Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 153

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155→Archive 160

Concern about a 8 November hook

I noticed this hook in the prep area here: Template:Did you know/Queue/4.

I have two concerns: (1) weasel phrasing -- known to whom? Historians? The public? Outside of the Commonwealth? Etc. (2) The link tells us that this is a proverb; "The author of the epigram is unknown, though it has been suggested it was created by a Catholic townsman, perhaps a priest, jealous of more privileged position of the nobility and the Jewry."

It's a point of view that may not be historically accurate, and the article says as much. But the hook almost reads as if it were presented in Wiki voice; it comes across as off. I may be overthinking this, but I believe that a second opinion is warranted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a anti-Semitic phantasm better known as "Paradisus Iudaerum" per this academic paper. Rather shocking we are presenting an antisemitic trope in this fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
In recent times POLIN musuem's (criticized) decision to title an exhibit with just the paradise bit led to recent coverage of this trope, however the POLIN curator herself had this to say Similarly, the Wall of Words in the Paradisus Iudaeorum gallery (1569–1648) is a kind of chorus, sometimes in harmony, sometimes cacophonous. The quota-tions here play on the ambiguity of “Paradisus Iudaeorum,” a formulation from a pasquinade critical of everything in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—for-eigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers, and servants, and also Jews. To characterize the Commonwealth as a Jewish paradise is a way of saying that Jews had it “too good.” The Wall of Words, by assembling different perspectives, invites the visitor to consider to what extent and in what ways the Commonwealth was good for the Jews or bad for the Jews, worse for the Jews or better—and above all introduces the idea of a spectrum of relations, rather than a binary of good or bad. Our multivoiced approach and authored voices are critical to the openness of the narration and therefore to the openness of the historical narrative. in The Polish Review - hardly, to say the least, an endorsement of this description.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the concerns raised above, this should be pulled back to the noms and re-worked, or simply failed as inappropriate subject matter for the joke section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It would not be a good advert for the project to put incredibly mildly. Who the hell is responsible for this potential P.R clusterfuck? The media would love it. Simon Adler (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Piotrus: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Thoughts, well, while some minor rewording may be in order, some people are being overly sensitive. The phrase is not associated with modern anti-semitism; some scholars do argue that it might have been an anti-semitic slur in the past, but that hardly makes it inappropriate. Personally I always thought it was mostly a way to showcase the inequality between the nobility and enserfed peasants. I guess for now we should put it on hold why we work out what, if any, rewordings are needed on the article's talk. When this is done, hopefully in few days, we can reconsider the hook, but TBH, I think it is pretty neutral: PLC has been refereed, by many works, to by this saying (proverb); what's offensive about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
      Similar phrases ("down with the landlords and Jews!") were used in 20th century pogroms.[1] Saying that the "Paradisus Iudaerum" lampoon at best or at worst an anti-Semitic phantasm was the "known" state of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth - is decidedly non-neutral. It was perhaps "known" as such by anti-Semites or called such by Poles who thought Jews had it "too good" in Poland. This is not a factual statement - the grain of truth behind this lampoon is that Jews were persecuted less in the commonwealth than the rest of Europe during these years (until the pogroms of 1648) - they still led a fairly wretched existence.[2] Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It is your OR that it is an anti-semitic slogan. It is just a historical saying, that yes, exaggerates the role of Jews, and that's about it. It's not controversial, and it is mostly accurate (again, except that exaggeration). A few scholars have written about that exaggeration, but that doesn't make the statement anti-semitic. (It's not like there's a consensus on this, and it's not like most scholars refer to this statement as anti-semitic). But this can be easily fixed, in the article (where I've expanded on this critique) and in the hook, which could read like this: "..that the description of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews exaggerated the situation of the Polish Jews? I think this ALT1 should address all the issues raised here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
        Not my OR. It referred to, unequivocally, as an antisemitic phantasm' (including antisemitic use of it in the Second Republic) by this source (English translation) , and oanna Tokarska-Bakir (Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia. Fundacja Pogranicze. - in Polish - [3]) treats this as part of a corpus of antisemitic proverbs (together with kidnapping children for using their blood for Passover and stabbing the host). It isn't merely "exaggerated" - it is an antisemtic slogan that has a "grain of truth" (specifically - not that Jews were particularly privileged in the period - but that they were not persecuted during these years in Poland as they were in the rest of Europe). Any reference to this slogan should clearly label and attribute it. There are also COMMONNAME issues here - "Paradisus Iudaeorum"/"Paradisus Iudaerum"/"paradisus judaeorum" (and other forms of Jew(s) and Hebrew in Latin) is the term mainly used in the literature.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
        It's referred to as anti-semitic by a single scholar (Elżbieta Janicka), and she is hardly high profile (just a minor Polish historian, does not appear encyclopedic). I don't know if you are proficient in Polish, but I am, and I read Bakir article (which does not appear peer reviewed) and she does not say the proverb is anti-semitic, at best, xenophobic. She discusses anti-semitic myths like ones you mention, but the proverb is not discussed together with them in the same context (if you want to prove me wrong, please quote her saying it is anti-semitic). Anyway, I've added a reference to the proverb as anti-semitic, through it's not a common view (scholars agree that it exaggerates Jewish situation, but only Janicka calls it anti-semitic, and to repeat myself, Bakir does not). Anyway, do let me know what you think about the proposed hook. As for COMMONNAME, it's something we can discuss on talk, the article name is of little relevance to the DYK. And while the "Jewish paradise" part is most controversial and hence most often discussed in literature, it is only part of a wider saying, and the rest of that saying is important as well. For example, Kot in his monograph on this did not focus on the Jewish part. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
        Disregard of academic sources while citing in the article 19th and 18th century sources duly noted. Tokarska-Bakir was used in the article prior to me getting involved - and clearly treats this as part of a corpus of anti-Semitic sayings recorded by anthropologists - this is the subject of the chapter. You want a more explicit one? per Piotr Wróbel (who would generally be presumed to be pro-Polish AFAICT) - On the one hand, most Poles firmly believe that Poland has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and that antiSemitism has existed only on the margins of Polish society. As far as they are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum. On the other hand, most Jews, especially those on the American continent and in Western Europe, claim that Poland is one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world. Jews have often shared the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's belief that virtually all Poles received their anti-Semitism "with their mothers' milk."[4] And here is Tokarska-Bakir in English (in 2016 - intrestingly she notes she recently found a 14th century Austrian use of this trope) - Another sign of disregarding the language spoken by Jews was calling a fragment of the main exhibition Paradisus Judaeorum – “the Jewish paradise.” The expression constituted a 17th-century polemic concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels. Framing this satirical expression as the title of a part of the exhibition implicitly puts it into the mouths of contented Jews (Kot 1937, 1957).8Polin: „Ultimate Lost Object” Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
        I've cited T-B first, thank you very much. And what are you trying to prove? Neither of the other sources you cite/quote calls this term anti-semitic. That it is used in the context of discussions of anti-semitism does not make it anti-semitic; it is just an exaggeration, but an exaggeration is far cry from "hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination" (which is what anti-Jewism racism is). Still, why is this an issue here? I've added a reliable source to the article, citing the one author who called this phrase anti-semitic in her peer reviewed work. Isn't that enough? Anyway, I've asked you now twice if you have any issues with the revised ALT, which now clearly states the saying is an exaggeration? Do you still consider it non-neutral? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, this should be replaced in the queue immediately. Clearly the current hook is unsatisfactory, this debate will never result in consensus, take it back to noms and come up with something less controversial, or just fail it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled it, as that was the most urgent action. I have not added another hook, not have I reopened the DYK discussion for this hook. Fram (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I reopened the nomination at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pulled another one as well

While I was busy, I pulled another one as well, coincidentally also about antisemitism (in this case, holocaust denial).

Template:Did you know nominations/Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph, 1942 @Catriona, Piotrus, and Cwmhiraeth:

  • ... that German conservatives claimed that an iconic Holocaust photograph (pictured) depicting the murder of Jews in Ukraine was a Communist forgery?

"Conservatives" does not appear in the article, nor in this context in the source[5]. The claim came from a newspaper (aimed at soldiers) which was "known for its willingness to defend Germany's Nazi past". German conservatives were in general anti-nazi, not the kind of holocaust deniers or minimizers this hook portrays.

The queue now has only 6 hooks and no picture hook. Fram (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

So much for trying to double the hook rate... There was another which failed the basic criteria too but which has been tweaked about three times in the queue to finally get there. So that's 37.5% of the hooks shouldn't have made it to the queue in this one set. And then various minor issues affecting two or three of the others. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I reopened the nomination at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4 Prep 4

I moved Alfred George Pither from the first slot in Prep 4, to fill the first slot in Queue 4. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Statue of Liberty (Seattle) has been moved from Prep 1 to Queue 4 to fill the remaining vacant slot. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Cheers, just a tweak to the blurb now needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    Both fixed, though it would have been a lot more helpful and less childish to simply describe the errors here. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    Would have been a lot more helpful if you'd fixed it properly. Without the personal attacks. Never mind. Got your number. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    That's a bit rich coming from you, when you use this sort of language. I'm not interested in your accusations: I was asking you to post here so that errors are addressed faster. If you're not interested, that's your affair, and I cannot compel you. Vanamonde (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    Get over yourself Vanamonde. Your accusations were perfect WP:DICK territory, as you well know. As an "admin" you should know that. You are an embarrassment to the position of admin. Oh, and if you really want to talk about DYK errors, start fixing those yourself too. I'm doing my best to notify people. You? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    No, you're not. If you were doing your best, you would post errors you spot at the places they are most visible: I watch WP:ERRORS, as you know damn well. Even so, I would watch your errors page if I had the time: at the moment I don't. We're only having this conversation because I responded to your post above. So really you're the one who needs to take a step back and take a look at why you're alienating folks who want the same things as you, but who may disagree with you on occasion. Vanamonde (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    You don't get it, you haven't got a clue about it, you haven't even tried to get it, I understand. I don't care what you think, your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again, and as for "alienating folks", well that's up to them. I'm up to nearly 700 errors fixed which were overlooked in the past five months. Move along, do something constructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Marcy Tigner - Prep 5

I think the hook for Marcy Tigner should be modified to clarify that interest was re-kindled later in the 1990s, otherwise the hook doesn't make sense. i.e. ... "that although Christian ventriloquist Marcy Tigner had ceased performing by 1990, interest in her recordings was later that decade rekindled by record collectors?" Pinging @Cwmhiraeth:, @Narutolovehinata5:. Without the clarification it reads "she retired, and then she was rediscovered" which isn't very unusual. My intent when creating the hook was to contrast the near timing of her retirement and the regenerated interest. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It has been promoted to Queue 5, so administrator action is needed. I suggest putting "later that decade" at the end of the hook for grammar's sake. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I could do it, but doing that unilaterally without involving the reviewers (or other eyes) would be bad form, since that's not precisely the hook that was approved. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I don't mind what wording is used, as long as the grammar and flow are okay. With that said, in my opinion, I don't actually find "retired and then rediscovered" to be uninteresting, though maybe it could just be me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Could someone please pull the hook and return it the noms page so a better hook can be worked out? It could be replaced with something from the preps and we'll fill it in there. Pinging @Maile66: @Casliber: @Vanamonde93:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I just saw this discussion. I'm happy to pull it if necessary, but is there a problem with 78.26's suggested modification? Vanamonde (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I'd rather it just ran as is if the modification is in any way controversial. I'm afraid I've already wasted far more volunteer time than I intended. Apologies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I don't know, I can't follow the years being given in the article. There's no clear date on which she retired. Her last album was in 1982. And you can't say she was rediscovered "later that decade", because she was rediscovered in the 1990s. If you move it back to the noms page, I can work with the nominator on both hookier and verifiable wording. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, I looked up the AllMusic bio, which says she was making "annual appearances" at a store. So I'm sorry, 78.26, but I'm going to pull this at the moment, at least until we have a source explicitly putting her retirement at or before 1990. Vanamonde (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, as I prefer the other hook I could be silent, but it would be wrong of me to not mention that the Allmusic biography merely states that she made personal appearances after her last album (1982), and that the Worlds Worst Records source says she retired 1988/1989, so therefore there's no conflict between the sources, and the hook is still supported. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 Nov 11 Special Date queue

I'm putting all these in their own section. We have more than can be accommodated, perhaps. In the US, Nov 11 is Veterans Day holiday, but the same as Remembrance Day elsewhere. I edited one of the nominations, so I shouldn't be involved in which ones go into Nov 11. But a question. Since we often run with less than 8 hooks when one is pulled, and more than 8 hooks on those occasions when an admin feels the need to balance the look of the main page, can't we just post more hooks in the set? If we moved the lancewood tree to another queue, we would have 9 hooks for this date. Somebody else decide this. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Make that 10. We just got another nomination. Please see the bottom subsection below. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, looking through the approved and to-be approved list, if reviewers and admins wanted to, Nov 11 could be made into two 12-hour sets of 8. There are a slew of un-reviewed articles about submarines of the WWI era. And I believe I saw some bio nominations that could fit into that subject, if they were reviewed. Just depends on what this project wants to do. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

11th November

I've just noticed that Prep 1 (which would fill Queue 1), which will fall on 11th November (Remembrance Day and 100 years since the end of the First World War) has been filled however we do have 2 hooks in the special holding area for that date. One of which has a fairly appropriate lead image for the day. Could I ask if someone would be able to switch the hooks please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All the prep sets are full at the moment. When one becomes vacant, we can do some hook shuffling. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done Special occasion hooks for November 11 promoted. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Woodvale Park

Re: Prep 1, a potential problem has been discussed here. Could someone (with more time) help decide what to do? Nomination subpage is here. I am also notifying the reviewer. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who built the prep set for November 11. Since it's a special date (the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I), I tried to find other hooks to populate the set, while striking a balance with other non-war hooks. If there is a problem with the hook, we need to discuss it here to see what can be done.
@L293D: as the reviewer, you are not allowed to promote a hook to prep, or switch it around while it's in the prep set. Therefore I reverted your hook promotion.
@Dumelow: can this hook be fixed?
  • ... that the war memorial at Woodvale Park is said to be unique in honouring the dead from both sides of the First World War?
If not, or if you prefer a different hook to go up, then I will return this hook to prep and wait for another day to promote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Yoninah. As stated on my talk page the hook is supported by reliable sources, but they could well be misinformed. It is true in the strictest sense as it just states "said to be". I have suggested an alternative WWI hook at my talk page: "... that the First World War memorial at Woodvale Park in Belfast is cut to resemble a stone from Giant's Causeway?" or else just revert to one of the two approved non-WWI hooks. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dumelow: That's nice, thank you. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah. I've just today written an article on the last British general to die during the war which might make a good inclusion for the 11th if it can be reviewed in time: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward John Granet - Dumelow (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
If someone else can review it, I'll promote it. Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: 100th anniversary of end of World War I

