Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 117Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121→Archive 125

Prep 5

The hook fact for Nako does not appear in the article. There it just says there are "images" on the walls; here it says "thangkas". I think "images" should be used, as the other term is obscure. (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Checked Corrected. I think it was my error in the first place. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything Starts With An 'E' (currently prep 2)

I tried correcting this but was reversed... Do you want the hook for Everything Starts With An 'E' to link to the REDIRECT or to the actual article name, Everything Starts with an 'E'? I appreciate and prefer the all-caps hook myself, but think the redirect should be avoided so that the page counts come in accurately. FWIW. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no harm with piping the link... sst✈discuss 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
OK then. Easier starts with an 'E'. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it time to increase the number of hooks per set?

I would like to congratulate and thank all those involved in building prep sets and moving them into the queue, on their recent performance. Things are going smoothly and it is more than a fortnight since the DYKUpdateBot last reported "DYK is almost overdue". Proceeding in this orderly manner gives sufficient time for hooks to be examined critically before making it to the front page.

At the time I write, there are five filled queues and four filled prep areas, making a total of 72 hooks. Besides this there are 106 approved hooks out of a total of 311 hooks on the nomination page. New nominations are being made at the rate of about 16 a day, the same rate as they finally exit the DYK system. I think it is time that this tremendous backlog of nominations got reduced slightly and propose that we move to nine hooks per set to slightly increase the througput of hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but people have in the past argued that this would decrease the amount of scrutiny the hook sets received and might make for more (embarrassing) errors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Some sort of increase is definitely needed: new nominations this month are averaging close to 20 a day through November 12, and the 8th through 12th are still being added to, so that average may rise. A burn rate of 16 per day is not sufficient to keep up with it. I'm not sure increasing the set size to 9 will be sufficient, and I'd be cautious of going up to 10, since 8 was said to be the ideal size in earlier discussions. (We were a bit long earlier in the week compared to ITN/OTD; today we are shorter.) Perhaps a week or two at three sets of eight per day would get us down to a more reasonable level, and we could revert back to two per day at that point. If we do increase the frequency, we would need to make sure that if any special occasion hooks already in queues and preps, they are moved so they run at the right time. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: DYK is an incredible important tool for incentivizing content creation, and I think that giving more editors the chance to appear on main page (with three rotations per day) could be a good idea. If I recall correctly, I think that we had a three rotation per day system until 2014 (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/February). I also think the DYK review process is an excellent forum for providing community input to improve new articles. However, just to play devil's advocate in this argument, we may also want to consider other alternatives for eliminating backlog. For example, we could eliminate backlog by enforcing the DYK criteria more strictly (i.e. by strictly enforcing the rule that a hook must be "interesting to a broad audience"). Alternatively, we may want to consider implementing a system of failing problematic hooks if issues have not been resolved within seven days (much like the "on hold" process for GA reviews); this would incentivize editors to resolve issues in a timely fashion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep there used to be three cycles per day for a long time. That ended up being unmaintainable in terms of the number of nominations (e.g. running out of hooks to use). It's a hard one; but I think increasing the hook count would be a sensible thing to do. Going to three cycles per day again could burn through the backlog very quickly and leave the same problem as 2014. Better to keep consistency but increase/decrease the hook count to suit a large backlog. My suggestion is that we decide what a sensible amount of approved hooks is (for example: 50 approved) and use this figure to assert how big the list should be (8 or 9). Getting down from the current backlog might take a little while, but that's okay! This will effectively auto-correct any backlog. Defining that as a process now avoids having to work out what to do when we have a bigger backlog again in the future! --Errant (chat!) 17:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Errant, the submissions are currently increasing at a rate beyond the ability of 8 or 9 hooks twice a day to keep up with the rate of submissions, currently about 20 a day: the backlog is growing. With a backlog of 109 approved but unpromoted (and another 211 awaiting approval) how does your proposal deal with the current backlog when it's been steadily increasing for weeks with promotion of 8 hooks per set? We're limited in how much real estate we can take on the main page, so 11 or 12 hooks in a set is not in the cards, and I'm dubious about 10. Three cycles a day with seven per set could gradually reduce the backlog, but I'm not sure how long set builders could sustain that rate of prep creation. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes but will it continue at that rate? If the answer is "yes" then that's a problem with my approach. Otherwise, I think the suggestion still has merit. I'm not sure it is sustainable. To be honest, I think we need more data. What is the historical rate of new noms per day over, say, the last 12 months? What's the pass/failure rate for DYK noms? etc. Perhaps we should be more strict about criteria - a lot of hooks I read are just downright boring. There's a difference between a fact and an interesting fact, and it's called a "hook" for a reason. One reason I don't feel I should review DYK's is because many that I read I'd question the hook - and that's probably me being too strict or mean with the guidelines (so it's not fair for me to review it). Either way; the important metric is approved hooks per-day; whether that figure is addressed by handling more hooks on the main page or if we do it by increasing standards I don't know. --Errant (chat!) 18:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment just take it easy everyone. It was only a few weeks ago that no preps were in place and the main page updates were hours and hours late. Having a large backlog, especially around Christmas, isn't a bad thing because there will be fewer people around to move stuff around, check it for accuracy, verifiability, interest etc. There is no deadline, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The number of nominations has remained remarkably stable this year, this is the first time in a long time that it's crept up. I would oppose going to 9 hooks a set, it's just too long. If necessary, we can go back to three 7-hook sets per day for a few weeks, or if we want to reduce the number more quickly, three 8-hook sets per day as BlueMoonset suggested. I'm not sure we need to panic just yet though, we're probably only a couple of hook sets above average right now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you did, didn't you? — Maile (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, though that is certainly true (and he said it before), what I actually said was "Don't we usually see a slowdown in noms" (new emphasis). Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Two Ada Lovelace Days? 10th December is her 200th birthday

