Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 158

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160→Archive 165

Need to close a loop-hole in our Rules

We need to close a loop-hole in our Rules, to clarify for our reviewers how to handle non-fiction book articles and hooks. The issue came to light when I pulled DYK James Acaster's Classic Scrapes for not sourcing the hook. The book is biographical/non-fiction, and the hook came from the completely unsourced synopsis. The nominator has refused to provide sourcing, and the nomination has now been rejected.

DYK rules are pretty clear: "Cited hook – Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient."

All we have right now is a guide line on how to handle fictional universe. We have not spelled out what to do with a non-fiction hook. WikiProject Books says, "Articles concerning people, such as authors, should be directed to WikiProject Biography." And, of course, WPBiography WP:BTIP states very clearly, "Right from the start, cite your sources".

Please suggest DYK Rules wording so that we do not have this misunderstanding again. The reviewer and promoter need to be able to verify where the hook came from. — Maile (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Do the rules really need clarifying? The case you mention isn't so much that the rules are unclear - pretty much everyone on that nom page is in agreement about what the rules say and how they should be followed. But the nominator has decided to dig in, refuses to acknowledge there's an issue, and is not carrying out the simple step suggested to rectify the situation. You could add some explicit text to say non-fiction hooks based on a book synopsis still need to be cited, but it shouldn't really be in any doubt even without... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You could be correct. The more I see on this, the more I realize it's an issue of following two basics: (1) The hook must be cited; (2) Basic citation guidelines at WP:Autobiography. The only person to have read the book is the nominator, who, as you say, is refusing to take the basic step of a citation. I can't imagine the good people at DYK saying IAR on this, because once you allow one nominator to slide by without a citation, then nobody needs a citation. And such a hook is almost guaranteed to be pulled from the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I also looked at the nomination page and thought it was fair for the nominator to be asked for a citation, either from the book itself or from a secondary source, to comply with a clear DYK rule. I have written articles about books (Scott-King's Modern Europe is a case in point) without having the book in front of me, and I wondered if that might be the case here. Something to appear in the DYK column does surely need to be verifiable. I see no problem with adding something to the DYK rule to put it beyond dispute, perhaps "This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article." Moonraker (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Good idea, Moonraker. Yoninah (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the DYK rules for hooks being stricter than those for plot summaries. A plot summary is something that can be fixed over time if the next editor to come along feels there's any misinterpretation, no big deal. A DYK hook actively directs attention to a specific plot point. It says to the world, "Look here!" So I would argue that even though plot summaries don't generally require citation to anything but the book itself, a DYK hook using a plot point should have a citation for the specific sentence describing that plot point. And in this case there apparently are at least a couple of sources for that citation. --valereee (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I have added Moonraker's suggested edit in two places: on the Rules page 1, and on the Reviewing guide. 2 It seems to state the case in as few words as possible. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I see no loophole here, FWIW. DYK rules require the hook to be cited; there's no ambiguity. If someone wants to add a footnote linking to this discussion clarifying that the rule applies to works of fiction also, I wouldn't have a problem with that; but the rule is already clear. The nominator, with whom I have never had any previous issues that I can recall, should simply provide a specific citation and get it over with. And by specific, I mean using a footnote or other acceptable citation format, to a page range that would be acceptable in any other citation. FWIW, I routinely provide citations in the plot section for this reason; it makes verification easier, and in most cases there's no reason not to do it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
See right above, posted by me minutes after you signed this post. Moonraker's suggested edit seems correct, with as little drama and words as possible. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough; I think it's giving it undue prominence, but it's hardly worth arguing over when there's agreement over the basic point. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2

Daniel Case Godsfriendchuck No Swan So Fine Cwmhiraeth I love this hook, but should we use a photo that shows the 'That's all brother' readably in the DYK image? The image we're using just looks like a plane. I cropped it to this, as an example. My thinking is that all the mil hist fans and airplane fans are going to click on it anyway, but for a general readership seeing the painted-on name might be a bigger draw. --valereee (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Cropped image now in Prep 2. Excellent catch. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no objections ... great idea. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

Would this hook be allowed? Although the article states that the incident and character were based on a real event, the article seems to imply that the movie event and character are fictional. I know the mention of the Berlin Wall, but I'm not sure if this is enough to satisfy the real-world requirement. Pinging nominator Moonraker and reviewer Gerda Arendt. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The film seems to be a fictionalized account of an actual incident -- the real person did kill herself after the real fall of the wall, but it didn't happen as quickly as the film depicts it so the wall's fall may not have been as direct a cause as is implied in the film. I don't think that rises to the level of not satisfying the real-world requirement. It definitely involves the real world in very direct way. It's not a hook about which dwarf was the shortest in Snow White. --valereee (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Returned to noms page for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
... as if there were not enough approved hooks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I am at a loss to see what you were objecting to here. The two events happen in the film, one after the other, separated by a few days, as stated. If you have a complaint about the hook, say what it is. Yoninah, what is your reason for pulling the hook? Moonraker (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Moonraker: I already mentioned my concern in the original comment: it was not clear if the hook met WP:DYKSG#C6. The concern had nothing to do with the time frame of the event. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, you seem to be referring to "must involve the real world in some way". Do you say the fall of the Berlin wall did not happen in the real world? Moonraker (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The issue was the part that goes "the central character jumps from a window to her death", and it's clear that the hook was referring to a fictional event, even if it does reference a real-life event. It would be like a hook that went "... that Rocky Balboa fought Apollo Creed to commemorate the American Bicentennial?". The American Bicentennial was a real-event, Rocky fighting Apollo is not. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I see no proper reasoning in what you are saying. A work of fiction is about fictional people and events. It would be absurd if the rule excluded any mention of the fiction, and it does not. That rule "must involve the real world in some way" does not require the whole hook to be about the real world. Your point of comparison is completely irrelevant. The fall of the Berlin wall is a real-life event which is central to this work of fiction. Moonraker (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Valereee: Can we get a second opinion here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 see Valereee's opinion above: "I don't think that rises to the level of not satisfying the real-world requirement. It definitely involves the real world in very direct way." Are you asking for a change of opinion? Moonraker (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm asking them to reply to your comments. The comments they made above were addressed to me, not you. I also pinged Yoninah since she was the one who actually pulled the hook. You will need to discuss with her a compromise and see if the original hook could be restored or if a new hook is truly needed here. Note that I didn't even intend for the hook to be pulled in the first place, the original posts was meant to be a request for clarification if it met the rules, not a request for pulling. Let's see where this goes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 I believe the hook satisfies rule C6. It involves the real world. My reading of C6 is that it prevents us ending up with endless hooks like, "... that Hermione Granger's cat Crookshanks is half-Kneazle? from fans of various fictional worlds. That said, I'm not sure where the original discussion that led to that rule is located, so maybe I'm assuming a looser interpretation than is intended. --valereee (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I pulled the hook because it just tells the plot. The fall of the Berlin Wall is part of the plot. So many works of fiction mention real-world events, but I would never think that this connects it to the real world per Rule C6. As I mentioned on the nomination page, your original hook meets the criteria and is also more hooky:
... that in the film No Place to Go, the central character jumps out of a window to her death, as the director's mother had done some years before?
But I don't know why that wasn't chosen. I have no problem promoting this hook, though if someone has an objection, please let me know. Yoninah (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I'm on the fence as to whether or not the Berlin Wall hook meets C6 (leaning towards not, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise), but the hook fact about the director's mother is much more eyecatching. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The fall of the Berlin Wall in the book is not the real world fall of the real world Wall. It is the fictional fall of the fictional Wall. This work of fiction takes place on Earth, but the Earth in the book is not the real world.--Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha, I wonder whether you are writing tongue-in-cheek to send up the obstructionist thought-processes at work here. As it happens, the film in question shows footage of the real Berlin wall really falling down. But even if it didn't, on that interpretation no work of fiction could ever appear in the DYK column, as all references to the real world would be references to fictional shadows of the real world. Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, I see no objection to any of the hooks, promote any of them. You say "I pulled the hook because it just tells the plot." It does, and there is no rule against that, so long as the hook involves the real world in some way. You say "The fall of the Berlin Wall is part of the plot." I agree. You go on "So many works of fiction mention real-world events..." They do. You end up "... but I would never think that this connects it to the real world per Rule C6." It plainly does. What is your reasoning that it does not? Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm serious. And using real world footage doesn't make the event in the movie any less fictional. You could say that the work was inspired by the fall of the real wall, that would not involve "fictional shadows of the real world". --Khajidha (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You would not say that "Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter" just because the character in the movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is based on the real world person. This is no different. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha, putting real events from the real world into a work of fiction does not make them fictional, and that is not in any way suggested by the rule. Even if you were right, the real world would still clearly be "involved", as it would be inspiring the supposedly fictional copy of it. In any event, you would not be able to persuade many people that film of the real Berlin wall appearing in a work of dramatic fiction was film of a fictional wall. This is playing weird mind games. Moonraker (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The only "mind game" here is your inability to see that events in fiction are not the same as events in the real world, even when those real world events are directly adapted into the work of fiction. The hook states that " the central character jumps from a window to her death, a few days after the fall of the Berlin Wall?" She does not jump in response to the real fall of the Wall, but in response to the Wall within the fictional world. The Wall in that sentence is not the real one and cannot be linked to the real event. Nor does the hook say anything about being inspired by the real world, if it did I would have no problem with it. It is only the linking of events in fiction to events in reality that I am objecting to. As a further example, you could not say that "Rocky Balboa ran up the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art" and link to the museum. You could, however, say that the scene of Rocky Balboa running up the steps was filmed at the Museum of Art and link it there.--Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done I've gone ahead and promoted the original hook, which is hookier anyway. Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

prep 3

Cwmraeth Yoninah we have a special occasion request that wants to be in prep 3 --valereee (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Darnit Cwmhiraeth --valereee (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to stop working prep 2 to let someone decide whether to move something from 3 into it to make room for the spec occ --valereee (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
valereee you might want to link the approved nomination here. Prep/queue days tend to span two days, so this could be anything. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Here it is: Template:Did you know nominations/Mária Kráľovičová --valereee (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't moved to the special holding area until after I had filled Prep 3. I have slotted it in now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to promote it to prep 2 and noticed the request. I went to 3 to add a note and discovered it was full, didn't want to switch anything out without getting your/Yoninah's input first, so I moved it to the holding area when I posted here as I was going to be out of pocket for several hours. --valereee (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

prep 2

Iainmacintyre moonraker The hook "... that Lydia Manley Henry, the first woman medical graduate from the University of Sheffield, was awarded the Croix de Guerre?" is a little awkward. Would either of you have an issue with "... that Lydia Manley Henry, the first woman to graduate from the University of Sheffield's medical school, was awarded the Croix de Guerre? --valereee (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, works for me. Neater wording and still accurate. Thanks. Papamac (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Spokoyni: @Zanhe: @Cwmhiraeth:
While the hook is quirky, it's not at all clear that there are two different article links here. Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone who assumes there is one link and chooses to click either "Here" or "lies" will find that immediately there are two. I'm for giving our readers some credit on this one, as there is no other way to work this that doesn't result in throwing out the hook. As discussed earlier on this page, quirkiness should not always be sacrificed to idiotproofing. Spokoyni (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I basically agree with Spokoyni. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Disagree with you both. If someone clicks on one and ends up at that article, they may notice there's another - but more likely they will not, if they don't come back to the set and notice that only half the link has changed colour. This is why MOS:SEAOFBLUE exists, and why this doesn't work as a hook. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Spokoyni and Cwmhiraeth. Run-on links should be avoided if possible, but not at the cost of ruining an awesome hook. There's basically no way around it other than choosing a far less interesting hook such as ALT0 in the nom. There are no rules against run-on links in hooks, and even of there were, I'd argue for IAR in an ultrashort hook like this one. -Zanhe (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Nikkimaria --Khajidha (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Lol I agree with everyone. Yes, there will be readers who click on one link and miss one or even both of the others. But this hook is really great; if you go to the nom you can see it’s really interesting – it’s the guy’s actual epitaph. We’ve got a lot of ‘xyz were buried in abc cemetery’ hooks. It’s getting repetitive. This is different. It’s going to attract attention. And if readers don’t see all of the hooks, is that really a big deal? They’ll interact with at least one of them. I don’t think that concern is a reason to pull a great hook. I think it’s worth ignoring the rule against run-on links. And, yes, I know there will be criticism from others when it's about to go live. I think it's worth it. --valereee (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Alt0 is actually more interesting, in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree with the above. The hook is just confusing, and we shouldn't be violating the MOS on the main page. Suggest we switch to ALT0, which is interesting enough in itself, and maybe move it into a later picture slot since it won't be so quirky at that point. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't have had a problem with the hook mentioned above, until I realized that there were two bolded articles but the hook makes it look only like one. Now the problem here would be that readers might think that there's only one DYK article, so both articles wouldn't benefit from main page exposure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I moved the nomination to Prep 5 with the original hook and the image. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Referred nomination

Hello! I just want to know how long does it take for a new reviewer to check a DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Eduardo A. Roca. Thanks. --LLcentury (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

We have a bot that automatically moves approved nominations to the approved page. I have returned the nomination to WP:DYKN so more reviewers will see it. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, LLcentury! I'll answer you at the review. --valereee (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

prep 3

... that Werner Schneyder performed political kabarett programs with Dieter Hildebrandt and commentated on television on boxing at the 1984 Summer Olympics?

Commentated on television on boxing? Commented on television on boxing? Provided television commentary on boxing? --valereee (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Does 'commentated on television on' seem a little weird, even if correct? I'm thinking 'provided television commentary on' is less repetitive? --valereee (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking you are correct. Gerda Arendt, what do you think? — Maile (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker, so probably the last person qualified. Whatever feels best to the experts, valereee's reads good to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the prep wording to Valereee's suggestion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5 (tomorrow) - Sommen

Um, has anyone actually read this? I'm sure it's a fascinating subject, but it'd be a lot better if it was in comprehensible English, rather than some parts being machine-translated gibberish together with dozens of grammar and spelling errors. (This horror was the version that existed this morning), and this was the version that was passed, which is even worse. I and others are going through it now, so don't pull it (yet), but this should never, ever, have been passed. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Black Kite Perhaps for the DYK people to understand what you are talking about: diff between last edit before June 2, and the edits by multiple editors today. To be quite frank, I think it took more than the average DYK reviewer to see what was wrong. Lucky for us, you and some others noticed. — Maile (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The nominator is also a brand-new Wikipedia editor. So, double the reason to show them how it's supposed to be done, rather than just pulling it. Good for all of you. — Maile (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maile66, the reviewer and promoter has been here for years. That you think of it to take more than an average reviewer, to see through such gibberish, speaks volumes about the broken DYK process and the traits of those average reviewers, who bulk-reviews these stuff. ∯WBGconverse 06:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, the way you pointed me from ERRORS to here (the hook has been promoted in the meanwhile) whilst not even mentioning my bone of contention, is disgusting, ∯WBGconverse 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Your comment is inappropriate. The actions that happened here, according to the time stamp on the signatures, happened after you posted at WP:ERRORS. It is standard practice, and common courtesy, to provide a link to where a related talk thread on a subject matter is located. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread or post here, and nobody is preventing you from doing so. But please do not shoot the messenger. — Maile (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My concerns about the other aspect remains. We don't know about the mainstream acceptance of the particular theory (I don't have any knowledge about the lake but I've heard about several hypothesis in similar domains, which have been challenged, disproved, reproved and what not) and absent that, focusing on the particular aspect does nothing but a promotion of the researcher. ∯WBGconverse 06:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

prep 4

The likely time period is a guess many could make, but I'm wondering if it still might need the context of a year? --valereee (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added missing dates to the article. According to the source, he was detained December 8, 1941, and released in 1942. I've added 1942 to the hook in queue. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5 - less than 4 hours to go - Military geology and

There's nothing wrong with this hook, but wouldn't it be better in Queue 2? That would be the anniversary of D-Day June 6th Invasion of Normandy. Even though I see the Queue 2 lead hook is about D-Day.