As this is a significant anniversary, The C of E came up with a great lead image that everyone can relate to, the remembrance poppy. I've tried to populate the set with other World War I hooks. However, there was a special occasion request for a World War II hook to go up on this day, and now we have a few of those. I was just wondering if anyone would mind if we stick to World War I hooks only, per the anniversary. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I don't mind at all, a complete WW1 set would be on topic and nice. But could you reallocate my Qiu Bojun hook to a different prep while you are doing this please? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Frayae yes, I'll promote again it when a set becomes open. All the sets are full now. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We now have five World War I hooks in Prep 1 for the 100th anniversary. If anyone has other ideas, please let me know. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I hope the administrators won't promote Prep 1 for a while longer. A nomination about a woman serving in World War I, Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead, was just proposed. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I have promoted Leslie Joy Whitehead to Queue 1 and shuffled Prep 2. Alex Shih (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK National Service of Remembrance

Nota bene* I've just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance. The nominator requested a November 11 date. Is it too late to make it to the Remembrance Day set? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: What do you think? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: @Frayae: I would certainly support this, if we exchange the lancewood tree one for this one, it would be most appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 for November 11 Leslie Joy Whitehead

Prep 1 has been promoted to queue, but now we have another special occasion hook for this day. Could an administrator move Stan Griffiths to a later prep set and put Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead here? BTW, I thought it was a good idea of @Vanamonde93: to promote only one queue at a time so hooks could still be worked on. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah since that is the Veteran's Day set, wouldn't it make more sense to move the lancewood tree hook? That's the only one not tied in to the theme. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, I did some editing on this nomination, so I shouldn't be involved in promoting it. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: Understandable, what is your thoughts on removing Template:Did you know nominations/Stan Griffiths or the Template:Did you know nominations/Acacia shirleyi and adding Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead and Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Frayae As I stated above, the Acacia shirleyi-lancewood tree is the one not related to the special date. It could be moved to another queue. As for the rest I favor WP:IAR and let all the veteran hooks have their day on the main page. At this point, it looks like there would be 9 hooks if the Acacia was removed. — Maile (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: That sounds fine to me. Remove the tree and promote the two themed hooks. Or at least find someone who is an admin to do so now it has entered the queue. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

First World War glass-rubber exchange

I knocked up an article at Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange to fill out the WWI theme, but see the queue is already full. Nevermind, if someone could take a look at approving it anyway it might be handy to have as a reserve? - Dumelow (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Last-minute hook for WWI (tomorrow)

Would it be possible for an admin to add Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange to tomorrow's queue? Or is too late? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: the prep set is about to go live on the main page and your hook fact for French submarine Armide does not have an inline cite! Please add one ASAP or this hook will be pulled. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Attention administrators! The World War I hook set for November 11 is currently populated with 7 World War I hooks and one World War II hook. (The Battle of Britain took place in the Second World War.) Immediate action is needed to replace the Herman Pines hook with the above WWI hook, Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange. Pinging @Maile66: @Amakuru: @Black Kite: et al. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We could also swap in Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance. Your choice. Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Alright thanks. I will definitely do this before midnight if nobody else does.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru Regarding your edit summary of only having 7 hooks because the main page was looking lopsided. I used the tool in the edit window to view the set in tomorrow's main page. Two different browsers - Firefox and Chrome. With Chrome, it looks marginally lopsided (short on DYK side) at 80% and really lopsided at 100%. With Firefox DYK looks too short at both 90% and 100%. So, from my end on both my browsers, it's too short with only 7 hooks. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: and @Maile66: this last-minute business is getting incredibly stressful. Right now, the hook fact for French submarine Armide does not have an inline cite and therefore should be pulled from the set. The Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance nomination has many paragraphs that are uncited, so that won't qualify. The only bright light is that Template:Did you know nominations/First World War glass-rubber exchange looks ready to go. You might as well leave Herman Pines there and if it's not World War I, it's still war. Thanks for finishing this up, Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'll get that one into the set now. You think we need to pull the other two, or can you get the issues fixed in the next two hours?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done First World War glass-rubber exchange is now in the queue. Let me know the situation with the other two and we'll see about replacing them if necessary. On the lopsided issue, it seemed that way at a few widths on Chrome, but not massively so... I only mentioned it to avoid the need to substitute in anotehr hook last minute. But if we have to do that (even non-WW1) then so be it. Thanke  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Thanks for the promotion. L293D apparently added a cite to the French submarine, but another user reverted it, saying it wasn't in the book cited. I don't hold out much hope for this one, or for Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance, whose nominator is not online now. However, L293D has another WWI-themed nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/O'Byrne-class submarine which is just awaiting an inline cite. L293D are you able to add that right now? Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I've added a cite for Armide. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: I'm not sure why you reverted me. The source you're giving contains no mention of the facts mentioned in the text.
Text: Armide was named after Armida, a character in the epic poem Jerusalem Delivered.
Source: ARMIDE class, AMAZONE (Amazon), ANTIGONE (Antigone, both from mythology), ARMIDE, 3 boats - 460/670t, 17/11 knots, 4 or 6-45cm tt/1-4.7cm or 7.5cm, 31 crew, launched 1915-16.
Could you do something about the inline cite for O'Byrne, please? Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue for O'Byrne. I would prefer Armide to be promoted tomorrow though. Re your question, the cite I added says this ANTIGONE (Antigone, both from mythology), ARMIDE. Here is a ref that Armida is a character in Jerusalem Delivered: http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/tt_jerusalemdelivered.html. Are we good now? L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: the Jerusalem Delivered cite is fine. But the navypedia cite does not say what you're saying it does. It says: AMAZON and ANTIGONE (both from mythology), ARMIDE (the name of the 3rd submarine; nothing about Armida). Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was confused by this one too. The source seems to be saying that Amazone and Antigone are both from mythology isn't it? The link to from this submarine to Jerusalem Delivered doesn't seem to be proven at the present time. It will be great if we can get this one in, but not at the expense of including questionable hooks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. The mythological Armida is the only thing in history with this name. All other things (lully's opera, cancer treatments) are named after her. I do understand that this is original research however, so I would understand if you replaced it with the O'Byrne hook. I will have to research more in books to try and find a ref for Armide. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Unfortunately, O'Byrne lacks a cite and there's a discrepancy in wording between the lead and the body. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: could you please tell me what are the inconsistencies, please? I still have ~20 minutes online. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think I've got the issues for O'Byrne addressed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: 1. In the lead you say the submarines were confiscated. 2. Under "Construction and specifications" you say they were completed for French Navy (no cite). Under "Service", you say they were confiscated (no cite).
Please make this consistent. Were they confiscated or just completed? Whatever you write in the lead, write in the first paragraph under "Construction and specifications" and give an inline cite there. Then delete it from the Service section. Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Are we proposing to have this one replace the Herman Pines hook, if it is sorted out in the next 20 mins? If not, then there's no point rushing it now because the set is full as it stands. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would replace poor Herman Pines. Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: are you still around? Looks like your 20 minutes mentioned above may have expired . If there's not likely to be further developments then I guess we'll call it a day and go to bed. O'Byrne can get its day in the limelight some other time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm online again. I should have the issues addressed in the next 5 minutes. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru and Yoninah: sorry for being so late, done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you know what, that's okay. I've addressed the issues but its just too late. The infamous prep 6 has gone on the main page now, and I guess its not the end of the world for O'Byrne to wait a months or two more. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it would certainly be better to see an all-WWI set than having the Battle of Britain from WWII in there. And as it is, 6 out of 8 hooks are British. Maile could you swap in the approved hook from Template:Did you know nominations/O'Byrne-class submarine and I'll put Herman Pines somewhere else? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just put O'Byrne in on the DYK template itself so we have an all WW1 set. Just in the nick of time. Almost. Won't be able to do the admin work associated with promoting the nom page now as I'm on my phone in bed! Will sort that out tomorrow morning if nobody else does first.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The last ping from above just now showed up on my account, so it was delayed. Yoninah and Amakuru thanks to both you for what you have done. I hope I'm understanding correctly that everything is taken care of for what's on the main page right now. Quite frankly, there were so many different hooks and aspects involved - and this long, long, long thread - that I was having a hard time keeping track of what was what for whom and for where. You both are to be applauded for getting this all figured out, on what turns out to have been a last minute dive into double checking that all criteria is met. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the main page is all set and all World War I. Thanks to all the editors who submitted hooks and made corrections last-minute. In future, Maile, should I ping you on your talk page to make sure you get the message as soon as possible? Yoninah (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Normally, the pings work instantaneously. Just one of those things. As was this situation. Maybe there won't be a next time like this. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

With all this last-minute hook-changing yesterday, I didn't get my credit template. Could anyone do that? L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66, Amakuru, Black Kite, and Yoninah: Could anyone give me my credit template for O'Byrne-class submarine, please? L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I hope I just did it correctly. It's been a long time since I've manually added credits. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

National Service of Remembrance

Yoninah Amakuru The requested citations have been added to this one. I green ticked it now. Can we still get this in the queue? — Maile (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Template:Did you know nominations/National Service of Remembrance has been passed now. Could you promote it before midnight? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I'm on it now. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It's there in the Queue. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting for promotion: A Proposal - Support or Oppose

Proposer withdrawn, and it appears that it's a blizzard here anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The proposal; that hooks should be promoted after a vote.

The rationale; too many weak hooks are reaching the main page. A hook can reach the main page with just 3 participants - 1 creator, 1 reviewer and 1 promoter and this doesn't provide enough oversight.

The mechanism; after a hook is approved there is a week long voting process. During the voting process a hook can be supported (promote) or opposed (fail). Anyone can close the vote. No consensus results are default to promote. If a hook is failed a second hook can be voted upon. If the second hook is failed the article fails and no more hooks are permitted. A failed article can have its close reviewed by an administrator for compliance if requested.

Advantages: better hooks reach the main page, contentious hooks are identified and corrected quicker or failed, DYK regulars are not left to fulfill someone else's nomination, nominations are failed quicker and don't hang around discouraging nominators. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I agree with the sentiment of the proposal, in that too many bad hooks make it to the main page, or often times errors fail to be fixed until it is too late. With that said, I have concerns on how this will affect the backlog: even with the current system, the hook promotion backlog can extend to over a month or even longer, and adding an additional step could prolong the process only further. And remember that Wikipedia is built on consensus, not on votes, so even though the default result would be promotion, one objection (and conversely one counter-objection) could make a difference. I would not be willing to support this proposal without other reforms being put into place as well, particularly to make it more friendly for newer contributors/ Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absolutely not, we cannot have a situation where we can get us regulars potentially ganging up to block a nomination just because it may personally displease us or we may personally have an opinion that we aren't interested in it. Indeed some of the most controversial hooks we have had, which later sometimes turn out to be some of our best, would probably never have made it if we had people !voting for it as this proposal seeks to introduce. Plus the premise is misleading because we do also have the admin who moves hooks from prep to queues checking too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A good faith way of fixing a genuine problem, but this is the wrong way of doing it, I'm afraid. (1) I suspect the voting would attract very few people, and so one opposition could sink an otherwise decent nomination. (2) Quite often, it needs some investigation to discover a problem with a hook, which most people won't do (3) it's just going to add a layer of confusing bureaucracy to a process that is already complicated. Blatantly unsuitable hooks are already usually removed before they get to the Main Page via ERRORS and ERRORS2 (look a few sections above this). Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, largely per Black Kite. The proposed system cannot cope with the number of nominations we have here. Vanamonde (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - looks like a good idea at first glance but the workload is simply too big for a process like this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just what we need, the formation of another local cabal and the creation of a tempting target for canvassing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's bad enough as it is ;) - For the average simple article, it would needlessly absorb extra reviewing time which could be used elsewhere (go review GAs and FACs, if you have extra time!), and for the complex ones, we get to discuss here anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. I don't know how to improve the quality, but this isn't the way. Szzuk (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Checklist for promotion: A Proposal - Support or Oppose

The proposal; that every nomination gets a collapsed list of (to be decided) criteria reviewers have to confirm to have checked to get articles more main page ready during the nomination phase

The rationale; too many weak hooks and articles are getting close to/reaching the main page with avoidable errors, not following project rules etc. No accountability whatsoever for reviewers, no mechanism to explain or even notify reviewers of problems and issues with their reviews

The mechanism; every nomination gets a collapsed list of (to be decided) criteria to check the article for(basic DYK rules, bare URL's etc) and a reviewer has to confirm that they have indeed checked the article for said criteria

Advantages: better quality control, more fixes done during the nomination phase due to better reviews, more clarity by knowing exactly what is expected of a review, less excuses for bad reviews, ability to see a pattern in bad reviews, accountability for reviewers, possibility for feedback to reviewers to improve their work

I know this does not have a snowballs chance in hell but... you lot can't say more than no. Also, sorry for stealing the layout for this Szzuk. Keep in mind that copying is the highest form of flattery :P 85.16.161.215 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Every nomination already has a collapsed checklist. Open any nomination. There is a green shaded bar that is the drop-down list you want. Two different styles of it, in fact. It's optional to use. I think what you are asking, is for its use to be mandatory, and no nomination to be promoted unless the checklist is used. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether the checklist works to reduce errors? Do they help ensure that checks are done with the needed care? My impression is that they don't improve review results, but I'd be just as happy to be proven wrong. Without the data, I'd be reluctant to support this proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The checklist template doesn't work well, if it worked properly it would be helpful, I think a coder needs to adapt and fix it, is there any way of requesting someone fix it? Szzuk (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I did NOT suggest using that list. I suggest using something similar but reworked, more accesible and better working mechanically. But whatever, just close this. Was no hope to begin with anyway. How about someone else make some suggestions to improve the pathetic and deeply flawed QPQ process? 91.97.251.97 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I am agreeing with you but there aren't enough details for me to support this, can you provide more details? Or an example? Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as per the earlier thread. Making a less accessible option mandatory is nonsensical. I don't understand how editors can be protecting the main page from prejudicial hooks while condoning disclusionary practises at DYK (i.e.: broad use of symbols and a checklist with no alt text that are literally unreadable). – Reidgreg (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as it doesn't work well. Best way is to just cover all the points in your QPQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nov 17 Special Holding Area Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States

Yoninah - Since October 7, Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States has been in the special holding area for November 17 date, a commemorative date in Hawaiian history. Am I correct that Prep 1 would be that set? It's been completely filled with other hooks. Yoninah approved the nomination, so it needs to be someone else to move it to Prep. It was intended to be a special occasion lead hook. Of course, there is no guarantee on a lead, but the hook doesn't really make much sense without the image. And the Prince of Wales hook that is there now, is not date specific. — Maile (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW. Editathon at the Hawaii Library Association Conference is also being conducted on November 17. — Maile (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What makes something new?

