Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 148

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150→Archive 155

Speciation experiments

Did anyone with a biology degree read this article before approving it for Wikipedia, much less putting it on the main page?

How about a research scientist, oh heck, an undergraduate who had done a literature review?

A high school student who has written a paper?

ROFLMAO

--2600:1700:FB00:9C00:B588:C8FA:62A0:5720 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything quantifiably wrong with it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This would be Template:Did you know nominations/Laboratory experiments of speciation. I don't have a biology degree, I've never been a research scientist, haven't done a literature review, and haven't written high school papers for approaching 30 years, so I don't personally have a clue what the article is talking about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not unfamiliar with evolutionary biology, and while the structure of the page could be improved (I'm not a fan of the table, which reads too much like a literature review in a scientific journal and too little like an encyclopedia article) I am not able to see any major factual inaccuracies here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
But you are unfamiliar with biology. The entire article is based on a factual inaccuracy. holy moley --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:BE (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3

T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
  • ... that parasitoid wasps in the genus Trogus emerge (pictured) through the side of swallowtail pupae after using liquid to soften the hard casing?
@Umimmak: @Premeditated Chaos: @Narutolovehinata5:
I moved this out of the image slot because I couldn't figure out what was going on in the thumbnail image. It looked like a breast, or maybe an infected knee. Looking at the article, I find this very clear image which would make a fine thumbnail image, perhaps with ALT1:
T. pennator
T. pennator
  • ... that parasitoid wasps in the genus Trogus (example pictured) lay eggs in caterpillars which often get collected by lepidopterists?
Pinging involved editors for comment. Yoninah (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we could cheat and add (Click on image to enlarge) in the caption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think the hook should be in the original slot as Narutolovehinata5 had intended. Like I said in my nomination, it might be better to use just Fig 4 to accompany the hook (see right). Can it be moved back to the first slot with this image instead?
T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
Umimmak (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for providing that option. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulled stuff from last week

Hi, I was hoping to keep on top of all the hooks I pulled from queue last week, but I don't think that's going to happen, so I'm listing them here:

These all need checking and put back into prep / queue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

All these hooks are now either back on a nominations page or have been promoted and archived. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3

I was trying very hard to keep the McCallum Bagpipes and "I'm A Good Ol' Rebel" hooks separate in the set, because they both deal with music, but somehow they got pushed together. Could an administrator move McCallum Bagpipes up above Captain Ruck-Keene? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 09:11, 16 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 the end of March. Right now we have a total of 297 nominations, of which 136 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Special date request: 2018 CONCACAF Champions League Finals (25 April)

Just chiming in to ask if the hook for 2018 CONCACAF Champions League Finals can run on 25 April, which is the day of the second leg match. I have added an ALT hook in the nomination that would be more appropriate for that date. SounderBruce 00:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the hook to the special holding area for that date. Don't you want to add the word "final" to the revised hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus: the levels of support were similar, and both sides raised good points. As this is of a major Wikipedia process, and is not in the article space, the naming conventions are more difficult to apply, and structuring this as an RM rather than as a general discussion of how to process DYK may have made getting at a consensus more difficult. On the support side, it was raised that the current setup is difficult to navigate, and that the WP namespace is more intuitive. On the oppose size, it was raised that for such a major process, there should likely be a clearer plan on how to move forward. Both are strong points, and while even some of the opposes acknowledged the current setup was non-ideal, I do not feel there is a strong enough consensus to move a process that feeds things to the main page. If anyone is interested in further discussions related to this, I would recommend conducting it as an RfC about how to manage the process, and also having a clearer plan laid out before starting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

– The Wikipedia:Did you know nomination, discussion, and approval process is currently being held in the Template: and Template_talk: namespaces. This arrangement is inconsistent with how we handle other similar nomination processes and violates the core purpose of the namespace which is to provide " Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages". These namespaces are not meant to hold process documentation as given at Template talk:Did you know nor as a place to hold discussions, as seen on the many individual nomination pages like Template:Did you know nominations/Halfway to Sanity, which I'm using here to stand in for the thousands of such discussions that have been created as template namespace subpages (visible at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Did you know nominations/). In my suggested move, the nomination process & documentation will move to the Wikipedia: namespace and individual nomination discussions will be held in subpages of the relevant article's Talk: page. This structure mimics somewhat the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. I understand that the migration and changes will require a good deal of work, but the current structure shows no signs of slowing and is untenable based on how these namespaces are meant to be used. -- Netoholic @ 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support Oppose for now, needs further investigation. the concept of working DYK in Wikipedia space, since that is where it belongs. Mechanicals of the switchover need attention (see discussion below). - DePiep (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Re Move #4: good, mimic WP:GAN setup. (Maybe the archives later or keep redirect). See my 10:58 note on the GA process/structure in #discussion below. - DePiep (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Re Move #3: not good enough, better copy WP:TFA setup. See my note on "Getting rid of the queue's" in discussion below. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Having read the thread once more: changed to Oppose for now, needs further investigation. Because: it can not be a simple move (times four) since the processes are heavily tied into this. Also, the four move proposals can be treated as ~three independent moves (in the process unrelated to one another); and so they each could lead to different results. However, any closing conclusion sould be no prejudice on future DYK development. IOW, the proposed changes should be open for a wider proposal (including the DYK process) in the future. - DePiep (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose . The magnitude of possible "oh, we forgot that" cascading problems seem to outweigh doing this for no more reason other than conformity. In addition to the subpages mentioned here. Once you get the subpages taken care of, then you have all those thousands of articles that have an article talk page with a DYK template ("A fact from Timothy Weah appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know?") as a record it appeared on the Main page, and linking directly to nomination templates. Any bots involved have to be rewritten. What else? How many years would it take to straighten it out? How many people would be willing to dedicate their time to fix the heretofore unknown problems created by the move? It's working as is. Let it be. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, drive away new users, make it almost impossible for them to see what's going on with their nominations, should they even work out why they're creating templates in Wikpiedia. I believe it to be absurd to oppose such a straightforward change on that basis. All this hysteria over "we might break it", well we probably won't. The change wouldn't happen by one editor, it's an dev issue by now. All we need to do here is to agree that keeping DYK in its own unique (and intractable and arcane) methodology isn't helpful. Then we get WMF etc to help make the changes. Simple. No stress. And I willingly give my time every day to all the crap that the actual nominations bring to the main page (hopefully before it gets there), so I'd happily volunteer to fix further crap around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I stopped reading at "This structure mimics... Good Article nomination process". What? These are completely unrelated. If you are going to request sweeping changes across something that has stayed the same and worked perfectly fine for the past 12 years or so, you would absolutely need to do more research than this. One reason that it has stayed this way over the years is because DYK is closer to a project in nature, and the nomination process involves more template-related syntax than other similar process like ITN. This requested move is based on the misgudied premise of "DYK process is in the wrong namespace", which isn't an actual problem as pointed out by David Eppstein below. Alex Shih (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all, the system of nominating something for review, promotion etc should be common across Wikipedia. Just because we know it isn't, that doesn't make it right. Actively seeking to contain DYK in a completely arcane process is to drive new editors away and that's something regular editors shouldn't be doing, let alone admins or members of Arbcom. A very poor precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support, as the nominator of Halfway to Sanity still wondering what it was that made that nomination the one chosen as the exemplar. I think the DYK template talk page was used in the early days when nominations were few and far between enough to handle on just subsections of that page. That was almost instantly an Artifact Title, as noted at TV Tropes, since we generally use the talk pages in template namespace to discuss the templates themselves.

    And frankly we should go back to that here. I would not be surprised if the DYK-related pages are the largest and most active within template namespace. They have grown to the point whereby it no longer makes sense to have them in that namespace ... we don't handle FA nominations on a subpage of that template, after all.

    Yes, it will take a lot of time to implement this and there will be thousands of pages to migrate. But we did it before when we split VfD into A/C/R/T/F/MfD, with a few thousand such discussions already concluded and archived.

