Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 137

Archive 130

←

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

WP:ERRORS

Note to the project, I have made a request to include a link to the "next" set of DYK hooks to be included at ERRORS, much like there exists for TFA, TFP, TFL and OTD. Primarily it's to continue to improve the quality of the Main Page, but also it's in response to the lack of responses from admins here to requests to changes in queues. Better to have more, and independent, eyes on the project, and better for the readers to get something they might enjoy or find interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added it. DYK admins may be interested enough to add it, but at least now we'll have far more eyes on the forthcoming hooks and be able to fix them before they spend too long languishing on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. More eyes are hooksHaving more eyes reviewing hooks is always a good thing. Mifter (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

But syntax confused are sentence usually a bad thing. EEng 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, thats what I get for multitasking... Mifter (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's now tempting to add the next three queues as they currently happen so frequently. Already errors are being promoted into queues with only admins having the luxury to fix them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Over two months old:

• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Furra
• December 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Petra Hřebíčková
• December 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee
• December 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Ciomadul

Over one month old:

• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Ingeborg Weber-Kellermann
• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Lalchand Fulamali
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Holman Rule
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce by-election, April 1865

Other old nominations:

• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen N. Straus
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Winslade
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Byzantine (video game)
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Reiner Jr.
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Gladiolus Amicitia
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Romanian Senate election, 1868
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Jadunath Singh
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Call of Cthulhu: The Official Video Game
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Wayzata Bay Center
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/The Vinh wiretap
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Bouncing ball
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Nyssa spatulata
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Dissent Channel
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/John William Kalua
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Nessa Carey
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Snugburys
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Where in Europe Is Carmen Sandiego?
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Bat
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilton Waterworks
• February 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Joey Fischer
• February 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Reader Rabbit
• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/1892 Legislative Session of the Kingdom of Hawaii
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Exercise TROPEX
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Planar transmission line
• February 10: Template:Did you know nominations/William Walsh (bishop of Dover)
• February 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Wallachian legislative election, 1857
• February 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Lockhart Hobson
• February 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Qandala campaign

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[Attention needed] Main page balance

Now OTD have added an extra line for notable births/deaths, DYK needs to step up to keep the main page balanced. That either means:

1. More hooks
2. Longer existing hooks
3. Addition of recycled hooks

Please come to a consensus on how to solve the problem soonest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Given that approved hooks have been dwindling, I suggest adding hooks as needed for the balance, but make them stay for 24 hours to avoid running out of hooks. HaEr48 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep set builders can consider the size of the whole set when they form it. Prep 5, for example, currently has 727 characters and is looking a bit sparse, whereas Prep 2 has 1072 and Prep 3 1033. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been mentioned by me at errors now for every set. DYK is still presenting uber-short sets. DYK either need to go back to eight hooks or request OTD slims down by one blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And there's something else. A while back we switched to 2 sets/day to eat up the approved reserve. But after dropping at first, the reserve has stalled at around 100+ for a while now. All the current sets have 7 hooks. Suggest goingAgree we should go back to 2x8/day until the approved reserve drops below 50. EEng 20:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's suggestion number one. And Cwmhiraeth has reiterated suggestion number two. So time to step up and decide, or else face suggestion number three which is easiest for our Main Page ERRORS admin patrollers to deal with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues adding more hooks and balancing the preps to ensure that we don't have prep sets with multiple very short hooks. I personally don't like recycled hooks when we have a backlog sitting around if we can at all avoid it. Mifter (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with going to eight hooks twice a day, and for keeping the number at eight if we need to drop back to one set per day. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a consensus then. Please implement this whenever convenient. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Twelve hours down and no sign of this being implemented. Attention needed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Any idea who's supposed to do such changes, or who knows how to do that? HaEr48 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the clearing template, such that when each prep is moved to the queue, the next prep is populated with 8 bullets. I will work on adding an extra hook to the queues; the preps that currently are being built also need to have eight slots, which any of you can work on. Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the next two queues have 8 hooks. I'm going to do other things now; two more filled queues, and forthcoming preps, need attention. Vanamonde (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Both Queue 6 and Queue 1 need an eighth hook, which should probably be taken from prep (but don't take either of the Washington hooks from Prep 2); I suggest that Queue 6's be the shorter of the two, since it has longer hooks than Queue 1. All of the preps now have eight hook slots. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, queue's taken care of; now somebody just has to rebuild Cwmhiraeth's messed up prep set (2). Vanamonde (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Rebuilt Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No quirky

The set that just went on the MP, with striated thornbill as the lead, has a hook (about Canadian Parks) in the quirky slot that is not at all quirky. It used to have the managed alcohol hook there and that is quirky. HalfGig talk 00:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6 - commas

"that Charlottesville, Virginia's oldest" comma after Virginia (necessitating a reword I suspect), and " nonexistent massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky went", comma after Kentucky. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, ERRORS it is! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

These are still both in Queue 6; plenty of time for a passing admin to take care of them both. Pinging Maile66 and Cas Liber to start with to see if either is around and able to make the necessary fix. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done by David Levy and myself. Vanamonde (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Recycled Orchestra of Cateura

... that children playing instruments made from scrap have recorded and played with Basement Jaxx and Megadeth?

Awkward wording (presumably if you "record with" someone, you naturally "play with" them?) but the article says they recorded with Basement Jaxx, and played with Megadeth, so it ought to be "recorded with Basement Jaxx" and "played with Megadeth".... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this has been fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Landesfunkhaus Niedersachsen - missing credit

Funkhaus Hannover is on the Main page, but no credit on the article talk, nom here. I checked one other article of the set, it was credited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

All fine now, thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1

It might be a good idea to crop the lead image so you can see the palace. Also, "has mixture" should be changed to "has a mixture". Yoninah (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar, I didn't trim the image because it looks okay to me, but have no objection if somebody else wants to do it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the image is not only a bit small, but also makes the hook less hooky. The hook is (I think) fishing for an "oh, I wonder what that looks like?" response, which is answered by the image. I am biased in that the set includes two of my hooks, one of which makes more sense to a non-chemist (I think) with the image (the hexamethylbenzene one, nomination), so I was disappointed that the image was not selected, partly as it is also a much more substantial article. Of course, I know and accept that it is up to the Prep Builder and not all proposed images will be chosen, but I am interested to see that my impression of the image was not unique to me. EdChem (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I did think about cropping the image but when I took a closer look at the building, decided it wasn't going to be a very interesting image by itself anyway and that the image together with the background has a bit more appeal. I'm sorry your image didn't get selected for the lead, I would have probably selected it as we don't get many images of chemical structures but not everyone will necessarily agree. I do think more account should be taken of article quality when selecting leads, but again, many promoters just seem to focus on the image alone. Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved the hexamethylbenzene article to the lead spot in another set as a check of the archives confirms that we have had only two chemistry leads in the last four months if not longer. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gatoclass – much appreciated. EdChem (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Hanover Lodge

There's a reference claiming it to be "the UK’s most expensive home". Does this really mean it was the highest sale price for a private residence purchased in the UK? For instance, Buckingham Palace is a home in the UK, and its value far exceeds that of Hanover Lodge, but because it hasn't been sold on the open market, it doesn't have that definitive figure. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It would have been helpful for you to point out that you had already tagged the article for not having a lead—although I'm not sure what it means in a single-section article that would seem to be all lead (or all body)—meaning that it couldn't be promoted at this stage anyway. Under the circumstances, I've just pulled it from prep, since the article would need to be completely reorganized in addition to dealing with this hook question. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It would have been helpful for the reviewer or the promoter to note these issues. It shouldn't be discovered when sitting in prep. But no need to thank me for my diligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your diligence in inspecting articles and improving hooks is of great benefit to DYK. Thank you for these. Your comment on this hook is also helpful. Thank you. However, your addition of tags to articles in prep, here and on other occasions, is disruptive. There is no requirement in the DYK rules that articles should adhere to the MoS guidelines. Hanover Lodge has no lead because it has no sections. If you feel strongly that it should be divided into sections and have a lead, then why not "Be bold" and do this yourself. As it is, articles you tag may end up on the main page with maintenance tags still in place, which is very undesirable, and even if other people notice the tag in time, you are creating work for others to either action your tag or move the hook back to the nominations page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've already told you, these articles are in Wikipedia, not in DYK, so they need to be checked for quality. If they aren't of suitable quality then they can and should be tagged so they can be improved. As I have to spend so much of my time fixing up all the issues missed by reviewers and promoters, I'm not left with much time to do anything else. Such issues should actually disallow hooks from being promoted in the first place, but our reviewers and promoters don't have to do that, so I do it instead. If articles which are sub-par end up tagged on the main page, so what? They shouldn't be sub-par when they get there. I'm not creating work, I am pointing out deficiencies which should have been corrected before the articles make it to the main page. Try being bold yourself and spending some of that promoting time actively improving the quality of some of these sub-par articles. Stop putting the burden on me to fix up all the issues you all miss in each and every set. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think BlueMoonset has done an excellent job in indicating the issues in the comments at the nomination page. TRM is absolutely right about the "most expensive home" being problematic, but I don't agree that the article needs a lead section. A short article with no sections but ten (actual) paragraphs needs a lead section, but an article that is two to three paragraphs does not need sections, and may even be poorer and repetitive if they are created. BlueMoonset, on the other hand, notes the chronological confusion, the repetitive "From X ..." formulations, and the single-sentence paragraphs, and these are issues that need to be addressed. The reviewer noted that the article is list-like, but still gave a tick. I would prefer to see the reviewer asking for this to be addressed, and failing that, the promoter would surely have noticed the structural issues when checking the hook fact, and could have reasonably instead asked for some revisions. I would like to hear from the reviewer (Hybernator) and promoter (Cwmhiraeth). EdChem (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it needs a lead. It's not a stub is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Why, TRM? Even the MOS guidance at WP:LEAD recommends a lead being needed once an article reaches 400 to 500 words, and it was about 350 when you tagged it. Yes, I know this is in a section on stubs, but I don't see why an article of 350 words can't be start class yet also not have sufficient content to need sectioning and thus a lead as summary / overview. The problem with the article was not the lack of lead, it was the five single-sentence paragraphs "From X (to Y), it was ...". I agree that the article was not ready for the main page, but I disagree on the reason. EdChem (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't the only reason. It was a woeful article with a dubious claim for a hook. And as you can see, Gatoclass managed to conjure something up in less than a minute, good stuff! If an article has two or three salient points to get across, there's your lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added a lead and consolidated some paragraphs. It took me all of a minute. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Not a problem was it? Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts, on reading it, is it is not reliably sourced. It’s sourced to RT, the propaganda arm of the Russian government. The RT report itself says it got the info from the Daily Mail, and we all know how reliable that is, especially when it comes to gossipy coverage of the rich and famous.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would expect this purchase to be a matter of public record in any case, probably available if worth the dig here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick search and here’s another home with a better claim for "most expensive", sold for £20m more, three years earlier, reported in a proper newspaper: Park Place: Britain's most expensive home sold for record £140m.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Then both this article and the Andrey Goncharenko article which was run a while back are incorrect and need to be fixed too, as well as the hook being rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth while you would tell me it's not part of your "job" as a promoter to spot these things, this one has turned out to be a humdinger. Incorrect claim, duff source, poor quality article. We need to start weeding this stuff out at source, reject it. You've seen enough of this crap to stop it passing through, so please work to prevent such articles getting a free pass to the main page. If you don't think you can or should be doing it, then stop building preps. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what humdinger are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I never use dab links, unlike you. I meant humdinger, i.e. "a remarkable or outstanding person or thing of its kind." Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked up "humdinger" to see exactly what it meant, but only found an unhelpful disambiguation page. You make so many untrue and disparaging remarks about me. See here, here, here, here, here and here, here, for my disambiguations over the last three days. Please stop denigrating my efforts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you used a dab link just above. What are you on about? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Loch Ewe Distillery

Prep 1. Couple of points. The source for the hook is primary, which I wouldn't have thought was adequate for the claim? If it is adequate, I wonder about the grammar - shouldn't it be licensed rather than licenced, and in Scotland, not of Scotland? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the dodgy grammar. The claim is dubious, especially using a primary source. A quick Google found Edradour claiming to be Scotland's "smallest traditional distillery", while our own article on Edradour distillery states that "Strathearn Distillery" is the smallest (they themselves say "probably"), so this needs to be booted back to noms. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it from the prep. It has too many issues to fix in quick time here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I haven't had much input at DYK so don't know the normal processes; I'm assuming it's standard practice to raise potential issues here? I didn't change the individual template myself because it instructs editors not to, though I see now that the template for the whole prep is still editable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Smith, Gavin D; Roskrow, Dominic (2012). The Whisky Book. London: Dorling Kindersley. p. 115. ISBN 978 0 2411 8035 8. says, "...the smallest legal distillery in Scotland and quite possibly in the world"--Ykraps (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• In a book published in 2012. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So which distilleries, opened since 2012, do you think are smaller?--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, when I was reviewing the article I came across this link which mentions that it was opened through a loophole concerning still size that was closed immediately after (I was concerned that the distillery might not be notable enough for an article which is why I did some external digging). Doing some more digging, that appears to mesh with what the article states as well as above book and this one. Also, both books mention Edradour (they simply state it is "small" however neither mention Strathearn which would make sense as it appears to have opened in 2013). Doing some deductive reasoning, here says that loch ewe can make up to 600 litres of spirits per year, here says Edradour can make up to 90,000 litres, and here says that loch ewe makes three casks a year and Strathearn can make 30,000 litres. However, I am not sure if "maltmadness" is a RS and the number of logical hoops there leaves too much to chance in my estimation. In contrast, here says that Strathearn is the "tiniest" distillery (800/400L still capacity) and here says that Loch Ewe has the smallest legal stills (120L capacity). From this I think we may be able to source that Loch Ewe has the smallest stills while the overall size is not clear from any single source (though it may be inferable). Mifter Public (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Good sources, but most of them are at least four years old. Perhaps we need to date the hook. We certainly need more than the distillery itself saying it's the smallest, that's just not going to cut it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, perhaps along the lines of "when it opened in 20XX" as that appears to be verifiable with the older sources (even if it still is the smallest distillery there is still no harm in dating it to ensure that we aren't conveying incorrect info). I have to run but should be able to do some more digging later. Mifter Public (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Queue 2 - John Hore

Minor point, but the hook says he "... set a new standard ..." Well according to the article, Hore is described as "[setting] a new standard for inland waterways, and is an important forerunner of the canals of the Industrial Revolution".[2] . The key thing here is he was described as doing so. Did he actually set a new technical standard? Nope. In actuality, he modified things to match existing standards. I guess the summary is that in an article which talks about standards, this individual didn't set them, he ensured others complied with them, which in itself might be setting standards, but the hook is still ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked hook to read "canal engineer John Hore was described as setting a new standard for inland waterways with the Kennet navigation, also characterized as an important forerunner of the canals of the Industrial Revolution?" Its not perfect but it is more faithful to what the source stated. Mifter (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just needs to be in Brit Eng, i.e. characterised. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - I wasn't able to make the switch before it made it to the main page unfortunately but of all the errors we can have, MOS ones are better than factual ones every day of the week. Mifter (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

question

Hi - I noticed that several nominations of both myself, and others, no longer appear in the nominations page. However, the nominations templates themselves don't appear to have been promoted so I don't think they've been move to prep/queue either? Anyway, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't do anything incorrectly. Specifically:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Propsteikirche, Leipzig
• Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Egan
• Template:Did you know nominations/Théâtre de la Michodière
• Template:Did you know nominations/Warren Gulley
• Template:Did you know nominations/Can You Hear Me? (telephone scam)

