimination of the reference to "closing speed" in the article would seem to clear the way to return this nomination to prep, The Bushranger - although I think your reworded solution is overly verbose. Gatoclass (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I can get that way sometimes, especially late at night. My brain is still frazzled from a bad case of some form of gut-bomb that's been plaguing me most of the month; feel free to tweak if you think it's needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 - greatest footballing comeback?

... that Manchester City's 4–3 victory over Tottenham Hotspur in the 2003–04 FA Cup is regarded by many as one of the greatest comebacks in footballing history? Cwmhiraeth, The C of E, Falastur2

Yes, it was epic. But a completely unreferenced "match" section, a few cn's sprinkled around, some tone issues in that same "match" section (to whit: "a superb left-foot curling shot", "good start took a knock", "Keane controlled superbly and stroked the ball"........)... this isn't ready and should not have been passed/promoted. P.S. I also fixed three dabs, but no need to thank me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I guess the match itself could be considered the reference for what happened in it, in the same way as a book synopsis can be considered sourced to the book without referencing. But then, the superlatives would have to be eliminated as WP:OR. So I think this one will have to be pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, not all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's like saying World War II itself could be considered the reference for what happened in it. Patently untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hardly the same thing, but regardless, I have pulled the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done you. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

England, the world, what's the difference? Fram (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

English cups really.. "greatest cup comebacks of English footballing history" vs "footballing history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galobtter (talk • contribs) 17:11, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Overall it's an E minus then. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

More accurately, "FA Cup history", since that's what the sources actually say. Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2

• ... that the World's Fair subway line in New York City only operated for nineteen months during the 1939 New York World's Fair?
• @Kew Gardens 613: @Tdorante10: @Epicgenius:

Why is this hooky? Plenty of structures are built for Olympic villages and then dismantled. The same seems to apply here. This is a GA; could a better hook be found? Yoninah (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was hooky when I read it, it's not too often that rail lines are laid down only to be torn up a few months later, especially in a major city. I think we sometimes strive too hard for the outlandish in hooks - a hook that is just plain informative is often all that is required. Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the same fact could be more hooky if phrased differently. What about ALT1 ... that the World's Fair subway line, built for 1939 New York World's Fair, was closed three days before the closure of the Fair?ALT1a ... that the World's Fair subway line, built for 1939 New York World's Fair, was closed the day after the closure of the Fair? Alex Shih (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think ALT1 is better, though there's no source for the date of the closure of the World's Fair. The 1939 New York World's Fair article says it closed on October 27 (so the train stopped running the next day, not 3 days before). Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: That would have been a bigger issue. I was following the IND World's Fair Line article, but apparently the 1939 New York World's Fair page had two separate dates (October 27 and October 31) for the closure. October 27 is the correct date, and I've added a source, and altered the ALT1 accordingly. What do you think? Alex Shih (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I think your proposed hook sounds a bit better than what I originally proposed. The only thing is "closure" is repeated twice. How about ALT1b: epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

ALT1b: ... that the World's Fair subway line, built for 1939 New York World's Fair, was closed the day after the Fair ended?

@Epicgenius: I like your 1b proposal better. I'd say let's go with this. Alex Shih (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but what is hooky about that? You would only expect a specialty line to close after the event it serviced is ended. If nothing better can be found, we should just stick to the original hook, which in my opinion is perfectly acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Fair point, but wouldn't the same argument be used against the original hook? That you would only expect a specialty line to operate for the duration of the event. Alex Shih (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The unhookiness is at least partly due to including too much info.
ALT1c: ... that a subway line in New York City only operated for nineteen months?
MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

None of the above are hooky. I'd like to see the quote "extravagant and wasteful" being used in the hook, that gets juices flowing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And actually, the idea of doubling the fare, and implementing a cool turnstile system (per To enter the station, an additional 5-cent fare was charged on top of the standard nickel fare. Eighteen special turnstiles were used at the World's Fair station that permitted traffic flow in both directions and accepted two different fares depending on the direction of travel. Fairgoers disembarking from trains paid a nickel as they exited through the turnstiles while passengers entering the station from the fairgrounds paid a ten-cent fare upon passing through the turnstiles) is far more interesting than anything I've seen written above.

ALT2: ... charged twice the fare...

ALT3: ... included special turnstiles which accepted different fares...

ALT4: ... to the double fare employed to finance ... in 1940 ... was finally ended in 1975....

Come on people!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

How about:

• ... that a proposal to make the World's Fair subway line to the 1939 New York World's Fair permanent was rejected?

- That's the best I can do at short notice. Apologies for the failure to reply to other proposals above but I have to log off now. Gatoclass (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: That sounds good, especially with the fact that the 1964 World's Fair was hosted in the exact same spot. I'd like to also entertain The Rambling Man's proposal about turnstiles, too. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• ...that the World's Fair subway line employed special turnstiles to collect different fares based on whether a passenger was going to or from the 1939 New York World's Fair?

Considering the speed at which preps are being promoted to queues, I'm moving the hook back to the noms area for further discussion. Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a good move. I'd once again advocate something more innovative, like the fares or turnstiles, because train lines come and go all the time, that's not interesting. That fares were doubled to pay for it yet that doubling continued for decades after is interesting. That they paid different fees depending on which direction they went, that's interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How about:

• ...that passengers leaving the 1939 New York World's Fair via the World's Fair subway line were charged twice as much as passengers arriving by the same line?

- Similar to Yoninah's hook above but emphasizes that it was the passengers leaving who got slugged, which suggests a rip-off. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gatoclass. I've moved this whole discussion over to Template:Did you know nominations/IND World's Fair Line. Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 - James Robson's world cups

... that James Robson has been to six Rugby World Cups with the Scotland team and on six British and Irish Lions tours? Cwmhiraeth, Paul2520

The article seems to adequately source that he was at least appointed for his sixth Lions tour, (it would, of course, be preferable use a source that post-dated the event to demonstrate that not only was it announced that he would be going, but that, in fact, he actually did....) but I don't see anything referencing six World Cups. The article mentions World Cup once in the lead (from where the hook appears to be derived) and once in the main prose, but only mentioning the 1991 tournament. It would appear to be reasonably simple to solve, but once again, this is moments away from being loaded up into a protected queue. Seems like another series of pretty basic failings of the review and promotion process to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(Also pinging Drchriswilliams... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

I have added an extra reference to James Robson (doctor) which covers both hook facts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The ref that should have been there when it was reviewed and promoted? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man, the original citation [1] in the nomination says, "Six World Cups from 1991 and six Lions tours...", so I think this should have been cited in the lead (though the new reference looks good and is more recent). = paul2520 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it should have been. It's a pity these things weren't covered before it was promoted. They're usually easy fixes but, for example in this case, they're astonishingly easy to spot if reviewers and promoters are even just following the checklist... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Carolwood Pacific Railroad

Lines and prep (now queue) 2, an unhappy marriage? The replacement hook is "... that the Carolwood Pacific Railroad, a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard, included a tunnel underneath his wife Lillian's intended to plant a flower garden?" which reads rather weirdly near the end. Add "spot" or remove "to plant a" perhaps? Even then it isn't the most elegant hook, but it would at least be an improvement of sorts... Fram (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you added that comment to this thread, but I already addressed that issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Because this was, if I'm correct, the hook that replaced the World Fair subway hook? Because having a fourth section about the same set of 8 hooks would expose the quality problems of DYK a bit too much? Anyway, you changed it from a planned flower garden to an existing one with your change (and "I already addressed that issue" sounds like you did so before my post here, when in reality it happened 30 minutes later). TRM introduced that sentence part exactly to address this issue[2], so reverting to your own wrong version is not really "adressing" the issue, is it? Worse, you promoted the hook and moved it to queue, removing one layer of checks. If you then also start reverting corrections back to your own version not supported by the article... Fram (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A little touchy this morning aren't you? All I did was wonder out loud why you were tacking a comment about a new issue to an old thread about something else. I realized after posting that that you probably did so because the thread is named "Prep 2", but still, new issues are usually presented in their own thread. Anyhow, no biggie. In response to your question, no, this didn't actually replace the World Fair subway hook, I used it to replace the FA Cup hook that had been raised as an issue below. With regard to the timing of my edit, yes I made that edit about 20 minutes after you posted the above but did so before I actually saw your post. With regard to the change, I'd already checked the source before promoting the hook so I knew the tunnel actually went under the garden, the hook is not wrong it is accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo, but as Fram says, either we support the hook in the article or we don't. Have the DYK rules changed lately? Interesting that you'd rush a hook straight through the prep system into a protected queue too, when it would have been much more appropriate to take a hook from the next prep set which might have been properly reviewed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem, everybody makes mistakes. With regard to the hook, as I said, I'd already checked it to ensure it was accurate. And while the article itself doesn't exactly say in so many words that the tunnel went under the garden, I think it's clear from the context that it did. So I'm not seeing an issue there. But if you think the article needs rephrasing, feel free to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hook pulled. "A little touchy"? No, amazed that some people still think the basic DYK rules (about, e.g. the fact being in the article with a source that supports it) don't apply if they are the admin who promote the hook and move it immediately to a queue. "Disney's wife, Lillian Disney, objected to the plan that part of the layout be built in an area where she intended to plant a flower garden.[15] As a compromise, Disney had an S-curve tunnel built underneath the future spot for the garden." Fram (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pulling the hook was totally unnecessary Fram. With regard to the issue you raise, see my response to TRM above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"And while the article itself doesn't exactly say in so many words that the tunnel went under the garden, I think it's clear from the context that it did. " Two people apparently didn't believe it to be "clear from the context", but you reverted one and shrugged off the other. If changes to the hook are not allowed or contested, then pulling is the logical solution. Perhaps that's what you meant when you said "totally unnecessary"? Fram (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this kind of hook ownership and then protection is actually bordering on abuse of position. That hook was plucked from nowhere, we had no time to review it properly and yet it somehow made it to a protected queue in next to no time, despite the fact the admin doing all that knew there some doubt over its suitability. More haste less speed, I suggest we go to one set a day, just look, Prep 2 today needed 25% of it to be "fixed" after the set was ready to go. Omnishambles once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The hook was "plucked from nowhere"? Um, no, that wouldn't be the hook I promoted, which just happened to be identical to the hook originally proposed on the nominations page and passed by the reviewer.[3][4] The hook "plucked from nowhere" would actually be the one you decided to substitute at the last minute with no consultation whatever - managing to botch the grammar in the process.[5] However, again, no biggie, BRD and all that - and anyone can make a mistake. Just don't expect me or anyone else to take your thoroughly hypocritical accusations seriously.