    I am really surprised no one has suggested this earlier—perhaps because of the magnitude of the work involved. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose in the absence of any cost/benefit analysis showing that the (real) cost in effort of making this change as balanced by an actual improvement in how well DYK functions, rather than merely catering to someone's OCD desire to see all the things in some particular namespace. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    What "cost"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Already, we have caused you, me, and various other editors to spend their time thinking about this proposal. Actually implementing it will also take time and effort, and cause many DYK regulars to have to spend even more time learning new patterns of where to put everything. What do we gain by spending all that time? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    re David Eppstein Thinking & talking about improvements at Wikipedia cannot be considered lost time -- it is the essence. OTOH, editors throwing around half-wit redmeat like Dr. Strangelove-quotes and "someone's OCD desire", like you do here, is where the real unrecoverable loss is. - DePiep (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, the actual cost is the regulars here putting up walls of defence to keep the arcane system from falling into the hands of who it was originally intended, i.e. new editors. It's astonishing to see how far people will go to defend the indefensible. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title seems fine to me Lomrjyo (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the first three moves, Not sure on Oppose the last one (which actually consists of 40,000+ pages). The nominations page is really a project page, not a template discussion page. To imply otherwise would be misleading. As Daniel Case pointed out above, it will be very hard to make the transition, and the transition can't be done all at once, but it can be done. As for individual nominations, I guess we can keep any existing "Template:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME", but make any new nominations under the new title "Talk:PAGENAME/DYK1". Or if that's too hard, just keep these as subpages of {{Did you know nominations}}, since many editors don't actually transclude the DYK nomination onto the talk pages of the articles they're nominating. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Side note: keeping "Template:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME" in that particular namespace makes it easier for editors to transclude {{Did you know nominations/PAGENAME}} onto the nominations page. So if we were to move the nomination pages themselves, it should probably be project (Wikipedia) namespace. For comparison, FA does this with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PAGENAME/archive1. epicgenius (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • P.S. I have changed my !vote to oppose the last proposed move (moving the DYK nomination subpages). It's clear that this needs more discussion, as per below, since this RM's nominator, Netoholic, has proposed abolishing subpages entirely. I am fine if the nomination subpages are moved to Wikipedia space, but I have explained why I oppose moving the nomination subpages to talk space, or worse, abolished. epicgenius (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the principle of moving this arcane system of using templates to something which the rest of Wikipedia has managed to do without. Featured article candidates, featured list candidates, good article candidates etc all manage very well within the Wikipedia namespace, and actually we seldom see confused users relating their tales of woe over the complexity of those processes. DYK on the other hand is the absurd bastard child of a freakish namespace meltdown. The bizarre use of templates and all that go with it make it almost impenetrable to new editors, probably why we have so few of them contributing these days. It makes no sense to new users (part of the audience its intended to encourage) and is stupidly complex and out-of-normal-process in its implementation. Sure, there'll be some teething problems as everything is moved to a better place, but just because "we've always done it this way", it doesn't mean "we should always do it this way". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too many things I can see breaking on simply trying to bring a well-established processed to a guideline that later followed its establishment. If we ever had to rebuild the tools and other functions used to support DYK from the ground up, then it makes sense to address the proper space, but this is far too much that can go wrong here by just addressing the proper mainspace. --Masem (t) 21:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Classic inertia vote. We need to fix the system to encourage new editors to contribute, yet the idea that somehow it would "break" is causing well-established editors to run to the hills. Do you seriously think that a new system would roll out without being tried and tested? The current system is bollocks and completely arcane, and little wonder we have so few new editors contributing to it. Those who vote to oppose this move are actively voting to block new editors from contributing here as the system is so broken, only established and experienced editors can navigate through it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    I am more concerned about scripts, tools, bots, etc. that are designed around DYK templates being in Template: space over Wikipedia: space. If there was a clear list of what tools/etc. all depend on the namespace, and there was a clear and easy path forward to fix all those tools after a renaming, I would be supportive of a move. But we presently have no idea how many there are. There's also no clarity about grandfathering existing nom's., etc. This is presently not a well-thought out proposal for that reason. --Masem (t) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, if the proposal simply aims to take DYK into the same namespace as all the other nomination procedures here, it is well thought out. Technical issues can then be resolved once we have a consensus to move this patently absurd outlier into the real world. It's just lines of code you know. And no-one will die if a mistake occurs. Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Said pretty much every software engineer prior to discovering how refactoring code broke an entire program despite expecting nothing to break. I'm not against this in principle, but I'd rather see a plan set up beyond just the renaming to make sure we're not missing anything obvious in any commonly used tools (such as AWB). There might be obscure user scripts that will break that we can't foresee, that's not what I'm worried about. --Masem (t) 21:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Masem, an oversimplified reasoning. Of course the setup will be tested. And if the bothandlers can program for the currect setup, they sure can for the rationalised new one. About preparing new software: do you think Wikipedia mediaware is unchanged since 2002? And how often did a change break? - DePiep (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Mediawiki is usually tested on test servers before made live but even then, there has infrequently been a change that breaks things on en.wiki that forces them to rollback. My point is that trying to do this by a move request is not considering the full implications of problems that could arise, and that needs to be outlined and addressed first. The move should be seen as part of that larger process, not the driving event. --Masem (t) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, though that would expand the proposal (into techical process redesign), not block it. No one here says they are "expecting nothing to break", most say "plan it, test it" etc. (Sure even then mw is not involved as The Rambling Man seems to think; or maybe wrt moving 40k archive pages duh). - DePiep (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Pardon? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Above, you wrote: "Then we get WMF etc to help make the changes". I say: no WMF (or mw or anything outside of enwiki) needed. Close this sub-issue? - DePiep (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Sure even then mw is not involved as The Rambling Man seems to think... WHO OR WHAT THE FUCK IS MW? By all means "close this sub-issue" but I'd appreciate actually UNDERSTANDING what the supposed "sub-issue" means. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    re The Rambling Man: "mw" is m:MediaWiki, the WMF project that builds & maintains the software of the wiki's. So when you say "Then we get WMF etc to help make the changes", that could include the software developers (as I understood it). My reply to that was: I think a DYK redesign does not require WMF or mw-software-level changes. It can be done within enwiki, IMO. Using templates, bots, etcetera. - DePiep (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A few hours ago I was going to be a strong oppose but I wanted to see some other comments. Reading through them I've come to the opinion that this isn't entirely pointless just mostly pointless. I'm sympathetic to The Rambling Man's point about new users, but I think his and similar arguments overestimate the pain to new users (we have over a month-long backlog of hooks with almost 150 not approved at the time of writing, so clearly people are finding this place okay) while simultaneously underestimating the potential for breaking changes (which as the maintainer of WugBot, are of particular concern for me). So far no one's made a compelling claim that because of the naming we are having substantial problems. If we're concerned about newcomers, I sincerely doubt that new editors are well versed enough in the specifics of the namespace that this distinction matters to them; if it did WP:DYK redirects to the proper page anyway. If our concern is new editors finding the page, make the proposed target pages redirects to here, satisfying the concerns about new editors while also not introducingbreaking changes. After that, all that's really left is the argument for consistency which is weak at best. Sure, WP:BROKE is an essay and WP:TMPG is a guideline, but WP:IAR is a policy and following the namespace guidelines will for sure introduce breaking changes that we can forsee (like WugBot) but also ones we can't. I believe it's best to just leave it be, and if we're concerned about new editors find a more productive and meaningful way of improving DYK. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
See my post "Known problems" in the Discussion below (09:58 today). -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: I've long thought that this should happen. It might be a complex change and I understand the WP:BROKE argument, but it's simply in the wrong namespace. violet/riga [talk] 23:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ralph Waldo Emmerson. Hobgoblins and all that. --Jayron32 01:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    I see: no "foolish consistency", but "Nonconformity" per se. Wiki's WP:IAR always, everywhere, everone. (Note to self: propose to change WP:TFA, WP:POTD, WP:ITN; each differently). - DePiep (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    An attempt to be consistent for its own sake, without regard for the kind of disruption to established processes that work fine as is, would be foolish. Hence, the hobgoblins.--Jayron32 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, that would be. - DePiep (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support in principle. The current setup is a confusing mess. I am not exactly an inexperienced editor, but every time I venture into DYK I struggle to reacquaint myself with its bizarre naming of pages. It is like driving in a place where the traffic signs are the same as usual, except that their meaning has been shuffled.
    Before prsesing the "go" button I'd want to see a clear map and an implementation plan which has been thoroughly scrutinised and tested. This should have been fixed a decade ago if and when the plan is in place, then do it. But oppose until the full plan is ready and checked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
See my post "Known problems" in the Discussion below (09:58 today). -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. This proposal is far too vague. i would want to see a cost/benefit analysis with specifics, and at least some specifics on implementation details. When these sorts of things are handwaved for "concept approval" it all to often means major problems down the road. I've been there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moves 1 and 2, which make the naming of our process consistent at relatively low cost. Oppose move 3, because it seems to me the template namespace is meant for exactly that sort of thing; small independent modules that need to be moved around before they're placed on the main page. Oppose move 4 unless and until someone can convince me that we have prepared enough to do the moves in an afternoon without taking all the bots down. Yes, it appeals to my deep inner desire to have everything nice and consistent, but I don't buy the notion that the namespace itself is driving away new editors. If anyone is experienced enough to know of and to look for DYK, they're going to search for "Wikipedia:Did you know", or "WP:DYK", which both bring them to the right place; and from there there's enough links to walk them through the process. Vanamonde (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this is an attempt to bring DYK into line with GA, I have to oppose. The two are very different and have no need to be harmonised. Plus to be honest, it is just easier this way as people know it and how it works, putting it in WP: could likely cause confusion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It is about the GA pagename structure. See my 10:58 note on the GA process in #discussion below. - DePiep (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harmonising DYK and GA" in any shape or form, simply the reflect the structure within the WP namespace. And honestly, who would get confused beyond a few of the "regulars" who are working so hard to keep the new editors out of the project by proposing to keep this arcane structure in place? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moves 1 and 2, Oppose moves 3 and 4, per Vanamonde (just 2 above, edit conflict). In the discussion, "the nature of the namespace" was mentioned, but I don't believe in anything natural in how we name things. - I copy the full name when I want to link to a nomination (look for red links with "nom" on my user page which link to future nominations) and navigate by the sidebox, - which seems easy enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK seems over-complicated and laborious but its naming standards are a trivial, unimportant issue. Re-design and re-engineering should wait upon a more general WMF upgrade to provide a workflow engine. WP:FLOW was supposed to be that solution but has foundered. Maybe Wikipedia will continue with the current kludges indefinitely but I reckon that that volunteer attrition will require increasing automation and so force the WMF to revisit this within the next ten years. Andrew D. (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Essentially, if we started the DYK process like this, would anyone start an RfC to convert it to Template namespace? Nope, and the various bots should be a couple of simple changes. We managed to convert Wikipedia talk:/Articles for creation/blah to Draft:blah without the world collapsing. Andrew Davidson - I'd love to see a user-friendly discussion system that is 100% backwards compatible with talk pages. In this day and age I find Facebook and Twitter are de facto user interfaces for communication and leaving a post, and we ought to take that as a starting point for what new users would expect. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all four in theory, but the magnitude and complexity of the moves makes my head spin. But then again, surely this is not unsurmountable with the aid of a bot? Where names were at I always thought was weird. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. These things don't belong in Template: namespace, and it's weird to have them there. This is a big project. It needs some coordination effort and some details settled, but I think we should move in this direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the first three and oppose the fourth. Occasionally, articles that pass DYK are merged or deleted, so having a stable nominations entry in another namespace is worth keeping. Similar to how the AfD is handled (e.g. not in the Talk namespace). SounderBruce 01:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there are processes in place to handle such a change, since moves are generally done when the discussion ends, and that would break everything. I'm also quite dubious about the fourth proposal, which as SounderBruce notes could leave closed nominations stranded. (This happens in the GA space when the article moves but the GA nomination stays under the old name; things do break and stay that way if no one notices who knows how to fix it.) I think another look at an appropriate namespace for that one is in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I am really starting to get annoyed by votes like this. Do you REALLY think a closing admin would read all of this and simply move the pages immediately? That is frankly ridiculous. I hope the closing admin reads these kinds of votes for what they are - not a statement about the nature of the move request itself and the policy question it addresses - just a call for caution when closing, perhaps involving the admins in DYK to make the necessary preparations. -- Netoholic @ 07:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Netoholic: Just read the last part of BlueMoonset's statement. Specifically the part after the first sentence, which says I'm also quite dubious about the fourth proposal, which as SounderBruce notes could leave closed nominations stranded. (This happens in the GA space when the article moves but the GA nomination stays under the old name; things do break and stay that way if no one notices who knows how to fix it.) I think another look at an appropriate namespace for that one is in order. This part of their statement isn't a complaint about how the pages would all be moved immediately. In fact, it is the same issue I mentioned both above and below, where I argued that the talk namespace is not the best place to move the nominations. That is what BlueMoonset and SounderBruce have been saying. epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I hope the closing admin will read all of what I have written, not Netoholic's interpretation thereof. But the move proposal doesn't even move all of the DYK pages that are in template space now, which is unsurprising given that the proponents don't seem to understand the workings of DYK, just that it's been in template space for over seven years, which is apparently seven years too long. For the move to be possible without breaking DYK, it will take a lot of coding and testing on many affected processes. I'm not saying it can't be done, for those portions of the proposal that would make sense, but this isn't just a move, it's a redesign and reimplementation of a system, and it's frankly incredible to me that it can be treated like a simple move. If it weren't for the Queue pages, which require an admin (or maybe a page mover?), any "experienced" editor could close this and start moving pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose persuaded by Wugapodes. Also, it's not weird - which I would chalk up to it's not weird to people who don't care about the minutia of namespace (most everyone?), and 2, it was not difficult the first time, so if one wants an article on the main-page (which, frankly, is nothing as important as actually writing the encyclopedia), it's navigable and not difficult (or perhaps, just difficult enough). In short, the 'not worth the candle.'Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though the individual noms should probably be kept as subpages under the Wikipedia namespace. Even with a dozen DYK credits, I still have trouble navigating through DYK's counter-intuitive use of the template namespace. It is not designed for holding discussions; for one thing, the signature button does not appear at the top of the edit box (a minor inconvenience, but it illustrates the fact that not everything is currently working). This is of course with the usual caveat that someone has to figure out how to migrate the entire process without it breaking down. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. To characterize the methodology of this WikiProject as inconsistent with how other nomination processes are handled is premised on the misnomer that there otherwise is a consistent process across the rest of Wikipedia which DYK ought to adhere. There is no such consistent process and DYK should not be made to mimic some other WikiProject just because someone likes, or understands the other project's ways better. No other project should be made to mimic DYK either; regardless as to whether I or someone else likes the way things are done here, which I in fact do. DYK fashioned her own manifest destiny just like the others, and came in to her own rather well. The template driven modus of this project does not violate the core purpose of the template namespace either. Its template pages are intended for transclusion on multiple pages and if done by the numbers, are transcluded by some multiple greater than one.--John Cline (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
My support was not for the reasons you describe here (abjectively). Nor because other MP sections are doing better/worse. Main Page/DYK has serious issues, and the nom pointed them out, maybe indirectly. The proposal has a point. (spoiled energy of experienced & involved DYK editors/admins; frustration with nominating editors; bad setup). - DePiep (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the first three moves per User:Paul 012, the nominator, User:The Rambling Man and WP:NOPROBLEM. First, these pages have only tangential relation to "Template Talk". Second, the current system is broken as noted above. User:Wugapodes might be right that the the current less-than-intuitive titles are not inherently more intimidating for new users, but the current setup can be confusing to more seasoned editors who don't spend much time on DYK (e.g., me). Few of the oppose comments above express affection for the current system; in the spirit of WP:WORKINPROGRESS, cast aside inertia and improve the editor experience. —  AjaxSmack  04:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support #1-#3, weak support #4 assuming that the changes are done carefully. These things shouldn't be in template namespace and should (where appropriate) be consistent with GAN etc. DexDor (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the principle of ditching templates, per TRM. I had nearly 300 new entries created before I figured out how to manage this. Not great. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Just makes much more sense, the first time I looked at the DYK process I was so confused why it wasn't structured exactly like in this proposal.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is an enormous amount of labor for a very small benefit, especially with #4. Having the nominations in a non-standard namespace doesn't cause any technical problems with MediaWiki, and doesn't cause any practical problems for people working on nominations. All the pages are clearly linked from the navbox. We should spend out labor thoroughly vetting nominations rather than making structural changes that have little or no positive effect. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Using tool "Page information" (lefthand menu) [1], it says subpages: 40,538 (687 redirects; 39,851 non-redirects) -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
However, Netoholic, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles says a 85,210 articles, double!? (by having a talkpage DYK template message). Did not research this difference yet. - DePiep (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep, the discrepancy in number is likely because in earlier years prior to implementation of the bot, we used to manually update Template:Did you know from nominations submitted at Template talk:Did you know. Alex Shih (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current arrangement certainly appears to be idiosyncratic, but I'm not sure I understand why it's untenable (or worth doing the work that would be involved to change it). When we changed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, we left a lot of old discussions where they were for 6 years before giving the job to User:SmackBot. I'd think the place to start would be a consensus among the editors working on DYK that something needs to change, rather than moving the archives as a first step. Dekimasuよ! 16:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is more to gain consensus that the process must move out of the template: space. Precisely how the 40,000+ old leftover nomination template subpages are handled will certainly be discussed afterwards and is probably no great rush. What's untenable is allowing that number of 40,000 to continue growing when it goes against the nature of the namespace. --Netoholic @ 17:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Some questions. Netoholic, do you foresee problems especially when switching over? Toothing pains, or a complicated new process to learn? Or maybe you have improvements/simplifications in mind? Does it need sandboxing? - DePiep (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
DYK has a lengthy backlog, and so any transition should be covered without a gap in quality. I don't see much issue with moving the process documentation, but I'll be honest, the mechanisms used in the DYK project are a bit impenetrable to understand from the outside. They might want to discuss whether separate subpages for each nomination even still fit their needs, or if they could get by using an article talk page section like how the bot-maintained WP:RM process works. Pinging the DYK bot owner Wugapodes. to see what he thinks. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BROKE, is there an actual problem that this big change would fix? Something causing DYK to function less smoothly than it should? Or is this purely about the purity of our bodily fluids namespace tags? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I just read WP:BROKE. Interesting piece, has nice answers & angles. Now, as was described in the proposal, the moves are an improvement because the DYK process is in the wrong namespace. - DePiep (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Because it's in the wrong namespace" isn't an actual problem, something that slows the process, leads to wrong results, or causes people unnecessary effort. More, the individual nominations are in the *right* namespace for how they are used: something to be transcluded on other pages (the nomination collection pages of various sorts and the article talk pages). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:BROKE is an essay, WP:TMPG is a guideline. Individual DYK nominations are not even consistently transcluded to the related articles Talk: page since per DYK instructions, doing so is optional ("Consider adding [template] to the article's talk page"). And once a DYK nomination is done, there is no process to cleanup the now-orphaned templates, and so they almost all are eligible for deletion per WP:TMPG: "Templates that violate the guidelines on this page, have poorly-defined function, are redundant, become orphaned or used on only one page, or violate other Wikipedia policies may be nominated for deletion". This current setup is a clear misuse of the namespace's purpose. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
re David Eppstein: I mentioned re-reading WP:BROKE to hint that it is more that just a slogan. It also uses wording like: "improve Wikipedia", "slightly broken in a way that you care about", "then feel free". In other words: it is not cast in concrete. So again: wrong namespace, open for improvement. Meanwhile, you are free to not see this as a "problem", and so not bother. - DePiep (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Known problems. In the survey and in the discussion, some editors say that there are "no problems" claimed with the WP:DYK page setup. For example: So far no one's made a compelling claim that because of the naming we are having substantial problems. (Wugapodes, DYK-bot Wugbot handler). (ping The Rambling Man).
  • Nominating editor, new/potential (could be me): So per DYKbox, we learn/guess that new nominations should be entered at WP:DYKN, which is ... nor a Wikipedia page, nor a subject page (it is Template, and talk). BTW, guess where the DYKbox's header is leading. Once arrived, loads of instructions I have to read "completely", plus: "If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing". Then the editor may ask FAQ: "Where is my hook?". (First: find the answer to FAQ #1: "What is a hook?)". Answer: your hook could be at "approved nominations page waiting to be promoted", "also have been added to one of the prep areas" [sic: copy/pasted? in a template?!], "promoted to a queue", or on "main page" (these are five different links). And of course: "If ... none [of these five], then the nomination has probably been rejected" or maybe see page "/rejected" [?]. Plus there are also "To report errors in the queue, WT:DYK" and "To report an error, see Main Page errors". Incidentally nomination of some status may even be present at the article talkpage (today: Talk:Halfway_to_Sanity, transcluded not linked to [2], but not done by a bot so it may be found incidentally).
All pages are full of warnings and uppercase rules: "REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN", "MUST be approved", "ADMINISTRATORS ...", "ATTENTION [big red]"; [mostly saying "Attention - This warning is not for you, editor!"]. The nominating page has a big table in top with red blocks; looks like counting hooks is important. How inviting.
All in all not the best way to invite & keep new contributors.
  • Participants (active admins, experienced nominators, reviewers).
Currently, #DYK_participants lists 9 actively involved admins (to compare: WP:TFA is run by four -- in shifts, i.e. only one per single month). Next are listed 26 admins, then together 29 non-admin editors. Apparently this is a heavily admin-driven WikiProject: consuming or even requiring massive admin attention. Why? Because the setup is too complicated? It takes a long learning curve to master the "departments". And also there is this: "The hooks below have been approved by an administrator" (here). This suggests the even an approval is by the admin, but I hope this is a miswriting ('OK per the community, and thereby an admin has edited a protected page'). However, if even making consensus is admin only, we have a serious problem at hand; larger than this Move proposal.
  • Template setup. I See the main page's template {{Did you know}}. Loads of noincluded content, hardcoded texts, another copy/paste. History is gone. Actually, if there is one reason to use Template space it is this: reuse the code!
  • Objections: Apart from Wugbot maintainer, most opposition is like "It could introduce errors, so keep it". That shows little trust in the improvement process, core to Wikipedia. Opposition for lack of trust in the improvement process?, I have no other word for it.
  • Conclusion here: Most complaints and "problems" are not mentioned by editors because these editors do not arrive here. They have been chased away about halfway DYK page 1 (whichever page that is). That is: otherwise experienced editors; new DYK editors. The low number of active participants is a predictable bottelneck (not enough contributors in the DYK process: too difficult). Yes this is not all & only due to page names, but even so incorrect page names (namespaces) is the cause and the reflection of the problems. The pagename problems are complementary to the process: same parents. Together with pagenames, the basic process should be rethought.
- DePiep (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep:: literally all your complaints here are related to the language and markup of each page, and have nothing to do with the namespace in which the process is conducted. They would be completely unaffected by the proposed changes. If you want to propose changes to the instructions to make them clearer, please, go right ahead. Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I gave the example FAQ "Where is my hook?". Also I mentioned that when I click a "WP" shortcut, and I end up on a template talkpage - I'm gone, I don't trust the "WikiProject". AFAIK, I myself have never contributed to DYK anypage, and this is why. How is that documentation only? As I wrote in the conclusions: pagename and process are twinned from their evolution. This is what nom points to when he says: let's take a look at the GAN process for example. - DePiep (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The GA nomination process In the proposal the WP:GAN process structure is mentioned for this reason: the GA nomination discussion is with the article. e.g., Talk:Halfway to Sanity/GA1. Which makes perfect sense. That would be Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK1 then, as proposed. Also, the GA status (nominee, failed, passed) is with the article the article talkpage. Good too: status change should not require a Move action, and never ever copy/pasting content (quite astonishing that our main page has copy/pasted content without history). Note also that the nom says "mimic ... structure" (ns & page naming & status), not about nominating judgements.
Incidentally, maybe a DYK nomination better have the DYK-status in the nom subpage instead of regular article talkpage, because one article could have multiple independent DYK nominations? - DePiep (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
adding: re the 40k existing discussions in archive: a. After switchover is stable make have a bot do it. b. Leave them where they are (cutoff date like "closed pre 1 July 2018"), R is cheap. c. Bot creates R in article talkpage? Whatever, not a blocking situation for this change. - DePiep (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
​In the proposal the WP:GAN process structure is mentioned for this reason: the GA nomination discussion is with the article. e.g., Talk:Halfway to Sanity/GA1. Which makes perfect sense. That would be Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK1 then, as proposed. Yeah, but you can only run a DYK hook once, ever, so it's likely that the article will only be nominated once. You can't run a DYK for Halfway to Sanity when it's created, then again when it's 5-times expanded, then again when it passes GA. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to have talk-page DYK nominations numbered like that, because it's very, very unlikely that the article will have a second DYK nomination. It's pretty rare to have a DYK nomination fail the first time, then pass the second time (or even the other way around). I don't have a list on hand, but you could look through Category:Failed DYK nominations and see plenty of examples.
On the other hand, it is possible for a GA to be nominated, re-nominated, listed, de-listed, re-listed, ad infinitum. That's how the GA process is structured. Same with FA. They are numbered so if you had something like Talk:Second Avenue Subway/GA1 and it didn't pass, you go on to Talk:Second Avenue Subway/GA2.
Furthermore, DYKs are designed so you can nominate multiple articles in the same hook. GA and FA don't have that. Therefore, if someone wanted to nominate multiple hooks (e.g Template:Did you know nominations/M60, Q70), they'd have to decide which article to place the DYK under (in this case, either Talk:M60 (New York City bus), or Talk:Q70 (New York City bus)). This current "Template:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME" setup, on the other hand, doesn't force the nominator to make a choice at all, since they can just group the pages under whatever name they think is best. epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
None of these are problems under the simple proposal to move from template space to Wikipedia space. In fact, worse, they're all red herrings. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: That was in reply to DePiep's proposal above. I agree that none of these are problems if the templates for DYK nominations are moved to Wikipedia space. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) re Epicgenius So we remove the "1" from Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK1: Solved. So one cannot nominate two articles in one DYK nomination any more: Solved. (I want to declare that option a true current problem BTW). Please return to my main point. Hint: it is stressed in the quote you added. - DePiep (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: I will repeat a part of what I quoted, and put it in bold. The GA nomination discussion is with the article. e.g., Talk:Halfway to Sanity/GA1. (1) So what's wrong with putting these nominations in Wikipedia space? FAC and XFD do that. It is GA that is the outlier here. (2) Your suggestion does not solve the problem of "one cannot nominate two articles in one DYK nomination any more" because you still have editors who want to nominate 2 or more articles at once. This is actually a common practice at DYK. Which goes back to my question about why we can't put these nominations in Wikipedia space. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I say: "discussion-is-with-the-article, good". Nothing wrong with "in Wikipedia space", but today it is not so what do you propose? Above, you say 'The nominations page is really a project page' which is not true (it is template space, full stop). Further, I don't see why you are shifting topics and I am afraid again this is drowing in irrelevancies not solving thinking (must I really explain why an XFD discussion is not with-the-X-page?). As for the double nominations: not needed and already solved for future (as I said: its existance is a true problem). Enough for today. - DePiep (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, now I'm confused. How are the multi-nominations "not needed"? Obviously, there have been nominations of multiple articles, which can't be easily sorted under a single article's talk page. Hence my Wikipedia-space proposal.
Also, you're misinterpreting my words. I said, "the nominations page is really a project page" because that's what it's supposed to be, a project page. Right now, it is a template talk page, but we want to move it to a project page.
Finally, your comment about XFDs is hypocritical. You want to model the DYK process's structure off the GA process's structure (something altogether different), yet when I mention XFDs, they are "irrelevant"? If that's the case, your GA comparison is also irrelevant and we should just propose moving all the DYK nominations to Wikipedia space, regardless of whatever the GA or FA project is doing. epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Multi-nominations is irrelevant, and a distracting detail. It's current form can never be a blocking point in this redesign. - DePiep (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If the DYK nominations really are just a one-time event, then I'm even more doubtful of the need for any nomination subpages being used, in favor of a simple section on the article's existing Talk: page. The WP:RM process does this, and also handles multiple moves in one discussion section, so any multi-noms can be handled the same way with a centralized discussion on one Talk: page and nofitications posted on any related Talk: pages directing them to that section. -- Netoholic @ 18:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Based on your suggestion above, I'm not sure you fully understand why the DYK nominations process does work with subpages. The subpages make it easier to centralize discussion on the DYK nominations page, and approve or reject them. Also, they are short, so they are easy to transclude. By converting to a talk-page format, you would be making it harder for potential reviewers to access the nominations, since obviously you can't transclude a whole talk page. You can't tell editors to transclude individual sections either, because the inexperienced editors will mess it up. The nominations subpage system is not broken, and it doesn't need to be fixed. epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
But using subpages is the exact oppose way to "centralize discussion". The discussions may be transcluded to Template talk:Did you know for viewing, but that page looks huge and unwieldy, and the actual discussions are decentralized and happen on a myriad of subpages. If the discussion was held on the talk page of the article, then the article editors watching those pages would be more aware of the discussion and could more easily participate. Also, WikiProjects could track the DYK discussions and be posted to their Article_alerts page (see this example) for members of the WikiProject to participate. Right now, DYK is an insulated process. -- Netoholic @ 01:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Netoholic: I'll address your points in order: epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussions may be transcluded to Template talk:Did you know for viewing, but that page looks huge and unwieldy, and the actual discussions are decentralized and happen on a myriad of subpages. But at least you can see the actual nominations from the main "nominations" page. The nominations aren't decentralized by splitting them up into subpages. They're simply split up into different pages for ease of viewing and to avoid a single long "nominations" page with a million revisions. You can still see all the open nominations from the main "nominations" page.
If the discussion was held on the talk page of the article, then the article editors watching those pages would be more aware of the discussion and could more easily participate. The current nomination subpages are compatible with transclusion on talk pages. In fact, some editors do transclude the discussion onto the talk page of the article. The simple solution for this problem is to make it a requirement to transclude the nomination subpage on the article.
Also, WikiProjects could track the DYK discussions and be posted to their Article_alerts page (see this example) for members of the WikiProject to participate. Then we can program the DYK bot to show article alerts if one of the WikiProject's articles is listed in a new DYK nomination. There could be a way to do this - just make the bot check periodically for the "article credits" (whatever is given as the first parameter in Template:DYKmake) in new nominations, then check the talk page of the article that's being nominated, and update the article alerts of all relevant WikiProjects.
Right now, DYK is an insulated process. True, but it doesn't have to be, if the nomination subpage is required to be transcluded onto the article's talk page, rather than making this optional. Your proposal does make it easier for WikiProjects to participate, but at the expense of making it harder for DYK admins, nominators, and reviewers to submit and check their work. I'm sure we can make the DYK process work with different nomination subpages. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Even if transcluded there, article talk pages only get one "ping" on their Watchlist for the DYK nom - the edit that places the tranclusion there. They don't get the benefit of seeing the discussion happen, and an editor that is gone for even a day or two might see that Watchlist ping fall of the list altogether. For discussions like WP:RM (this one for example), I can put it on my watchlist and see every comment come in if I want, that creats engagement in the discussion. As to your last point "making it harder for DYK admins, nominators, and reviewers": I think you forget who this process is for. Its not for an insular cadre of regulars, its for new editors who make great contributions to the encyclopedia. I have full faith that the DYK regulars can adjust to this change, and in fact we should make them adjust to it. -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, this is easily solved by making the bot post article alerts on affected WikiProjects. So what if it's only one watchlist edit? Better than nothing at all. If the editor is really interested they will watchlist the DYK nomination. If not, then we don't need to clog the editor's watchlist with a totally tangential discussion.
But this is really irrelevant since you're forgetting what the bulk of DYK nominations are. Most DYK nominations right now are either newly created pages (so there are probably very few people watching these pages) or five-fold and GA expansions (where anyone watching the page would have a heads-up beforehand that maybe the expander is aiming for DYK, in which case an Article Alert like the one I proposed above would work). Additionally, in most cases you only need one editor to nominate a DYK, one to approve it, and one to move it to prep. Again, if a WikiProject member sees this proposed Article Alert is interested, they can look at the article's talk page and comment directly on the nomination subpage that's being transcluded.
I don't think DYK editors will easily "adjust to it" as you say, based on the oppose !votes above from regulars. What you are proposing is so radical that this RM alone won't come to a consensus on whether to abolish subpages. epicgenius (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
(Also see SounderBruce's !vote above for why this should be in template space, versus talk page space. If the article is later deleted or merged, it will be impossible or very hard to access the old DYK nomination, e.g. this nom for a fake article. This problem disappears with subpages. epicgenius (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC))
You know what, on further discussion, I think this is the wrong venue for considering whether to abolish subpages, or to move them to talk or project space. It should be covered further in an RFC. epicgenius (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting rid of the queue's. Now this is about true problems, and a simple solution (not a simple switchover though).
At the moment, pages are MOVEd around (ns:pagename change). Also, in between, content is copy/pasted from one page to another: prepare, queue, T:DYK (main page). The moves make the topic (article, hook) hard to find if at all; let alone it's status. The copy/pasting removes history from contributions and makes backtracking a hook nigh impossible. Both of these are true problems to be solved.
In short, I propose to make this setup (all per D-Day, say "July 1, 2018"):
1. Stable article DYK page. The nomination (having discussion and status) is created as a subpage of the article's talkpage. Example: Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK. This page name does not move ever. It starts with a statustemplate "nominated" {{DYKnominated}}. By the known process, statustemplate may change to {{DYKaccepted}}. Actual preferred hook may be enveloped in {{DYKhook}}. Such templates will categorise, have the topic, preferred MP date, etc.
2. Main_page content in dated WP:subpage of {{DYK}}: Wikipedia:Did you know/July 12, 2018. This page takes over current prep, queue and T:DYK. That is: this is where the collecting & preparation happens. The page name does not change in the buildup process: once on Mainpage, it is the archive page. This is the same as WP:TFA. Note the ns: WP. It is WikiProject stuff. Preps and queue pages are not used any more.
3. TBD: How to gather individual hooks? That is: from the DYK-subpage (nomination) into date page? Read (transclude) template {{DYKhook}}? Subst? Line up for bot? Relevant: text development continues in the dated page? talk at nomination page.
4. Switchover time: sure. Overseeable. - DePiep (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this effectively making DYK the same process as ITN? Articles get proposed, people !vote "support" or "oppose" on them, if there's sufficient consensus to support, the article is posted. I'm not sure it'll scale to the number of nominations we get at DYK, but it'd be interesting to hear out views on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The DYK process should not be a thing of "oppose" versus "support". DYK is mostly a matter of fact, whether the nomination is eligible and whether the hook is interesting to a reasonable person. ITN is a matter of (educated) opinion, whether the nomination is newsworthy. But that's a matter for another RFC. epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I am not familiar with the ITN process. However, this is about page handling, not decision making of DYK. Unchanged is that the same editor who decides "This nomination is OK" now copy/pastes, but then will change template(s) on the fixed nomination talkpage. (wrap the correct hook in a template, fit for bot handling e.g.). Same for rejection and hook edits like punctuation. The difference is: not moving around pages (pagename change), not copy/pasting content (transclude it!). About the actual hook gathering into one daylist I said "To Be Decided", is more compounded than the single WP:TFA; possibly ITN has nice (technical) solutions. - DePiep (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: I'm going to ask again, what is the benefit of having these nominations in talk-page space (where the different nominations are fragmented into 40,000 different article subpages), rather than Wikipedia space (which is under one subpage)? The only argument I'm hearing is "GA does it, so DYK should do it too". Also, the DYK process is more complicated than "putting the hooks in a date-specific subpage". Preps and queues get moved around to different dates all the time. Finally, we don't need a "D-Day" or any of that nonsense. Switchover takes time, and I doubt that such a large change will happen that quickly, so better to just gradually ease into the new routine if it's implemented. epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Because: today they are not in WP space, the proposal does not put them in WP space, the proposal explicitly points to WP:GAN which puts them in article Talkspace. I also answered before: "With the article = good". If you want to hand over considerations or start weighing options, please start doing so. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That was my alternative proposal, moving the nominations from template space to project space. So for example, Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME rather than Talk:PAGENAME/DYK. I'm not all that convinced that this move proposal has to follow GA procedure to the dot. If all the other proposed moves are to project space, why not move the nominations pages to project space? epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Epicgenius as one can read I am exhausted after this day of DYK research. Tomorrow I'll take a fresh look at this page, and will pick up the better points to go ahead. See you. - DePiep (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Process question

