This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The previous list was archived a day ago, and very little was left over from it. Here is an updated list with 38 older nominations that need reviewing through February 11. Right now we have a total of 231 nominations, of which 123 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two left over from last year.
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) 04:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, with only two hooks in the IWD section, I don't see how having only women will be feasible unless there are a great many approved hooks in the regular approved lists. There could be neutral items like buildings, places, species, or whatever, and an absences of men. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest to first collect in special occasions, than a prep builder can choose, for variety etc, - and if we have too many others can go back to the normal pool. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I move all the currently approved women hooks to the special occasions area for March, and then the March 8 prep builders can select from there? Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like it. Perhaps just do it, - whoever doesn't like it can simply put it back. Perhaps even make a little TOC, saying what they did, because some discussions are long. For the image, I suggest the poster. Can't be said often enough that yes, we can! I suggested another one (photographer), but that would possibly better go to a different date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a little silly that moving relevant stuff to the staging area for consideration is a no-no if it's your own nom, far too bureaucratic. All approved hooks run eventually, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, especially as we appear to have consensus for the move here. I've gone ahead and moved it. If anyone wants to be even more silly by undoing my move and then moving it themselves, go ahead. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've moved all the woman- and woman-themed hooks (including 2 that aren't bios) to the March and March 8 holding areas, so they should all be used this month. Yoninah (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been away and notice the change a couple of weeks ago to remove unreferenced BLPs as a path for DYK eligibility. I also notice that Category:All unreferenced BLPs has approaching 3,000 pages. Is it really the case that this basis for DYK eligibility is no longer justified, even if it is used rarely? EdChem (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said as the lone dissenting voice to that proposal, "there are still a lot of unsourced orphan BLPs out there that this particular rule is designed to encourage work on." and this certainly confirms that. I am still of the opinion that we shouldn't have removed it but I accept the consensus reached and hope that it can be brought back. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)10:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe all have external links/had sources in a previous revision, thus ineligible atleast for WP:BLPPROD and I assume similarily for DYK - I don't think anything BLPPROD eligible exists Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I've promoted what I could to this prep set, including two foreign hooks and one U.S. hook. Since I worked on most of the other nominations, I'm not able to promote more. Here is an update on nominations:
This hook isn't exactly accurate, as the process of downgrading an Interstate to a state route is purely bureaucratic and the state route designation has been there for decades. The $700 million project is to demolish the expressway and rebuild it as a surface street. I suggest that the hook replace "New York state route" with "surface boulevard". SounderBruce23:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This may be a stupid question but what is the actual difference between an expressway and a surface boulevard? Without that understanding the hook is somewhat meaningless to me. And would that be common knowledge internationally? 91.49.86.137 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Surface boulevards have traffic lights, while expressways may or may not be limited-access highways. But the interstate is always a limited access highway. The Interstate Highway System is known internationally as a limited-access motorway/freeway system. epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, cheers. I knew what an interstate was but just not what exactly a surface boulevard was in this case. Makes more sense knowing that. Would there perhaps be any suitable target article to link to from 'surface boulevard'? Sorry to be a bother about this anyway, just made me wonder what exactly would happen to the road with the $700 million. Anyway, thank you again for the explanation. 91.49.86.137 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Could that, or something similar, perhaps be linked somewhere in the hook? As i mentioned above, i may just be an idiot for not knowing the difference but it is nice to understand what is actually happening to the road. That is of course mentioned in the body of the article as well but more information on the actual difference couldn't hurt i guess. But if you believe it is common knowledge or that there is no suitable target for a link, then... whatever. I just wondered about it when i seen it here and thought others might do as well. Anyway, have a good day. 91.49.66.98 (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems like i was not the only one unfamiliar with the difference. Someone else brought it up in the 'DYK next' section of errors. Somewhat happy to see i was not just being an idiot, haha. 91.49.66.98 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Clarification: 7 days or 10 days?
WP:DYKR says that newly-created/expanded/GA-promoted articles should be nominated within 7 days of when the creation or expansion started, or when the article was promoted to GA status. However, DYKcheck instead checks if an article was created or expanded within 10 days. Just asking for a clarification regarding this matter. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It's seven days. DYKcheck will tell you when the article was created or moved to main space or how recently a 5x expansion began. The ten-day figure is an artifact that can be ignored. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Credits edits
The three credits in Queue 4 which begin {{DYKmake|Krishna Kohli should instead be {{DYKmake|Krishna Kolhi. Please note that the subpage parameters should remain as "Krishna Kohli". MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM08:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I had created an article Krishna Kumari Kohli about the Pakistani senator and added some content to it. I found out today that it was redirected (there was no merge talk or talk page discussion) and the content I had added was copied to Krishna Kohli, which was then nominated for a DYK. I have some concerns about this which I want to voice out.
The name "Krishna Kumari Kohli" is the most common name used to refer to the person. You can try to search for "Krishna Kohli" Pakistan and "Krishna Kumari Kohli" Pakistan" and the latter is more used. "Krishna Kumari" is also used as well and I had added it to the disambiguation page for Krishna Kumari.
Does DYK only give credit to the person who first created the article? Does the person who expands it gets no credit at all? In this case for example, much of the content added in this version of Krishna Kohli was copied from this version of Krishna Kumari Kohli. I don't mind if content is being merged, but I would have at least expected a talk page discussion or merge tag before merging. Or if the article is being nominated for a DYK, I would have appreciated if I had been informed that the content I wrote was copied into this new article. (Currently it seems as if anyone can redirect pages and copy content without discussion. I noticed that an IP had previously tried to redirect Krishna Kohli without any discussion).
If there are two article on the same topic, how do we decide which article should content be merged to? Do we always merge to the first created page (regardless of the page title or the state of content in it)?
The history is a bit messy here, but it is clear that much of the content that is currently at Krishna Kohli was copied over from Krishna Kumari Kohli. The article "Krishna Kohli" was still too short for DYK, but was nonetheless nominated at that point. Saqib should therefore have recorded DreamLinker as the person responsible for the expansion on the nomination template. Even basic courtesy would require this, and it's a bit disappointing that it wasn't done. I've added a credit template; if somebody who's better with the syntax can check that I've done what's required, I'd appreciate it. It is possible that Philafrenzy should also be receiving a credit here. The nomination itself has been approved.
The article title is not an issue for DYK; it needs to be sorted out on the talk page. My gut feeling is that Krishna Kumari Kohli is the better title; but in any case WP:COMMONNAME is what you should be following; which title was created first is quite irrelevant. Having the same article at two titles is inappropriate; the title discussion can happen while one of the titles is a redirect to the other. I have therefore reverted your last edit. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@DreamLinker: I apologies if I've hurt you, but essentially one should edit and expand the existing page instead of creating a new one. One can always rename the pages but creating new pages does not make any sense. I agree a courtesy message was missing but I had duly stated in my edit summary the source of the copied content. Concerning the credit in DYK nomination, I'm happy to withdraw my name from the and suggest that it should be replaced with yours (Since the nom is closed. Maybe @Yoninah: can do it?). --Saqib (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Saqib: As the person who nominated the page, there isn't anything wrong with your receiving a credit too; the issue was that yours was the only name listed. In any case, I trust that lessons have been learned here, and that you and DreamLinker will sort out the naming issue on the article talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much Saqib and Vanamonde93. I really appreciate that you took time out to explain it to me. I agree that an existing article should be expanded. It was a mistake on my part that I didn't properly search for an existing page. I will continue to expand Krishna Kohli. As for the naming discussion, I guess it would be pragmatic to perhaps wait for a few weeks for more references in media before moving the page.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago. Here is an updated list with 37 older nominations through the end of February that need reviewing, about half of which are left over from last time. Right now we have a total of 254 nominations, of which half (127) have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three remaining from January.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, the bot is Shubinator's; Wugapodes wouldn't be able to help. I have pinged Materialscientist in the hopes that a manual update can be done; I don't know which other admins can handle those these days. I've also posted to Shubinator's talk page about DYKUpdateBot, which updates the main page; interestingly, Shubinator's other bot, DYKHousekeepingBot, is still running. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It's okay BlueMoonset, I'm pretty sure I still know how to do this, although it's been a while since I had to. I pre-date the bot by quite a while after all ;) Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
... that in her book, Elizabeth Kane used pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the Mormon polygamists she was interviewing?
@Skyes(BYU): This hook seems a little vague: it doesn't seem that clear that it's Kane and not the polygamists who used pseudonyms. Could this hook be revised to make the connection clearer? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
As a revised hook, how about:
... that Elizabeth Kane published her first book under pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the Mormon polygamists she was interviewing?
@Gatoclass: Actually, reading the article again, it's not exactly clear there either if it was Kane or the polygamists that were given pseudonyms. Both the hook and the article might need some revision regarding that.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure if the hook is that interesting after all: it's pretty common practice these days to give pseudonyms to people who don't want to be publicly identified, so it's not a unique case. I would suggest @Skyes(BYU): to propose additional hooks that don't discuss the anonymity thing. Like, for example:
... that the businesses in the settlement of Kane, Pennsylvania closed down in honor of the funeral of founder Elizabeth Kane, despite the funeral being private?
... that physician Elizabeth Kane was skilled in botanical drawing, wood carving, microscopic picturing, and photography, and fluent in at least six languages?
I don't think there can be much doubt about who the pseudonyms were given to - you only need to look up the author of the book to establish that - but I agree with your other points, and I like the second alt you have provided (about the skills). Rachel Helps will probably want to be part of this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, actually, at the time, protection of sources wasn't as common. Per this Washington Post article, the first time it came up legally was in 1896, and Kane's book was published in 1874, so I think it's still an interesting hook. Maybe it would be useful to mention the year "In her 1874 book..." If you don't like that hook, what about using some of the alternate hooks that were approved in the nomination? The hook you suggested about her skills isn't quite accurate. She was only fluent in English and French, and had some knowledge of Spanish, Italian, and German. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): Considering the context of that was not clear in the text, I'm sorry to say it's still not that interesting. Yes it may have been uncommon at the time, but readers today probably won't know that. As for the skills hook, how about:
... that physician Elizabeth Kane was skilled in botanical drawing, wood carving, microscopic picturing, and photography, and knew at least five languages?
On reflection, I think we should probably stick with the Mormon angle since her works on the topic seem to be the things she is most notable for. The one about her being "skilled" in a bunch of things isn't entirely accurate in any case as these were just her hobbies and we don't know how skilled she might have been at them. I don't find any of the hooks terribly interesting but polygamy is an inherently interesting topic to many people so that's another reason to stick with it IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps another hook regarding her work on studying Mormons could work? I'm still not too keen on the pseudonyms hook, but I guess they're acceptable if there's nothing else that can be used. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew06:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
*... that after visiting 12 Mormon homes, Elizabeth Kane wrote a book sympathetic to Mormon polygamists while simultaneously objecting to how polygamy subjugated women?