We already have Odyssey House, but it's mis-named and not what one would expect to find at that title. I'm working on a new version of Odyssey House, which will be about the original entity by that name and will have very little in common with the existing article (which will be moved to Odyssey House, Texas). How does this work vis-a-vis eligibility for DYK? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: To clarify. You are not replacing the existing article which will still exist at a different title. This will be a completely new article but at the same title? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. A new article at the existing title. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be more explicit, the steps would be: 1) Write new article at User:RoySmith/Odyssey House, 2) Move Odyssey House to Odyssey House, Texas, 3) Move User:RoySmith/Odyssey House to Odyssey House, 4) Submit to DYK, 4) Profit! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't foresee any problem. It is the newness of the new article which matters and the older article on a different topic which will be moved away will not affect DYK eligibility. As The C of E says below you can have a new article created from an existing redirect, so you don't have to delete the title first, although you could if you wanted to. I say go for it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
That would count as created from a redirect as you would have moved the original article (which results in a redirect) and then replaced it with the new article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote: Encouraging oversight of preps - Support or Oppose

The problem; there is too little oversight in the prep area.

Analysis; the prep area isn't fully used to further question hooks. Users are reluctant to pull a hook from a prep because they have been formally 'promoted' with a box around the text confirming this status.

The solution; 1) end 'promotion' and instead add a "to prep checking note" with the template box left open 2) hooks are loaded with and must be given a or by a different user. If the is given the user must return to the template giving a reason and the hook is pulled for further discussion. Szzuk (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose The solution is not more rules and bureaucracy. No one looks at the preps because they need to learn nearly a hundred different rules spread across multiple pages. I'm also incredibly suspicious that the way to bring about more discussion on a hook is to move it back to a page watched at best by 3 people (the nom, the reviewer, and the promoter). This is of course a wiki, and the idea that we need to add more rules to an already bloated process, shuffle things around to less visible places, and hope that someone else will fix the problem is antithetical to the idea that anyone can edit anything. I worry this will only encourage the perception of ownership of hooks and articles; if you see a problem in a prep WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. That's how a wiki works. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

Hi all - my hook The Bar-Steward Sons of Val Doonican is currently in Prep 1, which doesn't have a picture hook - either image from that article (the second one is quite funny) would be fine to switch it to the lead hook if you like. Obviously I won't do that myself. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that spot is being saved for a special occasion hook that needs to go up on November 17; the set had apparently been constructed without checking the special occasions section, and the former lead hook moved out to make room for the overlooked request. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah right, no problem then :) Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue6: hook fact not in source

Template:Did you know nominations/Gilling sword @Zakhx150, L293D, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is sourced to this, but this only states that the boy got a Blue Peter badge, not the sword... Fram (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed to ... that in 1976, the Gilling sword was found in a river by a nine-year old boy, who was subsequently awarded a Blue Peter badge? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Noted a couple of hours ago at WP:TRM. It's a shame because the original hook, if true and verifiable, is much more interesting that just someone getting a Blue Peter badge. I wonder where the original claim came from? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Aha. [6] "This two-edged iron sword with a handle decorated with silver has something no other object in the Treasures From Medieval York exhibition has – a Blue Peter badge. " and "He was later awarded a Blue Peter badge for his efforts and another badge was given to the sword.". Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Here ya go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conficts) @Fram: The source does not talk about the sword's own badge. On searching I found this new source which does explain the event with more detail including the sword's own badge as well as the boy's badge. I think this supports the hook better. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added the N/Echo source to the article, and changed the hook back to its original format. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks (all of you). Too bad that the reviewer and promotor didn't actually check the hooks against the source in the article. In this case it looks as if the result was a hook which was correct (if that lone source can be trusted on this, and they aren't simply confused because the badge for the boy is now displayed with the sword at the Museum), but they had no way of knowing this, which leads to the many errors we currently have (even with one set a day). Fram (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
By the time I'd seen the ping, you've all resolved it. Thanks folks. Zakhx150 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Being a DYK critic is an easy job. Such a critic has no responsibilities, can pick and choose what to criticize and can never be blamed if errors slip through. In this particular instance, the critic apportioned blame to others but did not take the trouble to check whether the hook fact complained about was in fact correct. "Nil points" all round! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's such an easy job, then why don't you do it? Check hooks, find errors, and then note, correct, or pull the hooks? Oh wait, right, that's exactly the thing you have problems with, finding errors, like something which is claimed to be referenced by source X but isn't. Being a DYK critic should be a very hard job, as normally very, very few errors should escape the scrutiny of 8 sentences a day by three or more diligent people. But it's careless promotors like you who make this an easy job. Fram (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You miss the point, I am not a critic because I act on the errors I find rather than blaming others for them. Unfortunately I don't find them all. You, on the other hand, just criticize. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope, I often act on them, by pulling or changing hooks. And I only blame others when the issue is really egregious, like someone promoting a hook where the hook fact is totally missing from the hook source. If I was only criticizing, I would wait for others to find errors, and then come here and start commenting on what a poor job you do. Fram (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2

For the Barbara P. McCarthy hook in queue 2, is it possible to add a wikilink somehow to the German Wikipedia page within the hook somehow? I just noticed that TRM's error page stated that Rudolf Helm is a non-notable person, which is certainly not true. Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't automatically equal non-notable. SL93 (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, that's shorthand for "English Wikipedia doesn't currently recognise him as notable enough for an article". Could someone also fix the QPQ failure too? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that. You have been participating on Wikipedia this long and you don't realize that the English Wikipedia is still growing? How strange. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, since when do you read what I wrote and then tell me what I mean? Get a grip. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say what you mean. I just said that your shorthand response isn't true. SL93 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Until an article is created. Now stop trying to stir up issues. It's a shame this issue wasn't resolved when the item was in the prep sets, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It is more along the lines of that the English Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article, but the topic is notable. SL93 (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
And how do our readers know that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Right now the only option short of an admin removing it from the queue is to link to maybe a translated version of the German article. I can find sources, but that doesn't help if I don't trust myself with writing about the subject. I'm just trying to do a second best option if it's not removed from the queue. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, that's clear, but why didn't this get picked up during the normal review process when it could have been dealt with accordingly? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I admit that was partially my mistake. I haven't updated a prep in a long time and I fucked up that part of the prep area. I will say though that the prep was changed multiple times since then and an admin promoted it to the queue. I would personally like it removed from the queue, but I don't have that power. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so the preps are always mangled before the get to the queue? Hmmm..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say so, even when the "experienced" ones do it. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So why would I look at a set until it's stop being mangled? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe to make it less of a mess, but no one really has to do anything. I do feel bad for my "superiority" comment. I edit Wikipedia to help spread knowledge, but it's more of a hobby than that so I really shouldn't have gotten all pissy. I personally don't care for some of how you phrase things, but whatever, I've seen worse from admins. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I have maybe an hour or so per day for Wikipedia, and all I really care about is creating good content, reviewing FLs and GANs, and ensuring what goes to the main page is in order. That includes DYK amongst others. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Reply only to the first question: I had a similar comment recently (not notable film), and simply created the article for the film, also a translation from the German Wikipedia. Doesn't have to be long, just well sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Well indeed, it needs to meet WP:N but in most cases that's not hard. The point is to think of the reader's interpretation of our linking. e.g. "Oh, not linked? Can't be that important..." They, of course, aren't expected to understand anything about nomination templates, overlinking, driving clicks to increase pageviews etc... Nor should they. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? I gave advice to SL93. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I will start something before the queue goes on the main page, but I'm hoping that an admin can link it when it's in article space. I will also work on the bare URLs. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The stub article is at Rudolf Helm. It might need a copy edit, but it's there. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that is interesting. The three bare URLs were not references, but rather reviews of the posted work. I just removed them until someone decides to start a reception section. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I looked and edited a bit. It's not stub, and if you want and expand just a bit, he could be a DYK on his birthday, 29 November. Two things you should do next time, immediately after any translation: connect to the article which you translated on Wikidata, and make a note that it's translated on the article talk. I did it for this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Requiem

This concerns Template:Did you know nominations/Requiem (Saint-Saëns) and its promotion to Prep 2, quirky. Problem: ALT2 which was promoted, is not by me, but was inserted as if it was by the reviewer, and then approved by the reviewer. - We can do several things:

  • Reopen (and I will strike ALT2). Shorter:
  • Use the original or ALT1 in prep, but please not in the quirky slot.

Sorry about the inconvenience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I already moved it out of the quirky slot, as it's not quirky. Should I go ahead and replace with original or ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Reading the nomination, the other hooks are far less hooky than the one that was promoted. I could just IAR here and leave it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It reads as if he did it only because of the money, and I hate that. This is about death, and perhaps we could get more serious in such a case than "hooky"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll substitute ALT0. Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3: uncertainty presented as fact

Template:Did you know nominations/Baseball in Germany @Germanboi87, Narutolovehinata5, and Cwmhiraeth:

Hook fact is sourced, but without the certainty displayed in our article and hook. "Although estimates have varied, a crowd of as many as 125,000 were on hand. That number would make the attendance the largest ever for a baseball game."[7] The estimates of the number of spectators range from 90,000 to 125,000[8][9][10][11], and while the latter would indeed make it the largest crowd, the former would not be the largest crowd ever.[12]. Fram (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have two suggestions here: One would be to change "with the largest..." to "which may have had the largest...", the other suggestion would be to simply drop the attendance part since personally I think the fact that baseball was first played in Germany during the Nazi era is itself interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help. I would like to use @Narutolovehinata5:'s second suggestion. I would just remove the last part about the attendance, but honestly I don't know how to do that. I would appreciate it if someone could please show me how. Thank you again! @Dr Aaij, Fram, and Cwmhiraeth: Germanboi87 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The "fact" as presented in the article will also need to be modified to suitably reflect this change. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Rephrased in the article. Germanboi87, it seems to me that Chetwynd means that IF it was 125,000, THAT would have been the largest audience to date. (In other words, Chetwynd may have known of a game with attendance of 100,000 or whatever.) I support Narutolovehinata5's suggestion to tweak the hook, "which may have had the largest...". Fram, User:Cwmhiraeth, does that work for you, and can you tweak accordingly? Thank you all, you too TRM, Dr Aaij (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3: Fried chicken

@Fabdoull: @Cwmhiraeth:
The hook fact is not in the article, and why is "celebrates" in quotes? Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I added several "citation needed" tags to the article. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not all fun, being a chicken.... Chickens are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The hook fact I think is in the Books section, the book titled "Fried & True: More than 50 Recipes for America's Best Fried Chicken and Sides". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Sides are not chickens! That's preposterous.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC) p.s. but it does have a Foreword by Whoopi Goldberg.
@Narutolovehinata5: where do you see the word celebrates? Or the word celebrates in quotes? Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm alone on this, but it also could come across as just promotion for the author's books. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

At the very best, this should be "...that one of Lee Brian Schrager's books contains more than 50 recipes for fried chicken?" and if it doesn't "contain" 50 recipes, this needs to be pulled and re-opened so a non-advert hook can be selected and suitably promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It does at least contain 50 recipes. That hook works. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Are all 50 recipes for fried chicken? The title suggests that some of the recipes are for other dishes. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I know that what is interesting is subjective, but I fail to see how it would be interesting even if the hook was true. There are so many cookbooks with a ton of recipes, including for fried chicken. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I checked and not all the recipes are for fried chicken. There are 50 recipes related to fried chicken, only some of which are recipes for frying chicken as others are for side dishes. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to find something interesting in the article. I couldn't. Bland and failable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No relation to Rosemary, then? "His career as a master event planner blossomed when he opened Torpedo, a gay bar in South Beach in 1987. He gave the people what they wanted, and more." ... well more chicken I guess, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Returned hook to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, those chicken torpedos... just gotta love 'em. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC) I find DYK is such a great unifying force, don't you?
I own very few vinyl singles, but that is one. The B-side is worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hook pulled from Queue4, has most basic information wrong

  • ... that lifeforms that dominated Earth between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago still exist at Laguna Socompa in Argentina?