  • Process question how does a hook end up from nomination page into mainpage? Especially, from nom page to queue? Is that copy/pasted (by admin/editor/bot)? Nom page is moved (too)? - DePiep (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep - Shubinator and Wugapodes need to weigh in on this, because their bots do much of the work. But here is my understanding of how it works. The nominations stay on the Template talk:Did you know page until approved. Once approved WugBot moves them to Template talk:Did you know/Approved page, where they stay until promoted. At times, if a nomination appears to need further attention, it is moved back to the original Template DKY. Wugapodes needs to weigh in on whether the reverse move is done by WugBot. From the approved page to a Prep set is done by volunteer editors who do not have to be admins. From the prep to a queue can only be done by an Admin. DYKUpdateBot, which is maintained by Shubinator removes the hooks from queue. The DYKUpdateBot places them on Template:Did you know, from which they are transcluded to the main page. That bot also places individual templates on each article as a record that it was on the main page. Once their time on the main page is ended, that same bot archives them at Wikipedia:Recent additions. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(ce) Thanks. Clear enough for the moment. I understand a bot "move" is a page move (name change). Then approve to prep and prep to queue is manually (and also, I fear, by copy/paste). From queue/x to Mainpage (T:DYK) by bot again I saw (c/p again). - DePiep (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep Right above the Prep section is "Instructions on how to promote a hook" which are the details of that process, if you're interested. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thx. I was actually into the complete technical background process (that into-prep process is interesting & telling though). Of course, I can also track back edits re a certain hook (backwards from main page), but I am exhausted by now, researching. No more questions. - DePiep (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: WugBot currently only does one-way moves: nom page to approved page. I'm in the process of writing the bot so that it can do two-way moves per this discussion. Due to a string of real life issues this has gone more slowly than anticipated. @DePiep: I'm busy at the moment but can give a technical run-down of how WugBot works later in the day, but if you (or anyone else) knows Python, the code is publicly available here on github. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry Wugapodes. Clearly this simple namespace change won't fly, so no bot changes :-). However: if there are process & bot changes in the future, we will consult you. Clear & crisp. - DePiep (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
A bot move is not a page move, if you mean that a Wikipedia page is actually moved (name changed). What happens is that a one-line transclusion of the DYK nomination page is moved from the Nominations page to the Approved page; the page being transcluded remains exactly where it is with the same name it has always had. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
See below, the Georg Decker DYK-(self-redacted)unclarity. - DePiep (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(self-redacted)Unclear to me. Recent Template:Did you know nominations/Georg Decker is not Template:Did you know/nominations/Georg Decker. - DePiep (talk)
I bet your pardon? Are you posting that for me? Did I mis-state something?
Slash is missing. Quite relevant to the OP topic (e.i., page names). Why or how could I expect link #1, the bluelink? - DePiep (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that. I saw it. But to whom are you saying "Bullshit"? If you're saying it to me, I have no idea why. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(Redacted) -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I self-redacted some of my comments, inappropriate language. Probably born from some frustration wrt the complexity. My excuses go to Maile66.- DePiep (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep OK, thanks. All I really meant, is that I wasn't sure whether you were addressing my comment, or one of the subsequent postings to my comment. That's what I didn't understand. But it really doesn't matter, now that BlueMoonset has followed up with a much better explanation of the process than I had. — Maile (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
To answer the original question, "how does a hook end up from nomination page into mainpage?":
  • Nominator creates a template page via the Template talk:Did you know#To nominate an article section by entering the name of the article into the box provided, and then filling in the form that comes up, and transcluding the nomination under the appropriate date on the Template talk:Did you know (Nominations) page
  • The nomination is reviewed, and any necessary fixes are made; if the nomination passes, a tick icon is added
  • Wugbot, the next time it runs, will see the tick and move the transclusion of the nomination from the Nominations page to the Approved page
  • At some point in the future, an editor will put together a "prep" set of approved hooks, using one of six prepare areas; the first is Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1, and the rest are numbered 2 through 6.
  • One of the approved hooks will be copy/pasted into the upper, Hooks section
  • The DYKmake and DYKnom templates (at least one DYKmake, but could be more entries) are copy/pasted into the Credits section
  • The template on the nomination page, DYKsubpage, is "subst"ed, which closes the nomination page, adds it to the appropriate category, and makes it invisible on the Approved page.
  • Wugbot, the next time it runs, will delete the transclusion of this nomination from the Approved page
  • An administrator will check the prep set, make any necessary fixes, and when satisfied it is appropriate to run on the main page, copy/pastes it to the next empty queue (for example, Template:Did you know/Queue/1; there are six in all), which only admins can edit, adding a DYKbotdo template at the top that tells the DYKUpdateBot that the queue is ready to be promoted to the main page and who put it together. (The admin also clears out the prep, updates which prep is the next one to be promoted, etc.)
  • DYKUpdateBot will run at the appropriate interval (every 24, 12, or 8 hours, depending on the current frequency of promotions) and copy/paste the queue to Template:Did you know, which is what the main page transcludes so the DYK section appears there. The bot also copy/pastes the prior set to the DYK archive, notifies the nominations/creators of articles, posts credits to the article pages and image page, clears out the just-promoted queue, and a bunch of other stuff.
I haven't gotten down into the weeds, but I think I've got all of the relevant steps. There aren't any actual page moves involved that I can think of; if I've overlooked one, I apologize. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prep 2

