Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 131

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133→Archive 135

48-hour cycle?

I'm thinking we may soon have to go to a 48-hour cycle. It's unprecedented, but since going to a 24-hour cycle several weeks ago to allow the number of nominations to increase, the number has actually declined with currently only 187 on the nominations page and nothing in prep. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Ick, that would throw off some of the calculations based on the time between updates I added on Wikipedia:Did you know/Lore. Pppery 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There are currently 45 approved hooks, that's five whole prep area that can be filled. Personally I've stepped away from prep building a bit due to the toxic environment where blame in instead of constructive cooperation seems to be the way to go.  MPJ-DK  14:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    I suggest you leave it at a 24-hourly cycle for the time being, and I guarantee there will be 200 on the nomination page in 10 days time !! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    I would also leave it at 24 hours right now. As for prep-building, as I've said many times, unless people are prepared to spend perhaps up to an hour per hook re-reviewing the article and the veracity of the claim and searching for corroborating evidence, it's best not to engage in building preps as that way errors are less likely to be perpetuated to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Up to an hour? That is downright absurd, set builders don't have the time to spend an hour verifying individual hooks and you don't need an hour to verify an individual hook in any case. I do agree however, that if you are promoting a hook that you yourself reviewed, you need to thoroughly review it a second time to make sure you haven't missed anything.
    With regard to the cycle length, I agree it can be left where it is for now, for a few more days at least, but it doesn't hurt to draw attention to a potential problem in advance. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    I have to agree; we can't expect anyone to spend up to eight hours working on an eight-hook prep. No-one, no-one, has that amount of time to spend on Wikipedia. We would never have any preps filled if that was the norm. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    There is no rule or reason that a prep set should be made by one person only. We can have people promoting thoroughly checked hooks and articles one by one, and people shuffling hooks to other prep sets where necessary. And not all hooks and people require as much time for promotion, although they often require more time than is invested in them now. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    True but unfortunately it is often only one user building a prep set. And yes, judging by the posts on this page, more time per hook is required but an hour is excessive. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps the set-building mentality needs to change. No-one needs to build a whole set, in fact I often see individuals cherry-picking the "image" hook, so it's obvious that sets can be completed by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah sorry if I came across wrong because I defiantly agree that the attitudes need to be changed. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I, too, don't think there's reason to hit the panic button just yet: if the numbers drop further, then we can consider switching to 48 (or perhaps 36 is an option?) Vanamonde (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

File:Sunderland 2777w.jpg
Hook's pulled, and you know it is
Hook's pulled, and you know it is....

"... that the tune of the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was adopted by Arsenal fans for the football chant "One-Nil to the Arsenal"? No it wasn't. The tune adopted by the Arsenal fans was "Go West" by the Village People. The article points out that ""Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" has been noted as sharing a similar tune to the 1979 pop song "Go West" by Village People." but the tunes are only similar, not identical (after the first two lines they diverge), and the "One-Nil to the Arsenal" song follows "Go West", not the original.

Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pulled. Template:Did you know nominations/Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart @The C of E, EricEnfermero, and Cwmhiraeth: See e.g. [1], which explicitly notes "One Nil" / "Go West" as an exception to the many chants derived from hymns. Also [2]. Fram (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe how seriously you are taking this footy banter but I believe the better known version by Arsenal fans is the quaintly-titled retort, "You're shit, and you know you are" (same tune) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"... step up, arm up, you're offside!! Dud-duddle-duh-duh, duh duh!" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) But that wouldn't be true; other than the first couple of bars, the songs aren't the same. '... that "Go West", which has been noted as having a similar opening to the Christian song "Give Thanks With a Grateful Heart" was adopted by Arsenal fans for the football chant "One-Nil to the Arsenal"?' would be accurate, but that's stretching well into "did you care?" territory. (Which came first is irrelevant, since the relevant section of both songs—and the football chant—is lifted from Pachalbel's Canon.) ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec)The Arsenal fans adapted "Go West". Whether Go West was based on the older song or not is a different discussion, but it would be incorrect to post a hook as if the Arsenal fans were actively using the Christian song as the inspiration for their chant. By the way, your source for the hook says "They head off back inside the compound to a rousing rendition of “Give Thanks with a Grateful Heart” (which is, spookily, sung to the tune of “one-nil to the Arsenal”)." So the author notes, in a passing remark, that some people are singing the text of the Christian song but with the tune of the Arsenal chant. This is definitely not evidence that the tune of the Arsenal song is the tune of the Christian song, only that, because of the similarities, one can sing the text of one to the tune of the other. As far as I am concerned, the nomination can stay closed and remain that way. If you want it reopened to give yourself another chance at getting it right, that's your choice. Fram (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • THat's not in keeping with the spirit of collaboration. The fact is that Give Thanks came first and was then used by GW and then used by Arsenal. I may be third hand passage but it still comes from it. If you like I can include video sources showing both showing the similarities. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pachalbel's Canon came centuries before either, and (as is already noted on the Go West article, and implicitly by its inclusion in Category:Works based on Pachelbel's Canon) was the source for 'Go West'. You have no evidence that the Arsenal fans were basing their chant on 'Give Thanks', nor will you find any, since from the timings of when the chant appeared, it's obvious that it was prompted by the Pet Shop Boys' cover of 'Go West' which had been in the charts shortly before the chant appeared. It has nothing to do with "the spirit of collaboration"—you're asking us to feature your own original research on the Main Page, which is something we just don't do. ‑ Iridescent 09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec, agree with Iridescent) "The fact is"? There is no evidence that Give Thanks was even known to the writers of Go West, it seems from your article as if Give Thanks only became widely known after 1986, and GW was published in 1979. What you need for a start is good sources (not someone without any known music expertise claiming that the Don Moen version and the Pet Shop Boys version are somewhat similar, without apparently realising that both are covers, like you do now in the article). I have provided such good sources contradicting your hook. For some reason you seem intent on keeping the Arsenal link in the article. So much for the spirit of collaboration? Fram (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Jeez, Fram, lighten up a bit, but yes, you're right. A cursory knowledge of British football behaviour, let alone any reliable sources would lead you to conclude the "One-nil" / "You're shit" chant would be based on a pop song, not something that is unlikely for your stereotypical fan to have ever heard of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Why would I need to "lighten up a bit". Unlike the C of E (and others) I take accuracy on the main page serious. Whether it is about a serious subject or a football chant is not important. When people are only interested in getting their shit (to keep in the same spirit) on the main page, they should be told to leave. Instead, you again decide that the other side needs to lighten up (as if saying such a thing ever helps in any situation). Please do something useful like closing the "Give Thanks" nomination once and for all, if only because now that all nonsense has been removed, it is far below the 1500 character limit. Fram (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you having a go at me for agreeing with you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
No, for your useless paternalism ("I can't believe how seriously you are taking this footy banter", "Jeez, Fram, lighten up a bit"). What do you actually think to achieve by adding such comments? I don't even take "footy banter" seriously, no idea where you got that from, I take, like I said, the accuracy of the main page seriously. You should be aware by now that the hooks I pull are about the most diverse subjects, and that I don't pull because of the subject. Fram (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Fram, I'm going to make you an honorary Arbcom drop-out, is that ok? The number of times you've told people the way it is and upset them may not be on the same scale as me, but it's getting there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
It won't be "honorary" for much longer, if "AGF" Cwmhiraeth gets his way[3]. Fram (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Well that's a violation of WP:POLEMIC so it ought to be taken to ANI unless an appropriate timescale for its use is provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, let it be for the time being, it's brand new and in some aspects quite amusing. My "policy violation" in delisting a GA 1.5 hour after it had incorrectly been promoted (where according to Cwmhiraeth I should have "restore[d] it back to its former good article quality" instead, even though it obviously never had the required quality) is just one of the many chuckles I got out of it. Fram (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you take DYK too seriously Fram. There's a valid argument that DYK should not be on the main page as a feature, but it is intended as a bit of fun. I don't think many people take the hooks and the feature deadly seriously. You're right though that the main page of the encyclopedia should be taken seriously though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I for one take it deadly seriously. EEng 13:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

"... that Tony Award-winning Broadway actress and singer Lillian Hayman played Sadie Gray on the American soap opera One Life to Live for 17 years?". Sadie Gray says that she played the part from July 1968 to December 1986, which is a bit over 18 years. The article also says "continually for more than 17 years" so I presume this is simply an arithmetic issue? Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times says 17 years. The apparent discrepancy is explained by the fact that somebody else played the role in 1971. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
In which case the article is wrong, so I've removed "continually" from the sentence there. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
  2. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

    Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

  3. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
  4. George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
    1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
    2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
    3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.
    He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
  5. The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

Prep 4

"... that al-Baqi cemetery, the oldest and historically most important Islamic graveyard in Medina, was leveled to the ground by Wahhabis in 1806 and again in 1926?"

The first sentence of this article, written poorly, states "have been demolished[1] by forces loyal to Wahhabi-Saudi alliance[2] in 1806 and 1924 (or 1925[2][1])." That doesn't match the hook. Much of the rest of the article needs copyediting too, but that's another story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the opening sentence of the article to 1926, having already changed the hook on promotion. Permission was granted for levelling the cemetery in 1924 or 1925 but the work was not carried out till 1926. There was an amusing linked typo in the opening sentence too, Median for Medina! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It's nice that you have hidden the problem by removing the contradictory sources, but how have you determined that 1926 is the correct year and not 1925? I can find many reliable sources for 1925, e.g. this, this, this, this, this and this, or sources which don't choose between the two years[4]. I can find quite a few sources dating it to 1926, but I don't see how we can choose between the years with any certainty, nor how you could decide that 1926 was the right year after the problem had been pointed out here. Fram (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Suggest since this particular hook is so problematic it's pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Pulled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
If there is controversy over the year the graveyard was levelled, it's probably best to return the hook to the nomination page. In response to Fram, the article stated 1926 and so I checked the source cited. It had just the beginning of an article which mentioned no dates. I was confident that the article creator could read the whole and had the correct year. We call it AGF. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not allowed, per NPA, to call you a liar, so I'm once again stuck with incompetent. The article stated "1924 (or 1925", you changed it to 1926[5]. The DYK nomination said "1924 (or 1925)"Template:Did you know nominations/Demolition of al-Baqi, you changed it to 1926[6] while already in Prep. You have just lost the right to have any AGF extended to you anymore. Fram (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
You should get your facts right before (nearly) calling me a liar. I altered it in the lead, but it was already 1926 and cited in the body of the text in the section Second demolition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
And so you blindly assumed that both the nomination and the lead were wrong and the body right, even though you couldn't verify the source for the body. The lead had two sources, which you removed when changing it. You still have not indicated why you thought one year to be correct and the other to be incorrect, even after the discrepancy was highlighted here. (By the way, you may want to check this change, it's not really correct, as a trip through the WT:DYK archives may indicate). Fram (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Given that the source in the body gives an exact date for the beginning of the demolition, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have assumed that 1926 is the correct year. However, it would probably have been better to ask the article creator for confirmation. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
...or that it was a typo for 21 april 1925, or... We have an editor claiming "If there is controversy over the year the graveyard was levelled, it's probably best to return the hook to the nomination page. " but acting in reality quite differently. He claimed in this very discussion "I have changed the opening sentence of the article to 1926, having already changed the hook on promotion. Permission was granted for levelling the cemetery in 1924 or 1925 but the work was not carried out till 1926." which seems like a quite certain statement, something that editor actually verified. Now, we see that this was a made-up excuse, a guess to defend his AGF promotion instead of simply stating and doing "I'll pull this pending clarification" or something similar. Fram (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It hardly helps matters to be breaching AGF by accusing people of "made up excuses". At worst this was an error of judgement - we all make them from time to time. I'm sure Cwmhiraeth will be more careful next time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead does not normally have citations and should be a summary of the main body of text. It currently is not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
"At worst"? I guess you mean "At best". I admire your faith in Cwmhiraeth, I just wonder how many "next times" you'll need to change your opinion. I don't see how a rather certain and definitive "Permission was granted for levelling the cemetery in 1924 or 1925 but the work was not carried out till 1926." as first excuse, but later claiming that he just AGF'ed and couldn't check the source can be reconciled. The latest excuse seems to be that the lead should not have had any sources. Yeah, right... As is usually said about such matters, AGF is not a suicide pact. I don't see a GF explanation which fits everything Cwmhiraeth said and did in this situation, and as it is not the first time things like this happened (like his above "I did not review it" about a hook he approved and promoted) I just take thngs at face value now. Fram (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I know what I meant Fram and don't need you to explain it to me. I see no contradiction in Cwm's initial statements, so yes, I think you are violating AGF by talking about "excuses". Regardless, Cwm does a lot of set building, it's inevitable he is going to slip up from time to time with the volume of work he does. I have promoted most of the sets over the last six weeks and have noticed a great improvement with hardly any problems encountered. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't mean "at best" then you were and are simply wrong. Happens to the best of us. And it's inevitable he slips up from time to time because he doesn't check hooks he promotes (and sometimes even hooks he approves). But that you have no problem with an editor (repeatedly, he did the same with the German source a few weeks ago) declaring with great certainty that a hook was right, only to afterwards fall abck on "well, I don't know if it was right or not, I just AGF'ed) is your responsability. It won't change my level of GF and is not a convincing accusation of "vilating AGF" at all. As for "hardly any problems" over the last six weeks, I must have been in a parallel universe then, as there have been quite a few pulled hooks in that period. The only "great improvement" is that with only 8 hooks a day, there are less pulls than when we had 14 hooks a day; but the percentage of problematic hooks doesn't seem to have decreased at all (I'm talking in general here, not specific about hooks where one or another editor was involved). Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Am I allowed to get surprised seeing myself 'not pinged' in such a debate where, as the article creator who has gone deep in the sources to write the entry, I might have some determining points? --Mhhossein talk 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, you should have been pinged by the editor changing your hook and article, and by the one pulling the hook and reopening the nomination. Things at DYK don't always work like they should. Fram (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Per sources both 1925 and 1926 can be correct (there's no 1924 among the choices), but note that reliable sources such as entries of 'Encyclopedia of Islam' and 'Encyclopedia Islamica' on Baqi cemetery, both published by Brill, say that the demolition occurred in 1926. --Mhhossein talk 18:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Going the extra mile

Template:Did you know nominations/5-8 Club @Bobamnertiopsis, Storye book, and Cwmhiraeth:

Currently on the Main Page. I haven't pulled or changed, but this seems to be incorrect. One source[7] (used in the article) gives the distance as 4.2 miles. Other sources which discuss this give it as 3 miles.[8][9][10] Doing some OR using trip calculators[11] also gives me 3 miles.