Anyhow, mission accomplished today, you've managed to burn up another evening I could have spent doing something constructive around here. Just don't be surprised to see me ignoring any further comments, because I have much better things to do than spend my time dealing with baseless attacks from the usual quarter. Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"At the last minute" = 14 minutes after it was added to the prep area. Please explain how that would be "at the last minute" in any normal cycle of hook reviews? The only reason it was "at the last minute" in your view was because you gave the hook less than 1 hour in the prep area between the time you promoted it and you moved it to the queues. Please don't blame your problems on others with such flimsy arguments. "Just don't expect me or anyone else to take your thoroughly hypocritical accusations seriously" indeed. Fram (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Queueing completed updates isn't a "problem", it's what administrators are supposed to do. What I would describe as a "problem" is when administrators needlessly pull a hook from the queue when there is absolutely no valid reason for doing so. Also, you've had how many hours now to make a simple fix to the article in question to resolve your alleged issue, and still haven't bothered. Why not? Gatoclass (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the "problem" here is really with the way in which the transition to two sets has abjectly failed. Preps are being flung together, queues being promoted too quickly, errors getting almost to the main page if it weren't for reviewers like me and Fram giving a damn about quality. It's clear the DYK community cannot handle the throughput of 2 sets per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Hardly baseless. The stuff being promoted at the moment needs serious outside scrutiny, the standard QPQ review process is failing desperately – I don't blame you or the others for all these mistakes, the rush to get things to the main page could have been avoided months back but we waited until now to double the rate, and clearly the DYK community isn't ready or capable of dealing with that. Far too many issues, as noted on this very page. It speaks for itself. I'm absolutely and extremely happy for you to do something else and leave other admins here to deal with the mess, or even leave it to ERRORS to cast the spotlight once again on the serious lack of quality control coming from this neck of the woods. For what it's worth, I didn't set out to "burn up another evening" of yours. That's entirely, 100%, without doubt, on you. Cheers! P.S. Oh, why don't I just get "template editor" privileges?? Ummmmm...... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay Fram, The Rambling Man, I have edited the article to address the issue raised, please let me know if this addresses your concerns so I can return the hook to the queue, otherwise we are going to end up with a short update on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's okay by me, let's not go through the excruciating agony of arguing the toss next time, just fix things per the rules or pull for further work, and we'll all be happier. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but I probably still need the endorsement of Fram, otherwise I can see myself getting accused of "wheel warring" (though there is actually nothing critical about a queue page). Fram? Gatoclass (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I am the contributor of this DYK. I added the following new alternate hook to the Carolwood Pacific Railroad's DYK page: ... that the Carolwood Pacific Railroad was a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard?. It's a shortened version of the original hook, and I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:02, 26 January 2018 (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) 10:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Attention needed by an administrator @Gatoclass, Alex Shih, Casliber, and Mifter: or whoever. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I am on mobile now, can someone check if Main Page is balanced with just 7 hooks? Alex Shih (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This looks okay with 7 hooks, so I'll tag it for the bot as soon as I check the hooks. Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little late to get back here today, I was intending to add an extra hook to make a full set of eight, but since the page balance is about right I will let it go this time. Gatoclass (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - DigiDay

This article has as section of awards, many of which are unreferenced, and is now tagged for improvement. Cwmhiraeth, Feminist, BD2412, The Bushranger The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I just cut it out; all primary sourced so promotion really. Any important award with secondary reporting should go in reception or whatever - doesn't make sense to have what is essentially a "praise" section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That section seems to be added by an IP user. Now that this has been removed, I think this can continue. feminist (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, just the unreferenced paragraph in "Other projects" to deal with. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That was also added by the same IP user referenced above, who made a lot of poor editing choices, including separating out a single line into an unnecessary "Name" section, and adding other poorly referenced or unreferenced material. I think the best thing to do is to entirely go back to the version before those edits. bd2412 T 13:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure this would have been picked up before it was moved to a queue. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reverted back to the last good version. bd2412 T 13:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hook gets another go

Please see WP:ERRORS, not only do we have quality issues with numerous hooks (see above), but now it appears we're repeating hooks (Marie Grice Young) for no apparent reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears we had a relative newcomer add the nomination to prep[6] and forget to close the nominations page,[7] so that Yoninah loaded it into another queue the following day. I will give the user in question a reminder. Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe I did that. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Not hard at all to do when the nomination is still open! You would have had to look through every queue and prep to realize it had already been promoted Yoninah, indeed, the article may have already gone to the main page. This was somebody else's error, not yours. It's just something that happens from time to time. Gatoclass (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New black dress

... that Away was described by People as "the little black dress of luggage", due to its celebrity appeal? Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, TonyTheTiger

No, Away is the name of the company. The article in People does not describe the company as the new "little black dress", it describes one specific product, "The Carry-On". Not only is the hook completely incorrect, but there's no context for "little black dress" (e.g. little black dress), and this is actually borderline advertising. All-in-all, this is woeful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New World Trade Center

... that the new World Trade Center is still not complete? Cwmhiraeth, Epicgenius, Usernameunique

Um, so what? Many buildings or infrastructure projects are not complete years after they have been started. Looking at the nomination, ALT1 (at one time projected to be incomplete until 2037) is far more interesting. And, per our usual customers, I would imagine the vast majority of our English-speaking readers would know that the new WTC is incomplete. It's common knowledge. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I'd be happy with ALT1 as well. However, I found the current hook interesting, as it brings to mind One World Trade Center, which is complete; one might not immediately think of the rest of the complex. ALT1, by contrast, (or so my reasoning went) might just make someone think "but then they dealt with the construction delays, got back on track, and finished it up." --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so in a sense the hook is more misleading than hooky, because of course the "World Trade Center" is a complex, and not just a couple of big buildings. But nevertheless, there'll be some no doubt mega ceremony once it's all complete, and therefore it's not a surprise that we haven't seen the completion yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's misleading, maybe we can go with ALT1 instead. People know about the WTC and its not being complete, so adding the actual date might be hooky. epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say so. Suggesting that it would take nearly two generations to fix up WTC is really actually interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It is, considering World Trade Center (1973–2001) broke ground in 1966 and was completed in 1973. The fact that the new WTC would be completed in 36 years, longer than the amount of time the first WTC existed (28 years), is interesting. epicgenius (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Then that should be the hook! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is considered original research (28 years is calculated from the old WTC's article and is probably not in the new WTC's page). How about ALT3: epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

... that the new World Trade Center was once projected for completion in 36 years, longer than the original complex had existed?

Very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is it good if the hook fact doesn't appear in the article? Returning to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I added a note to the new WTC's article. The 28 years are per WP:CALC. If that doesn't work, we can just go with ALT1. epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2018 (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) 10:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair use image abuse

I had to direct someone to remove two illegally used fair use images from the Montreal school fire hook the other day. Now we've got another case, that of John Hunt, Baron Hunt of Fawley, slipped into Prep 5 at some point, which is illegally using the RCGP crest in the article. This has to stop. We cannot promote articles to the main page which are illegally using fair use images. And I don't want to hear the "well it's not the image in the nomination" nonsense. It doesn't matter. Check the images for correct usage, or leave the hook unpromoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did check all the images before promotion, but I didn't think carefully that this fair-use image didn't belong in this article. Thanks for catching it. Yoninah (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - The Three Garridebs

Surely this wasn't a film, but a TV programme? The article even states this (performed live from a teleplay for television). Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I added the "clarification" of it being a film because that's in the title of the article. Perhaps it needs to be moved and the hook reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that last comment before changing it to "program", per Black Kite's suggestion. I think "program" is okay, a program can be a film after all. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Richard Gibbons - needs a tweak

According to the source, his group wasn't banned as a "Seed of Rebellion", but a "possible Seed of Rebellion". The extra word is important. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)  Done Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - cocaine and guillotine

... that after contracting diphtheria, John Hunt was one of the last people in England to have his tonsils painted with cocaine and removed by guillotine? Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy

Great hook, but the source states "Hunt reckoned it must have been about the last time that this procedure was carried out in Great Britain" so the individual in question reckoned it must have been about the last time it happened in Great Britain? Hardly reliable and clearly no mention of England. Could maybe be rephrased that Hunt believed himself to be one of the last to have the procedure in Great Britain. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

yes, ok thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

*Prep 5 - World's Fair Subway Line

"... that passengers leaving the 1939 New York World's Fair via the World's Fair subway line were charged twice as much as passengers arriving by the same line?"

• Not what the article - or its source - says. It says this - "To enter the station, an additional 5-cent fare was charged on top of the standard nickel fare ... Fairgoers disembarking from trains paid a nickel as they exited through the turnstiles while passengers entering the station from the fairgrounds paid a ten-cent fare upon passing through the turnstiles". In other words, those arriving paid the standard 5c fare plus 5c as they arrived, whilst those leaving paid 10c - i.e. the same amount. The source ([8]) clearly says "a 10-cent fare to and from the exposition grounds" and even more clearly "Fair-bound passengers ... would have already paid 5-cent fares at other stations". Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How about switching it with this? epicgenius (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

    ... that passengers traveling to the 1939 New York World's Fair via the World's Fair subway line paid double the subway's standard fare to enter the fair, and paid another double fare upon re-entering the subway?

    • Or for brevity, "paid double the subway's standard fare on their journeys both to and from the fair"? Black Kite (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

      • Sure. epicgenius (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

        ... that passengers traveling to the 1939 New York World's Fair via the World's Fair subway line paid double the subway's standard fare on their journeys both to and from the fair?

I agree with Black Kite that the original hook wasn't entirely accurate, but Epicgenius' new hook is not really hooky. Should we take this back to the noms area to find a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How about:

• ... that passengers traveling to the 1939 New York World's Fair via the World's Fair subway line paid the standard five-cent fare to board, but had to pay the fare again on arrival? Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I like that better. More likely to get someone to read the article. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6

• ... that Galco's Soda Pop Stop in Los Angeles carries over 700 different hard-to-find sodas?

@Michael Barera: @Nomader:

Two citations are given for this hook fact. Footnote 1 says the store carries "well over 250 kinds of soda". Footnote 4 says it carries "more than 700 flavors of soda". I don't see "over 700 [kinds] of sodas" in the sourcing. Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the distinction? Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "kinds" refers to brands, whilst "flavours" may refer to numerous different flavours of the same brand (hence, higher number). It's a pretty vague distinction, though; I would say, for example, that orange-flavoured Brand X is a different drink from cherry-flavoured Brand X. Other sources this (yeah, Daily Mail, but run with it) says "700 varieties", this (NY Post) says "over 750 types". Incidentally, Galco's own website says "over 700 flavours" as well. I'd stick with it, or change it to "flavours of". Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail source was pulled from the page as non-RS. Neither of the current sources combines "hard-to-find" with "700 kinds". I'm also inclined to change it to:

ALT1: ... that Galco's Soda Pop Stop in Los Angeles carries more than 700 flavors of soda? Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that change, or changing it to the slightly simpler "over 700 different sodas". Michael Barera (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC).

"more than 700 different sodas". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done OK, changed. Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Stuart Mustow

Greetings, can someone more familiar than I with BLP best practices comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Stuart Mustow? It contains some article text supported by a self-published press and while the self-publisher may be reliable by themselves, I am not certain if it's OK under WP:BLPSPS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 - synth

... that New York City's Broadway Junction station sees 100,000 daily riders – more than 90% using it to transfer? Kew Gardens 613, Tdorante10, Epicgenius, Cwmhiraeth, Muboshgu.