@Muzzleflash:@Scanlan:@Cwmhiraeth:

The article has been tagged for insufficient lead. And what there is, is hardly encyclopedic:
Coffee production in China is a fast growing industry as cultivation and consumption both grow annually by leaps. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Muzzleflash has expanded the lead and the tag has been removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 image

Could someone crop the lead image File:Replica Book of Hours by Patricia Lovett.jpg so the center part with the illustrations shows up better? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Anticipating Errors: I like article and image, but that is of course not a medieval book of hours, and to my understanding not even a replica of one, but an artistic imagination of such a thing, - no idea what that is in correct English. Should be in hook or caption or both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a "replica" so added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Then please change our aricle Replica, which says "... is an exact reproduction, such as of a painting, as it was executed by the original artist or a copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original." - This is no exact reproduction, but a new work of art in an older style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to make such changes yourself. I'm going by my understanding of the word replica. The article you linked even says "A replica is a copying closely resembling the original concerning its shape and appearance." I am too busy to worry now, at least it's better than claiming she actually created a mediaeval piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, if you don't like "replica", then please change the Patricia Lovett article and the description of the image being used as well to suit your preference. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I would if I knew how to call it properly. If someone creates an image of sunflowers in the style of Van Gogh, that's not a replica - for me, but I lack the term for what it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You would call the Van Gogh imitation a "copy". But people understand a "replica" replicates, or reproduces, the original. I tweaked the caption and hook. Yoninah (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Not what I mean, not a copy (which could be forgery), but: painting a different image imitating a style. If I understand the article right - possibly I don't - she made something that looks like a medieval book of hours, to be handled in a film - where they can't use an original. She made not a copy of a specific model (which would be a replica) but something that [only) looks like a medieval one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this has had enough done now, let's do it all again some time (at ERRORS perhaps!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Pastiche. Fram (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given the hook a tweak which hopefully resolves the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Becky

For this article about a recently controversial BLP, I advocate going with a neutral hook. Another reviewer disagrees. Other editors' input is welcome. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Yoninah on this one, I think the article is now sufficiently balanced and the original hook is fine but the three proposed alts focus unduly on negative aspects. So I would just go with ALT0. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Yurika Endō

I normally don't make requests like this, but I'm requesting a quick review of this article. As suggested to me here last month, I had expanded it based on a userspace draft, and now I'm requesting both a review and for a history merge. Pinging Gatoclass and Ritchie333 as they are sysops and thus can do the history merge. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fátima Pinto

Hi there,

I'm having a bit of trouble reviewing this DYK?. It seems fine, but the user who created the article has been banned from editing the site. Is is still OK for it to go up, or should it be withdrawn?

ISD (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

ISD, there's definitely at least one thing wrong with the nomination: the hook, at 217 characters (spaces count as characters), exceeds DYK's maximum of 200 by a significant margin. Are you sure you've checked all the DYK criteria?
I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, but we typically don't pursue nominations by people who are serial sockpuppeteers, sneaking back under a new account while blocked. I'm not sure about this case, where this is the first incident—please note that they are blocked indefinitely, not banned (not the same thing), and indefinite blocks can be appealed and can end in hours or days, or last indefinitely. Perhaps we should wait to see how the appeals process plays out, or (as sometimes is the case) the nomination is adopted by someone else. SirEdimon is new to DYK this month, as best I can determine, though on Wikipedia for several years, and this is one of four nominations made to thus far (the first was made April 13); of the others, Andreia Norton has an even longer hook than this one, Silvia Rebelo has one overlong hook and one that qualifies, and Matilde Fidalgo's hook is a good length. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Queue 5

Template:Did you know nominations/2018 CONCACAF Champions League Finals has been added to the Special Occasions holding area for an April 25 showing, which means it needs to be added to Queue 5. (The nomination needs to be double-checked before promotion, as is customary.) Yoninah (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, not if we're about to increase the number of sets to two a day by sometime this weekend. We should perhaps hold off until the frequency is increased, so we can place it correctly; we wouldn't want it to run too soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, it looks like the changeover to two sets a day has been done, and the hook ought to be put into Prep 4, which should ultimately hit the main page on April 25 at 12:00 UTC. Of course, since all six preps are packed to the gills, there won't be room to move one of the Prep 4 hooks to another prep until one of the preps has been promoted to queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
There's room now as I promoted a set, thanks for the note. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done Thanks. I put the hook in Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Andreia Norton

Similar problem as the above thread. The nominator is indefinitely blocked, and is the only major contributor to this article. How would a review go about? Should it be closed and archived due to lack of response from the nominator? epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

For the Fátima Pinto nomination, the nominator has just responded on their talk page with a suggested (shorter) hook; they could presumably do the same for this one, where the proposed hook is even longer. Or someone else could propose a shorter ALT hook. And sometimes a nomination passes outright, with no further participation from the nominator. Part of the reasoning behind the block was apparently suspicion of UPE, which (until a comment was made today by another admin) I didn't realize meant "undisclosed paid editing". This brings up a new dimension, but I suspect that the editor had no idea what the acronym UPE meant, so they haven't addressed it on their page. If these articles are the result of undisclosed paid editing, it makes the nominations far more problematic. In any event, as this is a checkuser block, an appeal to Arbcom will be needed for any unblock. If anyone else has thoughts on how to proceed, I'd be glad to read them. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Something's wrong here

Under the April 8 hooks on the Approved page, the typeface goes small in the middle of the Triple Qualification hook, and continues that way to the bottom of the page. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A tag wasn't closed. Should be fixed now. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it time to increase the burn rate?

Right now all 6 prep sets are loaded, and 3 queues are loaded. There are 132 approved nominations waiting to be promoted (out of 290). I don't understand the math here, but I do know that we are keeping up with hook promotions but have no more room to build new sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There are currently 139 approved hooks plus 64 hooks in the prep sets and queues, that's 200 approved hooks in total. We are getting through these at the rate of 8 a day so it will take twenty-five days to work our way through this backlog, and new nominations will be coming in all the time. I suggest we move to two sets a day until the accumulation of approved hooks gets down to a more acceptable level. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, two sets a day looks reasonable right now, our quality is reasonable at this time, so let's hope it's not impacted by doubling the rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Two sets per day seems reasonable, although we should make sure that reviews happen quickly or the old rate is restored before we run out. There are 145 approved hooks but another 153 open ones at this time. Regards SoWhy 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Support two sets per day until the total number of approved hooks drops to 80 (ten sets), then return to one set per day. -Zanhe (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's hope a suitably capable admin passes by and implements this change which has unanimous support. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we going to do 2 sets of 7 hooks each, or 2 sets of 8 hooks each? 7 hooks each seems more reasonable to me. Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not supposed to go down to 7 hooks, since that unbalances the main page. 8 hooks is the new normal—looking at the main page right now, even with eight hooks, the TFA/DYK side is a little shorter than the ITN/OTD side, and going down to 7 would make the imbalance worse. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
the TFA/DYK side is a little shorter than the ITN/OTD side — Would having one set of 9 hooks a day make an appreciable dent then? How many hooks are getting approved on average a day? Less than 9? Umimmak (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
If you mean by promoted, eight a day. But approved, it's sometimes even less than 9. I've seen days when only five hooks were approved in a single day. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well if on average less than 8 or 9 hooks get approved then I don't see the need to increase to multiple sets of hooks a day. Already they're getting promoted faster than they're being approved it seems. Umimmak (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The fact that everything up to Prep 6 gets filled now is a sign of a big backlog though. As recently as a month ago sometimes the last two preps would be mostly empty while hooks were being promoted at a fast rate. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Umimmak, if the average was under 8 approvals per day, we wouldn't have such a significant backlog now. Only two months ago on February 21 we had 202 nominations, of which 89 were approved, and only one queue and few preps filled (with 30 noms in all); today we're at 279 nominations, of which 125 are approved, plus 80 approved nominations in queues and preps. (Including promoted hooks in the totals, that's 232 nominations/119 approved on February 21, and 359 nominations/205 approved on April 20.) So the rate of both nominations and approvals has exceeded 8 per day, on average, over the past two months—we're up 127 nominations and 86 approved in 59 days—and shows no signs of slowing down. Doing 9 nominations in one set per day would not reduce the backlog. (Yes, some days it can be 5, but some days it can be 14. It's the average over time that matters.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to make the switch to a 12-hour cycle, but the middle of the week seems an odd time to start. How about leaving it until Saturday, or maybe Monday? Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have filled the queues which has left four empty preps, if somebody wants to fill those we can start with a full queue page. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think based on what we have, starting with Queue 2 being our first 12 hour set on Sunday would be a good idea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Come on, crack on. Days are purely arbitrary, time to double down. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know of any reason not to start immediately. We have five queues (a sixth was just promoted a few minutes ago) and five preps filled; that will cover the next five days. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know of any reason either. To wait until some arbitrary day of the week is basically stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
People of good will generally come to a sensible decision given a little encouragement. It's always worth a try, compared to the alternative. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Who cares what day it is, implement change now please. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The changeover from 24 hours to 12 hours is best implemented between 00:00 and 12:00 UTC. If it is implemented during the latter half of the UTC day then the bot will promote the next set immediately and we'll be off-cycle; we want it to promote at either 00:00 or 12:00. Admins, please take heed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done, thanks BlueMoonset. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Question: For how long will we go back to two sets a day? Indefinitely or until the backlog reaches a more manageable level? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It's just until we get rid of the backlog, we do it maybe three times a year for two or three weeks at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Was asking because back when I was new to DYK (about 2016 or so), two sets a day was the norm, not one set a day. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Welllll, I just noted at least eight issues with the next two queues. Perhaps the project simply can't cope with the increased throughput once again, as I feared. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't looked beyond tomorrow's two sets now, too much else to do, so I'll do that tomorrow, and report issues at ERRORS, assuming Gatoclass doesn't try to get me site-banned by Arbcom in the meantime, as he previously threatened. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2

@Usernameunique, Gulumeemee, and Yoninah: I'm not sure that publishing a translation of Beowulf is really that hook-worthy or interesting; lots of things get multiple translations all the time (the Spanish-language Filipino novel Noli Me Tangere for example has multiple English translations). I see that an ALT1 was proposed in the original nomination that involves J. R. R. Tolkien; perhaps a modified version of ALT1 that reflects Gulumeemee's suggestion might work better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I know, from reading Tolkien's biography, and Shippey's Road to Middle Earth that JRRT worked with Clark Hall, and the original intent was that he would be a co-author of the revised translation. None of that is currently in the article, however, and my sources are not at hand today. Perhaps the coincidence in the names of the translators of the 8th and 10th version already mentioned and cited, could make a more interesting hook. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, Yoninah, & DESiegel, happy either way. Perhaps adding the year ("...translation of Beowulf in 1910?") would help. Alternatively, here are some suggested modifications of ALT1, and another at the suggestion of DESiegel:
... that John Richard Clark Hall's revised translation of Beowulf includes a preface by J. R. R. Tolkien?
... that the revised edition of John Richard Clark Hall's translation of Beowulf includes a preface by J. R. R. Tolkien?
... that the eighth English translation of Beowulf was by John Lesslie Hall, and the tenth by John Richard Clark Hall?
... that the eighth English translation of Beowulf was by John L. Hall, and the tenth by John R. C. Hall? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the first and third hooks are the best due to being snappier or hookier; both are interesting and either should work: the first hook for the Tolkien connection, and the third hook for the quirkiness. Though I suppose the Tolkien one might result in more page views because Tolkien. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree, Narutolovehinata5. What fo you think, Usernameunique? I can probably add some content sourced to the Shippy book to the article later this week. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with either—the third (Hall8/Hall10) has the benefit of being quirky, but the first (Tolkien) will probably get more views. Thanks for the offer, DESiegel. I just stopped by the library briefly but didn't notice much about Hall; he's peripherally mentioned in Carpenter, Shippy (1983), and a book of letters, but so far as I saw only to do with the preface, by which point in time Clark Hall was long dead. It's possible, however, that I simply missed some mentions, or that more information was added in a later edition. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I will double check -- I have the I think 2001 edition of Shippey (much expanded from the origional 1983 ed). I may be mis-recalling or conflating, so i will check. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done Since Prep 2 is about to move into the queues, I'm promoting the Tolkien hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrator needed to change hook in Queue 2

I made a mistake in the third hook. The revised edition is not John Richard Clark Hall's work, but was done after his death. The hook should be changed to:

 Done Regards SoWhy 13:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6

in regard to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6, the hook for Alma Mahler is subject to an accuracy dispute. See the article talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Now in Queue 6. Administrative action needed here. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
What hook instead? We really shouldn't promote something that relies only on what she said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
... 2 children with Mahler, 2 with Gropius? - hinting at that she inspired men of music and architecture, - add Werfel for literature? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I pulled the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you could replace the pulled hook slot with any bio from the prep sets, and we'll slot in another bio there. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see you did it the easy way :) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday; here is an updated list with 41 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 16. Right now we have a total of 265 nominations, of which 116 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hook promotion needed

I've approved Template:Did you know nominations/2015 White Sox–Orioles crowdless game and reserved a special occasion slot for it in Prep 6. Could someone else promote it please? Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Eight errors in two sets

Folks, the previous and current set exhibited eight errors from sixteen hooks. While the burn rate has increased and I advocated it, please don't let such vast numbers of issues get to the main page. And worse, once they're on the main page, please don't let them stay there, or even worse, defend them. It just makes DYK and Wikipedia look incredibly stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm shocked at the amount of ink spilled on administrators arguing back and forth about a hook point, when the nominator in each case could have been pinged to clear things up. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Nominators should step up to the mark and follow their nominations all the way through to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 27 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:

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/116th Infantry Regiment (United States)

An admin removed this hook from the main page, so it needs to run again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it had its chance and blew it. The promoter and admins involved should have seen this coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

@RightCowLeftCoast: @Gerda Arendt: @Narutolovehinata5:
For a lead image hook, this seems rather pedestrian. Perhaps it could be tightened to remove the repetition ("Goat Canyon"..."Goat Canyon"; "trestle"..."trestle"), or a new hook found. Yoninah (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Please remember, it was meant to be about the trestle, which couldn't be nominated a second time, so can't be repeated enough ;) - I don't know another word for trestle, anybody? Or pipe, to really make sure that the bolded article is not it?
ALT1: ... that the world's largest curved wooden trestle (pictured) was built over the Goat Canyon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: that works for me. Thanks for proposing the alt. also eliminating the prior to Goat Canyon works as well, this reading:

...that the world's largest curved wooden trestle (pictured) was built over Goat Canyon?