Perhaps simply change it to

would be the safest solution. Fram (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good call. Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems a good solution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, done. Fram (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Bizarre, but a good find and sensible solution. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 13:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Fram - well spotted! Storye book (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with a nomination

A user has approached me on my talk who is having technical difficulty with their DYK nomination, here, but it's beyond my meager abilities. Could someone help out please?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I am no formatting whiz either, but I can see that the user has made a whole bunch of errors when creating the nomination page. Therefore, I have deleted the nomination page, and have recreated it here with the content that I think the user wanted there, and placeholders where appropriate: they can then fix the hooks at their leisure. Vanamonde (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

prep 6

..."... that Andy Vernon had a Twitter argument with UK Athletics teammate Mo Farah for over an hour?". Is this the most interesting and/or positive thing we can say about Andy Vernon ("Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals ... should be avoided."), given that we've pulled a hook out of a two-sentence "Controversy" section at the end of a substantial well-referenced article? Black Kite (talk)

Even respected and admired US presidential candidates have Twitter feuds with members of their own teams so I don't see what's negative about it. EEng 11:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, perhaps, but we've got an article here about a pretty good and long-serving athlete and we're picking out a hook that he had an argument with someone on Twitter. Just seems a bit petty, really. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Black Kite. Think I can see the difficulty - the meat of the article is simply a list of events and his placement, which often was somewhere uninteresting (sixth, ninth, 25th, etc). The pressure to have an interesting hook naturally draws the eye to the controversy section of the article, which contains the only non-statistical information in the article. Nevertheless, it does seem unfair.
So, here's a suggestion. It relies on two seperate sentences in the article. I added a source for the first and added both the second sentence and source together.
(1) Vernon's debut at an international athletics competition was at the 2004 IAAF World Cross Country Championships where he competed in the 8,000-metre junior men's race; finishing 64th in a time of 27 minutes and 12 seconds.[3]
(2) He ran his personal best of 27:42 in the 10,000 metres in May 2015, in Palo Alto, USA.[4]
ALT ... that long-distance runner Andy Vernon can now run the 10,000 metres in the time it took him to run 8,000 metres at age 18?
Taknaran (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The ALT should not say "now" because his personal best was in May 2015 and that was over a year ago. More generally, such discussions should take place at the relevant nomination to keep the ideas together. Having them here with a generic heading like "Prep 6" is quite confusing and tends to break up the discussions about the specific topics. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Point of information: discussions about hooks that have already been promoted to sets ready to head to the main page either need to be discussed here, or at ERRORS. There is absolutely no point whatsoever at all in discussing it at the nomination page once it's been promoted. In any case, I agree with the relevant part of the discussion, that this focuses unnecessarily on a negative aspect of a BLP. That's actually what's more important here. It's clear that what is needed is the hook to be pulled for further discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Nominator and writer here; when I wrote this hook, I must admit, I didn't think about the negative BLP rule. Personally, I don't think it is particularly negative, but if the community decides it is, I am happy if we run the ALT or if it is taken back to the nom page for further work. Sorry for the trouble caused, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Black Kite:@EEng:@Andrew Davidson:@The Rambling Man:@Yellow Dingo:@Maile66:@Gatoclass:@Fram:@BlueMoonset: Don't know who has the power, but the questioned hook is still queued up and about to be automatically moved to the home page. Can't it be held until this question is resolved? Taknaran (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I pulled it. Issues clearly not resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 (Newell Boathouse) — Currency?

... that Newell Boathouse stands on land for which Harvard pays $1 per year under a lease running one thousand years—​​after which the university can renew for another thousand years? (Q6)

@EEng: Just a very minor issue here, the hook (and the article), needs to clarify what currency the "$1" is in. I'm guessing US dollars, but it should still be clarified. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point, but I don't think it's necessary. It's an American topic so the reader's innate shrewdness will tell him that payments are in American currency, and whether it's 1¢ or $1, American or Canadian, the point of the hook remains – it's a token rent. If we specify US$1 it will seem almost like a little overprecision joke. EEng 03:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with EEng that a Harvard (very famous American) University lease with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (an American state) over a boathouse in Cambridge MA (in the US) is pretty obviously going to be written in USD. I think a much more appropriate link would to pipe $1 per year to peppercorn rent, which is the idea here. Also, the article does not reference this legal concept and it should. It's not that unusual (the word the lead uses). For example, for New Years Eve in Sydney, the City of Sydney rents the Opera House to the organisers for $1, the peppercorn rent being needed to make for a legal contract (satisfying the requirement for an exchange of valuable consideration), and thus to ensure coverage of the event by public liability insurance. In this case (note, OR / guess here, can't add to article) it's probably a way to ensure that Harvard has the land with unrestricted use without giving it to them, possibly because the government could only transfer ownership for a price in line with a commercial appraisal. EdChem (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I just found this at WP:CURRENCY Use the full abbreviation on first use (US$ for the US dollar and A$ for the Australian dollar), unless the currency is already clear from context. For example, the Government of the United States always spends money in American dollars, and never in Canadian or Australian dollars. which backs up your point EEng. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
More to the point, WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Currency_symbols says In articles entirely on EU-, UK- and/or US-related topics, all occurrences may be shortened. However, a DYK hook isn't an "article", and it's my vague impression that, in general, hooks do specify US$, Can$, etc. Nonetheless, in this case I hope we can agree to just say $ for the reasons already discussed.
  • EdChem's right that token consideration is a standard legal trick, though of course a thousand years is less frequently seen than a single night. ...possibly because the government could only transfer ownership for a price in line with a commercial appraisal -- translation: it's a sweetheart deal borne of the 19th-century Massachusetts government being even more lousy with Harvard men than it is today. EEng 04:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    @EEng, certainly in Britain and other Commonwealth countries thousand-year leases (or more commonly, 999 years) are absolutely routine—they're used as a legal fiction to avoid transferring the freehold on the land. It's particularly common in apartment buildings, to ensure that the developer selling the individual units remains responsible for maintenance and upkeep to the building; you also see it a lot with sports teams where the local authority leases rather than sells the land for a new stadium to the club for a peppercorn fee, to ensure that the team can't be tempted to remain in their ratty old stadium and sell that nice new land to developers for a fat profit. (See Anfield#Future for a particularly high-profile example.) ‑ Iridescent 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC) In fact, I see we have an—awful—article on the topic at 999-year lease. ‑ Iridescent 14:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    Those charming Brits with their freeholds and writs of replevin and Simplesse Legededermaine and so on. EEng 16:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed the referencing issues in the peppercorn rent article, and added ref and wikilink to the Newell Boathouse article. ERRORS has concluded no link is needed. EdChem (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 : Egyptian weightlifting

... that in 2016, Sara Ahmed became the first Egyptian woman to receive an Olympic medal?

Abeer Abdelrahman was retrospectively awarded the 2012 silver in late July 2016, so this hook is somewhat (potentially) misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the article covers that already, but the hook is still correct, Ahmed is the first to receive a medal as Abdelrahman still hadn't received hers at the time. Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so it is potentially misleading. That's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Just out of interest, the reliable sources surrounding Abdelrahman seem to suggest she "medaled" in late-July 2016, while Ahmed medaled 10 August that same year. Perhaps, if there's still any doubt, you could rephrase it to say that Ahmed was the first Egyptian woman to physically receive a medal, although even that's unclear given the timing of the re-award of the dubious 2012 medal. In any case, given the possibility of doubt, and the potential for confusion, this should be resolved before tomorrow's inevitable daily DYK trip to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this source it is clear that Ahmed was first on a podium. So, how about:

  • (ALT1): ... that after winning a bronze medal at the 2016 Olympics, Sara Ahmed became the first Egyptian woman to stand on an Olympic podium?

or:

  • (ALT2): ... that Sara Ahmed became the first Egyptian woman to stand on an Olympic podium, though Abeer Abdelrahman was the first to win a medal?

Thoughts? I have made a report at ERRORS as the hooks are now on the main page. EdChem (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed to my suggested ALT1 following decision at ERRORS. EdChem (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Should be restored; it was more concise, but also not misleading at all. Why was it changed based on Theramblingman's unsourced claim? He is wrong. Others were disqualified in July, but medals have not been redistributed - it is not automatic and has to be approved by the IOC. That has not happened; Abdelrahman has not received her silver medal (do you have a source demonstrating that she has?). IOC could decide to leave the place vacant, it has happened. 105.38.4.61 (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

that Dr. Alan Hale, who discovered...

We do not normally add prefixes such as "Dr." to hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed we don't; fixed. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Lipi)

... that Lipi means writing script in Sanskrit, and that a Buddhist text lists 64 scripts of ancient India with Brahmi as number one?

I'm feeling particularly stupid this morning but I sadly fail to see the link between the first clause and the second clause of this hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the link, either. The lead of the article says "In the Indian tradition, Brahma is credited with inventing Lipi, the scripts for writing.[4]", so maybe:
  • ... that in the Indian tradition, Brahma is credited with inventing Lipi, the scripts for writing?
Assuming the reference supports it, of course. EdChem (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The source says that Brahma invented script, and Lipis are a type of script, but it doesn't specifically mention Lipi in that context, only in the context of Jain scripts. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, it's not just you. The scripts appear to be Lipi, so it should be something like "... that Lipi means writing script in Sanskrit, and that a Buddhist text lists 64 Lipi of ancient India with Brahmi as number one?" But what does "Brahmi at number one" mean? It could mean that texts written in Brahmi are the most common of the Lipi, but later on we find the sentence "The Jaina script list includes Brahmi at number 1", but this refers to a different set of 18 Jain texts, not the list of 64. To add to the confusion, the list of 64 text in Lipi is titled "Indian and Chinese texts". It doesn't help that Lipi is not particularly clear or well-written on some points ("until the time of Ashoka where the 3rd-century BCE pillar edicts evidence the Brahmi script"). Black Kite (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Sadly, the quality of writing isn't considered important by this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Ah - the source makes the "number 1" bit clear (the texts are numbered), but the article doesn't! Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the confusion from three different editors here, I suggest this is pulled and placed back in the nominations pool for a hook re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"... that Lipi means writing script in Sanskrit, and that a Buddhist text lists 64 scripts of ancient India with Brahmi as number one?
Here is a link to the nomination template. I propose we just remove the last five words which would have been more appropriate if the image had been used. In fact I will remove them unless anyone objects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see the link between the clauses, even when you remove the last five words. It is a bizarre and uninspiring and counterintuitive hook, even grammatically questionable, especially if you just remove the last five words. It needs work, so pulling it is best to allow more time for a more considered approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (easter egg)

... that East Texas State University was, in part, saved...

This is an easter egg link as I would expect the blue linked target to take me to East Texas State University, not an article about the history of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines that apply to article text do not necessarily apply to DYK hooks. For the sake of concision and hookiness, "easter egg"-ish hooks may be considered acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The guideline is not restricted to article text. And it's not a guideline, it's a how-to guide. Either way we should not be confusing the readers by presenting a link to an article which actually doesn't link to that article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I very much doubt anybody had DYK hooks in mind when they wrote the "how-to guide"; obviously they were referring to article text. You may not be aware of it, but you are proposing a principle here that conflicts with long-established practice at DYK. Hooks should not be gratuitously easter-eggish, but hookiness should not be compromised simply in order to comply with the letter of a guide never intended for application here. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
No, the long-established practice at DYK is to use the final hook as a fun hook sometimes where easter egg linking appears to be permitted. The rest of the targets should work as advertised and not result in odd results. I only bring it up simply because I was surprised myself. Typically it is best to rework a hook to link to something that doesn't surprise the reader, e.g. we recently had "... that Siti Nurhaliza (pictured) has recorded songs in..." with the target link (her discography) being linked to "recorded songs", and not her name. This kind of linking is preferential and benefits our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree that hooks should be reworked to avoid surprise wherever practicable - feel free to propose an alternative to this one if you have something in mind. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure: * ... that East Texas State University was, in part, saved from closure in 1986 by 450 supporters making a bus trip to the Texas State Capitol in Austin?

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Substituted, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all. Thanks for making the change! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nom/Akıncı Air Base

How can I prevent a DYK nomination reaching the Main Page. Take it back from the prep area saying it is not "hooky". Everybody starts suggesting ALTs. So many ALts that nobody gets interested to re-review. Bingo! CeeGee 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure if something hooky or interesting can be derived from the article, it'll be given a hook and then promoted. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
So while your post is so passive aggressive I really did not feel like dealing with it I checked into it - Template:Did you know nominations/Akıncı Air Base is not currently listed on the DYK nomination page, so of course no one will come by to review it. What you attribute to a deliberate attempt to keep it off the main page is actually because no one can see that it needs to be reviewed.  MPJ-DK  21:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@CeeGee and MPJ-DK: Thanks to both of you for mentioning this here. I can only guess why it wasn't on the noms page, perhaps its original date was deleted from that page. I've returned it to July 22, the date of the nomination. Whether or not that's exactly the correct date, it's there. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what happened to the practice of linking the WTDYK discussion on the template when a nomination is pulled, but here's this one: WT DYK discussion on pulling the Akıncı Air Base hook. It helps if someone is looking at a stalled nomination to be able to click a link and see why it was pulled. — Maile (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Checked This is now good to go with ALT2. The source and the wording of the article match the hook. Ready for promotion. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: The source and the wording of the article match each other too well. I removed some close paraphrasing, and also suggested a more grammatical hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine. It works. Promote it already. And, Yoninah thank you for your diligence in catching this. But it's somewhat disgraceful how this fell through the cracks. Not the first one to do that, nor the last. It's just a shame. A lot of things over here are...well...fill in the blanks. Echhhh... Let's get this nomination promoted, please. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I thank you all, who did a positive reaction and corrected my thoughts. I apologize for being "passive aggressive", an attitude, which I learned only now it is. Next time, I will be directly asking what happened. Cheers. CeeGee 06:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1: neon lighting (again)

Let's try a reliable source for this current hook which claims:

that the Grand Theatre was the first in Australia to be lit entirely by neon lights?