This is a nice hook, but the issue I have is that the stats used to synthesise the "more than 90%" come from different times. The "9,189" comes from an average calculated through 2016, while the "100,000 daily riders" is based on a NYT piece written in late-November 2017 which states "Currently, about 100,000 riders pass through Broadway Junction". So in summary, this "more than 90%" is calculated from a 2016 figure divided by a late-2017 figure. It may be factually correct, but I don't think it proper to derive a numerical claim from measurements made at quite different times. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How about replacing "more than 90%" with "the vast majority"? That, at least, is supported by the NY Times. epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, or do MTA release figures for daily riders? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not until March. They release average weekday ridership, and weekend & holiday ridership, around March 20 of each year. The exception was last year when the data wasn't released until April. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well go for your slightly less precise description which is cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. (It's now in Prep 3). Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2018 (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) 11:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3

There seem to be some inconsistencies in the spelling of Pieter Brueghel the Younger between the article and the hook and picture caption. I originally had all as Peter Breughel the Younger but don't mind as long as we are consistent. Philafrenzy (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I referred to the Pieter Brueghel the Younger page, which says in the lead: before 1616 he signed his name as Brueghel and after 1616 as Breughel. Since this painting was produced in 1633, I used the latter spelling. Yoninah (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4 - spontaneous school combustion

... that after a bitter dispute over its curriculum in 1890, the High School of Montreal burned down? Moonraker, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth

Well, a couple of things. Firstly, this reads as if the school spontaneously combusted, which of course it didn't. It should be "was burned down". Secondly, on inspection of the article, it wasn't the school in toto, but one school building (on "Peel Street"). Thirdly it's using two fair use images which it shouldn't be. So all up, this is an F minus. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, on your first point, the hook is carefully worded. The source relied on makes it clear that arson was only suspected. What we are sure of is that it did burn down. There may be a difference of usage here, but where I am was burned down would mean someone did it, and to say was burned down is not supported by any of the sources. Fires do begin by accident and they didn't have forensic science in those days, even Sherlock Holmes was in his infancy. On your second point, the building contained the whole school, the boys ' and girls' divisions in separate wings. I'll check the images and take out any fair use ones. I wasn't aware of any. Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, there were indeed two fair use images, those of John Goodwin Lyman and Davidson Dunton, and I have taken them out. Moonraker (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I did consider adding "in a suspected case of arson" to the hook, given that one source effectively says arson was probable and the other says it was arson. However, maybe the sources I didn't look at say something else? Gatoclass (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Moonraker that "burned down" is more appropriate than "was burned down". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding what was burned down, the article states: " In 1878, to bring the boys' and girls' schools together under the same roof, came a new building on Metcalfe Street, but the Burnside Hall was not sold until 1883.[39][8] In 1890, the school's building on Peel Street burned down," (admittedly across two paragraphs). So my reading is directly contrary to what is claimed above, perhaps that's an omission from the article. (Also, please reduce the size of the lead, five paras is too much, even for featured articles...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The desire to read this hook as was burned down might stem from the way the sentence is constructed as temporal sequence - after event X, then event Y. Only deliberate human agency in the act of burning fulfills the sense of expectation, because event X is a purely human one. This might be the designed purpose of the hook - to create a tease that suggests, without being emphatic. Whether this is better than being explicit, I'm not sure. Adding "in a suspected case of arson", as per Gatoclass, would clear up ambiguity and therefore be more encyclopedic, though of course it lengthens the hook. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite so. And we need to resolve the other issue, it appears (to me at least) that it wasn't the "whole school" that was burned down (which is implied by the hook), just one building. Perhaps an important building, but nevertheless, per the current article, I don't believe it was the school in totality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the article says the bitter dispute took place in the 1880s (to whit: "There was a bitter dispute in the 1880s"), as opposed to the hook which clearly states that "that after a bitter dispute over its curriculum in 1890". This is getting worse by the second. Let's pull it and work on it before it further embarrasses the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the point that TRM is making about how the hook reads, but also recognise that "was burned down" carries an implication of intent. The solution I would suggest on that issue is to re-word to avoid both problems, as something like "... was destroyed by fire", which fits with both the possibilities of arson and accident. TRM's points on the timeline and whether it was the entire school that was destroyed or not need to be resolved before the hook goes to the main page, however. EdChem (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed the hook to:

• ... that after a bitter dispute in the 1880s over its curriculum, the High School of Montreal burned down in suspicious circumstances?

With regard to what exactly burned down, my reading of the sources indicates that the Peel Street campus was either the only or the main building of the school, and certainly, the source in question refers to the fire that destroyed the High School of Montreal which seems to support the hook well enough. Gatoclass (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Then the article is incorrect. I said once already, the article reads: "In 1878, to bring the boys' and girls' schools together under the same roof, came a new building on Metcalfe Street, but the Burnside Hall was not sold until 1883.[39][8] In 1890, the school's building on Peel Street burned down". (a) when did the whole school move from Metcalfe Street to Peel Street? (b) why would there need to be a clarification of which street's building burned down if there was only one? The source may be generalising; if the article is to be believed, the source is not quite correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I pulled the hook. Not that I think there's anything wrong with it, but I can see that leaving it there is just likely to waste everybody's time with more disagreement. It's going to be a lot easier just to pull it now IMO and deal with the issues free of time limits imposed by the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of time could have been saved if this had been pulled when all these issues were first brought up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the issue here is whether the Peel Street building was the "High School of Montreal" in its entirety, or whether it was just one campus of the school. I was unable to resolve the question myself because the relevant sources appear to be offline, meaning that the article creator will probably be needed to resolve this. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And for the avoidance of doubt, whether or not the "burned down"/"was burned down" is resolved, there were three issues with the hook and the article, and this made it all the way to one hour before main page. There's little benefit to keeping these discussions going here, in future it would be better to kick them from the queue as soon as it's apparent there's something that needs to be resolved, not at (literally) the eleventh hour. Could have saved a lot of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Moonraker please respond. Gatoclass (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, there was a real issue about the two non-free images, thank you to The Rambling Man for spotting that, and I fixed that within half an hour of his raising it. The original wording of "burned down" is supported by the source, but the solution of "was destroyed by fire" strikes me as even better. For 1890 there is nothing in any of the sources that says "the school had only one building at the time, and it was in Peel Street", but there is no evidence of the school having any other buildings either. However, the source that's relied on says this: "No one died in the fire that destroyed the High School of Montreal that day". I think that clears the point up. Moonraker (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the article said In 1878, to bring the boys' and girls' schools together under the same roof, came a new building on Metcalfe Street, but the Burnside Hall was not sold until 1883.[39][8] In 1890, the school's building on Peel Street burned down". in other words, either its incomplete and missing when the school in its entirety moved from Metcalfe Street to Peel Street, or the school comprised more than one building and, per the article, "the school's building on Peel Street burned down" (leaving the building on Metcalfe Street, where per the article, both boys and girls were hosted). If I were you, I'd find a hook that can be reliably sourced and which matches the content of the article precisely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I did a quick search for "High School of Montreal" & 1890, and quickly found this which says "In 1878, the school moved into a new building, not at the University St. location familiar to most Montrealers today, but on Peel St." So it appears the school had one building in 1890 on Peel St. This would indicate the school was in one location on Peel St. and the hook is correct - but the article is wrong when is says the school moved to a new building in 1878 on Metcalfe St. Then I found this which says "removed in 1878 to its new home under the Protestant Board of School Commissioners in a fine stone building between Peel and Metcalfe Streets." So I'm convinced this is just a matter of the building being referred to as both on "Peel St" and "Metcalfe St" because it probably spans the entire block. A few minutes of research could have cleared this up. MB 14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MB. One of the problems here is that the school occupied so many buildings at different times, most of them facing onto two streets, that even some apparently reliable sources get confused. But there is no problem if we focus on the relevant moment in time. The few minutes of research which would have cleared this up would have been to look at the source which is relied on, which is online and says plainly that "No one died in the fire that destroyed the High School of Montreal that day". Attempts to extrapolate something different from other sources which are not about 1890 or else not about the fire are just going to waste more of everyone's time. Moonraker (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow your line of argument. We're not wasting time, we're trying to get it right. From what MB has said, the article needed clarification. If reliable sources get "confused" then we shouldn't be "relying" on them for a DYK hook. You got the year wrong in the hook, you had issues with the prose in the article, you had fair use images that shouldn't be used, that wasted a lot of time, so I suggest you come up with a better, less controversial hook which can be sourced correctly and that we get someone else to review it. "A few minutes of research" is not what we need to impose on people verifying hooks that should have been reviewed, approved and promoted. The article was deficient, the hook was deficient. That wasted a lot more than a "few minutes". Moonraker, you go from saying the RS's are "confused" to being utterly convinced they're spot on. This is too much wastage. Find another hook that doesn't rely on all this research which isn't (or wasn't) in the original article when I looked at it. It's not up to people like me to do research on your hooks on your behalf to compensate for gaps in articles that you have nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, I'll make it easy for you. The article did (and as of now, still does) say this:

"In 1878, to bring the boys' and girls' schools together under the same roof, came a new building on Metcalfe Street, but the Burnside Hall was not sold until 1883.[39][8] In 1890, the school's building on Peel Street burned down"

Take off your "yes it's obvious from the sources that I'm reading" hats and read the logical sequitur of the article. Nowhere does it even previously mention anything about a building on Peel Street, let alone a fulsome quote to say the entire school had moved to Metcalfe Street. Or this now new information that "Peel Street" = "Metcalfe Street". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Moonraker please respond, surely this issue can't be too hard to deal with at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, this is water under the bridge, the Rambling Man took the conversation back to the nomination page, and it seems to be over now. Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Robin Turner

... that the footballer Robin Turner scored twice on his home debut for Swansea City, equalling the number of goals he scored for former club Ipswich Town in nine seasons? 97198, Number 57, Cwmhiraeth.

This needs to be checked. Other records (e.g. The Who's Who of Ipswich Town) indicate that Turner scored a couple of times in the league, a couple of times in the FA Cup, once in the League Cup, and once in another contest, all while at Ipswich. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, the article actually states "league goals", but the hook doesn't. Hence the problem. I guess the (very important) distinction wasn't clear to the reviewers/promoters. I've fixed it, this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man. An oversight on my part. Number 57 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Rafinha

" ... that in February 2013, the Brazilian footballer Rafinha received a salary hike of 566%?"

• This has a maintenance tag on it. But more to the point, pay rises like this aren't really anything unusual. To take the example of England, youth team players earn in the hundreds of pounds a week but if they sign a full contract that can rise to thousands, even tens of thousands a week in the Premiership. The same goes for players signed from lower league clubs (the average wage in League 2 is £800 a week, in the Premiership £32,000). Even a player moving from League 2 to the Championship could expect an average 650% hike in salary. The differences in other countries may be even more extreme, given that many lower leagues in Europe, for example, are not even professional. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  Agreed, I reviewed it earlier and ran out of time. The hike would be impressive if it was going from 50k to 300k a week, but this is trivial really. The likes of Dele Alli and Jamie Vardy both experienced such "hikes" yet to a substantially higher level than Rafinha. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  Plus, re-reading (the sentence I had to correct), His contract termination fee was set at $130 million for foreign clubs and $23 million for Brazilian clubs. He also thanked Zico, saying that he was grateful to him not only as a player but also as a person.[3] Rafinha's salary was increased from $3,000 to $20,000,[4] a salary hike of 566%.[5], so his termination fee was set at $130 MILLION, yet his salary was set at $20 THOUSAND? This is simply bonkers and can't be realistic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Incidentally, his salary rose from R$3,000 (£660) to R$20,000 (£4,400) per month. About the same as an English League 1 player. (That means his termination fee was about £26m - so the article is completely wrong because it's using dollars, not reals (R$). I'll fix that now). This needs to be pulled, though. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Unacceptable source for hook in prep 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Abu Jinapor @Crosstemplejay, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah:

• ... that when Samuel Jinapor was appointed deputy Chief of Staff to the President of Ghana, some felt his family's closeness to the opposition party would compromise Jinapor's loyalty to his party?

This is sourced to this [9]. This source seems to me to be totally unacceptable in a BLP as it is not simply negative, but filled with (seemingly politically motivated) vicious attacks like "the big question is that, what possibly will these two brothers be discussing? Who owns the car they are driving and what means was the car acquired? Can it also be accepted that, Samuel Abu Jinapor is aiding and abetting crime as they (NPP) always accuse NDC of corruption? Could it be part of the corrupt money his brother John, used to acquire the car they are riding?" Using such a source in the article is already unacceptable; using it as the source to base a DYK hook on is out of the question. Unless there is a much better, more neutrally worded source to support the hook, it should be pulled. The article should be closely read to remove all similar sources, and statements based on such sources. Fram (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Pull it. Some of the promoters have gone off-wiki (or at least off-DYK) temporarily, so it's left to people like you and me to try to maintain quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Pulled from Prep 3 and nomination reopened. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

postmarketOS QPQ review

I feel like this is a hard fail, however, out of a preponderance of caution it would be appreciated if someone else might take a glance at it? Chetsford (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be worth testing the subject's notability at AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've failed the DYK nomination and have nominated it for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Paul Y. Hammond

Cwmhiraeth, Wasted Time R, Lionelt. Paul Y. Hammond has a list of works, around half of which aren't mentioned in the main body and are unreferenced. I imagine these must have been added after the review/promotion. I would recommend the addition of ISBNs to resolve this if someone can find them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Several of these books pre-date ISBNs. And the metadata of common publication sites is often misleading – for example Organizing for Defense: The American Military Establishment in the 20th Century was originally published in 1961, but WorldCat lists it as its 1977 reprint and Amazon and Google Books both list it as its 2015 reprint. But if you actually look inside at the copyright page, it's still the 1961 edition and that's the biographically meaningful date. Anyone who's worked with old-enough academic volumes is familiar with the metadata problem. So there's no way I can cite these publications with accurate ISBNs or the kind of url-based citations you want. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Ollagüe

• ... that the steam plume of Ollagüe can be seen (pictured) from large distances?