Okay, I substituted the above hook, though without the "after visiting 12 Mormon homes" phrase which I'm not sure adds anything essential. Gatoclass (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the picture talks for itself. A diorama exhibit from a museum (pictured) was taken out and photographed by a well known photographer in nature. Hopefully this is interesting enough for the reader to read the article and find out the picture appeared in more than a hundred newspapers and won some acclaim. I thought it was hookey enough. --Muhandes (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I think what's bothering me about the hook is the emphasis on where he took the picture ("at Topanga Canyon against the background of the Santa Monica Mountains"). I'm from Los Angeles, so I know where this is, but our general worldwide readership will have no clue where this is or why it's important. Why did he even take a picture of it? The hook doesn't say. A hook is supposed to draw readers in, not be so vague as to let them pass over it. You have so much more good material in the article to make a hook—the purpose of the dioramas, the composition of the dioramas themselves. If you think the hook stands on its own, I would move it out of the image slot. If you'd like to work on a different hook, let's move this back to the noms area. Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: May I suggest that perhaps this sounds less interesting to you because you know where "Topanga Canyon against the background of the Santa Monica Mountains" is? For me the point is that these places, which I know nothing about, sound like "nature" places and a diorama exhibit does not belong there. The fact that a diorama exhibit was shot in a nature setting is the interesting part. Am I making sense? I'd really hate to loose the image, I think it is a good, interesting image and will draw readers in itself. --Muhandes (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I agree, the image is important, and enhances the DYK section on the main page. But the hook is too weak. Who would make the connection you're saying, unless the hook tells you this? Let's move this back to the noms area and I'll suggest some other hook ideas in a few hours, when I have more time. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggested the image for the lead slot, hoping that someone would crop it so just the top half of the statue fills the frame. Could someone help here please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
... that the fifth-largest known volcanic eruption on Earth, at La Pacana in Chile, spewed 2,451–3,500 cubic kilometres of rock?Yoninah, Jo-Jo Eumerus
Yet the article linked within the target to List of largest volcanic eruptions lists it as 17th largest. Plus "spewed" isn't encyclopedic (nor is it used in the article), nor is a range that varies by up to 30%, perhaps "at least 2,451 cubic kilometres" (and a conversion please). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Volume estimates of volcanic eruptions are not that precise. I'd agree with adding a conversion, and to change to something like "explosive eruption" (the Paraná-Etendeka Traps were an effusive eruption). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
That'd be a problem for that article. It does lump explosive and effusive eruptions together and given that estimates are uncertain, it is not a strong argument against the hook.
ALT1: ...that the fifth-largest known explosive volcanic eruption on Earth, at La Pacana in Chile, erupted 2,451–3,500 cubic kilometres (588–840 cu mi) of rock?
Not exactly, since the list does not purport to be an exact ranking of the size of eruptions given that it says that some estimates are uncertain and that in others the unit may actually be the product of more than one eruption. Having said that "... that one of the largest volcanic eruptions on Earth, at La Pacana in Chile, erupted 2,451–3,500 cubic kilometres (588–840 cu mi) of rock?" probably captures it better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, like the endless parade of Japanese voice actors, we need to separate them into at least their own sets, if not separated by a few days just to stave off the possible boredom our readers would experience by reading the same thing, same day... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It is intentional and was by special request of the nominator here. If we can have eight women's bios on one day I don't see why two poisoned beer items can't appear together. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but seeing them together, even spaced apart, does look a little odd, as the beer poisoning article is the subject in one and a secondary link in the other. I think they would work better separately. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Eight women, and even eight Japanese voice actors, will have at most a theme in common. However, in this case, the common characteristic is much narrower: it is the exact same event, with the exact same link, twice in the same queue; also: the poisoning is a regular link in the top entry, and the actual subject of the hook in the second, which is even weirder. Dahn (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. It appears the two articles were inserted into the same set by request of the nominator, but I agree it's not a good idea. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
DYK Admin role RFC
First off, please note this RFC has been copied over from Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 146 for the purposes of closing it, as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. As the RFC is neatly itemized, as will be the closing summary. I am pretty much uninvolved with this process (disclaimer - I have put a couple of articles through the DYK process).
Hook interest - consensus is that no, administrators should not be expected to check hooks to ensure they are reasonably interesting.
Formatting - yes, administrators should check hook formatting for any errors.
Image license - although not an absolute requirement, administrators should check that a license exists, and they can always look into whether the image's license is correct should they have any concerns.
Hook BLP compliance - yes, administrators should only move the hook into a queue if it is compliant with WP:BLP.
Hook neutrality - yes, administrators should only move the hook into a queue if it is compliant with WP:NPOV.
Hook citation - no, this should not be a requirement, as this should have already been checked, but there is no reason why the administrator cannot recheck, should they wish to do so.
DYK eligibility - no, administrators should not be required to check if the article meets the length/age/expansion/QPQ requirements, this is part of the reviewer's role.
Article copyright - no, administrators should not be expected to check the article for copyright issues, this is part of the reviewer's role, but the admin may pick up on and address any obvious issues that have been missed.
Article verifiability - no, as above, administrators should not be expected to check the article for verifiability issues, but they may pick up on and address any obvious issues.
Article BLP compliance - no, administrators should not be expected to check the article for BLP compliance issues, but may pick up on and address any obvious issues.
Article neutrality - no, administrators should not be expected to check the article for NPOV compliance issues, but may pick up on and address any obvious issues.
So, in summary, the consensus is that there is more responsibility on the administrator moving the hook from a prep area to a queue to check the hook than there is to check the parent article, which should be addressed within the review process. The threaded discussion goes into considerable depth on the fundamental issues some perceive within the DYK review process (as opposed to the administrative tasks which take place following review, which are the subject of this RFC), and I suspect further reform discussions will inevitably take place at some point addressing those, which are not in the scope of this request for comment. Fish+Karate12:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The role of admins in the DYK process as defined in the instructions, and the role as practiced, differ widely. Moreover, different admins treat their role differently, and based on past discussions, have widely divergent views on what the role should be. For folks unfamiliar with the process, admins are required to move approved DYK hooks from Prep areas to Queues. The question here is what, if any, further checks admins are required to perform during this process.
Since there are many possible combinations here, I have structured this to permit maximum flexibility in the outcome. Therefore, please feel free to add additional checks that you think admins are required to do, that I may have left out. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Survey
Hook interest
Should administrators be required to check hooks to ensure they are reasonably interesting?
Yes. Administrators should absolutely be checking whether hooks are sufficiently interesting in my view, and removing them if they think they are not up to scratch. It does no harm to return a suspect hook for further discussion, while replacement hooks (from other nominations) are readily available. I think this is the first thing admins should be doing in checking a set. It's something I have done for years, it takes only a few seconds and there is no excuse for allowing a potentially substandard hook to reach the main page IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm probably going against the grain here, but no, at the moment, because the DYK community has not come to a consensus about what constitutes an interesting hook anyway. Some folks have far higher standards for "interesting" than others do. Furthermore, I think this check is less about keeping the main page problem-free and more about making it as good as it could be; which is a responsibility I'm okay leaving with reviewers and promoters. Or to put it another way: I think admins may be said to have a better idea of what constitutes a BLP violation or a WP:V violation. I don't think we necessarily know better than the average community member what constitutes an interesting hook. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It's true that there's a surprising amount of confusion about what constitutes "interest". I personally think there are some very clear criteria one can look for in assessing that and I have intended to add a guideline to that end a number of times but never quite gotten around to it. This is one of the many things I am hoping to be able to address in the near future. Gatoclass (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that in my original comment I managed to conflate two different issues and that some users have responded to the wrong issue here. I have since refactored my comment for clarity. But Vanamonde, while I agree that administrators "don't necessarily know better" than other users what constitutes an appealing hook, they do constitute a third check on hook quality after the initial reviewer and set builder, and if any of the three checkers feel a hook is not up to scratch, chances are it isn't and it needs further work. My point is that the promoting administrator cannot renege on his responsibility in this regard, any more than the initial reviewer or set builder should. If in doubt, pull, because it's better to be safe than sorry. If the pull turns out to be unnecessary, nothing is lost because the original hook can simply be restored at a later time. In my experience however, further discussion about a hook's interest factor almost invariably results in a much better hook than the one that was originally proposed. Gatoclass (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I am leaning toward no unless if the hook is seriously sub-standard, as I am not in favour of admins pulling hooks unilaterally just because they think it's not interesting. This reminds me of a relevant discussion here back in last August. Alex Shih (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, Alex Shih, I refactored my comment above as I realized that with my original comment I had inadvertently raised a different issue to the one intended for discussion here. Hopefully my meaning is more clear now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No I've seen too many complaints about this where the real problem was the ignorance of the complainant. I'd approve it only if a complainant faced an automatic block for a false report. Hawkeye7(discuss)10:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No Admin powers are not assessed or granted on a basis of such editorial judgement and so the admin corps is dominated by men with specific interests such as sport or military history. They cannot be expected to have a good appreciation of other types of topic such as embroidery or romance. The structure of DYK is to rate the hook according to their reception by readers. It's our readership that thus determine the success of a hook. We should therefore focus upon publishing the statistics so that contributors get good feedback and can adjust their submissions accordingly. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No due to previous experiences where admins have removed hooks that were clearly interesting ([1]). This should happen prior to the admin step in the process. Nomader (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I feel really old? I really didn't think it was that long ago... I just remember it because it happened to one of my hooks and no one notified me-- I was absolutely livid and it was a pretty big deal here then. I think if this is implemented, it has be made sure that admins don't remove hooks from the main page, but instead make sure to address the process while they are still in the queue/in the nominations phase. Nomader (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record, that hook pull was done out of process and generated quite a bit of controversy.[2] I should also add that "mak[ing] sure to address the process while they are still in the queue/in the nominations phase" is precisely what I am advocating here. Gatoclass (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that hook pull addresses exactly why administrators shouldn't be *required* to look for hook interest, though. It's a subjective call-- I disagree that it should be a requirement but I think it should be something they *can* do before it goes onto the front page. An administrator can bring these issues up and so can anyone else-- the requirement issue is the problem here. Nomader (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay Nomader, I've given it my best shot and I can't keep repeating myself. I maintain that it's very important for admins to ask themselves whether or not they think hooks are sufficiently interesting before promoting them to the queue, because it never hurts to pull a hook for further discussion if there is any doubt. But for some reason, it seems that argument is just not getting any traction here. Regardless, thank you for at least considering my point of view. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I completely understand where you're coming from and thanks for continuing the discussion-- I'm sorry that I can't agree. Thanks for putting all of the work behind it though, Gatoclass. Nomader (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No, because what constitutes interest to one person may not be interesting to another. Any "uninteresting hooks" should be discussed on a case by case basis. An administrator can definitely bring this issue up. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I might also add that when an administrator pulls a potentially problematic hook from prep or the queue for further discussion, they are actually doing the nominator a favour, because if a hook with issues makes it to the main page without those issues being first addressed, it becomes liable to summary yanking by any drive-by admin and once removed, it can be impossible to return to the main page in a timely manner, resulting in the hook losing the main page exposure the nominator might otherwise have expected because the issues with it weren't ironed out first. Gatoclass (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
But hook interest is not merely subjective. Hooks, for example, which highlight only the everyday or mundane are, by definition, uninteresting. "Did you know that Littletown, Texas has both rainy and sunny days?" is clearly an uninteresting hook because you can say exactly the same thing about virtually any town on earth. Contrary to popular opinion, there are plainly some objective criteria that can be applied when assessing hook interest. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No I would much prefer that hooks were boring and accurately reflect the most important parts of an article than "interesting" and misleading. Interesting hooks should be WAY down the list of concerns. --Jayron3215:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
"Interesting" does not equate to "misleading". I happen to agree though that some hooks try too hard to be interesting when all that is necessary in many cases is to simply outline what is notable about a particular topic - in fact I was arguing as much just days ago on this page - but that's a separate issue. The point I have tried to make in this section is simply that administrators have a responsibility to try and prevent plainly substandard hooks getting to the main page (like the example given above). What I am finding particularly ironic about this entire debate thus far is that DYK has been pilloried for years about the number of fatuous hooks that have made it to the main page, but when given the opportunity to !vote on even the mildest and most obvious preventative measure, the community's attitude seems to be oh no, we couldn't possibly do that.Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Because people "own" their hooks and don't like the idea of someone telling them that they're boring. People continually forget that it's one of DYK's major themes (interesting to a broad audience) and summarily ignore it. Of course, very little is done about it and those of us who highlight hooks which are mediocre in this regard are cast as the pantomime villains. People want to "pile it high, sell it cheap" on DYK, and given the voting across this RFC, that's been certainly reinforced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No: I've had to fight in WP:ERRORS to keep a hook of mine up that an editor thought was "meh", and yet it ended up doing well with 6,000 views -- clearly not everyone is in agreement on what is interesting or not, and hooks shouldn't be removed due to one person's subjective opinions. Umimmak (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No: A hook may be unexciting to a broad audience, but may still be the most interesting hook available. Boring hooks should be intercepted earlier in the process, as admins have more important matters to deal with when moving sets into queues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No. Too subjective. Everyone has different interests. There is no evidence admins are better at judging whether something is interesting or not than non-admins. feminist (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Request to close
I think it's become clear at this point that I messed up this proposal by phrasing the question in the wrong way. The question should have said something like: Should administrators be required to check that hooks are not unacceptably banal or uninteresting? By stating the question as I did, proposing that admins be required to decide whether or not hooks are "reasonably interesting", it seems I have given the impression, judging by the responses above, that I was proposing that administrators be encouraged to return hooks from the prep/queue areas based on what they personally do or do not fancy.