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Mitchell

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Mitchell, and did not approve it. The issues I raised are policy issues, specifically an excessive degree of plot summary in the article, and lack of citations for much of it. I would appreciate a second look from an editor with more DYK experience. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive out of synch

The archive page] has been a day out of synch since 2nd April. Did we have 3 sets on 1st April? The individual talk page entries seem correct, but the "2nd April" set seem to have actually run on the 1st. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The last set of a day (which may be the only one) gets archived with the date of the next day. As long as I watch, and still annoying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Gerda - wierd. Is this necessary? Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess setting the clock back would need some effort, + checking if the set was up the calendar day before. - I am surprised that you see only now that "recent additions" usually don't have the hook in question, because of it. - Village pump? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The time given is the time that the set is archived, not the time that the set was promoted. It's unfortunately confusing, but the page shown is the one as its being archived, so it reflects all the edits made to the set while it was on the main page. Among other things, pulled hooks are not archived along with the set they started with but were subsequently deleted from. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:DYKA

Is there a reason why the Archives page doesn't have edit links on it anymore? They made it much easier to go set by set and promote hooks to WP:DYKSTATS. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's because it transcludes {{DYK archive header}} and that includes __NONEWSECTIONLINK____NOEDITSECTION__ which was added with this edit by DePiep on April 12. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I undid my edit. Usually Archive pages should not be edited in sections, but this is an exception. - DePiep (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: thank you. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone take a look...

No one notified me of this closure, nor that any decision was about to be made. The entire thing comes down to a disagreement between me and the reviewer, and I don't see any reason given for the closure. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Miller and Coffee: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Coffee did the same thing with this nomination. Although this was in response to a genuine issue—not enough reliable sources, and admittedly I had taken my time in adding them—the custom at DYK seems to be to take a few days after marking a nomination as "rejected" before actually closing it, in order to give the nominator a last chance at fixing the issues. In that case, I just undid the edit that closed the nomination, and the hook ran after I added some sources. Coffee, perhaps you could speak to your reasons for marking for closure and actually closing nominations in one go, and perhaps you would consider waiting a few days in the future? --Usernameunique (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you can really blame Coffee here as the nom had been without an open hook for over 3 months, despite any issues being rather easily fixable, one would have thought. Both nominator & reviewer seemed to have fumbled the ball somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Blame would be inappropriate, but I think it's considerate to give a nominator a few days notice before closing. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind it being re-opened but the discussion seemed to have basically ended and my concerns that the source did not fully support the hook as written didn't seem to be agreed on by the nom. Perhaps with fresh new eyes this might do better.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for extra length (few more characters) for a DYK on

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews. Because the name of the article is very long, enforcing the usual 200 characters rule will make it unfairly brief. Per User:BlueMoonset's suggestion, I am posting here as I would like to request an exception to this rule to run the proposed hook at about 250 characters. I'd hope this wouldn't break the Main Page too much :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKHOOK "The hook should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters [...]" (emphasis added). I interpret it that the title of the article does not count to the 200 character limit, Otherwise, an article whose legitimate title is very long cannot really be used for DYK for no other reason than this. As it stands, the point of the rule is to "hook" people in, to generate interest in the article. In this specific case, though, a shorter hook can be conceived without removing the article title, e.g.
Regards SoWhy 09:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
SoWhy, the article bold link has always been included in the 200-character count, whether it's short or long. See, for example, WP:DYKSG#C3, where multiple-article hooks get to except all but one bold link from the count. The quote you gave comes from the early part of DYKHOOK; it also says While 200 is an outside limit, which seems quite clear. However, there are exceptions to everything, and I could see an argument to letting such an unusually long article name run a bit over (but nothing like 40 or 50 characters over). In this case, you've demonstrated that good hooks can be found that don't exceed the limit with an 89-character hook, and that's typically the case; right now, in Queue 2, we have bolded article names of 44 and 48 characters fitting in 131- and 134-character hooks respectively. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Normally, I try to keep the bolded article original, but in this case, could we pipe it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The part about "Murder of Jews" will draw a lot of clicks. Perhaps pipe it to "the Report on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews..."? Yoninah (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, that's what I suggested earlier. And for the record, the 3rd of the proposed hooks above is good, should draw a lot of clicks and I think it is well sourced in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned nomination

Gatoclass orphaned my nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Three-gap theorem and then has apparently gone offline, not responding to my requests to fix the damage they created. Since Gatoclass isn't doing it, can someone who knows where it is supposed to go un-orphan it, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No David, I haven't gone offline (yet), and I was just about to reply to this on the nomination page. I have no idea why the bot left you an error message, AFAIK it's never done that before, and no "damage" has been done, I keep track of all the nominations I pull so this wasn't about to get lost. The reason I pulled your hook was to ensure that your nomination didn't get yanked prematurely after five minutes on the main page for unsourced content, okay? This was done for your benefit as much as for the project's. Now with regard to the issue at hand, you have now sourced the relevant passage so it's no longer an issue. I will look to restore this nomination to the queue when I have time to complete verification, which won't be today because I don't have the wherewithal to do so now, so I'll try to get it wrapped up tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The bot left me an error message because when you removed the nomination from the queue you did not link it anywhere else. You just left it orphaned. And you didn't even tell me about your actions, so I only found out because of the bot. When you pull nominations, you need to put them somewhere in-process, not in your private little hidyhole where only you can fiddle with them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
They are not going into a "private little hideyhole", I assume the nominators have the nomination on their watchlist and most of them do and get back to me quickly. If they don't get back to me in a few days, I will ping them to ensure they are able to respond. I have a very heavy workload at the moment trying to keep all the sets verified during the 12-hour cycle, skipping returning the nomination to the nomination page saves time and in 99% of cases it's not necessary to do so as the issue is sorted out quickly - as it was in this instance. Gatoclass (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
They are in a private little hideyhole in the sense that they are not in any queues, not in any holding area, not in the approved list, not in the main nomination area: linked nowhere, in fact, except via this discussion here and on my talk, a QPQ on a different nom, and wherever it is you list the nominations that you have pulled from the queue and not put back anywhere else. 30 hours later and you have still not done anything about it. And your waffle about these actions having fixed the problem is just waffle: I only found out about it by the bot (when you un-ticked it you did not send any notification) and the repeated footnote I added was merely on a restatement of the same already-sourced result, not for the half-paragraph of routine calculation that you are demanding sources for. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a mathematician so I wouldn't know whether they are "routine calculations" or not. I saw some uncited content and since many hooks have been yanked from the main page for the same issue, pulled the hook for further discussion to be on the safe side. I should emphasize that once I have pulled a hook, I am under absolutely no obligation to follow up on the nomination, but do so as a courtesy to the nominator. So if you prefer, next time I find an issue with one of your nominations, instead of fielding the nomination myself I will go by the book, return it to the nominations page where everybody can see it - and leave it there, to languish for perhaps a month or two until somebody gets around to re-approving it. Alternatively, I can stop bothering to verify your hooks altogether and just allow them to pass through to the main page sight unseen, that way you will have nobody to blame but yourself if they get yanked after five minutes. I'm easy either way. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Or you could, I don't know, tell people what you're doing instead of making it look like the nomination does not exist anywhere and not even notifying them that there is an issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
As I said, normally I don't need to because people have the nomination on their watchlist and get back to me quickly. But since you've made the request, if in future I find an issue in one of your nominations that needs addressing, I'll be sure to give you a ping. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. And in future I'll know that when you remove items from queues in this way, they haven't been orphaned and forgotten. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting reading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Goat Canyon (Carrizo Gorge) was pulled from Queue 4 but couldn't find it back on WP:DYKN or WP:DYKNA. Interestingly, discussion continues on the template. I relisted it at WP:DYKN; maybe more eyes will see it. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems to happen fairly often—I recently relisted two of mine, Stephen J. Herben Jr. and Julian D. Richards. Not sure what all the fuss is about; the bot just provides a friendly reminder that a DYK nomination is untranscluded, and the 30-second fix is to post the nomination back on the nominations page. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Does current events portal make nom invalid?

I have got a DYK nomination that has been featured before at a current events portal. It is the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan article. Two questions:

  1. Was it the main link that was featured on the front page?
  2. Does this make the DYK nomination invalid?

Thanks for any replies.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Well under section 1.d of WP:DYKRULES it does state that only ITN and OTD make a DYK ineligible so if it has appeared in a portal then it is eligible to appear on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much, The C of E!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

BMT Franklin Avenue Line

There's an ongoing discussion at main-page errors of this hook in Queue 1, due to run very shortly. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominations by blocked sockpuppet

I've noticed several nominations by SirEdimon, a user indef-blocked for sockpuppetry (see Template:Did you know nominations/Sílvia Rebelo, Template:Did you know nominations/Matilde Fidalgo and Template:Did you know nominations/Andreia Norton). The articles seem fine, although the nominations are generally flawed (hook too long and no QPQ, and it's hard to verify the QPQ status for users with multiple accounts). Do we have a policy regarding nominations by blocked sockpuppets? Should we simply reject them or try to fix the issues for the sock? -Zanhe (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe, there were four nominations from SirEdimon in toto; you've not mentioned Template:Did you know nominations/Fátima Pinto. We had discussions here on the DYK talk page on this one and on Template:Did you know nominations/Andreia Norton; the Fátima Pinto one was recently archived, and the Andreia Norton one is still on this page but will be archived this evening or tomorrow sometime. Please see the general comments there. SirEdimon has only nominated for DYK from that particular account, and only has the four nominations made starting in April, so there is no QPQ requirement. There hasn't been any move to refuse the nominations en masse, and a shorter hook has been proposed for the one you reviewed. (We tend to be more strict when previously blocked return sockpuppeteers are concerned, but even then the nominations are occasionally rescued; this is SirEdimon's first time being caught and blocked.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the comment. I went ahead and approved the Andreia Norton nomination. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I questioned MP talk "DYK next next"

At Talk:Main Page, the MP:ERROR page, I have asked about the new "DYK next next" section [3]. Being MP:ERROR, I don't know where it will end. - DePiep (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't know where it will end? Is that a philosophical question or does it have some meaning that I'm missing? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I am seriously looking for the bottlenecks in the DYK process of energy loss. Looks like one neck has exposed. - DePiep (talk)
How so? You're not making yourself clear in any way at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday; here is an updated list with 40 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 23. Right now we have a total of 214 nominations, of which 57 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six remaining from March.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hook listed in WP:DYKNA not really approved?

I see many of the hooks moved to WP:DYKNA still have unresolved discussion, e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/List of Mexican-American War monuments and memorials, Template:Did you know nominations/Trump (dog), Template:Did you know nominations/Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark, and Template:Did you know nominations/Hinners Organ Company. Often it's because it was given the tick at some point, but then someone else pointed out a problem and it remains unresolved. Is the bot supposed to know about this scenario? If not, should we manually move it to the non-approved list? HaEr48 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How many QPQs for a multi-article hook?

Is there consensus on whether a hook with multiple DYK articles (such as this one) requires multiple QPQs (because one per article) or a single QPQ (because one per hook)? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:DYKSG#H4, a QPQ review per article is required. So that nomination would require three reviews. Kosack (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. That is clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

QPQ Question

I submitted my first DYK last week. Since it was my first did I still need to do a QPQ? I thought not under the exception for #5 but am now doubting myself. If I did need to do a QPQ is it too late for me to do so for my nomination? I am happy to do some reviews but not having been through the process before was hoping to see one for my own efforts before embarking on looking at others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: everything's fine. Only after you have 5 DYK nominations appear on the main page should you start submitting a QPQ with each new nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

Numerous cockroaches on logs
Numerous cockroaches on logs
  • ... that the largest cockroach farm (example pictured) in China produces six billion insects every year?
@Violetriga: @Narutolovehinata5:
The lead hook has a suitably gross image, but these do not appear to be cockroaches in China; they are called Madagascar hissing cockroaches, which are native to Madagascar. Can another image be found? Yoninah (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a free picture of multiple American cockroaches - here is one by itself which is in the article but I really would have preferred one conveying the idea of a farm. There are plenty available in the references used but none that appear to have an acceptable license. violet/riga [talk] 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I think in the world of DYK errors, this barely registers. The image is used in the target article (tick) and the the hook says "example" (tick). Nothing more to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the American cockroach image should be used instead (which was the only picture presented when I reviewed the nomination), as it's more pertinent to the topic. -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think our readers will care two hoots which image is used, but I know for sure which image will draw in more readers, if that's of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
TRM, I was cuing in on the words (example pictured) for cockroach farms in China. What's pictured is not in China. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Periplaneta americana (American cockroach) - the favoured species for farming
Periplaneta americana (American cockroach) - the favoured species for farming
In my view, this hook should run without an image because we do not have a suitable one of a cockroach farm. I doubt that the Madagascar hissing cockroach is ever farmed. There are around 4600 species of cockroach in the world and this one has several characteristics that make it quite unsuitable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Cwmhiraeth. I don't understand why the hook was pulled instead of being moved out of the image slot, but I'll track down the template (wherever it disappeared to) and restore the hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Found it. Moved it back to WP:DYKN. And now the article's tagged for close paraphrasing. Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination page: removed disturbing table

Our Main_Page has a link that says & links: #DYK Nominate an article. Clearly this is aimed at every reader! But when one arrives at that page, it opens with a table named "Count of DYK Hooks", showing many red-signaled rows and not explained at all (the word Verified, is that used elsewhere in the process? Really, I still don't understand this table). I get the impression that this infomation is aimed at other editors: those involved in the vetting process (i.e. you, reading this page).