It says in Wikipedia at the start of her article "Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (née Byron; 10 December 1815 – 27 November 1852)". By my reckoning that means that in about 25 days it will be exactly 200 years since the world's first computer programmer was born. Now some may see this as a day for articles about women, but she was also a computer programmer and also just a clever person. This is a significant anniversary. Any ideas? Victuallers (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would love to have a mix of these themes - women scientists and computers and combinations thereof. :) Keilana (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding a nominations section below. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
To dream the impossible dream - if anyone had thought about it far enough ahead, the Ada Lovelace article could have been improved and brought to GA status, just in time for the lead hook at her big day. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Another to add would be to bring the article on her rather remarkable daughter, Anne Blunt, 15th Baroness Wentworth to GA as well. (This woman rode across the Middle Eastern deserts in search of Arabian horses and founded the Crabbet Park Stud and the Sheykh Obeyd stud; Crabbet probably the most influential breeding program for the modern Arabian horse in history... probably saved the breed from extinction. Montanabw(talk) 01:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Some great ideas .... I suspect that if anyone creates a GA and its looking good on December 9th then we may find two trusted editors to "ignore all rules" and just put it at the head of the set. (Object now to this idea if you see this) Victuallers (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Earwig's tool: Ada Lovelace, Anne Blunt. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Both articles have 98% matches, but to content copied from us, not the other way round. Ada might have some close paraphrasing to other sources. --Errant (chat!) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested

Kathryn Parsons was just promoted to prep. @Victuallers: I suggest you start a column in the Special Occasions holding area to move all the woman computer programmers/scientists after they are approved. Should we recall Kathryn Parsons from prep and move to this date? Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Will do @Yoninah:, if you feel the author wont object then recall. Victuallers (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm the author, and I don't mind :) Yoninah (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I just moved a load of women scientists to the December 10 Special Occasions holding area. Maybe we should write some more computer programmer bios from the Women in Leadership list? Yoninah (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A gimmick? A DYK load where they are all called Ada?