That was absolutely not my intended meaning, rather, I had in mind something more akin to Alex Shih's suggestion that hooks only be pulled if they are "seriously substandard", as he put it - or else in accordance with clear criteria, such as the one I outlined in the "Littletown, Texas" example above.
What I think I should probably do at this point is go and work on establishing some clear criteria for identifying substandard hooks, and then based on that put a modified version of the above question to the community, perhaps in a few week's time. I would like to suggest therefore that this proposal be closed forthwith by an uninvolved administrator, with no prejudice toward a possible future RFC on a related question. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I'm involved here and am not going to close, but FWIW, I do think you got your point across; just that myself and some other folks are unwilling to get behind it given the current uncertainty in the community as to what counts as interesting. That is a problem I would be interested in helping fix, and if we manage that, in implementing a requirement for admins to check it. I'm unwilling at the moment not so much because I'm worried about admins abusing the criterion and making arbitrary pulls. I'm more worried that if we require admins to pull "uninteresting" hooks without defining "uninteresting", we're going to have situations where folks are going to yell and shout about admin incompetence because a hook they disliked was not pulled. Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
We should remove the interesting to a broad audience aim of DYK in that case. By the time a hook gets to a queue, it's only going to be looked at by two people in general, the reviewer who is looking for a QPQ and the promoting admin (who we're led to believe here is not the right person to judge "interesting"). So beyond the person who wrote the hook (which they'd inevitably believe or hope would be interesting) and the reviewer (QPQ done!), no-one is looking at this fundamental tenet of DYK. Absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Formatting
Should administrators be required to check hook formatting for any errors?
I would say that administrators should be absolutely required to check for hook interest. This isn't currently a question in this survey but should be IMO. (Issue addressed, see above). As for "formatting", that's a little vague as a question but certainly, I think admins should be checking for grammatical errors, redundancies and possible tweaks to improve readability. Very basic responsibilities in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes; as I see it, the admin role here is to keep the main page free bad content; so yes, absolutely, we should check formatting and grammar. @Gatoclass: Feel free to make that a separate question. Vanamonde (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes admins should check basic things such as it is bolded correctly, and that pictured is used appropriately. For example once I found a hook that did not link to the DYK page. This is quite easy to spot! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes Checking of basic issues like the bold formatting of the primary topic is sensible because this is quite standard and formalised. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Should administrators be required to check the licensing and use of the image in each set?
I'm not sure what "use" refers to here but certainly, it's a yes to checking the image licence. Okay, I recall the guideline about image use and it's a yes to that too. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No. I wouldn't say admins should be required, because this should be the reviewer's responsibility, but if they're concerned about the copyright status, admins or set reviewers could definitely have a second look. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it should not be required-- but it can still be encouraged. Definitely should not be part of the requirements, however. Nomader (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hook BLP compliance
Should admins be required to check whether hooks are compliant with WP:BLP?
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No Admins are obviously able to use their commonsense if a hook stands out as being too provocative but they should not be required to accept responsibility for everything which they are promoting in good faith. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes: I think this is the only time where hooks should be reviewed by administrators for any subjective/objective reason based on their content. Nomader (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hook neutrality
Should admins be required to check whether hooks are compliant with WP:NPOV?
Yes, as above. I do not believe flagging NPOV violations on the mainpage constitutes a violation of WP:INVOLVED, if the admin is already involved, or that it would make an admin INVOLVED, if they weren't. Vanamonde (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Per Vanamonde93, you cannot as an administrator simply stand by and allow blatant POV hooks to hit the main page because you think it might compromise your UNINVOLVED status to prevent that occurring. Indeed, if you promote a blatantly POV hook to the queue which then goes to the main page, you have arguably done far more damage to your uninvolved status than you would have done simply by returning the hook to the nominations page and asking for a less contentious hook. As I said below, hooks are not, strictly speaking, content in any case, they are pointers to content. I have challenged plenty of hooks for being too contentious and nobody has ever accused me as a result of being INVOLVED. I also think it would be quite a stretch to make such an argument given that in most cases I've never even made a single edit in the topic area in question. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, especially if it is blatant. I think the process for taking hooks down needs to be made clear and the correct editors and this page must be notified. Nomader (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but if an admin perceives that a hook may violate NPOV but isn't blatant, the correct approach is to discuss it with other editors, rather than to remove it unilaterally. feminist (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hook citation
Should admins be required to check if hooks are mentioned in the article, and have a citation in support?
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No, this should be checked first by the reviewer-- if the admin wants to look, they should be encouraged to do so but it is by no means mandatory. Nomader (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Should admins be required to check if hooks are supported by the cited source, if possible?
No, but should be strongly encouraged to do so. I would love to be able to say yes to this question, but given the lack of participation by admins in prep promotion now, we need all the help we can get and can't afford to add requirements that very few admins will be willing to take on. I think "strong encouragement" is the best we can hope for here. Gatoclass (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No. Encourage, but not require. Too time-consuming if all promoting admins are required to check to see if all hooks are supported by their sources. This should be checked by the hook reviewer. feminist (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
DYK eligibility
Should administrators be required to check if the article meets the length/age/expansion/QPQ requirements?
I don't have a strong opinion on this but leaning no because this is something reviewers and set builders should be able to do. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No. If reviewer/promoter carelessness leads to somebody getting a DYK credit they shouldn't, I'm not fussed about it (and I can't recall the last time it happened). Admin time is better spent elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This should be part of the initial DYK check, but it is worth checking if the right people are listed for credit. Also they should take a quick look at the article to make sure it is at least big enough and not total rubbish writing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No, this is the responsibility of the reviewer, and if an article that is only 1497 B gets to the front page, or a hook with 202 characters makes it, that is absolutely unimportant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No. However, if the article was eligible when approved by the reviewer but subsequently had changes made to it that caused it to be ineligible, the correct approach should be to restore to the approved version, rather than to pull the hook. This can be done by any editor with WP:Twinkle or similar. feminist (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Article copyright
Should admins be required to check the article for copyright issues?
No, because it places too much of a burden on the promoting admin. I would certainly spot-check articles occasionally, as a way of keeping reviewers accountable, but I think we cannot require the promoting admin to check everything. Vanamonde (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No, this should be a discretionary call. Promoting admin should read the article to see if there are any issues, and if any suspicions are raised, than it makes sense to double check with the nomination page and run a copyvio check if deemed necessary. It's counter-intuitive to force promoting admin to manually check every single article in a 8-hooks set for copyright issues when it's something that should have been done at the very beginning of a DYK review. If the process is broken, it's the review part that needs to be addressed and fixed in this case. Alex Shih (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Should administrators be required to check sourcing in the article?
That depends on what is meant by "check". I would say admins have a responsibility to do a quick scan of the article to see that it is well presented and that content is appropriately cited. I don't think you can expect them to go combing through sources trying to figure out whether or not they are sufficiently reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sort of. I'd say admins are required to check if references are present where they should be, and that appear reliable. If somebody uses facebook as a source, I do think admins are required to catch that, in the unlikely event that reviewers and promoters have missed it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really. An admin could have a quick look but this should be checked by the reviewer. Admin intervention should only be required if there is a blatant and obvious violation. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Article BLP compliance
Should administrators be required to check the article for BLP issues?