Template:Did you know nominations/Laguna Socompa @Jo-Jo Eumerus, SkyGazer 512, and Yoninah:

Really??? Stromatolites are not lifeforms! Stromatolites are rocks. Hook pulled, article needs a rewrite to get this right and a thorough check for other similar gaffes. We really can't afford to put such basic errors on the main page if we have any hopes of being taken serious. Fram (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fram, this is clearly debatable rather than a "basic error" as you seem to illustrate. "Living stromatolites have a community of a bacteria living in a thin film on the upper surface".[1] A calcareous mound built up of layers of lime-secreting cyanobacteria and trapped sediment, found in Precambrian rocks as the earliest known fossils, and still being formed in lagoons in Australasia.[2]. Can "rocks" be described as "living"? Or is fossil = rock? Jo-Jo Eumerus can provide more insight since I have no knowledge in this topic area; but since anything that ends with -lite should be "a combining form used in the names of minerals or fossils"[3], my instinct is that stromatolites is better described as fossil, but certainly not "rock" based on the sources. You need to create a discussion first in this kind of cases where there is a slight possibility that you may not be 100% correct. Alex Shih (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Reznick, David N. (October 17, 2011). The Origin Then and Now: An Interpretive Guide to the Origin of Species. Princeton University Press. p. 302.
  2. ^ "stromatolite". Oxford Dictionaries.
  3. ^ "lite". Dictionary.com.
You may describe it as living rock but that is a misnomer. The rock is not a lifeform and forms not unlike a coral as a rock structure. They still exist in Australia and other places as well. I don't understand why only Argentina is mentioned. Consider the following — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Fossils aren't living either. Claiming that fossils "still exist" at lake X would be a bit strange as a DYK hook anyway. Stromatolites are created by living things, and while most stromatolites are no longer being actively formed, some are. But that doesn't mean that a stromatolite is a life form. They are "laminated benthic microbial deposits"[13]. And no, I don't need to create anything, no idea where you get that idea. A hook that isn't undeniably true shouldn't be on the main page. The hook and article aren't correct, no decent scientific work will support lead claims like " stromatoliths were the dominant lifeforms on Earth recorded between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago" Prokaryotes were the lifeform, and they created stromatolites. We wouldn't claim that "oil" was a lifeform either (at least I hope no one here would claim this). Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The original hook was plain wrong. Of course this "dominated Earth" part is needed for the hook to be interesting. And there is limited space for a detailed explanation. And I don't know as much about this as I would like. Perhaps. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FRAYAE2 ... that Prokaryotes which dominated Earth between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago are still forming Stromatolites at Laguna Socompa?
  • Sigh. It looks like I mentally confused "stromatolites" with "organisms which build stromatolites". I've rectified this in the article along with another issue. Perhaps this is a better hook as FRAYAE2 generalizes to "prokaryotes were the dominant lifeform": Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • JOJO3 ... that biological structures growing in Laguna Socompa today were the dominant expression of life between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago?

Fram pulled a hook but didn't replace it with another from the preps. Are we now going with 7 hooks per set? Yoninah (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends if Fram thinks any of the apparently better hooks put forward are good enough, otherwise it can't be used as the original hook was inaccurate. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The article (and afterwards the hook) needs a thorough check from someone more knowledgeable in the topics it addresses (things like paleobiology). A lot of the claims in it need correction or clarification (many of the claims may perhaps be true for still growing stromatholites, with living bacteria: but not for stromatolites in general), and looking a bit further, it seems much of the article is plagued with the same kind of errors out of carelessness (e.g. the surface area is 2 square kilometre, not 0.2 square kilometre). Rushing this through now is not a good idea, instead people should take the time to get the article and hook right.
I prefer a set with 7 correct hooks over a set with 8 hooks with a "spot the error" game attached to it. In general, I don't really care how many hooks are put on the main page (if any), quantity is a lot less important than quality. Fram (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(I've remedied the ha-km2 unit error. Not sure what the issue with "stromatoliths" is; our article on them does specify "fossil stromatoliths" when discussing no-longer alive ones) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
That said, I've decided to reopen the nomination with a new hook proposal. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


No queue loaded

The Rambling Man does not have time to error check the DYK preps as well as the Main Page. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Less than 16 hours to go before it goes to the main page, and there's no queue. Tick tock! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Try checking Prep 2 while you wait. :-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No thanks, better things to do to check "work in progress Phase I", and I'd suggest you leave them well alone with your recent track record!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Queues have been moved, so this has been resolved. TRM, please calm down; instead of talking about DYK users' "track record", just wait and leave neutrally worded messages here or at WP:ERRORS. Someone will see them at some point, and ranting won't make a difference compared to a kind request. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, thanks. I think it's you who needs to chill out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You know, this situation is getting ridiculous. The filled prep sets sit for days awaiting any and all who wish to comment on hook accuracy and also fix the errors. The minute the preps are loaded into a queue where only administrators can touch them, TRM comes out with guns blazing. If TRM is unwilling to make changes himself, preferring to rally administrators into action, I for one would like to receive rights to edit the queue, too. Yoninah (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No, preps are changed at the last minute all the time. Just see today's set for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems like a way to show that he has "superiority". SL93 (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. Please spend some time reading why I don't get involved at ERRORS and this project specifically. Blame your DYK admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right. Actually, I am so invested in the project that I watch his so-called ERRORS2 page in addition to ERRORS and WT:DYK, and his nitpicking is making me very nervous. I spend hours reviewing and rejecting hooks in order to build a proper prep set, but TRM manages to find fault nevertheless. He goes way beyond checking the standard DYK requirement of verifiable hook facts, pointing out MOS errors like having a numeral and a spelled-out number in the hook. A lot of his complaints about hook interest are simply one man's opinion. I think it's time for me to take a break from building sets and go back to article creation. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You should watch WP:TRM if you care about the main page, there's no shame in that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, like what has been repeated here many times, a lot of the errors he complains about are easily resolvable not just while in prep but during the nomination page itself. If he cares so much about errors like what he keeps saying, it would probably be much faster and much more productive to fix them himself. And indeed, he actually does fix errors himself quite often (as I have personally observed), so I don't really see why he can't do it more and seems to take issue when requested to do so. TRM, please, for the good of DYK, please participate in the prep building and promotion process yourself, instead of just complaining. It wastes everyone's time and leads to conflict, tension, and bureaucracy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't care about DYK. I just care about the main page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking of nominating both WP:TRM and WP:ERRORS2 (as in the redirects, not the page itself) for deletion as their existence gives the impression that said page is an official part of DYK, when in fact it's mainly the activities of one user, thus leading to possible confusion. Thoughts? The page itself might need a wider discussion, perhaps in the village pump or some other non-DYK venue, but that will be a discussion for another time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this already. And there are several issues in the queue to be dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't like what I do, ignore ERRORS2, and ignore my requests here (which are, after all, just like the 'bot requests, only a bit earlier). Then you don't have to get all worked up about it all. Easy, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If the existing process was working, there would be no need for TRM to do this. But it seems that these hooks get passed along with no one paying ANY attention to them. A previous poster here even stated that "He goes way beyond checking the standard DYK requirement of verifiable hook facts, pointing out MOS errors like having a numeral and a spelled-out number in the hook." as if having a hook that follows MOS is not somethng to be desired. Really? Do y'all REALLY not care what kind of crappy writing gets posted? --Khajidha (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

We do care a lot about errors and the like. There just has to be a better way to do this (i.e. raising problems, preferably in a neutrally-worded or positive manner, as opposed to merely complaining and criticizing users). With that said, I do agree that more effort needs to be done to ensure errors don't make it to the main page. It's that the environment that exists now has become toxic or at the very least unfriendly, which can scare away both new and experienced contributors. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Your DYK admins are to blame. I have my own user space where I record the huge number of issues this project (and others) create in the belief they are ready for the main page. Other people volunteer to fix them. There's no obligation either way. Fix the cause, not the symptoms. And thanks for the ANI, as well as all the errors we have to put with from DYK, you've created another tragic waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me that the "toxic" environment was created here and at the MP errors report with people refusing to acknowledge and correct the errors pointed out. That state of affairs led to TRM's page being created. --Khajidha (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Do not be misled by TRM's spurious explanation of why he waits to find errors until the hooks are in the queue. It is really because of his conflict of interest; he has to delay because anything found and dealt with in prep would not appear in his marvellous statistics! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, are you accusing me of lying? I really hope not, that's not a good look. I delay until items are in the queue because I was driven away by your DYK admins, and because so much of what goes on here is in flux until it's locked into a queue. How many times have I told you? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The obvious solution would be to make The Rambling Man an administrator again so he can edit the queue himself and people don't need to concern themselves with reading his reports. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it seems Cwmhiraeth is accusing me of lying. My description is not based on anything TRM has said here, but on the observations I made to how people reacted to his reports here and at the MP BEFORE he started his own list. Numerous problems were reported and ignored even when several others agreed with him. --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth can you clarify who you are making personal attacks against please? Is it both me and Khajidha, just me, or just Khajidha? Because it has to be one of those, and we'll need to look into how to resolve this once you've clarified your statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Why are so many of y'all upset? Several of you admit that the errors TRM finds are errors and say that they could have been fixed at some earlier point, BUT none of you (nor anyone else who supposedly looked over those hooks) found them, much less fixed them. I would think you would be GLAD that somebody, somewhere, at some time notices these things and would just FIX them. If the DYK process actually worked there would be nothing for TRM to find. My personal view is that you are all too focused on getting stuff onto the Main Page. The process needs to change to be more along the lines of testing each hook for all reasons it SHOULD NOT be on the Main Page. The default assumption should be "do not post", not "post just any old damn thing". --Khajidha (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Khajidha. Another point which is conveniently overlooked by those here, and those accusing me of being a liar is that I review the other sections of the main page at the same time. OTD has a similar error rate, and although run by just a single editor, it is flawless in its ability to accept the constructive criticism and be fixed, to benefit our readers. This "project" is all about ownership and possessiveness and that's why everyone gets so ass-hurt when I make any reports. It's very instructive, and a great example of what Wikipedia is _not_ about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
TRM, could it be that the single editor over at OTD is able to fix all your corrections because they're an administrator and can edit the section after it's been page-protected? I have no problem with you pointing out corrections, I'm just wondering why you do it at a time that only administrators can implement your fixes. And it's very disheartening to hear you and the administrators saying repeatedly that you don't care about DYK, just how it looks on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Khajidha: I also appreciate your point, and I wish that DYK would be a lot more strict about promoting uninteresting hooks for poorly written articles. The fact is that once someone nominates an article, the editors will bend over backwards to push it through, even adopting it after the nominator has disappeared. Right now we are being deluged with articles written by students in college courses, many of which are quickly tagged for notability, insufficient sourcing, etc. But if they're nominated for DYK, they'll stay here for weeks until they somehow straggle through. An instant pass/fail mark would be ideal. Yoninah (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I similarly find the double-standard interesting. OTD was not updated until two hours before midnight, and five errors (in last year's entries) identified by TRM were still outstanding at the time. Howcheng's update (at 22:08) removed three of those errors, but added two more (as identified by TRM). So where is the comment at WT:OTD by TRM berating that project for failing to update on time, so as to allow him to scan for errors before it goes live on the Main Page? It doesn't seem to exist. Only the DYK project seems to be treated this way. Modulus12 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand how each process is governed and delivered to the main page. If you did, then you wouldn't have needed to make any such comment. If you need help with this, perhaps ask around. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, is this conversation still going on? For my part, if I'm being included in "the administrators" mentioned by Yoninah above, it's certainly not that I don't care about DYK. I think it's a very valuable thing - most particularly for new users who get the chance to showcase their material on the main page very early on, but also for the oldies like me... I like to put a hook through here every now and again, and I was very glad to help out on Saturday night with getting the last minute changes in for the WW1 anniversary set. Time is limited though, and sadly I don't have enough of it to devote to being a full time DYKer. I imagine it's the same for TRM. We therefore have to see where we can add value with the time we have where it has the most impact, and logically that is towards the end of the process when the hooks are finalised and errors are on the verge of going live. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 5

Casliber Moonraker Cwmhiraeth A citation is needed after the last sentence in the taxonomy section of Hakea corymbosa. The fact might be cited in the 7th reference, but it is an offline source. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: National Memory Institute

@Catrìona:
The page National Memory Institute (Slovakia) is tagged for lack of sourcing. Are you able to add a cite or two to that article so we can link it from the main page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I've added cites for all information, removed copyvio text, and flagged for revision deletion at WP:copyright problems. It's still a stub though. Catrìona (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy between DYK talkpage date and Recent additions date

Just noticed that checking the talk page of any DYK at Wikipedia:Recent additions updated by DYKUpdateBot or manually gives the DYK date one day earlier than what's at Recent additions. Maybe it's meant that because they are "promoted" at 00:00 they should be the earlier day's nominations. But they are on the next day's set at Recent additions and this does not make sense because the article talk pages give the links like this "Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/November#12 November 2018" - meaning you're not directed to the right day. --Pudeo (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I have never really thought about it, perhaps because my mindset is (if I was doing manual update) that I would put up the "current set" for 14 November (today), and then move the previous set to recent additions as "the set that was archived on 14 November". Personally I don't think this is much of an issue; pinging Shubinator to see if it's something that can or should be adjusted. Alex Shih (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't like it but is has been like that as far I as remember, which is when we changed 4 times a day, which made it "wrong" in only a quarter of cases. It's now "wrong" every day, and I think we have worse problems on Wikipedia. But perhaps we could program the routine giving credit to add a day, because it's misleading? (As long as it's 24 hours, or when the time is 00:00)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah well, in that case it doesn't probably matter since at some point we might move away from 1 set per day anyway. --Pudeo (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Load more queues

There is a lot of stress on this page stemming from the fact that once something goes in the queue it will be on the main page within a few hours. There is often nothing queued for the main page at all until the last minute. There needs to be a change that would take the pressure off, and allow everything to be perfected days in advance rather than hours or minutes before a deadline.

I propose that the queue is kept full at all times so that any point there are a minimum of 5 queues loaded. Administrators would be notified of a backlog if only 3 queues are loaded. This means that at maximum backlog a queued set would be in the queue for at least 3 days, with the aim for a set to be queued for 5 days.

The prep area would be doubled in size to allow more preps to be worked on at once, making it easier to find a prep which is ready to go on the queue. There will be no obligation to use the entire expanded prep area. It is possible that a larger prep area would speed up the clearance of reviewed hooks from the nominations area and make it easier for people to check hooks before they go to the queue as it would be easier to store ready sets in the prep area while still working on other sets.