The six below are a quick look, we may find others. The ones below can be made into start articles in 24 hours or Dr B could do them in 24 mins Victuallers (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. Q18526292, Ada Ballin, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  2. Q18526293, Ada Swanwick, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  3. Q18526294,Ada Vachell, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  4. Q18670631,Ada Benson, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  5. Q18670632,Ada Dundas, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
  6. Q18917143,Ada Chesterton, I believe this has a version already on a non-English wiki and a good bio is available on the ODNB
Not forgetting "Fucking Ada", of course (?). *chortle, chortle" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, we are clashing with Human Rights day

I have just set up a special day and found that there is a date clash. I'm suggesting that the two subjects are not incompatible. We should be able to avoid hooks that contradict the aims of the other celebration. We may need to find a trusted 3rd party to do the choosing on the day before if we end up with more than two full sets. Victuallers (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there are any hooks ready for Human Rights Day yet anyway? Worst case; do one set for Ada, and one set for HRD. --Errant (chat!) 13:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The lone hook previously identified for use on MainPage on Human Rights Day is now being considered instead for Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20th. Somehow I don't think there will be too many hooks proposed for Human Rights Day. (Bios are easier to write...) We should be able to load DYK up for Ada on December 10th without any concerns for human rights. --PFHLai (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Pleased to see that we now have sets of hooks - brilliant. I guess if we find even better ones then we will need a chooser Victuallers (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

AGF for a primary-source video?

I started a review of the Celebrity Fifteen to One nomination, whose current hook involves one contestant having appeared on the show during the tenures of both its hosts. I'm having some issues with verifying the facts needed to support the hook. First, for one of the contestant's appearances, the only source cited is a video of the episode, and I can't get the video to play (this seems to be a problem on my end, not with the video itself); would it be acceptable for me to AGF that the credits show the contestant's name as if it were an offline source? Does the fact that the video is a primary source make a difference?

The other issue is that there isn't a source cited which states that this contestant is the only one who appeared on the show with both hosts. There are just sourced tables listing which contestants appeared in each series, and as aforementioned, for some of the series, the only source cited for which contestants appeared are videos of the episodes themselves. I'm not sure whether this means the hook's assertion qualifies as WP:SYN or WP:OR or not, and I would like to solicit opinions from others on these questions. Thanks in advance to all who respond. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: that's pretty much a cut-and-dried example of original research, unfortunately. --Errant (chat!) 13:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was afraid of, Errant. I was hoping I was wrong. Thanks. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 09:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

DYKs for new Feature Articles (?)

Is there not a provision for a "Did you know" entry for a newly promoted Feature Article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles have their own main page section in the upper left hand corner. And the process to get an FA on the main page is: Wikipedia:Today's featured article. Featured Lists also have their own slot twice a week. The reason behind including GA, is that class did not have any other way to be seen on the main page. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's theoretically possible to run in DYK while being a featured article or list, if the article is nominated for featured status at the same time a hook is nominated and the former runs more quickly than the latter (or the hook is sequestered for a set date after passing so it's got a little longer before it runs). But as Maile pointed out, being featured in and of itself gives the option to run on the main page anyway so doing so as a DYK hook is not something that needs to be accomodated for. GRAPPLE X 09:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 November 2015

49.98.89.221 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been requested. What is it you would like to see changed? GRAPPLE X 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Leelah Alcorn (intended for Queue 4)

  • ... that Leelah Alcorn, a transgender girl, signed her suicide note as "(Leelah) Josh Alcorn"?