• A few issues here. On the one hand, in the image there is a plume on the left hand summit, but that looks like smoke. So a steam plume isn't "pictured" (Ollagüe is, but that's not what the caption implies). A DYK image should actually show what we're reading about. Also, "large distances" is too vague. 10 miles? 50 miles? 500 miles? Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Edit: the phrase "steam plume" is not mentioned in the target article. The source says "fumarolic clouds", which are a lot more than H2O. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Black Kite: Please see the above discussion over at #Prep 3 - Ollagüe's plume. An alternate hook has already been proposed there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. Will comment above. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was moving this hook to Prep 5 and missed this conversation. I fixed the caption to indicate the left side. The target article says fumarole, which was simplified to "steam plume"; I piped a link. Yoninah (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Moving section from above to here, to keep everything together:
• ... that the steam plume of Ollagüe can be seen (pictured) from large distances? Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:7&6=thirteen, Narutolovehinata5

This is pretty much meaningless. And not really hooky at all. Father Ted's cow size sketch springs to mind. What about something like:

... that Ollagüe has a vigorous fumarole that is visible from tens of kilometres? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That's better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Can the image caption be made clearer as well? There clearly isn't any sort of plume coming from the right-hand peak. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the caption. I don't see anything about "tens of kilometers" in the article. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The "tens of kilometers" was used in the nomination. It's an extant ref that just needs bringing out in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Brought it out in the article, as "over 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) away". The right/left thing was just an error on my part. I did use "steam plume" because that's what fumaroles usually are and look like, while "fumarole" is a technical term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'll replace the hook in the prep set. Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shanique Speight

Greetings, I am wondering if the hook proposed in Template:Did you know nominations/Shanique Speight is overly political. The article is about a lawmaker in New Jersey but the hook appears to be more focused on Cory Booker's political actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The use of "improper" in the hook seems to imply malicious intent, which isn't really reflected in the source. Perhaps that's just my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no definition of "improper" that says that the word means a deliberate action in violation of known rules, they all say something like not in accordance with accepted rules or standards. Nowhere is "malicious intent" implied, inferred or insinuated. The mention of Booker is merely intended to make the hook more interesting. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Yanmen Pass

Cwmhiraeth, LlywelynII, Constantine. Yanmen Pass has a maintenance tag for a fully unreferenced section. I'm sure it wasn't there when it was reviewed, passed and promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it was not there when I promoted the article, nor when it was nominated or reviewed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3

The word "closeup" needn't be in the caption. And Persoonia elliptica should be italicized. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also in Queue 3, the Persoonia saccata credits need |subpage=Persoonia elliptica. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This was not done in time, so I manually fixed the {{DYK talk}} on the article's talk page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mandarax. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestiong new hooks while reviewing articles

I have been wondering a bit what is the correct procedure when you want a slight change in a proposed hook. Now, for instance, I would suggest that one word in a hook is left out, just because I think it is superfluous. Should I make a new hook proposal myself, encourage the nominator to make a new one or could I just strike one word in the hook myself? Iselilja (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Just do it yourself if it's non-controversial. It'd be nice to let the nominator know, of course. But be quick, once it gets hurried through to a queue, only admins will be able to do any modifications, and if you raise issues too late, you may be subject to the Gatoclass clause. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Back to one set per day

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.

---

Okay, as evident from this talkpage, we need to reduce back to one set a day. The backlog is somewhat diminished, but more importantly, the numbers of errors creeping into preps (and even queues!) is on the rise, and we need to stop it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If we do go back to one set a day—and we're currently very anemic in the queue and prep department, with only 16 promoted hooks—make sure that the set starts running at 00:00, not 12:00. Also, there's a hook about What a Beautiful Name that needs to run on January 28; it's currently in Prep 4, but may have to moved to an earlier set if the changeover happens before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support going back to 24 hours. Pretty sure I said that going to 12 hours always causes quality problems, but consensus was still to do it. 24 hour hooks means fewer hooks to promote and so people aren't so rushed building preps and queues, so fewer errors. Joseph2302 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There are still 220 approved hooks so I think it is too early to return to one set per day. What there is though is a dearth of promoters, so please consider taking on this task. You don't have to do a complete set, even promoting one or two hooks is useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There are actually 118 approved hooks. 220 is the number of total hooks. -Zanhe (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no justification for going back to 24 hours, DYK has been running very reliably and we still have a substantial backlog to deal with. We can probably revisit this issue in a week or so, depending on how the backlog is standing. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Complete justification for going back to one set per day. This has nothing to do with backlog but the plummet in quality, as evidenced on this page. Too many mistakes are being made. Far too many. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no "plummet in quality", the rate of errors making it to the main page has been pretty much the same as it was before. We've had only one hook pulled from the main page in the 2 1/2 weeks since we went to a 12-hour cycle, and that was only for a hook appearing a second time due to an error by a newcomer to prep building (see thread below). I think we've actually been doing a pretty darned good job over the last two weeks, with lots of hook improvements for example that we normally wouldn't be getting when there are fewer users participating. So I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no reason for returning to a 24-hour cycle - if anything, arguably the opposite, I wish DYK could have this level of participation all the time! Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you missed the point. The reason the pulls aren't happening at the main page is mainly because I'm reviewing every hook after it's been accepted and promoted into a prep set. If I'm lucky I have time to do something about the many issues before you turn them into a queue. The number of mistakes being made by reviewers and promoters has gone through the roof. If this last line of reviewing defence disappears, we'd expect around one error per set to be reported at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Who cares what the engine room looks like? It's the quality of the end product that matters, and that if anything has gone up because of the many hook improvements we've been seeing. The only current problem we have is the backlog, and the 12-hour cycle is steadily reducing that. Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. Reviewers and promoters are _not_ doing the jobs properly. The process is broken. Reviewers and promoters should not be passing and promoting articles and hooks which are erroneous or problematic. I think I'll take some time out and just start reporting the errors once they get to the main page, that should underline the point you're missing, and I won't have to race against you promoting hooks and protecting them without time to fix them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In short, disruption to make a WP:POINT - your specialty at DYK, though I never thought to see you openly declaring yourself. Well, go ahead and do that. I will see you at WP:ARBCOM. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What a baseless argument. I'm a volunteer. If I can't keep up with the sheer volume of errors going to queues because you refuse (as you have done) to allow enough time for them to reviewed properly, it's you that will end up at Arbcom, not me. Your plaintive cry about having your evening wrecked can apply to more than just you - with one set a day, I could review them in less than half an hour and all was good, usually. Two sets a day is more like two hours, especially with all the feeble hooks, errors and other problems that have been sanctioned by the review and promotion process. I actually write articles and lists here, but seldom have time thanks to the tacit acceptance of the shoddy implementation of the DYK review process. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well then, I guess we'll see how the "didn't have time to alert about errors before they hit the main page" argument holds up at ARBCOM, won't we? Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think we both know your case would be laughed out of court, you'd be trouted and advised to take such arguments to a plethora of other venues, and possibly worse for you personally. In any case, and as you well know, it's 100% down to me what I prioritise in my editing, and since you've made it clear that, according to you, there's nothing wrong with the DYK process at all, there should be no risk with me only now looking at DYK once it's updated on the main page, should there? You've only got to look at the reports on this page to see that everything's going to be just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Off you go then. I'm sure your good friends at ARBCOM can be relied upon to see things your way. Gatoclass (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, pardon? Off "I" go? "good friends at ARBCOM"?? I think you're mixed up a little. You're the one bandying around completely baseless threats. I'm the one under the crosshairs. I have precisely zero fear of anything you could possibly achieve. In fact, this chasing me away from what now appears to be essential quality control at DYK may actually work against you somehow, not exactly the behaviour of an admin now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to "chase you away", I have no objection to you continuing to point out errors or improvements at this page, as I indicated above. What I said is that I would consider a move to delay your error checking until sets reach the main page as deliberately disruptive, and would take action accordingly. Maybe you are correct that such a case would be "laughed out of court" - I long ago gave up trying to predict the outcome of dispute resolution processes - but I have to call it as I see it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

All anyone has to do is to read through your responses to me on this page to make their own minds up. Deciding to de-prioritise reviewing DYK hooks and reporting errors at ERRORS is in no way disruptive, so I guess you'd better find some policy or guideline or something you can point at me for volunteering my time in a different order. I look forward to it. And if you're so confident, let's see you launch that case. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree with TRM that the process is moving much too fast right now. If I don't check in every few hours, whole sets are being moved into the queue with overlinking and formatting problems. Moreover, most of the time I spend building a prep set is spent sending nominations back for re-review because they weren't done properly. The QPQ process is not being taken seriously by many reviewers, and most hooks on the Approved page are not hooky at all. I don't know much about calculating burn rates, but if we promote one set every 24 hours we will eventually get through it. Yoninah (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So how did we end up with a backlog in the first place? Obviously, because more than eight hooks per day are being nominated - right now, a lot more. If we don't reduce the backlog sufficiently now, it will just mean that we will be obliged to return to the 12-hour cycle again much more quickly. We should not be constantly yo-yoing our readership between 12 and 24-hour updates, if we stick to the 12-hour cycle for another week or so, we can have a much longer period of the 24-hour cycle afterwards. If we stop now, we are just going to be back to 12 hours that much more quickly.

With regard to sloppy reviews, that has been a systemic problem at DYK and it needs to be addressed, but it has nothing to do with the backlog, they are separate issues. People are not rushing through their reviews any more than they were before just because there is a 12-hour cycle, there is no connection between the two. Yes we do need to address the systemic issue, but it will be much better to look at that after we have reduced the backlog and are back to a 24-hour cycle, when we will have more time to deal with such issues. Gatoclass (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The volume of sloppy reviews, bad hooks, problematic articles, and errors in general is directly related with doubling the rate. It's simple. So halve the rate. There's no deadline. I look forward to yet another pointless trip to Arbcom, and see fish and chips for tea! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass the backlog is a mirage. As I tried to say above, many hooks are simply not ready for the main page. If you want, I'll stop building prep sets and start doing second reviews on all the "approved" hooks so they can be ready for promotion. And I won't be afraid to fail nominations that have been lying around for weeks, creating your "backlog". Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, you know that as a DYK stalwart I very much respect your opinion, but what do you mean, the backlog is a mirage? There are more than eight hooks being nominated every day, if we return to a 24 hour cycle, we're just going to be back to 300 hooks again before long, and we'll have to do this all over again. Worse, if there's no determination to tackle the backlog at all and just stay forever on a 24 hour cycle, which is what some folks apparently want, this project will be unmanageable in six months, it's going to simply collapse of its own weight. I put up my hand to help out when we went to 12-hour cycles, and since we did, I have been verifying at least one set every day and moving it to the queue, and there have been almost no issues with the sets I have promoted, so where exactly is this supposed hurry occurring? It's not in the queue, since I am doing one set every day which means the other admins have no greater workload than they did before, and it's not with the reviewers, who are not at all affected by the cycle, because they can take however long they want to complete a review. The only place where there is increased activity is in set building, where two sets per day have to be built instead of one, and I know that is more work for you and Cwmhiraeth, but it really only means you need to build one set per day apiece rather than one set every other day - and I can't imagine you skimping on checks just because of that.