I will put this to an RfC, I am first interested in what people here think. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot to unpack here. When there were more administrators working at DYK, it was fine to have more queues loaded, and it was a common practice whenever there was a backlog for approved hooks. But as the number of these administrators decreased (rather drastically), having more queues loaded did not make sense anymore as the three most active DYK regulars and many others here are not admins. Because technically anyone can edit prep sets and very few admins patrol the queue area, the logic is that the longer a set stays in the prep area, the more eyes and tweaking it can receive, which is the same "perfected days in advance" idea. But the reality is that not so many people other than these regulars look at prep sets as well. In a perfect world, the DYK process would need to be simplified back to something closer to TFA and ITN (to be featured on mobile version as well), as it has grown way too complicated with everything spread across many different pages, but with very limited exposure and difficult to access prior to hitting the Main Page. In a nutshell, what you are proposing has always been done on occasion, but it doesn't really solve anything. If you are interested to organise the thoughts into RfC, I would be glad to expand some of my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: My second idea was to have a intermediary queue for completed preps. This would be an additional holding area between the unprotected prep area and the fully protected queue. It would be extended confirmed protected to stop newbies accidentally wrecking the sets, I initially considered template protection but that appears unnecessary.
The logic behind this is that the prep area is for preparing a set. Storing completed sets in the prep area does not work well. People that check the completed sets refuse to work in an area where everything is in flux. There is not enough room to work on preparing sets and to have completed sets ready for the Main Page.
There is some merit to doing both, since always having a spare queue does take the pressure off, and having an argument about a hook while it is on the Main Page is not a good idea. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
People that check the completed sets refuse to work in an area where everything is in flux. No, I think that's true of only one person. Once a prep set has had all of its slots filled and the initial flurry of edits is done, it's not in "flux" at all. The top one or two (or three) prep sets are typically very stable, having only minor tweaks made. For example, Prep 5 was completed on Nov. 8 and then sat for six days with only three minor edits in that time. Prep 6 was filled on Nov. 12 and has gone almost three days with just minor tweaks, and should be moved to a queue any moment now. There's actually five complete prep sets right now that can be copy-edited and verified by anyone interested, and that effort certainly isn't going to be negated by future "flux." Modulus12 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course it is. We have too many "tinkerers" here who are continually modifying things until they get protected in a queue. Please, also, stop talking about me, it's becoming a little concerning. You should know by now that all the sniping will make no difference to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing marking a prep as completed. There may be five completed sets, and correspondingly no space to work on any others, but this fact is invisible to everyone except the people that just built the sets. I am suggesting that the prep area is made larger and split in two so there is a distinction between preps being worked on and finished preps. Interested editors, including but not only The Rambling Man, could then see which sets are coming up and check them before they go on the Main Page.
To be clear, it those preps were finished they could by current rules all be in the queue already. As it is we have a dozen editors fretting about a hook that arguably should never have got onto the Main Page while it is there on the mainpage, and without a backup set to replace it with are having to rewrite it in situ while adding new errors. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I still think if you look at the editing history of the queues, there's really only a half-dozen tinkerers. The place is a ghost-town once the sets are built. But I'll stop belaboring the point if you don't wish to discuss it. Modulus12 (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I think you should stop talking about me behind my back. You can waste KB of chat about when hooks could be reviewed, but that's of no interest to (at least) me. Hooks and preps are played with all the way until the queues are created. And since my time for the "output" of this project has been severely curtailed because of the treatment by several here including some of the DYK admins, I will continue to provide my oversight as and when I decide. I will also continue to notify this "project" when the queues are empty. It'd be better for some individuals here to actually work on improving the quality of the "output" here rather than fixate on me as an individual editor who continues to pick up and average of 3 to 4 issues per set after all the "DYK quality control" has been applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Two sets a day?

Currently all the prep sets are full and there are 194 verified hooks, which is enough to last 24 days at the present rate of one set of eight hooks a day. With hooks being nominated at the rate of about eight each day, they will wait on average nearly a month before appearing on the main page.

Is it time to return to two sets a day for a while? This could be two sets of seven hooks if required but we would need to maintain balance in the length of columns on the main page. Can we increase the rate without reducing the quality? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Two sets a day always leads to more errors and more crap being on the front page, as there's less time to scrutinise. I remember last time we went to two sets a day, I said exactly this, and was proved to be correct very quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Not yet, I think come January or sometime after Christmas then this should certainly be considered, especially with the WikiCup starting again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Not if the WikiCup causes a drop in quality, with the mad rush for points, shoddy QPQs, fumbled set prep etc. As we have seen every year. The main page is not a sandbox for such navel-gazing competitions. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should switch over to two sets a day until at least during the WikiCup. The last time we did this, reviewing quality took a noticeable dip. I'd only be comfortable supporting this if we had more people reviewing, and/or we could be more consistent in being able to resolve hook issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a false premise here, folks. Even if the quality of the average review stays exactly the same, doubling the number of hooks on the main page will double the number of errors. That's just basic math. If review quality actually declines, that should cause the error rate (errors per hook) to go up. There's no evidence for that. I don't think this is the time to switch to two sets because I don't think we have enough admins with time on their hands to handle that at the moment. But let's at least get our reasoning right. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't understand why waiting for the WikiCup to start up is a good thing. It just means that the rate of nomination gets higher. If we were to fill up all of the queues and preps, and give the nominations extra scrutiny as this was done, then we'd have six full days at two sets a day ready to go. We could designate a six- or seven-day period only to run at two sets a day, which would reduce the backlog by 48 or 56 nominations, while having better control over the quality, since the sets would have been built with the time frame in mind. It's better if this starts before the holiday season, but a 24-day backlog could be reduced to 18 or 17 if we try this. If we don't, it will just keep growing. What happens when we're behind by a month? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just migrate all the unused hooks to a DYK portal where everyone who's interested can enjoy them without fear of disrupting the quality of the main page. Or increase the entry requirements so it's not so easy to just nominate and pass a load of boring nonsense? Couple of thoughts. In the meantime, double the rate, double the number of issues heading to the main page. Currently that's around 3-4 issues per day which will naturally become (at least) 6-8 issues per day, and worse once we get into the back-scratching navel-gaze-fest that is WikiCup. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I like BlueMoonset's suggestion. It would cut the backlog and would give us plenty of time to scrutinise the hooks and articles while they were in queues and preps. (The WikiCup is quite irrelevant to this discussion) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't double the number of errors going to the main page. Instead we should wait until credible and demonstrable evidence is produced that the number of errors can and will be reduced. Then the rate of offerings can double, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if it will improve quality, but it will certainly weed out the dross. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Leaving a veto up to the subjective opinions of the regulars? No thank you! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
There is already an implicit veto - delaying the nomination. This discourages the nominator, it would be better just to have a formal vote and then it is a case of 'fix or fail' without waiting months on end. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are now 212 approved hooks, enough for 26 sets. As there is clearly not a consensus at this time to increase the rate to two sets a day, I would propose increasing the number of hooks in each set to nine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Then you'll need to discuss the over-heavy left-hand side of the main page with the other projects (ITN and OTD) to ensure they will match up the elongated DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well, on my screen today, the DYK section is too short and could do with an extra hook to balance the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well that happens from time to time, but mostly it's the other way round. You need to stick with the mediocre output right now, maybe even slow it down, until such a time that the project can demonstrate a concerted effort to reducing the number of errors getting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If all the prep sets are full perhaps some of the more boring hooks could be removed. If the rate of DYKs being approved is exceeding the number that can be displayed then the solution is to increase the quality control, not keep that the same and double the number of hooks, this will result in more errors and poor content on the main page; I assume the number of people checking hooks and the number of people dealing with main page errors will not double commensurately. Fish+Karate 13:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Today's main page is so unbalanced on my screen that it could accommodate two extra hooks. If shorter sets could be expanded to nine or even ten hooks, that would be a modest way to reduce the backlog of approved hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of a set number of sets per day or items per set, can we simply go to a plan where the number of items per day is a function of how many approved items are in queue? Trying to keep us from getting into a mindset where we gotta feed the beast, but also don't want to see queue continually lengthening. valereee (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 6

The nominator of Qiu Bojun and Women in Iceland was just banned as a sockpuppet. I'm not sure if that means that something should be done with the two hooks that are both in queue 6. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

In the past this means we junk them out, so they'll need to be replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
For the Women in Iceland article, the original creator was someone else although the sock editor nominated it and contributed content to the article. Hopefully an admin can decide what to do and fix it before it goes live. SL93 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That page's creator has not edited the page since creating it in two edits almost two years ago, but a few other editors in good standing have also contributed to its expansion. Just noting in case that impacts the decision here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's not a G5, but I don't think that deals with front page appearances? ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I replaced Qiu Bojun in Queue 6 with Love Interruption from Prep 5. The article itself should be has been deleted under G5 "Created by a blocked user". I've left the other one in place, because this issue came up on this talk page recently in another incident. I remember the comment that if the nominated article had not been created by the nominating sock, and the nomination itself otherwise passed review, then it was left in place. But I don't recall if that was the final word on that one. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Judge (writer) is still slowly moving along, but that's in large part because the original creator has been responding to issues raised in the review, though it was originally nominated by that sock. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Feature request - Prioritize DYK workflow

Please see Article alerts/Feature requests#Prioritize_DYK_workflow. Krelnik is responding to a thread at WT:WIR on how to streamline a process to make it more user friendly to keep track of which of their articles is in the nomination process here. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Catra (She-Ra)

Somebody just tried to add a nomination for Catra (She-Ra), and it wasn't made correctly. But if you click on the Review link, it brings up this old malformed something. 2014 misfire of something Can anybody delete this? — Maile (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Alex Shih (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1

I would have thought that if an admin is going to unilaterally pull a hook from a queue, it would at least have been courteous to actually ping the nomination's creator (and probably the reviewer and the promoter as well). Anyway, I've added a couple of alts to Template:Did you know nominations/The Bar-Steward Sons of Val Doonican, and fixed the issue of the jumpers being described as "loud". Pinging @Gatoclass, Gerda Arendt, and Cwmhiraeth:. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

None of those are "bigger issues", they are just one user expressing his preferences for different wording (all of which I happen to disagree with) - with the possible exception of the slight discrepancy in the Wallachen article, which I noticed myself but didn't think important enough to make a fuss about. In spite of my disagreement, I will however probably leave their resolution to others, since I decided some time ago that TRM's errors page is a huge timesink that I am better off avoiding unless it's something I feel I cannot ignore. Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no, I asked you to not post there again since you brought an unhelpful attitude to it. It has been a much more productive and far less toxic place since. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure it's been much less toxic since I decided to stop contributing there, but IMO the toxicity when I was trying to contribute there wasn't coming from me. Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, both in that response and another here, it's all in your "opinion" and of course you're entitled to, that very few others share it ever is another matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There's been a sea change in admin behaviour lately, admins unblocking themselves, admins wheel-warring, admins editing through protection to install personal preferences, so this is probably not high on the list of concerns right now. I think we just have to accept it as typical behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't ping you partly because I saw you were online at the same time as me and figured you would be alert enough to notice (not that pinging is compulsory anyway). For the same reason, I didn't bother to return it to the nomination page, and clearly I didn't need to as you've responded quickly. Had you not done so, I would have pinged you in a few hours. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have restored it to the nomination page for the time being under October 15 heading. My understanding is that when pulled hooks are not returned to the nomination page, it is because the involved admin expects the change to be something that can be quickly addressed. I am slightly annoyed because this is something we talk about so often: if a hook is to be featured on the Main Page imminently, it's okay to pull it from the queue if there are immediate concerns, but the summary of these concerns should be posted here at WT:DYK with editors involved in the process pinged so more eyes can gather together to fix the problem in time. If it's a major issue, it should still be posted here at WT:DYK with everyone involved notified, but with a note that the submission will be returned to the nomination page for more discussions. The argument that the nominator should have their DYK nomination page on their watchlist is simply not good enough. Alex Shih (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
OK that's fine, I just wasn't sure if I needed to do anything else with the nom to get it back in the process, so to speak. The issue that Gatoclass raised has already been addressed with a fix and a couple of ALTS. Thanks - Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that when pulled hooks are not returned to the nomination page, it is because the involved admin expects the change to be something that can be quickly addressed. Yes, that's what I said Alex, I expected it to be quickly addressed (since BK is a very active admin) so didn't bother returning it immediately to the nom page. Other than that, there has never been any requirement that a "summary of these concerns should be posted here at WT:DYK" etc. and there was clearly no need to do so in this case. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not a problem, but now it'll be dropped down the queue for probably a couple of weeks when it could have been sorted pretty much on the spot. Oh well. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Rather than pull the hook and leave the nomination in limbo, so to speak, it would have been better to just swap it with one of the hooks in a prep set, and discuss it here before it moved into the queue again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Lady Angela Forbes

Need to pull DYK on current home page

Please discuss at WP:ERRORS to have centralised discussion and avoid cross posting as this hook is currently on the Main Page. Alex Shih (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The first hood says: that the poet Edith Sitwell described Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) as "an elderly gorilla affected with sex appeal"? -- really?? we featuring a man insulting a woman on the front page?? Heard of #MeToo?? There was really nothing else that could have been put in the hook? Like her helping wounded soldiers? WTF??