As above, admins should do a quick scan of the article to ensure there are no obvious issues. I don't think you can expect them to thoroughly read every word looking for such issues. Gatoclass (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes because the review process is not fit for purpose and therefore when an admin sanctions an item for the main page they need to be responsible for its quality and content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really. An admin could have a quick look but this should be checked by the reviewer. Admin intervention should only be required if there is a blatant and obvious violation. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As above, I think a quick scan is all that's necessary. If you have reason to believe a particular article might contain significant bias, you may want to take a closer look, but submissions of this type are pretty rare at DYK these days anyhow, so it's not as if it's a major addition to your workload. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really. An admin could have a quick look but this should be checked by the reviewer. Admin intervention should only be required if there is a blatant and obvious violation. epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"Are" and "should" are very different questions, and I would answer them differently: are they now supposed to versus should they do it. If this RfC is to produce useful information, I'd suggest going with one or the other rather than a mixture of both, and I imagine that "should" will point the way forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
IMO I think the current admin instruction is clear on that the key role for admins at DYK is to approve hooks to queue. I presume that's why they are being asked with "should" here. But I don't see any questions surrounding this. Running a copyvio check prior to approving is ideal but quite unrealistic in real time (unless if there are obvious concerns from a quick reading; this is when I'd move on to check the nomination page, as checking for copyvio is one of the first tasks in a proper review, which I think will be addressed in the next planned RfC?). Alex Shih (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It's absolutely not unrealistic for admins to run a copyvio check (apparently Earwig doesn't take too long), and since articles can change drastically between review and promotion, it's absolutely incumbent on admins to not promote items to the main page with copyvios (for instance) so they must check for that, and abuse of fair use images too in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Theoretically any admin moving something to a queue should check for anything that's not policy-compliant (BLP, NFCC, COPYVIO). Anything else (i.e. hooks that are wrong or misleading) should have been picked up previously (hollow laugh). Black Kite (talk)21:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
You realize that this is going to result in less admins working in this area, right? The (very) few times I've promoted a hook I've viewed it as a purely technical task. I'll obviously look for BLP vios but am trusting the DYK reviewers have done their jobs. I'm not saying there's anything wrong if the community wants to assign extra responsibility to the promoting admin, just that the admins who occasionally assist might not want to do so going forward. --NeilNtalk to me03:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Hmm. I thought I had created a clear rfc, but apparently not. I'm asking each question separately. We can decide that admins should check everything, some things, or nothing. That is up to the community. @The Rambling Man: I will amend the wording inconsistencies,but I'm essentially asking what admins should be doing. Given your statement here, might I ask you to vote yes on the relevant options above? Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 03:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: TRM: I've now fixed the wording. I didn't realize it was confusing, but it was. There are of course several things admins are required to do at the moment according to the instructions, but current practice (and, I suspect, consensus) has moved away from some of them. @Black Kite: Since I've now fixed the wording, would you care to express those opinions above? Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
One thing I am wondering about with regard to this RFC is, should responses be limited to administrators only? After all, this only pertains to admin responsibilities, these are not questions that non-admins are ever going to have to consider. I'm not sure it's even possible to limit RFCs in such a way though. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I did consider this; in particular, I was worried that a set of responsibilities considered too burdensome may drive admins away. But fundamentally I think this is about the DYK process and main-page integrity, questions which I do not think we can limit to admins. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm just a little concerned that non-admins are going to look at these options, think to themselves, oh sure, it would great if admins did all these checks! - without considering the burden it would add to administrators who might otherwise be willing to contribute to the running of DYK and the likely exodus of admins from participation as a result (see comment by NeilN as an example of the likely response). Gatoclass (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough; but I'd rather try to sort that out by asking admins concerned about the burden of these checks to comment above and make it clear that a large number of tasks would lead to them reducing their participation, rather than by limiting participation in the RFC, which would lead to tremendous ill-feeling (even if there was a basis in policy for it, which I'm unsure about). Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this sadly a waste of time really. This isn't really where the conversation needs to be going. What's the primary issue with DYK at the moment? Bad quality reviews leading to items being passed. The admin role at the very end of the process may need some examination, but if all the checks and measures that should have been performed correctly by the reviewers has been performed correctly by the reviewers, the admin role is perfunctory. We need to talk about the root cause of the problem, not the peripheral issues which, it's already clear, is not going to change anything. But as far as I'm concerned, right now the admin has to do the whole review process from scratch because the system is so broken. That's the reality of the situation. Hooks can't be trusted, sources can't be trusted, articles are being promoted regularly which fail DYK rules and supplementary rules. Hooks are going into sets days or weeks after they're ticked during which time anything can have happened to them so they need re-review.... there's too much wrong at the source here to worry about the role of the individual at the last step of the process right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but there are a lot of things that need addressing at DYK and we can't deal with all of them at once. Vanamonde93 has long wanted clarification of the role of administrators and since it's a relatively straightforward issue to examine, it just happens to have become the first thing we are looking at. Accountability of reviewers and other matters have also been raised in the process of discussion and I'm sure we will be getting to some of these other more complex issues soon enough. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not clear what the expectations of the role of an admin here are until we have defined what they are faced with which, at the moment, is a load of unreliable reviews which need to get re-done from scratch. People who are charged with promoting items to the main page have to be 100% responsible for the content, so if they're not bothering to do the job properly knowing that what they're promoting is probably deficient then they ought not to do the job at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The admin role is generally perfunctory. All the checks should have already been already performed by the reviewers. It is possible for the article to have changed in the meantime. We must be more tolerant of errors if we are to promote a collegial atmosphere where people enjoy contributing to DYK (and Wikipedia). Hawkeye7(discuss)10:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a social club, we're not here to be "nice", we're here to create quality content and serve our readers. Remember: we are here for the readers. We absolutely must not tolerate errors, especially from those who make them time after time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
TRM, nobody is avoiding any issues here, and I am sorry you see this RFC that way. I agree that the core issue is review quality; which is why I have made proposals above to address this. Those proposals are just not ripe for an RFC yet, in my view, and require further discussion. If you feel otherwise, feel free to start such an RFC. The admin role was ripe for an RFC, and so I started one. It's a manageable problem. Nobody's saying it's the only one. Vanamonde (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anyone is avoiding issues, just not focusing on the real issues. A little like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. If reviews are conducted 100% correctly, then admins should do nothing beside promote preps. If reviews aren't conducted 100% correctly, what an admin needs to do is on a sliding scale from nothing to complete re-review. That seems obvious to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That assumes the review process is going to remain unchanged, though: whereas there are proposals above to fix those. I'm trying to find a comprehensive set of fixes, not a single magic bullet. Vanamonde (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Why are the neutrality questions combining NPOV and BLP issues? Admins are empowered to address BLP issues anywhere on the project but there's no way in hell I'm judging NPOV (content issue) as an admin. That opens me up to WP:INVOLVED accusations, and rightfully so. --NeilNtalk to me13:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Probably should as I'd imagine most admins feel the same way. As in, yes I'll go the extra mile and check for BLP issues the reviewers might have missed but addressing NPOV is beyond my remit. --NeilNtalk to me14:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, sometimes we get incredibly biased hooks, for example, demonizing one side in a political conflict. As an administrator, you can't just stand idly by and let crap like that hit the main page, because if you do there may well be an uproar (and rightly so). So you have to be prepared to simply say "this hook isn't ready for prime time, you need to come up with something less contentious." I don't think that will fatally compromise your UNINVOLVED status at all. Hooks are not, strictly speaking, content in any case, they are pointers to content. But if you are keen to remain strictly UNINVOLVED, there's no harm in you simply skipping a queue promotion with NPOV issues and leaving it to another administrator. Far better to do that than make yourself party to a blatant POV violation on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
We actually very rarely get blatantly POV hooks, and I don't have the inclination to go searching for an example right now. Maybe I'll take a look tomorrow if I can find time. But pulling a hook is not "overriding consensus" anyhow, it's more like asking for a clearer consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Admins are not editors (although they are editors with extra buttons, it's a different function). We should not give admins per se editorial function, so I will again suggest something I had suggested awhile ago, we have an elected board of overseers or coordinators, who oversee, including editorial, resolve disputes, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Gah! :) No, I don't think we can take on the whole project, here, just DYK. (My idea partly comes from FAC, which at one time elected coords, I assume they still do and partly just the idea of a semi-editorial board that allows for ease of functioning not fighting - or delegating to committee, if you will) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh okay, the old "DYK directorate" notion. At one time I probably would have been strongly in favour of that. These days, they would probably have to offer me a very attractive wage to serve on it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment this is, as I predicted, a complete waste of time. We have no agreement over the fundamental and important issues of what an admin should be doing here, moreover we have complete failure to understand the fact that no-one besides the QPQ (yes, it passes!) reviewer is doing all this heavy work. My original point (reviewers aren't doing the job properly) completely defines what admins need to do, not the other way round, until such a time that we have confidence that the review process works. In the meantime, this well-meaning poll of DYK regulars is of no use at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe the set builders are also supposed to fact check the hooks. So there are three levels of built-in review: initial reviewer, set builder and promoting administrator, not two as you have stated here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
While I suspect the three levels of built-in review were meant to be the case, to maximize the chances that errors in the original review would be caught before hooks made it to the main page, there has never been agreement that it should be done. So we currently have a hodge-podge: some set builders do comprehensive checks, while others will do only a few, generally related to the hook. Some admins will do comprehensive checks before moving a set from prep to queue, while others will just do a quick look-over. So instead of guaranteed redundancy in all checking, we have some sets that are well checked, while there are others that get minimal checking at both prep and queue stages.
It seems to me that this RfC has put the cart before the horse: until we determine what we're going to require of DYK reviewers and what strategies we're going to employ at the review stage to try to ensure the best possible results at that stage, we don't know what level of checking we're going to need from people putting prep sets together—where the redundancies need to be—and then, based on that, what checks are most critical for admins to make. Not just whether the original reviewer caught everything, but also what we want in terms of checking changes to the article since the most recent review, because articles can be the same, enhanced, or made less reliable while waiting to be promoted and while sitting in prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. There is no disagreement whatsoever over what an initial reviewer is supposed to do; which is, to thoroughly check each and every one of the DYK criteria. The question we have to work out is how to ensure that they perform these checks. This issue isn't yet ripe for an RFC, but there are proposals above (why do I keep having to repeat this?) to address this issue. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts there. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree BlueMoonset. This is rearranging deckchairs. We need to understand what's so wrong with the review process before we worry about what an admin needs to do. Admins should be just promoting preps to queues and nothing more. The fact they can't because of quality issues means they have to effectively do the whole review again themselves as in promoting to queues, they're accepting responsibility for what's going to appear on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks like I disagree with you both. Vanamonde, no matter how carefully one thinks one has done a review, it's always possible to overlook something: we have to allow for error despite general competence in addition to error due to lack of understanding or inexperience or failure to adequately check all the criteria. (It isn't just how to ensure they perform the checks; it's how to ensure they perform them well. Earwig is a blessing and a curse: a blessing in that sometimes copyvios/close paraphrasing is found, and a curse in that most people do not understand its limitations and miss copyvios due to misunderstanding the results and close paraphrasing because they don't realize Earwig rarely finds it.) The next line of defense is currently at the point of promotion to prep, though there could be others added at the review stage. However, unlike The Rambling Man, I don't see admin promotion to queue ever being a straight promotion without checking because admins have to take responsibility for what's going to appear on the main page. I don't see how they can safely trust that everything was done perfectly at the prior stages; even with the best of intentions and following the expected process, human error will occur. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Well if you truly believe that, than admins need to fully re-review hooks - they don't get credits, they're not gaining QPQs, so they're ideally placed to check every rule of DYK is being followed. Too much COI for reviewers seeking out QPQ, or WikiCup points or whatever, the end result being that there's no real quality control going on at DYK at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you BlueMoonset that administrator promotion to the queue can never be a rubber stamp for the reasons you outline. But neither can we expect admins to do complete reviews of entire sets. The question is where to strike the right balance. That's what this RFC is about, and for the reasons given, I don't think it matters a great deal whether we hold it now or wait to see what additional safeguards can be added to the earlier reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It's absurd. There is no "right balance", either admins believe reviews have been conducted correctly, or they don't. If they don't, they need to review articles from scratch because there's no telling what could be wrong. If they do, they just promote to a queue and accept that when the shit hits the fan, it's their responsibility or at least they defer their responsibility to the one reviewer. That's what makes this entire RFC a waste of time. What a promoting admin should do is ensure that everything that goes to the main page is suitable. How that's achieved is entirely down to the quality of review beforehand. Let's deal with that first, and then worry about what admins should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