Now, maybe more people should be putting up their hand to help you guys out - far too much has been left to you two in recent times - but nonetheless, I don't see how the 12-hour cycle could possibly be impacting the quality of reviewing in any part of the process, as I've outlined above. If reviews are getting worse, then I think that has to be an isolated issue, unconnected to the 12-hour cycle. So it seems to me that going back to a 24 hour cycle is not going to improve the reviewing one iota, it will just add the additional problem of the backlog, and if the backlog isn't tackled periodically, the DYK process will simply collapse. Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No, reviewers and promoters who continually fail to meet the expected standards need to be asked to stop, or made to stop. I suppose you think it's just a coincidence that problems have risen exponentially since we went to two sets per day? Just look at this page. It's awash with problems that should have been picked up before promotion. You need to slow down, DYK needs to slow down, who cares about the backlog until we resolve the root of the issue? Ignoring it is just another case of missing the point, and not something I'd expect from an admin. Send me a link to the Arbcom case once you start it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but you neglected to mention that almost all the threads have been started by one person, namely, you. So has the number of problems really increased, or is it simply that you decided to radically increase your level of scrutiny in order to prove your point that DYK "can't handle two sets a day"? Because to be perfectly frank, I'm pretty confident that if I put my mind to it, I too could find a plethora of issues with which to clog up this page - regardless of the cycle period. I've always found plenty of issues when reviewing hooks and sets, I just choose not to make a song-and-dance of every issue I find. Gatoclass (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "neglect to mention" anything. I apply the same level of scrutiny to every page I review. Why wouldn't I? Or do you have a comment to make about that? Nothing has radically changed except the quality of promotion, the quality of review, the quality of items being accepted for queues. DYK can't handle two sets a day, that's obvious. Yet again you choose to insult me, yet again I'd urge you strongly now to start the Arbcom case you've threatened me with so we can discuss this with a wider audience analysing your approach, your tone, your accusations, your insinuations. I care about main page quality. That's all. Check my contributions if you dare. I'm here with nothing back the encylopedia and our readers in mind. Let's go to Arbcom, see how they deal with your approach. After you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, I see I neglected to address your offer to simply fail nominations that have been around too long. That might indeed eliminate the backlog - though I think you are going to have to fail a lot of hooks. But I am struggling to see how that is going to improve the quality of existing reviews. It also strikes me as a rather arbitrary process, and one which would probably need a considerable amount of planning. I'm really not at all keen to take on such a discussion when I am already spending an hour a day or more reviewing one or more sets (not to mention the other distractions one has to deal with on this talk page). Gatoclass (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Funny, then I'm spending an hour or more a day re-reviewing them all. The process is broken. Pushing more and more hooks through is not the solution. We should stop it right now and get back to a manageable scenario, and sod the backlog until the root cause of the poor reviews and poor promotions can be fixed or excised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: it does seem that you, TRM, and I are all spending hours checking prep sets. And even so, errors are popping up in every single prep set. I would say something is "broken" here. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, Yoninah, has the number of issues really increased, or is it just that we are all scrutinizing the sets more carefully because we went to the 12-hour cycle? Because I have to tell you that the number of errors I am finding is roughly consistent with the number of errors I have always found at DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"It is BROKEN, It is OBSOLETE, DELETE DELETE DELETE!" _{(See Broken Matt for context).} On the contrary, it is not broken. It is a situation where we should not be arbitrary with the 2x24 but more conciliatory and remind reviewers to be careful about what they pass and also to nominators that we are mindful of what passes and thus they should check what they propose. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. GatoClass (and others) seem to believe there's nothing wrong with the current system of massive triage after review and promotion. What's the point of a two-stage review/promotion process, followed by a "queue" process, if so many errors are making it all the way? Reviewers and promoters aren't changing for the positive, and a "gentle reminder" is not what is needed. SLOW DOWN, THERE IS NO RUSH, even if the WikiCup is now up and running. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, so what's the first thing you do? SLOW IT DOWN. Or, alternatively, threaten one of the core reviewers with a trip to Arbcom after making it clear they're no longer welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: I'm not able to compare the error rate to times past. Perhaps you're right. But the speed at which things are being moved up into the queue does make it difficult for editors to check and fix the errors themselves. Perhaps that's why we're seeing so many error reports here. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, apparently, it's because one single editor is making a "song and dance" out of everything. Talk about WP:ABF. From an admin. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't consciously set out to prove a point, but I do find it hard to believe that suddenly, the minute we go to a 12-hour cycle, the number of issues has jumped exponentially overnight. It seems much more likely to me that the issue is one of increased scrutiny - by all of us. It may be that I'm wrong - certainly, I'm paying attention when Yoninah says she thinks there is an issue - but the whole thing just seems a little too coincidental to me. Gatoclass (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what you suddenly think about my reviews (which I've been conducting for some years now). You are assuming bad faith and you are not acting as an admin should. And I'm still waiting for my link to the Arbcom case. Either step up or step away. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass just to keep you in the picture, DYK has now moved to my lowest priority daily monitoring, I will be working on OTD first, FLC second, my content creation third, and if I have time, DYK. That means, by the very nature of the time available to me, that I will post everything I find to ERRORS unless it's in a prep. Feel free, now, to take me to Arbcom. If you don't wish to do that, please don't bother making absurd and baseless threats which don't hold water in any policy or guideline, your threats have driven me away, way to go on that, "admin". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I think we're missing a point here. We're finding issues with hooks. Without analyzing the motives of anyone involved, it's fair to say those issues shouldn't exist. The 12 hour cycle is putting pressure on the promoters, definitely. But here's the thing; it doesn't increase the pressure on the original reviewers at all. They are not working towards a deadline. And they are supposed to be doing it all, really; the promoters are supposed to check things, and ideally shouldn't have to deal with any article issues. So, how do we fix issues with the original reviews? The speed of the main-page cycle doesn't affect them. Vanamonde (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass that there is not an increase in errors since the schedule changed to twelve hourly. Many of the things that TRM calls errors are not anything of the sort. Often they are minor infringements of DYK rules, non-issues like "spontaneous school combustion", "citation needed" issues where TRM has tagged the article, or criticisms of hooks as being uninteresting. I don't see any major substantive error mentioned on this page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid there's been a massive hike in errors from reviewers and promoters. Just look at this page. Attempting to claim that actual errors in articles and hooks are "non-issues" is perhaps part of the problem. To completely ignore the vast swath of issues and hooks pulled on this page over the last couple of weeks is a clear indicator as to why things are getting worse and worse, not better. For so many "non-issues", we've had a vast number of hooks pulled after being "promoted", haven't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

TRM: Just a question. I saw you recently nominated Ingvar Kamprad for the frontpage where it now is. Do you believe the Kamprad article is error free? I was lightly editing it before you nominated it, and I had concern about the quality, not least the net worth/"charity" foundation section which frankly is a mess and looking into the underlying sources I could see it should have been written differently, but didn't try to fix it because his financial arrangement was so complicated, it would be impossible for me to write it in a way that I would feel assure was 100% correct. And isn't this how Wikipedia is: Based on the sources we rely on, and the time and competence we have, we often have to settle for less than 100% accuracy? Iselilja (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Iselilja No, no, I think you may have missed the point of ITNC, I nominated it so it would receive more attention, not because it was perfect and ready to go. I made no judgement on its overall quality. Perhaps you misunderstand the difference between the ITN and DYK process? I'd be happy to clear up any misunderstandings you have, of course. And to respond directly to one of your themes, I've never suggested we should strive for 100% accuracy, nor demanded it (not that I have the ability to do so), yet DYK is posited on getting one sentence of one article right, and it fails to do so time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time. It's not about settling for less than 100% accuracy, it's about holding those who are continually making errors in review and promotion accountable for those errors. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I feel the argument is bit pointless. Regardless of the perceived error rate in hooks, we have no choice but increase the throughput when there's a big backlog and decrease it when we run out of approved hooks. I propose that we set numerical limits, e.g., automatically decrease to 1 set per day when the total number of approved hooks falls below 80 (10 days' supply), and automatically increase to 2 sets per day when the number exceeds 240 (30 days' supply). -Zanhe (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually no, we don't have "no choice". There are other options, such as failing nominations, failing those which are stalling, removing the necessity to give pretty much every DYK nomination a pass to the main page after (sometimes) months of effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Only a tiny number of hooks stall for a long time; removing these will not make much of a difference. Looking at the pending hooks right now, only about a dozen are more than 2 months old. -Zanhe (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fine, I'd say we axe anything older than a month, so that'll help. Next thing to do is to request reviewers and promoters who are making continual mistakes to stop attempting to perform that role. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, only 15 unapproved hooks are more than 1 month old, and most hooks are approved or rejected pretty quickly. There's nothing that stops anybody from requesting people not to perform a task, but to force them to stop is tantamount to topic ban. I doubt any DYK regular is incompetent enough to deserve a TBAN. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• The point being that we continually excuse the symptoms, and don't find a cure. Poor reviews and bad promotions need to stop, and the rush to do them at 2 preps per day has caused a huge decline in quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Back to one set per 24 hours

I propose returning to one set of DYKs per 24 hours. (If the results of this poll/survey or discussion get confusing, inconclusive, or argumentative, someone can create a simple, neutral RfC about this later on.) Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I like one set per day, because it levels the odds of one's DYK being viewed. With the two sets per 24 hours, those DYKs that are live when the least amount of people are online get far fewer views than when the most people are online. (This seems to correlate to when most residents of the 48 U.S. states are awake, and is a population-related thing.) Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support plus the error rate, as evidenced by this page alone, has sky-rocketed. Giving independent reviewers (i.e. those outside the QPQ process) more time to view each promoted hook and associated article is a good thing and the backlog can wait until such a time that the process actually provides a reliable route to the main page without the creation of multiple errors per set. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this as the primary reason; there's far too much sloppiness at hand for the queues to be rushed to fill a twice-a-day quota. Plus I support any other measures (such as those mentioned elsewhere in this thread) to reduce errors and eliminate problematic nominations and reviews. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - 24 hours is needed for editors to properly review these before having administrators promote these to the main page. There simply weren't so many erroneous promotions, and it was going through the DYK backlog at a perfectly acceptable rate. Let's hold ourselves to a high standard at the main page. There's no need to rush. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support fewer errors when we are at 24 hours for each set. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The backlog has been trimmed substantially now so there is no need to accelerate the process for the time being. A return to 24 hours also allows more time for hooks to be reviewed to improve overall quality. Kosack (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Backlog trimmed, some special occasion hooks coming up. Although far from being a permanent solution, it's about time to switch back to 24 hours once again. Alex Shih (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Backlog is still too high to revert to a 24 hour cycle. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd like to stick to 12 hours for a few more days, otherwise we are just going to be back to doing this again that much sooner. Also, I dislike yo-yoing the readership between 12- and 24-hour cycles, we should try to keep our routine as stable as possible. Gatoclass (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - sorry, I'd like to keep it at 12h, but the error-rate recently has been too high, especially when some are escaping those patrolling the queues and finding their way onto the Main Page (there was one particularly egregious example yesterday where the hook was simply wrong). Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We've actually had very few errors reach the main page. I took a look through the history a couple of days ago and there have been no more tweaks or changes than when we were running on a 24-hour cycle. I think we've handled the 12-hour cycle really well. Also, do we really want to be having the same squabble over the cycle every two or three months? The less often we have to do this, the less drama involved for everyone. Gatoclass (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this is beyond a joke now. We have a clear consensus to go back to one set per day. Please implement it immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's a little unfair to hide the discussion in a subheader in an old discussion. I would probably have completely missed this if somebody hadn't mentioned the poll in a newer thread. Gatoclass (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well you haven't missed it, you commented on it an hour ago, so now it's time to follow the community consensus. This discussion has been going on some time, so despite your personal preference, you as an admin need to follow the community here. If you start the "We've actually had very few errors reach the main page" thread again, then I'll remind you that I've fixed two or so hooks per set and that will no longer be happening. You need to respond, per ADMINACCT, to the community here, or move away from DYK altogether, as Fram noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

24 hours isn't long to leave open a poll, and most of the people who have commented here thus far are not, so far as I'm aware, regular DYKers. How about we leave the poll open for 48 hours and then see how it looks? Also, this really should be moved to the bottom of the page in its own thread so everybody has a chance to see it. Gatoclass (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

More filibustering. Unbelievable. Un-be-lievable. How about you get to do what you personally want? No need to move the thread, it's here. This is how talk pages work, I would expect you, as an admin, to know that. We have almost universal consensus for one set per day now. The denial over the drop in quality is becoming borderline disruptive. You seem to be virtually the only person who can't see that this page is littered with issues about hooks. Now the main quality control aspect has been hounded out, you will reap what you've sown. Do your duty (your word I think) and listen to the consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support though I have a DYK coming up for Waitangi Day (February 6th New Zealand time), which might complicate things. I'll post a section about that specifically below. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Okay then, back to 24 we go. But if even a simple straw poll is now going to turn into threats to resort to ADMINACCT, then in future we are going to have to set some conditions on how long these polls are open in order to avoid this kind of acrimony. Gatoclass (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, don't get me wrong, your abject reluctance to follow the community consensus here is just one element of your failure to meet ADMINACCT. There are plenty of others, and if any more issues occur, then you'll get your wish of us seeing each other at Arbcom. And no, we don't need to set conditions. That's not what we do here. And it's certainly not up to you to decide such a thing. The sooner you come to realise that the better for all of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much traffic to justify this, no evidence this will solve systemic problems with DYK. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2018 (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.