— Maile (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably academic now, as the hook has already run, but I don't think the hook in question is really related to d day. It relates to planned German attacks on the UK, which were four years earlier in September 1940. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Birthday in June

7 June

It happened again, Template:Did you know nominations/Günther Schneider-Siemssen. Yesterday I saw the red link, looked at the German article, saw that yesterday was his DOD, and birthday is 7 June. Too tired yesterday, I began today, found a draft (!), worked on it, moved it, referenced bits (instead of the German fashion to have references only once), and nominated. With ignoring a few rules, that could be pictured on 7 June. This was a truly great and influential person! Just see obits. - Better with image later than without, I'd say. I said that in May, remember, about Wilhelmine Lübke and Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke, and the two are still waiting, DYK? And don't think all women in red created in March appeared already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Nor all dancers created in April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

15 June

Less urgent but coming up: Template:Did you know nominations/Rolf Riehm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

fix template

Can someone fix the template for the Rugg/Feldman entry in 3 June? Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NC-SLASH is the problem. The DYK system is looking for a subpage named "Feldman". I leave this to more knowledgeable DYK editors to correct, but that's the issue. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Rugg/Feldman benchmarks
Rugg/Feldman benchmarks
I'm not clear what the problem is? It's displaying on the nom page and the links seem to work? Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes It works OK if you click on it here. But from the nomination page, if you "Review or Comment", it seeks a template just for the Feldman benchmarks. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done Let me know if there's something I missed. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I had fixed it before you moved the template. In general, nom templates should not be moved. I left it at its new name, and fixed it again after your fix. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5 image hook

  • ... that Nawab Birjis Qadr (pictured) became a poet during his exile in Nepal?
@Royroydeb: @Cwmhiraeth: @Valereee:
This hook is simply not hooky enough for the image slot. It gives no context and conveys no interest to a general audience. Before moving it to a non-image slot, I'm wondering if a different hook can be proposed that would merit the lead slot? Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, I guess I was evaluating it more on the fabulous image than the mediocre hook. Totally open to a better hook! --valereee (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah Valereee @Royroydeb: @Cwmhiraeth: this needs a little copy editing. I'm going through it now, and one part does not make sense:
"According to his grandson Koukab Qadr, Birjis' wife Mehtab Ara Begum was supposedly the lone eye-witness to a dinner, wherein Birjis Qadr along with his son and other confidantes, were poisoned to death, by his siblings and jealous begums. Ara Begum, being pregnant, did not attend the dinner and hence, survived."
The first sentence is just a run-on sentence that can probably be fixed. But if Ara Begum did not attend the dinner, how was she a witness to the murder that occurred therein? Or am I mixed up, and these are two different people? — Maile (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, this article needs to be copy edited by someone who understands the subject matter. Punctuation needs to be checked. In addition to the above, it looks like (but is not clear) that Begum Hazrat Mahal and Begum Hazrat might be the same person, but I'm not sure. Begum Hazrat led a rebellion. It looks like she was the power behind the throne, but not sure. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, Maile. Like other articles by this page creator, it looks like this should have been sent to WP:GOCE before promotion. I'm returning it to the noms page now with notes to this effect. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Would that work for all of you? --valereee (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to quote the source that states the picture was looted by Soult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it's the same source that was already supporting that sentence: here says the artistic looting he carried out in Seville in the name of King José I ... The first one is The Immaculate Conception of the Venerables , work of Murillo, who had stolen in the church of the hospital of that name in Seville and auctioned in 1852 to the death of the marshal, --valereee (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
He does indeed seem to have looted it, so I would be happy with your ALT1a hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hold on. That source (footnote 3) does not mention the 1813 date of taking it to France, and the source at the end of the paragraph (footnote 2) puts it in Soult's provenance in 1813 but doesn't mention taking it to France. The article needs better sourcing for these hook facts. Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hm, I checked that exact thing...let me go see what I did... --valereee (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It's in the first source here "In 1813 The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables entered the collection of Marshal Soult..." --valereee (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: do you mind adding that cite next to the 1813 date in the article? It seems to me that this line needs to be rewritten anyway to state that he looted it, not that "it was taken to France":
  • In 1813, during the Peninsular War, the painting was taken to France, one of many looted by Marshal Jean-de-Dieu Soult, and remained in his family's possession until 1852; the painting's alternative name is derived from his. Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
done --valereee (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A belated response to the ping above: I'm perfectly happy with the word "looted", since it wasn't Soult's yet he took it from the owners as the head of an occupying army that was ultimately forced to withdraw. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Dates in {{DYKfile}}

Currently, images appearing in the DYK column are tagged by User:DYKUpdateBot with {{DYKfile}} after their respective appearances on the Main Page. It seems, though, that incorrect dates are being added to these templates. For example, File:HuiLanAndLionel1920 (cropped).jpg actually appeared in DYK on 5 June, while the file page erroneously says 6 June (the date it was taken off the Main Page and the template was added). This seems to be an issue going back several years. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

My nomination

Hi! Could anybody finish my DYK nomination for Eduardo A. Roca?, it's been a long time since promised re-review. Whether it's approved or not doesn't matter, but as a closure (if that's the word in English) to that nomination? Thanks indeed. --LLcentury (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury, that nom is only three weeks old; in DYK that's a mere infant. There are open noms almost six months old, and multiple noms from March and April. Just keep an eye on it, respond to anyone who helps, and in the meantime forget it and go improve the article and work on other things. Someone will be along to re-review, then someone else to promote, and it'll get there.
For future reference, noms get stalled if they aren't 100% perfect the first time through because (for instance) I can propose a hook to solve a problem, but then I can't review that hook. Someone else needs to come along and review it, and if that person identifies a further problem, we need yet another reviewer. The best way to prevent noms from getting stalled is to make sure they're the best they can possibly be when you make the nomination: that the article is in great shape, that the hook is the best it can be, and ideally that there are multiple good hooks. There's a learning curve for new nominators here; that's why we don't require nominators to review other nominations until they've nominated five times themselves. valereee (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Convenience link: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Eduardo_A._Roca --valereee (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, Perfectly understood, my apologies. --LLcentury (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury, no apology needed! DYK is kind of crazy, we know you're new here, and all of us have been right where you are! :D --valereee (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Apollo 11 anniversary and the Main Page

Please comment on the discussion at WT:TFA about the Main Page for 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can an incorrectly pulled DYK be re-run?

Hi. Thanks to an editor removing the DYK citation at Talk:Illustrated Tarock nearly a year after the event, I've just discovered that the original hook was pulled for supposedly "poor referencing"(see Special:Diff/849637561). In fact, the article was fully referenced; the problem undoubtedly was that a reviewer on the day of the DYK thought that the paragraphs under 'General rules' were unreferenced, but hadn't read the opening paragraph which makes very clear that the rules are all based on a single reference (Beck) with occasional variations in the Graz rules indicated by "G". The original reviewers accepted that covered all the subsequent rules paragraphs and that we didn't need to keep repeating the same reference, which is why it passed through the process.

So my question is: as the original logic for pulling wasn't right, can it be re-run? Although it's not necessary, I'm willing to add the same reference to every paragraph under 'General rules' if that helps to prevent a repetition of the mistake. Bermicourt (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say yes because it's not been given it's full due but I think a year is a bit of a stretch. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Ravenpuff I have reverted the removal of the DYK template from the article's talk page. Whether the pull was in error or not, the article spent 3 hours on the main page and no one should remove DYK templates from article talk pages. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks folks. It's a bit of a shame as it's quite a neat hook and the game is considered the 'queen' of European 3-handed tarock games, so it's highly rated. Hey ho. Bermicourt (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so here is an updated list with 28 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 14. Right now we have a total of 330 nominations, of which 150 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those that, as noted below, have been waiting for at least a month since first listed here to attract a new reviewer, to no avail, and those from January and February and need another pair of eyes to be resolved.

Over five months old:

Over four 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) 04:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

error promoting

I seem to have screwed up at Template:Did you know nominations/Aron Anderson -- when I closed the review, some of the discussion was left outside the boxed discussion. Can someone take a look and tell me what I did wrong? --valereee (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried to fix. If that was too simple - because not obeying the "don't change" orders - someone please do it more properly by first reverting the close, then make the change, and then close again. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda! Hope it was just that simple lol! --valereee (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
In general, when it ends too soon, in 99% of cases it's because the final line isn't the final line. Then just look where it is instead, and move. Normally it's simply because someone didn't follow it's message "do not write below ...", and nobody noticed. When you comment in any nom for whatever reason, check for that, - it happens a lot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: As Gerda says, the important thing is that the final "}}" (or "{{-}}}}" in the case of a picture hook) is the last thing on the page. It is a good thing to always check this before archiving the page. If the curly brackets are not there, I search through the page for "}}", and can usually identify them (from among the many others) and move them to the foot of the page. If they have gone entirely, you can add them yourself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks! I previewed, saw that there was a box, thought it was done correctly, and then once I'd published, realized that nope, I'd screwed up. I actually wondered whether the next step should have been to revert myself, wasn't sure if that might actually make the mess worse! :D Glad to know now to check for the curly brackets, I had no idea that was the likely problem. Always something new to learn here on WP! --valereee (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Revert and rearchive is the option I use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Note to self for future reference, thanks! --valereee (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if we could have some form of edit filter warning editors if they added something after the "do not add below this line" text. Far too many times nomination pages have been broken due to editors forgetting to follow that instruction. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 5 Airport malaria

Courtesy ping to Whispyhistory

FYI - I delinked the word publican, because it directs to "A pub, or public house", and I don't think a mosquito can transmit malaria to a building. The article says, " It was deduced that an infected mosquito accompanied aircrew to a pub near Gatwick and infected its landlord" and is sourced. But "publican" isn't going to be understand outside of the UK. The hook will run. I just delinked the word. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, I'm fine with that, but I understand 'publican' just fine here in Ohio. I checked the link, too, and saw that it directed to pub, and that publican is indeed mentioned in that article. I was actually more concerned with 'motorcyclist' as the woman was described as riding a motor scooter. That was the engvar I was actually wondering about. Does UK use the terms interchangeably? I didn't fix it because I don't know a non-awkward term for 'motor scooter rider' --valereee (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Being British myself, to me "publican" means owner of a pub/landlord. Personally I'd have preferred it if it did say Landlord but I guess we have to give a small tip of the hat to our friends on the other side of the Atlantic with their odd dialect of English. --The C of E (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems like good wording to me. I changed it to "the landlord of a a British pub" . — Maile (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, that 'a a' is in the hook --valereee (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have just removed some vandalism from Prep 4. Would it not be better is such administrative areas were protected against casual vandalism? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So far we argued that it's reasonable to let everybody make small fixes. The area is highly watched, so vandalism likely to be noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought that requiring autoconfirmed status would be reasonable. There's no call for IPs to be wandering around mucking up templates. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree about either autoconfirmed or registration required protection for the templates. Certainly not admin only like the queues because we do need, as Gerda pointed out, to give every registered user the right to make minor alterations or corrections. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. "administrative" (mis-)led me to thinking more restriction to admins only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Inherent in this proposal is an assumption that IPs are just going to be "wandering around mucking up templates" and not making helpful edits, which doesn't seem to be justified; certainly not to the extent that requires bypassing the usual protection procedures which work for almost all other pages. There's no need for protection after one isolated instance of vandalism. – Teratix ₵ 13:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: National Teacher of the Year

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.

@Barkeep49: @Cwmhiraeth: @Valereee:
This hook is pretty bland. The page has a lot more interesting things in it, like:
ALT2: ... that Rodney Robinson, the 2019 National Teacher of the Year who works in a juvenile detention center, has had to seek therapy to help process the trauma his students have experienced? Yoninah (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm too fresh off working on 1963 Freedom Ballot lol...I thought a teacher who makes sure his students are registered to vote was pretty interesting (besides being fabulous). Totally open to the other, though! --valereee (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought the juxtaposition of juvenile delinquents and registering to vote was hooky enough but am open to the idea it isn't. ALT 2 is a tad misleading as he sought therapy from his previous job (according to sources). This would be more factually accurate ALT 2A: "... that Rodney Robinson, the 2019 National Teacher of the Year had to seek therapy to help process the trauma his students have experienced?". I'm fine with that but my strong preference remains a hook that includes where he works because I think that's a really essential part of his story. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: are you saying that you didn't quote the source correctly? That it refers to his job at Armstrong High School? Yoninah (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah The source I attached it to is unclear about which students had been shot - the therapy is recent however. A previous source indicated it was a problem with students at his last school - I would not want to perpetuate an inference about his current students that is unfair. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: so remove that sentence from the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, The sentence in the article is correct. Your reformulation for DYK was not which is why I offered a tweak to bring it in line with the sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. Then I'll withdraw my objection to the hook currently in prep. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (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.

Queue 1: Billionaire Ted

  • ... that despite being parodied on World Wrestling Federation TV as bumbling hillbilly Billionaire Ted, Ted Turner reportedly found the sketches funny?