Thanks - DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

When you want to know where a file is look at What links here, on the left. They may be among the (new) approved nominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it - thanks! Sorry, I didn't realize these were moved to a different page once approved. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, we had an issue with the nominations page having too many transcluded templates and therefore not everything loading correctly so we now have a bot move approved noms to a separate page to reduce the total number of transcluded pages. Mifter (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the noinclude tags that appear when a nomination is closed

Since the bot removes closed hooks, these tags now serve little purpose in preventing transclusion to Template talk:Did you know and its subpages, and they prevent completed DYK nominations from appearing on article talk pages where it makes sense to keep them after promotion. Pppery 02:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: To quickly tack on to this discussion: having WugBot not remove closed nominations is also an option. It's something MusikAnimal and I have been discussing in the Bot Request For Approval, so opinions on whether the bot should continue with this would also be very helpful. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see any need to keep promoted DYK reviews on the talk pages. Like with GA reviews and any other, there's a link to the review in the DYK block in the top of the page (or, if combined in an Article history template, available there), so I don't see the benefit here. Also, as Wugapodes notes, it's premature to be discussing this anyway, since we aren't sure the bot will continue its deleting ways. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Too many cooks

I tried to consolidate the two sections above about Beryl Rawson as the content belongs together. This then resulted in a muddle as others rushed to revert while I was still in the middle of this. Anyway, here's my comment on the matter. I am putting this in a separate section for clarity, given the confused situation. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I received notification of this DYK appearance this morning and then had to waste some time establishing how and why the original approved hook was ruined. I discovered this correspondence which took place overnight while I was mostly asleep. And, in any case, there was no attempt to consult with the original authors, nominator or reviewer. The outcome here is exasperating. The topic was originally created at an editathon and I was planning to give the hook's appearance at DYK some follow-up publicity. Now, I don't want to do this because the hook now seems bloated and ugly. Please can people stop enabling such disruption of DYK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. The hook in question was bland and had no context whatsoever. The hook was vastly improved by adding context in that the use of computers at that time was quite novel and made it so much more interesting. I'd recommend it's used for follow-up publicity as a great example of how Wikipedia allows for communities to work out incremental improvements and that nobody owns anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not about O-W-N, it's about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. EEng 15:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Post of the day!" The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. Like I said, R-E-S-P-E-C-T. EEng 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should respect the will of the community over the ownership of an individual. That's right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Having the courtesy to consult the person who had the original idea, did most of the hard work, and probably knows the topic best has nothing to do with ownership. Go ahead and parrot yourself again now. EEng 16:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need "expert opinion" on that hook, nor was there much "hard work", but bravo for trying. And, moving on from this rumbling!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And please, refrain from the personalisation yet again, especially in the edit summaries, you should know by now that you shouldn't be doing that, ever, no matter what. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. EEng 05:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Try to avoid personalising these issues. At all times, refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, DYK sometimes lacks courtesy here of giving the original nominator the chance to comment on any changes made post review. Here clearly the nominator should have been informed/asked about the change if they agreed or not. It is not fair on them that admins can just run roughshod over what was originally intended just because they think its better than what the nominator wanted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, bloody admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here's a follow-up to see how that hook set scored. It's Gerda's music hooks that most need spicing up, as she won the wooden spoon again. The picture hook had quite a weak performance too. But I'm not surprised to see the mysterious Third Murderer coming out on top as I clicked through to it myself. Kudos to Ribbet32. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK vs OTD on 6 February 2017

White-browed robin-chat

• ... that the white-browed robin-chat sometimes nests on occupied buildings' walls and trellises covered with climbing plants?
• ... that under the 1850–1903 Oudh Bequest, six million rupees were transferred from the Indian kingdom of Oudh to the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala?
• ... that Tilo Medek set Lenin's Decree on Peace for speaking voice and four percussionists, and wrote an opera based on a Böll novel?
• ... that the Precordillera Platform in Argentina may have originally broken off from rocks that are now in the southeastern United States?
• ... that in the late 1970s Beryl Rawson used computers to analyse the family life of Roman slaves?
• ... that the Big Sur Land Trust pioneered the "conservation buyer" method of preserving land, saving thousands of acres in Big Sur from possible development?
• ... that scholars have debated whether the mysterious Third Murderer in William Shakespeare's tragedy Macbeth was Macbeth himself?

Page views

Article	6 Feb 2017
Third Murderer	7,085
Precordillera Platform	4,338
Beryl Rawson	3,464
Oudh Bequest	2,633
Big Sur Land Trust	2,484
White-browed robin-chat	2,203
Tilo Medek	880

February 6: Sami National Day (Sami people); Sapporo Snow Festival in Japan begins (2017); Ronald Reagan Day in most U.S. states

Duckworth's Action off San Domingo

• 1806 – Napoleonic Wars: When squadrons of British and French ships of the line engaged in the Battle of San Domingo (pictured) in the Caribbean Sea, the French ships Impérial and Diomède ran aground to avoid capture, but were caught and destroyed anyway.
• 1851 – The largest bushfire in a populous region in Australian history swept across Victoria, resulting in approximately five million hectares (twelve million acres) burnt.
• 1862 – Union forces earned one of their first important victories in the American Civil War at the Battle of Fort Henry in western Tennessee.
• 1952 – Elizabeth II ascended to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and three other Commonwealth countries upon the death of her father, George VI.
• 2000 – Second Chechen War: Russia captured Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, forcing the separatist Chechen government into exile.

Page views

Article	6 Feb 2017
Battle of San Domingo	16,126
Battle of Fort Henry	13,672
Ronald Reagan Day	9,302
Battle of Grozny (1999–2000)	5,743
Sami National Day	5,694
Black Thursday bushfires	4,106
Sapporo Snow Festival	3,673

Are you going to copy-and-paste the hooks for each set here along with the bar charts every day? If so, I'd suggest you set up a sub-page somewhere where those actually interested in this kind of thing can read it without disrupting this talk page. If nothing else, the graph demonstrates that for all the work and templates and arcane rule-keeping, DYKs on average and pro rata receive considerably fewer views than the one-man OTD show. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The OTD figures are good, but they have 24 hours not 12, and in most cases you can't be sure whether the hits arrive via OTD, as WP is far from the only site running such a daily list. An archive of DYK hits would be nice, but it should have its own page. Could it be bot-run? Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why I said pro rata, they still get more hits per hour than DYKs. Plus it's HIGHLY unlikely that other sites would be listing the same OTD elements as Wikipedia, they don't normally get selected until the day before in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added the equivalent figures for On this day, for comparison. The monarchs Elizabeth II and George VI have been omitted because they get much bigger numbers than this on an ordinary day. The Queen went from 79,318 on the previous day to 150,110 while her father went from 44,513 to 65,146. Those are serious readerships levels; the other items are all comparatively small beer. God save the Queen! Andrew D. (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, enough now. It's well established that OTD readership is higher than DYK, and that OTD process is so much quicker and streamlined and less about ownership of hooks and more about the selection of good quality items for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As has been explained before, OTD articles are established ones which have been on Wikipedia for many years and thus as a result have a lot more links to them which mean more views while DYK is new articles that haven't been around for long and so don't have the same level of links as OTD. It is not a like for like comparison. The Royal C (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As has been explained before, the delta between the background hits and the hits they get on the day will be almost entirely attributable to their appearance in OTD. The delta is almost always 90 to 95% of the page views for that day. Hence why Andrew has elected to ignore Elizabeth II and George VI because they have background hits in the tens of thousands. Nevertheless, their deltas weree 70,000 and 22,500. The comparison is 100% valid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What nonsense! It is (adopting your style) HIGHLY unlikely that other sites would be listing EXACTLY the same OTD elements as Wikipedia, but it is TOTALLY INEVITABLE that dozens or hundreds of sites, papers, printed diaries etc list LOTS of them, thus totally destroying your faux-statistical claims. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, indulge me. Where was the anniversary of the 1999 Battle of Grozny listed, printed, published online? Or if you don't like that one, try the Black Thursday bushfires.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Black Thursday bushfires got 4106 views which was about the same as Beryl Rawson's 3464. This indicates that, if it's not a prominent anniversary, then an OTD entry will get about the same level of traffic as a DYK entry. That's just what one would expect as the level of traffic will depend mainly on the attractive qualities of the hook for such items. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That didn't answer the question, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

But it is nonsense, nevertheless. Less than a week ago, for example, we had "Stephen, King of England was captured by forces loyal to the Empress Matilda at the Battle of Lincoln.", where Stephen drew 15,000 more hits than his baseline average. I don't think, somehow, that you would class that as a "prominent anniversary" and as we can see from above, DYKs rarely get above 5k hits, let alone 15k. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That Battle of Lincoln was on 2 Feb. Checking the DYK for that day, we find that there were two batches. The lead hooks were Timoclea and Girl with Peaches which scored 14,062 and 24,550 respectively. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you've proved that a good picture gets good hits. Well that's a surprise! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As has been explained before, OTD is run by one editor because it has drawn from a largely unchanging menu of items for 15 years. It gets large view counts because its items are selected for their broad appeal and because it's items appear on anniversaries, so huge amounts of traffic comes in from blogs and news items having nothing to do with the OTD appearance. EEng 13:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not surprised to hear that, but sorry if you geuninely believe what you've written. The 20+ million vists to the Main Page per day will drive almost all the hits to OTD, not people typing in the (sometimes unorthodox) titles into the Search bar. Not to mention we'd see relatively large spikes either side of the day in question due to time zones. Your analysis is incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the search bar, rather Google searches stimulated by coverage elsewhere or direct links from such coverage. Spikes on either side are easy to find. And even putting all that aside, that still leaves (again) that OTD carries items selected for their broad appeal rather than the unusual niche items typical of DYK. Go ahead and have the last broken-record word now. EEng 18:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, somehow in the plethora of arcane rule workery at DYK, I must have just imagined that the hooks were supposed to be interesting to a broad audience!! Time to take some of your own advice and stop feeling compelled to respond to my every post. This project is more than just you, and me....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

More broken record. Both OTD and DYK items are meant to be "interesting", but OTD items are mostly familiar historical whose whose significance people recognize immediately. OTD and DYK serve completely different purposes, and would be expected to have different view rates, nothing to do with quality. EEng 19:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK is not interesting most of the time. And even you know that so your position here is a little contrary! Honestly though, listen to yourself. No need to feel obliged to keep up the brave arguments! Just ignore my posts as you have suggested to so many others and get back to .... whatever you do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've urged editors to ignore your posts when they're picayune rumbling on transient items; this subject has broader significance. Anyway, I see you've run out of strawmen, so as far as I'm concerned we're done. But you may wish to rumble on. EEng 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was waiting for you to make it personal, but at least this time it was on a talk page rather than via the backdoor, your usual MO. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic bickering

<rolls eyes> EEng 20:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Bravo, magnifico! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC) <continues rolling eyes> EEng 22:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Indeed, your regular program has resumed. But I must thank you for refraining from your usual backdoor tactics. Now then, more eye rolling? Or can we just put this one to bed? Either way, take your own advice and have a little break from this urgent need to keep responding to me. It's unhealthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC) <continues rolling eyes> EEng 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC) How about you two just go back to ignoring each other from a distance? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC) I've already suggested that Eeng follows his own advice and ignores me but he just can't. Do as I say, not as I do etc! They often say that those who can't stop talking about you want more. Wowsers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, and they often say "the emptiest vessels make the loudest noise", and that they're "so fed up with the constant bickering" they could "staple their own ears shut with a nail-gun""sew up their own eyelids with rusty pins" , etc. etc. Often. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) You can hear this? Wow. Screen reader? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Easy fix, just stop following my edits! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Is there a user-specific watch page filter? Will ask at Village Pump. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC) I don't know, but it's easier than that, just stop feeding your obsession by not clicking on my edits! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Shucks, yes, you’re right. The nature of my condition means that I find it impossible to disengage, even on the most trivial matter, and I always insist on having the last word. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Just stop stalking my edits and everything will be just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC) "Stalking"?? Surely you mean "offering polite and timely helpful responses"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC) No, I mean stalking. I really do. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC) I see. Then I refuse to respond, in case I get dragged off to AN/I. Sorry for imagining this discussion was open to all. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC) It's nothing to do with this specific discussion, it's to do with your obsession of following me around, responding to everything I write, and then complaining about it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Now that certainly does deserve an AN/I report. Look forward to seeing the diffs. I hardly think 24 hours in one day allows time to respond to "everythingj you write." But I generally complain first. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC) No, no report necessary. I'm used to you being around, but I don't understand why you then complain about my edits if you've actively decided to follow them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) But I'm not "actively following them all", am I. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Who knows what you're up to, but you show up at a statistically significant number of places just after me. Perhaps it's just a coincidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC) "Go ahead, dude and show me your Chi-squared." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC) There's no need. It's as obvious as the sky is blue. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Ah right, so it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC) That makes no sense. I'd quit while you're behind. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

TRM, if you really believe that the significance/importance of an article and/or its topicality have nothing to do with the number of views it generates, you are just being silly. Vanamonde (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't say it had "nothing to do with the number of views". But thanks for trying. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If significance and topicality are actually a factor (as you just admitted) then DYK vs OTD views are an apples-and-oranges comparison, and tell us nothing, contrary to your repeated assertions here. It's bad statistics, as Johnbod already pointed out. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, as I have already demonstrated above. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Tend to agree with your fruit analogy. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled on this discussion by chance, found it full of intrigue, and find myself, now, drawn to opine. I believe Vanamonde93 has reached the correct conclusion; in effect that: DYK v. OTD based on page views is an apple v. orange comparison that leverages statistical misrepresentations to bolster a facade of dominance that factually does not exist. Consider, for example, this OTD v. Otd comparison from the same day with OTD being eligible titles that did appear on the main page, and Otd being eligible titles that could have appeared on the main page although they did not.

OTD page views

Article / Daily avg / Increase	6 Feb 2017
Battle of San Domingo / 862 / 15264	16,126
Battle of Fort Henry / 913 / 12759	13,672
Ronald Reagan Day / 538 / 8764	9,302
Battle of Grozny (1999–2000) / 441 / 5302	5,743
Sami National Day / 375 / 5319	5,694
Black Thursday bushfires / 221 / 3885	4,106
Sapporo Snow Festival / 399 / 3274	3,673

Net gain = 54567 views

Otd page views

Article / Daily avg / Increase	6 Feb 2017
Munich air disaster / 3948 / 42511	46,459
February 6 / 3281 / 39122	42,403
Michael Jordan / 20949 / 9078	30,027
Babe Ruth / 5367 / 5222	10,589
Gary Moore / 1613 / 2753	4,366
Arthur Ashe / 2070 / 1970	4,040
Treaty of Waitangi / 1062 / 2909	3,971

Net gain = 103565 views

This either shows that twice as many page views are gained by not appearing on the main page compared with titles that do, or it shows the results are in fact derived from "bad statistics". My sensibilities favor the later. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

John Cline, that's a beautifully incisive approach; I'm genuinely ashamed I didn't think of it. I can't wait to see a certain editor struggle to denounce it. Should be fun to watch. EEng 02:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is February 6 listed in just the Otd views? The Otd view shows an increase in traffic to three articles, the OTD view shows an increase in traffic to .... ALL!!! .... articles. QED. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you do % increases as well please? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, well at a hand-waving level, the average increase in traffic to the OTD items was by a factor of around 15 and to the Otd items an average increase of a factor of around 3. Excluding the big hitters (Jordan/Black Thursday), you get an average increase at OTD items of around a factor of 14, and an average increase at Otd of a factor of about 2. It's pretty clear that appearing on the main page has a huge impact on the traffic being directed to these articles, so thanks for clarifying that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And would you be able to tell me where Michael Jordan is listed at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 6 please? I can't seem to find it at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Finally, the list of eligible items I'm looking at is not the same as you have listed above, i.e. I see Lockheed bribery scandals and Otto of Greece in the eligible (but not posted) section and I don't see e.g. Arthur Ashe or Treaty of Waitangi. Are you working from a different list? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Here you go, while we're all in the mood for bar charts...