I have boldly removed this table from the {{DYK nomination header}}, because the Reader should not be bothered with this. That page should lead to the nomination-steps asap. - DePiep (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the table isn't useful to individuals making new nominations, so just move it lower down if it bothers you so much. If you don't understand the difference between a verified hook and a non-verified hook then there's certainly a problem with the definition of the overall process. I suggest someone who cares writes a "how to" guide detailing every step of the DYK process (if one doesn't already exist), and that should include a recommendation that nominators follow their hooks and articles through this arcane maze to the main page and be prepared to deal with issues that arise every step of the way due to the abjectly poor quality control that is forever applied to the hooks nominated here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
re if it bothers you so much -- no, I reasoned, from Wikipedia view. - DePiep (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Who appointed you the representative of Wikipedia? You expressed a personal opinion, which has not yet gained consensus. -Zanhe (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I applied WP:BOLD. Now, what is your argument *against* this edit? - DePiep (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
So I applied the R in WP:BRD. Now discuss and gain consensus. The table is a useful summary of all current nominations. -Zanhe (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Point is, it is up to YOU Zanhe to provide an argument (your first argument, so dearly missing). I already did *start* the talk beforehand, and you *denied* it [see below, your 23:19 edit]. - DePiep (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Starting a discussion ≠ consensus, especially when TRM already questioned your removal above. Now focus on the merit of your bold action and try to gain support from others. -Zanhe (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Before talking BRD, why did you undo my REFACT edit that placed your topical comment into this section? Why? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Didn't I already answer that question? Now focus on the merit of your proposal and stop wasting people's time on minor details. -Zanhe (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
No you didn't answer. (At worst, you reverted your own WP:FORUM. But I think you just mis-posted and don't want to acknowledge). Please revert as asked. - DePiep (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Just move the table lower down and any problem you appear to have perceived in worrying editors will be gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's say "guidelines" not "rules"

I strongly propose to change this wording: "DYK rules" should be labeled "DYK guidelines". Elsewhere at Wikipedia we don't use the word 'rules', and it scares off (new) users. I don't think the essence of these guidelines changes by this. - DePiep (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. There are very few "new" users here, but not because of the nomenclature (after all, a new user is more likely to be familiar with the term "rule" than "guideline") but because of the arcane methods applied using Template space and preps, queues etc and some indeterminate time between nomination and main page feature. I think, if you're trying to encourage new users back to the process, changing the word "rule" to "guideline" is a fool's errand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with DePiep. I notice a lot of new users grumbling about all the "rules" at DYK, and I've lately been accused of manipulating the rules to keep them off the main page. We really do have too many rules, but I'm not sure what we can do about the number. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah -- yeah, but that's more complicated. I now propose to simply change the word. I myself feel more invited by "guidelines" than by "rules". Also that is the WP atmosphere. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
+. Got it. - DePiep (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The actual point is that you and others should already know that you can't simply self-declare Wikipedia "guidelines". You'd need an global RFC for that. And your comment is a red herring in any case because the OP is not about the "number" of rules, just about the word "rule". Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean the "DYK rules" are not even guidelines? You DYK people just made them up, using a non-wiki word "rule" to evade criticism? Just to intimidate newbies? Is DYK a private kingdom? - DePiep (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Can't see a newbie confused by such terminology, a newbie won't be saying, 'but you did not call it a guideline, I'm so confused' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Short, Alanscottwalker: it is not inviting, and not WP attitude. - DePiep (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Everyone is use to "rules" all the time, in inviting situations -- ever play checkers or chess, they have rules. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
So let's use the Wikipedia word for this. Why not? - DePiep (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
As I tried to make clear, there is no reason to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
DePiep, why did you remove the DYK hook count from the Template:DYK nomination header without consensus? Are you trying to make DYK your own private kingdom? We were all newbies once, and we all figured out how to follow the rules/guidelines, whatever you call them. If someone finds it difficult to figure out the rules, it would be difficult to expect them to write quality articles suitable for the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You Zanhe did revert this WP:REFACTORING? How is this related to this section? What is wrong with DYK editors? - DePiep (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
My message was a direct response to your "private kingdom" and guidelines/rules comment. It becomes out of context when you moved it to a previous thread (to which I responded separately). And I don't represent all DYK editors. If you have an issue with what I did, do not say something is wrong with "DYK editors". -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
re Zanhe: No it wasn't. Your 23:59 22:59 edit was explicitly about an other topic and section (namely: #Nomination page: removed disturbing table). Please acknowledge, and revert {{DYK nomination header}} (remove the table). After that, pls come back and talk with arguments etc. - DePiep (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless. Regardless of personal opinions on whether this is off-putting to new editors or not (and actually, DYK no longer cares about encouraging new editors, it's all about the regulars), we should not use the word "guideline" as there's a guideline for that. And the myriad rules most certainly are not Wikipedia guidelines at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop it, TRM. But you should be aware that there are many more newbies making nominations than ever before. Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"... than ever before ..."? [citation needed]. Prove that please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to ping Yoninah here. I'd like to see the evidence please, or else you might need to retract that bold and potentially completely false statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, still waiting for the evidence to back up that audacious statement please. It's very important. If it's not actually true, feel free to strike out the claim, nothing more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(ec) What is this, a court of law? It is my experience patrolling the WP:DYKNA page to promote hooks that we have more newcomers doing nominations than before. I'm sorry, I don't have time to prepare a chart analyzing the number of newcomer DYKs versus veteran DYKs for you, as I prefer to spend my time re-reviewing and promoting hooks. If it'll make you happy, I'll retract my statement. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it's clearly not a court of law, it's a talk page. I've regularly spot-checked the people nominating DYKs and their average contribution to Wikipedia is around the 15k to 20k mark, i.e. they've made 15,000 to 20,000 edits. You assertion was wildly in opposition to my experience so I just wanted to see the evidence of your claim. If you don't have the evidence, don't have the time for providing the evidence or whatever, fine, but please don't make such bold statements if you're not able to back it up in any way, shape or form. It doesn't make me happy or sad, I'm just looking for the truth. It's an often brought up discussion that one of DYK's original purposes was to encourage new editors. It shamefully does not (in my opinion) and has not for some years. If you have something tangible to counter my evidence, it would be great to see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll try to compile some evidence when I have more time. Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
What's the point of dwelling on this? Experienced editors can be DYK newbies too. People can make thousands of edits before starting their first article, and people can write many articles before making their first DYK nomination. I wrote dozens of articles (mostly short) before finding out about DYK, which encouraged me to write more substantial articles with better references. -Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Point is, if Yoninah's assertion is true, I'd like to see the evidence, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and since Yoninah has said that it'll take a while to get this info together, I intend to nudge this thread every week until we get an answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - George Speake

... that George Speake is currently reconstructing the more than 1,000 pieces of the Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire helmet?

This is my own hook so I don't want to change it myself, but upon reflection and further reading I think "reconstructing" should be changed to "analysing". It's unclear how much of the reconstruction Speake is doing himself, as opposed to interpreting the helmet as it is reconstructed, so analysing is a safer, and probably more accurate, word. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: well, that takes all the hookiness out of it. It would have to leave the quirky slot, and also probably be returned to the noms page for a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, how would you feel about the below suggestion instead? I've already added the needed language and citation to the article (it's an offline source). It could probably equally go in the quirky slot.
ALT1: ... that George Speake sees an "eyeless, open-jawed serpent" on the Staffordshire helmet? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that's better. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'll replace it in Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

DYKbox improvements

Hi. I made some improvements to {{DYKbox}} [4]. Unfortunately, they were reverted (but not discussed). About this box: it is way outdated and has a bad design. At least we should get the lists & links organised. (I note that, following the weird infobox setup, about each row has the same links LH and RH side ?!). - DePiep (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Apart from all distractions, I think this version is the best so far. For example, it nicely removes some link repetition, and puts together talkpage next to subject page. (See history for detailed edit descriptions). - DePiep (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
With four reverts today, DePiep is in violation of 3RR. This is not the first time he's been warned for this, but the previous one was long enough ago that maybe he's been forgotten. Still, if he keeps it up, he's been warned again, and is fair game for blocking. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This is called WP:WIKILAWYERING. Still waiting for the first argument against my edit, from anyone. - DePiep (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
DePiep, could you stop editing and moving other people's comments already? That's really annoying, if not against policy. -Zanhe (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
And didn't I enter my argument a while ago [5]? Or do I have to shout: The table is a useful summary of all current nominations. Do not remove it! since you seem unable to hear? -Zanhe (talk)
This is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior from DePiep. It can also be grounds for blocking. I, also, made an explicit argument in favor of keeping the old form, which I know DePiep saw because the following edit summary from him responded to it. So the "still waiting for the first argument" is an actual lie, not just inability to read English. For convenience, I'll repeat it here, mildly rephrased: The box was better before, because the discussion link should not be made much less prominent and non-parallel to the other links, as the new version does. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Bull in a china shop

WP:BOLD notwithstanding, for better or worse the DYK processes are (a) sometimes the way they are for nonobvious reasons and (b) dependent on bots maybe no one completely understands anymor, and sometimes fragile. Aggressive modification of everything within sight by someone who apparently has never been through the nomination or reviewing process (search the strings did you know and dyk [6]) is a recipe for anguish. I'll be traveling for the next three weeks so I hope there's more than smoldering rubble left when I return. EEng 00:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this a reply? And if so, to what? - DePiep (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not a reply to anything. It's a warning that there's a good chance you'll bring the whole house of cards down. I recommend that others read WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#User:DePiep. EEng 00:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Further signs that there's trouble on the horizon are here and here and, now, here. EEng 01:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
And your argument is? - DePiep (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
... given at the opening of this subthread. But hey, knock yourself out. EEng 01:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Circular nonsense.
But hey, thanks for the PA, I almost forgot that one. Now instead of being afraid and so blocking any improvement (how can one live that way at Wikipedia btw?), please point out what actually does or will go wrong, applying sound thinking & sandboxing as I do? - DePiep (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You are tampering with machinery you do not understand -- which indeed no one understands. It's unfortunate that no one understands it, but that's the case and it's part of the reason we continue to tolerate certain certain silly things, such as the nomination pages living in template space. It would be great if someone came along to refactor it all and clean it all up, but that requires someone who first demonstrates a thorough mastery of the entire machine. You have never, AFAICT, ever made a DYK nomination, or performed a DYK review, or participated here in any way. Maybe you're one of those people who thinks that complete ignorance of how anything works is the indicium of competence, but I am not one of those people. EEng 01:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
First, re your [7] revert: your es says something completely different that what you say here. It is simple: when someone reverts in BRD, go to the talkpage and discuss. The editor you are "helping" (subverting a 3RR block actually) did NOT put any argument whereever. Notrr did you.
Second: changing {{DYKbox}} does not break the grand system, the system that scares you soo much. When you don't understand it, does not mean it is broken. The fact that you refer to unrelated stuff like the nomination pages living in template space says even more of the same. You yourself cannot grasp any change, and so you deny any change at all. Now WHAT is the actual, rational, real problem with the edit you reverted? (Please forget that elephant bullshit you are throwing around). - DePiep (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not, as you say, unrelated stuff that the nomination pages live in template space; it exemplifies the complexity and fragility of the DYK structures you are tinkering with.
  • When you don't understand it, does not mean it is broken – Sure, but what you don't understand you are likely to break.
  • My edit summaries at DYKbox applied to that particular change of yours, which you are now editwarring against two other editors to force in; my comments in this thread apply to your bull-in-a-china shop changes all over DYK landscape in general. I'm saying something completely different because I'm talking about different things.

There are now three (at least) other editors reverting your changes to various DYK structures all over the map. Smarten up. EEng 03:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unrelated to edits in {{DYKbox}}. Yes it may be "complicated" and "fragile" (for you), but no edit I made in {{YKbox}} is breaking things. Because I know what I am doing. That only happens in your fearful mind, not in my well-thought edit.
In "When you don't understand it", the "you" is EEng. I do fully understand the box we are talking about.
Not one of those editors added a single argumednt to this discussion. Not one. (that includes you, "we don't really understand what you're trying to do: even you are still WIKILAWYERING about BRD etc etc).
You still have not made a single body argument against my edit. - DePiep (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
<sigh> I forgot to mention that your limited English may be interfering with your ability to understand policies and guidelines and what others are trying to tell you. EEng 03:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Another PA. -DePiep (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really, it's a genuine suggestion. I, for one, am struggling to understand the point you're trying to make in the various threads here because of your writing style. That's not a personal attack, it's a reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
in short: PA, PA, (minor PA) -DePiep (talk)
No, in short, you're not able to get your point across to a number of us which is leading to frustration and upset. It's nothing to do with personal attack, more to do with "we don't really understand what you're trying to do". Of course, if you see it differently, please feel free to open a thread at ANI where we can all discuss the various comments you've made and the various responses you've received to gain a wider appreciation of what's going on here. That may be a good idea, just to check that we're not the only ones here who are struggling to understand what you're talking about from to time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
"we don't really understand what you're trying to do" is an euphemism. From the very start of this subsection (see its title), EEng is claiming that I broke something, but has failed to point out anything actually broken. And these are personal attacks: [8], [9], [10]. Again: the fact that someone does not understand an edit, does not prove it is a wrong edit. - DePiep (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I said (per your edit summary) you "don't know English" (sic), but what I did say is that certainly from my point of view, there's a huge problem here understanding your perspective, what you're trying to achieve and the language you're using to do it. None of that is a personal attack, even a (minor) one, it's just I don't understand your goals. If you think there's been real personal attacks, do something about it somewhere where people care, not here or via edit summaries, that's just going to achieve nothing beyond a lack of sympathy for any cause you might feel you have. In actuality, I think that you claiming that I've made personal attacks or "euphemisms" about you is, in itself, a personal attack, and look forward to you actually doing something pro-active about all of this. You can start with redacting the claim of a (minor) personal attack, and we'll go from there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
re The Rambling Man: then start another thread, and I'll be happy to converse with you (we are talking DYK improvements, right?). I will not continue this EEng filthy PA setup. - DePiep (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you're the one who seems to be trying to do something at DYK with the various threads you've started, it's down to you to summarise to the rest of us why you're doing it and what it will improve with the overall process. I'm not starting any threads here, in fact I think you've started plenty already, most of which have resulted in nothing other than conflict. As I said, if you genuinely believe that you've been "personally attacked", do something about it, don't just keep moaning about it here, nothing will be done about it here at all, and people will gradually just ignore what you have to say, that's human nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Starting a thread named ===Bull in a china shop=== and not pointing to any china broken: not worth continuing. On top of that, making multiple personal attacks: Bye Felicha. See you elsewhere, TRM. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Given your threads here and your recalcitrance in doing something pro-active, and in answer to you directly: I hope not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3 (live in < 1 hour)

See WP:ERRORS. Originally, the Jamiroquai hook was

  • "... that the British funk/jazz band Jamiroquai holds the Guinness world record for fastest ever concert performed on aircraft, clocking at 1017 km/h per hour (632 mph)?".

This contained at least five errors, and currently stands at

  • ... that the British jazz-funk band Jamiroquai hold the Guinness world record for "fastest concert", performed on an aircraft travelling at 1017 km/h (632 mph)?

I'm still not particularly happy about it, and I'm leaning towards pulling it. It is, however, past midnight here, and I don't really want to do it and run. What do others think? Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6

  • ... that Japanese musician Nagi Yanagi was encouraged by a junior high school classmate to become a voice actress, but declined because she believed her voice was "mediocre"?

I'm aware this is my own hook so I could have made the change myself, but checking the source again, while the word used (平凡) can mean mediocre, the word apparently usually means "ordinary". Should the word "mediocre" in the hook be changed to "ordinary"? Rereading the source again, it seems that that meaning was the intended one by Yanagi when she said that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I am more concerned that the interview transcript is being misrepresented, unless if I am missing something. I think both "mediocre" and "ordinary" is fine in the context that it was a reflection on how she personally felt that her voice, in comparison to her friend's voice (which was good and distinctive according to her) back then, was nothing special. In the quoted excerpt, it mentioned nothing about any "classmate" "encouraging" her to become voice actress; to my understanding it is her friend with the すごく特徴的ないい声 that was aiming to become voice actress. Would you mind to elaborate/re-read the excerpt? Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Actually re-reading it again, I think you're right, so I guess the article needs to be rephased, and the hook should be swapped out for either ALT0 or ALT2 (your choice). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I am sorry but ALT0 cannot be used as well because it is also factually incorrect; the quoted excerpt (from the same interview) clearly states that it is Nagi Yanagi's neighbour that have intended to throw the electronic keyboard away, not her mother. Her mother, after hearing the neighbour that they wanted to throw the keyboard away, took the keyboard for no apparent reason (なぜかそれをもらってきちゃった), which is what led Yanagi to the world of music (音楽と出会ったきっかけ). I will follow up at your talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Noted, though you're free to continue discussing here. If you have any additional hook proposals, feel free to make them here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. For the record here also I have pulled the hook and returned the article to the nomination page. I am unable to propose a new hook right now, I'll see if I can do it some other time if no one else does so. Alex Shih (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential double DYK in Queue 4

... that Erjon Tola was the only athlete sent by Albania to the 2006 and 2010 Winter Olympics?