@Dr.K.: @The C of E: This hook is quite confusing. To someone who doesn't know what Billionaire Ted is, "the sketches" makes no sense, and are bumbling hillbillies not supposed to find things funny? I think it probably needs a rephrase. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Personally, I get the joke. But I have no objection to a rephrase by The C of E. When that happens, I can approve the modified hook. Thank you. Dr. K. 13:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we not simply just remove "bumbling hillbilly"? ... that despite being parodied on World Wrestling Federation TV as Billionaire Ted, Ted Turner reportedly found the sketches funny?
This gets across it was a parody of Ted, but that he enjoyed the character? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. If everyone else agrees, I'm good with that. Dr. K. 13:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The nomination has ALT1, which I personally prefer. It's almost a given that when the above hook hits the main page, if not before, someone will object to the Ted-Ted repetition, "...Billionaire Ted, Ted Turner..." — Maile (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that World Wrestling Federation parody Billionaire Ted caused the USA Network to demand it be stopped due to it being perceived as going from humorous to malicious? Source: ESPN
I think I prefer Lee's wording, if only because it shows the contrast better while Amakuru's is more straight to the point, which probably doesn't work as good in a humor-based hook like this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I object, I prefer the original as passed because otherwise this takes the sting out that was present in the original. Or put the ALT in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
<sigh> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the sting", but anyway... since there's only 15 minutes left and not quite a consensus on what to put, I've replaced it for now. (With a different wrestling-related hook). Please agree something on the nomination page and then it can be re-promoted. Thanks all  — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I said I was happy to use the ALT. The reason I stated it took the sting out was by the removal of the bumbling hillbilly line because I believe that would have been the main thing used to hook people in. I see no policy based reason for it to be changed when it was already cleared in the nominations page and waited for a month before being promoted. So please @Amakuru: can we put it back in the next queue as soon as possible? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, the hooky part about the hook is that Ted Turner found a parody of his funny, and not the hillbilly line. The hook works well without it, and in fact I don't even think readers would care about it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Fine, just put either back in the next prep @Narutolovehinata5:. I'm getting tired of all this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As Amakuru was the one who pulled from prep, I'd like to hear their comments first before re-promoting; in any case I'm not sure if they can promote their own suggested hook, even if it was just a minor change. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphan articles

In the past, there have been some nominations that were put on hold as the subject articles were orphans (i.e. had no incoming links). However, as far as I can tell, there's nothing in either the main rules nor the supplementary guidelines on actually requiring articles to not be orphans before they can qualify (please correct me if I'm wrong). Can we have some clarification on this matter so that, if there is indeed consensus to have this rule, it can be added to WP:DYKSG? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

When this was discussed before, it was argued that articles with an orphan tag, or a lead-too-short tag, should be excluded from DYK, as no "dispute" tags are allowed. The best solution is not to exclude it from DYK but to simply de-orphan it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, Cwmhiraeth Indeed, practice at DYK is to de-orphan the article, or just remove the tag. That's mostly just automatically kicked out by a bot if the new article is not linked to others. An orphan tag is not a "dispute tag" and has no validity for putting an article on hold. Dispute tags are mentioned are in the Supplementary Rules D5 "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags." The link shows all dispute tags, and an orphan tag is not one of them. There is no validation to hold up a nomination because of an orphan tag. Per WP:ORPHAN, the whole issue of orphans is merely a process for building the encyclopedia, not indication of an error. Maile (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about multi-article nominations

When creating a DYK nom with multiple articles is it (ideally) necessary to transclude the nomination page on the talk pages of all involved articles? Or should it be done only for the first article in the nomination? SD0001 (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

SD0001 - It's not manditory to do regardless in my opinion as the instructions just say "consider adding". If you want to add to both, go ahead. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4 and 5

I think prep 4 and 5 are finished so we should promote queue 4 and 5 14.232.160.139 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Wax

The nominator, according to their talk page, has seven DYK credits, while the QPQ tool says they only have three. It appears that their last DYK credit was in 2012 and they are unfamiliar with the QPQ rule (it appears to not have been in place during their first DYK nominations). Considering the circumstances, can we do an WP:IAR here and treat the editor as a new nominator for the purposes of WP:DYK, thus exempting them from QPQ? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No objection --valereee (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6 and 1

Should we promote Prep 6 and Prep 1? 14.232.160.139 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Preps are promoted on a regular schedule, there is usually no need to leave a message here requesting to do so, unless there are no preps that are currently up on queue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Preps are not promoted so quickly to queue so that editors can continue to modify them. Just now, for example, I noticed that Prep 6 had 7 non-biography hooks in a 9-hook set, and went about shuffling and adding more bio hooks. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (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 #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Increase number of hooks?

Yoninah recently posed the question on my talk page of whether or not we should increase the number of hooks in each Prep set, due to hooks getting shorter and taking less space. Ergo, admins having to recycle old hooks to balance the main page. Looking over the hooks of 2019, I believe Yoninah is dead-on about the situation.

Main page balance is dependent upon contents of all the sections there, and that is impossible to predict. I recycled an old hook for today's main page balance. For tomorrow's main page, I have recycled two old hooks for balance. We currently have 352 nominations, 152 of which have been approved. 15 of the approved nominations are scheduled for special days.

Pinging BlueMoonset, Amakuru, David Levy, Casliber, Vanamonde93, Gatoclass, Mandarax, Cwmhiraeth, Narutolovehinata5, Valereee, The C of E. Not intending to leave anyone out, but pinging who has been doing the latest promotions, etc. All commenters welcome. - please feel free to share thoughts on this issue. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Maile66, I was actually wondering about that -- why is DYK always short and never long? I have never had a set come out too long, but I have worried many times whether a set was going to end up awkwardly short and ended up skipping over short hooks because of it. --valereee (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the suggestion. Nine hooks will about stabilise the backlog and ten hooks would begin to reduce it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. More often than not DYK is ending up lower than OTD. I think the latter has started favouring loner hooks perhaps. Although oddly I had to put in one more OTD today because the DYK was clearly below it. Probably after the aforementioned addition of a new hook. Having nine regularly is fine though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal. If we have to recycle, we should be promoting more. There's a large-ish backlog, which really shouldn't be there if we had more hooks. Makes total sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support increasing number of hooks as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As a starting point while we await comment from others, would someone do the honors to promote/move a 9th hook into Prep 4? We can deal with the other preps after more input here. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
My question here is why increase the number of hooks instead of doing two sets per day, as we did in the past whenever there was a large backlog. Personally I would prefer the one or two more hooks as opposed to the two sets since the latter requires more effort and more vetting, it's more of a question of why this wasn't done earlier. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The backlog is not the issue. The main page visual balance is the issue. There should not be several lines of blank space beneath any section with the section next to it being much longer, like there is right now under DYK and OTD. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, a blurb is frequently removed from ITN (and more rarely from OTD) to balance the page. Nominators are getting better at writing shorter hooks at DYK. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, could you adjust the coding so that each prep set has nine slots? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, Queue 4 next in line. We promoted this with 9 hooks. And, yet, I had to add a 10th, recycled from May 31, 2018. Looking through 2018, short hooks were already becoming an issue then. So, at the very least, 9-hook sets might be the norm in the foreseeable future. — Maile (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maile, I noticed that too. But I wonder how interesting are 9- and 10-hook sets filling the main page? Perhaps we really should go to twice-a-day 8-hook sets for a while. Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
What would that do? Wasn't 9 hooks your idea? This is about balancing the main page, not dealing with a backlog. One set or multiple sets per day is not the balancing factor. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it was your idea :) And I agree with it, but now that we're running a 10-hook set, I think it looks like a wall of text. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
How quickly we humans forget. It was you. A definite example for keeping these things at WT:DYK. :) — Maile (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile I remember that note. It was in response to your adding more hooks to balance the set. I wasn't suggested anything, just asking if this was the new direction. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, ,either direction, as far as I'm concerned, the number of hooks per set should be up to the DYK regulars. If they think we should stay at 9 for a while, fine. If they think we should go back to 8, that's fine also. Whatever. — Maile (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. It appears that consensus is for 9 hooks. Instead of increasing that to ten, maybe the administrator could find a few longer hooks to swap into the set from later prep sets, keeping to the bio/non-bio alternating format. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Clarification? Are you suggesting that when it comes time to promote to Queue, the admin should have the flexibility to shuffle hooks from within the Preps? Because I think some already do that, to a small degree. The thing is, nobody is really going to be able to assess the main page preview until its in the lead Queue. Again, we face the uncertainty of the other sections making last-minute changes to theirs.— Maile (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, alternate hooks could be pulled from the prep sets, since we non-administrators are able to refill those sets, as opposed to queues which only administrators can fiddle with. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nine hooks is too many IMO, per Yoninah's "wall of text" comment. It's acceptable to do it occasionally when the set is too short but I don't think it should become the norm. Also, if we routinely run nine hooks, won't that encourage the other projects to start running longer sets as well? There was a discussion at some point about adjusting the column widths from day to day to keep the page balanced - that would be a better longterm solution I think. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all good points. I just wish we would settle this once and for all, with nobody changing their mind. So we can quit diddling with the template. And somebody else besides me make the final adjustments of whatever is needed. I'm not making anymore adjustments on request. Gatoclass if you want to take it back to 8 hooks, please feel free to do so. Quite frankly, I really don't care if DYK looks shorter or longer than any other section on the main page. I doubt the casual reader even notices. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Short sets don't bother me a great deal either Maile, unless they are very short, in which case the addition of an extra hook doesn't hurt. But to run nine hooks routinely is not a good solution IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass this might be a good place to say we should decide once and for all how many hooks we have on the main page. Period. No changing back and forth when someone thinks otherwise. Are other MP sections altering their content based on what everybody else does? I don't think so. This back and forth on the number of hooks has been happening because some GF individuals like the aesthetics of everything looking neat and tidy. We can't control if the other sections run long or short, and we should not be concerned about bringing up the rear to make it all fit into a neat package on the main page. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I'm in favour of retaining a degree of flexibility about these things, so I'd be reluctant to set any particular number in stone. But I agree we shouldn't fuss too much about a line or two of whitespace. You are not under any obligation to please any "GF individuals" who think otherwise, after all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Very well. I personally will not be again changing the number of hooks in a set; I leave it up to others. Yoninah you might be interested to know that Template:Did you know/Clear is what sets the number of hooks, and is not a protected template. You can edit it. — Maile (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
So what are we doing? The current set on the main page has 9 hooks and is still short. I'm all for going back to 8 hooks, which is much easier to assemble than 9, and keeping an eye out for balancing the set with fewer short hooks. @Gatoclass: could I reset the number of hooks to 8? Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I BOLDly returned the prep sets to 8 hooks, and made all the filled prep sets 8 hooks too (reversing a ton of work I did to balance the 9-hook sets last week). Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thumbs up Great! — Maile (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

prep 4 cont

I'm still fretting over this one. Piotrus The C of E Yoninah

... that Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others held that British Christian bakers can refuse to make a cake supporting gay marriage if they profoundly disagree with the message on it?

They aren't disagreeing with the message on it, they're disagreeing with the message they're being asked to put on it. It's an awkwardness I don't know how to fix without completely recasting the sentence. The hook is already 183 characters, so we can't add 'they'd been asked to put' to the hook, even if that didn't sound clunky too. --valereee (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

What about "disagree with the suggested message?" or similar word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, maybe 'disagree with the specified message' or 'requested message'? --valereee (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand your problem, valereee. The hook says they disagree with the message on the cake. It's implied that they're being asked to write this message. Yoninah (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please see source below. This seems to be the ruling itself.
"Lee (Respondent) v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland) and two references by the AG for NI of devolution issues to the Supreme Court pursuant to paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the NI Act 1998" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 2019-05-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
"Profoundly" is only mentioned once in the entirety of its 29 pages. The ruling's 29 pages pretty much focus on the argument that the bakers were not discriminating against the lifestyle, but were against putting the message on the cake. That is stated in many places in the ruling, but I don't see that the ruling uses "profoundly" in its conclusion. We should reconsider whether the hook, infobox and article section of the judgement should include "profoundly". "Profoundly" is a very subjective term, and I don't see how it can be quantified as a ruling terminology. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, my concern is that the cake isn't in existence yet, so they can't disagree with the message on it. The message isn't on it yet. They can only disagree with the message they're being asked to put on it. It's just awkward, for me. --valereee (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The other problem with this hook is that although in the particular case Asher was refusing to do it because of his Christian beliefs, the ruling actually says that anyone, of any religious belief, cannot be compelled to promote any message (religion-related or not) that they disagree with. So whilst the hook is technically correct, it's misleading in that it suggests the ruling is only relevant to gay marriage or Christians. It isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Black Kite, that was discussed at the review here, the nom wanted to keep it focussed on Christians. --valereee (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The ALT1a suggested by Yoninah actually solves the problem: ... that a 2018 UK Supreme Court decision held that British Christian bakers cannot be forced to decorate a cake to read "Support Gay Marriage" if they profoundly disagree with the message?
Not sure why nom didn't like that one. --valereee (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It's still misleading. It suggests the ruling is only relevant to Christians and gay marriage, when it would equally apply to, say, a Muslim who didn't want to decorate a cake with an anti-immigration message. Or indeed a Manchester United fan who didn't want to make a cake saying that Liverpool were the best team ever. You really need something like ... that a 2018 UK Supreme Court decision held that British bakers cannot be forced to decorate a cake with a message that they profoundly disagree with? Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It certainly seems to apply to any baker/any message and perhaps to any creator of an item that carries a message. I'm not sure that makes it actually misleading? --valereee (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it is - if I hadn't heard of the case, I would have assumed from the hook that the court had made a ruling solely on Christians and gay marriage cakes - wouldn't you? Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hm...I think it certainly would have made me wonder whether the ruling was broader than simply Christians/gay marriage. I'm not sure it would have made me feel mislead. But I take your point. --valereee (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've moved the hook to a later prep while the wording issues are being sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

So to get this discussion moving: should we change the hook wording to Black Kite's suggestion, or go with ALT1a? @Piotrus, The C of E, Yoninah, Valereee, Maile66, and Lee Vilenski: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite's suggestion is good, but strike "profoundly". Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Definitely strike "profoundly", since it's not part of the wording of the court's conclusion. If the UK Supreme Court made "profoundly" part of its ruling, that would leave a legal loophole to any subsequent case where a business objected to the message, but did not prove to the satisfaction of the court that they "profoundly" objected. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I like Yoninah's ALT1a, fine without the profoundly in that one --valereee (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
As a compromise, and also to reflect the wording used in the article, I've changed the hook wording to Black Kite's suggestion. If The C of E or any other editor has any objections, please state so on this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No, no, no. That one completely takes away all the hookyness by removing the references to Christians and gay marriage. I have amended it to remove the "profoundly" in it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: The relevant quote in the article says this: They held that no-one could be forced to promote a belief or opinion which they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, then we really shouldn't be bringing a particular religion, or else into this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Convenience link to nom and to prep
I do understand where C of E is coming from in that the juxtaposition of gay marriage/Christian makes the hook more interesting. The ruling really is about no one being forced to produce a message with which they disagree. Christians/gay marriage is why this specific case got to the courts. This one feels wordy, but maybe as a place to start:

ALT2: … that in a case concerning Christian bakers asked to decorate a cake in support of gay marriage, British courts ruled that no one could be forced to produce a message with which they disagree?