TRM's version of Otd page views

Article / Daily avg / Increase	6 Feb 2017
Munich air disaster / 3948 / 42511	46,459
Otto of Greece / 323 / 440	763
Treaty of Alliance (1778) / 236 / 245	481
Treaty of Amity and Commerce (United States–France) / 42 / 123	165
Lockheed bribery scandals / 156 / 165	331

Net gain = 43484 views (97.8% of which went to the Munich air disaster).

John Cline, would you agree that the above is the actual eligible-but-not-posted list for 6 Feb this year? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course something appearing on the main page increases the number of views it gets; I have certainly not denied that, nor, I believe, has John Cline or Johnbod. The point is that significance/topicality matter even for things on the main page. I am far more likely to click on a topic such as "Munich Air Disaster" than on "Geological history of the Precordillera", regardless of the hooks they use. As long as DYK is showcasing new/expanded content, it is going to deal with articles less significant/topical than those at OTD; and a direct comparison continue to tell us what it always has, which is nothing. Vanamonde (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd like John Cline and EEng to confirm that the statistics I've put there are correct, i.e. that items featured on the main page get an average increase in readership of a factor of around 15 while those not get an increase of an average factor of around 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a new route of exposure doesn't multiply views, it adds to them. And that you think it makes sense to "average" (by which you apparently mean "take an unweighted arithmetic mean of") multiplicative factors shows you have no idea what you're doing. Vanamonde93, John Cline, many of us have tried the patient-explanation route before -- doesn't work. EEng 13:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Either way you spin it, I debunked your assumption, I debunked this "beautifully incisive" approach (which was inherently flawed) and you're still here? I even did a barchart with the deltas as well. Still can't get enough... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

<rolls eyes> EEng 14:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this where I obsessively mention the thousand-yard stare again?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Enough said! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

... because of my crippling last wordism personality disorder again? *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [1]

Thank you TRM for assuming good faith and treating me with professional kindness. I am unavailable for editing right now, until this evening; literally stealing a moment from my obligations to advise you of my constraints and tell you that I look forward to answering your questions and furthermore, gleaning all that I can from every exchange that comes of this thread.

In parting for now, let me say: I am entirely green in all matters related to this discussion. My learning curve regarding these matters began yesterday when, as I had said, I stumbled on this discussion by chance. My comment was framed with generic language that I hoped would carry my meaning, not with jargon or the foreknowledge its use would imply. Anything said that resembled the actual inner workings of staging an OTD queue was entirely coincidental. I hope this will clear up a bit of the confusion for now, until I can better explain things later. Best regards until then.--John Cline (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, it's just that I couldn't quite determine how you'd got your statistics (i.e. some of those pages simply weren't there) and why you'd picked some and not others (e.g. the date page you added to the Otd analysis but not the OTD analysis, which massively skewed the conclusion that others were so quick to jump on and dare me to analyse it further). Let's, you and I, continue the discussion, without the DYK talkpage comedy act dragging it down to personal affronts and sarcastic/hilarious links. I appreciate your response. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Covering of the Senne, hardly a hot topic in anyone's front room, hit 30k views on 13 February, well done OTD! That compares to DYK's Nemegtomaia (in the popular "afternoon" slot that day!) which got 5,715 views. Both had images! Just goes to show that a boring OTD with a confusingly detailed sepia image will smash any DYK with a sexy "nesting dino" image out of the park, pro rata of course! OTD, A-, DYK, C+ (must try harder). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Felix Frankfurter, yes, just those two sacred words, scored an impressive 5152 hits yesterday at the bottom of the OTD section. It was the 52nd anniversary of his death, so I can't imagine it was widely publicised, yet the two words alone smashed most of the DYKs into the long grass. With no debate at all. Live and learn... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks being overlooked (including one right now)

There's a special occasion hook for February 26 at Template:Did you know nominations/2017 EFL Cup Final; the game begins at 16:30 UTC, which would require it to be in Prep 4. That had been full, but as it had two Utah-based hooks, I pushed one of them out to Prep 5, which has the unexpected benefit of leaving an empty slot for this special occasion hook. Since I was involved in the reviewing process, someone else should looking into promoting it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Cwmhiraeth. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

adding photo to nomination

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Souper Salad about a week ago. I have recently added a photo to the article which would also greatly improve the hook. It seems there is a little magic done at the time of the initial nomination regarding images. I don't know how to add a image to the nomination at this point to be used in a slightly altered ALT1 hook (just adding "pictured"). MB 04:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Prep 4 - Animals in professional wrestling

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.

---

No action, just a note that this article contained not just one abuse of non-free images but two, yet was still reviewed, passed and promoted. It also features bare URLs and an unreferenced section. Yunshui, HalfGig,

• Treker. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And how would a free image of Stu Hart (dead) vs Chi-Chi the Tiger (also dead) be available? There is a good argument that a historic picture of a pro-wrestler wrestling an animal is encyclopedic in 'Animals in professional wrestling'. There are unlikely to be commercial uses as the animal rights activists would crucify them. As it stands there is now one image which is Teddy Hart holding a pussy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I'm not debating that. I'm simply stating that the article was promoted with two non-free images incorrectly licensed for use in that article. This stuff really needs to be picked up either in review or before promotion. It's a legal matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I could not find any other image of an actual professional wrestler wrestling a tiger so I used the image which was already on Stu Hart's article. The picture of Terrible Ted is also used in Ted's own article.★Trekker (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the licensing should be fixed. I've been lazy and not done it yet.★Trekker (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2017 (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.

Unsourced BLP

Does "unsourced BLP" need to have zero source in order to qualify for articles that only need twofold expansion? I'm talking about the Leonard Patrick Harvey article which I found having one weak source and has a good scope to be expanded twofold. HaEr48 (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

HaEr48, zero sourcing for a 2x BLP is the rule. Leonard Patrick Harvey will need to be a standard 5x expansion if you want to submit it to DYK, from 1166 to 5830 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominating more than one article in the same hook

How is this done? The template instructions don't give any specific guidelines. I simply used the two article titles, separated by a comma, here: Template:Did you know nominations/Akatombo, Miki Rofū. If this is not the correct way, please fix it for me. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's OK, usually people would use either the main article title like Template:Did you know nominations/Tomahawk chop or something that encompasses all articles in it like Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Tunbridge Wells. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Kensington Railway Station

Again, no action required, but this was reviewed, passed and promoted whilst completely uncategorised. I've now addressed that but please, check that sort of thing before it gets accepted onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, did you not even notice that this wasn't categorised? How can I see that in seconds yet it takes you an hour to put together a set of seven or eight hooks, usually with one or two major errors? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you are being bold and honing your belittling skills. Three criticisms of me in four minutes is pretty good going (here, here and this thread). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It can hardly be described as belittling when it's clear statements of fact that your sets are usually error-prone. That's why I have to spend an hour a day clearing up for the benefit of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Sheeran

... that Ed Sheeran's 2010 EP Loose Change entered the Australian charts six and a half years after its original release?

Not sure this precise claim is inline cited in the article, nor am I sure it's fair to imply that it could have entered the Australian charts any sooner, after all it wasn't released outside the UK until 2015. Pings: Cwmhiraeth, Mifter, HeyJude70. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The article in question is Loose Change (EP). The hook is a factually correct statement; I don't think it implies anything. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not inline cited per the DYK rules, regardless of the bogus hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added an extra citation, but it was already cited inline. There is nothing bogus about the hook, it is factually correct. If you look at the history of Prep1 you will see that I had already amended the hook before you got to it. You have certainly introduced an error now, because the article does not state that the original release was only in the UK. Perhaps we should go back to the approved hook "... that Ed Sheeran's 2010 EP Loose Change entered the Australian charts after seven years due to his new releases?", but I don't like that because of the "due to" bit nor the inaccurate "seven years". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to base my claim purely on techinicallities, but in the DYK it states '...after its original release'. The EP was originally released in 2010, and it doesn't say '...six and a half years after its Australian release'. The line leaves it open to interpretation I guess; if interred literally it is correct, but if it is assumed that it implies that it was released in Australia in 2010 it is wrong. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I see that the hook has been corrected to include 'UK-only', thank you. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Common sense and accuracy prevailed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth did you read the article? In the "Release history" section, it states quite clearly that it was released in the UK. So did your accusation of "the article does not state that the original release was only in the UK." mean something different? I'm not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I did miss the "Release history" section, tucked away as it was at the bottom of the page. The hook facts were still correct however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Tucked away"! Perhaps reading the whole article, categories included, would benefit the sets. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Dhyan Chand Award

I realise that quality is not a concern of the project, but should we really be promoting articles with basic English failures such as:

• "The recipient(s) is/are selected by a committee constituted by the Ministry and is honoured for their contribution as a sportsperson and towards promotion of sports after their retirement from the active sporting career."
• "Instituted in 2002, the award is given only to the disciplines included in the events like Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, World Championship and World Cup along with Cricket, Indigenous Games, and Parasports"
• "The first recipients of the award were Shahuraj Birajdar (Boxing), Ashok Diwan (Hockey), and Aparna Ghosh (Basketball), who were honoured for the year 2002.[6] Usually conferred upon only three sportspersons in a year, a few exceptions have been made (2003, 2012, and 2013) when multiple recipients were awarded in a year."

And that's just the lead. Please, I understand that many DYK regulars including those who promote these articles to the main page, think we should allow these kinds of things, but honestly, is this an encyclopedia or a kid's school project? Pinging Vivvt, Cwmhiraeth, HalfGig. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave the article a copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Good. Shame it was considered suitable in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I know that readable English isn't a precisely specified criterion of the DYK regulations, but please, next time you spend at least 8 to 10 minutes checking each article you promote, read them and if they're not written in English, send them back to the noms area for a copyedit. This isn't a school project, it's Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by the statement: "This is a school project, it's Wikipedia". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not prepared to admit your error, you subtly obliterate the evidence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

At least my errors don't feature regularly on the main page!! Ps, so you actually know the meaning of "obliterate"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How about "Obliterate: make invisible or indistinct; conceal or cover". Just what you did. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's in the history. You do know how Wikipedia works, right? Now then, please focus your efforts on reducing the number of mistakes you make which damage Wikipedia, rather than a typo I made. Talk about misdirection of effort. Plus I see you chose the second meaning, while the common, and first meaning is "destroy utterly" which is most people's reading of the word. So once again you're mistaken. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, hahahahahhahahahahaha! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2017 (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, 4 March 2017 (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) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3 broken

Queue 3 currently includes some queue page management content, which is showing up on tomorrow’s main page. Posted to errors but cross-posting as it’s due to go live in a little over half an hour.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne I redid Queue3. Did that fix it? — Maile (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3

... that with 1,200 parking spaces, the Wayzata Bay Center shopping mall used to offer a shuttle service?

This is going live in 1hr, but how is the number of parking spaces related to a shuttle service? The article has them as 2 separate sentences. And 1,200 car parking spaces isn't that interesting anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Winner, "Most stunningly uninteresting hook of February 2017". The fact that the shuttle service apparently isn't even offered anymore would have added the perfect master's touch of complete pointlessness. EEng 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. There were two hooks approved: DYK nomination Wayzata Bay Center. I just swapped the hook with the other approved hook. People can discuss it if it's an issue. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Polynesia time

If I calculate right, Missionary Day (now prep 6) will be shown when it's almost over where it is celebrated. Better a set earlier, or even two. - Once I'm here, prep 3 looks "long", compared to the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved the Polynesian hook to Prep 5 and reduced the length of Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, you have unfortunately not calculated correctly. French Polynesia is in the same time zone as Hawaii (UTC−10); in Prep 6, where I have restored it to, it will run between 02:00 and 14:00 local time on March 5, which is about as good as we can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for misplacing the date line, - for me it feels like Australia, but I should have looked it up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2017 (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) 22:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Pull: Prep 3 The Light that Failed

Apart from a whole unsourced section, this article is mostly sourced to essays in the Kipling Journal and Kipling Society. These are, of course, the opinions of the writers and thus original research. The Kipling Society links also contain the home addresses and email addresses of members. We shouldn't be linking to those. This should be pulled until the issues are sorted out. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Ciridae and Gerda Arendt: as nominator and reviewer. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The unsourced section is the Plot, which is a summary of the book contents. Per WP:DYKR plot summaries do not have to be sourced. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere. — Maile (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kipling Journal isn't a reliable source for information about Kipling? I would have thought that a dedicated journal would be among the best places to get reliable information. Looking at the first link, the journal is published by the Kipling Society, a registered charity that includes a field marshal, a QC, a Ph D and an OBE on its board amongst others, and the journal clearly has an editorial process. Also, it appears the only "opinions" expressed in the Wikipedia article (ie the "Critical reception" section) are from independent sources. As for the unsourced section, that's a plot summary and AFAIK it's still the case that such sections are considered not to need cites (since the source is obviously the work itself).

So unless I've missed something, I can't see a problem here. I will not be responding immediately to any reply BTW as I am about to log off for some hours. Gatoclass (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Maile and Gatoclass, it's what I also see. Plots don't need refs, and reception is independent sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's simply wrong. There are multiple statements in the article that are presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice, when they are simply the opinions of the amateur critics that contribute to the various Kipling societies. At the very least, they should say "According to X...". And the inclusion of personal information in the PDF links is problematic at the least. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, the Society is a registered charity with a distinguished board and the journal has been in existence 90 years and claims to have published "a vast quantity of valuable historical, literary, and bibliographical commentary by authorities in their field". You say, without evidence that the writers are "amateur critics" but the journal has an editorial process so I don't think it matters whether some of the writers are "amateurs" or not. With regard to the personal information, I saw only one address but given that it appears on the official website, the individual concerned presumably gave his permission to have it published, so again, I am not seeing a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 (Charu Mihir Sarkar, Bhabatosh Soren)

These two articles are, well, adequate, but the third non-bolded one Sushil Kumar Dhara really shouldn't be linked from the Main Page. Not only is it very poorly sourced, but frankly much of it is gibberish. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Edit: there is an adequate version in the history, which I've reverted back to. The nonsense version had existed for nearly a year, though. Can we make sure that we're checking every link in a hook, please, even if it's only a cursory one to filter out stuff like this? Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I've had to stub Houyi (linked in the Han Zhuo hook). 90% was a direct copyvio. Black Kite (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5

Am I right in thinking that the currently empty Prep 5 will be the first hook set to run on the 8th? Just trying to figure out if the special holding area hooks go into Prep 5 (and prep 6 once it's been cleared).  MPJ-DK  04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I reckon that is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - "nuclear weapons boss"

... that the White House's long-time nuclear weapons boss, Bill Gulley, was officially on the U.S. Post Office payroll, to make the president's staff look smaller than it was?