I am so appalled, I would pull it myself, but it has a photo and I would break all the queues and rules doing so. Can anyone? Renata (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It seems weird to me that the hook was chosen. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
"A man insulting a woman on the front page" - ? Edith Sitwell is a woman. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
True, but I guess I don't get why someone's insult of the article's subject was chosen. Forbes has a great history behind her, but maybe I'm just in the wrong. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, still does not change the fact that it's insulting in the sexual way. Renata (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yell at me if I broke something, but I changed it myself to that the British socialite Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) organized soldiers' canteens in France during World War I?. Pinging: Moonraker, Caknuck, Yoninah who were involved in the DYK process. Renata (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Revert to original The hook was the suggestion of the editor who went to the trouble of creating this article and we should defer to the considered judgement of this contributor and the various reviewers, especially as the complainant didn't get the basic facts right and their new hook is comparatively dull. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored and the original hook seems reasonably jocular. Edith Sitwell was a famous character and we should also respect her legacy. Renata should please revert their improper use of admin privilege to edit through protection as they are involved. Andrew D. (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Andrew D.: I am not going to revert to an absolutely nasty hook that was there for no good reason. I am not arguing that the sentence should be removed from the article (thus censoring WP) - it is sourced & put in context, but featuring it on the main page where there is no context? I don't exactly agree on the "dullness" comment (I think the hook is relevant given the 100th anniversary of WWI), but I am not going to argue over it. On WP author's don't get special privileges. But do as you will, I am stepping aside. Renata (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I am not able to revert Renata's action which was done using admin privilege to edit through protection. WP:PROTECT states "Administrators ... must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally." Andrew D. (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This cross-post shouldn't exist. The notice at the top of this page clearly says discussion should take place at WP:ERRORS for content currently on the Main Page. Modulus12 (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with what the hook was, but I don't agree with the change happening without any discussion. It sets a bad precedent. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A very bad administrative action indeed. Per Andrew D, this is abuse of tools to further a personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Plus, if someone's going to modify the hook post-posting, at least do it properly. "ORGANISED" is BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Reverted. Original hook wasn't wrong, as a bonus the original objection was unfounded, change was imposing personal preference (with the added bonus of editing through protection to impose this). Correcting hooks is a valid use of editing through protection (even without discussion here or at WT:DYK), but no correction was made here. If there is consensus for a change, feel free to implement it of course. Fram (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion continued

See further discussion (now removed) here. SarahSV (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really think the number of pageviews is that important for many editors, what matters is being featured at all, with the view-count only being a bonus. In my case, I'd rather have a good but little-viewed hook than a widely-viewed hook but one that is problematic (and indeed, it can be argued that a bad hook getting many hits is a negative not a positive). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Pageviews is essential to most of the people who regularly contribute to this project, that's why there are numerous high score tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
As Eric Bischoff once said, Controversy creates cash. Controversial hooks such as this one lead to more traffic, which can also lead to the article being immensely improved as a result as what happened when the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture was called a "fag". A shame it got pulled before it get it's full 24 hours due to the IDONTLIKEIT brigade but still as a result we got some major contributions and improvements on the article thanks to DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
What a totally inappropriate remark and mindset. I agree with the premise; I maintain the perhaps old-fashioned stance that DYK is for showcasing newly created content that are not necessary perfect, as a chance for the article to receive some attention and copyediting. I am always fine with controversial hooks, and keeping tallies of page views is nice but should not be counted as "purpose"; in addition, we are not here to offend people unnecessarily, nor to "create cash" even if that was meant to be a metaphor. Alex Shih (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This incident is just absurd. Angela Forbes is long dead and was also a rumbustious character who used colourful language herself. I should think most sensible gorillas would be flattered by the comparison, and there’s no hint that Angela was unhappy with it. I hope Renata3 will not be doing this kind of thing again. Moonraker (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Peter Bielik

I just moved the following hook from p2 to p5 to allow time for further discussion:

I'm a little concerned that this article is one-sided as it only seems to include negative coverage. Now maybe there is nothing more to be said about the subject, but I'd like to hear what others think. Pinging the nominator Catriona. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Please be aware that Catriona is a different user, unfortunately. I can certainly understand the concern. Part of the issue is that "Peter Bielik" is a common name, so it's unclear if this person is the same Peter Bielik. I did another search for other stuff he did and was able to find a news story about a conference he was involved in. Catrìona (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eir Aoi

Requesting a prompt review of this nomination as I've requested a special occasion date for November 30. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

@Gerda Arendt:
The hook is over 200 characters. Please suggest a trim. Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
* ... that Günther Morbach appeared in more than 180 operatic bass roles, including Mozart's Sarastro in the new Opernhaus Dortmund, and in a Harald Weiss world premiere at the Staatstheater Braunschweig? Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

MLS Cup special date requests

Over the past few days, I've nominated three MLS Cup articles that I would like to see at DYK on certain dates (two this week and one/potentially two in early December). Any help getting these reviewed and in the hopper are appreciated.

  • MLS Cup 2002 on December 9 (GMT), which coincides with the MLS Cup 2018 broadcast (December 8 at 19:30 Eastern)
  • MLS Cup 2003 on November 23 (GMT), which coincides with the 15th anniversary of the match (played November 23 at 12:30 Pacific)
Done this one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • MLS Cup 2009 on November 23 (GMT), which coincides with the 9th anniversary of the match (played November 22 at 17:30 Pacific)

I also plan on nominating MLS Cup 2018 for the day after the final once I've started expansion work (which should come after the finalists are confirmed). Hoping to make this an annual thing, given how well it worked last year for 2016/2017. SounderBruce 07:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: Train

  • ... that Amtrak's Colonial replaced a train that could not fill a single passenger car?
@Pi.1415926535: @SounderBruce:@SL93:
The hook fact lacks an inline cite. Also, the hook goes beyond what the article says, which is: The Newport News section was lightly used—usually not filling a single coach. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed; that usually is essential. ——SerialNumber54129 16:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I removed it from the prep. SL93 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the point

I see someone has unilaterally changed the blurb for Margaret Guilfoyle - to one that wasn't mentioned at the nomination process where three editors collaborated on a blurb which was approved and promoted. The new blurb is factually incorrect (it has the wrong year), because the admin apparently didn't bother to read the article or any of its sources. This has happened to me several times now. What's the point of asking people to write their own blurbs, when they just get overridden without even being consulted? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact I would prefer that the article not run at all, rather than have a boring and factually incorrect hook. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I already reverted the hook to the correct date, and please don't accuse me of not "bothering to read the article" when I spent a considerable amount of time overnight trying to make amends for the unsourced statements in the original hook and article. Other than that, the rest of my reply can be found on your talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: Drag racer

@Trekphiler:
I have tagged the lead for being too short. Please add something about his notability to the lead. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Given the available sources, perhaps you'd like to suggest something? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD. Right now it doesn't summarise the article. And it won't run on the main page until it does. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It's taken care of now. I removed the tag. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I see that part of the lead was removed. The lead isn't supposed to be everything that makes the subject notable, but it is used to summarize the article's key points. I'm fine with it as it is now, but it seems pointless to complain over whether one extra sentence is there or not. SL93 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@SL93:@Trekphiler: please read MOS:LEAD, which states: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Summarization of the article's key points, and establishing notability, are the key functions of the lead. Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware of that, but it isn't just the things that are notable like your edit summary wrongly stated. SL93 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter anyway because the one extra sentence is now there. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the head's-up; I'm not good at leads. (The repetition strikes me as useless.) It seems I've got some pages to fix. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: it's not really repetition; think of it as a quick summary for the reader. Look on the main page at the Featured Article; the lead tells you everything you need to know about the subject. Yoninah (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I do get the point (which is why I'm going back to biopages I've done, at least, & trying to fix them); I just tend to read the whole page anyhow. (And most of the pages on the subject I've written are so stubby, the summary might as well be the whole page. :p ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is down; admin needed

Shubinator DYKUpdateBot is not running. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Are there any admins around who know how to do a manual update, since the bot is down and the update is over six hours overdue, with at least one special occasion hook for November 17? There are instructions at Template:Did you know/Queue/1#Posting the new update if you're an admin who doesn't. Pinging Alex Shih, Cas Liber, Vanamonde, Materialscientist, and Gatoclass, and modifying the title in the hopes that a passing admin might be willing to take on the challenge. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
On it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Done, I believe. BlueMoonset, if you could check over what I've done I'd appreciate it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Articles should be tagged, but that's mostly it. Alex Shih (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBoT still seems to be down. I have posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: @Vanamonde93: @Alex Shih: is there a long-term solution to DYKUpdateBoy being down? It appears the user who operates the bot hasn't edited in a couple weeks. I thank you for your manual updates in the meantime. Flibirigit (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The "long-term solution" is called Shubinator. He doesn't edit much but usually responds quickly when the bot is down, hopefully we won't have much longer to wait. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back up and running :) Unfortunately the bot's logs cut off way back in September, so I don't know what caused the bot to crash. Sorry for the delay folks, it's been a very busy weekend! Shubinator (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Shubs! I figured it might just be a weekend issue :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/MLS Cup 2009

Requesting a second opinion on this nomination, particularly on the wording of some statements in the article. As the nominator has requested a special occasion date of December 9, a prompt review is very much appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust every day?

I'd just like to note that Preps 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, and 2 each contain a Holocaust hook. We do have a lot of Holocaust-era nominations now, but we shouldn't be running them every day. Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We run random insects all the time, we run random footballers all the time. This is no different really. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Day after day of Holocaust makes it look like we're pushing an agenda. All I'm asking is to space them out more. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I realise you disagree, but the fact of the matter is that I find them interesting, and to call The Holocaust "an agenda" is somewhat troubling. I find insects incredibly boring but we push those in almost every set. Perhaps there's some kind of insect agenda... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It's curious that you find hooks on insects in almost every set because we haven't had an insect hook for more than a month. Perhaps you should have your eyes tested? ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you ready to apologise for accusing me of being a liar yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
So, where are these insect hooks which appear in almost every set? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Once you apologise for accusing me of lying, you may address me directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer not to push this discussion to a conclusion that we might regret. Let's drop the stick and just get on with editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I have nothing to fear or hide, so as you like – I suggest therefore you refrain from talking to me or about me again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
What do you suggest then with so many of them? Every other day? What agenda would someone think that we have? SL93 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I am so tired of all the sanctions on Jerusalem articles and anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I just thought readers would accuse us of trying to gain sympathy for Jews or something. Certainly these Holocaust hooks should be spaced out every other day at a minimum. Yoninah (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Only three people have participated in this discussion so far so I think no changes should be made at the moment. At least the hooks meet the interesting criterion. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
WP content should not be influenced by fear or 'appeasement'. Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers attempt to introduce crap into our articles almost every day, or troll the talk pages. We take the necessary measures. I would have thought that Holocaust-related articles are needed now more then ever, as a form of Holocaust education due to the obvious rise in Antisemitism and Holocaust denial world-wide. In any event, these DYK's are historically relevant and reflect the ever growing scholarship on the subject. We should not be afraid, nor attempt to appease nazis by having a 'quota' of Holocaust-related DYK's. Simon Adler (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
No change is required, unless the project opts to reject repeated hooks from all topics such as insects or fish or footballers or Hawaiian history etc. Isolating the Holocaust for this treatment is somewhat ... troubling. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering when opera/hymns/composers would get mentioned  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
We have a composer today, but when was the last one before? Two in conscutive sets. Don't remember, and if they had their birthdays on such days, why not? Six Holocaust in six days, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It would probably for the best if we showcase multiple topics on a regular basis as opposed to a narrow focus. Like too many opera or too many nature hooks (or any other topic) in a short span of time can be tiring, particularly for regular readers. As for the Holocaust partt mentioned above, while I agree with the sentiment, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This is very much not about RIGHTGREATWRONGS, this is about an editor whose interest is subjects related to that period of modern history (as opposed to say jellyfish, Psalms, The Boat Race (!), lower league footballers etc) who has written or updated a whole bunch of half-decent articles and nominated them at DYK. This project should not be cherry-picking topics which cannot be run sequentially. Either stop it from happening for all hooks, or just leave it so there are no common hooks in a set (except for special occasions of course). That it's related to the Holocaust is a red herring here, and trying to claim a "RIGHTGREATWRONGS" argument is simply inaccurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would very much agree with that proposal: i.e. unless there is good reason to do so (i.e. themed days or themed weeks), no two consecutive sets should include articles on consecutive topics. I.e. no opera/space/sports/nature/Holocaust/anime/etc. hooks on two consecutive sets, unless there is consensus to do so. It helps prevent burnout and at least would allow for more room for variety. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
And just another rule which can and will be summarily ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems like just asking editors to show a little common sense in not nominating 427 closely related articles all at once would be better. If you are working on a large number of similar articles, just pick one or two that have particularly interesting hooks and let the others just pass quietly into the encyclopedia at large. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thing is that unless they're nominated within the timeframe of the "DYK rules" they never get to appear at DYK, and I'd say most of the Holocaust articles are providing interesting hooks and interesting reading for our audience, unlike some of the other sets of articles we've waded through recently. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sites like Amazon as references

Can sites like Amazon be used to source someone's publication? Jiraiya (artist) is at DYK currently and before I replace a reference to Amazon, I thought that I would check. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is more of a question for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, right? It's nothing to do with DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I have heard it both ways already and I thought that maybe there was a preference for DYK. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "preference for DYK". It's an RS or it's not an RS. That applies to DYK or stub or FA, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I did find WP:AMAZON which just says maybe. I will just go ahead and replace it. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex

When do nominations that no one wants to fix, and has been open for over 3 months, get closed as failed? It seems odd to me that Template:Did you know nominations/Marcus Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex is still open. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations here have an indefinite shelf life. They keep on keeping on. Nothing realistically gets closed as failed unless they fail the technical specifics. The subjective rules, such as "interesting to a broad audience" are perennially ignored. So this nomination will continue to "exist" until it somehow runs in some form on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominations have a very long shelf life, but it is not indefinite nor are they immune from closure. One was closed on November 19, and this one could certainly be closed at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Empty queue with 16 hours to go

Here we are again. Just a polite reminder that someone needs to populate the next queue by checking the integrity of the prep set currently next in line and moving it across. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

And once again.... And some pretty shoddy work on the main page right now, but your DYK admin has said they're all fine, even the one which is self-contradictory, so that's okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And once again. Nudging. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Empty queues

Hello. Right now all the preps are filled, but no sets are currently on the Queue. In order to prevent backlogs, it is requested that at least two or maybe even three sets be promoted as soon as possible. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Love Interruption in Prep 5

Amakuru Why did you add the Love Interruption hook to Prep 5? That hook was part of our November 16, It ran for more than 24 hours then, because that is the set that was in place when the bot quit working, so it had 24 hours plus another 6-1/2 on the main page. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Maile, it looks like Amakuru didn't add anything intentionally, but reverted back to a four days prior version of the prep, and in so doing not only brought back Love Interruption, which had run, but also Leo Holzer, which was moved to prep 2 and has also already run. I have undone their edit with the exception of the wording change to the Ryder Jackson hook, which was supposed to be the purpose of the edit, but which had a great many unintended and undesirable consequences along with it. I think Prep 5 is now in a position to be promoted to queue, which it wasn't after that edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: @BlueMoonset: crap, really sorry about that. I must have hit the edit button when I was looking at an old revision of the page. It seems a little too easy to do that... Even though there's a red box it's easy to miss it. Thanks for sorting.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru Yeah, it kind of looked to me like you picked it up accidentally. Working in the preps or queues can be like hopping back and forth through hoops. BlueMoonset thanks for your help with this. — Maile (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to whoever decided to increase the number of hooks in today's set. If we continue to do this, we may be able to whittle away at the enormous backlog of approved hooks. This currently stands at 218, enough for 27 days of sets of eight hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It was done simply to balance the main page. Nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the DYK section generally looks a few hooks short. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Not really. It's entirely dependent on the number and length of the ITN and OTD hooks. It's variable but eight DYK hooks is about the average required to balance the main page. But then again it's down to browser, zoom level etc, so for some people the main page is often out of kilter, for some people that same main page is just fine. This is not a sanction for DYK to go to ten hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It also depends on the length of the hooks. If several hooks are quite long, then eight hooks in a set is probably adequate. This is the case with Prep 5 now, whereas Prep 6 looks decidedly skimpy, with one long hook and seven single line hooks on my screen, and could usefully have an extra hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please do not directly address me until you are prepared to apologise for accusing me of lying. You also have no idea what the main page will look like by the time Prep 5 and Prep 6 gets the main page so stop tinkering. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I have NOT accused TRM of lying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You have stated that my reasoning for doing what I do when and how I do it is not accurate. That means you are suggesting that I am not telling the truth, i.e. that I am a liar. When you're ready to strike it out, fine, in the meantime do not respond to me or address me directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, please consider that the latest queue of eight had no fewer than five issues. Please work harder to stop such problematic content. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
How very demeaning and belittling. That's an invented accusation. 86.187.173.177 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
What is? The fact that five issues existed in the last queue of eight? Hardly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue time?