--valereee (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes - that's good. (I'd replace "produce" with "promote" though, as that's the wording in the article). Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite, oh, good one! Done! --valereee (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

prep 1

mediation of crowd control

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 and Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

... that in 2016 the Indian Army advocated mediation of crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir with pepper guns, sonic cannons, and chili grenades?

I don't know what "mediation of crowd control" means. The article and source say the government advocated replacing the use of guns with the use of less-lethal weapons. I don't think "mediation" is the word we're looking for. --valereee (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I thought to change it in prep, and will do so now, to:
ALT1: ... that in 2016 the Indian Army advised replacing pellet guns with non-lethal pepper guns, sonic cannons, and chili grenades for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir? Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Way better, I think. It does necessarily put the article last. --valereee (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • valereee I am the nom here from WikiProject India and have been struggling on the talk page to find common ground for all parties associated with this controversial article. I have gone through the discussion above and I strongly support ALT1. The title has been debated on the talk page.here is a quick summary. ALT2 may be unacceptable to some editors because they don't prefer being called rioters. The term they use for themselves is protestors. The neutral media uses the term violent clashes / violent protests. And a large number of sources on the topic does use "crowd control" which is a catch all term used by law enforcement agencies world wide that includes (in the context of Kashmir) Violent protests, peaceful protests, riots, violent clashes, etc. I personally am ok with ALT2 but i am sure this will lead to folks being unhappy when this goes to the main page. So ALT1 seems like a common ground. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    DBigXray, thanks so much! Do you think 'violent protests' instead of 'violent rioters' would work? --valereee (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • valereee, using "violent Protestors" will be clinging to a particular POV. The ALT2 states "violent riots" and not rioters, so this is not that offensive. These incidents are basically violent clashes also called violent riots. So if you insist then I would probably suggest using ALT2 here. ALT1 will still be my first preference, but I leave the final decision to you guys. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    DBigXray, not sure if you noticed but I actually said violent protests, not violent protestors -- that is, calling the incidents violent rather than calling the people violent -- wasn't sure if that makes any damn difference in this kind of POV issue. Trying to thread the needle, here. --valereee (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry my bad. I corrected my comment above. The people involved call it "protest" (without using the word violent, although they throw stones to kill), The government calls it "violent attack" on the scurity forces. I guess, we are good calling it "violent riots" as a middle path, which is what it is as per the actual definition of the word.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke

Another language issue, same set, image hook Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke:

... *ALT3 ... that Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke saved the memory and the paintings of her first husband, August Macke, who portrayed her more than 200 times (example pictured)?

"saved the memory and the paintings" is strange. The source cited for the hook, which is in German, uses the word memory only twice, and neither in this context. It uses the word memoirs, but only to describe a book. I'm again wondering if it's a translation issue. Pinging nom Gerda Arendt for help. --valereee (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The overly long passage I tried to summarize is "She began in 1915 to write about their love and marriage, episodes of family life, and travels and meetings with artists, mainly to allow their sons to know their father, or as she put it, to preserve an image of their father ("ein Bild ihres Vaters zu bewahren")." If that's too hard to summarize - probably "preserved" would be better than "saved" for the episodes from life - we can cut it. That hook will "sell" per the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Valereee
*ALT4 ... that after the death of her husband August Macke, writer Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke chronicled their life together, and preserved his paintings that included 200 of her (example pictured), as a legacy for their children? — Maile (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, yes, I see why that was a challenge. That's a lot to fit into a one-sentence 200-characters hook already, and then we add to it that she was painted by him 200 times. Could we divide this into two different hooks? One about the paitings, which would ideally then be an image hook, and one about a mother preserving the legacy of their dead father for her children, which wouldn't necessarily be an image hook? --valereee (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I wrote ALT4. It would be easy to divide the hook and come up with two separate hooks. But I know Gerda Arendt may have a different vision for this, so I'll let her come up with the ALTs. — Maile (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I more or less suggested to focus on the image topic, saying the hook will sell by the image, which I think is a must, - for how he saw her. It's also tough to combine the two things, because the writing began in World War 1, and the saving from bombing in World War II. I would not call her a writer, - it wasn't professional writing, just born from the urgency to give her children an image of their father.
ALT5: that during World War II, Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke saved the paintings of her first husband, August Macke, who portrayed her more than 200 times (example pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, that works for me. I tried to make the article consistent with this and the source. I don't see in the source that she "moved" the paintings, although obviously she must have moved them to safety or she couldn't have saved them. Do you happen to know of a source that specifies that? --valereee (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The sentence in German is "Elisabeth lagerte das Werk Mackes aus ihrem Berliner Haus aus und rettete es so vor der Zerstörung." (moved them from the Berlin house) - Sigh, no source, - there will be one, but we don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, oh, no, that actually is exactly what I was looking for! It says she moved them. Was she saving them from something, or just saving them as in keeping them rather than leaving them behind or selling them or whatever? Saving can mean so many things in English! :D --valereee (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I found something, pp 116–118, will add to the article. She moved the paintings from the Berlin house that was afterwards bombed. If that can be worded better fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, that's great! Thank you for the extra work. I think then ALT5 . --valereee (talk) valereee (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm replacing the hook in prep with ALT5, substituting "safeguarded" for "saved" so it makes sense:
ALT5a: ... that during World War II, Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke safeguarded the paintings of her first husband, August Macke, who portrayed her more than 200 times (example pictured)? Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hello all, I just wanted to ask a quick question about a requirement for DYK articles. My article I've recently nominated - Bank of England £100,000,000 note (Template:Did you know nominations/Bank of England £100,000,000 note) - was first created by me on 28 April 2019‎ and so therefore is not considered new in terms of creation as it is clearly older than 7 days. However in terms of the minimum 5x expansion, does the expansion have to be in terms of total number of characters (including spaces, infoboxes, notes and refs, links, symbols like [ { etc...) or is it only in terms of actual content like pure, hearty writing. I'm asking this because, before expansion, the article (a stub) contained simply a 1 sentence lede for all the content and a barely filled out infobox, however it was around 2400+ characters big due to things like random external links and a massive unfilled infobox and, therefore, in terms of characters I've only expanded it by, say, 3x (if it was in terms of content it would be expanded by around 15x-20x). TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheBestEditorInEngland: For the 5x requirement, you only need to make sure that the prose content (i.e. just text, not tables/infoboxes/references/etc.) was 5x longer than what was in the article when you started expanding it. There's the DYK check tool which can make checking this a lot easier; I recommend you use it even when writing articles since it helps you keep track of length and other requirements. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
... and, according to DYKcheck, 5x expansion began on 10 June. You nominated it on 11 June, so your timing was perfectly acceptable. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, highly recommend DYKcheck, as it's how most of us review the articles in the first place. BTW, the idea of a 100 million pound note even existing is exactly the sort of thing DYK is designed for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for clearing that up for me! TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4:Crab in Macau

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 and Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nanhaipotamon

... that researchers discovered a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhaipotamon, in Macau, one of the most densely-populated regions on Earth?

Not clear from hook how Macau being densely populated has any relation to discovery of a new species? I see it mentioned also in the article and abstract of the source, but no indication why it's relevant. It feels like random information. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think it means that the crabs were mostly populated in Macau, but finding something where it most lives seems quite normal to me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The point is that in a densely populated area you do not expect to find a species which has not previously been described and is therefore new to science. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you think there's a way to pull that in? Like, "...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhalpotamon, in one of the world's most densely populated areas?" or something like that? --valereee (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, much of the appeal of the hook was that it was discovered in Macau, so while sometimes vagueness adds to the hookiness of hooks, this doesn't appear to be such a case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We might be able to shoehorn Macau in...
ALT2 ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhaipotamon, in one of the world's most densely-populated areas, Macau?
ALT3 ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab in one of the world's most densely-populated areas, Macau?
--valereee (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's go with:
ALT3a: ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab in Macau, one of the world's most densely-populated areas? Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Why are we saying "surprised"? It's not in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Good point. There's no evidence that anyone was surprised about it. Also, given the article is about a genus, having a link referring to a "species" seems a bit WP:EASTEREGG maybe. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The hook is now in Prep 5. If nothing is done about it in the next 24 hours, I'll return it to the noms page for further work. Pinging nominator @Bubbleleg96:. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, Amakuru, Lee Vilenski, Cwmhiraeth, and Narutolovehinata5: This most likely will have to be reconciled without the nominator/article creator. This article has been their only contribution since one edit in 2018, and several edits in Nov-Dec 2017. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, Amakuru, Lee Vilenski, Cwmhiraeth, Narutolovehinata5, and Maile66: Macau is a tourist destination and very small and densly-populated place. So even in places where you would never expect it, researchers still discover new species, and, apparently, at the same time not many people seem to care for their close-by environment. That is the whole point of the hook and the article. I am not entirely sure how to change it without removing its appeal... Bubbleleg96 06:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering the issues with the new proposals, how about:

Seems to better reflect the article, and I personally think the mention of Macau itself is hooky enough even without the mention of densest places, though I suppose others may disagree. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

So none of these sources make any references to it being somehow unexpected to find new species in places like Macau? Is it SYNTHy for us to develop a hook around that? We're putting the two points into one sentence, so implying there's a connection and that it's relevant information. No one else is connecting the new species vs. the dense population? Maybe it's just that all these sources are scientific publications and it's just understood? I agree it's fascinating, but shouldn't someone be pointing it out? --valereee (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
ETA: the source that supports the hook hereis a paper about the freshwater crabs in Macau. The introduction starts with a short paragraph describing Macau, mentioning it's a gambling capital and densely populated. The next paragraph starts with The freshwater crabs of Macau have not been scientifically documented to the best of our knowledge. So it's probably not unexpected that a new species has been found, even in a densely populated area. --valereee (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Its not unusual to find new species in densely populated areas. It just takes someone with the required knowledge to identify them making an effort to look for them. Although its normally insects (you would be surprised what you can find even in the average city yard/garden), its unsurprising that a city on the banks of a huge estuary has found crabs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Based on the numerous opinions here pointing out problems with the premise of the hook, I've returned it to WP:DYKN for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, and Only in death: It is just my opinion, but even if the freshwater crab fauna of a certain place has not been studied to the best of our knowledge, would you always expect new species everywhere? That is to say, in Zhuhai and adjacent areas, Nanhaipotamon guangdongense is pretty common and widespread and even occurs on Qi'ao island, which is farther away from the mainland than Macau. So I'd have expected N. guangdongense to occur in Macau, not a new species. This new species is indeed endemic, only known from Macau, although extensive survey efforts in the surrounding areas have been made. @Only in death: I agree that new insect species are constantly discovered even in big, densely-populated cities, but these crabs are pretty big (up to 4 cm carapace width) and abundant where they live (although mostly nocturnal, they come out at day after heavy rainfalls). So as a comparative example, wouldn´t you be surprised to find a new species of 4 cm long stag beetle, which is endemic to a small area, which also happens to be full of people? What´s more, Nanhaipotamon crabs are collected for the pet trade and have been known as a food source in some places, so there is even a certain economic value to them. Of course, I can talk about this all day and it is up to you to believe me, because most of this information has not been officially reported in scientific publications yet. Nanhaipotamon crabs and freshwater crabs in general are an incredibly understudied group. I may be biased since I am really interested in these crabs, but just as a comparison, when a new species of micro-mangrove crab was described from mangroves in Hong Kong, this was featured in a similar fashion, as beeing unexpected during a routine survey of mangroves [1]
Bubbleleg96 (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170411104534.htm

Tech question re DYKUpdateBot/Errors

DYKUpdateBot/Errors kicked off this error three minutes before it should have moved the hooks to the main page:

Could not tag Siege of Calais (1346–1347) by ArticleHistory; please tag article manually

Ten minutes later the bot posted that all errors had been cleared, and moved the hooks to the main page. In checking Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347), the bot did not add the usual DYK template of the nomination appearing on the main page. I added it manually.

Can someone please advise what the bot saw as an error, so that we can avoid/correct the issue in advance next time? — Maile (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Shubinator, who wrote the bot, and is likely to know what would cause that error to be generated. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

New script for making DYK nominations

Those who regularly create DYK nominations may want to use this new script - User:SD0001/DYK-helper, featuring a live character counter to make sure your hooks stay within the 200-char limit. It also displays the prose size, and automatically transcludes the nomination to T:DYKT and article talk pages. Any cool new feature suggestions or bug reports or other feedback is most welcome. SD0001 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

SD0001, way cool! Is it possible for others besides the nom to use portions of the script? That is, if I start reviewing an article and discover the nom hasn't been transcluded to the article talk, will that be obvious to me and will this (or can this be tweaked to) allow me to just push a button and make that happen? Sorry for my ignorance of how scripts run. --valereee (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not possible as of now. Though it'll be easy to tweak the script to do that, or maybe to integrate that functionality with any existing DYK reviewing scripts. Will look into it. SD0001 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SD0001, Valereee - Unless we see a special request on this talk page, the nomination would have to be transcluded for reviewers to even know it's there. So at this point, I guess it falls on the nominator to make sure it transcluded to the correct page. If not, they could add it manually, or ask someone here to transclude it for them. Since a lot of nominators are new to the process, I'm also guessing we also retain the current method for those who won't have the script loaded. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Has there been historical objection to asking noms to add the transclusion to the article talk page, as the OP in the above convo says? No matter how wrongheaded he is about the trains thing, it does seem like having folks who've got an article on their watchlist see it's been nom'd at DYK would be productive to ensuring hooks and articles are in the best possible shape, and their scrutiny of hooks would almost have to be helpful. But maybe I'm missing something there. --valereee (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee I wasn't talking about the trains thing. That's not for this thread. I was responding to your comment above about whether or not we would be able to see if the new script above transcluded the nomination to T:DYKT.— Maile (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: valeree is clearly talking about transcluding of nomination to article talk pages, not to T:DYKT. SD0001 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SD0001 she said "T:DYKT and article talk pages" in her comment. Right now, each nominator has to manually transclude their nomination to T:DYKT. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, Going by the quoted text, you're probably mistaking what I wrote in the original post with what she said. While I understand transclusion to T:DYKT is compulsory, transclusion to article talk page as well is recommended at Template:T:TDYK/editintro. The script automates all these steps, so that the nominator doesn't have to do them manually. The script is only there to make life easier, it doesn't replace any existing process, or indeed cause any visible changes to the DYK process. SD0001 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a fantastic adition. Well done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The hook character counting algorithm is incorrect. It apparently doesn't count any italicized text. While "(pictured)" doesn't count, other italicized text does. In the example on the script page, "Golem" should be counted, and the total should be 85 rather than 80. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 Fixed Italicised text that is not in brackets will now be counted. SD0001 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Jedermann

Ellen Schwiers is in the next queue, playing the role of the Buhlschaft in a play and a film. A translation of Buhlschaft, Paramour, has been added, but I am not too happy. Paramour is not mentioned in the play, nor in the film. When we say that a singer plays Carmen, we leave the role name without translating it to "Song" although that is what it means. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: the problem was that you wrote in the hook, "the Buhlschaft", which made me wonder what a Buhlschaft was. Usually you just write the role piped to the play: [[Jedermann (play)|Buhlschaft]], without the definite article. Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, my mistake. In German, you would say "die Buhlschaft" and "die Carmen", - still too much in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, we'll delete the "the". But the hook is in the queue. @Maile66: @Amakuru: could you change the hook to:
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Re-pinging Maile. Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: please delete "the" before the role. It should read: who starred as Buhlschaft at the Salzburg Festival. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

a script

I have created a script which adds Did You Know link to the top toolbar. Can you check it out User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA/DYK___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this. Good to have. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oldest DYK nominations needing reviewers

I am relisting older nominations which need a reviewer to help out.