Is this some kind of joke? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia yet we are aiming to push this to the main page, a "nuclear weapons boss"? Come on people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the article he was in charge of the "White House Mess" under Nixon. It's a shame he's dead because right now Trump could sure use someone with experience in that area. EEng 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• It is not even a quote from the article so the phrasing is odd. How about the suggestion below?  MPJ-DK  22:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• that Bill Gulley, who for years was responsible for the Nuclear football, was officially on the U.S. Post Office payroll, to make the president's staff look smaller than it was?

• That's about 1,000 times better than the original tabloid bollocks hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Updated.  MPJ-DK  23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, but no-one learns from it, yet again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry do you want to try and introduce improvements or do you want to get up on a soap box oncetake digs at DYK in general? If you want to do the first I'm all in, but I don't particularly like climbing on soap boxes.  MPJ-DK  23:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, do you want to try and look at the number of DYKs I've improved just before they hit the main page? Doing so is all well and dandy, but that's curing the symptoms. If you want to address the cause, like me, then you need to get those who made mistakes to do a better job next time round. But thanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in being "like you", I am trying to do something positive and collaborative to improve the quality. Same goal, totally different approaches. So go ahead and get in the last word if you like, I am beyond caring.  MPJ-DK  23:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• You're beyond caring? I didn't ask you to be like me, you couldn't ever hope to achieve that level of excellence, but to that end I'm really glad you're leaving the discussion as you've added nothing to solve the long-term issues here. We can get back to discussing it with people who are actually genuinely interested in making this a better place. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Special holding area

A hook in Prep 3, Richard Springer, needs to be held for April 15th, but I am unsure how to move it to the special occasions holding area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks still being overlooked (including one right now)

There's a special occasion hook for March 2 at Template:Did you know nominations/Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, and I don't have time right now to check and promote it. The first set for March 2 is already on the main page; the second set, currently in Prep 6, is filled without this hook, so one of its hooks will need to be moved, preferably before the set is promoted to queue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, Prep 6 went to Queue 6 about the time you were typing this. And I'm getting ready to sign off for the day. So, this one will take an admin to make the switch within the next 10 hours. A strange side issue, is that I noticed Prep 2 has been mostly filled, but absolutely no hooks were promoted to Prep 1 right above it.

— Maile (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Vanamonde. Looking at the hook, I think it would be helpful to add a piped link for "MLAs"—MLAs—because it's confusing without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

When I promoted a special occasion hook to Prep2 for March 3rd, I don't believe there was a special occasion hook for March 2nd, so I felt no need to look again at the special holding area for that date when promoting further hooks. Having added one hook to Prep2, I added a few more hooks to it while I was there, which explains @Maile66:'s anomaly. I would find it more noticeable if the special holding area was at the top of the approved page rather than the bottom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Wugapodes: You know ... that's a really good idea to have the special holding section at the top of the approved page. Like "Hey! Notice me!" where it can't be overlooked. I vaguely recall a previous discussion on this, but don't remember why it was decided to leave on the unapproved nominations page.— Maile (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, the March 2 hook was right there. It's been there since February 4, and I saw it still there shortly after you built that Prep 2 set. I don't know why it didn't show up on your screen, but it certainly should have, as it was right above the March 3 hook you promoted. Maile, I put the Special occasions area at the bottom of the Approved page because I thought that people would naturally look for it at the bottom of the page since they were used to it being there on the regular nominations page, with the earliest-to-be-promoted hook date at the top of the section, and the furthest out at the bottom. Will people look for it at the top of the Approved page's Nominations section (I don't imagine you meant the literal top, above all the explanations), or will we have to put a pointer to such a new placement from the bottom of the page, because that's where people are used to looking for it? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. And now that I think about it, promoters should not have to scroll through a lengthy (sometimes) list of special occasion hooks just to get to the current approved ones. No magic solution on this one, except to keep doing how it's always been. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a link to the Special holding area at the top of the Approved page? At present you have to make your way to the bottom of the page and hunt around for where the holding area starts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've added it to the end of the top paragraph on the page. I did take a look at the Contents box at the top of the page, but that too is a long multi-screen slog. Cwmhiraeth (and anyone else), let me know how you think it works. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's good, just what is needed. Now I will have no excuse if I miss special occasion hooks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

March 8 – International Women's Day

I have started a new date in the Special Occasions holding area for March 8 – International Women's Day. We have 16 slots available that day – please fill them up! Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I just added a nom that might qualify, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Great, that one is in prep. - I found another, substantial article, the image a notable piece of art, - perhaps it's not too late? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

ps: seeing that both preps for the day have an image, it could go a day later perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I added another artist, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation tag

One of the articles for the March 8 women's day DYK's has a "translation" tag at the top (Mary Hogarth), basically stating that the French language article is much larger and could be used to expand the English version. Could an article hit the front page with that sort of tag? It's not a dispute, it's not calling anything into question - it just points out that a different language article is bigger. I'm leaning towards it being acceptable but I'd like a 2nd and 3rd opinion on this.  MPJ-DK  15:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The French article is a "bon article" (good article), so surely it's only a good thing to encourage someone to improve it? Although I'm not a reliable second opinion (as article creator), but I know I've had the translate tag on DYK articles before e.g. Tinkoff Bank and Javier Tebas, and I feel like people here said it was fine (although I can't find discussion). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking, I just want to be sure. Since it's for March 8 we have time to get a response from an uninvolved editor to be sure we're on solid ground to put it on the main page.  MPJ-DK  16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

MPJ-DK Maybe this will help, also. DYK Reviewing guide only refers to "dispute tags": Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent edit history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem. And it's handy to know what Wikipedia says is a "dispute tag": Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming Maile.  MPJ-DK  01:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for input

Cyclone Althea was nominated for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Althea. Technically, the DYK nomination is late by a bit over a day, but I feel that it's close enough for an exception to be made, relative (in part) to the high quality of the article and in part per WP:IAR. Notifying others here for input regarding this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

North America1000, the article was moved from a user sandbox to mainspace on March 8. It isn't late at all. And even if it hadn't been moved, DYKcheck notes that it has been 5x expanded over the version on March 3, so it would qualify that way. It definitely qualifies for DYK under the newness and size criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Nevermind. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Second set of eyes on an image review

I am looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Adiyogi Shiva statue which includes an image of the statue. The image was uploaded in 2015 on Commons as "Own Work", but the article claims the statue was unveiled in 2017. I would love a second set of eyes on this to see if I'm making too much of this or not?  MPJ-DK  02:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: See article text; this is the small version of the statue that's located at the Isha Yoga Center. The caption is a bit confusing - it's a small version (start dependent clause) of the statue located at the Dhyanalinga temple, but also a small version of the statue (start dependent clause) at the Isha Yoga Center. At the very least, that caption needs improving. The image also probably shouldn't be in the infobox, as it isn't of the actual statue in question, just a replica. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Epic read fail on my part, thank you Rob.  MPJ-DK  02:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so here's an updated list of the 32 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current nominations (those through February 20). I'm happy to report than only 12 hooks are left over from the previous set. Right now there are 201 nominations, of which 97 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four oldest, all left over from last time and still urgently needing a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Furra
• December 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Petra Hřebíčková

Over one month old:

• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Why (Taeyeon song)
• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Lalchand Fulamali
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Holman Rule
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Miriam T. Griffin
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Hari Bhimaraju
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Paludititan
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Byzantine (video game)
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Gladiolus Amicitia

Other old nominations:

• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Romanian Senate election, 1868
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Where in Europe Is Carmen Sandiego?
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
• February 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert E. Finnigan
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Planar transmission line
• February 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Wallachian legislative election, 1857
• February 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Qandala campaign
• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Licence laundering
• February 13: Template:Did you know nominations/John William Elliott Maikai (two articles)
• February 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Roger P. Minert
• February 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Two Worlds (song)
• February 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Jamaica–179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) (two articles)
• February 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Creswell Eastman
• February 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Licancabur
• February 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Eileen Riley Siegel
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Kick Your Game
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Simon Kidston
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Wayne Shaw (footballer)
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Subramanian Kalyanaraman
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Beethoven Orchester Bonn
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Islamophobia in Canada
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Private Practice (season 1)
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Weixin Shengjiao
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Printer's Devilry

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Prep Area 5 Review

I work in Software Quality Assurance so I'm borrowing a bit from those processes to see if they can be applied with success here, some of the improvements we've seen where I've worked is through developing standards and internal check lists. Prep 5 is the next to be moved to Queue 5 that's going on the main page in like 6 hours now. I'm looking at the 8 hooks now trying to figure out the best, most efficient way of ensuring quality in the hooks. To me we need to make sure each hook & article as been vetted before it hits the main page. I see the following items that really need to be checked for the following.

• Hook accuracy
• Hook prose and appropriate linkage
• Article prose
• Article sourcing
• Image license (In set and in the article)
• Hook in prep vs. hook approved (is there a difference, does that introduce problems)

• Anything else? I am going to start the review of the various hooks - and then when done post my finds on each hook, to share the findings here. If others review a hook it'd be great if they post their comments for the hooks here so we know what has been reviewed and what issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  19:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hooks

• Miami Railway Station that in 1889, a US company built the Miami Railway Station (pictured) in Canada, now a National Historic Site and museum?

• The lead said it was built by Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company (no source) while the body just says it was built in 1889 and sourced there. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the company was U.S. based but it's in the hook - not an error as such but unclear from the article.
• Image license looks good to me
• Article is okay, albeit more focused on the "background" than the station.
• I'm by no means an expert on the English language but I would have thought the hook should read "which is now a"?  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea / Wallachian princely election that the aged, hernia-afflicted Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea reportedly ran in the Wallachian princely election only to hamper other candidates?

• Prose wise, source wise this looks okay to me, nothing jumps out at me.
• All facts found and cited in the Filipescu-Vulpea article but I'm having a hard time finding the fact that he only ran as a "spoiler" in the election article. @Dahn: - can you help me pinpoint where the hook is found in the election article please?  MPJ-DK  20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• I see nothing else for this one.  MPJ-DK  22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Two Worlds that AllMusic thought Phil Collins' "Two Worlds", featured in Disney's 1999 animated featuremovie Tarzan, "eerily echo[ed]" the worldbeats of former Genesis bandmate Peter Gabriel?

• Hook prose: We should probably avoid repeating the word "feature"  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC) fixed

• 2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment that the only player strike in Japanese professional baseball history occurred during the 2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment and lasted for only two days?

• Hook prose: We should avoid repeating the word "Only"  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Taken care of.

• Julian Radcliffe that Julian Radcliffe is the founder of the world's largest private database of lost and stolen art

• Not reviwed yet
• Well, for starters, it's marked as a STUB, which is against DYK rules for promotion. It's not the first time, even this week, that this has happened.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising that the 1887 book Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising presents 177 biographies of African-American men, most of whom were born as slaves?

• Article states "had slave parents or were themselves slaves" but doesn't state that the majorit were actually slaves and does not state that they were "born" as slaves.  MPJ-DK  21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• William Henry Daniels that Judge William Henry Daniels committed suicide in 1897, three years after being dismissed for not taking an oath of allegiance to the Provisional Government of Hawaii?

• Not reviewed yet
• If anyone had read the section that relates to the hook, they'd have noticed "a supporter of the annexation cause. was appointed to", but apparently they didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Paludititan that Paludititan is a Romanian island dwarf?

• A section is tagged with expansion needed, since January - Do we allow tagged articles like this on the front page?  MPJ-DK  19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Casliber, MWAK, Robin Liesens, Kevmin, and Cwmhiraeth: based on the Supplementary guideline we cannot promote/pass hooks for articles with dispute tags and the "expansion needed" tag is listed under Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. THis tag looks to be in place when the review and promotion was done too so I'm pinging everyone to make sure they're aware. I am going to take this out of the set since it's almost due to go, replacing it with one from Prep 6.  MPJ-DK  22:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Woops I cannot move it, Prep 5 is now Queue 5 and "Admin Only". @Mifter: please be aware of the issue with the last hook as well as the inacuracy of the "Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising" hook.  MPJ-DK  22:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I just tweaked the wording to "many" from "most" regarding the Men of Mark article. I am looking at the last hook currently. Mifter (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the "expansion" tag from that section. Comparing the article from when it was added to now satisfies me that it was adequately expanded. I've currently trying to get my hands on the journal article used as the primary source to make some other changes but that is taking longer than I expected. Mifter (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay excellent, as long as the issue is resolved.  MPJ-DK  01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

MPJ-DK this is not the worst idea that ever came down the pike. Logical, simplistic ... and you're the only one so far who had added to it. So...no getting sidetracked. Do we have the man/woman power to do this on a steady basis? Can we hold it to "just the facts" and not get sidetracked with every thought that goes through someone's mind? The big flaw with the current process, IMO, is personality clashes that turn it into accusations v. defenses. When I check a set prep, the big ... BIG ... issue I see are promoters who are acting in good faith and changing the hook from what was approved. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth seems to take over an hour to build a prep set without this list of helpful pointers. And still many issues make it to queues and sometimes to the main page. It may mean that prep builders have to be prepared to put in the extra hours to ensure that reviewers have done their jobs properly. Or perhaps it means that prep builders should be bolder about sending nominations back to review rather than the current "If it's nommed, it'll run" approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Proving my point about sidetracking this project with accusations. The minute you start pointing fingers at someone, and you do it often, you dilute your own credibility. This is not productive. So, please stop. — Maile (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Get a grip. I was talking about the only decent set builder the project has already spending an hour to get a set together. It's not her fault the reviewers are promoting rubbish. You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control. Stop blaming me for pointing it out. Do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I built this particular prep set. I see that I started at 6.04 and finished at 7.23, so that's 79 minutes. During that time I also proposed a new hook for a nomination I did not promote, commented on a nomination I did not promote, rephrased an article I did promote and expanded the lead of an article I did promote to prevent it being tagged "lead too short". On this occasion I did not then alter any of the hooks, but I often do where I think they are ungrammatical or could be better expressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I know the timings well as I'm usually waiting for her to finish so I can review the set. Maile66's outlandish and bad faith rant is not welcome nor conducive to solving the problems, unlike my comment about rejecting nominations more readily. As for timings of reviews etc, sadly time constraints work against me sometimes, and now is such a time, hence the error reports because queues suddenly pop up out of nowhere and their associated errors are just a hare's breadth from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I was unfortunately unable to get reliable direct information, but some breeds of hare grow up to about 60cm long (excluding tale) so going by the photo here [2] I'd estimate a typical hare's breadth to be something like 10 to 15 cm. Too close for comfort in my book! EEng 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay now that we've gotten that out of the system let's move on to constructive input shall we? Great.  MPJ-DK  20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. Let's hope Maile66 comes back with something actually useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes it would be geat if everyone could contribute with something helpful and without attitude so we can make a positive step forward intead of being stuck in the same environment of snide remarks and finger pointing.  MPJ-DK  21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: How many times must I remind you before you find yourself back before the arbitration committee? "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • How many times must you be reminded that statements of fact do not equate to insulting or belittling others. Maile got it all wrong, she should apologise and move on. As should you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, yes they very well can be, depending on how they are phrased and wielded. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Well, clearly not in this case if you bothered to read the context, the ABF insults and the solutions I'm seeking. Besides, your involvement with this case really precludes you from an objective perspective. After all, you're the "admin" who changed the main page text to purple when Prince died, right? And many of us pointed out your flagrant abuse of your position as an admin, right? In you, we trust? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
            • Gorgeous red herring there. Chin up, and please treat people with more respect and civility. That's all I ask. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
              • I think you under-estimate how poorly the community view you and your antics as a rogue admin, abusing the main page at your whim. That you weren't sanctioned for your many illicit actions on the main page is a mystery, Arbcom would do well to take a further look into your behavioural competencies. As for "chin up", please don't patronise me, I'm just fine, you need to start working on your interpersonal skills before you come tramping into a debate with people that you're clearly involved with, and with a basic lack of comprehension on how to interpret Arbcom's ruling. If you don't like someone stating absolute facts about incompetence or errors, this isn't your domain, I suggest you stick to purple text or whatever else makes you happy. That's all I demand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
                • Again, red herring. Note that I'm not commenting as an admin, so involved doesn't apply. I'm commenting as someone who will bring you to Arbcom if you continue on your current path. You've been warned; I'm out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
                  • Again, you're inherently editing as an admin, so yes, of course it applies. Please, I'll see you at Arbcom whenever you're ready to discuss your rogue behaviour. In the meantime, I suggest you get on with making the place better, stop assuming bad faith, stop making problems where they don't exist, stop accepting unfounded arguments from others without justification (you're an admin, right?), stop wading in pretending to have some kind of higher knowledge and power, stop misunderstanding (deliberately?!) the meaning and intent of Arbcom, start learning how to read depictions of fact and reality and stop misinterpreting them as "belittling". I do sympathise that some people will have trouble delineating between "belittling" and "factual assertions" and that was always a fundamental issue with Arbcom's mishandling of the case, quite the cluster-f**k. But you don't need to keep repeating the problem, after all, you're a "trustworthy <purple>admin</purple>", right? Plus I see you've managed to derail, once again, a sensible discussion about how to improve this project. Please don't do that again, after all, you're an "admin", right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
                  • Anyway, just remembered you told me that I don't interact like a normal human being, so you're a reprehensible individual whose edits are best ignored, wholesale. Ta ta!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well this is utterly redundant and seems quite arbitrary. Concerning Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea, I gave the full quote, original and translated, on the nomination page. Currently, the article on him says: "Mistrusted as a Muscal, aging, and visibly suffering from hernia, he was credited with few chances, and was aware of it; however, he reportedly informed Lăcusteanu that he was only in the race to prevent either of the "Oltenian" brothers, Bibescu and Știrbei, from winning the throne." The other article in that nom, on the election itself, says: "Lăcusteanu, an elector of the 2nd class, argues that Vulpea, who suffered from hernia, was uncommitted to his own candidacy, but only ran in hopes of making victory more difficult for the brothers Bibescu and Știrbei. He viewed both "Oltenians" as upstarts who would destroy the country." Dahn (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  Neither redundant nor arbitrary. In the specific case of your hook, perhaps, but this is a project talk page, and we're analysing the ongoing and chronic issues that beset DYK. If you've done the right thing, and your reviewer and promoter and admin, no worries for you. But this is a much bigger picture thing than just your "own" thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• So I am sorry you feel that it's redundant @Dahn: but unfortunately we have had some unfortunate issues slip through to the main page, I'd rather ask a question too many, than one too few. There is nothing personal here, just trying to make sure we get less issues through here. So thank you for narrowing it down for me, I have struck my comment on the articles. MPJ-DK  22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tweaking hooks