What it all boils down to is whether admins can rely on the nominator, reviewer and promoter to get things right. When promoting an article, the main check I always make is whether the hook is accurate, the hook facts are in the article and are backed up by inline citations. Sometimes this is easy and sometimes it isn't, and on occasions it is a matter of opinion and I don't always get it right. The admin moving the set into the queue needs to ensure that things have not changed materially since each hook was reviewed and promoted. I think it questionable whether they need to check the hook in detail again, and think their time is better used if they check that the article is policy compliant and free from copyvios. In this regard, people like TRM and Nikkimaria, who informally check the hooks in prep, are performing a useful service. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 18 February 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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
I just did a little searching, and can't find any sources for this information. In fact, I hate to say this, but looking at the sources in the article, and what I found myself (in an admittedly rather cursory search), I'm not sure this has enough WP:RS to pass AfD. Is this really front-page material for the encyclopedia? I'm tempted to bring this to AfD myself, but don't want to disrupt the DYK process. -- RoySmith(talk)15:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
NSPORTS says he's notable (i thought a little on the same line) for having won a medal at the Paralympic Games - and thus is likely to be kept Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for raising these issues, RoySmith. I thought you were the nominator, so that's why I asked you to fix it. Meanwhile, I found a dead link in a source. I'm returning this to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
A nine-time Paralympic gold medal winner is being considered for AfD?! That's somewhat patronising! At least his MBE gave him some recognition if this place isn't able to! His actual disability is not something that must be discussed. His category is noted and, given that he doesn't even go into detail about his disability himself on his own, very thorough site, I don't think that it is necessarily our place to describe it. violet/riga[talk]19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I pulled the hook for the article not mentioning his disability, and for a dead link, not for his being a 9-time medalist (which the hook doesn't say). Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to throw a wrench into the works here. My concern is that most of the references in the article look like primary sources to me. I'm not seeing the reliable secondary sources required by WP:BLPSTYLE. I'm not an expert on sports articles, and I know there's a long-standing controversy about what presumed notable means with respect to WP:NSPORTS vs WP:GNG. Maybe the sources are sufficient to pass NSPORTS, but I don't think they're enough to pass WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- RoySmith(talk)21:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that WP:NOLY is pretty clear: "Athletes ... are presumed notable if they ... have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". That criterion is satisfied. Regarding secondary sources, most of the links are to the IPC or BPA which are certainly secondary sources. violet/riga[talk]22:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That answers whether Surgeoner meets the "presumed notable" clause of sports notability, but not what "presumed notable" means. If it's the same as "notable", what is the purpose of the extra word "presumed"? And if it's not the same as "notable", then we would still need to determine whether they are notable in some other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
"Presumed notable" means that normally, for Paralympic medalists, there will be sufficient sources available (like here); however, especially for the first few games, there are quite a few medalists where we don't have enough information to identify them (e.g. the South African "Bosch" won the 100m freestyle 5 in 1972), and if there are no other sources with more information on them, we shouldn't create an article on them. Note that at the early paralympics, the participation standards were very low, and most participants didn't get attention in the press for being at the Games or even winning. People participated at the same games in e.g. swimming, table tennis and athletics, not because they were good at all sports but because they were there anyway and wanted to have a good time / get the most out of it. See e.g. this Canadian gold medal winner for whom further information is missing. They are for our purposes just a name in a database, and until some secondary source does the research and pays personal attention to them, they are just not notable, even though they were pioneers in their own way. But all this doesn't apply to Surgeoner, for whom we have the required additional information and attention. Fram (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
My initial objection (i.e. not saying what his disability is) has been resolved. I'm still not 100% convinced the sources are good enough to pass WP:GNG, but neither am I convinced that they're not, so I'm not going to stand in the way. -- RoySmith(talk)18:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
At WP:DYKA, it appears that the date in the heading for archived DYKs is 1 day ahead. (This is not the offset between UTC and any particular timezone; it's that the UTC date doesn't match the DYK date.) For example, Talk:Smashburger (and my own recollection) state that the DYK was posted on on March 21 (UTC), but the heading states 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC). Am I missing something, or can this be addressed? TheFeds02:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot by Shubinator updates Wikipedia:Recent additions. It seems the archiving has always given the date and time it was added to the archive which is when it's removed from {{Did you know}} and not when it's added there. DYK entries can be edited while in {{Did you know}} so they have to be archived when they are removed. The time between DYK updates has varied and is currently 24 hours. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Question about the 6-week limit for Special occasion hooks
Where is this rule discussed? I can't seem to see it either on the main DYK or the supplementary guidelines page. I'm asking because I'm planning to expand Yurika Endō, an article about a soon-to-retire Japanese voice actress and singer, and I was planning to request for it to go up on June 1 (the date of her final concert). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
.. that San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri won a decades-long court battle against the ACLU to prevent the destruction of the Mount Soledad Cross (pictured)?
The hook was sourced to this, a blog article on an utterly unreliable and partisan site (with among other articles gems like "Global Warming: The Evolution of a Hoax"[3] from yesterday). Just take a look at that site for yourself and you'll swiftly get a feeling of the general position it takes, and the strength of the arguments underpinning it.
The hook wsa not only very, very poorly sourced, it was also wrong. No single court battle was won, they had to accept that the court had decided that the cross wasn't allowed on that government-owned location, and solved it by selling the ground. That's not "winning a court battle", that's choosing the best (for them) of two possible solutions to comply with a court battle they lost.
Please make sure that hooks with this very poor level of sourcing, which is contradicted by the linked article on the cross anyway, don't make it unto our front page. Fram (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I was skeptical of the website myself, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt as I didn't want to decline a source solely because of its political orientation. I'll be more careful with checking questionable sources next time. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised that so many faults were found with the article here and at Errors. I didn't see that blog page; I read the source at the end of the paragraph about his litigation on behalf of the Cross. Thanks to a note at ERRORS, "prevented the destruction" was rightly changed to "prevented the removal". But now I see the hook was sensationalized and not based on the source I read, either. Yoninah (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a day ago. Here is an updated list with 38 older nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through March 6. Right now we have a total of 274 nominations, of which 135 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from January.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I've moved 13 approved women's hooks to the special occasions holding area for March. Let's try to promote them all! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Template:Did you know nominations/Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel
I have a question about the eligibility for Template:Did you know nominations/Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel. Basically, I started expanding it on March 14 and nominated the article on March 23, but I only started making significant edits from March 18. The only reason I nominated it is that the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel article was eligible for five-fold expansion between March 18 and March 23. However, the reviewer, Ritchie333, said that the five fold expansion started on March 14, so I had just barely missed the one-week cut-off point for five-fold expansion. I checked the article using DYK Check and it counts an expansion from March 18, so I would appreciate some feedback just to make sure whether this article is eligible for five-fold expansion. epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
If I was the reviewer I'd let it pass, as 5* expansion happened related to 18 March. I had a similar case recently, expanding Psalm 84 first a bit, and then much more, and also nominated for that later date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes it meets the criteria of a fivefold expansion with the past seven days. Edits prior to the most recent seven day period are not relevant. MB14:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
... that the English radiographer Ethel Armstrong worked for the National Health Service from the day it was founded in 1948 until 2018?Yoninah, Zeromonk, Whispyhistory
I tweaked this because the previous hook was tautological, but then reading the article it makes no mention of her actual retirement. It simply says "However, she noted that when the NHS turns 70 it would also be her 70th anniversary, and perhaps time to retire fully.[1][4]". This is not what the hook (either before or after my tweak) implies. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Philafrenzy's alt here is what we posted in prep. Since her retirement date is vague, perhaps we could say:
ALT2: ... that the English radiographer Ethel Armstrong has worked for the National Health Service from the day it was founded in 1948? Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I added "has" to indicate a time span that has not ended. I prefer the one that says 70 years as it has more impact and doesn't require maths. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that the English radiographer Ethel Armstrong has worked for the National Health Service since the day it was founded in 1948? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
No, rule 1d: Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible.
... but you can find something related, write a short DYK article about it, and mention the GA in the hook. Attention for the GA guaranteed. Sometimes it's not the bolded subject that receives most attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I nominated Thomas D. Keizur for DYK on 10 MayMarch, but it's not listed as pending review or approved. I checked original DYK file and it look like noination was approved on 22 March. Could someone tell me what status of this nomination is?--Orygun (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Orygun: the reviewer mistakenly closed the nomination rather than put the approval tick at the bottom of the thread. I reopened the nomination and also asked for a fuller DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Easter and April Fools Day
...coincide this year. Should I move the approved Easter hook to the AFD holding area? I put it in the Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, this opens a whole set of questions, since this hasn't happened before (at least that I'm aware of): Are we mixing the hooks? Or does one take precedence over the other? Or would it be a meta thing to have a serious Easter hook in the middle of a sea of AFD hooks? Or will the Easter hooks need to also serve double duty as AFD?
I think much will depend on who is putting together the AFD prep sets this year (and note that unlike the days around it, there will be (at least) two sets of hooks being posted that day, a temporary departure from the one a day promotions we currently have). There is a section of the AFD talk page related to this: Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Easter in 2018. However, I don't see much in the way of specifics. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In Prep 1, the hook I wrote has an error, : "...that Sharon Calahan is the first member invited to join the American Society of Cinematographers with a background entirely in computer animation, not live action film?" The tense and grammar don't work. It should say she "became the first member invited to join", not "is the first member"; it's written as if she were already a member before she accepted the invitation. It could also say "...that Sharon Calahan is the first cinematographer in the American Society of Cinematographers whose feature film work had been entirely in computer animation, not live action film?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not her "cinematography background". It's her feature film experience. The ASC doesn't care whether potential members might have previously worked the drive-thru at McDonald's, or drove a truck, or done something or other on TV commercials. It's a feature film organization and until Calahan all members had had at least some experience as Director of Photography on feature films. The fully qualified claim, as it is in the article, would be phrased as "first ASC member whose feature film work had been entirely in animation". That's animation, computer or otherwise. Another way of phrasing it would be "Calahan is the first person invited to join the ASC who had no feature film work as a Director of Photography [cinematographer]. All of her feature film experience was in animated films, and all of them computer animated." Calahan had also worked as an art director at two TV stations and a documentary company, and it's likely that included live action videotaping, but that's not feature film and her title wasn't Director of Photography. Anyway, there are more sources to support the claim than just those I have cited so far: [4][5][6][7][8], etc. Wired wrote "she became its first member to have an all-CG reel." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
DYK nominations not transcluded in December 2017
The following three DYK nominations were never transcluded after they were created in mid-December 2017 as part of the Sociology of Globalization course, for which Piotrus is listed as Facilitator. The nominations all appear to have been immediately following moves into mainspace (or, in one case, anticipating the move by two days).
Template:Did you know nominations/Gabjil: the article was subsequently moved from Gabjil to Gapjil, and has both neutrality and copy edit templates on it. It obviously cannot pass DYK in that condition; the proposed hook may have NPOV issues as well. The nomination was the creator's most recent edit.
Template:Did you know nominations/Hanbit Unit: while the template needs fixing up, there aren't any obvious issues with the article. (I don't consider a template saying that more categories are needed, even though there are five listed, as a significant issue.)
Template:Did you know nominations/Jeju Oreum: the hook may need work ("outstanding beauty" strikes me as puffery), and the article needs a copyedit: I had trouble understanding a number of passages.
Since the course is long over, it doesn't make sense to resurrect any of these unless someone is willing to address any issues found during the review process (or the ones already mentioned here). Are there any volunteers to take these on? (After three months absence, Yeon So Jeong, a creator of Jeju Oreum, and Byung chan kim, who created Hanbit Unit, have made edits to other articles within the past week. If they are interested in pursuing the nominations and addressing issues that come up, that could work.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Those students signed up for another wikipedia-editing class of mine, which should explain the otherwise miraculous reactivation of their accounts. I'd suggest relisting those articles in whatever section allows it, and when the reviews are posted, hopefully they'll notice this fact on their userpage and edit the articles with whatever fixes necessary. I'll of course try to help. For Gabjil, we should probable close the nom as unsuccessful and move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Piotrus, in the past we have not transcluded forgotten nominations without a commitment from the nominators to work on the nomination once it is reviewed. I'll post a note soon on their respective talk pages; if they make said commitment, I'll be happy to restore the nomination in question, but without that agreement the nominations will lapse. Per your suggestion, I have closed Gabjil/Gapjil. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
That's totally fair. I talked to the student responsible for Jeju Oreum, and I hope she will get back to you. One minor problem is that without a review, ie. a formal list of things to fix, I am a bit hard pressed explaining to students what they need to do now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Strandflat has an approved hook based on a 1982 journal article, but the Wikipedia article says the hook applied up to 2013 and adds a second citation that does not appear to support the hook.