This is probably too late (live in 3 hours), but this could potentially be a double QPQ with Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics, which just passed GA four days ago. Passes earwig, and the citation verifying the hook is the same, so it would be pretty easy. Pinging author of both: @Courcelles:. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: it seems that the issue isn't that they were too similar per se, but rather that the article wasn't long enough if you remove the identical content: see WP:DYKSG A4: "New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count. If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." See discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Albania at the 2006 Winter Olympics Umimmak (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Joe Mayo

... that footballer Joe Mayo was working as a trainee accountant when he was offered his first professional contract? Kosack, Yoninah, TheGridExe

So, without context, this sounds amazing. But back in the 1960s and 1970s, footballers weren't paid terribly well at all, and most of them had other jobs or came from other career paths, or even held both positions down simultaneously. Thus this hook is completely unremarkable, and without context, probably misleading. Perhaps the following suggestion could be considered:

... that footballer Joe Mayo, who made more than 150 appearances for Leyton Orient, won the twelfth series of Coach Trip?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Coach Trip hook was my original choice but my ALT1 hook about accountancy was eventually selected over it. Kosack (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
That decision was a very poor one, suggest the original hook is used. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the proposed alt hook is that none of it is cited or sourced in the article. The "150 games" for Leyton Orient is mentioned only in the infobox instead of main body text, with no sourcing, and I found only one source in the article which mentions the fact which is of unknown reliability, while the others which you'd think would mention it, don't. Also, no sourcing for the claim that he "won" Coach Trip, even the Coach Trip article itself only refers to the winner for that year by his given name and that article is completely unsourced. I agree that the selected hook wasn't all that great and have given it a tweak for interest. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it needs to be pulled rather than sticky-plastered (once again). The proposed hook is junk and those who promoted it should acknowledge that they clearly weren't aware of the background of association footballers in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s which renders the hook utterly feeble. If, as Gatoclass claims, so much of the article is unverifiable, then it shouldn't be posted to the main page in any form. Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I guess it is acknowledged then. :/ Didn't know about the background association as I live in the US so I guess I learned something new. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Surfeit of people hooks

Our regular promoters are probably aware of this, but I noticed today that there are a lot of people hooks currently accumulating on the Approved page. Can everybody please ensure that every set has its maximum four people hooks? Otherwise we may be looking at having to run some unbalanced sets in coming days. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Another QPQ question

Could someone clarify to me how QPQ and the QPQ tool works? I was under the assumption that I needed to review a DYK nomination every time I submitted one, but I've also read that I don't need to start doing that until five of my entries have appeared on the main page. Is that why this tool doesn't show anything when I enter my username? -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 19:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

kewlgrapes, you can review DYK nominations at any time; if you don't want to, you don't have to wait. The requirement says that if you have five or more DYK credits, you are required to review a DYK nomination for each article you nominate. The QPQ tool is supposed to help identify all of a person's DYK credits, but it isn't always completely accurate; it sometimes misses some of the ones out there. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you for the clarification, BlueMoonset. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 20:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust Wall Hangings

This article (currently in Queue 4) is tagged as an orphan. Could somebody fix that please? Gatoclass (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Presumably you checked it wasn't an orphan before placing it in a queue though? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Added to 1988 in art, do links from lists count against orphanage? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Added to The Holocaust in popular culture. Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

  • ... that according to legend, The Lady Bushranger "escaped from custody while in a locked toilet aboard a moving train"?
@Nikkimaria: @Whispyhistory: @Narutolovehinata5:
It's not clear how this person meets WP:BIO. Also, the lead is too short; just being a bushranger is not a claim for notability. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
See WP:AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Also please remember that notability means being covered in-depth in multiple independent reliable sources (clearly true in this case), not whether you or anyone else thinks the subject should have been covered in this way. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Expanded the lead. Two books, multiple articles and a potential film should be enough for notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Usernameunique. I also added a sentence to improve the lead. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Image hook

Fredrik Önnevall
Fredrik Önnevall
Currently, this hook is in Prep 1 without an image. Personally, I think the image for this hook is very clear at thumbnail size, but I am unable to move it anywhere because I worked on the hook. Does anyone else think it's lead slot worthy? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that the image is a good one, Yoninah, and that it is lead slot worthy. The only drawback I could see is that the article itself is a bit on the short side (and reads a bit like a bulleted list), but that has nothing to do with the image. Looking at the nomination, I think ALT1 is more interesting; problem was BLP violation, but whether smuggling a Syrian child to safety is considered negative or positive is a matter of perspective, and it certainly appears to be (per source) something Önnevall thinks was morally right. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, Prep 2 is ready for a person image, if someone would like to move this hook to there. Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
That a photo is of high quality does not seem to me a sufficient reason for having it in the image slot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

1 set/day again?

Are we going to consider returning to 1 set /day? The number of approved hooks are dwindling (48 hooks as I write and many still has open questions after the tick), making it difficult to arrange diverse and balanced sets as there are not a lot to choose from. HaEr48 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes, particularly given the dramatic decline in quality we've seen over the past few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It is amazing how TRM can detect dramatic declines in quality that others have not noticed. Besides 51 approved hooks on the nomination page, there are currently six sets in Preps & Queues. I would advocate sticking with the present DYK cycle for a few more days yet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not that amazing, but thank you. I know how many errors there have been lately because I've posted them myself. Averaging around two errors per set. Very poor indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Considering you're able to see a lot of errors in the proposed hooks, I'd suggest you do some reviews and hook promotions yourself. It might help cut out the backlog more. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't have time, and I completely reject the QPQ system which simply encourages lacklustre quality. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Given you have the time though to make all the WP:ERRORS posts, doing reviews wouldn't be so difficult though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
As I said, until DYK recovers its origins and stops the unmitigated quest for rushing crap to the main page, I'm not giving the numerous regulars here the satisfaction of my excellent reviews. Mind you, if I did all the reviews, that would break the QPQ system entirely as no-one would be able to review another DYK so no-one's nominations would be passed, and I'd rack up a huge number of QPQ credits. There's a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing an increase in recent DYK issues at ERRORS. The inclusion of the "this insect feeds off other insects" gives an impression of desperately looking for material to fill space. I'd say yes please to going back to 1 per day. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

One so-so hook is not a reason for ending the drive to reduce the backlog. At the rate we are currently receiving nominations, we could be back to 300-plus and having to return to a 12-hour cycle in little more than a month, and as the guy who has done most of the hook verification over the last few weeks, I could use a longer break between backlog drives than that.
We currently have 185 total nominations, if we could get that down to 150, that would make for a decent break between accelerated cycles, so I'd like to aim for that assuming that the number of approved nominations can keep pace. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It's hardly been "one so-so hook", the error rate is through the roof, we're spending far too many hours at ERRORS debating things endlessly, which is a waste of everyone's time. It's clear the current setup isn't working at all. Back to 1 set a day please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There were not "six errors" in one hook, that is nonsense. There was as I recall, a typo, and a perception that the hook could have been better expressed. Exaggeration is really not helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
We're dealing with issues around two or three times per "verified queue", so I'd say the system is broken. You can't cope with it all on your own, mistakes are being made and the system is more broken than it has been for a long time. Back to 1 set per day please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Really? A wrong genre, an ENGVAR fail, two words missing, a spurious "per hour" and a slang term ("clocking at") makes six errors to me. Black Kite (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At this moment we have 40 hooks in queue and preps, and another 58 waiting for promotion (another seven sets), which should be plenty to build balanced sets. A little while longer at 2 sets per day would help bring down the current backlog. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Backlog is utterly irrelevant while we have such a horrendous error rate right now. More haste, less speed = back to 1 set a day please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
MOS quibbles. BritEng v USEng. Over/underlinking. Wording tweaks. These and similar issues represent about 90% of the "errors" identified (mainly by you) in the last 2 1/2 weeks. Most readers would not even be aware of these issues, and I see far worse on the websites of reputable news organizations almost every day. We also see the same kinds of issues in OTD much more often, and I don't see anybody squealing for that to be throttled back. Gatoclass (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Who's "squealing"? I simply agreed with the OP. Nothing you've written and nothing you've demonstrated in your queue preparation and the volume of issues created can convince me that we shouldn't go back to one set per day. It's pretty obvious to anyone that the array of problems that are getting passed to the main page is demonstrative of a failing system. Funny thing is, I'd say around 80 to 85% of the issues I raise are eventually dealt with (usually by others while you abjectly refuse to do anything and filibuster), so clearly you're on your own thinking that the "MOS quibbles" etc don't deserve proper attention. I thought as an admin, the self-proclaimed "DYK admin", you knew that the main page of Wikipedia is hit around 20 million times per day. Why wouldn't we address the fuck-ups? Better to get things right than to rush things through. Better to have quality on the main page and a backlog than to have ERRORS pages full of issues which you don't seem to really appreciate. Better to slow things down to a point where we had a reasonable level of quality control. You yourself have indicated how much of a struggle it is to single-handedly deal with this, no wonder errors are piling up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
By the way, you said We also see the same kinds of issues in OTD much more often, and I don't see anybody squealing for that to be throttled back. which is mildly amusing. I'm not sure how you can "throttle" OTD back. It is, after all, events that occurred on that day. Indeed, throttling OTD back would then naturally throttle DYK back to maintain main page balance, you'd only be able to run six hooks or five hooks instead of eight.... And just in case you didn't realise, I go through each and every OTD set meticulously every day, and raise a few issues, every day, and Howcheng fixes them where appropriate, corrects me if I'm wrong, but doesn't filibuster or waste my time by just delaying a response, or worse, giving a response and then just leaving it hanging. So when you say we see "the same kinds of issues in OTD much more often", do you really mean we see "similar issues being regularly and neatly fixed at about the same frequency without all the song-and-dance about it "seeming" to be okay with the "OTD admin""? Because that's my reading of the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The nomination template

I notice that in recent nomination templates on the nominations page, there has appeared an extra commented out bit at the bottom that looks like this:

}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--><!-- -->

The first commented out section is normal and serves a useful purpose, but the second one occupies two lines, which I can't illustrate here, and seems pointless. Can someone who knows what they are doing return the template to its previous form? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, it looks like the unnecessary added characters are courtesy of this edit by DePiep. I've reverted the edit; if some of what was changed is truly necessary, those parts of the edit can be restored, but not the extraneous characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
OK. The essence of the edit was to move TemplateData into the /doc subpage. I have edited towards this again, but without adding the extraneous comment. - DePiep (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
DePiep: NO! Will you fucking get a goddam clue and stop screwing with things you don't understand? Jesus! See #Bull in a china shop? EEng 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
EEng You have not pointed out a single china cup being broken. You are a "I don't understand this so I oppose" editor, and on top of this this is your third WP:PA. I strongly advise you retract your barkings, and stop making new ones. Also, you might inform yourself on template documentation. - DePiep (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to do this to you, David Eppstein, but I'm on vacation: can you handle this? EEng 22:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean, start watching yet another template that DePiep is breaking, unbreak it as necessary, and continue telling him not to break things? Sure, I guess, but sooner or later we're going to have to treat this as a behavioral issue and not just as a do-what-we-need-to-keep-things-working issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Different Kong
I actually meant reaching through the internet and strangling him, but use your judgment. I'm on my way to a boat tour of Hong Kong. EEng 23:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
EEng Even with the smallest bandwidth & connection (less than you needed to post the above), you can <s>(strike)</s>, excuse, undo, selfcorrect. These are WP:PA's you now. The Wikipedia point is, sir, that you are responsible for your own edits. - DePiep (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
He is, however, essentially correct. Once reverted, you will need consensus for such a change, especially on such a heavily used template. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
No, Black Kite. EEng did not add a single proof of anything broken. Already, EEng has demonstrated not to be able to reply in content & argument (see below btw). - DePiep (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you still arguing that you didn't break the template after you broke the template? As is clearly described at the top of this very section? WP:CIR indeed. Please stop editing templates and find something more constructive to do with your efforts here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
These are PA's you now – Yes, no English problem here. EEng 22:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: At the moment, all you have done is to make edits without clear purpose to pages which are technically perfectly functional. Some of your edits have caused problems, as pointed out above (the extraneous spaces); but mostly they are just confusing as hell, because you have not made it clear what you are trying to do. Moreover, when this has been pointed out, all you've said is "show me the problem with my edits". This is not how consensus works. You are making changes to an established system; you need to justify those changes. I have no wish to start anything at ANI, but given the amount of time being spent on unproductive back-and-forth here, I may have no option. So let me ask you again; what, precisely, are you trying to achieve? Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93 No template was broken. The edit mentioned here was easily improved upon, no harm was done at any moment. It was reverted without consideration or understanding. Then there are the PA's by EEng, interlaced with notes that s/he does not understand it so it must be wrong. FYI: it is perfectly reasonable to put WP:TemplateData in the documentation subpage, as I already noted. Basically it's just me being bold & others assuming GF. But given the personal attacks EEng has engaged in, s/he does not appear to be open for reaching consensus in any way or form. - DePiep (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    DePiep, you introduced some extraneous markup, a fact you admitted above. But that isn't the point. Your edits have caused a lot of editors to spend time arguing and/or reverting. Unless they have a clear purpose, they are therefore a net-negative, because they are wasting the community's time. I don't care what others may have said to you along the way, you still need to justify your changes on their own merits. What are you trying to achieve? Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    Not broken, no harm. For the rest: that going into the BF area, I think you should base that. - DePiep (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    It was reverted without consideration or understanding. That is simply not true. I reverted it because the edit had added unnecessary and confusing characters to every DYK nomination created since the edit was made, and the quickest way to fix the problem was to revert the edit that had caused it. The actual Tempate:NewDYKnomination page had no visual change that I could determine by reverting the change, so no harm was done to it while I was eliminating the inappropriate additions your edit had caused (and would have continued to make) to dozens of DYK nomination pages. You messed with something with unfortunate results; I fixed the mess by undoing your problematic edit. Harm was done, whether intentional or not; if you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then you shouldn't be editing at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    It is important to understand that, for this template, the actual source code produced by this template and not just its visual appearance is important. The reason is that this template expands to the source code that DYK reviewers (often unfamiliar with the process) are presented with when they begin to edit a new DYK nomination. DePiep appears to still be missing this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So could someone undo the extra commented-out part at the end of the DYK template? It's difficult to work with, especially when comments are written below the line and the template has been closed. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The changes to the template itself were quickly undone some time ago. But because the template is substituted, that doesn't affect any nominations that were made while the template was broken. Finding and fixing those will not be easy. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, now I understand. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

AN INTERESTING HOOK!!!

... that aphids (pictured) are sometimes farmed by ants?