Over 6 months old
Over 3 months old
Over 2 months old
7 to 8 weeks old
Over 1 month old
Other nominations from May

Thanks for helping out. Flibirigit (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2019 (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 #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4, next on the main page

Template:Did you know nominations/Edith Campbell - sorry this is so late. Pinging Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy. I just noticed:

  • ... that Canadian nurse Edith Campbell (pictured) received the Military Medal for her bravery during enemy air raids on her hospital in Étaples, France, during the First World War?

It wasn't "her hospital", even though the sources worded it that way. She didn't build it. The hook doesn't say who the enemy was. I have made a last-minute change to the hook.

  • ... that Edith Campbell (pictured) served as a nurse at the No. 1 Canadian General Hospital in Étaples, France during the First World War, receiving the British Military Medal for bravery during German air raids?

The new hook is 196 characters. The medal linked is British. I don't see that Canada had a Military Medal. But if they did, then the one in the hook needs to be unlinked. Please feel free to revert me or otherwise make a change. But the hook needed clarification. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: please move the hook back to prep and replace it with something else. It's not hooky anymore. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: please swap it with Herbert Maryon in Prep 2, also by Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
She got the British Military Medal. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I altered the hook, then some other admin needs to move it, if it needs to be moved. I believe it's hooky. So, all other admins invited to do their thing. Amakuru, David Levy, Gatoclass, Casliber, whoever is around. — Maile (talk)

OK,  Done. Personally I have no particular opinion on whether it was hooky or not, but if people want more time to think about it then that's probably for the best, isn't it... (and just to note as well, the Herbert Maryon hook is actually by Usernameunique rather than Phil and Whispy). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Meh ... "whatever" on the rest. Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy should certainly have their say on this, any direction it goes. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Main page error

Looks like Herbert Maryon got switched to today, but the photo did not. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Golden_State_Killer

My friends, how did a hook slip through stating that an unconvicted suspect is one of the most notorious serial killers in history --

... that the "Golden State Killer" was actually born in New York?

-- not to mention that there are a dozen far more interesting facts in the article that could have been used (the suspect is a former policeman, he was identified using an extraordinary new technique, etc etc)? EEng 15:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess the quotation marks are shorthand for "alleged"? You see that in tabloids all the time. Hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? I added "suspected" and that's the way it appeared on the main page; see WP:DYKA for June 14. I agree the hook wasn't the best, but what's done is done. Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies to Yoninah, who did indeed add suspected -- I was looking at the nom page, which doesn't have that word. EEng 01:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we shouldn't be endorsing this sort of attribution. I don't really see how it's an interesting hook even if it were definite. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention it's not even hooky for the 90% of the world that doesn't know what the "Golden State" is. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Turns out I was wrong about the BLP issue (see the interchange between Yoninah and me a few posts up from here) but the point that the hook isn't hooky remains. EEng 01:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
While this issue is resolved (it seems) I think it best to avoid ascribing a factual element of a suspected criminal to the "criminal identity" (eg "Golden State Killer" here, since we would really be saying is that "The alleged suspect believed to the "Golden State Killer" is from New York", which starts to wash back into BLP problematic territory (pending conviction). --Masem (t) 01:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Nikolai Yegipko

@Amakuru, Yoninah, Valereee, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't know who is around right now, and it's about 3 hours to promotion. Could we shuffle another hook in place of Nikolai Yegipko, and put this Hero of the Soviet Union in a lead hook somewhere? I don't mean moving Al Hoceima National Park. Leave Yegipko's hook as written, but make it a lead hook somewhere? Take a good look at his image. It's excellent quality, and an interesting article (AGF on Russian sourcing). And this would make a great lead hook. Would anybody be willing to do a swap? — Maile (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds a good plan. I'll look at it now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That gives us two bio portrait hooks in a row for now, but we can work that out when we've got another empty prep --valereee (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I've also moved prep 3 up to queue 3 and moved the Nikolai hook out to prep 3, to avoid the issue mentioned by Valereee above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, why do you say the image is "excellent quality"? It's awfully dark at thumbnail size, and being a little blurry doesn't help. Can one of our image experts fix this up somehow?
It doesn't look so blurry on mine, but that could either be my browser or monitor or anything. I agree it could be lightened up. We have time, if someone here can work a little magic on the image.— Maile (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm also wondering why the new prep sets are appearing with nine hook slots when I inputted eight slots at Template:Did you know/Clear? Also, the new sets have a question mark after each hook ... strange. Yoninah (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps Amakuru is using an old 9-hook template copy? — Maile (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I was told my Maile on my talk page to be resetting it to nine hook versions for now, and it looks like there was consensus from the discussion above to do that, given the daily problems with balance. @Yoninah: why did you change it back to eight? There should be a fresh discussion if we want to reverse the earlier one.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru you have to go back up and read the rest of the thread on WT:DYK#Increase_number_of_hooks?. This whole issue gives me a headache. Start where it says "FYI, Queue 4 next in line ... ". I've thrown in the towel on that issue. — Maile (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: Ah, I see. So one person objected after we'd come to a consensus to make the change, with several editors in support, and suddenly it's reversed again without anyone being notified? We should stick with the decisions we've made, otherwise there is not much point in people participating in the discussions. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You're right, Amakuru, but Gatoclass was also right. As soon as we switched to 9-hook sets, Maile added a tenth hook to further lengthen the set, and at that point I realized things were getting out of hand. We could easily have added an eleventh hook to fill up that little space at the bottom. So I acted boldly and went back to 8-hook sets. Yoninah (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That really wasn't much of a discussion Amakuru, the move to nine hooks was made without much consideration at all - just "oh good, it will eliminate the whitespace and stabilize the backlog". But as I tried to point out above, there are other considerations. Firstly, the "wall of text" issue that Yoninah mentioned, an objection with which I fully concur. Secondly, the increased difficulty in creating balanced sets - we generally have a large number of hooks on recurring themes - sports, building and structures, species hooks etc - the difficulty in creating a balanced set increases exponentially with every hook added. It's more work both for set builders and set verifiers. In addition to the problem of variety, there is also the issue of overall hook interest - two good hooks are enough for an 8-hook set, but for a 9-hook set you really need three. Also, as I said above, running routinely longer sets is only likely to encourage the other projects to do the same.

Ultimately, the two sides of the main page are never going to line up perfectly anyway, unless one adjusts the border width on a daily basis (I'm not sure what happened to that discussion). And I really don't think a little bit of whitespace is much of an issue anyhow - there is one particular user who agitates about it constantly, but other than that, we have never had complaints about it. Above all, it's the readership that matters - and cramming the page with as many hooks as will fit is doing a disservice to the reader in my view, per the "wall of text" argument above. So I think we should stick to 8 as the standard. If you want to add an occasional hook to correct a glaring gap, that's fine with me, but I don't think we should be running nine routinely. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And just my perspective about this, and recent events of pulled hooks and whatnot. It seems to me that for the good of the project, all discussions about changes to the process, or problems with any nominated hook or set, should happen either on this talk page, or on the nomination template. It facilitates the process and the end user to only have to look to one of two places - here, or their own nomination template - to find information on changes. — Maile (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure. My general approach is that when an issue is reported at WP:ERRORS (or, indeed, at the controversial WP:ERRORS2) I raise it here if it seems like the fix will be controversial, otherwise I go ahead and do it. When the main page is clearly unbalanced, either top or bottom, I add or remove bits from whichever sections make most sense (today I took away an OTD hook). That said, though, the change to nine hooks did seem like a good one to me - and just because I didn't pen a whole essay on the topic in the section above doesn't mean I hadn't thought about it. Ultimately it's up to you guys and I'm not that bothered about the number we use, but given that most days we are likely to end up with nine hooks anyway once it becomes clear that the page is unbalanced, I would have thought it's still better to have them generated through the normal process, which ensures balance, rather than on-the-fly by an admin. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Yoninah, Valereee, Cwmhiraeth, and Gatoclass: just so you all know, my recent comment above was not about any of you all, or any one or group of users. More of a comment of my recent experiences of the last month or so. Beginning with the unsourced hook I pulled back in May, where the end user assumed I had done so at the insistence of some off-project comment. And everything else since. This is beginning to seem to me like a Through the Looking-Glass experience, in regards to the confusion generated because threads to any given action are found hither and yon. We could do better by concentrating where the end user finds relevant conversations. Either here, or the nomination template itself. — Maile (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not too bothered about whether there are eight hooks per set or nine, but if at any time an extra hook is to be added for balance, I suggest you take one from a prep set rather than reusing one that previously ran. We currently have 164 approved hooks, so it is not difficult to make balanced sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The potential problem with this is that the person doing this may not know how to ensure that the proper DYK credits are distributed, and should also do the necessary checking on the hook/article being promoted to make sure everything makes sense, since the normal in-queue checks won't be done. Not to mention that the late promotion means that it doesn't get its full 24 (or 12) hours on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

July 12 and 31 birthday requests

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Isao Kataoka for a July 12 birthday anniversary, and Template:Did you know nominations/Kent Angus for a July 31 birthday. I hope this is sufficient notice, and thank you for considering the nominations. Flibirigit (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Template:Did you know nominations/Isao Kataoka reviewed and placed in special occasions holding area for July 12. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Kent Angus review in progress. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done Both reviews completed and moved to Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Is nothing safe from DYK?

Template:Trains portal/Did you know uses SNCF BB 13000, which is a couple of years old. I thought that once articles had been around for a while, they were safe from this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Safe from what? You have linked a portal template: Template:Trains portal/Did you know. Are you concerned someone might try to nominate an old article to DYK? @Slambo:, who is an admin, created that Portal. Maybe they can explain. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned when any article gets nominated for the DYK treatment. I'm particularly concerned that it still has this bizarrely secretive process, where the last thing that anyone familiar with the article knows is when it's tagged as "Today a randomly picked and almost always misunderstood factoid has been plucked from this article, whatever its insignificance, and plastered somewhere prominent". At least it's not on anywhere anyone reads. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little inexperienced with portals,but isn't this completely separate to the official DYK process? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Those are Portal:Trains DYKs, which have absolutely nothing to do with Main Page DYKs. I'd say that most people here were probably completely unaware of them until now (I certainly was). See their rules at Portal:Trains/Did you know. You should probably take your concerns to Portal talk:Trains. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What a bizarre thread this is. In my experience "DYK" style templates are used all over the Wiki, particularly in places like WikiProjects and Portals, as a means of showcasing a selection of articles. I even had one transcluded on my own user page many years ago. As noted above, such entities are unconnected with the main page DYK process, and are not km any way governed by its rules of recently expanded or recently promoted good articles. Furthermore, I'm not sure why any of this matters. If you spot something inaccurate in an article or portal then fix it. Otherwise, just let people present the information on that topic in any way they choose.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    If you spot something inaccurate in an article or portal then fix it.
How does one "fix" a DYK which has already gone live? How does one know that a DYK is inappropriate beforehand, when their selection is kept secret from those who worked on, or who are watching, the articles concerned? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nothing about DYK is kept secret. Every single nomination is listed at Template talk:Did you know, which is directly linked from the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Nominations, or potential nominations, are not notified on the articles, or to those involved in their authoring. Despite this having been repeatedly put forward over several years. You might also note that SNCF BB 13000 is not linked from Template talk:Did you know. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Please read how things work over at WP:DYK. Note that the majority of DYK nominations are put forward by the article authors or contributors themselves, so while it happens, it's relatively uncommon for article authors to know that their article has been nominated for DYK, because usually they themselves are the ones that launch the proceedings. In fact, as a courtesy, if the weren't the nominator, they tend to be pinged or notified otherwise of discussions. As for "fixing" DYKs, there are two venues: this page and WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:OWN comes to mind about your frustration. Nobody on Wikipedia is required to notify anybody about anything they choose to edit or nominate. DYK can't make rules requiring something that would suggest ownership. Other than that: (1) Under your user Preferences/Notifications/Notify me about these events/Page link. Check it, and that should take care of any links for something you created. Any DYK nominations have the article linked in the nomination. Your issue is not with DYK but with what you perceive as a lack of system to notify you or interested parties on the article itself. That's something that needs to be developed by programmers. You may discuss that at WP:VPT. — Maile (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not OWN, it's the WP:COMPETENCE of those at DYK. For years it has been suggested, seriously, that DYK should be closed because of the poor quality of the hooks it produces. A factor in doing that is the deliberate exclusion of editors involved with, and thus at least somewhat knowledgeable about, the topic at hand. Automated processes to give better notifications are certainly possible for DYK (we do this for AfD and have done for years), but equally a manual process would suffice (with a bit more typing effort) and is what we do at ANI. Why does DYK now simply have a policy that candidate articles are templated on their talk: page? That would be trivially easy and could be set up in moments. Why is the DYK clique so opposed to this.
I already have all the potential link warnings etc. for this article turned on. Thus I was notified yesterday that it was already live on a DYK box (fortunately just for a portal). There were no other preparatory links made (at least none which I saw, or can see now) until the "live" link. Now if this is because portal DYKs simply don't follow the "new article" filter rule that the main DYK does, then why couldn't you have simply said that from the outset? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, so your argument seems to be that DYK needs to go away because those working at DYK are incompetent. Do you think the problem is that only incompetent people are attracted to working at DYK, or that somehow working at DYK turns competent people into incompetent people? Because I'd argue that in fact it's a challenging job that gets very high levels of scrutiny. --valereee (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is it too hard for people working on DYK (any DYK location) to tag the pages being considered for use? One simple template, that's all it would take. Much like ANI.
As it is, the hooks generated are poor and frequently their paraphrasing leads to inaccuracy (the claimed links between the South Devon Railway and the Talyllyn would raise a few eyebrows amongst older steam preservationists in the UK). For the BB 13000 it seems to have randomly picked one of the least important and uninteresting points about it, just because it was the last para in the article. Why not instead use something important about these locos, from the last para of electrification or the first of Design?
DYK seems to go out of its way to exclude the involvement of those writing the articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, the point about posting a notification to the article talk page is a good one; I believe I've actually done that on every DYK I've nom'd, and I'd support that as being required. But you're still missing 99% of the point we've been making to you: The project you are referring to is NOT part of this project and is completely unconnected to it. --14:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley - Hey man, let's talk on the appropriate talk page about this. I've posted below about how I select the items for inclusion on Portal:Trains; we both want to improve the process and the outcomes. Let's talk! Slambo (Speak) 23:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have begun a lengthy section on the portal DYK talk page for this discussion. I suggest that it be closed here and further comments directed there. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 00:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
SNCF BB 13000 is not linked from Template talk:Did you know because it's never been nominated for DYK. Slambo is the person who added it to Template:Trains portal/Did you know, but that page has absolutely nothing to do with DYK. That page seems to be entirely maintained by that single editor for the past 14 years! -Zanhe (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This conversation is so silly. We're talking about Template:Trains portal/Did you know, which, despite the name, is completely different to this. It doesn't effect this, and has no bearing. The rules are different, and seems like a one-person creation that isn't related. We should ignore. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley,Did you know ... that Did You Know ... is a phrase that is used everywhere, and has been for centuries? A random search on Google news brings up 68,800,000 results of the term, and that's just current stuff. Newspapers.com brings up 99,003,222 matches. The DYK in question here has nothing to do with our project. Clarification below from the editor of Portal Trains. So please stop arguing about our project over something that had nothing to do with this project. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I am the main editor on Portal:Trains. This portal's purpose is to highlight articles that are within the scope of WP:Trains and to give an overview of material about trains. As noted above, the portal has no connection to the Main Page processes other than to use them as a procedural model. I choose the items that are listed in the portal's DYK section and I have done so daily since the portal's inception in May 2005. I have also tried to encourage other editors to suggest candidates for portal content since May 2005. The DYK suggestion page, specifically, is at Portal:Trains/Did you know candidates, which is reached directly from the Candidates link within the DYK box on the portal. When nobody suggests articles to show in this section, which is the case that I see almost every day, including today, I have to pick something. My current process is to look at Category:C-Class rail transport articles; I am currently looking at articles whose titles begin with S. The article mentioned at the beginning of this discussion happened to be the next in the list that I saw on the morning that it was included that was sufficiently complete, had an interesting fact, had an appropriate photograph, was reasonably verifiable and had not appeared in the DYK section in the last 10 years.
If there is an article or image that you want to see highlighted on Portal:Trains, please click on the associated candidates link and let me know. I am happy to include other editors' suggestions as they are given.
Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The text of the specific DYK item in concern for this discussion was copied almost exactly from the last paragraph of the article's Design section. So if there is something that should not be included in DYK because it is false, it should be corrected on the article where it is mentioned so it is not included in the first place. I have been corrected on the accuracy of items in the DYK before, and every time it is the article from which the DYK item is derived that requires an update. If needed, I have and will update the DYK item as it shows on the portal, and I copy that correction to the portal's DYK archive.
If you have a better way to select and curate the portal's DYK content, I would be happy to discuss it; a better place for that discussion would be the portal's DYK candidates talk page.
Slambo (Speak) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Most processes that put special focus on a particular article (AfD, GA or FA nomination, peer review) involve a notification being placed on the article itself or on its talk page, so that editors who have shown an interest in the subject can participate. That has nothing to do with ownership and is perfectly logical. I've often thought that DYK's not doing this is an oddity, and it should be corrected. I've certainly seen DYKs run off the rails, and feature broken stuff on the main page, in ways that could have been avoided had editors active on the article known what was going on before it was too late. Placing a talk-page notification when nominating for DYK can only reduce ERRORS and pulls. (I'm talking about the main-page DYK and have no idea about portals-shmortals.) EEng 15:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • While I am struggling to understand a lot of what the OP is complaining about here, it is certainly not a bad idea for the DYK nomination to be automatically added to the talk page of the nominated article. It is likely quite simple to automate this process, which I think is preferable to adding another step to the instructions. @Wugapodes and Shubinator: how much work would it involve to make one of your bots handle this task? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: I threw together a script that should be able to do this. For every nomination it would check to see if the article exists (following redirects) and if so adds the DYK nomination template to the talk page (if it is not already there). This would allow page watchers to see the edit as well as seeing the nomination text itself on the page as it develops. I haven't been able to test it because the bot's not approved to write to talk pages, and I haven't come up with a great way to test it in my user space yet. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Pulled