Thank you for bringing these points up MPJ-DK. The parts of the discussion that interests me are

• "Hook in prep vs. hook approved (is there a difference, does that introduce problems)?" (MPJ-DK)
• "When I check a set prep, the big ... BIG ... issue I see are promoters who are acting in good faith and changing the hook from what was approved. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't." (Maile)

Basically, I only promote approved hooks that I think are satisfactory or that can be made so with minor alterations. I do not alter the wording of a hook when I promote it, I do this as a separate edit afterwards, one edit for each hook altered.[3] If I find a problem in an approved nomination, I may query it but I do not promote it.[4] @MPJ-DK and Maile66: Do you think this approach satisfactory? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I don't have a problem with how you promote hooks. What I mentioned above is not limited to you, but more general in that it happens with many of us. Perhaps even me. The issue is not especially that the hooks are changed at the moment of promotion, but that they are changed from what was approved without discussion on this talk page. Tweaking the hook while in prep is encouraged here, so it comes under "stuff happens..." I have noticed when I check a prep set on the hook wordings, a given hook seems odd to me. Sometimes that's because I know the subject matter and see something amiss. Or the sentence seems to have a word missing. It's any number of things, and any number of editors. The bigger problem is when a hook is inadvertently changed to say something that isn't in the article or the source. Personally, I think MPJ-DK came up with the best possible solution ... list a full set here and allow it to be viewed as a set before it goes to Queue. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@JulieMay54: @Cwmhiraeth: @MPJ-DK:

• ... that Nessa Carey explains how epigenetic modifications allow the same DNA to express different characteristics, such as both a caterpillar and a butterfly?

This fact does not have an inline cite in the article, and I also don't see any mention of caterpillars and butterflies in the citation at the end of the next sentence. The hook is also ungrammatical – how is a caterpillar or butterfly a "characteristic"? Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm really surprised this passed GA with the lead in the condition it's in. The GA reviewer noted this several times on the review, but it was not addressed. I tagged the lead for further work. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Damn, I spent time verifying the image hook, then I grabbed the other one because there were no image hook slots left and neglected to check all the way to the source. Good catch.  MPJ-DK  12:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I see the GAR was done by Chiswick Chap, a very conscientious editor with whom I often cooperate. Looking at the history of the GA review shows that the lead was worked on and about tripled in size during the course of the review. Perhaps @Yoninah: would like to explain on the article's talk page quite what is wrong with the lead, because it looks OK to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice to know what she is and what nationality she is, right off the bat. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No comment on the rest of the article, but I agree that "Nessa Carey studied and researched virology and human genetics at University of Edinburgh then at Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School." leaves a lot to be desired as the opening sentence of a GA. 97198 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As this is an International Woman's Day hook I have added a single introductory sentence to the lead of the article, removed the tag and shortened the hook by removal of unreferenced elements. If you think this is unsatisfactory, you can return the hook to the nominations page for further work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 tweak

− "... that descendants of the family who settled Toronto's Ashbridge Estate (pictured) were still living on the same property over 200 years later?"

− This is not very interesting. After all, there are thousands of families around the world who have occupied properties for longer. However, the article goes further - "The Ashbridges are the only family in the history of Toronto to have continuously occupied land that they settled for more than 200 years." This is far more interesting - why not use it? Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the nomination template. I thought the hook you are suggesting is just the sort of thing that Fram would criticise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't seen that. So the question now arises - why is the "only" line still in the article? Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

8 March hook

Please can Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Boggs‎ be added to one of the 8 March prep areas for International Women's Day? Thanks in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

She has now been promoted to Prep 6. — Maile (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved it on to Prep 1. It seemed incongruous to mention "and her husband" in an International Women's Day set. Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be great to get Template:Did you know nominations/Dora Bloch into a March 8 slot; the hook is very catchy and "international". We just need someone to finish the review (it was lacking a QPQ) and someone else to promote it to prep. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am too tire right now, but there are also several ladies among the approved hooks, - perhaps have the murdered one later this month? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going through the list right now. There are a lot of Americans; Dora Bloch was Israeli. Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I just approved Template:Did you know nominations/The Kingdom of Kevin Malone which might be an alternative for a cyclone with a female name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Did we have complete sets of biographies of men on International Men's Day when it was celebrated in November? I think not. As a woman, I personally think that four women's biographical articles are quite enough in any one prep set. Our readership has many different interests and most of them will not even know it is International Women's Day. We normally try to provide as varied a range of hooks as possible and I think we should do so on March 8th as well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Because they may not know, I think it would be a good idea: to make it noticeable. April Fool: many don't care, and we still have full sets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Two of my hook are about women authors, The Kingdom of Kevin Malone (novel by Suzy McKee Charnas) and Bonnie Burnard (Bonnie Burnard, died on 4 March, and her novel A Good House). While former is reviewed and approved by @Gerda Arendt: (who suggested about 8 March), other is awaiting review. Feel free to see if it suits the need. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We will not run two books by American authors one day, take your time with the second ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Charnas is American and Burnard is Canadian. :) - Vivvt (Talk) 10:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, learning (also that I should hae stopped the sentence after "books") ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. :) - Vivvt (Talk) 14:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Orange One - second opinion requested

• ... that, in an emergency, President Donald Trump may have access to a mountain fortress called Orange One?

• Template:Did you know nominations/Orange One

I need some input on this as I've never quite run into this situation before. The article states that Orange One is for presidential use, which can then be synthesized into the hook above. But it is never explicitly stated nor sourced in the article. It is sourced that it is for the POTUS so I can see how that could be acceptable but I'm unsure if it's acceptable? I also pointed out Supplementary rule D7, since the article says noting about the installation since 1975.  MPJ-DK  01:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: I think D7 is satisfied. This is a secret base intended to be off the map, so there very likely is no information out there beyond what was revealed during the Watergate scandal. As for the hook, we don't have a specific cite that supports Orange One is still operable. I'd go with something more along the lines of "... that a mountain fortress called Orange One was built for use by the President of the United States in emergency situations?" Feel free to copy my post over to the nom page to allow approval of this hook, if you agree. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not even think about the classified information, isn't there some sort of timeframe before it can be published? That would make sense for this. I'm going to suggest that a different hook be found.  MPJ-DK  01:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My opinion has more than one point. Donald Trump's name is not even mentioned in the article, so it can't be used in the hook. She had linked "Orange One" to Donald Trump to get the ALT1 hook, and I don't see anything in the article that explains why he is "Orange One". Also, I've never even heard of him being called that. John Boehner (former Speaker of the House) had that nickname because of how his skin tan came across on TV. But not T. "May have" is WP:WEASEL, one of those unsupported attributions we aren't supposed to use. Also, the DYK rules say, "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness." Is it? — Maile (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I basically said the same thing in the nomination, find something explicitly in the article.  MPJ-DK  01:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump has been lampooned a lot for his orangey tan so the connection is apparent. While we don't know whether or not the facility still exists, I think that is covered by the phrase "may have" in the hook. I think this is an amusing hook and can't see much wrong with it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You dont think deliberately mocking a living person on the front page isnt wrong? Even Trump is entitled to basic courtesy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is that a joke like this is all in the eye of the beholder. The joke is not explicit, it's up to the readers themselves to make the association. Gatoclass (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can manage to say with a straight face a hooke with 'Trump' and 'Orange' in it is not explicit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Aye, it was the first thing I thought straight away, and I'm not even American. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The hook is a simple and perfectly legitimate statement of fact. That it can be read another way by a discerning reader is a phenomenon called wit. We get endless complaints here about how dull and boring DYK hooks allegedly are but when an occasional hook comes along that demonstrates a degree of cleverness, the response is hand-wringing. The hook is at most a lighthearted reference to a playful meme, if we can't even tolerate that then it's no wonder DYK has a reputation for dullness. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the hook at all. I was just saying that it wasn't subtle! Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I left a message on the nomination template. Orange One may possibly be Raven Rock Mountain Complex. Google maps, Camp David to Raven Rock Mountain Complex. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons policy doc as a ref

In the article licence laundering, I used Commons:License laundering as a ref (for the term Flickr washing and one paragraph in identifying such practices). In the DYK review page, this was flagged as a concern. I've never used WP or Commons as a ref, but I think it's justified in this situation as it is citing policy-related documents, not an article, image or other content page. In particular, I'm citing a document that discusses a practice that has been documented on Commons and given a particular name; it has been mentioned outside Commons and the Wikipedia community too, but not in third-party media (which is why I used Commons as a ref). Any thoughts about this? Mindmatrix 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerned that such a reference is not reliable enough to be used in an article. Openly editable wikis are usually frowned upon as sources. It would be more suited for a "see also" section, in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017)

Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017) User:The C of E there is absolutely nothing in the article or hook that tells you this is a UK match. There are any number of places in the world named "Lincoln", even "Lincoln City". Since soccer is also played in the USA, my first thought when I saw the hook was that it was one of those cities named after Abraham Lincoln. And if you're not a resident of the UK, it's somewhat confusing reading the article to find something to tie to England. Can we please get this fixed? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a link in the hook to FA Cup, the main English football knockout competition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that does it. Thanks for the fix. — Maile (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 – Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery

I had requested that this be made the lead hook (given the high resolution of the image combined with the quirky hook and article quality). It ended up being bumped down to the 2nd hook. Would a better quality pic have been required? I'd be willing to have my hook appear at a later date if it meant that it could be the lead hook (pinging HalfGig). —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved it to the image slot in Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million, Yoninah! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate

Fitzsimons station is in both Template:Did you know/Queue/4 and Template:Did you know/Queue/2. Art LaPella (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, Art LaPella. Asking an administrator to please remove the one from Queue 4 and fix the one in Queue 2, which needs a comma added after "Colorado". Many thanks. There aren't any available hooks in prep that can replace the one in Queue 4, but I imagine one can be found and promoted before too many hours have passed. Pinging Cas Liber, Maile, and Mifter, in the hopes than one will see this in those next not-too-many hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done so that we avoid any crisis, but as I'm not an experienced DYK admin, I didn't try to add a new one to Q4. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Just took care of the move to Q4. I moved Herr Jesu Christ, wahr Mensch und Gott to Q4 from P6. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Maile66. Much appreciated! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and getting it handled, I saw the message when I woke up this morning but fortunately it was already taken care of. Mifter (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

The hook chosen for Théophile Schuler was not preferred by the reviewer (myself) on account for being uninteresting, compared to the ALT1 hook. @Cwmhiraeth: Any reason why it was removed? SounderBruce 07:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't actually see that you had preferred ALT1, but I have now changed the hook. There is not much to choose between them in my opinion. I like the electrical substation article in that set; street vacations seem rather a good idea! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SounderBruce 07:46, 11 March 2017 (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) 22:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

International Women's Day and Women's History Month

I have opened a new section in the Special Occasions holding area for women's articles which can be used in prep sets for the rest of March (Women's History Month). There are also a few choice hooks under March 8 (International Women's Day) which could be slotted into Prep 6. (Since I reviewed them, I'm ineligible to promote them.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The two unpromoted hooks from March 8 have been moved to the Women's History Month section of the Special Occasions holding area, since the last set for that day is on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully prep builders can include one or two women's hooks in each set during March – Women's History Month. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Main page column widths

Please see the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Main page column widths regarding balancing the Main page and provide your comments. Stephen 00:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a comment over there. Mifter (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned nominations March 2017

Here's the latest list of open DYK nominations that aren't transcluded:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Reich Ministry of Transport (user's last edit was on February 8, the day this was created; substantial article but no hook)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Megatsunami (no underlying article)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Southwest Asia Service Medal (nominated for deletion: expansion is only 1.1x; nominator deleted transclusion failure notice and follow-up)

Shubinator (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Shubinator. I've just struck the second one, because not only are there no hooks, there isn't even an underlying article. I'll take a look at the other two shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The last two nomination pages are either deleted or nominated for deletion; the only one that could be taken on is for the Reich Ministry of Transport article, which was created four days before being nominated and is more than long enough—it will need someone to adopt the nomination and create an actual hook. (A separate reviewer will also need to be found, but only if the nomination is adopted.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have adopted the Reich Ministry of Transport one and suggested a few hooks. I've also added myself to the credits because of it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The C of E, it's very good of you to have adopted this. Regarding the DYKmake credit, however, I've deleted it, because they are for people who have made significant contributions to the article itself. If that should happen over the course of the review process, then I can see adding yourself, but not for having added a ref instance to support the hooks you made. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I transcluded the nom to T:TDYK so it can get reviewed and also added The C of E with a nom credit as writing the hook at the very least is close enough to nominating the entire article to deserve at least that much in my estimation. Mifter (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Mifter, thanks for transcluding the nomination; I'd forgotten to do that when The C of E agreed to take responsibility for it. One reason I didn't give The C of E nomination credit is that the nominator is responsible for the QPQ. I suppose we could agree to give a "bye" for that under the circumstances, or someone could donate a review... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The original author did do a QPQ so insofar as the backlog is a concern it nets out. Either way he is welcome to one of mine, by my count I have at least a few dozen to spare and I'm planning on doing some more reviews tonight. Mifter (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list should have been archived three days ago but has not. It's now so out of date that I'm presenting an updated list of the 13 non-current nominations (those through March 2). It's wonderful that we have so few old nominations; I'm hoping that they can all be reviewed within the next week. Right now we're down to 126 nominations, of which 52 have been approved, which is the best shape we've been in for years. (There are another 14 nominations waiting in the Special Occasion holding area.) Thanks to everyone for their hard work in demolishing the backlog.