Pick a date. Tie it to an article not written 30 years in its future.
@BlueMoonset: I "happened" to come across one of these special occasion earmarked hooks of Gerda's and promoted it. I would never have found the others if she didn't mention it here. If reviewers aren't moving the special occasion hooks to the holding area, who will? Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, it ought to be the reviewer or a passing promoter. (There's nothing wrong with the nominator posting here if their hook wasn't moved by the reviewer when the tick was given.) We had an example of a request that was ultimately turned down recently (two related hooks that were promoted, but that decision was questioned on this page); I don't think people should be allowed to give their hooks special occasion status without independent concurrence. There can be other problems as well, such as the two nearly identical hooks in Prep 2 (the initial portion of the hooks shown below sans non-bold links):
that the baritone Johannes Hill was the voice of Jesus and Pilate in Bach's Passions
that Willem Ravelli was the voice of Christ in Bach's St Matthew Passion
There's nothing wrong with the hooks as hooks, but having two of these in a single set is really a problem. Gerda Arendt, these are both yours. Can one of them be moved to another day during Holy Week, ideally not immediately before or after Good Friday, but as long as they aren't on the same day it would be workable. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I've moved the one that Gerda Arendt said could be moved one day earlier to the next set earlier. The hooks start out almost identically, and "voice of Christ" and "voice of Jesus" are the same thing. They're both talking about singers being the voice of Christ in one or more Bach Passions, and that's way too close. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
How about not mentioning Jesus in the Hill hook, but the archangel Raphael and Adam (both in The Creation) instead, or additionally? I had agreed to Maundy Thursday, but Pilate is actually not on the scene until Good Friday. - Whe can't get around "voice" twice, because it should show that both singers are not the operatic kind, so only lend their voice to personalities. How is this:
Gerda Arendt, can we avoid the "was the voice of" phrasing? It's unusual, and having it twice in one set is problematic. Even something as simple as "has been" or "has performed as" might work, though something a bit wordier might be preferable. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you see the problem in saying "X has been Jesus"? (Or Pilate? Or an archangel?) Or "has performed as Jesus"?) - I see Main page errors coming for all these wordings. It's vox Christi for a reason. - It works for Rigoletto, or "Wagner's Wotan", because everybody knows that's an operatic role. Rather don't run it that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Having a bit of difficulty with this nomination: I'm not sure if the hooks proposed here are fine or not: while the hooks are interesting, they seem too BLPish for me considering they focus on the lawsuit's plaintiff sleeping. I also struck ALT1 because, while it was my preferred hook had the hook been less-BLPish, it was cited to The Daily Beast, which seems to be discouraged at the moment. Additional advice is welcome here regarding the eligibility of the hooks, and the possibility of proposing alternative hooks. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew08:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
As nominator, my view is that there is no BLP issue as the hooks proposed are NPOV, Verifiable and NOR as well as not being "unduly negative" as they feature only the facts as they were presented in the case (which is what the hook is about), without any particular angle or opinion on the person involved. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally I prefer ALT2 proposed by Yoninah. It's unnecessary for a hook to be borderline sensational and explicit in order to make it interesting. Alex Shih (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
An experienced prep builder is needed to build the two sets for April 1. We're running out of time. EEng06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think @EEng: we may have to invoke WP:IAR here as I think every regular prep builder has commented on at least one of the AFD hooks proposed. I can make a start but I won't unless you or another regular agree it would be the right thing to do. Plus are we doing 2x8/9 for the day too? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)08:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems clear to me we need 2x8 or 2x9. Let me suggest that "we" (i.e. you -- I gotta get to bed now) start by building two proto-sets right on the April 1 talk page, like I started to do here [10]. That way everyone already engaged in the discussion there will see it. Let me suggest that the Trump/Hillary/Obama hooks be put in the second set, i.e. for 1200 to 2400 UTC, which makes the most sense for North America. EEng08:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
You know, it's really out of process to suggest that someone should promote their own hooks and hooks that they have ticked. There are surely enough people around (pinging Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah) that we don't use the one person, The C of E, who has submitted the most nominations and on top of that was the person who approved a number of hooks. In Prep 4 alone, this combines to 6 of the 9 hooks. Someone with less COI should be doing the promoting and set building. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't suggest anyone promote their own hooks, or even promote any hooks at all. I consciously suggested that "proto"-sets be built on the April 1 talk page, not in actual preps, exactly so someone else could be found later to move the hooks to prep, doing the usual checks at that time. But we needed to get something going. Why CofE then almost immediately went on to move those protosets to actual preps is beyond me. EEng16:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Question, shouldn't we temporarily switch to 12 hours if we are running two sets? Seems slightly strange to have two days of April fools. Alex Shih (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I have not been involved to any great extent in reviewing the hooks and don't mind filling one of the sets, say Prep 5. I normally leave such activities for people with greater enthusiasm about April Fool's Day to manage. The present single hook in Prep 4 is celebrating Easter, which is a good enough reason for including it. Easter has precedence over AFD in my opinion.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The two sets for April 1 have been "mocked up" at Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#Draft_sets_-_Version_C. We now need someone to formally move them to preps, doing the usual checks, though the labor of selecting the hooks has been done for you. Ideally this will be done by someone who hasn't participated too much in the April 1 discussion up to now -- fresh eyes. If you want, do just one of the two sets and leave the other to someone else.
After that, we need an admin to do the move to queues, taking care to slot them in at the right point for the first of the two sets to swap onto the main page at 0000 UTC on Sunday April 1.
We also need an admin to adjust the magic robot parameter to make April 1 a two-set day, one set running 0000 to 1200, one running 1200 to 2400; then at some point the parameter needs to be changed back to normal. I'm not sure exactly when these changes can/must be made.
I'll change to 12 hours after 1 April 00:00 UTC, and change back to 24 hours after 2 April 00:00 UTC. Ideally the hooks associated with Easter should run at second prep, correct? Alex Shih (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth has been nice enough to move SET ONE VERSION C to Prep 4. We need an admin to move Prep 4 to Queue 4 (to run April 1 0000 - 1200 UTC).
We need a volunteer to take SET TWO VERSION C to Prep 5, and eventually an admin to take Prep 5 to Queue 5 (to run April 1 1200 - 2400 UTC).
From this diff [11] it appears that the one Easter-related hook should run on Monday. (I've now moved that hook to Prep 3 to make Prep 5 available for SET TWO VERSION C.)
Alex, I don't care what you do with the Nazi issue but I think you should unlink James Longstreet, as that link does act as a spoiler in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally I would, but I am getting the impression that the focus is trying to limit the links that are key to the joke, so probably no. As long as there aren't any avoidable/unnecessary provocations, I am fine with whatever. Alex Shih (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
For a start, it will draw views away from the article given its going to be a long link so it is likely more enticing to click on. Not to mention it would be WP:OLINK to do so as it is not the primary focus in the hook as the april fools joke is about the tune which shares the same name as the town. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)11:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Your point about drawing views away does not, in any way, address the question I asked, which was your claim of limiting the joke. I realise it would take "clicks" away from the article, which I think is a questionable reason to exclude a link, but limiting the joke is a different reason and particularly relevant for April 1... hence my asking for an explanation as I don't see how the link takes away from or limits the joke. As for your comment about overlinking, I think your appeal to the MOS is ill-advised. After all, it lists, under what should be linked, "Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." I'm not about to unilaterally add a link, I just don't understand how a link for the place name gives away the joke (as, for example, a link for grammar Nazis clearly would in a case discussed above). EdChem (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the place name should be linked as well. This isn't about how many pageviews one article can get, this is about having fun while informing and enabling our readers. It's them we're here to serve, not us. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Erschienen ist der herrlich Tag
Erschienen ist der herrlich Tag translates to "The glorious day appeared", and the day meant is Easter Sunday, not Easter Monday. If there was a discussion to have it on Monday I missed it, sorry. Can we help the second set on 1 April to one reference to Easter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Believe me Gerda, I did have it included in the sets for tomorrow as a courtesy as it was already in there before we started building the April Fools sets. Alas my sets got taken down and jumbled up. My plan was to have this one run first then Christ the Lord Is Risen Today in the second one. @Alex Shih: is there room for us to still do this (as I note the second prep for April Fools Day hasn't been built yet in Prep 5 yet and @Cwmhiraeth: also supported including it above)? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)16:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It was completely anomalous in a group of humorous links to have one and one only which was not only twice the length of any of the others, but also just deadly serious. It certainly shouldn't be in the April Fools Day set. It would be far superior to have humour (only) in the morning set, and Easter (only) in the afternoon set. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, though that would mean 1/2 as many humor items -- which is fine with me because I thought that about 1/2 of them weren't so humorous anyway. The next time Easter falls on April 1 will be in 2029, so let's all mark our calendars. EEng17:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried adding it to the second April Fools set, it looked totally incongruous. I agree with Black Kite[12] that it's fine to run it on Easter Monday, there's no compelling reason to run it on the Sunday where it looks totally out of place in a bunch of joke hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Where is that prep set? And no, it certainly would not work there. And thirdly, if this prep set actually exists, someone needs to separate the second and third hooks which start with "that the United States ...." because that looks amateurish and boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Well it certainly doesn't work anywhere else in the set. And it's not as if we haven't mixed up themed and non-themed hooks in the past.