The most reliable source I could find, published by the AMMPT - The Australian Museum of Motion Picture & Television (Inc), says the following:

The auditorium and proscenium have been completely changed in appearance, although the structural plan has been unaltered. The sliding roof, which was a popular feature of the old theatre in summer, has been retained, and in addition air conditioning has been installed. A porous, fibrous material, coloured to harmonise with the general treatment, is used on all walls opposite the screen to prevent echoing.
The sides and roof have been carried out in a restrained ´modernist' style, with tonings of grey-blue, cream and salmon. Indirect neon lighting is used throughout.

I.e. the "auditorium and proscenium" were fitted with neon throughout, not the entire cinema. So it was only part of the cinema that was was "lit entirely" by (indirect) neon lighting. It's worth noting that other sources used in that article appear to make the claim that the "entire theatre" was fitted with neon (which, of course, is nonsensical) but that seems to be a poor interpretation of this actually reliable source... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Now noted at ERRORS since we only have about an hour or so to go before it becomes another DYK fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if following is not formatted properly

Two sources from newspapers of the time of the 1938 refurbishment (in article "The theatre's first major reconstruction occurred in 1938...")

(current ref 18) "The Grand is the first theatre in Australia entirely illuminated by neon lights, and the effect produced is most pleasing." http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/46285617 (The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954) View title info Sat 17 Dec 1938 Page 10 ENTERTAINMENTS.)

and (current ref 20) "The re-seating, the absence of supporting pillars in the stalls and the new lighting system, were notable features. The lighting was entirely by Neon. The Grand Theatre was claimed to be the first in Australia entirely illuminated with Neon." http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/82570949 (The Daily News (Perth, WA : 1882 - 1950) View title info Thu 15 Dec 1938 Page 6 NEW GRAND THEATRE)

and AMMPT (ref 22) also quotes (4th mention of neon) the West Australian article ... "A feature of the new theatre is the lighting system, which is done with neon lights. The Grand is the first theatre in Australia entirely illuminated by neon lights, and the effect is most pleasing. (West Australian, 17 December 1938)" JennyOz (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any progress on this? It really is queued for midnight now... Espresso Addict (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
No, there's no progress. Those who actually believe an entire building would be lit by neon lights are following the 1920s/1930s sources which are journalistic at best, and I have posted the work of the AMMPT whose interpretation was that only a couple of areas of the theatre were actually (indirect)-neon-lit. But there's nothing more I can offer on that other that sources conflict and in such circumstances, perhaps a different hook could be suggested. There have been numerous examples of "firsts" where some users have requested a search for a contrary source, just in case. I found one. But mostly everyone else is content to run with the (unlikely) current claim. I'll leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it [12] you are looking at? There's a paragraph break in your quotation (I've made it visible); I'm not sure whether it changes the meaning. For the record, the entire quotation is:

Under the Grand Theatre Company, the Royal underwent several renovations. The first was completed before the theatre re-opened in August 1934. At this time the central pillar in front of the theatre was removed to enlarge the lobby, and extensive redecoration and refurnishing took place. In 1937 the stage was taken out and the screen set further back, and in 1939 a major reconstruction was undertaken:

The front and lounge foyers, which have been enlarged by the elimination of the old staircase, have been given the appearance of being considerably more spacious by the careful use of mirrors. The tesselated marble flooring has been retained in the foyer, but the decorative treatment has been improved by the use of plain and fluted vitrolite, the glossy blackness of this material contrasting with chromium bands, which are liberally used. The staircase, which is set at the side and not the centre of the foyer, to give added space, is carried out in flush panelling of light, figured maple. The walls are finished in a restful, grey texture.
The lounge foyer, with carpeting and upholstered furniture in warm colours, gains considerable space from the elimination of one of the side staircases and extension in the direction of the balcony, and is set off by stainless steel pillars. The cosmetic room has been soundproofed and finished in a tasteful silver-grey.
The auditorium and proscenium have been completely changed in appearance, although the structural plan has been unaltered. The sliding roof, which was a popular feature of the old theatre in summer, has been retained, and in addition air conditioning has been installed. A porous, fibrous material, coloured to harmonise with the general treatment, is used on all walls opposite the screen to prevent echoing.
The sides and roof have been carried out in a restrained ´modernist’ style, with tonings of grey-blue, cream and salmon. Indirect neon lighting is used throughout.
The seating in the lounge and dress circle has been completely changed. The stage has been enlarged, and the main curtain is treated in alternate shades of wine. The alterations are reported to have cost £11,000. (West Australian, 22 Sept.1939)[13]
Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't know what exactly the original sources meant when they said the theatre was "entirely" lit by neon. It's highly unlikely they meant there wasn't an incandescent globe in the entire building; more likely they meant the public spaces were entirely lit by neon, or perhaps just the auditorium. Regardless, it is not required that hooks be presented with mathematical precision, they are there simply to tweak the readers' interest; readers are capable of deciding for themselves how absolute the use of the word "entirely" might be in the given context. Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no subjectivity in the use of the word "entirely" I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
But there is in the use of "theatre". Regardless, this discussion is now moot as I added "reportedly" to the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Seattle Times hook on main page

Here's another one. Seattle Times Building. What was on the main page was not the approved hook, and there was only one hook that was ever approved for this nomination. I corrected it to the approved hook. Neither the article, nor the source, said it was called a death trap specifically because of, or "for", the squatters.

Main page altered hook: ... that the Seattle Times Building was called a "death trap" for illegal squatters?
Article: Seattle Fire Department operations battalion chief Bryan Hatings called the building a "death trap" after the July 2016 fire, and reported at least 10 to 12 squatters had been living there.
Source: “It’s a death trap,” Hastings said of the building. (a stand alone paragraph in the source)
Source: The building, at 1120 John St., in the South Lake Union neighborhood, has been a running problem for public-safety officials because of squatters who set up home there. One person said last year that, at the peak, up to 200 people were living inside.
Source: Company spokesman Evan Lewis said Thursday that Onni is aware of the Wednesday evening fire and the squatters, and has a 24/7 security patrol at the building, which will be demolished as soon as Onni can get the necessary permits.

The hook was changed twice in prep, and the version that ended up on the main page was actually a version of ALT2 that had been rejected for promotion. — Maile (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well if squatters are living in it, they are surely the ones whose lives are at risk, so I don't see much of a problem with the tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It would presumably still be a risk to legal squatters (see this wonderful directive. Or trespassers. Or hedgehogs preparing to (or indeed actively hoping to) hibernate.) I think the point being made is that purely concocting the "hooky" part of the hook is not the way to do things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ağın Bridge

Now on the Main Page:

Template:Did you know nominations/Ağın Bridge @CeeGee, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah:

I have not pulled this, but it seems to me to be either wrong or at least misleading. The article Ağın Bridge makes the hook claim even stronger: "For a period of about 40 years following the establishment of the reservoir, the town was disconnected from the provincial center, and was accessible only by ferry boats across the lake." In reality, Ağın ha always been easily accessible by road (the 44-03 to the North): the only thing that happened was that the shortest route between Ağın and Elazığ was no longer available and that people had to either take a longer route, or a ferry. (Whether much heavy traffic really used Karamagara Bridge before it was dismantled can be questioned but is outside the scope of this DYK discussion). With the opening of the new bridge, the route between the two cities has been shortened by about 50km (very rough guesstimate). Fram (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, in fact Ağın was accessible from its provincial center Elazığ over a detour at Arapgir in Malatya Province. The distances are Malatya-Arapgir 91 km (57 mi) and Arapgir-Ağın 37 km (23 mi) making a total of 128 km (80 mi) while it is 82 km (51 mi), a short cut of 46 km (29 mi), as you also mention. The route went from Elazığ to Arapgir south of Lake Keban towards north, and then from Arapgir southwards to Ağın. However, the bridge re-established a "direct road connection" within the same province. As I can remember, I had pointed out to this fact. I guess, the attribute "direct" in the hook went lost in the meantime. BTW, thanks for leaving the DYK hook on the Main Page. CeeGee 10:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
How about adding the word "direct" to the hook? On Google maps I don't see the 44-03 road to the north, only the D877, but in any event, the new bridge has cut the journey drastically and reestablished the more direct route. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That still leaves "disconnected" in the hook. Perhaps
That looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, done. Feel free to tweak further if needed. Fram (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot back up

Hi, sorry for the few weeks of relative quiet. Since there seem to have been no issues with the previous bot batch implementing the hardcoded collapsed comments (apart from the <small></small> hook source issue, which has been fixed), I'm bringing the bot back online, though as usual please let me know on my talk page if there are any issues. Intelligentsium 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list should have been archived days ago and is nearly exhausted, so here's a new list of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through the end of September. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, only 49 nominations have been approved, leaving 139 of 188 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the eight that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Over a 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) 07:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing hooks substantially before posting

WP:ERRORS has recently had this discussion. We have been advised to discuss it back here rather than at the errors page. Arbcom have recommended that DYK in particular work harder on improving the quality issues, this is one such example that will form the basis of an RFC where it's made evident that non-English speakers are probably not the best positioned editors to dramatically modify hooks after they've been approved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To avoid this problem, I would recommend that any proposed change to a hook, be checked by someone else as well. And that goes for last minute fixes by TRM or other admins. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hold it, this is veering into NOTBURO territory. Over the years I've made scores of changes to hooks in prep (whether minor formatting or wording changes, or outright fixes) and I can recall only once that I introduced an error. TRM, whatever his other failings, has a similar signal-to-noise ratio, though on a much larger scale. To discourage such activity would be penny wise and pound foolish. Ideally the hook would be absolutely, positively final before leaving the nom page, so all discussion and tinkering would take place there, but we don't have the machinery and discipline to make that happen yet. EEng 04:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I too have made changes, mostly on the main page, after a complaint on ERRORS. But any of us could introduce an error that may be obvious to another person. So how are we going to avoid mistakes in hooks getting onto the main page? The promoting admin is really responsible, but if others edit in the queue or when already on the main page, then they have taken on that responsibility. Is any one interested in giving low latency checking to these edits to see if something stupid is about the happen? TRM could still do checking and then ask an admin politely to fix the problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I do as much checking as time allows, along with trying to ensure a minimum quality level of each DYK article posted. None of this really relates to the point of a wholesale flip of the hook at the last moment by a non-native English speaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In a discussion like this it is helpful to have a link to what is being discussed, which in this instance is this nomination. I promoted the hook to Prep 4 on 12 October. Many people were subsequently involved in the slight alterations that were made to the hook.
  • The approved hook on the nomination page was
  • ... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but instead he drowned later that year?
  • I then changed it in the prep area to
  • "... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but was tragically drowned himself later that year?"
  • TRM then changed it in the prep area to
  • ... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but was drowned himself later that year?
  • Nikkimaria then changed it in the prep area to
  • ... that missionary Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but he was drowned himself later that year?
  • Yoninah then changed it in the prep area to
  • ... that Thorarinn Thorason's wife threatened to drown herself due to his missionary efforts in Iceland, but he was drowned himself later that year?
(edit conflict)Personally I don't think that we should be making substantial wholesale changes of hooks without the nominators consent, particularly when they probably don't have the preps and queues watchlisted. I am reminded of the rule that I did try to introduce regarding holding areas here but I think the same principle could apply in this situation too, in that if the hook is changed substantially the nominator should be informed. That way you can have the nominator chiming into the process via this courtesy rather than them being surprised that what they nominated was not what ran. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Completely agree that any changes to an approved hook should be discussed here first. I disagree that the issue is about whether or not the editor has English as a primary language. There are a lot of corporate executives in English speaking countries who can't put a written sentence together (that's what they have employees for). Doesn't matter what culture or background of any editor here. All our editors really believe they are doing something good and helpful. Better if hook alterations are discussed here first. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Well what we ended up with, via Chinese whispers, non-English re-interpretation and POV-inclusion, was a sentence promoted to the queue which was barely parseable in English and made little sense. What we started with made sense and was reflected by the article. Go figure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We have a rule about this, and there's a reason for it: it's completely impractical to discuss every tweak to a hook as it moves to the main page. The vast majority of changes made to a hook on its way through prep are improvements, the tiny number that are not are usually picked up and amended quickly. The last thing we need for this process is more bureaucracy tying the hands of the small number of users working on quality control, that is just a recipe for a steady stream of defective hooks reaching the main page - or none getting there at all. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What this demonstrates is that the original hook was just fine and needed no "tweaking", e.g. to include POV terms such as "tragically" or poor English such as "he was drowned himself".... It's often better to just leave hooks that check out factually if they've been promoted. Trying to tailor it to fit a personal preference just introduces series of issues, as shown. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I would describe it more as the exception that proves the rule. 99 times out of a hundred, hooks are improved by later tweaks, this appears to be a rare example where that was not the case, although if you ask me, neither the original hook nor the tweaks were ideal. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Certainly the addition of POV terms should always be avoided. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand

Why is there a need, ever, for last-minute changes to DYKs before they're posted? What's the rush? We're talking about DYK here, not something time-critical. Surely if a DYK is possibly not good enough, put it back in the assessment area and pick another that's ready. If there aren't enough DYK candidates coming through the process, then reduce the number on Main Page. Last minute unilateral fixes open the possibility of problems as mentioned above by various editors and I can't think of a good reason for being in that position. There are enough issues cropping up at ERRORS with DYKs - why exacerbate it by doing this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The dynamic is that there's a small group of editors (let's call them the "eagle eyes") who have a talent for catching problems with hooks, and those editors can't watch all 200 nom discussion snailing their way through the approval process for days, weeks, or months. It's only when a nom gets the proverbial green tick, and gets moved to prep, that the eagle eyes are able to focus on whatever hook the (admittedly quite unreliable) nom-approval process has produced, and it's then that these "last-minute", and often quite necessary, fixes happen. Unfortunately by this time the nom discussion -- the very venue that would be the most appropriate for discussing any change -- has been closed, and it's way too much trouble to remove the hook from prep (or Q, if things have gotten that far) and reopen the discussion just to fix subject-verb agreement or whathaveyou.
The solution will have to involve somehow getting the eagle eyes' attention on the final, single hook that's to go to prep while the nom page is still open. Here's a rough proposal:
  • When a nom gets green-ticked, that should always involve choosing one and only one hook as the one being approved.
  • At the time the green tick is given, the one approved hook, together with a link to the associated nom page, is added to a list (somewhere) of "approved hooks". On this list there's a separate section for each calendar date; you add a new link to the section for today's date.
  • Prep sets are built by drawing from this list, but you never use a hook from today's or yesterday's section. That means every hook spends at least two days on the "approved" list, giving the eagle eyes a chance to focus on it.
  • The nom discussion stays open this whole time. Ideally, it stays open up until the hook has gone to main page, had its turn there, and gone to the archive; that way the venue for discussing last-minute problems stays open. But I don't know whose job it would be to make those closes at that late time, so a compromise would be to close the nom, as now, when it comes off the "approved" list and goes to prep. Hopefully 90% of post-tick problems will be spotted during the residency on the "approved" list, while the nom is still open; the other 10% will have to be handled the old-fashioned way, with gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair.
I, for one, would be happy to make a daily check of "yesterday's" batch of approved noms, as handily gathered on the approved noms list, looking for the kinds of things only fresh eyes seem to be able to see. I know this adds to the bureaucracy, and no doubt my proposal could be improved in many ways, but I do think that it's essential that freshly approved green ticks be gathered somewhere for the final scrutiny of many eyes while it's still easy to return them to their nom page for further discussion. EEng 02:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, the series of preps were designed to fulfil this function, so that non-admins could edit the queued hooks and "eagle eyes" could focus on hooks that were queued. The reason the system is not working well at the moment is that the preps aren't being filled in a timely fashion. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmm. You make me realize that inside my complicated idea may have been a simple idea struggling to get out. Here's a revision:
  • When a nom gets green-ticked, that should always involve choosing one and only one hook as the one being approved.
  • When a hook is moved to prep, the nom page is not closed.
  • [Modified based on comments below]]Hooks should not be modified as they're moved to prep; if the prep builder thinks he/she sees an improvement, he should propose it on the nom page and move on to find other hooks for the set he's building. As hooks are moved to prep, while they're in prep, and while they're in Q, changes to should be cautious and conservative. Substantive changes should be proposed on the nom page (pulling the nom from prep or Q if it's already there). It will take discipline to stick to this protocol.
  • Prep sets should remain at least 48 hours before being moved to Q. This will take some discipline in terms of building prep sets well in advance. (The nom page is still not closed at this point.)
  • When a set has had its turn on the main page and goes to archive, then the nom pages are closed. (If no one remembers to do that, eventually someone will notice there are stale nom pages hanging around, and realize there's a set whose discussions need closing.)
How's that? EEng 04:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Keeping nominations open means more content at T:TDYK and there is a limit to how many templates can be transcluded, we already have issues with that at times. EdChem (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Compared to the 200 noms now open for an average of a week or more, keeping 16 open two more days more won't make much difference. Whose idiot idea was to make everything a bunch of templates transcluded into more templates transcluded into one hyper-mega-gigantic template, anyway? EEng 06:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Completely impractical. Nobody is ever going to bother building a set, or verifying one, if they are expected to jump through so many hoops. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think you're looking at this carefully. There's no extra work imposed on the prep builder at all. What hoops are you talking about? EEng 08:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I just love the way that folks who have never built or verified a set can assure the regular contributors that "there's no extra work" in their proposals. Firstly, set builders do not have the time to go wandering from one nomination to another proposing hook tweaks. Their job is to build a set and they are going to do it with whatever suitable hook is to hand. Secondly, as a set verifier I already spend one to two hours every day working on sets, but now you want me to pull every hook that would benefit from a tweak into the bargain, open a discussion on the nominations page with the user/s who supplied it and attempt to achieve consensus for the change, while in the meantime looking for suitable replacement hooks? That would effectively double the time I would be spending on set verification. And that just ain't gonna happen. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with what Gatoclass says, EEng's suggestion is impractical. If you study the history tabs of the prep sets you will see that many people make minor tweaks to the hooks while they are there, and there is only need to return hooks to the nominations page when major alterations need to be made. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I've made some changes. Take a look. EEng 16:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

... that 88 species of orchid have been identified in the Cutervo National Park in Peru?

Question: the source for this states that 88 morphospecies are present (... a total of 88 morphospecies were found ...), not specifically "species". Shouldn't the hook use the word "morphospecies"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I had not come across the term "morphospecies" before, but you are probably right, and I have changed both the hook and article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
First thing I did when I checked the source was to check the term. It seemed, at first glance, that it was in no way the same as "species", but I'm no expert. Thanks for making the change!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 October 2016

In queue 4, third item Anna L. Peterson, "between" needs to be changed to "among" in the phrase " ... conceptions of nature, humans, animals, and the relationships between them." Three entities are involved, not two. Awien (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Awien (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Anybody? One preposition? Just five letters? Awien (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Vanamonde (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Vanamonde. Awien (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that the Taunton Flag (pictured) was one of the first flags used prior to the American Revolution to express dissension against the British authorities?

Picky one, but the article makes it clear that it was one of the first flags to be used in British North America. A better hook seems to be something along the lines of that noted in this website which states that Taunton became the first in the American colonies to raise a flag in opposition to British rule. and leave it at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It was raised before the American Revolution and the hook doesn't mention the name of the colony/area that it happened in but American Revolution implies it was within the area that we now know as the US for familiarity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with TRM's assessment here; the implication is that it was the first flag used against British authority (which at the time extended pretty far); the "American revolution" bit doesn't to me imply a location for the first part of the hook, only that the American revolution was another well-known act of dissent against British authority. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it wasn't just American colonies that objected to the Empire. Suggest the hook is pulled and revised to make it clearer without assuming any kind of national link. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, anyone prepared to action this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you just pull it and reopen the mom page? I'd do it but I'm on my phone. EEng 08:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't do that stuff any more, in case it's re-interpreted as something more sinister. If there's a general agreement that the hook could and should be improved, someone trustworthy should be able to handle the request. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I fully support you (like anyone else) in pulling any hook with an obvious or potential problem not trivially fixable, and sending it back to the mom page, as long as you omit the denigration of other editors. EEng 14:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Sadly it doesn't matter one iota what your opinion is in this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed

Is anyone adding entries to this list anymore? I just added one today ... and the last entry was 3 weeks ago, also by me. Yoninah (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
One wonders if a bot could check hook removals from queue/prep/main template and list them there copying the edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Help, please

There is something wrong with the formatting of the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Ahn. Numerous parameters are missing, and there is no closing line, causing the next nomination on that date to appear in small print. Yoninah (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Maile66:! Yoninah (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done It was an easy fix you can tell by looking at the history. Both the top part and bottom part of the template were missing. All I did was look at a nearby one done correctly, and copy and paste the parts that were missing. New nominator. Maybe they tried to make a template from scratch, rather than doing it by the instructions. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (Rwanda swimmer)

... that despite recording the second slowest heat time in the women's 100 metre butterfly at the 2016 Summer Olympics, Johanna Umurungi was seven seconds quicker than one athlete?

I'm finding it hard to consider this a "hook", or at least "hooky" in any way. The phrasing is awkward, the fact isn't interesting. Perhaps something like she was the only female Rwandan swimmer at the 2016 Olympics? Or that she was invited to participate by FINA? These are both referenced in the (out of date) Rwanda at the 2016 Summer Olympics article. Either one of those would be more "hooky" than the current lengthy effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the addition of the massive thread below which will no doubt obfuscate the existence of this one, I've decided to break with convention and apply an ITN/C approach, this needs attention so I've marked it as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Being the only female swimmer is indeed more hooky, assuming that it's reliably sourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You can find the source in the Rwanda at the Games article I linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, The Rambling Man. I added this detail to the article with the source you provided. Can we skip the pulling business and just post your new hook in prep?
ALT1: ... that Johanna Umurungi was the only female Rwandan swimmer at the 2016 Summer Olympics? Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in pulling any hook, so if there's an agreement here to make this more "hooky" that's fine. I guess it would be courteous to notify the nominator and the promoter? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
File:Blush.png Er, I'm the promoter. I'm pinging @Yellow Dingo:, the nominator. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah and The Rambling Man: ALT 1 is fine with me. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be good if either of you could just substitute the old hook with the new one. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (fellowship)

... that Lisbeth Hockey was the first nurse to be awarded a fellowship by the Royal College of General Practitioners?

It should be made very clear here that this was an honorary fellowship, per the article and the sources. I'm not clear why this wasn't picked up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that, TRM. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Noted, thanks for checking and picking this up. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Drchriswilliams no worries! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (headache)

"... that the headache vine (pictured) gained its name from its supposed ability to cure headaches by being an irritant?"

The article, somewhat confusingly, contains the following text: The species gains its common name from a folk use as a remedy for headaches. (so, not a "supposed ability", a "folk use", whatever that is?), but that sentence is then followed by The aroma from the crushed leaves is inhaled, though it relieved headaches due to its highly irritant properties, and I can't for the life of me understand what "though it relieved..." means here. Before I am, once again, reminded that article quality is not important, that DYK is not GA etc etc, I'm befuddled as to what these sentences actually mean. The source is not available to me to check, so I can only assume there's some kind of misinterpretation of the reference. Either way, the language used in the article is poor, and the corresponding hook is equally bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Please provide a link to the article or nomination in such cases. Referencing a prep is not so useful because the contents of the prep pages keeps changing. In this case, it took some effort to establish that the article in question is Clematis glycinoides. There was no redirect for headache vine so I have created it now. Oddly, there was a redirect for headachevine but that goes to a different target. Anyway, the effect of this plant is well-explained by Medicinal Plants in Australia. Now, where do I get some? :) Andrew D. (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • For the avoidance of doubt, and to help you in the future, links to all the nominations can be found at the Prep and Queue areas. Or you can use the "What links here" tool! Either way, raising such issues requires no such linking, we are here to discuss the hook and look at the article, the nomination itself is somewhat irrelevant! Thanks!! P.S. It's still in Prep 1 (where I reported it). If you think the instructions need to be changed, feel free to propose something. Now, back to the issue I raised, please! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • TRM, perhaps you should ping the nominator and expander of the article. Here is a link to the hook Template:Did you know nominations/Clematis glycinoides ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Perhaps, but I'm looking for people who are constructing these sets to provide their interpretation of the text I've noted, that doesn't necessarily need to be the nominator or expander. Someone thinks it makes sense, obviously, just not me. And once again, if you think the instructions should be changed to include pinging the nominator, reviewers, promoter etc, please feel free to do so! Now, back to the issue I raised please. Can someone interpret those phrases I've pointed out and somehow relate them to the hook? One also imagines that the name is given because it cures headaches, (and actually, the plant doesn't cure headaches, it's supposedly the aroma that does), not because it cures "headaches by being an irritant".... Perhaps, "...cure headaches, despite its aroma being an irritant?" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm pinging User:Casliber as the most appropriate editor to resolve this – author, nominator, expert on Australian plants, medic and member of Arbcom. Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Very good of you to take the time to do that, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
          • As the prep builder, I checked the source and noticed that the page creator could have given another sentence or two to explain the phenomenon. However, since this is a start-class article, I thought that what was written was sufficient for DYK. The page creator did do a good job of avoiding close paraphrasing (it's the fumes that irritate the one who smells it, not the aroma), but more description would certainly be better. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Right, here now. Been offline for a bit and this happens. The source author seemed a bit bemused in that the irritant fumes cured a headache in what sounds reminiscent of curing a toothache by dropping a bowling ball on one's toe. I didn't think it was that obscure that someone couldn't have gotten the gist of it but whatever. Still, it was late when I wrote it and yes I could have phrased it better. So how about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Gotcha, thanks! Still think the hook needs a tweak, the "by being an irritant" isn't part of the reason it was called the headache vine, just the fact it cured headaches (allegedly)... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Better now I can see the source! It's a shame we lose the potency of the reference, which academically states "the head exploding, the eyes watering and the intense irritation of the nasal passages" which results in the actual headache being "forgotten". I would have loved to have seen such vibrant and hooky language used on the main page rather than the mundane version we're soon to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This hook still isn't quite right, please could someone adjust it per the above discussion, i.e. it's not called "headache vine" because .... "by being an irritant", it's called the headache vine because it allegedly cures headaches. The "by being an irritant" is quirky but doesn't form part of the causal argument over the name. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done @The Rambling Man: OK, I changed it in prep. This is a totally new way of doing things, you understand. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it? Well I'd like to help out myself, but that's no longer allowed, so the edits I used to make will now be noted here for complete transparency, and if they're not resolved, I'll move them to ERRORS. I don't think it's "totally new" in any case. But thanks so much for your response and your help!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. This time I have created and nominated Disappearance of Joan Risch in the hope that it will be able to run on Monday, October 24, in North America, the 55th anniversary of the event. Since it seems like we have a bit more lead time than we have had on some of my other recent such requests (a little bit better time management on my part this time), and the queues for that day are still empty, I think this shouldn't be too much of a problem to review and make any necessary changes.

Hell, there's even a picture this time if we want it to be the lead hook. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have approved this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This needs promotion from the special holding area to the slot I have left in Prep 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (dancing)

...that in the video game Bound, the main character moves by dancing?

Rather than just moving by dancing, the text in the article says She must complete platforming challenges and has the ability to dance to repel enemies..., i.e. "she has the ability to dance"... and it's also a platform game, so I assume she doesn't just dance her way through it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks like she does - further down the article in the Development section it says "Every single animation of the character was replaced to change it to a dance move." It's that sentence you quote rather than the hook that's misleading, I think. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, so the article is inconsistent, I see that now. I guess I should have thoroughly read the whole article like the reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    P.S. the main ref says in which the main character dances and performs gymnastic movements to navigate the world i.e. she does more than just dance. A quick check of the main ref, like two seconds.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Meh. I'd normally give this the benefit of the doubt, but the article is clearly inconsistent. The hook should be something like ...that in the video game Bound, the main character mostly/mainly moves by dancing ... but to be honest given the inconsistent nature of the article, I wouldn't argue with pulling it either. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made the change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 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) 22:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (nursing studies)

... that the Nursing Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh was the first such department in a UK university?

It always sticks out to me when I see "UK" in hooks, so I checked the refs here, the first says its the first "within the framework of a British university", the second says "the first Nurse Teaching Unit at a British university in 1956" and the third says "the first university-based centre for nursing in Europe". None seem to mention the UK. Oh, and if we change the hook, can we please avoid the redirect to the target article? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Have changed it to British as that seems to fit with the references best. Have also fixed the redirect and changed the article to fit. Pinged nominators Drchriswilliams, Nursingafwood just in case they disagree. Cowlibob (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have no objection to the change. At the time that the unit was being established in 1955 it was reported as the "first British" in the Glasgow Herald newspaper and British Medical Journal. Later on there were also some claims that the unit was the first of its kind in Europe, such as 1996 Nursing Standard article written by someone who worked at the unit. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix Cowlibob, and thanks Dr Chris for the confirmation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (US or U.S.)