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) 10:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The update of Prep 4 to the main page seems to be a few hours overdue. Yoninah (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ping some admins @Gatoclass, Alex Shih, Casliber, Mifter, and Vanamonde:.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Fix Vanamonde93 Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Or we can pretend that we've already switched to a 24 hour cycle as per Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Proposal:_Back_to_one_set_per_24_hours... Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I know the update is late, I didn't get much sleep last night, as a result of which, I logged on here much later than usual and was unable to post the update in time. I was about to start my usual set review before posting this and will do so shortly, if you can wait a little longer I am still willing to do that, but I'm about to take a short break beforehand. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't have any great desire for haste, was just pinging to see if/make sure things were occuring Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Alex Shih (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alex Shih just posted an update so we are good for the next 12 hours, thanks Alex. I will review the next update and post it in probably an hour or so and then we will be good for the next 24. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, Gatoclass. I will double check the hooks too and leave the rest to you, thanks. February 1st feels like the high time to go back to 24 hours set. Alex Shih (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I was thinking that we should probably run for another day or two as we still have around 200 hooks in total, I'd like to see it down to 180 or so before switching to 24 hours as the longer we can stick to 12 hours now the longer it will be before we have to do this all over again. Anyone else have an opinion on when we should return to 24 hours? Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Now, clearly, per all the supports in the section way above. Don't delay just because of your personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There is clear consensus to change back to 24 hour hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, back to 24h please. I've picked up 3 errors and 2 confusions - and that's just me - in the last few days. It's needed. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This already has strong consensus above, there's no need for another round of "when shall we do it" questions. Please, any admin now fix it to 24 hours per set. We don't need Gatoclass' permission here, and the consensus in two threads is clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello? Clear consensus on two threads now. Back to one set per day we go. Or perhaps we just go on filibustering.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, Alex Shih, can you please delay the switchover by 12 hours? Right now, the next set will be changing at 14:45 on February 1. Far better to change at 02:45, or indeed any time before 12:00, and then have the next one go at 00:00 February 2. Otherwise, the auto update will move later by 15 minutes daily, eventually getting to 00:00 in early March, far from ideal. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: You are right (Sorry about having you mention this every time). I've temporarily reverted back to 12 hours, triggered the bot, and reset back to 24 hours again while manually drifting to 0:00 UTC so that we are back to clean slate. The current set will only be on Main Page for 19 hours this way, but I think that's fair enough. Alex Shih (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Stamler

I was looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Stamler. I noticed that the article meets the fivefold expansion, but only if you do not count 24 revision-suppressed versions that were copyright violations.

So here's my question: would the fivefold expansion be counted from the copyvio version, or from the last clean version? I did the latter. epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

According to DYK supplementary rule A4 Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception)]​Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't know about the rules, but we should not request expansion of copyrighted material. I remember one case when it was handled that way, BWV 131 (long ago, the removed material was not counted, after longish discussion). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Common sense would suggest that we should not count the expansion from the version including copyvios, but from the last copyvio-free version prior to the edits made by the person bringing the article to DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

All right. I will review from the last non-copyvio version then. Thanks everyone for your feedback. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Question concerning repeats

Well, this certainly sucks.

I had 5×'d Xiangshawan and was looking how to format the nomination since there's an existing one at Template:Did you know nominations/Xiangshawan and hit this. Is it new? It had never come up before for me, but I had the impression articles could show up at creation and 5× and GA status, if anyone actually cared enough about them to take them through that. I understand not wanting to have a single editor game it by writing a barely-passable article, quickly boosting it to the real article s/he should have written in the first place, and then running it back through again; something like this, where an editor put in the time to fix what had been a confusing and badly done stub, what is the benefit of a blanket exclusion policy? — LlywelynII 09:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not quite sure to what you are referring, but if it is supplementary rule D1 that states "Items that have been on DYK before are ineligible" it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's particularly reasonable myself. What's the rationale behind it? The only reason I can think is that it might cause a bit of reader WP:ASTONISHment to see the same article listed again. But I think that would only be relevant if there was a very short period between the listings. Because otherwise, it's not like we have too many DYKs and they're competing for space, is it? We had to reduce the turnover rate because we weren't getting enough entries in. And the idea behind the section is to reward the activity that led to it, i.e. creation, 5x expansion and GA promotion. So if an article happens to have all three of those on separate occasions, I say reward them all. Why not.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

​We indeed have too many DYKs coming in, which is why we switched to a shorter 12 hour cycle to reduce the backlog.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) There's no good reason other than the fact we could easily see the same target article featured on the main page in the DYK section three times within a very short time period, e.g. a matter of weeks. If you would like to modify the ruleset, I suggest you make a proposal that we can discuss and then try to form a consensus against. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A better response would have been to become more selective, and double the attention given to each hook for decreased error rates. EEng 16:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, apologies then. I don't know why I imagined there was a shortage of entries. I actually came to this question because I'm expanding an article and was wondering if I had to "decide" whether to give it a hook here on 5x or to wait for the better version after it goes through GA. But yes, reducing errors seems a useful goal as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I had this same problem two years ago, after the Second Avenue Subway article passed GA. The page had appeared on DYK in 2004 on the basis of being new. Even though Template:Did you know nominations/Second Avenue Subway didn't exist, I was told that the article could never be run at DYK again.

Now, back to the reason why DYKs can't be renominated. The following is a theory only, though. I think this is because it wouldn't be exactly "new" content if it appeared at DYK twice. After all, there are more than 5 million pages, and probably 50,000 to 100,000 of them have appeared in DYK at some point, so there's still many more pages that have the opportunity to be displayed at DYK.

Just to clarify, again, this is my own opinion about why DYK's aren't re-run. I personally think it's a counter-intuitive rule. If an article is created and nominated for DYK, it lowers the incentive to expand the article five-fold. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Sutton Hoo helmet

... that Rick Kirby's Sutton Hoo Helmet (pictured) weighs 900 kilograms (2,000 lb)? 97198, The C of E, Usernameunique

This is contextually meaningless to most people reading Wikipedia, certainly without the Sutton Hoo link. The original Sutton Hoo helmet (note the lack of capital H), weighed around 2.5kg, so if and only if you get the link to the original helmet (which is not mentioned or linked), then you'd realise this one weighs around 250 times more. But otherwise, it's "SO WHAT". A far superior hook would be to stat that Kirby's sculpture was 250 times heavier than the original, or something, linking to them both for context. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, it's a big sculpture that weighs a lot—I think that's interesting with or without the comparison to the Anglo-Saxon piece. Michelangelo's David weighs 12,000 pounds; does that need to be compared to the weight of an average man to be interesting?

But that's not to say that yours is not also perfectly fine:

... that Rick Kirby's Sutton Hoo Helmet (pictured) is 360 times as heavy as the original? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, without a link to the original helmet (which I know very well) and without some context (many of Henry Moore's sculptures weigh in excess of a ton) the hook isn't helpful. So contextualising it for our "less knowledgeable" audience is a great idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

... that Rick Kirby's Sutton Hoo Helmet (pictured) is 360 times heavier than the original? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's common knowledge that Henry preferred the larger lady. Most readers will probably not even have heard of Sutton Hoo, let alone it's helmets. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrative action is needed to change the hook in Queue 6 before it goes live. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Further edit required: replace'''[[Rick Kirby]]'s''' with '''[[Rick Kirby]]'''{{`s}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandarax: Actually I just fixed that 15 minutes ago, although I didn't use the template. Alex Shih (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's closer now, but the apostrophe is still bold, so the template should be used. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, done. Alex Shih (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih (or anyone else), could you also italicize "Sutton Hoo Helmet"? It's italicized in the image caption, but should also be capitalized in the hook. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

And decap "helmet" per the article. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No, "Helmet" should be capitalized when referring to the artwork. It should only be uncapitalized when referring to the actual helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the uncapitalized "helmet" in the image caption should be capitalized. It's "Helmet" in the hook and "helmet" in the caption. They should both be "Helmet". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? It isn't capitalised in the article, e.g. "Sutton Hoo helmet (2002)", "Sutton Hoo helmet, Sutton Hoo exhibition hall, Suffolk[5]"... Perhaps the DYK review covered this? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Where's the style guide which states it should be capitalised? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the result of an edit two days ago by Yoninah; I have changed it back to "Helmet". It's title is "Sutton Hoo Helmet" according to the gallery that hosted a Kirby exhibition with the maquette from the sculpture for sale, in Public Sculpture of Norfolk and Suffolk, and Recording Archive for Public Sculpture in Norfolk & Suffolk. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:TITLECAPS. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, I was simply looking for consistency, most of the versions in the article were "helmet", not "Helmet". So as long as we have the consistency between article and hook, no problem. Of course, the reviewer and promoters went through this exercise already, surely. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. For whatever it's worth, since we have this discussion going on here, I decided to create a stub on the sculpture, to be fleshed out later. It is Sutton Hoo Helmet (Kirby). Whoever edits the hook (to italicize "Sutton Hoo Helmet" and to capitalize "helmet" in the caption) could, if desired, also choose to add a link to the article (i.e., "... that Rick Kirby's Sutton Hoo Helmet (pictured) is 360 times heavier than the original?"). --Usernameunique (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Usernameunique thanks for creating that stub. That clears up a lot of confusion vis a vis the original Sutton Hoo helmet. Perhaps put a hatnote on the latter article directing to the artwork? Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging some admins before this goes live: Casliber, Gatoclass, The Bushranger, Coffee, Stephen, Vanamonde93, Callanecc, David Levy, & Mifter. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) And Black Kite, who just fixed another error in the same queue. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Waitangi Day

I see that it is quite likely that DYK will be swapping back to 24 hours. I have an upcoming DYK (Treaty of Waitangi) which would ideally be up for all of Waitangi Day (Feb 6th) in New Zealand, which awkwardly straddles two UTC days roughly evenly (UTC+13). Not sure how to address this, but I'd be happy if it were swapped out for Wainui Falls (another approved and pending DYK of mine) halfway through the day, so that it went roughly Wainui Falls for the first half of Feb 5th (UTC), then Treaty of Waitangi for the second half of the 5th and first half of the 6th, then back to Wainui Falls for the second half of the 6th (both are hooks with images so would occupy the same slot). Is this a technical possibility? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, I'm afraid it is unreasonable to request manual swaps. It is unfortunately a normal occurrence that special occasion requests run for only a portion of the day in local time. Since we've indeed just gone back from 12 hours to 24 hours, you would still be getting 13 hours on the correct day, an hour longer than you would otherwise have gotten if we stayed at 12 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well thanks for your response anyway. Better than nothing I suppose. It should run on the 6th UTC then so that it is up in evening I guess. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should run in the PM in NZ as more Kiwis will see it. I have also created Template:Did you know nominations/Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi for that day if someone could review it in time please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm finding it hard to follow this discussion. I just promoted Template:Did you know nominations#Treaty of Waitangi to the lead slot in Queue 4 for February 6 00:00 UTC. Yoninah (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

We will probably be swapping back to 24 hour DYK soon (per the discussion above), if we do it before the 6th then this slot will just be 12 hours longer, and if we do it after, it is still in the correct 12 hour slot. So all is ok. The above DYK by C of E should be added to the 6th immediately below ToW as soon as it is approved (I don't have any time currently, but I'll try t make some tomorrow perhaps). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done I just approved The C of E's nomination and moved it to the Special Occasion holding area for February 6. Yoninah (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Duluth Public Library (historic)

Template:Did you know nominations/Duluth Public Library (historic) (my nomination) was approved, went to WP:DYKNA, and has been waiting for a new reviewer for a few days since the would-be promoter suggested a new hook. Chris857 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about having a DYK for a GA when it was rejected before

So this is a bit of a weird situation. Also to be clear here-- I'm participating in WP:WIKICUP but this whole thing doesn't count for it because the work was done before this year. Comet Ping Pong was recently promoted to Good Article, but back when I first created it in 2013, I nominated it for DYK and @BlueMoonset: failed it because I basically disappeared off of the face of the earth in the middle of the nomination and wasn't able to complete the QPQ. Which makes a lot of sense.