Regarding the duplication of "United States", yes it's undesirable but it's not a dealbreaker, I tried many variations of the hooks and this is the one that worked best. No set is ever perfect in every respect. There are limits on the changes you can make because we also had two legal cases that needed to be put into different sets, and two computer virus hooks likewise, in addition to the three "faux politician" hooks that have been placed together by consensus. Gatoclass (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't work in any set where all the other hooks are jokey. That is fundamentally obvious. Do not repeat the United States opener, that is a "deal breaker" and looks totally amateurish. If you had eight hooks starting with the same four words, that would be fine, but this is simply crap. Where is the consensus that says these two hooks should and must be placed next to one another? Where is the prep set, or is it being kept away from the rest of us until it's straight into a queue in case we make edits? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I put it up there as a suggestion, I personally think it would probably get a pass in that spot only but this is indeed very much a matter of opinion. With regard to the two United States hooks together, that can hardly be avoided given that moving the "Jigsaw" hook would result in four obviously US-related hooks in a row. Two "United States" phrases together is very much the lesser evil in that regard. Gatoclass (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Which is bollocks given these hooks are all funny and curious and are not about the whole idea of what the hook actually says, just what it means, so bypass the clumsy and shit looking repetition by moving them apart. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
As usual, you personally don't want to action my concerns, but thankfully others have, contrary to your claim of consensus. Honestly, what a waste of time it is debating these issues with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said, having FOUR US-related hooks in a row is a considerably worse solution than having one repetition of the term "United States" in a row. This has nothing to do with "not wanting to action your concerns" and everything to do with common sense and the DYK guidelines. Gatoclass (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Four hooks related to a particular country in a row is an unacceptable breach of the DYK guideline in my view and I would think that other DYK regulars would concur. Gatoclass (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe they are just as sick of wrangling over the April Fools sets as I am. Regardless, I decided last night after some reflection that it makes little difference either way and not worth the fuss. After all, it's one minor change to the two sets I proposed which were otherwise adopted wholesale - a remarkable outcome given the difficulty in achieving consensus at a contentious project like AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
No, common sense prevailed, and rightly so. I think you made a number of mistakes in trying to enforce your preferred "guideline-based" version. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
unseemly bickering and sniping
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't try to "enforce" things, this is a project that works by consensus. I stated my case and left it at that. You are welcome to your opinion that I made "a number of mistakes", but given that 95% of my proposal was adopted, I'd say that any "mistakes" I made were pretty insignificant by comparison. Gatoclass (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you went all sticky when you started calling out "an unacceptable breach of the guideline". You're clearly missing the point as the rest of us where just way happy with the resulting set of hooks, despite your objections. Your continual objection to anything I have to offer is noted (and recorded now, for training purposes). Just be glad we didn't follow your strict advice, we ended up with a better set because of it, perhaps you need to take something from that rather than just continually rail against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not "railing" against anything, you are the one who chose to come back here today and renew the charge on a stale thread. I have no idea what "going all sticky" is supposed to mean, if you mean I was momentarily irritated by your blunt assessments of my handiwork last night, you are correct, but I can assure you I got over that quickly. With regard to a "better set" - possibly you are right, I may have overestimated the effect of the four US hooks in a row by comparison with the alternative, it can be hard to be objective about one's own work at times. Possibly EEng's change did make for a better set. Either way, I can assure you that I'm more than happy with the way the sets turned out. Gatoclass (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. I'm unclear about any "assessment" of your "handiwork", that seems a little egotistical, and not really relevant in any sense whatsoever. Your determination to stick to a bad set configuration is notable and something I'll remember because it's clearly something that needs some resolution in the future, without me being here to work in favour of our readers, you would have had your way with a shoddy and repetitive set because you deemed it against "guidelines". We'll need to be double-checking that in future. I'm so glad you finally approved of the way the sets turned out despite your opposition. Community consensus is far more important than your personal preferences, so your edits here will be under far more scrutiny going forward. Please don't mix up personal preference with what our readers want to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about you, but I think most people would consider comments like totally amateurish, crap, bollocks, clumsy and shit looking, shoddy etc etc to fall into the category of blunt. I'd love to see how you'd respond if others referred to your edits in such terms. Apart from that, I'm really not interested in your assessments of my behaviour, except to say that I think that any reasonable person reading this thread would likely come to a different conclusion about who has an attitude problem. Gatoclass (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with people critiquing my work. After all I've made more than 200 good articles, more than a dozen featured articles, at least 100 featured lists, so I do understand what is expected here. I have no problem at all with people being honest with my edits. Perhaps that's something you fail to appreciate. But you don't create content, do you, so I'm not sure what this discussion is all about. You want a debate over your edits at DYK? Fine. I'll do that, but remind you that creating content, featured articles, featured lists, good articles etc, is more important. I know you're the "DYK admin" (self-professed) but it's irrelevant when it comes to working hard for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I guess I momentarily forgot my place as a second-class editor, a mere pleb by comparison with the likes of you. Who are any of us after all to question the great content creator? No wonder you're so "grumpy" as you yourself recently put it, you just never get enough respect. But, I think I see where you're coming from now when you describe me as "a little egotistical". Gatoclass (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I've struck the hook set above, not because I care one way or other about the proposal, but because we're too close to zero hour to risk confusion over which is the live set. Please keep such discussions over on the April 1 page in the Version C thread. In the next few hours we need someone with fresh eyes to review Version C and take it to Prep 5. EEng19:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me where the four US-related hooks are? Because I don't get it. The only ones that appear to be US-related are Zeus and the whiskey. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass will do that. Like you, David Eppstein, I saw no such problem, nor did any other single individual here other than Gatoclass who decried the situation as an "unacceptable breach of the guideline". Despite Gatoclass being an admin, this is clearly one of those situations that needed some outside help to enable Gatoclass to see that common sense was a better approach than a mindless adherence to an individual interpretation of a DYK guideline. The biggest issue is that this isn't the first problem we've had with this user. But we can rest easy because consensus has been respected, despite the curious objection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a point, and I'm not saying it's an illegitimate one, but it comes down to one's interpretation of the guideline, which says to avoid having, for example, "two US hooks" together. Is a US hook a hook that points to a US article, or is it a hook that itself refers to something American? I personally have always interpreted it to mean more how the hook reads rather than what it points to, although both can be taken into account. And in this case, you had hooks about "Trump", "Hillary", "Obama" and the "Unites States" - all hooks that appear to refer to American things, which is a no-no in my book. Gatoclass (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It's much better to just say you fucked up and move on. You made a huge mistake fighting this, your assertions about it were wrong, you claim to be the "DYK admin" but yet your attempts here were all wrong. You made a mistake, we all do, but please apologise and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If we all try really hard, perhaps we can get this "discussion" to last for the next two and a quarter hours. Or maybe even until next April Fools Day. 86.187.166.1 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Transfer needed in the next few hours
An admin is needed to transfer Prep 5 to Q5...
...and to instruct the robot to swap Q5 onto the main page at 1200 April 1 UTC.
It's common that we have DYK themes on certain days (for example, Christmas or International Women's Day). How about we try doing some similar things for non-Christian holidays? For example, Islam-related hooks on Eid al-Fitr, or Hinduism-related hooks on Diwali. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess this is good to go (I wanted something like mentioning any of the "judgements", but frankly none of them seem hook-worthy anyway, only the case itself). Also just a minor typo in the article: "supreme court" in the Reaction section is uncapitalized (should be Supreme Court). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew22:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: minisiculisation of 'supreme court' is on purpose, as, 'supreme court' — unlike 'Supreme Court of India' or 'Supreme Court of the United States of America' — is a common noun, and hence, should be minisculised. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I have no more time. Singing every day these holidays, + company. - Btw, I'd like a 1000 DYK medal, but am waiting for 200 for the nominated for a while ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
... that ProRodeo Hall of Fame steer roper Guy Allen's record of 11 consecutive world titles was broken by another steer roper named Buster Record?
This is now in Queue2, the next to his the mainpage. Not only is "another steer roper" superfluous (you wouldn't say that "100m runner Usain Bolt's streak of world titles was broken by "another 100 m runner" Justin Gatlin, you would just give his name), but the hook is incorrect. Buster Record broke the winning streak, not the "record of 11 consecutive world titles" (for that, Buster Record should have won 12 or more consecutive world titles, which he didn't; he won 1 title[). Fram (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I rather foolishly missed that. The hook should be reworded, perhaps to the following,
... that ProRodeo Hall of Fame steer roper Guy Allen's record streak of 11 consecutive world titles was ended by Buster Record?
Yes, I agree "another steer roper" is superflous. And, yes, he didn't win more titles than Allen. So yes the hook should be changed, but the article is correct. Allen did hold a record of 11 consecutive titles in steer roping. Buster only broke his streak. Really good catch, thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC) p.s. Sorry, there does need to be a slight change to the article too. dawnleelynn(talk)15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently not many admins read this page, as the hook correction wasn't made in the queue, and the wrong hook was on the main page until just now... I also tweaked the final hook on the main page, as the Matthäus-Passion recording that is being discussed wasn't the first recording of the work, but the first complete recording of the work. Fram (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The lack of admins here? The first error? The second one (not really an error, more a clarification / minor correction, that's why I called it a tweak)? Replies at errors are often not much faster, and errors is less suited to discuss alternatives in many cases and would have had more chance to have lead to a pull instead. Fram (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The previous list was archived the other day; here is an updated list with 40 older nominations that need reviewing through March 12, over half of which are left over from last time. Right now we have a total of 314 nominations, of which 153 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the 13 from January and February.
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) 07:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
5x expansion after copyright text removed
Pedro Zaragoza was created as a serious copyright violation [13], copied straight from a news article. It didn't get picked up for almost ten years until an editor put it up for AfD.[14] I noticed the violation and removed it.[15] I rewrote the article and its very much a 5X expansion after all the copyright text was removed. Is it possible to nominate the article as a DYK? Thank you kindly. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Meanderingbartender, thanks for asking; it is indeed eligible for DYK. Please feel free to nominate it in the next few days while it's still considered a "new" expansion. Tfter the copyvio was removed, the article was left with 192 prose characters; the expansion is over 10x, and clearly sufficient. (When you nominate it, be sure to point out the removal of the copyvio material in the "Comment" field.)
As this was a long-standing copyvio, I believe it will be necessary to hide those edits that contain the infringing material; pinging Diannaa, who I'm hoping will be able to take care of this aspect. Thanks, Diannaa. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm the only one who didn't know this already, but AFAICT Did You Know (and some other things) don't show in the main page mobile view [16]. EEng14:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's apparently a limitation of the software. On the plus side, even without mobile views the DYK section often gets more page hits than the TFA - in fact, sometimes even a single hook gets more hits! Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I think they are all synonymous, but since it is the nail or nail bed that is effected, it is probably the hook that should read nail clubbing. If you want a medical opinion you will need to wait for Whispyhistory. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Yoninah: clubbed fingers=finger clubbing=clubbed digits. The terms are used interchangeably. Any of the terms can be used although finger clubbing is most used in practice.[17]Whispyhistory (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I didn't built that set, but I see that the nomination was posted on February 24 and approved two days later, so it wasn't eligible to be reserved for an April 14 showing. But the process has slowed down so much with 8 hook every 24 hours that, indeed, it could have been eligible. Yoninah (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Several errors in the current set on the main page, but Talk:T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India shows some feedback from readers who simply didn't get the point of the article. Perhaps we should deal with issues that have been raised before these articles are rushed to the main page, as I noted here on 31 March? Stunning work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Like what I mentioned when I initially raised concerns about the article, I felt the hook was bad as it didn't mentioned exactly what the lawsuit was about. The article itself wasn't that complete or detailed either, but I thought that the nominator's suggestion was a decent alternative. As the nominator was a newcomer to DYK, we gave the benefit of a doubt, but personally, while I thought the new hook was weak too, it was the best that could be done considering the (then)-current state of the article. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I noted your concerns. The hook was not "rushed to the main page". It was in prep for three and a half days before being moved to the queue, allowing ample time for scrutiny at that stage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it had been tagged for days and days yet was still rushed through. A complete joke and another failure of the terrible QPQ process which clearly resulted in no-one actually reading this article before it was on the main page (except me, of course). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: This might have to wait until tomorrow at least since the only free prep already has four biography hooks. Also it's not uncommon for approved hooks to not be promoted quickly (it happens a lot actually, as I can personally attest). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew02:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Snuggums, there is currently a backlog of 144 approved nominations—this is above and beyond those already assembled in preps and queues. We currently promote one set of eight hooks daily to the main page, or 56 per week; at that rate, the average wait time for an approved hook to be placed in a prep set is about two and a half weeks. There are many hooks that have been waiting far longer than Sarah Frey, so it may be a while before it is included in a prep set; I'd be very surprised indeed if it were so used tomorrow or even next week. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, if this were a special occasion hook that needed to run on a specific date, I could understand that, but why let this one jump to the head of the line? If you want to promote something, I'm sure there's an approved nomination that both Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah have been involved in reviewing that needs to be promoted by someone who isn't either of them. Or you could pick one of the ones that were approved back in February, nearly a month before Sarah Frey was even nominated. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a special reason that the nominator asked, like a special date or occasion? If it's just "I'd like to see it sooner", everyone wants the same, and it's not a good basis to let a nomination jump the line. HaEr48 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Don't worry, I've had my eye on this nomination for a little while now. I would have promoted it to a set earlier, but I was "saving" it for an image slot because it's a great image with that cowboy hat. Since we have a rotation system for image slots – person, nature, building, painting, etc. – it will have to wait a little longer. Please be patient. Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Note to Narutolovehinata5: I'm actually surprised by how many nominations there are from February; probably they were reviewed just recently. It's important to clear the noms page from the top so articles won't get stale. Thanks for any help you can provide in prep building. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Above all else, I was surprised it hadn't been added to queue earlier and wanted to know why that was the case. Thank you also to Yoninah for the note on saving. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:05, 7 April 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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Admin needed: queues are empty again and preps are full
It's only the early hours of April 8, but we've already had four "overdue" messages from the bot this month because the queues were empty on four days shortly before a promotion to the main page was scheduled.