... that in Hale v. Henkel, the US Supreme Court ruled that the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to corporations?

Minor issue, the article itself uses U.S. for Supreme Court, although the actual article (not even linked in the hook) is Supreme Court of the United States. I would suggest a consistent approach to this in hooks, perhaps once again not assuming that the whole English-reading world knows what the "US Supreme Court" actually is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I am feeling rather frustrated right now, after having worked for two hours on building prep sets, only to see your cheery corrections as soon as I post them. I do appreciate your instant reviews of the hooks, TRM, but I'm wondering if the corrections could be made in a holding area from which we could select hooks that are really ready to go. This suggestion has been made before; perhaps a bot could move approved hooks into the holding area so eagle eyes like yours could spot all the problems. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Changed to United States Supreme Court. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't afford to risk making changes to anything any more. I can simply suggest those changes. Thanks for your diligence! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Have a good day yourself DYKUpdateBot, did you love that latest Brigitte Jones movie? I heard it was up there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Chandler)

... that Irish footballer Jeff Chandler was "never the same player" after a knee injury in the fourth game of the 1987–88 season with Bolton?

Minor points: it was specifically Bolton's fourth game of the season, and we have an article for that: 1987–88 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season which could be linked. Also, while we drop F.C. when referring to these clubs in prose, we usually keep the rest of the title, so I'd expect to see the club referred to as Bolton Wanderers, not simply Bolton (which could be confused with Bolton, after all). So it'd be more like:

... that the Irish footballer Jeff Chandler was "never the same player" after suffering a knee injury in Bolton Wanderers' fourth game of their 1987–88 season? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks, TRM. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the prompt action. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Passport to Pimlico)

Why isn't the hook written like the prose in the article, i.e. "... the 1949 film Passport to Pimlico..." rather than the awkward juxtaposition currently employed, i.e. "the film Passport to Pimlico (1949)"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a trivial point not worth opening a thread for. EEng 08:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, of course no action need be taken but I was just asking a simple and civil question about the awkward phrasing. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah for the fix! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

[Attention needed] Prep 2 (US politics overdose...)

Do we really need two hooks relating to minor US politicians in the same set, i.e. Geary and Turner/Gewertz could easily be split over two sets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Plus, trying to frame his political rival Kenneth A. Gewertz by planting 6,500 amphetamine-like tablets in his home doesn't seem to tie in to the text in the article. The hook implies that Turner "planted" the tablets himself, while the article states that it was someone else entirely who did that. Plus, isn't this focusing on the negative aspects of a biography once again, something the project tends to try to avoid? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Aha, I see my first point was addressed while I was getting the kids to bed, the second still remains... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree on the negative aspects here, I am certain that there will be complaints if the current hook runs as is. I have seen less negative hooks get flack for running, I don't think this one shluld go to the main page. MPJ-DK  23:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed negative, but that I thought that was a primary concern in biographies of living persons; Turner died 35 years ago in 1981, while Gewertz died 10 years ago in 2006. I have changed the hook to say Turner had the tablets planted, rather than that he planted them himself; if that isn't sufficient, we could say that he arranged to have the tablets planted. However, since neither article is a BLP, I have left the hook in the prep set. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential for undue negativity in BLP hook

I recently wrote an article on Timothy N. Philpot, and nominated it for DYK. I wrote about him because I was interested in the contrasts he exhibits. A Republican State Senator praised by a liberal local newspaper, a family court judge who makes negative comments on LGBT issues but is defended as fair by the lawyers appearing before him in gay adoption cases, and a highly religious man who expresses that he does not bring religion into his court even when he sees it as the solution - yet wrote a novel based on his cases about the importance of marriage. I proposed a series of possible hooks, anticipating some could be unacceptable for undue negativity, but also a fall-back hook that I was confident was ok but also felt was much less interesting. The reviewer, Cwmhiraeth, very understandably looked only at my fall-back option as I left it as ALT0 and didn't explain my thinking - my fault entirely. Cwmhiraeth is reluctant to wade into undue negativity issues, also understandably, but is fine with my raising a discussion here.

I seek input on which (if any) of my ALTs might be seen as acceptable from a BLP perspective. If the conclusion is that only ALT0 is ok, I will accept that, obviously, but if a more interesting option is deemed usable, that would be desirable from my perspective. I note that Cwmhiraeth and EEng are the only ones to comment on the nomination page, so linking them to notify of this discussion. All perspectives welcome, obviously. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) (PS: I am travelling for much of the next 24 hours, so am unlikely to respond in that time... just FYI.)

Prep 3 (Aldersey)

... that Thomas Aldersey (pictured) gave the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers, now an educational charity, their first school?

Minor point this time round, it seems remiss of the hook to not mention that Aldersey actually founded the grammar school himself before "giving" it to the Company just under 20 years later. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Article author here. I'd prefer not to; many people founded schools but Aldersey seems to have been the first to come up with the idea of giving one to a trade guild. I can't think of a simple wording that encompasses all of the notions that he founded a school; he gave it to the Haberdashers; it was their first school; they are now an educational charity. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought you could just add "which he had founded" to the end of the hook, but no worries. Thanks for the response. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (MotoGP)

... that Antonio Giovinazzi achieved his first GP2 series pole position at the 2016 Baku GP2 Series round and went on to win both the weekend's races?

This hook is repetitive, in that we needlessly repeat "GP2 series" (and inconsistently capitalise it, by the way). I would suggest something like:

... that Antonio Giovinazzi achieved his first GP2 series pole position at the 2016 Baku round and went on to win both of the weekend's races? or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Good take. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth are you going to adjust the hook please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. You forgot the "of" in "both _of_ the weekend's races", but meh. I guess American English is becoming the standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron

This discussion isn't helping anyone achieve anything constructive. I would suggest that if issues relating to an existing topic ban need to be discussed, that discussion take place at the venue where they were initially implemented. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello DYK crowd. According to discussion, there is a rough consensus that it wouldn't be in the community's benefit to renew the DYK participation restrictions on LavaBaron in case of his return to the English Wikipedia. The restrictions are therefore considered expired. Deryck C. 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? It will take more than five comments (3 to 2) in a thread that just pooped out to overturn what a much wider community enacted for very good reasons. EEng 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Well that sure was fortuitous timing on this wasn't it?  MPJ-DK  19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You could complain to Deryck Chan, or start a new discussion. Anyway you can still check work that anyone does here. In particular you had better check what I do! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It's somewhat irrelevant now anywhere, due to the motion in the TRM case - "The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.". Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
How does that make it irrelevant? EEng 05:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
By terminating its functional import within the context of the matter at hand. LavaBaron (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Could someone not using a random-sentence generator answer my query e.g. Black Kite? EEng 12:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is because we as a community would have the ability to impose a topic ban in the future if certain issues from the past happen again? So in other words, lift the restriction, keep an eye out for issues and if they happen again a comunity consensus topic ban could happen without ArbCom involvement. Let LavaBaron's future actions determine his fate, not his past.  MPJ-DK  12:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point; if there are any more issues with LavaBaron's input to DYK, it can be sorted out simply. Hopefully there won't be. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
BK is correct. If any issues were to suddenly develop with my, or MPJ-DK, or Deryck Chan, or whomever's input to DYK, we can just sort it out then. There's obviously no point in spending energy mentoring an editor if no issue has ever been observed. LavaBaron (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? Special restrictions and rules were imposed on you because of repeated problems with your participation here. EEng 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand. You disagree that special restrictions were placed on you, including the requirement that two people review each of your submissions, and that a second reviewer check every review you make, because there were persistent problems with your submissions and your reviews? If you do, then that's Exhibit A for why such restrictions had to be imposed. EEng 19:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your passionate contributions to DYK! Best - LavaBaron (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(previous archiving ended here)

I do what I can. As for your contributions, since you seem to have forgotten, the restrictions I mentioned above (and detailed here) were imposed in July because "LavaBaron's contributions often fall short of the expected standard of front-page content on the English Wikipedia". I doubt the community will hesitate to reimpose those restrictions, or take even stronger action, should such problems manifest themselves again. EEng 20:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is not providing any insight or solution to any problem. Please take any further discussion to a more appropriate venue such as a user talk page or AN. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Since it looks like the community is willing to cross its fingers and hope, I don't see a need for more discussion (anywhere) until we see what develops. But I did feel it was necessary to counter the implication that the community's concerns were now magically moot just because LB chose to take a convenient break. EEng 20:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Fine, now we can move on to something else perhaps? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a discussion that would be more appropriate for you to take to user space or an off-Wiki chatroom or maybe Reddit. Let's try to reserve the DYK discussion page to discuss DYK. Agreed? Can someone (re-) close this thread? Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Reclosing, but with a reminder to User:LavaBaron that this kind of smug obliviousness to previous problems makes it more likely that future problems are going to be solved with blocks, rather than reinstated topic bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2016 (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.
Good idea. It seems like a lot of DYK refugees are headed to the contest pages. I'll transfer there. LavaBaron (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (prophetess)

... that followers of the Zimbabwean prophetess Mai Chaza replaced the New Testament with a compilation of her own words and deeds?

I think this fails one of the many fundamental rules of DYK, the word "prophetess" does not seem to appear in the article at all. "Faith healer" is there, but I don't think the two are necessarily equivalent in all aspects. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, a minor point, but it would seem to me to be far more interesting that she was "depicted as a member of the Trinity" rather than her followers simply publishing things she said and did. But your mileage may vary I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm returning it to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It's regrettable that you didn't bother doing a Google search, which would have taken literally one second to show you that there are numerous book sources, including one cited in the article, which refer to her as a prophetess. It's not hard to make a minor change or correction yourself rather than disrupting a prep queue. If I spot an issue like that in a review, I fix it myself. I'd suggest that you try to do the same in future. Prioryman (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It's also regrettable that the hook used a term that wasn't used in the article. If that hadn't been overlooked, none of this so-called "disrupting a prep queue" would have been even considered. When I spot an issue like that (and it wasn't part of the formal review process), I highlight it here for others who are more commensurate with the subject material to attend to. I will continue to do the same in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 (Fun fun fun)

... that artists including The Beach Boys and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young playing at the Big Sur Folk Festival were never paid more than $50, and attendees paid only $3.50 to $5.50 each?

I thought we didn't capitalise "The" in these circumstances, such as "The Beatles" in this context becomes " including the Beatles...."? Also, I imagine the first of those $ should be linked to US dollar, just in case our audience aren't clear on the actual currency being discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done but The Beach Boys is the name of the group (and the article), so I wrote it with a small "t" inside the link: the Beach Boys. Let's see if some fan jumps in with a capitalization correction at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and no doubt you're right about the ERRORS report in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if the Beach Boys and CSNY may have gotten a lot more than $50, as that was the limit per head, not per group. The hook to me reads as if the whole group got max $50. Fram (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And the attendance fee seems to be a piece of OR based on deciphering the festival posters, but it is impossible to read the admission price on the 1967 poster (if it is even mentioned?), and (worse) we don't have the 1971 one, which was the last festival. Fram (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Fram: The source says "Nancy...has never had to pay any performer more than scale, $50 a head". I'm sorry I missed that. And I suggest removing the part about what attendees paid, as it weighs down the hook anyway. Here's a new alt:
Thanks, now changed belatedly at the Main Page. Fram (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Harmatz

Can an uninvolved editor help with the nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Harmatz regarding the issue of Harmatz having "led" a plot to kill thousands of SS POWs after World War II?

There are six separate sources, provided in the article and as part of the nomination discussion that all explicitly describe Harmatz as the leader of the plot to poison thousands of SS POWs. The primary source used to support the claim is from The New York Times with the title "Joseph Harmatz, Who Led Jewish Plot to Kill Germans After World War II, Dies at 91" -- that states "The second scheme was not a complete failure, however. Led by 21-year-old Joseph Harmatz, a survivor of the Vilnius ghetto in Lithuania, the plotters sickened more than 2,200 German prisoners, inducing vomiting and other symptoms of cholera." Several other sources that all use various terms to describe him as leading or organizing the plot are already in the article or in the discussion.

Renata3, who has reviewed the nomination, is bothered by the word "led". He is characterizing six different sources from major international reliable and verifiable sources, all of which characterize Harmatz as leader, as "Passing mentions in newspaper articles" from "vague, inaccurate, misleading, or out-right wrong churnalists".

I stand behind the wording in the hook and behind the multiple sources provided. I hope that independent review will help here. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I am also flabbergasted by the review. I did a complete review and am asking the nominator just to tighten the hook. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 (Big Sur)

"...at the Big Sur Folk Festival were never..." the festival does not need to be italicised. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Now at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 (Otto Bock)

"... that Ottobock technicians at ..." the correct title for the company (and the article) is Otto Bock. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The company's legal name in Germany is Otto Bock, but calls itself Ottobock [14], which is its correct title elsewhere, including the English-speaking world and Brazil. It's okay to change it, but it's not incorrect. It might however make a better hook if people think one man repaired hundreds of wheelchairs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure a better hook is one which is completely false. FWIW, I don't think "that Otto Bock technicians..." would be read as "one man repaired hundreds of wheelchairs". If so, and maybe in any case, we need to clarify the hook with "German prosthetics company..." All I asked was to make the article title and the prose within the article (e.g. the lead sentence) and this DYK hook consistent. I'm sure it can't be that hard, but if it is, forgive me and I'll move on to the next hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, now at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Buried approvals

Just thought I'd let prep builders know that there have been a few nominations that have been approved for over a month but have not been run yet, possibly because the bot isn't picking up the tick which leads to the unfortunate consequence of buried hooks. Template:Did you know nominations/Ex Unitate Vires and Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Trenton, Georgia (preferably with the image) are two that are within that category of those that have been approved but not yet run. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the bot is picking them both up—the List of DYK Hooks by Date table shows approved hooks on September 11 and 14, the dates that these two hooks come from. There are also hooks from older dates that may have been approved more recently, but they tend to get picked up due to having been nominated earlier; at the moment there are seven approved from before September 11. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think your nominations have been overlooked, its just that certain circumstances have conspired against them. Flag of Trenton is waiting for a picture slot, and a decent gap since we last had a flag picture hook. I suggested a variant hook for Ex Unitate Vires this morning. Quite a few of the nominations that have been approved for the longest time were approved by me, so I am not permitted to move them into prep, and I look forward to other people promoting them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Both nominations mentioned by The C of E have now been promoted. Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Cortana)

* ... that Cortana correctly predicted the winners of the first 14 matches of the football 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage?