Pulled as factually incorrect. Stephen 09:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Also pulled

Per discussion at WP:ERRORS. Courtesy pings and apologies to those involved: @Edelseider: @Gerda Arendt: @Yoninah:  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The error is to assume that this is an error. "Refined" is a correct translation for épuré. It is. Edelseider (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I know. I also found that translation when I was looking into this earlier. It's listed as a "less common" translation, and probably isn't the one intended here. And either way, given that the phrase in question is lignes épurées, the clean/refined adjective is talking of the lines, not the architecture as a whole.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I am glad that you know. I wonder why your pal rushed to remove my reply, then. Maybe we should have talked first, you and I. Edelseider (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Edelseider, it was probably an edit conflict. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Late to this: sad that a good DYK was lost just because of translation problems. You who speak English better: could you next time please just improve the hook instead of pulling? It was not an error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

To pull

Post a cleanup, the article has gone below the 1500 character count and is effectively, a stub. ∯WBGconverse 13:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What a mess. The photo of the clipboard-calculator is just perfect. EEng 14:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
[1], [2], [3] #JustSaying. ‑ Iridescent 14:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. It was over 3200 prose characters at the time of promotion, dropped down to 1278 after the clean-up, and is currently at 1515, just above the 1500 DYK minimum ... and still on the main page with a little under five hours to go. No idea how good the newly added text might be. Generally, requests to pull something already on the main page should go to WP:ERRORS, as it says at the top of this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep/Queue 6: Kamchatka meteor

There is a refimprove tag on the second section of this article, which is probably legit: Assertions like "The shockwave was strong enough that it would have cracked windows if the shockwave was over a populated region" and "although as the larger Chelyabinsk meteor occurred less than 6 years previous, the exact interval is essentially random" are uncited. Parts of the lede don't appear cited as well (or it's unclear where to look, anyway). @Exoplanetaryscience: @Mike Peel: @BabbaQ: @Mikeu: @Yoninah: as those who worked on the nom, (or anyone else watching) are you able to sort out the issues before this evening? If not, I'll push it out to a later set, or reopen the nom. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: that section was just tagged today by The Rambling Man, long after approval and promotion. I think you should return it to the noms page so the page creator and nominator have more time to work on it. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: yep, you're right. I won't comment on the rights and wrongs of the TRM process, but we are where we are. I thought if the issues could be easily resolved today then no reason to pull it, but otherwise will just punt it back to the nom page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on the hook: I'm pretty sure air bursted, apart from sounding absolutely ridiculous, isn't correct English; it should probably read something like "exploded in an air burst". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes. That wasn't in the approved hook, it was changed later. This DYK nomination has been second-guessed by way too many people after I reviewed it over 2 months ago, I honestly feel sorry for the nominator right now. By all means return it to the nomination stage again if you want, but please also then work with the nominator and article text to improve it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I've now fixed up the cite issues myself, and updated the hook wording, so this one is good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for July 1 (Canada Day)

I've nominated a time-sensitive six-article DYK hook and wanted to alert volunteers before there's even more of a time crunch. The last GA passed June 16, and the articles and hook are ready for DYK review at Template:Did you know nominations/1st Canadian Comedy Awards. It's meant to be a fun Canadian thing for Canada Day. I believe that the expansions are long enough, but if some do not qualify I'd still like it to run (with any failed articles non-bolded). Three of the articles (including two GAs) are fairly long. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg I've reviewed the two food articles; maybe someone else could take a look at the remaining ones? --valereee (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
There's less than 10 days before the target date and four two articles for the hook haven't been reviewed. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
All reviews have been completed. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

Just a small inquiry: are wikilinks to sections allowed? I've got an editor who'd like to use them here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure on legalities,but why not just pipe link to the full article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I commented on the nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah and Lee Vilenski.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:49, 23 June 2019 (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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Review request

I just created Wei Shoukun, and realized that June 30 will be his fifth death anniversary, which is a week away. It would be great if Template:Did you know nominations/Wei Shoukun could be reviewed in time to be featured on that day. Thanks in advance! -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Review in progress. Yoninah (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Buddha: performance of miracles not RS'd

Prep area 4 right now states ... that the Buddha, who performed many miracles, . This is nonsense, and not RS'd in the article. He was attributed the performance of miracles; there's no serious evidence that he performed any of them. Boud (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that none of the original and ALT[1|2|3] blurbs at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha claimed directly that Buddha performed miracles. I understand that the intention was to provide smoother wording, but we can't have the front page of en.Wikipedia claiming that miracles are real. Only the Almighty Jimbo, PBUH, can perform miracles... ;) Boud (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Boud: thanks for fixing that. Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a note in passing: in modern usage Poohbah is spelled out in full. EEng 11:28, 24 June 2019 (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) 22:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: Prisoner

Every source says he served 13 years in prison, and his book is called Besökaren: mina 13 år bakom galler (The Visitor: My 13 years behind bars). So why does the hook say 12 years? Even if he was sentenced in 2005, he was probably detained for months before, no? Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this should be changed to thirteen. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-review needed ASAP

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Wei Shoukun and proposed an ALT hook. Could another editor review ALT2a so we can get this into the queue for June 30? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah:  Done ——SerialNumber54129 09:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: thanks! I'm moving the hook to the Special Occasions area now. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Quickie on a DYK

Would someone mind taking a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Nick van den Berg. I'm a little worried it'll get lost again. I realise it's not the oldest in the queue, but I don't want it to be missed as it's not in the list (as far as I can tell) to. Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I believe this is the diff. It was pulled April 3. — Maile (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It currently needs a new reviewer to check ALT1a and hopefully sign off on it. (I've added it to the list of the oldest nominations needing reviews, so it shouldn't fall off the radar again.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Needs promotion Prep 3 - 1 the Road (goes live in 3-1/2 hours)

Template:Did you know nominations/1 the Road

@RTG, Valereee, Drmies, and Yoninah:

Has anyone else noticed that this article does not give a date as to when this happened? There's a couple of article categories that say it's a 2018 publication. But nothing in the hook, nomination, or article, gives the reader an idea of when this was published.

Also, the lead is supposed to be a recap of the article, and this one does not seem like that.

Lead says it was "Ross Goodwin drove from New York to New Orleans with an AI in a laptop hooked up to various sensors such as a camera, microphone, global positioning system, and clock. The AI turned this input into words that were printed on rolls of receipt paper. "

The article says, "Ross Goodwin traveled in a Cadillac from New York to New Orleans with the AI, in the form of a long short-term memory recurrent neural network." It does not mention a laptop , "Input from these four sources was fed into the computer, which in turn generated sentences on rolls of receipt paper. "

The image looks like an outdated grocery check out register with rolls of receipt paper. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried to salvage this article for a main page appearance, but I got no credit from the author, so I'm leaving it to him to deal with these problems. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't like that the hook doesn't mention the title of the novel, when it easily could do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The image has nothing to do with this article, except that maybe the rolls of paper are used as an example. The image in Commons was uploaded in 2009 and described as "Book fair is fun, but boy was Friday morning busy! This tape represents 40 minutes' sales during the morning rush on the next to last day of our sale." Yoninah maybe this needs to either be put in a different Prep, or pulled for improvements. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, it's time to pull it. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved to a later prep so we have time to discuss --valereee (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: the hook is inadequate, the lead is inadequate, the article text doesn't match the lead, and the image is wrong. This is not a quick fix. The hook should be pulled and safely stored for as long as the page creator needs on the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, no objections, I replaced it with a hook from the next prep --valereee (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee thank you. I'll return the hook to the noms area. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Who would have expected it to be fixed up and ready to run within a few hours? Hats off to you, Drmies. Yoninah (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:Maile66, Yoninah--but Yoninah, this would have never happened if I hadn't chanced upon the nomination after your valiant efforts on that article, so thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Review needed for an upcoming date request

Template:Did you know nominations/2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final would be a great hook for its 10th anniversary (June 28), but needs to be reviewed. Any comments would be appreciated. SounderBruce 05:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done and reserved slot in Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks for getting it sorted, however, the hook isn't quite accurate as it implies that the U.S. played in the semi-final on 28 June ("reaching the final" usually means to qualify for the final by winning the previous match). Perhaps it should be: ... that ten years ago today, the United States played in the 2009 Confederations Cup Final after ending Spain's 35-match unbeaten streak? SounderBruce 20:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bladimir Lugo

Bladimir Lugo is in the special holding area for June 29 as Template:Did you know nominations/Bladimir Lugo, but the article is in urgent need of a copyedit, and also has serious BLP issues it seems to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wot BLP issues? ——SerialNumber54129 05:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I have commented on the nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Lugo?
Oh, I thought you meant this Lugo! :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit as best I can, but this really needs attention from someone who reads Spanish. I ended up removing content because while sentences made no sense in English, the articles translated didn't make it any clearer and I didn't want to guess at what the mistranslations actually meant. --valereee (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Valereee. I think the page creators and other editors are also working on correcting the article. Yoninah (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3: Giant Eland

Cwmhiraeth Gerda Arendt

"rare" giant eland not clear in Wildlife of Senegal article. I looked at the giant eland article, and it looks like one species is mentioned as vulnerable, the other as endangered. Is there a way to make this explicit in the Wildlife of Senegal article, w/a source? I've moved this from tomorrow's set to a later one for now to give us time to discuss so that it won't get moved to queue. --valereee (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is the western subspecies, occurring in Senegal, which is critically endangered. I have added this information to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru would you have any objection to my switching the hook back closer to the original?

I think it's safe to paraphrase 'critically endangered' to say 'rare.' The only actual concern had been that the target article hadn't mentioned either rare or endangered when listing the eland. And to me it was the juxtaposition of rare and common that made the hook interesting. --valereee (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that really correct? I'm not convinced that critically endangered and rare are the same thing... the latter implies you'll be unlikely see one, whereas in fact a species might be very easily and frequently spotted but nonetheless in danger of extinction. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, no worries, then. Reasonable minds disagree; I'll leave it. --valereee (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC) ETA: sorry, didn't mean to ping you! --valereee (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Right, no probs. And sorry if the above point seems a bit anal - I guess I'm just a stickler for accuracy! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
late: to me, "rare" just meant simply the opposite of common, like the mouse is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Not anal at all! I prefer accuracy, too. This subspecies is both rare and endangered, and the target article does make that clear: The western subspecies of the giant eland is critically endangered, the only remaining known population being in the Niokolo-Koba National Park. But I don't have a super strong opinion on this, happy to leave as is unless the creator has an opinion. --valereee (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list—many thanks to Flibirigit for stepping in while I wasn’t able to produce one last week—is about to be archived, so here is an updated list with 34 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 7. Right now we have a total of 362 nominations, of which 190 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those that, as noted below, have been waiting for over a month since first listed here to attract a new reviewer, to no avail, especially the one remaining from last December and the three from this April.