Anyone have thoughts on this hook? I'm a bit uncomfortable with presenting this on the main page, but as it isn't technically negative BLP information I'd like a second opinion or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If this hits the main page then I predict POV pushers going ballistic. It's under discretionary sanctions, after all. While obviously she's not a LP anymore, her family and friends are, and I suggest that is "close enough" to count as BLP, and a main page hook describing how somebody took their own life is not really on in my view. I'll pull the hook now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not an appropriate hook. --Errant (chat!) 14:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've pulled it and given suggestions for a better hook. Paging @Rainbow unicorn:, @Midnightblueowl:, @Nvvchar:, @PFHLai: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Leelah Alcorn achieved notability and public prominence because of her suicide, so I don't think that we'll ever escape any mention of that fact. However, we could try to take the emphasis off of the suicide itself, for instance by saying something along the lines of "in her suicide note, Leelah Alcorn expressed the hope that society would become more accepting of transgender people". Perhaps that's a bit too long, but I think that it might be a better option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think any mention of a person's suicide shows incredibly poor taste. Why not say something more positive instead, like: " ... that some commentators credit Leelah Alcorn with inspiring "a flashpoint for transgender progress in 2014"? (source). I'll post this on the nomination template as well. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't necessarily agree that mentioning a suicide is in poor taste, but such issues are of course heavily culturally mediated and all in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, I think that Norecardforfree's option is a good one and would be happy to endorse it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well if there weren't any negative consequences resulting from running two articles with their names starting with Fuck that Cirt brought up to FA status as TFA, why would the mention of suicide on the main page be problematic? If anything it would encourage more people to view the articles, which is the purpose of DYK. sst✈discuss 16:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The difference here is that the articles with Fuck in the title were only potentially insensitive to those that had a problem with the cursing language, which per WP:NOT#CENSORED we readily don't try to mitigate; we tell it like it is, and that's been established for years. On the other hand, between the BLP issues (and I agree this still applies despite being months out), and the recent overall discussion on how we discuss transgendered persons in wake of the Caitlyn Jenner situation, which I don't think we're really resolved to any degree, this easily could be a problematic hook, which we have no well-defined practice of handling. Meanwhile that if the hook is not careful, that's going to start edit wars (again) on the topic. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As the editor who GA reviewed Fuck It, We'll Do It Live with Cirt and nominated it to DYK, I can tell you there's a huge difference. One is, in my view, a humorous and sly dig at over-produced studio albums that uses a "naughty word" to gain publicity, the other is an article about a subject that I find genuinely upsetting. Apples and oranges. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a BLP issue in part, I believe, because Leelah's parents take issue with her name and transgender identity. The original hook was potentially a little too far stressing that point. It was also IMO very vague and not that intriguing. The newly proposed ALT ticks all the boxes IMO, including sensitivity. --Errant (chat!) 16:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how this is a problem, the article is called "Death of Leelah Alcorn", how'd she die? She killed herself. First sentence make it very clear what the article is about, how many hooks could be made from this article without bringing up the word "suicide"(or anything, *gasp*, death related)? I find it interesting the way she signed her suicide note, I wonder if this common in transgender suicides and I'm sure others would too. It's also one of the most cited sources in the article(cited 15x, tied for 1st, also look at the number of times her suicide note is mentioned in the titles of other sources), which includes quotes from it. The article talks about her parents, the hook doesn't, yet it is considered a BLP issue? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Now I've read the article I'm somewhat concerned, actually, by that content. Apart from the primary source, have you got any source that directly discusses the relevance of the signature? The independent source you do cite doesn't mention the signature, and I am not entirely sure it supports "She eventually rejected this forename" either. --Errant (chat!) 21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I knew the hook would hit a nerve, but did not expect it to get pulled. Now with sourcing concerns and that there are viable ALT hooks, we should focus of the ALT hooks. I'm okay with the two ALTs so far. Whichever gets picked, I hope this nom can get back to Queue 4. It's intended to reach MainPage on Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I've put the nom back into circulation in the next prep area, so my next question is - what hook in Queue 4 would people like to throw out so this can be fast tracked back in? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ritchie333. In time for Transgender Day of Remembrance tomorrow. May Leelah rests in piece. --PFHLai (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo

The hook for Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, currently in Prep 1, needs to be replaced as the hook fact has been removed from the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it, to make sure that it doesn't hit the main page. I have not replaced it, I have left its spot clearly open. Fram (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Cwmhiraeth Fram The first sentence in the lead gives the hook text which is cited. The text in the reference reads "A church spokesperson said it is built on an artificial mound as they wanted God to be on a supreme position." I hope it clarifies the position and the hook would be restored. Thanks.Nvvchar. 17:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Here a link to the nom template for easy access, in case it needs to be unpromoted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at the source for that hook, [1] and comparing it with the article Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, I notice some huge differences. According to the article, the church was build just before 1880 ("action was initiated by choosing a suitable site for the purpose in 1876.") The source gives "As you walk out of the fort and up the slope on your left, you find St. Stephen’s Anglican Church- dating to the Dutch period and said to be over 300 years old. A church spokesperson said it is built on an artificial mound as they wanted God to be on a supreme position. During the British period it was taken over by the Church of England and subsequently given to the Church of Ceylon." This supports the suggested hook, but contradicts the rest of the article. On the other hand, the source given for the 1876-1880 construction date and most of the body of the article, [2], actually contradicts the suggested hook and lead text: "It would appear paradoxical that on this mound, which originally saved a military purpose, years later that church of St. Stephen was built for the glory of the prince of peace." (source) vs. " that the Saint Stephen’s Church, Negombo (pictured), in Negombo in Sri Lanka occupies a raised vantage ground created especially for the purpose of providing a commanding view?" (hook).

It looks as if there are two contradictory stories about the origin of the church, and the mound, the Dutch fort, and so on. The article should present both sources and stories side by side or decide in some way which is the correct source. But a "pick and choose" of a bit from one source and a bit from another, creating a new history which neither source actually supports (that the mound was created ca. 1880 to build the new church) and using that as the hook is not acceptable. Please reopen the nomination and rewrite the article. Fram (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination reopened. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is now over a week old and almost entirely exhausted, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first couple of days of November. As of the most recent update, 128 nominations are approved, leaving 216 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from September and the first few weeks of October.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eulie Chowdhury seems incorrect

@Victuallers, Nvvchar, Edwardx, and SusunW: Now in Prep 4, from Template:Did you know nominations/Eulie Chowdhury:

It has been discussed at the nomination, and is sourced, but is it correct? She graduated in 1947 from the University of Sydney, Australia with a Bachelor in Architecture. Which is not in Asia, of course, so how she was more "qualified as an architect in Asia" than others is unclear, or when she got a separate "qualification as an architect in Asia". Perhaps what is meant is that she was the first qualified female architect to work in Asia? Or that she was the first qualified female architect who was also an Asian?

But even these claims seem dubious or at least disputable: in 1946 (according to our article on the school) Aida-Cruz Del Rosario graduated from the University of Santo Tomas College of Architecture and became the first female architect of the Philippines, which were then and now in Asia. According to [3] it was in 1947, still the same year that Chowdhury graduated (Chowdhury only started working in Asia in 1951 though).

So, perhaps she is the first Indian with any of these claims? Well, not if you believe Perin Jamsetjee Mistri, an Indian woman who preceded her by at least 10 years.

(Of course, all this excludes people like Lin Huiyin who were not "qualified" architects but were good enough to become Professor of Architecture anyway...)