The "football" in this hook is redundant, the second F in FIFA stands for football. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I did ask that question on the QPQ. Joseph2302 11:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Consairway)

* ... that in 1992, civilian pilots for Consairway were granted veteran status by the Veterans Benefits Administration for their World War II service transporting munitions and military personnel?

The article does not specify that it was pilots, it says "employees", and given the first actual flight didn't take place until April 23, 1942 while those awarded worked for the company since December 14, 1941. Suggest replacing "pilots" for "employees" which is what the article says. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (motto)

...noticed the motto Ex Unitate Vires on a tablecloth...

It should be clarified that it wasn't just any old motto, but the national motto of South Africa, otherwise the hook loses its impact. A year for the visit may also be useful considering many of readers may be unaware of the history of the segregation in South Africa... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Thinkhaya)

... that after breaking from Ava, Thinkhaya III of Toungoo built his own palace, but left out the regal white umbrella?

While my cold is slowly improving, I'm still having difficulty parsing this, moreover I don't seem to be able to determine the logical sequitur between each clause. Am I the only one? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes ;) (Well no). Governer of region decides to found own kingdom after various conflicts involving his liege-lord, builds palace, doesnt include the royal umbrella - possibly to deflect/deter attention. There are parallels elsewhere in history where local rulers are kings in all but name but dont want to bring attention to it in case an actual monarch shows up. It could be worded better, but it is probably one of the better hooky facts from the relevant article. In this sense 'regal' means 'symbol of royalty' rather than the more colloquial usage. Perhaps a plain 'Royal' would be better. You do have to read the article to get why though. Also 'white umbrella' needs links to Hti. "The white umbrella was a sign of sovereignty. Indeed, use of a white umbrella by any persons other than the king and his chief queen was regarded as a declaration of rebellion, punishable with immediate execution." So the punishments were harsh for illicit use of the white umbrella. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
... that after declaring independence from Ava Kingdom, Thinkhaya III of Toungoo built his own palace, but left out the regal white umbrella?? Although in context I am unsure, as Hti are both a physical umbrella (as in the white umbrella/parasol) and the capping of pagoda's (which you would expect a palace to have). I am unsure from context what is meant, did he refuse to carry/have a white umbrella as a symbol of royalty? Or did he refuse to cap his palace's pagoda's with Hti? (which would likely have been gold regardless). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that. I just think, rather than being hooky and making me want to read the article, it just makes me go "huh?" and move on to something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This still, urgently, needs work. Else I suppose a trip to ERRORS in forthcoming. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Still needs fixing or I'll report it at ERRORS I guess in three hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the source is offline, we can only go by what the article says. The Hti link has been added to "white umbrella", so I will do the same in the hook. Also changing "regal" to "royal". And also moving the spider to the quirky slot, which people probably will want to read to find out why. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Ru ware)

* ... that in 2012, a small Ru ware bowl from the Song dynasty was sold for US$26.7 million?

Actually, the article doesn't call it a "small" bowl, it objectively gives its diameter in centimetres. Also, it wasn't sold for US$, it was sold in Hong Kong dollars. Also, what the hook lacks here is a little context: the price was a world record for Ru ware, only 79 pieces of Ru ware are known to exist in the world, and only seven are privately owned. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, Johnbod, and Gerda Arendt: Pppery 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I think to describe a bowl of the given dimensions as small is valid, a US equivalent is better understood by most readers, and the prize is impressively high, - why call it a record (and get criticised for sensationalism)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It was three times the previous selling record, it wasn't sold in US$ (just flip the conversion order, it's somewhat arrogant to assume that US$ should be preferred when the transaction took place in another currency), and I have bowls at home that are 4 centimetres in diameter, are they "tiny"? No, they serve their purpose. I would suggest sticking to the facts of the matter here and highlighting some of the more interesting facts. I can't believe we're not accentuating the fact that only 79 pieces of this kind of ware exist in the known universe, nor that this tripled the best ever sale of such. I don't think criticism for sensationalism is valid, this is DYK after all, state the facts and if they're incredible, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake! Nobody non-local knows what the HKD is worth. Really, if you want to make this sort of point you should do so at the review stage rather than hang around the prep areas. The numbers 79 and 7 are only one count, as the article makes clear. If I'd made that the hook you would undoubtedly have jumped on it. Be reassured that your 4 cm bowls are also small. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The point is it was sold in HK$ and the US$ could be placed in parentheses afterwards. I can make review comments on anything I like at any stage, but thanks for your opinion. I have no idea what you mean by "If I'd made that the hook you would undoubtedly have jumped on it.", I was merely suggesting that other parts of the article enlighten this hook and could elevate it to something special, rather than the current point-of-view, American-biased hook. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Still needs fixing or I suppose I'll report it at ERRORS in a few hours time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I went to do something but was too late, so have posted to errors. EdChem (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 (Norberg)

... that Swedish actor Liam Norberg became a devout Christian while serving time in prison for a bank robbery?

This article is in really poor condition. A quick glance has demonstrated that at least eight claims are unreferenced and have been tagged as such. Please fix these issues or remove it from the prep area. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I've found a Swedish Film Institute ref that handles the movie claims, and have fixed the problematic sentence. If there are any remaining significant issues, you are welcome to remove the hook from prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
That's much better, thanks. I'll assume good faith as I think most, if not all of the references are non-English. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Trenton flag)

... that the flag of Trenton (pictured) was created so that the city could avoid losing state funding for continuing to fly the old state flag of Georgia?

I know, late in the day, but I'm curious about this one. The hook makes a direct causal link between the flag's creation and the avoidance of financial penalisation. However, the reference for the hook in the article states: "If a county or municipality chooses to fly only the old flag, the state can withhold funds." and I don't see anything clearly stating that the flag was created with the purpose of avoiding the loss of state funding. It just seems that it was something that could have happened, and nowhere do I find a "the flag was created to avoid losing funding" statement. Furthermore I'm concerned that we're using "dixieoutfitters.com" as a reliable source for this kind of thing... what makes the website a reliable source? It looks like a clothing outlet to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: The source is The Atlanta Journal Constitution, but you have a good point about the hook not matching the intent of the source. Moreover, this hook was struck by the reviewers and then reinstated by the nominator, and somehow it made it into the prep without any real approval. The original hook, which was approved by Miyagawa, read:
... that Trenton, Georgia, adopted a version of the former state flag (pictured) to protest the state changing its flag?
I think that even more could be done with this hook, since the state changed its flag also as a protest. I've returned the hook to the nomination page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 image needed

I verified and approved 2 hooks which would be suitable for the image slot here. Could another editor move one of them into Prep 5 before it goes live?

Template:Did you know nominations/Anton Malej
Template:Did you know nominations/Demolition of al-Baqi

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: There is justification for using the original hook proposed in the Trenton article, so we could easily put it back with the originally proposed hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I responded to you on the nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

A new hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Trenton, Georgia has been approved and can be re-slotted into the lead slot of Prep 5 as well. Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't use that myself - "a symbol of protest" suggests it was a valid protest whereas it was a protest against the end of racial segregation. That hook is giving "protest" far too much legitimacy in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 (Kitson Clark)

... that Mary Kitson Clark's 1935 book, A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire, remains a key text in the 21st century?

The quotation referenced in the article actually says "remains one of the starting points for any study of the Romans in the north of England", i.e. it's a good place to start. It doesn't say that it's a "key text" in the "21st century". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I considered those points when I promoted this hook. The 21st century comes from the fact that the statement was made in 2005, but could perhaps be omitted. I thought it reasonable to equate "one of the starting points for any study" with being a key text. You could suggest some other way of expressing it or we could use the alternative approved hook,
but I thought, "so what?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I think my main concern is that this is an utterly niche subject and to attempt to claim it as "key text in the 21st century" without context seems a little overstating the issue. You're right, the alt hook is very dull. We need a third way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
How about:
  • ALT2: ... that Mary Kitson Clark's 1935 book A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire has been called an important guide to the study of the Roman presence in northern England?
  • I would also paraphrase it in the lead. I moved the hook to Prep 2 pending the outcome of this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the hook, making it
  • ... that Mary Kitson Clark's 1935 book A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire is still a basic guide to the study of the Roman presence in northern England? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Carolin Emcke

I'd like a second opinion on the review Template:Did you know nominations/Carolin Emcke. This woman received an important prize last Sunday. Couldn't believe she had no article yet. Improvement of the prose is always welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The article looks mostly fine to me, I tagged one {{cn}} but otherwise it's fine for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pleurobranchus areolatus

Snek01 placed this unapproved nomination in the Special Occasions holding area for October 29, which he labeled "Sea Slug Day". I returned it to the main noms area and am hereby informing other editors of its existence for speedy review. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Nomination approved. Pppery 19:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over two hours ago, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through October 14. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, only 65 nominations have been approved, leaving 132 of 197 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over six weeks old:

Over a 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) 07:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am Unretired

Hello DYKers. Just a FYI that, in response to a number of requests, I earlier today announced my unretirement from the English Wikipedia. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Graeme Bartlett! LavaBaron (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (argon compounds)

... that argon oxide, an argon compound, interferes with the detection of iron in inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry?

The article actually states that it's iron-56 and other isotopes of iron, not actually just iron itself (to whit, ...which can interfere with detection of iron-56 56Fe and other isotopes of iron in mass spectroscopy.... My understanding is that isotopes differ from their element through a different number of neutrons, so perhaps just saying "iron" here is mildly inaccurate, or possibly just a little misleading. It would be better, or more accurate, to say "... with the detection of certain isotopes of iron in ...." don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The term iron encompasses all of iron's various isotopes, though of course certain of those isotopes are much more common in nature. There's no one isotope which is "elemental iron". "Elemental" mean Fe uncompounded with anything else i.e. not chemically compounded as in e.g. FeO; the Fe involved (whether compounded or not) could be any isotope or mix of isotopes. EEng 19:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. "Elemental", for some other elements, can mean compounded, but only with itself e.g. H2 or O2. (This is all from my highschool chemistry, so I'm happy to be corrected by someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about.)
The "and other" formulation to me implies that it doesn't matter which isotope specifically it is. The article though notes that the similarity in the mass is the issue which sounds like the isotope mass does actually matter (also because 40 nucleons in the most common isotope Argon-40+16 nucleons in the most common isotope Oxygen-16=same mass as the 56 nucleons of Iron-56). What does the source say? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The source is offline, yet the text in the article is very specific, while our hook is very generalised. It may be foolhardy or rash to assume that " iron-56 56Fe and other isotopes of iron" means that it doesn't matter which isotope. If that were the case, I don't see the benefit in the article of singling out isotopes, when just "iron" would do the trick. Perhaps, to avoid any kind of doubt, we should find a different hook from this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone's gonna build a faulty inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer based on this imprecise hook, we're overthinking this. It's like if we said "sharks live in water" -- well, actually, it has to be liquid water, and it needs to be salt water now that you mention it, but that doesn't make "sharks live in water" wrong. EEng 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the hook in the prep area. As a chemist, I can state that the article is referring not to all isotopes of iron, but specifically to iron-56, the most common isotope (~90% of iron). TRM refers to the other isotopes based on the article, but the article is awkwardly worded and is saying that the formation of ArO+ interferes with detection of 56Fe whilst ArN+ interferes with detection of 54Fe. EEng is correct that "iron" would typically mean the mix of naturally-occurring isotopes, but mass spectrometry responds to individual isotopes separately, and so is one place where different isotopes are different. Jo-Jo is correct that the individual isotope masses most definitely matter. In fact, high resolution MS will be able to separate 40Ar16O+ at m / z = 55.947 from 56Fe+ at m / z = 55.935, but at low resolution they will be detected together. The isotopes don't matter (much) when they are only present in trace amounts, so taking argon as just argon-40 (which is 99.6% of it) is ok, as is taking oxygen as just oxygen-16 (which is 99.76% of it). I take EEng's shark in water analogy for Ar and O, but in the case of Fe it is not so persuasive. The change I have made is chemically accurate and more precise, and it removes an ambiguity with TRM noted while not burdening the hook significantly. I hope it will be supported. EdChem (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your change is not unhelpful, but I do wonder if there aren't better places the DYK hive-mind's limited pool of attention could have been expended. EEng 01:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: It did lead me to clarify the article, so there was a benefit for mainspace.  :) As for where we devote attention, it often comes down to personal interest, as you know. TRM devotes a lot of time and effect to main-page quality (and is presently making fantastic contributions, if I may say so). As a scientist, I saw this as one discussion where my expertise suggested clear support for an approach, so I followed it, and then posted a rationale here for the edification of all. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In view of the article improvement, I withdraw my comment in this case. Nontheless I wonder sometimes whether the intellectual resources -- not to mention the gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair -- invested in taking certain hooks from 99% accurate ("sharks live in water") to 99.44% accurate ("sharks live in liquid saltwater") is worth it in general, given that there are plenty of hooks that are only 50% accurate, 10% accurate, 0% accurate, or even less accurate than that (if that's possible). Letting stuff like this go would allow more focus on truly needy hooks. EEng 02:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Noted, but unless others are reviewing every hook, I don't actually see that working in practice. Thanks for your thoughts though! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I own at least 10 shark-based films that show Sharks to be living places other than salt water. We have Sand Sharks, Sharknado, Sharkalaunche, Ghost Shark (if you consider the ethereal realm), Sharkano.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
...and in the real world, there is the freshwater shark.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
:P EEng 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars

Some say you can't bribe your way onto the main page ....
I disagree.

Template:Did you know nominations/The Restaurant Marco Pierre White @Miyagawa, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah:

The claim is reliably sourced and can be found in other sources as well. However, it is wrong. Pierre White was 33 when he received his third star in 1995.