Over five 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) 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert E. Lee on Traveller

What in good lord's name is going on here? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, the hook, the comments, or the FDR quote? It all seems a tad strange to me. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
All the above and the "review". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, it appears that the review was solicited: User talk:Abune#Robert E. Lee on Traveller. However, I don't see how the review effectively reviews the hook and article. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I tagged it for a new, full review. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (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 #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Eunice Parsons

Could Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Eunice_Parsons, created and nominated by Grand'mere Eugene and approved by me, please be displayed on 4 August, the subject's 103rd birthday, as per the hook. Thank you.Felixkrater (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added the template to the special holding area. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:37, 28 June 2019 (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 #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

The subject of this nomination was undergoing a requested move from WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), and per the results of a request for comment, the page was moved to WTC Cortlandt station. Can someone close this or perform further action as needed? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You did most of it already. I finished up the last little bits. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hells Bells hook

Cwmhiraeth, is there a reason for this tweak to the hook? IMO just saying "bells" is much more interesting than spelling out the name in full. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the reviewer preferred it and so did I, so I made the change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Expand language template

So for example, if I wanted to nominate an article for DYK, but the article has an "Expand [insert language here]" template at the top, would that not be eligible for DYK, or can it still be used? Right now I'm writing an article that I might nominate for DYK, and it would include a filmography translated from the subject's Japanese Wikipedia page, but it would take some time to finish translating the complete section and it might not be completed due to inadequate referencing (since even the Japanese page doesn't have sources for all of them). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider language expansion templates as a negative criticism of the article, just suggestion for further improvement. Obviously a GA would not have this tag but there is no reason why a new article or 5x expansion can't pass a DYK review even with a "Expand [insert language here]" template at the top. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I shake my head about some of those tags and often remove them. It's so normal for translated articles that there's more in the original language that it's not worth tagging, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing (pictured) in prep 4

The lead hook Template:Did you know nominations/Personification doesn't have a (pictured) in the hook.

  • The hook is: ... that a new personification was needed after the Americas were discovered?
  • Wikicode: ... that a new '''[[personification]]''' was needed after '''[[Personification of the Americas|the Americas]]''' were discovered?

So the very nice picture from the Personification of the Americas is referred to in the hook by "personification" rather than the piped link displayed at "the Americas". Is that okay to place (pictured) after "personification"? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know how to answer your question. I added "(personification pictured)" after the word Americas. I hope that's where it should go. But there's time to move it. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Good solution! – Reidgreg (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for pictures

Frank Borman
Serving of poutine
Tito's Tacos

Thanks to all the volunteers here. I'm curious about the criteria for choosing pictures. I have a five-article hook (including two GAs) for Canada Day. Lately, poutine has ranked high in polls for Canada's national dish. The picture for the astronaut is a nice picture, but July 1 isn't related to that hook. The poutine picture was an afterthought for me (perhaps there are others to choose from on Commons which would be more suitable?) but it just seems a little weird when given the choice of an American patriotic symbol or a Canadian patriotic symbol, to choose the former on Canada Day. Also, I'm not really sure why the poutine picture wouldn't run when there's a taco picture above it. Any aid to my understanding would be appreciated. Thanks – Reidgreg (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I also thought that the poutine image would be in the image slot. We can move the astronaut to another day, as it's no longer a special occasion hook. Also, if there's a problem running two food images in a row, we can move the tacos to an earlier or later set. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I also support Canadian food on 1 July. We will have astronauts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Right, July 21 is Moon landing day at DYK. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I was responsible for moving the two special occasion hooks that were listed as being for July 1st into the prep area, and chose the astronaut hook over the poutine hook for the image slot. My thinking was that we had had a taco image the previous day and we needed a variety in image types, but more importantly, the picture of the astronaut was of encyclopedic value and worldwide interest and the food was not. I could not identify any of the ingredients and it appeared to be presented on a fast food tray. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Well one ingredient appears to be vomit. EEng 05:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
How is the Astronaut even needed on 1 July? A five-hook nom deserves a pic, even if quirky, and perhaps the taco not (I only see cheese and paper) or later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Frank Borman was a special occasion request for July 1st, see User talk:Hawkeye7#Frank Borman DYK for details. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I hope you don't expect me to go around and check such threads. So he entered school and retired that day, vs. a national holiday. I know what I'd do: Him that day, but not pictured, or pictured but another day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally I'm not too sure about the food picture being used to coincide with Canada day because it doesn't strike me as being particularly distinctively Canadian at first glance. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There are other things to choose from. The poutine picture, alas, looks decidedly unimpressive. Bazza (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Here are search results for poutine on Commons for alternative pictures. I'm not a visual person so maybe I didn't pick the best one. I thought there was encyclopaedic value in showing what something looks like when commonly encountered today, rather than what it looked like on its best day under ideal conditions. (Heavily staged photos have featured pictures and nostalgic photos have on this day.) Baseline pageviews (link) suggest that someone thinks poutine is interesting. The Canadian diaspora is proportionally large, and expats have spread poutine around the world, as well as Canada Day celebrations, so I think it has international interest on that day (100k people attend Canada Day celebrations in Trafalgar Square where poutine is a big draw). And that's the one day Canadians can shrug off their modesty and call attention to themselves. So I'm extremely happy for the five-article hook to run on Canada Day; that's a hundred times more important to me than the picture. From what I read, it seems like that ratio is reversed for the Borman hook. In the past three years, 9 out of 10 featured articles, lists, pictures and lead hooks on July 4 were US related. Please excuse the passive-aggressiveness of my mentioning that; I can live with the irony and be happy. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Bazza, we are not looking for a Canadian symbol, but for an image related to the hook, and better approved in the nomination, - which the poutine one is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd support those for lead if Bazza is volunteering to improve one. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
As nobody mentioned it before: Template:Did you know nominations/1st Canadian Comedy Awards, and there's c:Category:Poutine for more pics, but I'd prefer the one we have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the one chosen for c:National symbols of Canada. We can move Frank Borman to Prep 2 (his last day at NASA in 1970), and Tito's Tacos can go into Prep 6. Let the Canadian's have their day! Eh? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I put the picture at 100px (top) followed by a picture of a three-ingredient poutine already in the article. Both are from Montreal's La Banquise (I can just make out the logo in the lower left of the top picture). The lower one is arguably more traditional/authentic/representitive while the upper one is embellished. Do they display well enough? To me, the upper one looks like it belongs in a cookbook or a glossy magazine (i.e. food porn) rather than an encyclopedia, and at 100px I don't especially like wasting pixels to display the plate under the food. But I yield to consensus on main page suitability. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd go for the one we have (and whatever decision will be made, only one should be in the article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The bottom one looks like a plate of indiscriminate slop. Why would we not want a photo that would be in a cook book? I really doubt that the cuisine served at the 1st Canadian Comedy Awards looked like that. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Because we're a neutral encyclopedia? Without meaning to cause offence, the recent DYK picture for Jeff's Gourmet Sausage looked at first glance like somebody stepped on a rotten pumpkin. That was my first subjective take on the picture, and it stirred my interest. Some subjects don't look attractive to some people or won't be instantly recognizable. There's nothing wrong with that. And, FWIW, poutine has been described as slop so there isn't a real problem with that, encyclopedically speaking. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Below is what the hook says. I am not getting the connection to Oso or Burger?
... that poutine and back bacon on a bun were served while The Beaver was awarded to Made in Canada at the inaugural Canadian Comedy Awards?
File:La Banquise Poutine (cropped).jpg is already in Poutine and should remain. We can add File:2016-10 Montreal - poutine 33.jpg as a replacement on 1st Canadian Comedy Awards and use the latter File on the Main Page. There is no point in having a plate that would be found in a cheap restaurant to represent poutine served at an award ceremony. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I think Maile was pointing out that there are many takes on poutine more divergent than the one Coffeeandcrumbs proposed. Point taken. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Also the image would be at >160px for landscape-oriented images on the main page. Our DYK instructions are out of date. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Basic-recipe poutines, from top: unnamed ski resort, Whistler, BC; Cheese Factory, Edmonton, AB; Wikimania 2017, Montreal, QC
(edit conflict) Current sources just say they served poutine, not "gourmet poutine" or similar. I feel that we shouldn't be presumptive about what it might have looked like, and instead follow the basic definition. I put the two La Banquise pictures at 180px, above, for comparison. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This may be back to my not understanding the criteria. I thought that the same principles which applied to encyclopedic summaries of text should apply when choosing from multiple pictures for a subject. Commons defines its best pictures by artistic merit, but these shouldn't necessarily be the best pictures for Wikipedia. Aside from the necessity of illustratively supporting the text, I feel that an encyclopedic picture should be a summary of pictures of the type, and broadly representative of the subject. In articles, MOS:LEADIMAGE similarly supports a representative and neutral picture. So to me, that means the basic three-ingredient recipe common to the type. From my perspective, that encyclopedic nature comes foremost and any artistry or aesthetics of the picture are secondary. That's how I select pictures for articles. Perhaps the main page is different. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictures of other basic-recipe poutines (right) without fast-food containers. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I moved Frank Borman to the lead hook in Prep 2 and moved Tito's Tacos to a later set. I shuffled the hooks in Prep 3, putting the Canada Day hook first. It is awaiting an image per the results of this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I inserted the last photo chosen by Reidgreg. It seems to work nicely. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's representative, the component ingredients can be distinguished, and I find it difficult to imagine anyone's vomit being that chunky. That seems to address the objections. |alt= text can simply have french fries and cheese curds with gravy. Yoninah, can you review this new picture in 1st Canadian Comedy Awards? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: It's okay, we're out of the nomination template space now. Cwmhiraeth reviewed it when she promoted it. Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Professor

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: @Narutolovehinata5:
This is the most singularly uninteresting hook in the queue. The nominator insisted on this hook fact despite reservations by the reviewer, basically pressuring the reviewer into approving it. (This is not the way to go about nominating and reviewing hooks, by the way.) I promoted it to the Canada Day set, but after moving it to the next set realize that it has no hook interest for an international audience. Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, you have to make allowance for it being Canada, after all. EEng 22:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: I moved it out of the Canada Day set (the hook wording conflicted with some other hooks). Even in that set, it wasn't hooky. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You can take the hook out of Canada, but you can't take the Canada out of the hook. EEng 23:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah I'm sorry if it came across like I was pressuring the reviewer. I was just pointing out that this is where her notability lies so I thought it should be included. I didn't mean to come across as pushy. I did come up with alternates and they didn't have to approve them. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, exciting or not, you increased my vocabulary. Reading the infobox on her thesis, this is the first time I've ever come across the term "bi-textuality" — Maile (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's like sexting but with twice the chance of actually closing the deal. EEng 23:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
As in ... "The BT/ST community agree that the actor's latest tweets have outed them as bi-textual".— Maile (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Honestly I kinda thought that being inducted in a country's research fellowship was a hooky fact, but it seems others disagree. I'd suggest pulling the nom for now while thinking of alternative hooks. I tried to think of one right now but the article is rather dry on details and nothing else in the article strikes me as hooky. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Hooks don't have to be wacky or offbeat (even if that's the ideal) to be interesting. EEng 23:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So are we going to leave the hook as is, or do we need a new one? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it stays. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/WWE 24/7 Championship

I know what this hook is trying to say but the way it is written doesn't make sense. I suggest the following Alt 1:

170 characters long. Ping The C of E. The source doesn't exactly say it is "based" on the Hardcore Championship and neither does the article. Also the sentence doesn't make sense unless it ends with the word rule. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Alt 1a:

As a wrestling fan, I know what this means, but the Hardcore championship rules is quite confusing. It also suggests that it isn't particularly notable; as there are lots of championships that work this way - see the hardcore championship, or the DDT Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship. How about commenting on something very hooky, such as "...did you know that the WWE 24/7 Championship was defended on a golf course, and at a wedding?" or somesuch. I'm sure I could find sourcing for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not think it is fair to the nominator to have a free for all for completely new hooks. As someone not familiar with wrestling, I think it is very hooky. I only have issues with the grammar and sentence structure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: When I nominated this, the title had just been created. Since then I left it to its own devices, which was probably a slight error on my part because I should have forseen that some of the more inexperienced WWE fans who are wikipedians would add things without sourcing or remove the source I was using for that sentence. We can reasonably expect this to continue every Monday after Raw. I am fine with either of the hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I tweaked it to Alt 1b ... that the WWE 24/7 Championship, similar to the former WWE Hardcore Championship, may be defended in a professional wrestling match anywhere as long as a referee is present? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
IMO, the Hardcore Championship bit doesn't really need mentioned (omitting it keeps the focus on this title). Had I known about the nomination sooner (didn't get a notification as one of the creators), I would have suggested alternate text, i.e.:
ALT1c: ... that the WWE 24/7 Championship, a professional wrestling championship, can be defended anytime, anywhere, as long as a WWE referee is present?
The reason for omitting "professional wrestling match" is because most title changes are not by way of a traditional match (for example, pinning the champion while he was sleeping, which did happen a couple of weeks ago). Adding "professional wrestling championship" is kinda self-explanatory (and makes up for omitting "professional wrestling match"). The addition of "WWE" in front of referee clarifies that it can't be just any referee. "anytime" is an important bit of information about the title (it's the reason for the title's name) that wasn't in the previous versions of this DYK. --JDC808 ♫ 09:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@JDC808: ALT1c sounds better, but I can't verify the hook fact cited to footnote 2. Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I have add a footnote fot Alt 1c. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm going ahead and changing the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Promotion templates changed

As mentioned in the automated notification section above, the code of {{DYKsubpage}} (technically, {{DYK top}} and {{DYK bottom}} which it calls) is changing. When you promote a hook to prep and add {{DYKsubpage}} on the nomination, you may notice a change to the code that has been substituted. You should not notice any change in the behavior of the template. If you notice something wrong, let me know so it can get fixed. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Frank Borman (Prep 2)

The source only states that he is the oldest surviving member of the Apollo space program, not the "oldest living American astronaut".