This is also hurting our ability to build prep sets: all six preps are full, yet this is a weekend, when people tend to have extra time to set building, and there's no space available to build sets.
It would really help if an admin or two could check and promote prep sets to queues so at least two queues are filled. Pinging Cas Liber, Alex Shih, Maile, and anyone else who would like to assist here. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I've promoted two sets to the queue for now. Appreciation goes out to all the tireless works over building and copyediting prep sets. Alex Shih (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Question about special occasion hooks
Am I allowed to have special occasion hooks on two consecutive days, if they're on a similar topic? Two of my planned DYK nominations, if possible, would be requested by me to go up on May 31 (subject's birthday) and June 1 (date of the subject's final concert) respectively. Is this allowed, or should one or the other go up as a regular hook? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 Don't know the answer, but it might help if you linked which two nominations you are referring to. Also, are you asking if they can each be a lead hook on those two days? — Maile (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: Neither have been nominated yet since I've scheduled finishing work on them within the six-week allowance, but the articles in question are Nagi Yanagi (currently at GAN) and Yurika Endō (which I plan to expand on or after April 20; a draft is already in my userspace). And no, I'm not requesting that either be a lead hook, just that the two potential hooks go on two consecutive days because of two separate special occasions (birthday for Yanagi, final concert for Endō). For November 2017, I had requested Konomi Suzuki to go up two days after Minori Suzuki, but there was an objection so the Minori hook was deferred until November 9th. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, oh I see now. I would say it all depends if anyone comes forward with an objection, and probably what other hooks are on the set those days. There is no way to predict those objections. But I would advise you to make the request as though it were possible. If it doesn't work out that way, at least you know you acted on what you would like to happen. Yoninah does much of the promoting to prep, and might have more insight to this. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, we've been trying to limit the frequency of Japanese voice actress hooks lately. Is the June 1 date a must? Yoninah (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Considering it's the date of the subject's final concert, and I had been thinking of using the DYK as a "farewell" tribute to her, yes. I'm fine with the planned May 31 hook be on a different date. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. If it had still been in a prep area, I would have just changed it myself, but since it was already in a queue, I thought it would be better to ask. SJ Morg (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Meh, I guess so, I was just worried that someone might say sea of blue (along the lines of if they are interested about violist, they will find out at the main article). Thanks for the viola joke link. Alex Shih (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, - did you go to the joke generator? I wouldn't link violinist or cellist, but think violist is too ambiguous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a short while ago; here is an updated list with 37 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through March 22. Right now we have a total of 303 nominations, of which 151 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from January and February.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
... that Bob Nygaard, a private investigator specializing in psychic fraud, has been instrumental in the return of millions of dollars to victims of this crime?
Alex Shih Another source I used in the article (ref 21), ABC NEWS, also reported that "Private Investigator Helped Recover Over $2M for Psychic Fraud Victims" [18]RobP (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
A few problems here - firstly, anyone else think this is just a little too promotional?
Tsamma juice has been marketed as a healthy drink (promotional but would be ok is sourced)
Since watermelon juice is around 92% water, it provides suitable hydration of the body to compensate for sweating (unsourced, if logical)
Watermelon juice also contains citrulline which helps increase blood flow (unsourced)
A second issue though - the hook hangs on "The name Tsamma is the same as a hearty melon grown in the Kalahari desert of Southern Africa, which is thought to be the mother ancestral variety of all melons." from "Food Business News". However, the linked article for "mother of all melons" (Watermelon) says that Tsamma is merely the name for one cultivar (Lanatus) and nowhere mentions that it is the "mother of all melons", which is what the link suggests. Black Kite (talk)13:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Ritchie333:. Ironically, the hook suggested in the nom ("...that you can get 8% more water by drinking water instead of Tsamma juice?") would be far more hooky and properly sourced. Black Kite (talk)13:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the original hook is humorous, and "the mother of all melons" is an obvious pun on the source that says Tsamma is "the mother ancestral variety of all melons". So it is named after it. If somebody wants the 8% hook, pull the nomination, add it as an alt and resubmit for review. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't help much. As it happens, the article Watermelon has just been merged with Citrullus lanatus, and the taxonomy seems quite confusing. I find that the best and cheapest way to rehydrate is to drink water. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oddly? There is nothing about Atlanta, Georgia in the source used for the sentence that says it's made in Atlanta. So, either that's in another source, and should be fixed, or something odd is going on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
What's odd? I brought up a hook last week that wasn't in the source, while the "Good Article" was on the main page. 100% ignored. I assume it's WikiCup season and the editors and promoters all got their points, so who cared that the article was made up? Probably the same thing here, just making up information for the main page. --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:197A:CC9E:8B22:A5AB (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I have, rather belatedly, updated the DYK administrator instructions, following the closure of this RFC. Given that this is a recent RFC, I believe we may assume that it reflects community consensus, and therefore that administrators are required to abide by them, and may be sanctioned if they do not. Vanamonde (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thing is, should it actually be merged? I was under the impression that towns were automatically notable, at least according to the guidelines I read. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew21:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Rule D6 states "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags." A merger proposal is not a dispute, and I believe the tag is acceptable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, if Burgabo was proposed for being merged into another article and therefore no longer existing, then it could be an issue. Since the proposal goes the other way, with Burgabo to still exist regardless of whether additional material is merged into it from the Port Dunford article or not, I don't see how the proposed merger could affect a DYK nomination or promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I am unhappy about this nomination, now in Prep 4, because editor Lionelt has replaced a tag (which I had removed from the article) which renders it ineligible for DYK under supplementary rule D6. The point at issue is whether the article relies too much on references to primary sources. Tagging an article is an optional occupation, and replacing this tag, and thus scuppering the DYK, seems to me to be an unnecessarily disruptive action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Not one of the sources is independent. All of the sources are either Oxford (his employer), papers (that he wrote) or the Oxford caving club (where he is a member). This is a textbook example of primary sourcing. When new editors ask for examples of primary sourcing I give them a link to Gavin Lowe. I'm not a DYK expert. Is there some essay somewhere that says when an article gets nominated at DYK WP:PRIMARY goes out the window? If so please let me know I have a couple drafts with nothing but SPS that all of a sudden look like great DYK candidates right about now. – Lionel(talk)06:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally where I come from removing a tag without (1) fixing the problem or (2) not using a descriptive editsum or comment on the talk page is disruptive {{Uw-tdel1}}. – Lionel(talk)06:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I too would prefer to see some secondary sourcing here. The primary sources are enough for basic biographic details, but analysis of his work and his career should rely on secondary sources; and if he does in fact meet WP:PROF, it should not be difficult to find secondary sourcing. Vanamonde (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is some kind of image selection system of rotation, as I am a bit disappointed the image wasn’t used with my nom for Patricia Lovett which is now in prep 4. It is such a beautiful illustrated thing I wondered if it was just bad timing with similar hooks. Mramoeba (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I remember my disappointment when the first image I suggested was not used. Generally, About half of nominations come with an image, but only an eighth gets one. To be considered: image quality, substance of article, variety, showing well in small size, and much more. - I was happy about my/our last woman with an image, and the lead tomorrow. I came to be thankful for these exceptions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
ps: one exception was this image, an illumination that shows well, - we wrote an article around it, found out that was the wrong article, wrote the other ... - worth it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mramoeba: I was the one who promoted your hook. I needed another person hook to fill a set, and I did see that you went to some trouble to obtain the image. However, the colorful part of the image was kind of small and hard to make out at thumbnail size; it looks much better in a large size in the infobox. I did slot the hook into the second slot, so people will click on it and then see the image. Like Gerda pointed out with her picture link, a bolder and clearer image is ideal. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both for responding. I’ve had a top spot before so I guess it’s fair in the long run. I appreciate slot 2. Bolder next time. Mramoeba (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Prep 5 is about to go live with only 7 hooks. Prep 6 is right behind with 7 hooks. Could an administrator move hooks out of the prep sets to fill in the 8-hook sets? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Q5 won't go live for nearly 24 hours. But I will have a look around to see if I can find a suitable extra hook. Gatoclass (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added a hook to Q5, I haven't had time to find a hook for Q6 but as it won't feature for about 48 hours there's no hurry. Gatoclass (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I don't think I have done this before, but I have promoted P5 and P6 to queue (and pulled two nominations in the process) - please check I haven't ballsed anything up. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I see, thanks. But each set that you promoted (P5, P6) now has only 7 hooks. Queue builders usually take hooks from other prep sets to fill these sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The trouble with amateurs (if you don't mind me calling you that) pulling hooks is that they fail to return them to a suitable place for further scrutiny, and the hooks are lost in limbo. But, never fear, I have replaced these two on the nominations page for you. ;) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This may be a bit pedantic, but I think it's slightly misleading. " ... that 18-year-old Dominican Street Fighter V player Saul Leonardo Mena "MenaRD" Segundo wants to invest his winnings from the 2017 Capcom Cup back into his local community?" I have a couple of issues.
Firstly, this hook, to me, makes out that Mena is going to use his winnings charitably. However, this makes it clear, once you read past the first paragraph, that Mena wants to strengthen his local videogaming community to create more top gamers. ("[I would] grow my scene" he said. "I would invest in that and make it bigger to attract people to learn fighting games in the Dominican Republic.")
Secondly, the 2017 Capcom Cup was held in December 2016, 17 months ago - and the rest of that linked article tells how Mena is already doing this - he's created a new gaming team and a circuit of tournaments to help others qualify for big events ("Mena is making strides to give back to those who helped him achieve greatness.")
Based on that, I would tweak this hook to something like " ... that 18-year-old Dominican Street Fighter V player Saul Leonardo Mena "MenaRD" Segundo is investing his winnings from the 2017 Capcom Cup in his local e-sports community?". Thoughts?
@Black Kite: I read the hook when promoting it and had the same thoughts, but I felt it was too pedantic too bring up; now that you've mentioned it, I think your suggestions are a definite improvement. Vanamonde (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
l approve the proposed changes as well. I never intended to suggest that he was using his earnings for anything other than his local esports community, and in my tunnel vision didn't realize it could be interpreted differently. ~Mable (chat) 06:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