Over two months old:

• December 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Petra Hřebíčková
• December 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Yu Zigao
• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Why (Taeyeon song)

Over one month old:

• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Holman Rule
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Susanna Elm
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Reich Ministry of Transport

Other old nominations:

• February 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Licancabur
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Private Practice (season 1)
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Weixin Shengjiao
• February 21: Template:Did you know nominations/52 chorale preludes, Op. 67
• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Thrips tabaci
• February 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Georg Thurmair
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Winter time (Namibia)
• March 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Horne
• March 2: Template:Did you know nominations/West Palm Beach mayoral election, 1991
• March 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Susannah Fox

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Confused

I'm honestly completely at a loss for how to nominate something to the Did you know page. I'd like to learn how because it's important but I don't understand this page's description of how to go about this. Where do I even go to start or nominate? Any help would be much appreciated. Mgood13 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mgood13: Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for nominators has step-by step instructions on the technical aspects of creating the nomination page and filling out the template and posting it in all the various places it needs to be posted. Does that answer your question? Or are you confused by those instructions? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Mar 14 prep set 6

What is currently prep 6, with the yellow flower lead, should hit the MP on Mar 14. It has the Kilroy hook, which was requested for Mar 14. If for some reason prep 6 doesn't hit on 14 Mar, the Kilroy hook needs to be moved accordingly. Thanks. HalfGig talk 23:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Day of Potsdam

Day of Potsdam is in prep 1, but according to the article, it's 21 March. I think it would make sense to wait a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bellerophon5685, your nominated article is currently scheduled to run on March 15. Would you prefer us to hold it until March 21, as Gerda Arendt suggests, or run it as scheduled. Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Whenever you like.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The hook is now in Queue 1. If someone does want to save it for March 21, we'll need an admin to pull the hook and put it into the special occasion area, and also to move a new hook from prep to that queue to fill the space left by the pulled hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 next to queue lacking a hook

Heads up. I moved a hook from Prep 6 to Prep 5 for the current main page update. Prep 6 is next in line for the main page, and is now missing a hook. Eleven hours before the next update. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I promoted a hook to fill the spot. Would be nice to crop the photo to make it more legible at small scale, but it is not vital. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mifter, Maile66, and Vanamonde93: Fifteen minutes to go. Anyone around? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Thank you for your diligence on this. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

• ... that despite the Reich Ministry of Transport running trains to extermination camps during the Holocaust, the US later ruled most of their managers only had "lukewarm" connections to the Nazi Party?

@Tachs, Ultracobalt, and Cwmhiraeth: I'm having some issues with promoting this hook further... it appears according to the source that certain "personnel" had only lukewarm connections, but the declassified report doesn't state how many people made up the entirety of the ministry so it doesn't seem possible to ascertain whether these are "most" of the managers (a term also not used by the source to refer to the list of "experts" in the doc) or not. Any thoughts? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I just tweaked the hook to read "some personnel" which appears to more accurately reflect the source. Thanks for catching this. Mifter (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mifter: Fantastic, thanks! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Mifter and Coffee:. some is definitely more accurate.

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 #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Now overdue, pinging Maile, Cas Liber, Mifter, or any other admin who sees this. HaEr48 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2017 (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, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Now overdue. I've just moved a hook from Prep 5 to Prep 3 (the hillfort one), so that Prep 3 has a full complement of hooks. Admin needed to move prep to queue so the bot can pick it up and promote it to the main page. Many thanks to whoever is around and can do it: paging Maile, Cas Liber, Mifter, or any other admin who sees this. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 → Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan moved to Prep 4

@Gerda Arendt and Mifter: Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan was approved with a sourcing error. I moved it from Prep 5 to Prep 4, to give time for a correction. I caught the error with HarvErrors script and would encourage everybody to use HarvErrors. Big red letters tell me "Harv error: link from #CITEREFUnger1997 doesn't point to any citation." And the reason for that is Unger is used as an inline source footnote, but there is no Unger in the References for it to point to. Please correct. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I nominated the article, but it was written by two others, and I asked one of them today to fix errors (in a different article), sigh. Will try to do something, but was reverted so often that I tried to stay away from the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't find a similar ref, calling Mathsci to help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Mathsci hasn't edited in days. In case of doubt, we could comment out one or two unreferenced lines. "Unger" is a too common name to find something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to do that, go ahead. This issue is not related to the hook. And "Unger" appears twice in the same sentence. It's just that one sentence that is affected: The theme of the hymn is pious trust in God's will in times of adversity and tribulation: as Unger (1997) writes, "True piety is to renounce self and submit in quiet faith to God's providential acts despite suffering and poverty."Unger 1997 — Maile (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

April Fools Day queue timings

With April Fools Day a few weeks away, I thought I would bring it up for discussion here on exactly how we are going to run it. At the moment there are 12 approved with 1 awaiting approval and 1 as a maybe in the approved area. So are we going to be sticking with 2x7 on that day? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd quite like to pop vaginal steaming in there (oo-er) but we need a hook first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: How about "Gwenyth Paltrow claims sitting on throne cleanses the female reproductive system"? HalfGig talk 14:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to figure out how we are going to run it until a day or two beforehand, trying to do so this early is just a waste of time. We might get more submissions yet, and some of the existing submissions may yet be rejected. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• On V-steaming, see hook discussion at Talk:Vaginal_steaming#Potential_DYKs. EEng 15:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Upwards and onwards!

Now in Queue5, the next to hit the Main Page:

• ... that the Gutenberg Bible held by the Diocesan Museum in Pelplin is one of only 48 copies which survived to modern times, and are now worth upwards of $100 million each?

Template:Did you know nominations/Diocesan Museum in Pelplin @Poeticbent, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

• Complete copies are worth about 100 million: of the four sources for the claim of "upwards of 100 million each", this is an unacceptable commercial site anyway, and claims "likely fetch around $100 Million"; this claims the exact same, which is logical since it is a mirror site of the first one, copyright to "greatsite" as well; this book says "it could fetch as much as $100 million" as well; and the only one that actually discusses values "upwards" of $100 million is this, a WordPress blog, not a reliable site at all
• The Pelplin Gutenberg is not a complete copy though, so whatever a complete copy is worth is not really relevant to this one in the first place. The article at DYK doesn't mention that their copy is incomplete, but Gutenberg Bible lists it as incomplete, and says that a "single complete copy of the Gutenberg Bible has 1,286 pages" but the Pelplin one only has 641 pages... It seems that this should be 1282 pages instead, as the Pelplin one is nearly complete. Its value is anybody's guess. That it is probably the only two-part copy in its original binding seems a lot more interesting to me.

I suggest pulling this one for now and rediscussing it and its sourcing. Fram (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Tweaking the phrase "upward" is quite OK. We do these things all the time. The link to http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bible-leaves/gutenberg-1455-leaf.html is by no means an "an unacceptable commercial site" because it is offered by a Gutenberg-Bible dedicated website at http://www.gutenberg-bible.com/bible.html which seems reliable. It is not a "mirror" site, but an associated webcite most likely by the same organization. The claim of "100 million" is supported by book by Charlie Kirk at https://books.google.ca/books?id=AQHRDAAAQBAJ&q=fetch+%24100+million – meanwhile the (mentioned above) writeup at https://younxt.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/how-polands-national-treasures-ended-up-in-canada/ is offered chiefly for the reader's own convenience – because it features the review of book The Strange Odyssey of Poland’s National Treasures, 1939-1961 by Gordon Swoger. The most important source however, is the the actual Museum in Pelplin website devoted to this subject at http://www.muzeum.diecezja.org/muzeum/nasze-zbiory/biblia-gutenberga/ which is accepted by WP:DYK on good faith, as written in the Polish language. We can have it translated of course. It says that the Pelplin copy is printed on 641 sheets on both sides ... which means that it has 1,282 printed pages. Exactly as you say. Poeticbent talk 17:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, the "Gutenberg-bible" site is offered by GreatSites, the commercial site, and not the other way around. As I already explained in my opening post here. Just look at the bottom of that Gutenberg site and see the copyright notice. I have removed those three sites now as unacceptable per WP:RS. Fram (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I have tweaked the article to mean that the Bible is printed on both sides of 641 sheets of paper for the total of 1,282 printed pages. The review of book by Gordon Swoger at the blog of writer Filip Terlecki augmented with the book title. Please tweak the DYK hook to mean "up to $100 million each". Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook for now, to allow discussion with other editors and to get a better hook than this one (what's the use of putting the supposed value of a complete copy when you are discussing a collection with an incomplete (though nearly complete) copy? It gives the impression that the copy they own has that value, when not a single source actually discusses the value of this specific copy). Fram (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The listing of the Pelplin copy as "incomplete" at the Wikipedia article "Gutenberg Bible" was false and has been corrected. The two dead citations were retrieved using Wayback Machine and they confirmed nothing. Added reliable sources listing the Bible copy from Pelplin as complete.[5] Thanks again, Poeticbent talk 21:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A full Gutenberg has 1286 pages, the Pelplin one has 1282 pages, so your "correction" is incorrect... The source says that the Gutenberg Bible is a printing of the complete Bible (true), not that the Pelplin version is a complete copy. Fram (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Where did you put this hook when you pulled it? I cannot find it on either the nominations page or the approved page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram didn't "put" it anywhere, he removed it from the queue to prevent it running in error which is all that's absolutely necessary to maintain quality on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no idea where and how pulled hooks are supposed to be put nowadays. As we are all volunteers, I suppose someone who does know and cares can do it? I did mention it here so that all involved could know that it was pulled. Fram (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have returned it to the approved page for further consideration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Update. Fram removed from the article all references to http://www.gutenberg-bible.com and continues to make wild claims along the lines of what the Wikipedia article "Gutenberg Bible" says. Please tell! – Is there a prohibition on using this website in Wikipedia? Does any reference to gutenberg-bible.com needs to be removed? The Museum in Pelplin clearly states that their copy is a complete copy. Do you think they might be lying? Direct quote (please compare with Google translate): "Jest kompletnym wydaniem Pisma Świętego" (English: It is a complete copy of the Holy Scripture).[6] For the third time already, Fram insist that the "real" Bible is four (4) pages bigger than the Pelplin copy, which is referenced to "Fast Facts: The Gutenberg Bible" (utexas.edu) in Wikipedia article, which is a joke! If anyone of you has a bias against this subject I suggest you mention it here. I see no reason to remove anything from the article based on preconceptions and personal judgments, unless Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard says so. Poeticbent talk 15:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your "proof" is a quote describing what a Gutenberg Bible is, namely a complete copy of the Bible, all books of the OT and NT. That line is 'not a description of this specific copy of the Gutenberg Bible. Oh, and I'll try to explain it one final time, gutenberg-bible.com is part of the great sites website group, which is a bookseller; claims they make about the value of a gutenberg bible cann not be used here as they aren't an independent, reliable site but a site with an interest in in an elevated price. Fram (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is really getting out of hand. My edit at the Gutenberg Bible article was reverted by Fram with the same claim that the "real" Bible is four pages longer (edit summary: Pelplin copy is incomplete, 1282 instead of 1286 pages).[7] The quote (per above) from the webpage of the Museum in Pelplin is describing their own copy ... obviously. I can read Polish no problem. The museum webpage does not support the Wikipedia claim based on "Fast Facts" at utexas.edu that the "real" Bible has four more pages. And, how is "Fast Facts" at utexas.edu better than the gutenberg-bible.com is anybody's guess. Poeticbent talk 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For what I know, these so-called four extra pages could amount to one empty sheet of pager before the frontispiece, and one empty sheet of paper after the last page added for protection, and counted as four. A wild guess ... as good as the "Fast Facts" or any other anonymous website. Poeticbent talk 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The Pelplin version has 641 leaves. A full version has 643 leavesNational library of Poland sourceBritish Library. Fram (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Fram for giving us good usable new sources. The new citations have already been added to the article, and expanded further. Pelplin copy has 641 leafs in it; true, but it is not missing anything of substance. There's no such thing as a "full copy" with 643 leafs, because the extra pages between gatherings are not inserted consistently in any of the surviving copies, and we know nothing about copies which did not survive. In closing, after all the commotion ... and great help provided by everyone involved including Cwmhiraeth, Andrew Davidson, and MPJ-DK, it would certainly be nice if the Bible bit was moved up to a 'lead' hook one day. Thank you all, Poeticbent talk 20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

There are ongoing threads happening at WP:ERRORS, without linking articles or pinging contributors. So please be advised to watchlist the WP:ERRORS. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because too many errors are being promoted by this project. Please stop doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And it's actually a useful thing to allow the rest of Wikipedia to see the sheer lack of quality coming from this project. As things aren't changing here at all, all errors will be reported to the main page, rather than within the project, to ensure as many people as possible can contribute. Hopefully it will result in an increase in quality from reviewers, promoters and set builders. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

to ensure as many people as possible can contribute—as reports there, referring to nominations in queues, can only be handled by admins, that's certainly not true, since there are far more non-admins than admins. But perhaps that's the point? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute to WP:ERRORS, and the pageviews there all focus on ensuring the integrity of the main page, while chatter at the DYK project can be vague, pointy and full of ownership issues. It's a great thing that the project as a whole can now see the issues at DYK for themselves rather than the current "closed shop" approach which encourages such ownership. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole idea of having prep sets is so that hooks can be reviewed before they get to the queue or main page where admin attention is necessary. Your new approach seems decidedly unhelpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Because of the sheer volume of issues, I'm finding it difficult to review the hooks before they're queued up. So it is what it is , and more (and different) eyes will benefit this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