Pinging the nominator, Hawkeye7. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Since all the Mercury Seven astronauts are now dead, there is no difference any more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
As long as this came up, I'd like to ask if we can come up with a hook that is not age-related? After all this man has achieved in his life, the hook emphasizes that he's now an old geezer? Surely, in all this man's incredible life and career, we could come up with a better hook. Please?? — Maile (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I don't know, maybe you could find a better hook, but I found this hook pretty interesting - it's just that it isn't sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I have added a source tha clearly says oldest living American astronaut. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Coffeeandcrumbs! The original hook is fine now, and can be promoted, if Maile doesn't come up with a preferable alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll try to come up with a sourced hook, if no one else does.
  • ALT1 ... that the crew of Apollo 8, commanded by Frank Borman (pictured), were the first human beings to leave the gravitational influence of the Earth and orbit another celestial body?
  • ALT2 ... after piloting Apollo 8, Frank Borman (pictured) was sent on a goodwill tour of Europe, with a secondary objective of finding out more about the space programs of other NATO countries?
  • ALT3 ... that after retirement from NASA, astronaut Frank Borman (pictured) became a special advisor to Eastern Air Lines, and helped rescue survivors of the Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 crash near Florida's Everglades?
I don't care for ALT2 but the other two look fine - although I think ALT1 is probably the best of the two. I still think the original hook is interesting though. Somebody else will have to make the call as I am logging off soon. Gatoclass (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I actually like ALT3 a lot. Pinging @Hawkeye7: for his input. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The hook is hooky. It is not fair to the nominator to replace it at the last moment without his input. I find it interest, so does Gatoclass. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, ALT3 kind of impresses me about Borman being made of the Right Stuff . — Maile (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. ALT3 inspires me to click on every other blue link besides Frank Borman. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not terribly keen on ALT3 either. It's a decent hook, but I find ALT1 to be a lot more compelling. Either ALT1 or the original hook for mine. Gatoclass (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Coffeeandcrumbs about leaving the hook as is. It's been verified, it's hooky, let's just leave it. Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm quite happy with ALT3. I didn't offer it in the first place because it is AGF; you need the book. (All the crew members of Apollo 8 are still alive; the only other Apollo crew with that distinction is Apollo 9.) The pedants may object to ALT1, since the Moon is still within the gravitational influence of the Earth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 and Gatoclass: I just added a source to this story that everyone should be able to access. 1 .Is it OK to change to ALT3 hook now, Hawkeye? — Maile (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't much care for ALT3, it highlights an episode in his life that had nothing to do with his career as an astronaut. It's just an average hook IMO, the original hook is better. Gatoclass (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Question #2 is some wording that needs to be adjusted, "He had split up with Susan while he was at West Point. She had earned a dental hygiene degree at the University of Pennsylvania, and was planning to commence a liberal arts degree at the University of Arizona. He proposed to her, and she accepted. They were married on July 20, 1950." What happened inbetween the split-up and the proposal? — Maile (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a question for the FAC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Borman split up with Susan to concentrate on his studies at West Point. Susan earned her dental hygiene degree and became engaged to someone else. I should add here that it was the usual custom in those days for men to get married only after graduation. In fact West Point enforced the old medieval rule that cadets could not marry until graduation. (And still does.) Anyhow, Borman had a change of heart, and after graduation he returned home and did some serious grovelling, and she broke off her engagement and married Borman. I did think anyone would care, and that it would read like the Women's Weekly, but I can add this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Also from the same prep:

Where is the source which confirms that the European team (which included Van Der Berg) won the 2017 event?

Pinging the nominator Lee Vilenski, the hook proposer Amakuru and the reviewer Gerda Arendt. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Azbilliards covers it pretty well: [4] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
That looks fine Lee, but that source is not being used to confirm the article statement that "In total, van den Berg has played in eight Mosconi Cup events, winning six, and also tying one in 2006." In fact the source does not appear to be anywhere in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
His AZBilliard profile is linked at [5] in the article, and has all of the years he was in the team, and if they came first or second. You do have to click on each year individually though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well according to the article, he is only known to have done so on one occasion, so the hook seems exaggerated. Pinging the nominators Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory. Gatoclass (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a simple fix of just changing 'took a butler with him' to 'once took a butler with him' ? --valereee (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Or add the year 1843, "dyk that in 1843..." thus indicating that it was more of an incident than a regular thing? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
That is even more precise, works for me! --valereee (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
But it wasn't "in 1843", it was just one job in 1843. Also, we don't know if he only took a butler "once" per the other suggestion, or whether it was a regular thing. Gatoclass (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
'Once took a butler' does not equate to 'only took a butler once.' For that matter, 'took a butler' doesn't equate to 'always took a butler' either. I don't think a hook has to absolutely rule out any possible alternate interpretation. It just needs to be a reasonable statement of fact. --valereee (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
"... that Edward McGeachy wrote in his field notes that his 1843 expedition party to survey colonial Jamaica included a butler?" --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it says ... that Edward McGeachy wrote in his field notes that his 1843 expedition party to survey Fort Stewart Estate in colonial Jamaica included a butler?" Which to me seems overwordy. The job of the hook IMO isn't to be so detailed that no possible alternate interpretation is prevented. It's to get someone to think, "Huh, that's interesting!" and click on it and not feel misled. None of the hooks suggested would leave someone feeling misled. --valereee (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Valereee, that is not the case, I felt misled by the hook, or I wouldn't have bothered bringing the matter up here. And if that's my response, others will feel the same. The original hook exaggerates the fact. With regard to the "once", that would certainly be an improvement, it's just that I think that if he did it on a routine basis, there's a misleading element in that too. I agree the proposed alt above is too wordy though, I'm thinking this one needs to be pulled for further discussion as there isn't a straightforward fix and I for one will have to log off soon. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right that I'm being overly finicky. The addition of "once" might be sufficient. Anyone else with an opinion on this? Gatoclass (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
That Edward McGeachy took a butler with him when he surveyed Fort Stewart Estate in colonial Jamaica? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Gatoclass (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: automated notification of DYK nomination on article talk pages

This follows from the discussion above, but I'm breaking it out into a separate section because the length of that thread means few people are going to respond. This isn't a major policy change, so I don't think we need a formal RfC; just a rough gauge of consensus, on the following question; should we automatically place a notification on article talk pages when an article is nominated for DYK? I see no good reason not to, and many reasons to do so; and Wugapodes has kindly already created the code for it. Can we give them the green light? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Pinging @Maile66, Narutolovehinata5, and EEng:, who made somewhat related comments above. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    I don't really see need for it when article alerts exists. With that said, I would not be opposed to a template similar to the current one but would be added even to articles whose DYK nominations failed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: I don't think article alerts is filling the same need. Those are alerts for a broad set of articles and a large set of processes. This would alert (via watchlists) specifically those users with interest in a given article, including, but not limited to, the main contributors to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Article alerts, which are associated with a particular wikiproject or topic area, only work for you if you're watching the article alert page for that topic, absolutely do not do what's needed here. Those watching a given article are precisely the audience we want to bring into play for a DYK nom. The more I think about it the more I think this could have a definite (if modest) impact on quality, for the better. (Modest because the "new" articles, which are the bulk of the grist running through the DYK mill, have few watchers; but for articles qualifying via GA, there are often a lot of watchers.) EEng 05:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Those interested can see an example at User:WugBot/DYKNoteTest. The bot would transclude the nomination template to the article talk page under a level two header. Those who go to the talk page would see the nomination, and finding the nomination after the fact would be much easier as it would be in the talk page history, if not archived, and the entire closed discussion transcluded in that archive as well. The bot respects the {{bots}} template and should not run on talk pages where editors disallow this bot or bots in general. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I write and nominate a lot of new articles where I am the only editor. I think it would be pretty pointless adding the nomination template to these, however I do see the utility of the alert for articles nominated by someone other than the creator/expander.
Would the bot remove the nomination template and replace it with the DYK tag when the hook had been on the main page? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I do see the utility of the alert for articles nominated by someone other than the creator/expander – No such distinction should be drawn -- add the notification to the article talk page no matter who nominates. Just because the creator/expander does the nominating doesn't mean others haven't contributed or otherwise taken an interest.
The notification is simply a new thread on the article's talk-page, the new thread containing nothing more than a transclusion of the nom template. This allows watchers to see the nom discussion so far without even having to click through to the nom page, but it's easy to click through if they want. This notification thread will be archived in due course just like any other discussion thread. (Depending on archiving settings on the particular talk page this could happen prematurely, given the sometimes long periods that DYK noms languish, but that's a minor problem.) [Later added: Actually, Wugapodes you could add {{subst:DNAU|120}} to the thread, to guarantee the thread isn't archived for four months, which covers about 90% of nom lifespans.]
I might add that this is exactly the design I would have proposed. Good work, Wugapodes. EEng 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems to me like it could clog up talk pages for regular contributors. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Big deal. How does this affect regular contributors more than anyone else? EEng 05:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My proposal would be that (after a little more discussion) we give this a 60-day trial and then evaluate whether we want to keep it. A trial seems harmless at worst. I'd been active on Golden State Killer but had no idea it was going through DYK; had I known we wouldn't have had problems being discussed in another thread on this page, and the hook could have been much better. EEng 06:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems like a sensible idea. Not all articles sent to DYK are written by the nominator. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's an idea. The German Wikipedia does it. If we go for it, we should remove the link to the nomination from the credit on the article talk, to not have it twice there. Probably also from the credits to people involved, - once it's established to be found on every article talk page, it would be easy to find it there. Less clutter on my talk, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is a great idea. Support a 60-day trial, too, though given how many articles are nom'd by their creator and only editor, it may take longer than that to see this have a major effect on a DYK nomination. --valereee (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I suppor this change. However, I disagree with Gerda Arendt, I think that the other notifications should remain unmodified. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Just for curiosity: Why would you want the same link twice on one article talk page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    I want to keep the current link, in addition to any new link, because I think that the link in the headers will be more easy to access, as opposed to have to scroll to the section. I think it is analogous to the link for the GA in the header, in addition to the transclusion of the section. Am I misunderstanding your proposal? StudiesWorld (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    For clarification, take example Talk:Herbert Schachtschneider. It says in the DYK message: "The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Schachtschneider." - I think once we have the proposed entry, that whole sentence is redundant. - In an average year, I get that sentence 200 times on my talk, and I could happily do without it. I know where to find a nom ;) - Same someone on the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, that change I would be fine with. I thought that you referring to removing the box all together. If you are only suggesting that same removal for the user credit template, then I wholeheartedly agree. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for the confusion. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    No no no no no. You guys aren't thinking straight. The existing little box at the top of the talk page, "A fact from this article was featured on Did You Know etc etc etc" stays forever. The new notification is a regular thread (containing a transclusion of the discussion going on on the nom page) on the talk page that will, in due course, disappear into the archive. They serve separate functions. Don't change the box, just add the nom page transclusion as exemplified by Wugapodes. EEng 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Incidentally, would also support a cross-wiki notification on Commons when an image there is nominated for a hook here. The average Commons user is more copyright savvy than your average en.wiki user, and more eyes evaluating images before they hit the main page can't be anything other than good. GMGtalk 12:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Long overdue. Wugapodes - I very much like your Test Note, which transcludes the nomination template to the article talk page. I support the test phase before fully rolling it out. The template allows the opportunity for anyone who has watch-listed the article, to choose whether or not to engage in dialog of the nomination. A possible side benefit is that in situations where a nomination seems to be abandoned, any editor seeing the notification on the article talk page will have the opportunity to join the dialogue. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Just something I realized about closed noms. When a hook is promoted, so that it no longer appears on the approved page, {{DYK top}} adds <noinclude> tags around it, which means that once the nomination is closed it would not be seen from the article talk page. Since WugBot already removes closed nominations automatically, having closed nominations take up space isn't much of a problem anymore. So that the closed nom can still be seen on the article talk page and archives, is there consensus to stop noincluding the DYK template? I am also fine with a trial period, and would actually prefer it. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 15:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    The whole misbegotten idea of using templates for the nom discussions was one of the stupidest design blunders ever on Wikipedia (and that's saying a lot). Anything you can do clean up the bizzarro things related to that is welcome. But there may be hidden reasons and side effects lost in the mists of time, so be very careful in testing, and we all must be high alert for unforeseen ill-effects for a few weeks after such a change is installed. EEng 18:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    @EEng: I've done some tests that you (and others) can review. The examples and documentation are on the template talk page. The edits should not change any behavior on DYK pages but allow the discussion to be displayed only in the Talk namespace. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As long as the way this is gonna be done is similar to Wugapodes' proposal (i.e. do something similar to what we already do with GANs), then I'd support it. As mentioned above, kinda surprised it hasn't been done already. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have filed a Request for Bot Approval. Further comments are welcome. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Hell, I can't understand why the discussions for each article don't take place on their talk pages with only a link from here. --Khajidha (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    Probably so that they can be transcluded to Template talk:DYK? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    Not seeing how that is important. You could just put links there to the article talk pages. Having the discussions on the article talk pages would increase the number of eyes that see the discussion, which would tend to make it easier to spot errors. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    See, personally I endorse the notion that the discussions should take place on the talk page and would support such a change, but I am sure that other people prefer to read them through Template talk:DYK. Another solution would be to make edits to transcluded pages show up on watchlists, but that needs development work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It may be worth noting that when a nomination is made using the DYK-helper script (though it looks as if no one is using it yet), the script would automatically transclude the discussion on the article talk page. This is done simply by transcluding the nompage without a level-2 header, because the template generates its own level-2 header. SD0001 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Approved for trial

WugBot has been given permission to make 30 trial edits on this task. It will make 5 notifications per day for 6 days starting at 21:00 UTC every day starting today (in about 20 minutes). The nominations to be transcluded will be randomly selected from the nomination and approved pages. If you would like to check on these edits, they should be easy enough to find in WugBot's contributions; they will be the only edits it has made to talk pages. If you notice any issues or have suggestions, the best place to give them would be at the Request for Bot Approval. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but this little test is just to make the sure the bot works right -- right?. Once we're sure of that we should move on to a full-scale test for 60 days or something, to see if the new transclusion improves discussions or whathaveyou. EEng 21:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Forgot to say: thanks for all your hard work on improving the DYK workflow over the past year(s).
That's my understanding, yes. The current trial is so that the volume is small enough to keep a close eye on and notice problems before the bot edits 500 or so pages. Once the problems have been worked through, I would expect a longer trial period. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, once we trust the bot from Phase I, in Phase II it should operate on all new nominations, for a substantial period (60 days or whatever, as we keep mentioning -- actually, I'd suggest 90 or even more). If it's still just a sample %age, then the effect will be so faint the result will be everyone saying, "I didn't notice that it helps". EEng 21:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Length of sets

I would like to propose adding an extra hook to the two current sets Prep 3 and Prep 4, because the hooks in these seem to be particularly short and this will likely result in an unbalanced main page. I think we should be flexible in this respect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean Prep 4 and 5? (Prep 3 has my five-article hook and the WWE hook, and looks to be the longest.) That sounds like a good idea. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I meant Prep 4 and Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I moved some of the shorter hooks out of these sets and added in longer hooks. Both sets look fine now. Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Need a reevaluation of this DYK entry

Basically need another evaluation since the first one said that a change is preferred for Template:Did you know nominations/Nanjing Golden Dragon Bus. Ominae (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_158&oldid=1085471670"