In conclusion, the hook is sourced but not enough care has been taken to find a contradictory source, which in this case wasn't too hard. Just read List of women architects and you find still other earlier architects, like Dora Gad or Minnette de Silva. I think it should be removed from the prep and the nomination reopened (and the article changed as well of course). Fram (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is useful research Fram, do add this to the article, I'm sure we can find an alternative hook and a sentence that says "She is said to be the first .... but... would even make a good hook. Thanks for your contribution. Victuallers (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Fram Certainly there is no question in light of your information that a new hook should be found. I don't agree that the reviewer has an obligation to disprove the claims made in a hook; the criteria requires them to make sure it is supported by a RS, but I absolutely agree that if the claim is found not to hold up, it must be corrected. Thanks for your work on the file. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
See WP:DYKSG#D10. Just be more careful next time. sst✈discuss 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I had no role in reviewing this article. Although Nvvchar wrote "Thanks for the review", this was a misunderstanding, as all I did was to tweak the wording, diff, which was done without looking at the article. Anyway, the position set out by SusunW seems reasonable. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'l be happy to review another hook if someone will propose one. But as the reviewer, I cannot make a proposal. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI it is perfectly OK for you to do so ("reviewers may also suggest improvements or alternatives to the hook." --Errant (chat!) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
True enough, but that means that another reviewer must be found to approve the hook you suggest (per WP:DYKSG#H2). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed from Prep 4, I'll now reopen the nomination. Fram (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Only six hooks?

Could someone please fix the DYK section of the main page? It's currently completely unbalanced by the much-shorter-than-normal DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now we have another queue loaded, issue resolved. Please don't let it happen again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The redlink in the Credits section on Template:Did you know/Queue/6: the nom subpage should be Template:Did you know nominations/NewYork–Presbyterian/Queens. Requesting admin to fix the link. This is normal for page titles with a slash, and I have encountered this while doing the DYK review. sst✈ (discuss) 14:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Errant (chat!) 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I question whether or not the article should have even been created with the slash. A slash indicates the article is a sub page of another article, and it isn't. It probably should be titled NewYork–Presbyterian (Queens). — Maile (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW mainspace does not have sub-pages enabled, so from a technical perspective it's not a sub-page. Whilst WP:TITLESLASH doesn't expressly prohibit the use case. --Errant (chat!) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
With that said it should probably be at New York–Presbyterian Hospital Queens --Errant (chat!) 14:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What does "a zero-energy house blends every available space with solar, wind, and geothermal methods in a "modern-organic-fusion style"?" actually mean?

We have now in Queue3, the next queue to hit the main page, the hook

  • ... that Zoka Zola's design of a zero-energy house blends every available space with solar, wind, and geothermal methods in a "modern-organic-fusion style"?

This comes from Template:Did you know nominations/Zoka Zola. I don't claim that anything is wrong with the hook, I just don't understand it at all. Solar, geothermal and wind "methods" are mostly on the outside of a house, normally. Then how are the spaces "blended" (nothing to do with Blended Space I presume) with these "methods"? What does it mean to blend spaces of a house with solar and wind methods? I just have no idea what this means, it reads like modern art high-brow waffle but perhaps it has a perfectly normal meaning I'm just not aware of. Am I the only one not getting it? Fram (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: is the nominator. I reviewed it, and the hook is pretty much based on the source. "modern-organic-fusion style" is a quote from that source. And while the source does not use the words "blends" or "methods", it says "zeros out every square foot through solar, wind, and geothermal systems." The second source for the hook says "We will only use energy generated on site." But perhaps Nvvchar could have something to add here. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I endorse the clarification given by User:Maile66.Nvvchar. 14:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conlfict)Yes, I read the source, that's why I didn't claim that the hook was wrong (it resembles the source, although why such a short magazine article should be the "bibliography" section of the Wikipedia article is not clear). But it doesn't make me any wiser: is "zeroing out" and "blending" the same? Are systems and methods the same? The source seems more clearly to talk about the outside of the house (zeroing out every square foot of the inside would be rather impractical), while the article and hook more strongly give the impression (to me) of discussing the inside walls of the house; every available space of a house sounds to me like hooks and crannies, walls and ceilings; not roofs and other outside aspects. Perhaps it's just me. Fram (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No, Fram, I am with you on this. I can't comprehend what the hook is trying to say, unfortunately. I wonder if perhaps it could be expressed in less flowery language (which would be more appropriate for WP anyway) such as: "All of the outer surfaces of the house used for solar, wind, and geothermal energy generation" --Errant (chat!) 14:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: perhaps should comment on Errant's ALT hook, or on the original. But the more I read the original hook, I really think Nvvchar is saying, in effect, "...every space in the house benefits from solar, wind, and geothermal power sources..." Because it's the interior of the house where the energy is consumed. The outer surfaces might be used to generate that, but that energy is delivered through interior parts of the systems. In the same way a boiler in the basement might generate heat, but it's the pipes inside the walls, and the internal vents, that deliver it. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That would also make sense in terms of an interpretation. The fact there is ambiguity over the meaning suggests clarification would be useful. --Errant (chat!) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The hook graced the main page in its original version for some 8 hours. I have now removed that unintelligible text from the main page. IF we don't know what the hook actually means, we shouldn't present it to the world at large. Fram (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The point of the original source seems to be that the house in question was large (over 3000 sq ft, which is unusual for a zero-energy house in a place with cold winters like Chicago) but that its design made it zero-energy by utilising multiple techniques across the larger surface area. I agree that the hook did not convey this very well but hooks are supposing to be intriguing rather than enlightening. In so far as we've been reading and siscussing the article, it has done its job. For some pics of the house in question, see here. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I was absolutely befuddled by it. I can't imagine what the reviewer was thinking in slapshotting that through. Maile66 - if you plan to undertake reviews, please put just at least the bare minimal effort into them. Given the amount of time you've spent auditing my reviews (including rudely placing strikethroughs on my reviews so you can review them yourself), one would think you would attempt to enforce the same standards you demand of others onto your own reviews? Don't worry everyone, I'll start double-checking each of Maile66's reviews moving forward. LavaBaron (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Co-author needed for Alcohol in Afghanistan