TRM - is your objective at the DYK discussion board to repeatedly remind us that "the rest of Wikipedia" is now able to see "the sheer lack of quality coming from this project", is to participate in this project, or do you see the two as interrelated? I think your answer will help guide our next steps. LavaBaron (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's gonna break the news to LavaBaron? EEng 01:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• So here is the point in time where the sheep gets sheared - if something ends up on WP:ERRORS and it's a legitimate issue (not some of the nitpicking non-errors that pop up) then something somewhere in the process has failed. You cannot argue against the fact that if an error is on the front page it's a bad thing. What is needed is positive contributions to improve the Quality Control process around here. This isn't about pointing fingers (even if some love to do that) and it's nothing personal against anyone (even if some act like it is). The fact is that shit happens, errors occasionally get through - we are humans (except those of us that are bots), but that does not mean we can't TRY to improve.  MPJ-DK  14:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  And considering at least four of my remarks resulted in tweaks or modifications to hooks, in one single set, I think I'm entirely justified to report them wherever and whenever I see fit and am able. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• It is clear that the review efforts really should be focused on when hooks are in Prep more than anything so we can get them fixed prior needing Admin intervention. Ques errors are less desirable, but still better than front page. So what things can we do to ensure higher hook quality in the prep areas? I would like to think that everyone involved are open to constructive sugestions. Please let's try to not make it personal, I would rather discuss solutions here than issues and finger pointing. i have not been very active on DYK recently but I am going to try and do more checking on the assembled preps and queues.  MPJ-DK  17:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoever built a prep with that many errors should be cautioned to be more careful. The prep builders are meant to be the main line of defense from bad reviews. They must act like it. Copy pasting and nothing else doesn't cut it. I was quite perturbed to find that one of my own hooks ran with an error a couple days back (quickly fixed) because a prep builder edited the approved hook to include a substantial piece of information that was false. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• If the new "approved" page would be reorganized so that newly approved noms are always added at the top (or bottom), I'd be happy to help with QA as newly approved noms come in. But under the stupid setup we have now, they pop up all over the page without warning, and I'm simply not going to wade through the whole page over and over every day just to try to spot new appearances. Please, if we could just make this one change then the whole QA process could be pushed upstream to the Approved page, where it belongs, instead of happening in the context of the preps and Qs where it is now. Also, if QA happens at the Approved stage, the nom page is still open and QA questions can be discussed on the nom page itself, with all the earlier review material available, instead of here, which is very awkward. EEng 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This is actually a really good question and proposal, IMHO. Why is the approved stage still organized by date of nomination? Anyone? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • PING! It's absurd that we're still routinely using this page to discuss specific nominations and hooks. EEng 14:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - LaMelo Ball

... that LaMelo Ball verbally committed to play basketball for UCLA at age 13?" (nom)

I'm not commensurate with what strength a "verbal commitment" has in reality, but upon reading the article, I note that not only did Ball score 92 in a single game, but it prompted Charles Barkley to comment on him. I think those are far more interesting facts and much more meaningful to a broad audience. TempleM, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth. Oh, and there's a dab in there too, "Centennial High School". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've seen you mention DAB links here several times: does this mean you have a tool for identifying these? I would find any such very useful...or do you simply click on every link? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at my monobook.js, I think there's a script in there somewhere - I get them nicely highlighted in bright yellow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have dealt with the DAB and also find this tool very useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: please go ahead and suggest an ALT here. I'm not familiar at all with basketball terminology. Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

... that basketball player LaMelo Ball once scored 92 points in a single game?

... that basketball player LaMelo Ball once scored 92 points in a single game, including 63 in the second half?

... that basketball player LaMelo Ball once scored 92 points in a single game, prompting Charles Barkley to criticize the way he did it?

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that any of the hooks suggested by TRM about scoring 92 points would be more interesting to a broad audience (I especially like the last one). As a casual basketball fan, the original hook sounds interesting to me on the surface, but I know almost nothing about American college sports and how meaningful a "verbal commitment" actually is – and I imagine many readers are in a similar boat. 97198 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you! The third hook is great and the hook facts are all verified and cited inline. I'm moving it to Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I even wrote it in USEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging editors about failed nominations

Going through the noms page, I'm seeing numerous nominations which do not meet the 5x expansion rule. The reviewing editors have patiently explained the rules and encouraged the nominator to apply for GA and resubmit the nomination to DYK. But they have not placed a note on the nominator's talk page; they only ping the nominator in their review. By and large, these are new editors' nominations and they might not be aware of pinging. I left a few {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} notices on talk pages, but I don't have time to cover all of them. Please notify nominators the next time you fail a nomination. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent late nominations

Earlier today, LouisAragon made four DYK nominations, all of them more than seven days since they were created. The oldest was 17 days, dating back to February 28; the newest March 7, was only two days late. LouisAragon's March 6 Good Article was self-nominated on March 12, approved that day, promoted the next, and ran on March 15. There was only one prior nomination, made two years ago but not transcluded; it was transcluded and eventually approved in early 2016.

The question is whether we should allow exceptions for any of these four late nominations (listed below with the date of nomination):

• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Zeynab Begum
• March 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Sceriman family
• March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Izydor Borowski
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Bashutsky

We tend to give a certain amount of leeway to inexperienced nominators; in this case, the inexperience also shows in the number of overlong hooks that have been proposed in these nominations. I would certainly be inclined to allow the latest of these (Paul Bashutsky), and feel like it could stretch further, but I'd like to hear what others think.

There's another nomination, this one from KaylaMa that dates from February 26, but the nomination was made a week ago on March 9, so it was 11 days old when nominated. It's in rougher shape (the hook isn't formatted correctly and the hook claim isn't backed up in the article), but as long as we were discussing the others, I thought this should be considered as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Gratuitously inserting my longstanding kvetch that we should drop the "new content" fetish and instead showcase decent articles that support an interesting hook. EEng 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have already approved Izydor Borowski which was seven days late, and would personally allow the others too for this new DYKer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Review help

I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Lincoln's hearse and find the article fine but I have some concerns about the hook. I am hoping to get a second opinion. MB 03:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just suggested an alternate hook there that doesn't involve a quote (except for one word that hadn't been quoted previously). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Grace period for DYK length criterion

There seems to be an unusually high number of nominations that are not quite meeting the 5x expansion length criterion at the moment. In the past we've usually given nominators a chance to add further text to the article to meet the length requirement rather than rejecting it outright. Since our backlog is currently shorter than it has been in the recent past, there's no need to lessen the number of accepted hooks right now. I suggest that we put these nominations on hold for another two weeks or so, to encourage the nominator or even another Wikipedian to expand them. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, there are only 125 hooks left, including approved hooks? That is well past time we went back to a 24-hour cycle IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should not be lowering our standards. HalfGig talk 14:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• With regard to the number of hooks per day: First of all, only the "approved reserve" (hooks on Approved page + in prep + in Q) counts in this decision; noms waiting for approval are completely irrelevant. Second, the approved reserve has been very slowly dropping from a high of about 150 two months ago to 90 today. This drop is much more slow than it was when we first went to 2 sets/day. I suspect that if we switch now from 2x8/day to 2x7/day, that will very closely match the approval rate, and things will be in equilibrium for a good long time. If the approved reserve ever drops below 50, that's the time to go to 1 set/day; doing that now will just start us back onto the path of a huge backlog. EEng 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so you've got four updates in the slot, thanks for the reminder, I'm a bit rusty at this. Since somebody appears to be keeping an eye on this, I'm more relaxed about it, but if I see the number of total hooks drop below 100 I'll be back here pushing the alarm button. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We no longer have the flexibility to drop from 8 to 7 hooks per set; we've been told we need to stay at 8 in order to keep the main page balanced. That will probably mean that we'll need to switch back and forth between one and two sets a day at intervals; it won't be such an onerous thing to do, nor should it happen frequently. Referring back to Antony-22's initial post, I don't see why we need to change what we typically do, which is to inform the nominator that the article is too short and needs to be expanded to whatever the number of characters is, and encourage them to do so. If they respond or start expanding it within the typical period (seven days), then we work with them until they get there or give up; if they're unresponsive, then we mark it for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, if we're stuck at 8/set, then let me reiterate the protocol I proposed long ago: when the approved reserve (Approved page + Preps + Qs) drops below 50, go to 1x8/day. When it rises above 150, return to 2x8/day. Other than that, leave it alone. With this approach I don't think we'll need to change the #sets/day more than three or four times per year, and maybe less. EEng 22:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

My recollection was that the switch to twice a day came at 100, and to thrice a day at 150; 150 seems absurdly high for a 2x threshold. I do think we do well enough with decisions that take more into account than just an "approved reserve", and now that we don't have an enormous number of unapproved hooks, we should probably also consider the total number of nominations submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention it you may be right that what I'd proposed did somehow allow for 1x/day, 2x/day, and 3x/day (can't really remember) but there has to be more to it than you're describing because there has to be a dead range in which no change is made -- it can't be that we change back and forth every time we cross 100 in either direction. But I continue to assert that the appropriate burn rate depends only on the approved reserve -- unapproved noms can't have anything to do with it. If we have only 40 approved hooks ready to go, then we better be posting only 1 set/day, even if there's 1000 noms waiting for approval. EEng 16:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, if you have 1000 unapproved nominations then you are going to need a lot more than one set every 24 hours to reduce the backlog. In the situation you describe, you can organize an approval drive to do that. But if you only have 100 nominations in total, you need to slow things down because that number can decline quickly and you can soon find yourself with nothing left to approve. I know this because I've been there on more than one occasion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

When your approval drive begins to bear fruit by bringing up the approved reserve, then you increase the burn rate, not before. EEng 09:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Under the present arrangement, it is not easy to tell how many hooks have been nominated on any particular day, and this makes planning difficult. For example, March 2nd currently has one, unapproved hook and no approved ones. How many in total were nominated on that day, and have since been approved and promoted (or rejected)? We need 16 a day for a steady state. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting on the current decision, can we set up a long-term sub-page which records when the number of sets changes? This would be useful for the stats if nothing else. Or does such a thing exist already? Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Compulsion to fiddle

Why has "1515-18" been changed to the far less helpful and longer "early 16th century" in the caption at Queue 1? Even "Titian, 1515-18" is shorter (and much better). Personally I don't see the need to always use the article title in the caption. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"1515-18" is a bit ambiguous, it could mean either "ca. 1515-18" or "painting completed from 1515 to 1518". Why is the "sacra" uncapitalized? Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Silly - how would we know anyway? "ca. 1515-18" is not the proper form. The date range is just a scholarly guess based on style, as such dates almost always are (see Prado link below). Ask the person who added "sacra" about that. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted an error report. The caption didn't describe the image. Plus the hyphen/date range violations needed fixing in either case. The article title is not always used in the caption, that seems to be the case about 50% of the time looking back over the template history. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Making things worse, as so often. There is an interesting section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Decreasing_interest_in_DYKs with comments from several former DYK editors. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the relevance of that discussion to this, nor am I seeing how writing a caption which describes an image (which is the principal function of a caption, per MOS:CAPTION) could be considered "making things worse". That caption may work in an article about such artwork, where it is easier to contextualise, but certainly not for a short sentence on the main page in which Titian himself isn't even mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I did, however, see this comment: "I also stopped doing DYKs in fairly short order because the QPQs ended up being so tedious and time-consuming, and also because so few of the nominated articles were ever in my areas of interest." which is really hitting the nail on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no doubt that those that keep working on reviews and DYKs are a special kind of crazy, putting in the effort on a voluntary basis.  MPJ-DK  21:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an odd perspective. We're all volunteers, and people who review GANs, FLCs, FACs, FTCs, OTDs, ITNs etc are all putting in the effort on a voluntary basis. The only difference between all of those folks and this project is the QPQ/credit thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And I am an odd kind of guy, so that is hardly surprising. I am unsure of the actual point you are trying to make though - I don't want to put words in your mouth (or keyboard) here so let me see if I understand you correctly here. You are stating that there are no people who express a similar frustration with the processes around GAN of FACs? There are no Wikipedians who avoid ITN because they are turned off by the process? All those areas are have thousands of volunteers who are all happy, shiny people since they are not subjected to the "horror" of QPQ? I'm trying to see what tune you are trying to play on this QPQ drum you are banging, but I am having a hard time understanding what it is you are even trying to achieve with these comments?  MPJ-DK  22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

For anyone who is under the impression that FAC is some kind of bed of happy-clappy roses, take a good long read of this (currently active) thread. (Where DYK does fall down in comparison to FAC is the relative lack of eyes—it's a lot harder for errors to slip through when there are half-a-dozen reviewers nitpicking their way through every article top-to-bottom—but that's inevitable as long as the "every nomination deserves to pass" mentality remains. GA and FAC—and even ITN—have the luxury of showing inappropriate candidates the door, but at DYK there's an all-must-have-prizes presumption which means boring or inadequately-referenced stuff has a tendency to get shoehorned through; while DYK noms do get failed, it tends to be an exception rather than a rule.) ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't bang any drum, nor am I trying to see what tune I can get from it (nice analogy, just wasted here). Factually: none of the other sections of the main page exhibit so many errors as DYK. I don't see frustrations around GAs or FAs or FLs or ITNs that feature on the main page, they are usually of very high quality so they have no problem with being featured. Or they have the balls to fail/reject inappropriate candidates. That almost never happens at DYK. You were the one who claimed that DYKs "are a special kind of crazy, putting in the effort on a voluntary basis". We all do that, in every aspect of Wikipedia. DYK, however, is the one element of the main page which continues to fail, despite years of being encouraged to improve. Everyone must pass. Credits are important. Draw your own conclusions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I do enjoy the freedom to draw my own conclusions. And you're saying the people at DYK are not "Special"? I thought that'd be one thing we could agree on, but hey that was my fault for making assumptions. I will now get off the detour I tooks us on, I apologize to the original topic. Please continue discussing whatever this was originally about.  MPJ-DK  22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like somebody has just trimmed it back to "sacra conversazione" now, which looks okay to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What I see is "sacra conversazione" in hook and caption. While it may be correct for the hook which refers to the term in general, the caption is an image title which should be Sacra conversazione, and should add "by Titian", to clarify that this specific painting is an example, one of many on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not going to work because the painting isn't called Sacra conversazione. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it can be, which is rather the point. Sacra conversazione is used as a title of convenience for paintings, to avoid a long and sometimes uncertain list. But then you don't actually read the articles of course. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I did read the article, like all of your DYK-nominated articles, and I even go as so far to correct them when errors creep into their leads, such as incorrectly listing sizes in mm rather than cm. But no, I refer once again to MOS:CAPTION. It would be misleading to say "Sacra conversazione by Titian", perhaps not to experts like you, but certainly to our broad and varied audience. I'm thinking of the readers, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be completely accurate to say "Sacra conversazione by Titian", and no doubt many sources do so. That is exactly the way the term is used. That is especially the case as it turns out that the identity of both the saints is in fact the subject of disputes. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well now that's agreed, perhaps place a report at ERRORS where it can be actioned. The result is certainly far better than the initial offering and hopefully satisfies everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

May I get an expedited review?

Might it be possible to ask for an expedited review and promotion of Hasyim Muzadi. The subject recently died (March 16), and I expanded the article >5x. I feel it's better to be featured sooner while his death is still fresh in the news. Just asking, otherwise waiting is fine too. HaEr48 (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You got it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt and Yoninah for reviewing it. Could it get an early promotion too (if the promoter think it already looks good)? HaEr48 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492, if there's anything you can add to the article, go for it--you're closer to it than I am. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yoninah's gotten it. I'm not really familiar with the current group of ulamas. Also, I should note that this was nominated at ITN as well.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago. Here is an updated list of the 20 non-current nominations (those through March 10). Right now we're at 138 nominations, of which 51 have been approved. Thanks to everyone for their hard work in demolishing the backlog. The oldest four hooks are from January, and two of those are from New Years Day: it would be great if all four could be tackled in the coming week.

Over two months old:

• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Why (Taeyeon song)
• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Lalchand Fulamali
• January 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Holman Rule

Over one month old:

• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767
• February 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Creswell Eastman

Other old nominations:

• February 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Sociopolitical issues of anatomy in America in the 19th century
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Zeynab Begum
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Winter time (Namibia)
• March 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Sceriman family
• March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Diocesan Museum in Pelplin
• March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/The Little Red Chairs
• March 5: Template:Did you know nominations/John Blair (pastor) (two articles)
• March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/lucky Bastard Club
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Bashutsky
• March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Das Nusch-Nuschi
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Alexander Archdale
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/John Snow
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Guillotière Cemetery
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/George Paul Kornegay
• March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming
• March 10:Template:Did you know nominations/Françoise de Rimini
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Amarte Es un Placer
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/María Parrado

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

QPQ - What would happen?