Pulled from Main Page. Fram (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Nice piece of detective work! Yoninah (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
So why did Marco Pierre White say he was? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
He may have thought he was. For the time being, how about replacing the hook on the main page with this hook, and I will amend the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

or possibly

Thanks for updating the article and the hook - I had absolutely no idea that the claim was incorrect. Miyagawa (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to say that at least with Ritchie's hook, we know for certain that was true. The only chefs that pre-date him were the Roux Brothers and Pierre Koffman. Nico Landenis won it the same year that White did, and it wouldn't be until Gordon Ramsey that another British chef would win three stars - even today, it's still only three with Heston Blumenthal also on the list. Miyagawa (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Michelin stars are ratings of restaurants – they are not awards to particular members of their staff or ownership. Naturally, particular individuals will want to claim the credit but we should not encourage such vainglory. Andrew D. (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Michelin stars are awarded to chefs while they are at certain restaurants. The stars White earned at Harvey's moved with him to The Restaurant. The way it is usually gotten around these days is by having say, Gordon Ramsay be the chef at a particular restaurant and holding the stars - but not working in the kitchen on a daily basis. So when the head chef (who does work on a daily basis) leaves, the stars don't move because Ramsay is still at that restaurant. This situation has happened this year, wherin two 2xMichelin star holding chefs have moved, taking thier stars with them - albeit one of them moved into the other's former kitchen, so it looks like the restaurant's rating never changed. Miyagawa (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The star is explicitly awarded to the restaurant, not the chef. The process of making the awards is internal to Michelin and it's not open. Maybe reputation, lobbying and persuasion make a difference but it's not possible to say exactly. For example, in this case, a chef is moving on. The restaurant keeps the star until the next round of awards and it's then anyone's guess as to whether it will keep it and/or the chef's new home will get one. It just depends on the inspections and the "food on the plate". All you know for sure is which restaurants get awarded stars in a particular year. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pull needed from Queue 2

Only one of the four Ariel Awards (Best Actress) has enough original prose to qualify for DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They all have over 1500 characters, but some wording is common between the pages. However there is plenty of text in tables, so how about leaving it as is? There is more work in making each of these than in many other DYKs around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Formatting point: Ariel Awards should be incorporated into the first bold link:

Admin needed: If a pull is not done, seven of the eight articles will not be credited unless the DYKmake templates in the queue are edited to include the same subpage parameter as is in the first of these. And, for that matter, the same problem is true with all but the first of the four Talking Gravestones DYKmakes. Admin: please add these as soon as possible. Everyone: A basic rule of thumb for preps and queues is: when looking at the preview of the page, all of the credits should have a "View nom subpage" link at the end of the line unless it says "Nom credit:" in black at the beginning of the line. If there is no "View nom subpage" link, please add a "subpage" field at the end of the DYKmake template that points to the exact name of the Template page (excluding "Template/Did you know nominations/"). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, I have pulled it as the issues sound too complex for an 8 hour turnaround. We are trying to organise a halloween party here so am tied up for a bit. @Nikkimaria: can you please spell out outstanding concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Ariel Award for Best Actress so they can be ticked off once done? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue2 now has seven hooks. I have placed a suitable additional hook in Prep4 which could be added to bring Queue2 back to its usual 8 hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Billy White (basketball)

This hook was promoted to the Main Page on October 27, but there is no record of it (on its talk page) or its nominators receiving any DYK credit. Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The DYKmake templates were filled out incorrectly in prep (and then queue), giving the article's name as Billy White rather than Billy White (basketball). I've updated the notifications on the two creators' talk pages to reflect the actual article name, and moved the talk page notification from the wrong article's talk page to the correct one's. We should be all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (OREYA)

... that the Ukrainian mixed chamber choir OREYA (pictured) won a special prize for the best interpretation of a religious choral work?

"won a special prize"? This sounds a little lame to me, sadly like something a pre-teen would win for writing into a newspaper with a special suggestion for recycling or something. Is this the best we can do with this article? The fact that that neither the competition nor the prize they won at the competition seems worthy of redlink as a minimum somewhat undermines the impact of this hook. I won a "special prize" when I was eleven, a couple of cinema tickets and a tracksuit, thanks Rocky IV!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I added more from the source to the hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (general)

Gentle suggestion, avoid placing two hooks next to each other which feature INITIALISMS or similar, such as OREYA and FUNCINPEC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Queue 2 has only seven seven hooks and is due to be promoted to the main page at midnight. There are suitable additional hooks in Prep 4 which could be added to bring Queue 2 back to its usual 8 hook length. Prep 3 hooks are scheduled for Halloween. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Maile, can you please also fix the second through fourth DYKmake templates in Queue 2, all of which need subpage parameters. I asked in the previous queue 2 topic, but no one has made the fix. (If we don't, one contributor gets no talk-page notifications when the queue hits the main page, and the other gets only one of the two, and it'll be up to someone to clean it up. Far better to let the bot do it right the first time.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Never added the sub pages before, so please have a look and see if I did it correctly. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Maile, the top ones that I asked for were fine; the 370 Jay Street ones were not correctly added, but I don't believe they harmed anything, as the messages seem to have been correctly delivered. (There shouldn't ever be a subpage parameter on a DYKnom template, and the subpage addition to the DYKmake template should have been "New York City Board of Transportation; 370 Jay Street", not just "370 Jay Street"—the subpage parameter is supposed to match the final field of the nomination page name.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Banda)

"... that the Banda people of central Africa suffered so much during slave-trading that "Banda" is synonymous with being a slave?"

Perhaps just a poorly phrased hook, certainly not backed up by the article, ""Banda" is a synonym for slave or the equivalent in Persian, Arabic and Turkish" and there appears to be no reference to "suffered so much" which is highly emotive and possibly POV/OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Returned to noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Did you miss the source quote right below that hook on nom page, before alleging "there appears to be no reference"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I assume you mean to ping me, good news that I'm watching the page here! No, I didn't look at the "nom page", nor would our readers, I would guess that most of them don't even know what a "nom page" is!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Suffolk University)

I know, I know, it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I'm afraid that:

that Nate Silver's website FiveThirtyEight gives the Suffolk University Political Research Center a "B+" grade for polling accuracy and methodology?

is possibly the dullest "hook" I've seen this year. I even expanded it a touch so the world's vast majority who have never heard of FiveThirtyEight have a clue, but really, is this the best we can muster on this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ALT 1: ... that the Suffolk University Political Research Center was the first research center to make all of its demographic cross-tabulation data for all of its polls available for free?
ALT 2: ... that the Suffolk University Political Research Center has an 82% accuracy record in calling elections?
— Probably not much better, but the article is pretty thin on possible hooks, and for that matter, pretty thin on prose. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Either of those is better than the current which frankly just says "A website rates a research center as okay"... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Pinging involved editors: @Neutrality, Alansohn, and Cwmhiraeth:. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think the "interesting" criterion is over-egged. There is often not anything particularly eye-catchng in an article and I don't see that an article should be excluded from DYK just because no "interesting" hook can be found. Of Yellow Dingo's suggestions, ALT1 won't do because it is a claim made by the Center itself. ALT2 might be OK, but "races" rather than "elections" is used by both article and source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Well I respectfully disagree. If an interesting hook can't be found, a nomination should be failed, not simply passed on the basis that mediocrity is adequate. I simply fail to see how this current hook could be claimed to be interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth I have struck ALT1. On your point about election/race, I think it is quite clear that the source means elections, and in a hook, "elections" is more clear than "races", which has multiple meanings. At least, IMO. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, ALT2 looks good to me, but it would probably be better if I returned this to the nominations page for formal consideration of the new hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Go for it (edit: I see you have pulled from the prep, but not re-opened the nom page yet). — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I undid my previous edit to return it to the Nominations page so you may need to refresh the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to reinforce TRM re interesting-ness. If an article doesn't have anything worth putting in a hook, it doesn't belong in DYK. This isn't the Special Olympics, with everyone getting a ribbon just for showing up. EEng 00:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I've added additional proposed hooks (based on newly added content) at Template:Did you know nominations/Suffolk University Political Research Center, and would appreciate revised comments there.
I will note that I think the originally proposed hooks (while not the most interesting hooks of all time) are way one more interesting than many DYKs, including one on the present DYK ("Lidiane Lopes holds the Cape Verdean record in the women's 100-metre sprint?" — a completely boring stat to most, to be frank). Neutralitytalk 00:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. I wasn't talking about this nom in particular, but the interesting-ness requirement in general. EEng 01:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
ALT2 works well for me. As for the current selection on the main page, they all seem quite dull. The final hook about the Senufo people was the best of a bad lot but was still less interesting than ALT2. Andrew D. (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Czech this out)

Minor, more of a query really. So the hook says:

that the 1987 Czechoslovakian film Princess Jasnenka and the Flying Shoemaker is based on a fairy tale by Communist writer Jan Drda?

The article didn't explicitly say that, so I've tweaked it a little, assuming good faith on the various foreign-language sources. However, should that be "Czechoslovak film" (per the article - ... a 1987 Czechoslovak fantasy film ...) or "Czechoslovakian film" (per the current hook)? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Czechoslovakia article says the demonym is "Czechoslovak". — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I suppose that means the hook needs to be corrected! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Btw, that pun is naughty! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Ahn)

Besides the article being a puff piece which really does a great job of advertising Mr Ahn and his career highlights, the hook says:

that over four days in 2015, American writer Tony Ahn hiked the Bataan Death March route, taking only one liter of water and one cup of rice per day, to raise awareness of Filipino involvement?

Now, I take that to mean the hike was conducted over four days, not that it took "over four days", however the article states It was sunny the entire four and a half days Ahn took to make the trek, presumably taking the extra half a day to do the last bit. But there's more confusion, one sentence says he hiked the "112km Bataan Death March" (non-breaking space and conversion required there really) but then it says ... taking four days to cover the 102km ... plus ... and a 6km march from the ... (more non-breaking spaces and conversions needed). That adds up to 108 km, not the 112km noted in the previous sentence. Finally, the hook needs to be clearer, as per the article, it was to raise awareness that Filipinos were also involved in the march, not simply "to raise awareness of Filipino involvement". P.S. ... with temperatures soaring past .... Soaring I tell you! The humanity!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bataan Death March article puts the distance as 97 km. Also added link to Tony Ahn page to TRM's quotation of the hook, for convenience, and here is the nomination and pings for contributors: @Cwmhiraeth, ScooterSponson, and KAVEBEAR: in the hope it might lead to progress in addressing TRM's substantive point, and because discussing whether on there were links and pings is unproductive. EdChem (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

When you mention editors (e.g. by pinging), you are humiliating them, naming and shaming. If you don't, then you are deliberately excluding the people who know most about it and have invested considerable time in the hook. When you pull a hook, you should simply have corrected it instead. When you correct a hook, you should first have discussed this with everyone involved. And so on, and so on. Basically, if you comment on or do anything with a promoted hook, you're screwed. Fram (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well the good news is that I'm not discouraged by all the negativity! I'll carry on reviewing and posting comments because I think that's more helpful than just complaining about those who apply quality control in whichever way they choose. After all, if the process worked better, all these threads need not have been created!! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I have dealt with the "involvement" issue that TRM raised. In response to Fram, what people like Gatoclass and Yoninah do when they find an error is make an alteration to the hook, where this is possible, or otherwise return the hook to the Nominations page with a suitable explanation. In most instances, there is no need to bring the matter to the DYK discussion page at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
"Besides the article being a puff piece which really does a great job of advertising Mr Ahn and his career highlights" (quoting TRM), numerous paragraphs lack cites. I'm returning this to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth as you know, I am under close scrutiny and can be blocked at any moment by any admin who determines that anything I say may be construed as "belittling". As such, I will continue to bring issues here to the talk page for discussion. I'm not sure how to deal with hooks that have been promoted with so many issues such as this, per the discussion going on a few threads above about wholesale changes to hooks. If you have a problem with the way I'm doing things, i.e. noting each and every issue I find with many hooks on a daily basis, you could ask Arbcom to determine whether my behaviour is reasonable or not. Thanks so much!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yoninah thanks for taking action, this is clearly an example of an article that wasn't reviewed properly at any stage of the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a shocking article that should never have been anywhere near the main page. For example, when the subject is being disagreed with, the article claims "Parties opposing ATEK's goals began a smear campaign against the founders.". Massive dubious sections in the "Digital Public Relations" section are unsourced. This is a puff piece, end of story. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Just an observation about the modified hook, does it seem to anyone else to imply that the Filipino involvement was small relative to the US? Because the article on the march suggests to me that the majority involvement was Filipino. It wouldn't surprise me if US teaching is highly US-centric (just as Australian teaching of other death marches in WW2 implies Australians were the major victims), but a WP hook should (IMO) reflect the reality. I know this is really a topic for the re-opened nom, but it seems also relevant given the adjustment made following discussion here. EdChem (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
In the Stars & Stripes article, Ahn is quoted as stating the way it was taught in the US "we thought it was only Americans." In fact it was 16,000 Americans and 60,000 Filipinos according to the sources I consulted. 16,000 Filipinos died and 500 Americans died. ScooterSponson (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, taking a look at all the issues raised here:

  • Now, I take that to mean the hike was conducted over four days, not that it took "over four days", however the article states It was sunny the entire four and a half days Ahn took to make the trek, presumably taking the extra half a day to do the last bit. But there's more confusion, one sentence says he hiked the "112km Bataan Death March" (non-breaking space and conversion required there really) but then it says ... taking four days to cover the 102km ... plus ... and a 6km march from the ... (more non-breaking spaces and conversions needed). That adds up to 108 km, not the 112km noted in the previous sentence.
  • The Bataan Death March article puts the distance as 97 km.
A photograph in the article is of the 100km marker, and there are 112 kilometer markers along the route. So I respectfully submit that at best, various sources disagree, and at worst, the source cited in the Bataan Death March article is incorrect. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Finally, the hook needs to be clearer, as per the article, it was to raise awareness that Filipinos were also involved in the march, not simply "to raise awareness of Filipino involvement".
Those two things mean exactly the same thing as I read them, but nonetheless, this has been corrected. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. ... with temperatures soaring past .... Soaring I tell you! The humanity!!
That is a direct quote from the Stars & Stripes reference. I will put quote marks around it. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • numerous paragraphs lack cites.
This is simply untrue. There are exactly three paragraphs that lack cites: the first three paragraphs under "Korea," and two of those are single sentence, noncontroversial statements, with the third being supported by the photo that appears to the right of it, which is a certificate certifying (in Korean) his entry to the Jogye Buddhist order, and his Buddhist name "Ji Gwang." His LinkedIn page can serve as a legit noncontroversial reliable source for his job changes. I'll add those to the article. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Massive dubious sections in the "Digital Public Relations" section are unsourced.
There is not one section in the "Digital Public Relations" section that is unsourced. The first paragraph is sourced from Rogue Magazine and adobo magazine, and his website (subject's self-written sources are legit for noncontroversial statements about themselves). The second paragraph is sourced entirely from the Rogue article. The third paragraph is sourced from The Daily Dot, Mumbrella Asia, and Interaksyon. The fourth from Marketing Magazine, Mumbrella, and Rogue, and the quote that follows is also from Rogue. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, very badly sourced then. Whole paragraphs are based on the Rogue Magazine article, which is based on an interview with Ahn. I would expect better sourcing than that from a neutral article. The Adobo magazine article was written by Ahn himself. The Mumbrella article is a Q+A with Ahn. The Marketing Magazine "article" reads like a reprinted Ahn & Co. press release to me ("Aside from whooping reach, StarNet’s results are measurable. Clients are given access to up-to-the-minute results, including reach and impression data most marketing directors expect to see" - really??). No, this needs proper third-party sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The Rogue article is traditional reportage (interviews take place in traditional reportage) from one of the finest monthly magazines in this country and all facts were checked by the editorial team. It was not written as a Q & A or an as-told-to piece which is how journalists escape liability for fact checking. The organization put their own weight behind the writing with a proper byline and editorial that comes from the writer, who is an Associate Editor there. It was one of the issue's features: a four page layout with three pages of art. The adobo magazine citation is an editor's note not written by Ahn (but introducing him), which means it had independent editorial review. No press release was ever issued about StarNet, and when I Google it, I find this [17] and the source cited, which I think is more credible. I don't see any PR newswire or marketwire type sites, although there are a couple sites that clearly scraped the Marketing Magazine Thank you for conceding that there are not "numerous paragraphs which lack cites." Rule D2 states: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph..." The article does in general use inline, cited sources, and 33 sources total in the 27 paragraph article. I think D2 is satisfied. ScooterSponson (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The whole section is sourced via quotes from Ahn. There is no neutral third-party sourcing. You must surely understand the difference between proper third-party reporting and articles which merely repeat what Ahn has said in interviews. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I got a hold of the author of the piece. She said half of the article came from research, half from Ahn's interview, but the entire article was fact checked and she even sent me a list of the sources that corroborated/verified the facts they got. I can send that along to you if you give me an email address. ScooterSponson (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • When the subject is being disagreed with, the article claims "Parties opposing ATEK's goals began a smear campaign against the founders."
I have replaced that with a direct quote from the source: Rogue Magazine reported that "opposing parties countered with a smear campaign." ScooterSponson (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have already explained my issues with the Rogue source. It is merely parrotting Ahn. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The article is a puff piece. We need to strip out all the hagiography before it stands a chance of being encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, can the various authors please indicate somehow when their particular concerns are satisfactorily addressed? Either strikethroughs or a "Fixed" comment or something? Just so I know what I'm still working on and what is done? Thanks much! Your feedback is helping improve the article and I appreciate that. ScooterSponson (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued on the nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Ahn. Could someone also move this conversation to the nomination page, perhaps in a collapsible box? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's all relative

Template:Did you know nominations/Kingston, Mississippi @Magnolia677, Epicgenius, and Yoninah:

Removed from Queue. The source for the claim is [18], but while this makes it clear that Patrick Swayze and presumably William Holden are descendants of these settlers, it has no evidence that Tom Hulce is a descendant of these settlers as well, only that Tom Hulce is a "more distant" cousin of Patrick Swayze. By which family line this relationship was established is not given. Fram (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the pull but it is worth pointing out that queue 4 now has an empty space. Could an admin do the required rejigging of hooks sometime in the next ~13 hours. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops. A mea culpa on my part for not reading carefully. I think you can consider ... that descendants of the first settlers of the rural hamlet of Kingston, Mississippi, include actors William Holden and Patrick Swayze? as a future hook, if it ever comes to that. epicgenius - (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
As the promoter, I saw William Holden and Patrick Swayze in the source, and assumed good faith on Tom Hulce. I've removed Hulce from the hook per epicgenius' suggestion and given it the green tick. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

I have begun checking and filling but have to attend to RL chores. If someone can continue that'd be great. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2 (IK-3)

that the prototype Rogožarski IK-3 (pictured) crashed during a test flight when its windscreen detached and half a wing broke off?.

There is no need to italicise the name of the aircraft. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, the italics should probably also be removed from the caption. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oops, missed that, thanks for the reminder, fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2 (1966 NCAA Championship Game)

Having read the source, it seems clear that it wasn't just five starters, it was the entire squad (including the two reserves) that was black. I would adjust the hook accordingly, particularly as to non-experts, it's not immediately obvious that " to field five African-American starters" means the entire squad was African-American. It would have even more impact if it was also noted that they won against their all-white opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to look up that there were only 5 playing, so it was more significant, being the whole team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
TRM and Graeme, that's only half-correct. There were several white players on the Texas Western roster, but none of them played in the championship game. Therefore, it wouldn't be accurate to imply that the whole team was black; if my memory of the sources is correct, at least one of the white players appeared in the semifinal round. The article doesn't give the full Texas Western roster composition at the moment; let me know if you think this needs to made clearer and I'll add something before it goes on the Main Page. I'd have no issue with emphasizing the win over all-white Kentucky in the blurb, if it can be done within the blurb limits (I've already run into that issue once here). Giants2008 (Talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Welllll the reference used to support this says that Texas Western won the championship game "playing black men exclusively—five starters plus two reserves". Is the source wrong? The article and hook is exclusively related to the championship game, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The source and hook are both correct. All of the players who competed in the championship game for Texas Western were African-Americans; the other reserves who were on the roster, but did not play, included four white players and one Hispanic player, according to the hook source. I just didn't know if readers would be confused if we tell them the tell was all-black. Again, if you think that sentence needs to be clarified, I'll happily tweak it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Well since the article is about the single game, the championship game, and the source clearly states the team for the final was all-black, I think that should be the meaning of the hook. If nothing else, it needs expert knowledge to understand that "five starters" means the whole starting line-up. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
True. Maybe one of the admins around here could change the blurb to "fielded an all-African-American starting lineup" or similar. I'll go adjust the article right now. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ping Fram and Gatoclass, one of whom may be in a position to facilitate a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Lipi)

... that Lipi means writing script, and as many as 64 Lipi such as the Brahmi script are listed in ancient Indian texts and their Chinese translations?

While my cold is almost better, I'm sorry, this has already been revisited once, but this hook still leaves me stumped. Can someone explain what this means and how it is interesting to a broad audience, per the requirements of DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? What is it you don't understand? It seems perfectly clear to me, but then I'm not a Chartered Nitpicker. Please provide a link to this sort of thing, especially if you are going to quote without the links. There seems to be a feeling growing in parts of the nitpicking community that hooks need to make everything perfectly clear. It isn't. Hooks (the clue is in the name) are intended to entice the reader to actually look at the article, and sometimes an element of mystery can be very useful. Rather than just asking "Can someone explain what this means and how it ...", have you actually notified the nominator? Of course you haven't. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I find it poorly written and not hooky, and I'm unclear what its significance is. The structure is off, for a start, when do we start a hook "X means Y and some X are..."? After that, what relevance does Chinese translations have to this? This really isn't nitpicking, it's asking for how this is interesting to a broad audience, per the requirements of DYK, and for my benefit, a further explanation as to the significance of the claim. I'm not a Chartered Nitpicker by the way, just someone who feels that the readers deserve quality content on the main page of Wikipedia. If everyone is content that they see it differently from me, that's fine. But we are allowed (in fact we are encouraged) to discuss things on talk pages, and that's all I've done. I'm sorry if I've upset you. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I also am unimpressed by the hook; it sounds like a teacher delivering a lesson. Yoninah (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you two could reach a consensus on whether it has too much explanation or not enough? Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the significance. It's a string of three facts all of which are simply not interesting, and I fail to see how, either together or indpendently, they form anything that would be interesting to a broad audience, per the requirements of DYK. But I can see that you've lost patience with me and had to resort to a personal attack, so I'll leave the discussion to others. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Instead of racking our brains to figure out this hook, why don't we create a real hook? My experience with this page creator is that she is very open to new hook suggestions. I'm returning it to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
And, of course, not giving her a link to this discussion! Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how to do that, because there have been so many posts under this section. But I will add a link to this section. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you already did that. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec twice) Since, as TRM has recently pointed out, virtually all acceptable hooks eventually reach the main page, the point at which to attempt to make hooks more interesting is during the nomination process, when the nominator, reviewer and others will be aware. Using a range of special places which only the nitpicking community watchlist is of course unhelpful and annoying, even to those not involved, let alone nominators, but this has been pointed out multitudes of times before, to no avail. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is "Lipi" capitalized? The sources used in the article (like [19] all seem to discuss "lipi", not "Lipi". And " and their Chinese translations?" is superfluous, if the 64 scripts are mentioned in the old Indian (better: Sanskrit) text then it doesn't really matter which translation also includes them. Fram (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Stripped back, it seems to me that the hook amounts to:
  • ... that ancient Indian texts include as many as 64 different writing scripts?
In that case, for me, the hookiness lies in there being so many different writing forms. The form TRM quoted is turgid, IMO; at least this formulation is succinct, though not using the word "lipi" is unfortunate. If we relaxed the rule on using parentheses, it could be "... as many as 64 different lipi (writing scripts)?" EdChem (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Or you could be superbold and just stick with lipi and get the reader thinking "what on earth is a lipi???" and clicking on it to find out... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I like that idea, TRM. What do others think of "... that ancient Indian texts include as many as 64 different lipi?" EdChem (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That works! Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all. Glad to know that I wasn't the only one who didn't really get the proposed hook! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

I have just approved Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Sky Metalwala and moved it to the Special Occasions holding area for November 6 (Prep 3). Could someone promote it to the empty slot, please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the hook was well over 200 characters and has been struck. I've pinged the nominator in the hopes that a shorter hook can be devised, but until it is and has been approved, promotion cannot occur. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done New hook has been approved; ready for promotion. Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 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, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Add de-disambiguation as a category of pages to include in DYK.

I would like to propose that we add to DYK rules pages that have, within the preceding seven days, been converted from a disambiguation page to an article on the underlying concept. We now have a thriving program of de-disambiguation of broad concept articles, which can go in a fairly short time from being completely unsourced disambiguation pages (constrained in part by the limitations on what can be included in a disambiguation page) to well-sourced broad concept articles. Examples of pages that have undergone such a transformation include Container, Enemy, Guessing, Size, and World domination. I believe that adding this as a DYK category will further stimulate editors to quickly and efficiently convert broad concept topics from disambiguation pages into articles, where appropriate. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Aren't such conversions usually a 5x expansion (especially since disambiguation pages are almost entirely lists, which don't count). Pppery 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably, although some disambiguation pages are already quite lengthy, and include material unrelated to the broad concept, which is then moved to a separate page. bd2412 T 17:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, true. But wouldn't the existing requirement that 1500 characters of readable prose has to be "new" content already make it eligible? Surely, a de-dab would have to be new prose. Who is going to create an article and keep in a list of whatever else was on the dab? Why make an extra rule for the obvious? — Maile (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
We kept the lists, basically, for Cardboard and Container (and the recently de-disambiguated Nanotube). bd2412 T 19:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be obvious, but I made a small change anyway [20], subject of course to the approval of my esteemed fellow editors.

However, not to throw cold water on the OP's efforts, I fear some of these new pages he's created (e.g. Size) are decidedly SYNTHish. EEng 18:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstract concepts are difficult to describe otherwise, but we do our readers a disservice if we don't try to explain them. bd2412 T 19:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that, all else being equal, might be nice to include here, but which we don't because there aren't appropriate sources. I'm serious. You can't be putting together your own overviews of abstract or highly general concepts by cobbling together various sources. Such efforts belong on Wikiversity. EEng 21:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
By the standard you have enunciated, I can't think of a single multi-sourced article in Wikipedia that couldn't be called WP:SYNTH. bd2412 T 01:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I note EEng's change and am concerned that the phrase "other pages" could be read as referring to pages outside article space - like new WP-space essays, for example. I suggest "and other pages" be changed to "and other articles" or "other article-space pages" or something to that effect. EdChem (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, but are we really worried that someone will nominate a project-space page for DYK? (I think it would be amusing to see someone expand ANI 5X and then nominate it here. Of course, expanding ANI 5X is no trick.) Anyway, DAB pages aren't articles, so "and other articles" is out. "Other article-space pages" is precisely correct, but I still think overfussy. But if others think that it helps, I certainly don't object. EEng 23:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Something wrong with the DYK nominations special occasion holding area?

None of the subsidiary templates appear to be displaying [21]. I've tried purging the cache but that doesn't seem to be making a difference. Prioryman (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not only there, the noms for today and yesterday also display only partially (2 of 4 yesterday, none of 2 today. I guess some div is wrong but can't find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Template talk page seems to overrun template limit

Hello all. I am just dropping a note that the page at Template talk:Did you know has exceeded the template include limit, so now we can't see any of the nominations at the bottom of the page. Thanks, epicgenius - (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Already seen this. See #Something wrong with the DYK nominations special occasion holding area?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Oops. Thanks for the link. epicgenius - (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominations page transclusions

Ping-a-ling EEng and others. Please see Village pump (technical) DYK template transclusions on nomination page. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a description there of what sounds like some real possibilities for moving boilerplate out of the individual nom pages (or something like that), thus addressing the parser-limits problem. Unfortunately I lack the technical skill to do this, but I someone will take a look. (And thanks to Maile for taking the lead getting answers.) EEng 07:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
One thing we all can do right away is to reduce the number of templates we add to the review pages. So, no more {{tick}} or {{ok}} or the like. If you can do reviews in text rather than use templated checklists, that will help as well going forward. What will help most right now, of course, is filling up some prep sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent days not displaying

On the main noms page nothing from October 24th on is displaying correctly. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

See above. Unfortunately my idea of keeping noms open longer will make this worse, so we have to solve that problem first. EEng 03:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_131&oldid=1091651373"