If I wanted to nominate it for DYK now that it's a GA, is that allowed? Would I just add a "2" to the end of it like I would if it were a second GA nomination? Nomader (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You can nominate, because it hasen't appeared yet. I'd add a number 2 to the nom. The name of the nom is actually of little importance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the rules as pointed out by Cwmhiraeth somewhere above here, are explicit. If it's appeared on DYK it can't appear again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it, so should be okay to go then. Thanks to the both of you. Nomader (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Seven days

Would anyone consider expanding this to a month please?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It already got expanded from 3 days to 7 days and I think that is sufficient. I would have to say no personally as it would lead to a slippery slope whereby it could end up being we just allow anything on. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Natalie Grams

Something has happened to the nomination template of Natalie Grams so that it doesn't archive in the normal way. The hook is currently in Prep 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Try closing it now Cwmhiraeth. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess it is something to do with curly brackets and the stray bit of text under "Articles created/expanded on January 18". Something different has happened to the Riders (1993 film) template. In this case the hook is in Prep 6 and I can only archive half of the template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's the curly brackets, for every opening pair there has to be a closing pair, and there should be a closing pair right at the bottom of the page. Try that nomination now Cwmhiraeth and see if it closes. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Both are now correctly closed. I guess the pair of brackets that I had noticed were not at the bottom, were half way up, but I couldn't make out which ones they were. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

We have 32 older nominations that need reviewing, this time including all those that are no longer current (through January 27). Right now we have a total of 176 nominations, of which 58 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from last year.

Over three months old:

• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Brady (philologist)
• November 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Bhogeshwari Phukanani

Over two months old:

• November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Kirsty McGuinness
• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Amusement
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Long face syndrome

Over one month old:

• December 12: Template:Did you know nominations/China's 100 major archaeological discoveries in the 20th century
• December 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Robin Lee Wilson
• December 23: Template:Did you know nominations/1976 Anapa mid-air collision
• January 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Pacific Architects and Engineers

Other old nominations:

• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Fragments of Horror
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/William Chaney
• January 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Sankaralinganar
• January 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Gurbachan Singh Salaria
• January 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Jérémie Azou
• January 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Bambang Soesatyo
• January 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Maria Zwißler
• January 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Juliana Walanika
• January 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Denise Stephens
• January 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Aubervilliers Congress
• January 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Zherichinius
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/History of speciation
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Yanmen Commandery
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Holy Trinity Church, Cork
• January 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Jacobson
• January 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Warwick Castle, Maida Vale
• January 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Liebman
• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Reclaiming Health and Safety For All
• January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Siegfried Lorenz (baritone)
• January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/John Johnson (1807-1878)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Henry V. Plummer and H. Vinton Plummer
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Gulf of Alaska Earthquake
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Mica McNeill (two articles)
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for French and Christian Identity
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Taivoan people
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael F. Adubato
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Anny Felbermayer
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Novodinia antillensis
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/D. J. White (American football)

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) 17:09, 4 February 2018 (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) 22:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Now overdue. Pinging Maile, Alex Shih, Cas Liber, Gatoclass, or any other admin who sees this to get Prep 3 into Queue 3 as soon as practicable. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hook for February 6

I had my nomination for Zhengzhou Airport riot approved in time to be put in the hooks for February 6, the riot's four-year anniversary. However, until I did it myself a couple of days ago it was not in the section for hooks with specific dates. It seems the prep areas for the corresponding queues have been done. Could someone see if my date request can still be fulfilled? Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed it this morning and swapped the hook into the correct place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 - Chinese/Japanese boarders

... that Chinese naval commander Zhang Wendan boarded a Japanese warship to exchange information on pirate activity, in a rare occasion of military cooperation between the two countries? Cwmhiraeth, Zahne, Alex Shih

Now, this will doubtless be shot down in flames by the DYK regulars, the "pile it high, sell it cheap" brigade, or whoever, but upon reading into this remarkable act of Chinese generosity, it appears that actually following a visit from the Japanese beforehand, which to me, at least, demonstrates enormous magnanimity on behalf of the Japanese, and a cultural obligation from the Chinese in this case. So, once again, while it's factually accurate, it's possibly incredibly misleading because it isolates the visit without the context of the prelude. The article as well somewhat obfuscates the chronology... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, posting at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see your problem. Both article (Zhang Wendan) and hook reflect a slight reduction in tension between the two countries. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You "don't really see" my "problem"? Never mind. I'll leave it to others at other places to fix, especially given the continued approach of this project to issues raised here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"It wasn't an error" (Statement by TRM at main page errors). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I already said while it's factually accurate, it's possibly incredibly misleading above. I think this conversation has expired, and don't worry, I won't bother you again with the numerous issues with which you may be related, I'll skip your pings. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Queue 5

Not sure what happened here, but the bios and non-bios are bunched up together. Could an admin please move the 7th hook for Stuart Mustow up to the 4th slot, after HPgV-2? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Maile66: @Alex Shih: @Casliber: @Gatoclass: for help here. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I can only see two bio hooks adjacent, I don't think that's too much of an issue. There are other considerations with regard to hook order, such as alternating long and short hooks for variety and ease of reading, in fact that is always a very important consideration for me when ordering sets. I did try reordering the set in line with your request, but I think the existing order reads better. Gatoclass (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: right, there are 2 bios adjacent (in slots 6 and 7) and 3 non-bios adjacent (in slots 3, 4, 5). I understand the need for a short hook now and then, but this back-to-back duplication is exactly what I work so hard to avoid while building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, the guideline regarding this issue reads: Mix your hooks up. Try to avoid having two hooks of the same general type next to one another in the update (for example, two US hooks or two bio hooks together). The keyword here IMO is try. I did try to re-sort the hooks to separate the bios, but every time I did, the set looked denser and harder to read. A hook set is not just a collection of hooks; it's an entity of its own, like a paragraph in a piece of prose. If your paragraph has lots of long sentences one after the other, it becomes tiresome to read, if you break up the monotony with sentences that vary in length, it's much more effortless. With a hook set, I think it's very important to strive for as much effortlessness as possible because readers on the main page are not looking for anything in particular and you have to try and draw them in with an attractive presentation. Gatoclass (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: OK, I hear you. And I agree with you on balancing short and long hooks. I actually had nothing to do with building this prep set; I think hooks might have been removed and added by others to make what we have now. No problem, we're not writing prep sets for posterity. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, I've been offline for a few hours, but looks like you and Gatoclass have come to a meeting of the minds. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3

• ... that a tripwire can be used to prevent salami attacks?

@Chetsford:@LlywelynII:

Salami attacks redirects to Salami slicing, which is a pejorative term for a cost-cutting strategy. I'm wondering if the hook (and article) should be talking about Salami tactics, defined as "a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition"–in which case the term "salami attacks" is being used incorrectly here. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah - thanks for noticing. That would definitely be a more appropriate wikilink. I thought salami slicing was fine due to it mentioning salami tactics in the fourth paragraph of the lead, but was unaware the more appropriate article Salami tactics existed. I've updated Salami tactics to include "also known as the salami-slice strategy or salami attacks" and we may want to re-pipe there. Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chetsford: thank you. I piped the link to Salami tactics in the hook in Prep 3. We're good now. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Yoninah, I appreciate it. Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Review requested

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Mica McNeill (2 articles) with intent that it could be run on 20/21 February. That date is approaching, so could someone please review? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. I will move it to the special occasion holding area when the bot has transferred it over to the approved nominations page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Pulled hook - possible BLP issue

I pulled the following hook from p6:

• ... that the character of Rupert Campbell-Black in Riders was based partly on the late Duke of Beaufort?

The reason I did so is because of a statement in the article: In 2002, Jilly Cooper revealed that Rupert Campbell-Black was a composite of Andrew Parker Bowles, Rupert Lycett Green, Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk, and the 11th Duke of Beaufort, commenting on their place in the development of Campbell-Black: "a wildly dashing and exciting group, and their bravery and charisma were the essential elements... his shittiness was entirely my invention" (my emphasis). My concern is that a fictional character whom the program's audience has presumably come to associate with shittiness is being associated with a recently deceased individual. As a possible fix for this, I suggest the following alt:

• ... that the character of Rupert Campbell-Black in Riders was based partly on the late Duke of Beaufort, though Campbell-Black's "shittiness" was entirely the author's invention? Gatoclass (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This would be ALT1 and looks fine with me. Courtesy ping to Moonraker, The C of E and Cwmhiraeth. Alex Shih (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Alex Shih, as the duke has been dead for some time I don't see a BLP issue, unless Gatoclass thinks he may be a vampire; and in any event the point is surely covered by the word "partly"? I don't much like to see bad language on the main page. But no doubt you will suit yourselves. Moonraker (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, BLP also applies to people recently deceased in the past two years, which applies in this case. And no, obviously I don't think the word "partly" covers this or I would not have brought it up as an issue. But I also happen to think that my alt will probably result in a higher page hit score, as people will be interested to read about a "shitty" character, so I think this will be a win for you as well as addressing the BLP issue. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually BLP defines two years for "recently deceased" as being the extreme end of it, it doesn't set a minimum length that the policy applies for. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the original hook - I think we might be overthinking this one. :-) I really think "partly" covers things sufficiently. (If I were at all familiar with the character, I might feel differently, but not from the facts in evidence here...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No BLP here. If anything, it's like BLP's second cousin, twice removed. Restore original. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but as I still think there is arguably a BLP issue here, I won't be returning it to prep, somebody who thinks it's fine can do it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Concern about a review

Template:Did you know nominations/Oriental Basin pocket gopher: I came across this nomination, and I have some concern with the reviewer thinking the article is "too long". Just because it is longer than the gopher article is not in itself a problem. Chris857 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the article length as an issue, it's only 800-odd words long after all. I don't know what the usual layout for articles on species is, and while this is strictly speaking not a DYK issue, I don't think it does any harm for reviewers to raise such issues if it's going to result in a better and more standardized presentation. Just as long as such objections are not overdone, because DYK articles are not expected to be perfect. Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, no article on Wikipedia is expected to be perfect, even featured articles, but it's good for a reviewer to elevate their review standard away from the standard QPQ checkbox exercise which normally results in error reports and upset at the last moment. Regardless of DYK's "mission", it should not (and will not be allowed to) place sub-standard articles on the main page, and I applaud any reviewer who is capable and willing to stand up to the tidal wave of mediocrity that has overwhelmed the project such that any article passes. I would work with the reviewer to improve the article accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 - ... that the seeds of the Bredasdorp sceptre are carried underground by ants?