I'm wondering what sort of changes we'd see around here if the QPQ criteria was dropped? Improvements? More problems? It was brought up that the QPQ criteria is not required for any other front page content which made me wonder what would happen if we struck it? We would not have QPQs reluctantly done because a nominator has to do it, leading to the potential of a less than appropriate review. On the other hand would hooks sit unreviewed for a longer period of time? Would it lead to more submissions? Any thoughts on if such a move would be a positive move for DYK's quality?  MPJ-DK  04:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

With current QPQ requirement: "Congratulations! Your DYK has been approved!"

After QPQ requirement eliminated: "We regret to inform you that your DYK was still awaiting review when the sun became a red giant, the oceans boiled away, and the earth was reduced to a lifeless cinder."

No other front page content is like DYK: we have at least an order of magnitude more individual items being dealt with. What would happen is that the number of unreviewed nominations would skyrocket, and people who don't like reviewing would simply stop doing it. Not that most of them are incapable of reviewing, just that they don't like to and would rather spend their time doing something else. Funny thing, though: back when we tightened the QPQ requirements so all nominations, not merely self-nominations, came under the QPQ requirements and people could no longer get someone else to nominate their articles or trade nominations with others, the people who had been the most passionate about not changing the requirement and were going to stop submitting to DYK somehow managed to do proper QPQ reviews when they had articles they wanted to submit. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with BlueMoonset. While I enjoy reviewing many nominations, some are on topics which are of no interest to me and I probably wouldn't review absent the QPQ requirement. Since the only unreviewed nominations are, sometimes, things like Renaissance church frescos in Belgium or Subgenera of Indonesian flower species, removing the QPQ would definitely drop my reviewing ratio well below the current 1:1. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Marysville, Washington

@The Rambling Man: The unreferenced section in Marysville, Washington (formerly of prep area 3) has been fixed and the tag removed. Is there a better way of "containing" approved-but-left behind hooks in the queuing area? And perhaps a notification system for nominators so that we can actually address the issue in time? SounderBruce 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

See my several pleas elsewhere on this page that QA efforts take place on the nom page while it's still open and "contained" on the Approved page. The way the nominator, reviewer, and all earlier participants will (presumably) see mention of QA concerns on their watchlist without even having to be pinged. EEng 04:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

SounderBruce thanks for sorting that out. It should have been picked up during review/promotion, so it's a shame it had to be addressed so late in the day. No harm, no foul. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3 (Dries Mertens)

".. that in 2016, association footballer Dries Mertens became the first player to score seven goals in two matches in Serie A since Antonio Valentín Angelillo (1958)?"

• This is really unclear. It sounds like he scored seven goals in one match, and then seven goals in another match. Thing is, I'm not sure how to re-word it without it becomingtoo long. "...became the first player to score a total of seven goals across two consecutive matches..."? Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  I agree, my rewording is sub-optimal, but "seven goals in two matches" is common, certainly in British English. Please feel free to restore the original wording which, in British English, was clunky and awkward but which should alleviate your concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - rugby field goals

... that one used to be able to score a field goal in rugby but this was abolished in 1905?

That's awkward and archaic wording; isn't it just clearer and simpler to say "... that field goals in rugby were abolished in 1905? The C of E, Yoninah, Mifter. It would also be mildly interesting to include that it was valued the same as a try for the short duration it was allowed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, it should be clear that it was abolished in the union code only in 1905, according to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the majority would get that it is referring to union (the greater code!) since it is common shorthand for union. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I disagree, it should be made explicit, especially since it was not abolished in the other code. Also, I'm not sure about the "banned" category, it's not noted as banned in the article, simply a discontinued method of scoring. If someone kicks the ball from open play through the posts, it's not an offence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So, for the avoidance of doubt, the banned cat should be deleted, and the hook should run as:

that field goals in rugby union were abolished in 1905?

Or better:

that field goals in rugby union, which were worth the same number of points as a try, were abolished in 1905? More interesting and more accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

These proposed hooks seem good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Fixed in prep. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

My view is that the hook is intended to appeal to the gridiron fans in the States, as well as rugby fans, by ending it without mentioning a try as many may not know what a try is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why I linked the term! Win-win, appealing to both non-rugby readers and those who may be surprised to see that it was considered on a par with a try! Very nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep sets

It would be helpful if some prep sets could be built so that there is sufficient time for thorough inspection of hooks before the sets get moved to the queue and on to the main page. Over the past three days, I have felt constrained to build six sets, and I really don't want to do more than one set per day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• If that's the case, we should probably look at going back to one set per 24 hours. Asking people to cover that many hooks per day, however thorough they are, increases the chance of errors sneaking through. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think Cwmhiraeth is politely asking for other people to pitch in. Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah are the primary set builders by default because not many others are. And neither of them are supposed to promote their own nominations to prep. Admins are not supposed to move sets to queue if they built the prep, so that becomes a choice of whether to build the prep or wait and promote it to queue. But not everybody here is an admin, and we used to have more people building sets in prep. Or maybe that's my selective memory. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the problem, I think. I'm an admin, but I'm not around a huge amount - during the week, I may not log in at all in 24 hours. Perhaps it might be worth posting somewhere (WP:AN?} for more people to pitch in? Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That's my position also. This has been a weekend where there don't seem to be a lot of editors or admins hovering around DYK, so I either fill preps, or I make myself available to promote to queue. And I think the experienced editors who know how to promote are using their time at other projects. The herd seems to be thinning out. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• By an amazing coincidence the approved reserve just now dropped below 50, so it's time to go back to 1x8/day. But I urge the community to move QA upstream to the Approved page, instead of waiting for Prep. EEng 02:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done - I have reset the timer to a 24-hour cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What is appropriate for the main page?

For those late to joining this discussion here is a link to the initial discussion at WP:ERRORS. Mifter (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

---

I have no problem with the recent pull of Murder of Mark Kilroy from the main page on the basis that DYK is not a tabloid. But I believe this is a good place for discussion about what is appropriate for the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we do need to set some simple rules, at the moment we're making judgements based on prescient. We know that swear words and innuendo are fine as per NOTCENSORED. We know that pedophilia and anything that could provoke endangerment of life (Template:Did you know nominations/Jailbait and Template:Did you know nominations/Innocence of Muslims as examples) aren't. The one above I confess I deliberately avoided reviewing because I didn't want us promoting that sort of subject matter. At the moment what we have does strike a balance between free speech and censorship but is not made explicit under the rules. I had proposed something similar with regard to inapropriate anniversary requests before where I proposed adding this to the supplimental rules: "....nominations placed in a holding are should not be moved from there after being approved except for with the nominators consent or if there is consensus that it would not be appropriate to run on the proposed holding date." Maybe we could revive that one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I indicated on TRM's talkpage I was going to open a discussion on this since its clear the DYK process has failed significantly here. An article was substantially expanded and requested to specifically run on the anniversary of his death. This so far is a bit thoughtless given the subjects parents were alive as of 2009 and he likely still has close living relatives alive. What makes this extraordinarily tasteless is that it was requested to run with the hook "that Mark Kilroy was killed during spring break in Mexico by a cult that boiled his brains in a human sacrifice ritual?". As it stands the process for creating, reviewing and promoting a DYK was followed. However we ended up with a substantially offensive hook that shows zero consideration or empathy for those who have lost a family member in horrific circumstances. The process needs to be amended to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Either biographies of crime victims with living relatives need extra consideration (and by that I mean, outside of the tickbox-checking exercise reviewing a hook entails) or they need to be removed from date-sensitive times.

Oh and before the notcensored crowd get going, NOTCENSORED is about removing information from the encyclopedia, it is *not* about condoning deliberate offense of people who have lost their children on the anniversary of their death. I do not object to the article existing, I object to advertising it on the front page on the day the subject died by ghoulishly concentrating on the manner of his death. That is an abuse of NOTCENSORED if that was the justification for this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

yeah let's not be the National Enquirer please? There should be some sort of common sense filter - even if it was not the anniversary the hook wording is off putting.  MPJ-DK  16:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

When I review DYK hooks, I check for our rules and then some on the basis that the rules state articles can be declined for other reasons at the discretion of the reviewer. If an article technically fits the requirements but looks like an aesthetical disaster, I will require the nominator to fix that before approving, for instance. Articles in DYK shouldn't necessarily be the best of the best, but they should showcase a reasonably complete and solid article. We can't really expect our initial reviews to get better so long as we have the QPQ requirement, which pushes new content creators into reviewing articles. Perhaps we need to make a push for the admins promoting preps to queues to perform a more holistic review than they currently are. As far as subject matter goes, I think we should be particularly sensitive when it comes to BLP topics, but I'm really not all that worried about a hook about a murder that occurred nearly 30 years ago. The actual contents of this hook were too morbid for the front page, but I wouldn't oppose a hook with less shock value from this type of article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles on notable deaths/murders are not, in themselves a problem. The problem here was a)the hook being particularly grisly, b)the grisly hook running on the anniversary of his death on the front page of one of the most popular websites in the world when its likely he has close relatives who are still living. BLP doesnt apply as the subject is long dead. Were this death say 150 years ago, no one would bat an eye, but 1989 is not 'a long time' when it comes to people's emotional responses to a close death. Especially so in fairly horrific circumstances like these. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Rob I don't think this particular one happened because of QPQ. Reviewer Mifter has done a lot of reviews lately, and I don't think he has a shortage of QPQs under his belt. Wugapodes assuming you have not given up on 2017 reform proposals, would there be someplace on there to insert "DYK is not a tabloid" or something similar. There are no clear guidelines in place for reviewers or promoters on something like this. Ideas? — Maile (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, I hadn't looked to see who the reviewer was. I was speaking more broadly that our first pass reviews will never be terribly high standard because we require QPQs. This forces prep builders and the admins promoting things to the queues to pay a bit more attention. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who did a final copyedit on the article before it went to the main page. I completely agree with Only in death's assessment above, that The problem here was a)the hook being particularly grisly, b)the grisly hook running on the anniversary of his death on the front page of one of the most popular websites in the world when its likely he has close relatives who are still living. I thought the "boiling his brains" part was hooky but I was not sufficiently sensitive to these other issues. I'd like to point out that we ran another murder hook in March that got over 19,000 hits: ... that Joey Fischer was murdered after he refused to take US$500 to date his ex-girlfriend? So it should be stated in the rules that murder hooks are fine, they just shouldn't be pumped up for shock value. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the part of WP:DYKRULES that says "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." applies to this article (on the grounds that anyone murdered in the last couple of decades probably has living relatives affected by it), so we have all this covered already. I certainly used this criteria on Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily, and I subsequently took the article to AfD, where it was deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Though on a technical point, the barrister in me is saying that technically that rule does say "living individuals" so it is understandable why someone would overlook that rule. I suppose a better way would be to say "negative aspects of living individuals or anything deemed grossly explicit in relation to the cause of death in non-living individuals". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thats a strech, the wording is explicitly about living individuals - even the BLP policy does not go that far. It would actually be an easier argument that BDP should extend to death anniversary dates for notable murders (rather than the 2 year outside limit usually applied) given the undoubted significance of the date to the living relations (the main reason BLP applies to the recently dead). It would be better to have something tailored more specifically for dead subjects with likely living relatives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the reviewer who initially passed this hook I wanted to add my thoughts on it, I also added a permalinked version of the discussion that took place at ERRORS to make this easier for anyone who stumbles upon this discussion to follow. In my experience with DYK we have run a number of hooks that I personally find objectionable/offensive to my personal taste, even some of the hooks right now on T:TDYK or the approved page are not ones that I myself would come up with, nominate for the Main Page, or even wish to see on the MP (I do occasionally review hooks I find distasteful in the spirit of trying to cut down our backlog by moving unreviewed hooks forward). Understanding that my taste is just that, and with the general principles that we don't adjust our content due to personal opinion I have largely divorced that from my review process (if I were to use my own morality as a yardstick I would have a hard time volunteering at DYK.) There is an element of judgment of course, but when I was reviewing the article I took extra pains to verify that the article was well sourced, well written, etc. and it appeared to meet those criteria with over 130 cites, many to various reputable news publications, a number of books, etc. Personally I found the whole ordeal (regarding what happened to the poor man) sickening however the article is clearly notable, is fairly well written, etc. In general I have always read NOTCENSORED to be that an individual's, or even a group's sense of morality, etc. should not control the content process (that is not a justification for this hook, but rather why I have endeavored to separate my own morality from the review process.) Such a brightline rule has the advantage of being easyish to follow and if we attempt to create some guidelines there is either going to be over-inclusiveness from a brightline, or an element of judgment. We need to weigh such considerations carefully. I do not consider the DYK process to be broken to have passed this, rather an example of people making a judgment call that it was not "too far past the line" to run. Our hook preps get between 30-50 views when they are being prepped for queue (the longer bars are on days when the prep is in active use) including the various regulars, passers by, etc. I apologize for the headache this has caused and my part in creating that headache, I made a judgment call what while I found the hook exceptionally grisly, not something I personally liked, and right up to the line of what was acceptable it still passed muster and I was incorrect. I agree that additional clarity would be worth investigating though I caution that we should be mindful of how such clarifications will work in the future as everyone has a different "yardstick" with which to measure morality and if we are to set a standard we need to decide whose to use (as an example one could say running certain religious, sexual, or other content would be gravely offensive to some groups, how do we decide what crosses that line into "deliberate offense"?) Mifter (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To ensure it is clear, I have no issue with this hook being pulled but am concerned about how we can find a workable standard going forward. Mifter (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it clear here, my use of 'deliberate offense' is that in this situation it is impossible to look at that hook and say 'This will not cause offense to his family on the occasion of his death'. 'Casual offense' would be if this was posted say, in November. It would still be tasteless, but at least it would not have that added manual effort required to push it into the 'Why the hell did we do this to someone?' area. I am not *personally offended* that there is a hook that talks about brains being boiled. I am quite angry that the people who are guranteed to be offended by this specific situation were not given consideration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the hook being pulled. It seems like there is consensus that the hook was too morbid for the Main Page and I'm perfectly fine accepting that. I don't take morality or hurting people's feelings into consideration when I'm thinking of a hook, but now that we are working on setting a standard for BDP I will keep this in mind. My fault here. The reason why I decided to post this on the Main Page today (death anniversary) was because I figured that the article (not necessarily the hook) would get more views too since chances are Kilroy's death would be aired in some Mexican news channel or in the U.S., somewhere. I want to apologize to anyone who was offended by the hook. I read and write about morbid topics every day (Mexican Drug War bios, attacks, events, journalists killed, etc.) and my "need to inform" went out of hand this time. What's done is done. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help in the DYK process. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good comment ComputerJA, and one which we all appreciate. Let's work together on making sure we apply a little more editorial dignity to these kinds of things, and maybe get (yet another, but this time a valuable) rule into DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Although the "morbid" hook was pulled from the main page in short order, the article itself is well-written and well-researched. Based on the above discussion, I would like to propose reopening the nomination and submitting a toned down hook for a future queue:

ALT1: ... that Mark Kilroy was killed during spring break in Mexico for a human sacrifice ritual? Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: – Hi, I support this hook. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)