Well done Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth. This is honestly the first hook in about two months which has made me actually go and read the target article purely from a "NO I DID NOT KNOW THAT BUT I WANT TO KNOW MORE" perspective. And it's fascinating. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For me it was the first hook in about two months that made me go "Doesn't everyone know that?" Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I approved the hook, but was afraid the reactions would be, "well, duh". OTOH, it had a nice image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I thought this was common knowledge too...guess that shows how subjective "interesting" is. Umimmak (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you TRM. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - shipwrecks

The article states "There is a record of 25 shipwrecks and scuttlings associated with Long Reef on the Australian National Shipwreck Database.[12]", ref 12 leads to a generic main page with no sight of verification of the claim. I stumbled around a bit, and finally found some results in a search on "Long reef", but no sign of the word "scuttlings" anywhere. I think, as a minimum, the article should explain how to find the results, how to go from 26 hits down to 25, and why the hook has the word scuttlings, yet the source to verify it doesn't mention the term at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The database seems to record the ships that have sunk, not just those that have been wrecked. If you click on an individual ship in the search results for the register, such as "Ferry pontoon", you will see that it was scuttled in 1980. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
So the hook fails the DYK rules, the claim is not referenced by an inline citation. It's referenced by a database which you have to understand how to use, what results to discount and what how to determine that some were as a result of scuttling. This is a fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In any case, 25 "shipwrecks and scuttlings" is incorrect as many of these were accidental sinkings (scuttling is deliberate, and shipwrecks require an actual wrecking). "Shipwrecks and sinkings" would be more accurate, but agree it could also do with an easier-to-follow source. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Pull please, so we can resolve this before it gets protected by an enthusiastic admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like everyone but the page creator was alerted to this. Courtesy ping to User:Filikovalo. Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the url to point directly to the search page. I really don't understand Euryalus's point at all since the hook states "shipwrecks and scuttlings" both of which are listed in the database (and in other article sources). But I'm changing the hook to say "at least" because there are several scuttlings listed in the article that are not listed in the database. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Thanks for the ping. My point is it should simply read "shipwrecks and sinkings" or even just "sinkings." Scuttling and shipwrecking are specific forms of destruction of a ship. They are both subsets of sinkings, but it's also possible for a vessel to just go down of its own accord without being either scuttled or shipwrecked. For example, this historic one. The database does make the distinction between scuttling, shipwreck and sinking in each of the individual entries for vessels. There aren't 25 entries for scuttling or shipwreck In this case, so we would be better off using a more catch-all term like sinkings, which covers every cause for a vessel actually going down.
Not the end of the world either way, but (at least in my view) it would improve the accuracy of the hook. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
So the hook isn't verified properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I would pull it and come up with a hook that can be suitably verified per the DYK rules. Even linking to a search page does not verify the hook as it lists only 25 directly related shipwrecks, so this is really not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
If you don't like that source (and I can see nothing wrong with it), there is also this one (cite 10 in the article) which lists 30 ships wrecked off Long Reef. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: That's a much clearer source, thanks - also indicates 29 vessels sunk off Long Reef. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
What I don't like is the endless defence of items which are about to be protected and end up on the main page when clearly there are recognised issues. We should not be discussing them in detail here, just pull the hook, re-open the nomination and look for a better solution. There is no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The hook is sourced and there is no reason to pull it. But if you still see a problem with it, explain what it is so we can fix it now. The hook won't appear for almost another 12 hours so there's no reason to pull it when we can resolve the matter here and now. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so only two things wrong at the moment (besides the dreadful note that's been added, but that's the least of our concerns), there is still no way of a casual reader verifying the claim based on the URL given in the citation. They need to type in "Long Reef" in the search engine link you've provided, and then discount the one that isn't relevant. And then, the second problem, as noted by Euryalus above, and by me, these aren't necessarily scuttlings. Worse still that "scuttling" doesn't even appear in any of these links. So yes, please do fix it, preferably by removing it so it can be discussed again at the nomination page. Basically, and you already know this I'm sure, this fails the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course they aren't necessarily scuttlings, they are both shipwrecks and scuttlings, which is what the hook says. As for the database source, it's perfectly valid as a source, hundreds of articles including former DYKs use databases as sources, and I think most readers are smart enough to figure out how to use one for themselves, but since you want to make an issue out of it, I'll add a note with instructions. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The source doesn't mention "scuttlings" at all. Come on, get with the program here. This continual, incremental, interminable defence of poorly quality controlled DYK items is becoming disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it does. The cause of each sinking can be found in the individual ship links, as explained in the note I added. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the source provided with the hook does not mention it. You have to go digging into the source to find it. That's not what the rule says, and even if you don't care because you're the DYK admin, it's not the spirit of the rule either. This is borderline hopeless trying to deal with you here I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea. Change the hook to something like "despite the fact that over 25 ships have sunk at Long Reef, no lighthouse was ever built" or something like that. Otherwise, pull it, the sourcing isn't transparent enough. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
It took me about one minute flat to confirm the hook from the source. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia with facts sourced to databases, scores of them previously used to support DYK hooks, and AFAIK nobody has ever complained that they are not viable as sources or "too hard" to use, indeed, half of the hooks I fact check every day are harder to check than this one. But you can do what you like with this, I'm done wasting my time on it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
You're not the average reader though are you? And this clearly didn't comply with the DYK rules. And in actuality, you should be able to verify the hook in less than a minute if the article and sourcing is compliant with the DYK rules. I had hoped this was obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, I've pulled it, because in looking at the changes I recently made, I think Black Kite has a point in that the hook requires comparison between two different sources to confirm it. In any case, I think the whole paragraph could be better expressed. Gatoclass (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Well that was easy enough. Next! Interesting though that you thought Black Kite's "sourcing isn't transparent enough" was sufficient to pull, yet you ardently argued against my "leads to a generic main page with no sight of verification of the claim. I stumbled around a bit, and finally found some results in a search on "Long reef", but no sign of the word "scuttlings" anywhere.". Once again I think you should leave the reports I make to others because there's clearly a different standard being applied to different editors here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Not at all! Your complaint, specifically, was that it was too hard to use a database to verify a hook. That is the argument I rejected, and I still reject it. Black Kite on the other hand, made a generic comment that the sourcing wasn't transparent enough, without saying exactly what he meant. I went back to make one more check of the article, just to be sure I hadn't missed something, and noticed that my changes relied on a comparison of two sources, thought maybe that's what Black Kite was referring to, and decided to pull the hook on that basis. Now if you'd said to me from the outset that it was too hard to make the comparison, I probably would have responded positively to that, but that's not the point you were making. Gatoclass (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so a specific complaint about the fact that it failed the DYK rules and was not what our readers expect to have go through to verify a hook was not acceptable to pull the hook while a generic comment about non-transparent sourcing was enough. Brilliant. You're too involved to deal with anything I post here, and I request that you leave any issues I raise here to others to handle because I wasted a LOT of time on this, thanks to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it didn't fail any DYK rules and I have just as much right to express an opinion about DYK issues as you or anybody else, your ongoing efforts to chill me out of participation at DYK notwithstanding. Gatoclass (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're incorrect on a couple of counts yet again. Linking to a generic database page (or worse, in the hook which was passed, a generic homepage) is not what is meant by WP:V and WP:RS and I'm pretty sure you know that and if you don't, you shouldn't be an admin nor should you be doing this work. Secondly, you continually to abjectly reject just about every single report I make, yet when another editor with whom you are not INVOLVED makes a generic comment which reflected my concerns you jumped to pull the hook. It's clear for all to see. All I'm suggesting you do, to avoid me wasting YET ANOTHER DAY on a single inadequate hook is to leave issues I raise to someone else who may not be so involved to handle. That way you can focus on other interests or hooks while I focus on avoiding yet more embarrassment from the DYK project hitting the main page, and we can both achieve what we're looking for in an more expedient and efficient manner. This clumsy example of atrocious sourcing which relies on readers to click the right buttons, fill in the right information, ignore some of the information then presented, and then click through to individual search results to find how to verify the hook is plain wrong, whether you believe it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

can we change the hook to "did you know a giant salamander fossil was found at Long Reef?" Filikovalo (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominations on hold due to merger proposals: help requested

At the moment, we have two DYK nominations being held due to ongoing (or at least unclosed) merger discussions. They are:

If any passing admins or other experienced closers would be willing to take a look at either or both of these with an eye to seeing whether they're ready to be closed, it would greatly be appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Eligibility question

Criterion 1d says that articles that were previously featured as DYKs are ineligible, but 1f says that good articles are eligible. What if an article was previously featured as has recently become a good article. Which of these two rules applies? Ergo Sum 05:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

An article that was previously featured is ineligible, period. Articles which haven't featured yet when they become GAs are eligible. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The point here is that an article can only feature in DYK once, but in the lifespan of an article it has a number of qualifying events—creation, 5x expansion, promotion to GA—after which it can be featured. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 and Usernameunique: Got it. Maybe it's just me, but it might be a good idea to clarify that in the eligibility criteria description. Ergo Sum 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 May 2018

No, that implies that the program is "unlearning" the bias. What is meant is * ... that an unconscious bias training program has been created to help people unlearn bias while sleeping? --Khajidha (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Khajidha (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well done, thanks, substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Errors in queue 6, now main page: BACK TO ONE SET PER DAY

Well, just 1/4 of the set promoted in error, as I stated somewhere above, the error rate is woeful right now, it's clear that those orchestrating the arcane mechanisms of DYK can't cope with the current pace with sufficient quality control. Back to one set per day right now please. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Just about nine reports of varying significance to deal with for the next two queues, sitting at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Simone Tery

Following discussion at WP:ERRORS, I have pulled the hook ... that Simone Téry was reputedly the only journalist to ever interview the Irish revolutionary Michael Collins? from Template:Did you know/Queue/3. The fact in question is cited to a blog,[11] (albeit with an article ostensibly written by a PhD student), and the fact itself is kind of WP:WEASEL. Where did this reputation for being the only journalist to interview him come from? Who suggested such a thing and where's the evidence, beyond the PhD dude saying it's reputed to be so? I suggest we either come up with better evidence for the assertion, or find something else to say about Ms Tery.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure the DYK admin Gatoclass will have a good reason here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hook interest

I look through the archives regularly to find hooks to post at WP:DYKSTATS. Unfortunately, the only ones that consistently garner over 5,000 views are image hooks. A day ago we really hit rock-bottom with these hooks:

IMO there is so much pressure being put on verifying the hook fact that hook interest has gone by the wayside. Both need to be stressed. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's all about people wanting to get crappy hooks onto the main page regardless of whether they're actually interesting. I'd say 75% of hooks in every set these days are just boring, crappy statements of the obvious, leaving the lead hook with the image, and the quirky hook. And with the rapid turnround, two sets per day, that halves your potential pageviews right there. Most of the DYK regulars objected to the idea that we mandated more scrutiny over an interesting hook. I wonder why? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The Olympics hook is quite interesting IMO (I was the reviewer). The problem is that most people are more intrigued by the sole athlete himself rather than the highlighted article (who wants to click on a link that simply says 2006?). Erjon Tola actually got a respectable 1,600 pageviews, more than 5x the DYK article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course they want to read about that one guy, the sentence is set up that way. He's the subject of the sentence. Why isn't the subject of the hook the subject of the sentence? If the hook is directing you to one article in particular, the hook should be about that article. "...that Albanian representation at the 2006 and 2010 Winter Olympics consisted of only one athlete? --Khajidha (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The numbers have been a little disappointing recently but let's not forget that they are only on the page for half the normal time, if they weren't, plenty of hooks would have got 5000-plus views and entered the stats leaderboard. The reality is that many articles are about obscure individuals and out-of-the-way topics that are never going to have broad appeal, and even excellent hooks can't fix that. More mainstream topics generally attract considerably more interest even when the hook isn't that special, but we don't get a lot of hooks on core topics because, I guess, they are much harder to research and work on. Gatoclass (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Gatoclass.These days most "core" topic already have solid article, and there's not much opportunity to create or expand articles. GA are way more difficult for core topics than obscure ones. So, it's just natural that hooks tend to be obscure. In my opinion, it's okay because the main purpose of DYK is to reward new contribution and not just to feature hooky facts. HaEr48 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Interest is subjective. As we have seen here, Zanhe found the Olympics hook interesting while Yoninah did not. We should not be pushing our personal preferences on what we think is interesting onto DYK because it is just as likely that others can disagree with what one views as interesting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, The C of E I didn't express a preference. But our readers did. Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll just say that "These days most "core" topic already have solid article, and there's not much opportunity to create or expand articles." is so completely wrong that (lacking TRM's rhetorical gifts) I'm left speechless! It's very unfortunate that most non-GA dyks are new articles rather than the many expansions we badly need. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

With such regular banality featured at DYK now, it's time to remove the interesting to a broad audience rule as most proposals pay no heed to this whatsoever. We might as well have my talk page linked from DYK ("... that The Rambling Man's talk page routinely scores more pageviews than DYKs featured on the Main Page?") The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Credits need doing after manual update

The bot has broken down so I had to do a manual update. Since I was kept up to all hours again dealing with the usual Wikidrama, I'm too tired to do the credits and can't even remember how it's done right now, so would appreciate it if somebody else attended to that. I guess Shubinator will have to be informed as well. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. --kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 02:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Kewlgrapes, thanks for that, but you've done the wrong set. You've sent out credits for the next update rather than the current one (the one currently on the main page). I appreciate you taking a shot at this, but maybe it would be best this time around if you left it to somebody with more familiarity with the process and learned from their example. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I just realized that... let me try again. --kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 02:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, think I got it that time. I removed the pre-emptive credits. Sorry about that. --kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 03:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kewlgrapes, much appreciated. Unfortunately, it looks like nobody notified Shubinator about the bot being down so it's all going to have to be done manually again. Anyhow, I've notified him now, so hopefully he will get it running again quickly. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't know EEng. You'd have to ask somebody who is familiar with the code. Gatoclass (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately the bot's logs cut off at April 13th, so I don't have visibility into why the bot went down. Shubinator (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gevninge - pulled hook

Ping: Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, & Moonraker.

... that in the epic Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, the titular hero passes through a place like Gevninge on his way to fight the monster Grendel?

Gatoclass, you recently pulled this hook without notice. The only explanation was your edit summary, which states "pulled Gevninge - hook looks OR-ish". I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion; there is an extensive discussion on the nomination page, including the relevant passage (and translation) from the source. If you would like to explain your thoughts in pulling the hook, and whether you read the article and nomination beforehand, please do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read the article, the nomination page and the sources. I don't pull hooks lightly. However, I momentarily forgot to reopen the nomination page outlining my reasons for the pull. I'm logging off shortly so I'll do that tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess Gatoclass means it sounds like original research. It is certainly constructed, based on more than one source, there isn’t a single RS that says this, but I’m not aware of any rule against putting two facts together for the first time. I think it passes muster, and there doesn’t seem to be much else to say about Gevninge, apart from the helmet fragment, which doesn’t have a great image to support it. Moonraker (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd say there's definitely other possibilities; something like "Gevninge, a small village, may have been the port for a royal capital?" wouldn't be so bad. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I do agree with Vanamonde93, that would definitely be less contrived. Usernameunique, if you would like to put that forward as an Alt on the nomination page, we may have a good way forward. Moonraker (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In what way does the hook feel contrived? The second source (Herben) is only used for the plot summary component (i..e, "on his way to fight the monster Grendel"). Christensen 2002 by itself links Gevninge to the place Beowulf passes through. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Usernameunique, it *is* a bit contrived because it ties together the real world and the world of fiction in a way that is just speculation. I don’t know of a DYK rule against doing that, and I do wonder what Gatoclass will come up with tomorrow, but I thought Vanamonde93’s idea might be a way to settle the matter easily. If you want to defend your Beowulf hook with Gatoclass, then so be it, but you could have an interesting time ahead. Moonraker (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Classic. This is the self-proclaimed DYK admin making a bogus decision and then disappearing. What a joke. This hook is just fine. Particularly based on the fact that this very DYK admin posted a fully fictional hook which was far more banal just days ago (and attempted to defend that decision, extensively). Now, suddenly, a genuinely interesting hook appears, based in fiction with a link to the real world, and the DYK admin removes it and is too busy to say why, but not busy enough to confirm he pulled it. I think DYK is becoming something of an autocracy here, and it's completely unhealthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Archived DYKs erased...

The Did you know... entries from 12 May do not appear on this page. Did somebody forget to archive it? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We had a couple of less experienced users do the credits for those two sets, which had to be completed manually as the bot broke down, and it looks as if they forgot to add the sets to the archive. I'll do it now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Not trying to push blame, but copying old hooks to the archive and doing credits for the hooks are clearly listed as separate steps in the manual update process here. I simply did what was requested on this page, which was to do the credits. Moral of the story: manual updates suck! --kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 15:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Worst English award (Prep 2)

that Portuguese international footballer Andreia Norton played her first professional match at the age of 13? Cwmhiraeth, Zanhe, SirEdimon (blocked)(nom)

Holy crap. I just started reading this article. It's pretty clear that the reviewer and promoter didn't. A complete carnival of English language disaster. Please, I know we don't expect FA-quality here, but just get the grammar right, it's going to the main page after all..... D-, must try a lot harder. Perhaps read the actual article being promoted rather than just the hook.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty dire. I assume it's a translation? I've edited the mess of the final paragraph a bit, but there's still overlinking of football(er) throughout and things such as "Norton started to play football at the age of two in her native city [Ovar according to the infobox, otherwise unstated & completely unreferenced]. When Norton was seven, she went to play for the "Furadouro Sports Club", an amateur club in Ovar... Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_148&oldid=1085471545"