Why is this interesting? Indeed, we have a whole article dedicated to the dispersal of plant seed by ants at Myrmecochory. Is this an attempt to find something, just anything, to get the article onto the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that it is tricky to find things of interest...but I think if you're a kid or wanting to learn more about nature then it is interesting yes. A lot of people might find anything about Ipswich Town deadly boring too...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting, as I know nothing about ants. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

What's been through DYK recently featuring Ipswich Town? And we've all seen videos of ants taking stuff underground. All of us. It's even featured on Ben and Holly for god's sake (they even take grandfather clocks and pianos...). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a better one: did you know that Bredasdorp sceptre doesn't even exist on Wikipedia, even as a redirect? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you can do something with "It is a rare endemic species that is only known from ten locations near the southern coast of the Western Cape province of South Africa."? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Or even go large with "did you know that the English plantsman Joseph Knight described Breadsdrop sceptre in his 1809 work On the cultivation of the plants belonging to the natural order of Proteeae?" "PLANTSMAN"?! And that title! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Paranomus abrotanifolius, commonly known as the Bredasdorp sceptre

I agree with Yoninah on this; I didn't know ants take seeds underground either, particularly seeds of a particular plant. So the hook looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Yoninah, many people dont know that plants such as the Bredasdorp sceptre rely on ants to reseed and spread. There is nothing at all wrong with the hook.--Kevmin § 02:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Then if it's so interesting, the hook should link Myrmecochory to allow our readers to learn even more about the fact that this behaviour is commonplace and not in the slightest bit unique. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. bluelink introduced now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What seems to be more unusual in this instance is that the plant benefits because the underground seeds are protected from fire, rather than being protected from predators or provided with good conditions for germination. I think it's a shame this hook isn't going to feature an image; I suppose the image might be a bit fussy at a small size, but those flowers look rather incredible, like a wildly furry Cleome [10]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point somewhat, ants take many objects away (per Ben and Holly) but this case is different from the majority it would seem. Plus you're right, that plant looks cool, the image is of a really decent resolution so it could easily be cropped to an individual flower for the benefit of the small thumb on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

OH WELL! At least the completely unremarkable fact was erroneous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Erroneous in what way? AFAIK nobody until now has claimed the hook was erroneous. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant "wasn't", obviously!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Blurb changed without informing nominator - why?

DYK reviews underway. Original title: A group of mentally ill patients sitting around and staring.

WP:ERRORS. Original title: A group of mentally ill patients dashing about a burning room. These images posted by EEng with the greatest of affection for those who do the heavy lifting at DYK and on Main Page – and those really are the works' original titles.

I've just discovered that the blurb I wrote for Ethel Page was changed to a far less interesting one while on the main page. This was done unilaterally, despite no one else in the DYK process raising any concerns with it. What's the point of asking people to write their own blurbs if an admin can just come in and change it willy-nilly without even consulting or informing the author? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful, admins can change anything they believe necessary to material on the main page; there is typically not time to ask. That said, you can always ask their reason (pinging Stephen to save time), since if her husband set her on fire, it's true whether accidentally or deliberately, and there are no BLP issues here, the event having occurred over a century ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Once items go to the main page, the "ownership link" disappears (and rightly so). There's not one single obligation for an admin correcting poorly phrased or inaccurate hooks at DYK on the main page to go follow it up to seek "permission" from the nominator to make the change. It's well recognised that the review process here is currently flawed, so it's highly likely that items will be modified all the up to and after posting with little affection towards those who nominated, reviewed and promoted the items in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

TRM's right -- there's just too much going on putting out fires (see right) as hooks move along the assembly line for various interested persons to get notified all the time. If they're concerned about this, nominators and others interested really need to keep their eye on the hook as it passes through all stages up to and including its main page appearance, so they can be aware of any changes (which often are formatting, punctuation, etc.) and object if needed. That's not easy for the neophyte to know how to do, however, because it means adding a series of obscure pages to the watchlist at various times. I've thought about writing a how-to, but I worry it may cause more trouble than it prevents. EEng 00:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• The hook in question was accepted during the nomination, review and promotion process by two other editors: Tryptofish and Yoninah. A consensus of three editors was thus established which should not have been overturned lightly. An issue was then raised at WP:ERRORS by The Rambling Man. The discussion can be seen in this version. Gatoclass opposed the supposed error report but Stephen made a change regardless. Ivar the Boneful subsequently protested but Stephen failed to respond. Stephen's action of editing through protection without consensus and then failing to respond to reasonable complaints about this was quite improper, being contrary to WP:PER. Ivar is quite right to be outraged by this and to seek redress. As WP:ADMINACCT explains, "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that my statement above described the way things are, given the Rube Goldberg, oh-geez-glad-we-caught-that-one state of DYK's approval and QA process. The fact that many things get to Q or main page that really do need fixing has the unfortunate effect of making changes at those late stages common, so that people get comfortable changing things that don't really need changing. I'll say it again: the QA process needs to be pushed upstream to the nom page itself, so that by the time it goes into prep the "eagle eyes" like TRM have already looked it over. Prep should only be about balancing sets, maybe something about what particular day/time a particular hook will appear, etc. The hook itself should be absolutely locked down by then. EEng 13:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Davidson's evaluation of what happened here. I'd also like to note that the change to "accidentally set her on fire" was not a malicious one, but is in keeping with the way the admins at ERRORS try to take into consideration every reader who won't understand that this is a hook. The original wording – he "set her on fire" – was a great hook; even you, EEng have to admit that, longtime hooker that you are. The addition of "accidentally" just watered it down for those readers who will never get it. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is it was factually incorrect. You don't 'set' accidental fires. You either cause an accidental fire, or you set something alight deliberately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. "I fell asleep smoking and set the couch on fire" has no implication of intention, and if it did, then accidentally set on fire (which is what the hook was changed to) would be an oxymoron. We've got too many unread language "experts" running around. EEng 16:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In your example you didn't set the couch on fire, your cigarette did and the sentence should be changed to reflect that. When a person is said to set something afire, that implies intention. When an inanimate object is said to set something afire, it does not. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Even more nonsensical. Except for The Human Torch, none of us can set something aflame without some intermediate instrumentality, so by your logic it is impossible for a person to "set X on fire" – it has to be the match, the cigarette, the stove left on, but not the person. But then you go on to assign a connotation to what you've just implied is an impossible situation in the first place. "He threw his match in the trash after lighting his pipe, and set the house on fire", "He dropped the candle and set the drapes on fire", "She overheated the oil and set the house on fire – these are all perfectly good passages, and imply no intention, any more than "By writing that letter he set in motion a disastrous sequence of events" implies intentionality. EEng 18:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think that Yoninah's description gets it right: done in good faith, but probably a net loss. Having already read the page, I cannot imagine that the fire setting could have been done as a murder attempt, and I rather doubt that any of our readers would have been bamboozled by it (and we are well past the realm of BLP). But I can see it as an attempt at greater accuracy during a hurried process. I think that the big picture is that Ivan did a real good job in starting an interesting page and crafting a brilliant hook. Please don't let this incident diminish your enjoyment of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment is any of this helpful any longer? The blurb was changed because I raised a concern which was handled by an admin. If nefarious or out-of-process actions have taken place, take it to ANI or some dispute resolution or Arbcom, but nothing actually sinister or corrupt took place, let's just move on. Everything we donate to Wikipedia can be modified. Remember that folks, especially here at DYK where ownership of hooks ends the micro-second after they're "published". They're not "your hooks", they're Wikipedia's, and can be dealt with as seen fit. If anyone doesn't like that, well there are plenty of other options for getting material onto the main page, so I'd focus on those rather than the Woolworths of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Something I have always said about promotion is that there is a lack of courtesy towards the nominators once its in the preps. Most editors don't watch all the preps and queues in case it clogs up the watchlist and don't have time to go looking in the histories for any changes. I think it would be good practice (as an unwritten rule) that if there are any substantial changes to a hook (as in adding or taking away words,) then the nominator is informed prior to the hook running as much as is practically possible. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This thread is discussing changes made to DYK hooks when on the main page. If nominators can't be bothered to follow their nominations through to the main page and then get testy if they get tweaked and modified in prep, oh dear. No-one owns the hooks anyway. As for clogging up watchlists or not having time to look in the article history, those aren't serious blockers are they? I have around 9000 items on my watchlist and cope fine, and checking an article history takes all of five seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You do realise that the solution to so many of the problems DYK tears itself apart with is to have many fewer items? Say 1 set per day that are really excellent. I realise that gives people fewer chances to earn shiny things but my how much shinier they'll be. Much like when FA became much more rigorous about 10 years ago. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a symptom of the acceptance criteria being far too weak. Gone are the days when DYK was around to encourage new editors to have a go, this is no longer about getting fresh editors to participate and see their work in lights, basically no nominations get failed. So the backlog grows (especially when projects like WiR and WikiCup are running) and the project needs to pile it high and sell it cheap to keep up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Silliness. Low acceptance criteria inevitably leads to problems with people looking after Main page. If the DYK criteria and protocols aren't fit for purpose, there are two choices: endless conflicts over ERRORS picking things up, or changing the criteria and protocols. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Dweller DYK has plenty of criteria—it's been accused many times of having too many rules. It's just that the reviews have become slapdash, especially with the QPQ requirement for renewing someone else's nomination to get your own approved. In building preps, I rarely come across an article that's truly passed all the DYK criteria, unless it's been written by one of our regulars. Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think by "low acceptance criteria", Dweller and I were referring to the quality requirements. And the quality of the review process. Both of which are "low". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah thanks for reminding me about QPQ. I'd forgotten about it. It's ridiculous and furthers the problems DYK has. You guys have beautifully engineered a project to generate masses of rough and ready material when Main page actually needs small amounts of very high quality material. QPQ is part of that. Think about it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Disability History Month

... that Disability History Month is observed in Texas, Massachusetts, and other U.S. states in October? Chetsford, Casliber

The hook is curious that it picks out two of five states named in the article, one of which names the observation differently, i.e. Texas doesn't call it "Disability History Month", it calls it "Disability Awareness Month". Delaware (not mentioned in the hook) calls it "Disability History and Awareness Month", so not "Disability History Month" either. Maybe "... that while five of the States of the US observe a variation of Disability History Month in October, it is unofficially observed in the United Kingdom from November to December?" The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I think that sounds great. And thanks for noticing, I've corrected the article as well. I think my confusion must have arose as Texas government agencies uses several different names for it interchangeably (e.g. [11]), however, from looking at the source of legislation you're correct that it's officially called "Persons with Disabilities History and Awareness Month" and not "Disability History Month". Chetsford (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I was just concerned that it passed review and was promoted to a prep set, so it'd already gone through a few pairs of eyes without the right checks being made. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

So, we need an admin to pull or change the hook accordingly please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

duly changed. I am not a good verbatim reader at times so missing the difference between "Awareness" and "History" is not unexpected Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then perhaps you should refrain from reviewing or promoting such hooks where such errors could occur. This is about a clearly titled observance which in the article itself is named many different ways. Okay, we had a day to check it one more time, but that shouldn't be necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 - "unique"

... that a unique Women's Night is still celebrated by a group of indigenous people in Taiwan as the legacy of their centuries-long matrilineal practice? Yoninah, Bellenion

The article states, somewhat unclearly: When many Taiwanese indigenous peoples are regarded as matrilineal societies, only Taivoan in Xiaolin and Pinuyumayan people hold a specific traditional ceremony or holiday for the women.[30][31][32] Many regard the two cheerful festivals for women only as legacies of the matrilineal practices of Taivoan and Pinuyumayan.[33][34][35]

I don't see anything saying that it's a "unique" celebration ("specific" does not equate to "unique", and per the text, "unique" doesn't apply considering there are apparently "two cheerful festivals" - encylopedic?) so this needs more work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)