With barely six hours to go, we have no queues loaded. Anyone going to address that issue? Given the recent surge in errors (just take a look above if you need any pointers on that), I'd suggest whichever admin fills the queue spends some time checking each hook... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If there's a surge in errors, I would suggest a saner option would be to not put a queue up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, we could just stick to the current set forever. Eventually all the errors will be ironed out and DYK will be forever error-free! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the prep for promotion but if anyone sees anything that jumps out at them, I am always happy for others to help. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I have promoted the prep to the queue. I will be around for a little bit if anyone finds anything that needs to be changed. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 and Solo 66

I pulled the image for Solo 66 as the lead hook in Prep 5 because it is likely non-free as a derivative work of the copyrighted item packaging. I would rearrange the hook to run in another slot with no image but as all the preps are full I am leaving a note here for it to be swapped out once we have a chance (as we have a few days before Prep 5 and Q5 are used again I do not believe we need to fully bump the hook back to approved and then re-promote). Courtsey ping to Bermicourt, Narutolovehinata5, and Flibirigit. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice now that I omitted reviewing the photo when doing the rest of the nomination. Mistake noted. We could switch the top slot with the second slot, as it has an eligible photo, despite that it wasn't in that nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
That should work, thanks! Mifter (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Late nom best on 22 November

Sorry, Template:Did you know nominations/Cecilia, vergine romana, - the article looked to short for DYK but now is long enough, and would be best on 22 November, the day of the saint for music. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ready for promotion to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
And the promotion. I think I should not even mention Phantasy Quartet, which I heard in summer, postponed to appear on the composer's birthday, wrote in time but forgot to nominate. As two hooks about music in the same set will not be wanted, and nobody American will look at DYK on Thanksgiving anyway, we can probably just leave it alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Two hooks removed from Prep 5 (probably the next queue to hit the main page)

Template:Did you know nominations/Claus Leininger @Gerda Arendt, Narutolovehinata5, and Cwmhiraeth:

First part ("Ruhr-Scala") is mentioned in one source I could find (the one in the article), second part ("for...") is not sourced in article, and not mentioned in that one source.

Template:Did you know nominations/Willie Borsch @Trekphiler, Reidgreg, and Cwmhiraeth:

So, he didn't win a national title, he won a race at a racing festival, which wasn't even the national championships to begin with (that seems to be the NHRA U.S. Nationals or the NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing Series, not the Winternationals). Fram (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Leininger: Template:Did you know nominations/Claus Leininger - the first proposed hook had no explanation, and the source says it was named so (implying by many). We can say it the other way: ... when Claus Leininger was general manager of the Musiktheater im Revier, he won international opera singers to perform there? - It was quite a miracle, DYK? Better wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
And what "festival" did Borsch win? Since even in 1967, the Winternats was a national event. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The article makes no sense at all (with regards to the hook): "He raced Winged Express for ten years, winning AA/FA (supercharged A-category Fuel Altered) at the NHRA Winternationals in 1967 and 1968.[2] Since AA/FA was not recognized as a class by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) until 1967, Borsch was never credited with a national title." It wasn't recognized until 1967, and he won in 1967 and 1968, so he was never credited??? That's not logical at all. In any case, the source[14] doesn't say anything about "national titles", he won an event at a national festival in an unrecognised class (even though the class was recognized in 1967 according to our article?), so he didn't win a national title. It's like winning a demonstration sport at the Olympics, you have won at the Olympics but you don't have an olympic title or medal. With that difference that "national titles" in the NHRA are a dime a dozen apparently. Fram (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
My apologies for approving it, it was the nominator's preferred hook. Rephrasing it would probably be convoluted. Can we strike that for one of the two ALTs when the "national title" issue is resolved? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Credit edits

A credit in Queue 1 is missing its subpage parameter. The credit should be: 

* {{DYKmake|Podocarpus parlatorei|Cwmhiraeth|subpage=Abrothrix illuteus}}

Also, both of the {{DYKnom}}s in that queue should be removed, as they're both self-noms, with the users already credited via {{DYKmake}}s. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks! Mifter (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Gern Nagler in Queue 4

Caknuck Giants2008 Cwmhiraeth - Gern Nagler needs more citations. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentally, it needs to meet the requirements of DYK, which the person who promoted it overlooked. But hey, it's QPQ, what does one expect? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that, folks. Should have seen that it needed a little more work, but even those of us who are highly experienced can overlook stuff by accident. As a show of my good faith and as an apology, I went and added a reference to the one tagged item I could fix by myself and took out the others, so that the DYK nom can proceed. I don't have access to most of the sources around the uncited bits, so if the primary contributor wants to re-add them with cites, that would be ideal. Otherwise, sorry that I seem to have caused this issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please excuse me if I'm a pain, but I don't see the Nagler article at either the main DYK nom area or the list of approved noms, and it's not in any of the prep areas. Is this what is supposed to happen after a pull, or should the nom be placed back in line at one of the nom lists? Giants2008 (Talk) 20:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Should go back to noms, or if all concerns addressed, could be placed back into a prep set. Often when items get pulled at or near the last minute, the arcane requirements of DYK template transclusions etc, get overlooked or are simply just left to the nominator/reviewer/promoter to deal with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I'll go take care of this momentarily. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early this morning; here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through October 29. Right now we have a total of 383 nominations, of which 220 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three that remain from August and September.

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) 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the list above. There are still quite a few that need reviews. Oldest is October 10th. Flibirigit (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list would normally have been archived around now; here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 6. Right now we have a total of 373 nominations, of which 210 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones that remain from early October.

Over three months old:

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) 04:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK approved noms

I puzzled: I have had three approved DYK noms in the top 20 entries at WP:DYKNA for at least a week and none have been promoted yet to a prep. On the other hand, a much newer article, Amazone, has been placed in prep. Don't noms from the top get promoted first at DYKNA? L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally yes, we work oldest to newest. However, when putting together sets we try to manage balance (not too many biography articles, a spread of topics, etc.) within the set which does push us out of order occasionally. Additionally, if an even older nom gets approved in the interim it might bump one of yours slightly further down. As we are currently running one set of hooks a day (as opposed to some times when we are running two) it is taking a bit longer for hooks to be promoted and to run as we are cycling through fewer overall. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: I was the one who skipped over your other ship nominations to promote Amazone. It was late, and the other nomination pages just had too much discussion to wade through. Eventually everything will get promoted. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4: Who?

@Yorkshiresky: @David Eppstein: @Cwmhiraeth:
If I knew what the Met Office is, this hook might be interesting. As it is, Met Office will probably get more clicks from curious readers. Isn't there anything hooky to say about Penelope? Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well the Met Office is highly notable and has been around for about 150 years. And it's linked to help you out. But the main problem is that the hook is not even accurate. She won't be Chief Exec until December. A lot of things could happen between now and then. Another triumphant QPQ. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Things have come a long way since Michael Fish then, I guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
My attitude approving the original hook was that Brits would know what the Met Office was and that Americans and others could become intrigued by not knowing and click on the link (what DYK is supposed to be for). So I don't see that aspect as particularly problematic. But I agree that blowing shit up is more exciting than talking about the weather. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Yorkshiresky, David Eppstein, and Cwmhiraeth: Are we good to go with TRM's suggest hook? Personally I feel that it could be made a little shorter, but I like the idea and it could be a good hook if it could be made tighter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • TRM has been unpleasant to me enough times in the past (and in this thread) that I have no interest in reviewing any of his DYK hook proposals, ever. Someone else can do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Unpleasant to you in this thread? Give me a break. The QPQ was an abject failure once again because it promoted a hook which was simply untrue. If that's being "unpleasant", sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have no intention of being goaded into making legal threats. And I think your choice of wording in this response merely confirms what I said about unpleasantness. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
            • If you can't take criticism of your work, don't submit it. The review was wholly inadequate. The promotion was wholly inadequate. But nothing new around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
              • "Wholly?" The review was off only on a minor detail of timing, which can best be described as an inaccuracy rather than a falsehood. Less of a falsehood than your use of the word "wholly" here, certainly. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
                • Yes, the hook mentioned one "fact", and that one fact was 100% incorrect. I'm afraid if you dislike having the basics of QPQ and the expectations of our readers (i.e. no false hooks) pointed out to you, this isn't the project for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
                  • I'm not afraid to admit that your unpleasantness is causing me only to avoid assisting with your DYK hooks, and not to go away altogether as you seem to prefer. With this attitude so frequently on display here it's no wonder we have so few regular DYK reviewers that we have to bribe inexperienced newcomers to do QPQs with the prospect of the approval of their own hooks. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
                    • Pardon? My hooks? Your assistance? What are you talking about? FYI, DYK hasn't been for newcomers for years now, that's nothing to do with me. The main problem is with the so-called experienced editors passing and promoting error after error after error to the main page. If there were no errors, there'd be no need for me to keep close eyes on this part of the project which has more than its fair share of space on the encyclopedia's main page. It's not a sandbox, the QPQ system is an abject failure, as demonstrated here, at my errors page and elsewhere. Focus on fixing those issues before you start trying to shift the blame for all this project's shortcomings on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
As a recipient of the "clunkiest hook of the month award", and as someone TRM has banned from responding to him or addressing him directly (a sort of unilateral interaction ban) I notice his suggested hook describes her as an "expert on electric and intelligent armour", a fact not present in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Until you retract your accusations of lying, I have asked you to stop referring to me or talking to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I am commenting on a hook. Where is it mentioned in the article that she is an "expert"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Until you retract your accusation of me being a liar, I will not engage in any conversation with you. As you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Please do not promote the hook suggested by TRM as it has a factual error. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: It's fine. I checked the source (novel, I know) and it backs up the proposed hook 100%. I even adjusted the article. So this one is good to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
How kind of TRM to adjust the article so that it included the hook fact. However, TRM has just ignored the basic DYK principle that one is not permitted to approve one's own hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not approving anything. I'm just saying this is accurate and ready. Please stop accusing me of being a liar. And please, please stop promoting hooks that are factually inaccurate (like your accusations against me). It's becoming very tiresome to have to continually fix it up. Just look above (and below!) at the common theme in many of these duff hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I have changed "is" to "will become". Alex Shih (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I've returned the hook to WP:DYKN for further work on the hook and an uninvolved reviewer's verification of TRM's suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yang Dan

It looks like Yang Dan is in preps 1 and 3. Since I’m new to DYK, could someone please confirm that this is erroneous and that one of the DYKs should be removed? If not, please let me know what I’m missing here. Thanks! Upjav (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It is two different people with similar names in separate articles. Flibirigit (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Flibirigit. Late night where I was and on mobile... saw the names and bio-related things, didn't think it through. Upjav (talk) 19:00, 22 November 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 and 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) 22:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Need to promote more queues?

The preps are getting pretty backlogged right now, and it's getting more difficult to build preps due to a lack of space. Maybe we should be promoting two or even three preps at a time instead of just one? It could also be insurance against late-promoting preps (meaning it could prevent cases where a queue isn't ready). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not about how many queues you have, it's about the quality control that sees them through to the main page. Today, I witnessed a group of DYK hooks which were passable, with no obvious errors, and it's been about a month since that happened. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the back log is due to many administrators in the Unites States being occupied by their Thanksgiving holiday season. IT should be back to normal soon. Flibirigit (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
All queues empty? valereee (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and error-free! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This was the very thing that I wanted to prevent. Any admins online right now who want to promote a queue? {@Vanamonde93, Maile66, and Gatoclass: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually a little concerned about this one: that during World War II, the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS were thought to have committed war crimes against Italians in retaliation for Italy's surrender? The hook seems to be directly contradicted by the article's lead. I think it's actually just poor wording, but still.valereee (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Less than six hours to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I came here to ask specifically the same thing. @Vanamonde93 and Maile66: could some online admin fill in a queue? L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm online, but rather busy with work. I'll try to get to this within an hour, but I can't promise anything, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Please do so, it's less than an hour to go now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I ended up being rather busy: Maile66 fixed it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6

  • ... that on the 1939 American K2 expedition, Dudley Wolfe and three Sherpas died high on the mountain (K2 pictured) after the Sherpas had climbed from base camp to rescue Wolfe but he would not come down?
@Thincat: @SounderBruce: @Cwmhiraeth:
I'm having trouble finding the hook fact in the article with an inline cite. The fact that he refused to come down isn't mentioned in the lead at all. The hook should also mention the mountain; otherwise it looks like another mountain is pictured. Yoninah (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
.. but it is mentioned in the second paragraph of "Second rescue attempt". I did check the reference before promoting the hook and have now added an extra reference. It was a "K2 expedition" so I don't think the mountain needs to be named again in the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) ::It isn't mentioned in the lead. It could be if this is necessary – I'd be happy to include it if you think it best. Would I then have to put a reference in the lead that is otherwise unreferenced? In the article the relevant section is in "Second rescue attempt", in particular "He was uninterested in the letters they brought and refused to go down, telling them to return tomorrow when he would be ready". The references are at the end of the paragraph so I've duplicated them at the end of the sentence. The nomination also details the sources here. Thincat (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. Everything looks fine. Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

queue 2 1 has a redirect

Robin Sparkles is redirecting to Robin Scherbatsky#Early life at Template:Did_you_know/Queue/1 valereee (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why does queuing require admin?

Can this be unbundled? Honestly there have to be some experienced editors here who can be trusted to move stuff from prep to queue so we don't have six empty queues two hours before the new DYK is supposed to go up. valereee (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I have never understood that either. It's not like the updating admins always do a thorough re-review of the articles and hooks. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
All features on the main page require admin approval, including "In the news", "On this date", "Did you know", et cetera. I doubt this policy will ever change. Flibirigit (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I doubt it also. It just seems like a waste to scramble around last minute. SL93 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It is a holiday weekend in the United States, where the majority of admins live, and they are entitled to a family life. I am sure things will be back to normal after Monday. Flibirigit (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I would understand that if the only times that this happens was during holiday weekends. SL93 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
All the unbundled tools once required admin to use, but over the years we've slowly decided that trusted editors can also be trusted to use many of those tools. We don't have to make it a tool every editor gets. Just a few -- trusted editors who are interested in doing THIS job for WP, but not interested in running the whole RfA gantlet. valereee (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the almost perennial proposals; I am very supportive of the prospect, but not sure how to make it work: WP:VPR is the place for this kind of proposals. Alex Shih (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Alex Shih SL93 Flibirigit I asked for discussion at WP:VPI valereee (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) and Maile66
I left a message over there. You asked that at the wrong place. You are asking for non-admins to be able to edit content on Wikipediia's Main Page. I think there is a general Main Page policy to deal with, and why would DYK be an except to the policy? Just guessing - It would mean that anybody could (and probably would) vandalize the Main Page at will. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Mail66 Not 'anybody.' Just a few trusted editors who had significant experience at DYK and who would be responsible for just this one job. Why would those people be more likely to vandalize the Main Page than an admin? valereee (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You would want to allow editing access to Queues by "trusted editors". Right? Queues are restricted to admins. The more specific question is for DYK to lift the restriction, as there is no way to restrict it to "trusted editors" unless Wikipedia wants to add a whole new bureaucratic level called "Trusted editors" So, Queues are either restricted to Admins, or open to everybody. A number of people here became admins specifically to help with the Queue issue. Where are they now? People get tired of the drama and the abuse, and they take their admin duties somewhere else. Even editors with no privileges edit for a time, then move on to other interests. Editors and admins get blocked, banned, move on, or otherwise disappear. Very few editing DYK today are the same editors I saw a year or two ago. All of Wikipedia is transitory. Who keeps track of who has the privileges? — Maile (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Maile66 Forgive my ignorance, but would it be difficult to develop such a level? It seems like there are other permissions that are given to only a certain specific subset of users, like checkuser stuff. And the people actually doing the job would be keeping track, as they'd have every motivation to do so since their job would be made harder by having someone wander off and not be replaced. Someone goes AWOL, their teammates bring it to crat attention, the permission is stripped, and a new user is selected. Maybe there's something I don't know that would prevent this? valereee (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:PP and then WP:PERM. You would need a new level set up by Wikipedia, and at the very least I would think you would need to convince them you had consensus to make the request. Perhaps start a WP:RFC discussion. If anyone else can offer insight, maybe they can guide you. — Maile (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Maile yes, I understand how protection works; my question was whether it could be unbundled. And, yes, I know that would mean these editors would be able to edit other protected pages. I don't know that I'm ready to go to RfC, that's why I opened a discussion at Idea Lab, because it seemed to be saying it was a place to develop ideas, and this idea would affect other places, not just DYK. You brought it back here because you said this project was the decision maker on this issue, but I think you were saying this project is the decision maker on whether to protect DYK, which obviously we should. Is an RfC here a better place to brainstorm this than Idea Lab? valereee (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC) ETA Maile66
Others need to weigh in here, not just me. My personal opinion, is that issues affecting a project are decided at the project. Until (and if) the project has a consensus that requires action higher up at Wikipedia. If you not doing a formal RFC, then start a new Section Heading asking for consensus. Or maybe a subsection of this thread. But below that should be three separate subsections: Support, Oppose and Discussion. Or however you want to do it..You have to have consensus here before anything can happen. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Maile66 I hate to keep doing this to you, and you've been extremely patient with a discussion that clearly doesn't enthrall you (for which I thank you) but the reason I wanted to go to idea lab was because I wasn't ready to propose anything and have people !vote. I just want to discuss the germ of a seed of an idea that would represent a big change, and find out what kinds of better ideas there might be. Again, apologies for all the pinging, you must be getting pretty irritated with me by now valereee (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
FINAL COMMENT, I will not respond further on this issue. The discussion to alter any project policy should be had on the project's talk page. Here. End of discussion for me. Please do not ask for any other input from me. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Flibirigit How do you know "where the majority of admins live"? Nobody knows, not even the Wikimedia Foundation. To become an admin, no personal information is disclosed. It is based on editing history and being nominated at WP:RFA. We currently have a little over 1,000 admins on Wikipedia. You can't even tell by an admin's focus on editing topics, for the same reason people read books and like entertainment about places other than where they live. I've been around over a decade, and my personal guess would be that the majority of admins are either European or somewhere in the Asia-Pacific area. But that's only a guess. For all I know, there could be an secret admin enclave in Peru. I haven't yet figured out where the recurring DYK admins are located. — Maile (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In principle, unbundling this is a great idea. The simplest way to do it would be to unbundle the edit-protected flag, and then give that to a few trusted users. To be honest, though, it wouldn't change things a whole lot. We have about four editors here at DYK who do a lot of promotions to prep but are not admins, who would potentially benefit from this user-right: but really what we need is more people to be active, so that the work is spread among a larger group. I would support the creation of this userright, but previous discussions that I know of haven't gone anywhere. Vanamonde (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Thanks -- it seems like even four more people would be a helpful start when we're talking about six empty queues less than two hours from a new DYK going up. And perhaps people might even be more likely to ask for this if they knew they were going to be part of a queuing team who were responsible for seeing an important job to its end. There's something uniquely satisfying about running that final leg of a relay. I guess I see it as something that at minimum slightly helps without much risk of harm. I would think this would likely only be given to people who could probably survive RfA if they wanted to put themselves through it. Can you give me any pointer in how to find previous discussions, like what archives/terms to probably search? If there really is no other option for developing half-baked ideas but to do a full RfC, I at least want to see what's been proposed before. valereee (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valeree: I can try to find previous discussions, but it might take a while: in the meantime you could try searching the Village Pump archives for proposals related to unbundling that right. There might also be stuff at AN. Vanamonde (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: thanks, I'll go searching! And no worries, don't go to any trouble, just wanted your best guess where I'd find them! valereee (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

prep 1

Just did my first move to prep for Alastair MacLlennan to the 'quirky' spot, someone might want to check my work valereee (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. feminist (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valereee: did you read the article? The page had been moved, so the bold link in the hook was a redirect. I corrected the link and also adjusted the DYK credit line. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah yes, read the article quite closely, including the history, trying to follow all the directions for what to check before moving to prep and exactly how to move to prep and what to do with both pages after, which basically meant I had four different pages open at the same time and was moving bits here and there, checking for a pale blue background, checking to make sure there weren't extra bits of spare code left behind, etc. Must have missed the redirect because I was focusing on the directions. This is exactly why I asked someone to check my work. Thank you for catching that. valereee (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Re the hook:
  • ... that Professor Alastair MacLennan and his wife Alice, both doctors specializing in reproduction, were caught by surprise and he had to deliver their own baby at home?
@Gronk Oz: @Iainmacintyre:
Re-reading the article, it appears that the specialty which Dr. MacLlennan and his wife shared was menopause, not "reproduction". Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hm, that didn't seem like a problem to me -- he's a gynecologist, she "received awards for her work in reproductive health"... maybe change to 'reproductive health'? valereee (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, the hook facts have to be in the article, with inline cites. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: his career has covered a range of areas, so I like valereee's suggestion of changing to the broader term "reproductive health" - would you be happy with that? --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: yes, that also occurred to me. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reviews

User:Frayae has been identified as a sock. What should we do about his reviews?

I agree, a second review would be best. Flibirigit (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1: Beattie

@The Rambling Man:@Dweller:@MX:
The last 8 words of the hook are copied from the source (they are not an exact quote, but an exact quote of the writer's words). I know about WP:LIMITED, but perhaps the word "seen" could be changed? Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this hook is satisfactory as it is. It is clear and accurate, whereas if you started substituting "he had ever come across" or somesuch it would no longer be accurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the hook wording, although I'm not exactly happy with two repeated uses of the word "England" here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt

As some of you are no doubt already aware, Raymond Arritt died a few days ago. He was an active Wikipedian, posting originally under his own name and later as user:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. His son, Sarritt, has confirmed the news in a post at a memorial on his father's talk page. IntoThinAir has created an article on Prof. Arritt and it is new enough to qualify for DYK. I think it would be good to see it nominated, with something that pays tribute to his work and Wikipedia contribution. However, I don't see an obvious hook to use, so I thought I'd post here and call for ideas. Many of us knew and respected SBHB and are saddened by his sudden death, and I hope we can discuss a potential nomination without unnecessary macro issues intruding. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

How about this? Flibirigit (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK ... that Raymond Arritt's research for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize?
I will gladly donate a QPQ and submit a nomination a bit later today, maybe in a couple hours. Flibirigit (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Can we use his comment on that event, as a little hint at his kind of humor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, no harm in having more hooks proposed. Flibirigit (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Better start the nom, and we do it there. I would if I had more time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I have started a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond Arritt, and am open to sharing nomination credits. Gerda Arendt, please feel free to add yourself! Flibirigit (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

How to access the discussion for hooks that are in prep?

Where are the discussions for hooks that are already in prep? I can find noms awaiting approval and noms approved, but not those already in a prep unless they were added to an article's talk page. Is there any handy page that lists discussions for hooks that are in prep? Thanks! valereee (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Just create a new heading with the prep and name of the article in it that you have a concern about as you can see above on this page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) no, but you can just see what links to an article (on the left, "What links here" under Tools), and the nom will be among the links, typically one of the last links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the page to discuss hooks in a prep area. Flibirigit (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt thanks! The C of E Flibirigit sorry, I meant the review discussion, so I could go back and see what had already been discussed/decided before bringing something up. valereee (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
To make it easier to find, especially if there are a lot of links, after you go to "What links here", select "Template" from the "Namespace:" drop-down. The easiest way, however, while it's still in Prep or Queue, is to go to the individual Prep or Queue (for example Prep 3 or Queue 4), and under "Credits" there's a link to "View nom subpage". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Mandarax said: The easiest way, however, while it's still in Prep or Queue, is to go to the individual Prep or Queue (for example Prep 3 or Queue 4), and under "Credits" there's a link to "View nom subpage". That's what I was looking for! Thanks! valereee (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 concern -- support for hook is from Bitcoin news

Prep 2 -- support for hook

... that during the 2018 cryptocurrency crash, pink Wojaks were used by traders to express their distress over losses?

is from Bitcoin news? What's bitcoin news?

valereee (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the news portion of Bitcoin.com. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
SL93 Is that a reliable source? I don't even see it mentioned in the bitcoin.com article except a passing mention that they provide news, which could literally mean anything. valereee (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I would say that bitcoin.com is a reliable source for cryptocurrency and the news side is part of that website if you pay attention to the URL. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a news source that literally didn't even have a redlink until I made one valereee (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The link is literally Bitcoin.com. Bitcoin News is not even a separate property or website. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but that's kind of my point: is it a reliable source for a hook, given that we know nothing about it other than that it's on bitcoin.com and they're calling it news? valereee (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It's part of Bitcoin.com, which is a reliable source for cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin.com themselves are responsible for the news that is published. If someone searches for bitcoin information on Google News, they will run into bitcoin's news section depending on what they search. SL93 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I feel like we're going around in circles. The fact bitcoin.com exists and bitcoin news exists as part of their organization and can be found on the internet doesn't turn them into a reliable source. I'm trying to find any mention of 4chan plus bitcoin plus wojak and having a hard time finding anything outside of a nymag piece where bitcoin is only mentioned in the comments. I feel like this hook might not actually be anything other than anecdotal. Even the bitcoin news article doesn't clearly connect the pieces of the hook. valereee (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
"The fact bitcoin.com exists and bitcoin news exists as part of their organization and can be found on the internet doesn't turn them into a reliable source." I never said that. I'm done here. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Okey-doke. Maybe someone else will chime in. valereee (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Another hook on the main page under scrutiny

See WP:ERRORS, the hook relating to the Neil Matthews (footballer, born 1967) article is cited using a blog which almost certainly fails WP:RS. Shouldn't have made it to the main page, and probably should be quickly revised to something reliably sourced, or pulled. I've notified Kosack, but the reviewer and promoter should know too. Cwmhiraeth, Flibirigit. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been resolved, FTR: the source is considered reliable. [15], [16], [17]. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Incredibly astounding DYK hook

".. that Hina Kino, who became a voice actress after her third year of high school, practiced "rigorously" for her first role?" Who'd have thought that an actor rehearsed for a role? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

See the section two above. The community are content to completely ignore the "interesting to a broad audience" requirement of DYK, at least one hook every other set should be failed due to this, yet it almost never happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It's better than the actual errors that come out of this project but it still makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!
Well you see that's where my thoughts differ a little. If the process and rules around getting stuff onto the main page are being wilfully ignored, that, to me, is an error. We shouldn't just say "oh well, it's there now, regardless of the fact it's junk and failed to meet the basic requirements of DYK, we'll overlook it on this one (two, two hundred...) occasion". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to pull it, then fine. Honestly I'm not really happy with the hook either (it wasn't my original proposal anyway, the one I originally wanted was rejected). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Good response. Can you suggest an alt hook here? Let's fix it, rather than pulling it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I pulled it while you were writing your response. Fram (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's see if we can get it back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

How about this simple version of the first hook proposed: "... that Hina Kino was inspired to become a voice actress after watching a talk show"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:...that would almost suggest "... that Hina Kino was inspired to become a voice actress after hearing people talk"  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)
He's not Doug. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
As the banner at the top of my talk page explains, I'm more Doug-less. Sorry the ping, Doug. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'll treat that as a serious response. I don't think so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging the other individuals involved in this hook: Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah (reviewers), Flibirigit (promoter). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, never mind. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_153&oldid=1085471598"