Hi, I got some suggestion on my nomination of Alcohol in Afghanistan, you can see it Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol in Afghanistan. Article has more than 2500 characters and if we ignore mirror sites then there is no copyright violation. Hooks are supported by sources. But it needs some copy-editing, I think things written about alcohol in US base in Afghanistan written under "NATO base" section needs some editing. If anyone is interested in fixing issues of the article can come forward to become co-author of the article. Thank you. --Human3015TALK  20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Unless I have miscalculated, looking at the queues it appears that on Thanksgiving we don't have any of the hooks set aside for it to run on that day. For example, We Plough the Fields and Scatter based on the current positioning in the prep area is going to run on the day after it. Can someone rearrange the queues please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, since Thanksgiving here is a U.S. holiday, Prep 4 will run from 4am to 4pm on the west coast and 7am to 7pm on the east coast. I'll swap "We Plough the Fields and Scatter" into that set. "A Very Gaga Thanksgiving" is currently in Prep 5, and set to run from 4pm on Thanksgiving until 4am the next morning on the west coast and from 7pm on Thanksgiving to 7am the next morning on the east coast, which may or may not be enough of Thanksgiving. I would be against moving any Thanksgiving hook into Prep 3, since it will be off the main page before most people are even awake on Thanksgiving in the U.S.
At the moment, the problem is with "Jauchzet Gott in Allen Landen", which has not yet been promoted. With all queues and all preps full, there's nowhere to put it at the moment, but there's no need to worry: as soon as a new prep becomes available to fill, I suggest that one of the hooks in Prep 4 be moved to it and "Jauchzet Gott" promoted to Prep 4 in its place. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it allowed to reuse reviews for QPQs if a nomination has been (correctly) rejected?

I nominated ten articles and did not read them carefully: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-179 and Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-157. Since each of the articles duplicate 1357 characters of prose (and there is less than 1500 characters of new prose per article) the nomination should rightfully be rejected (apart from one article). Since I have already done the ten QPQ reviews, am I allowed to use these reviews as QPQs in future DYK nominations? sst✈discuss 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll allow it. LavaBaron (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Requirement of QPQ for first-time nominators who have received 5 or more DYK credits

Looking at this: Template:Did you know nominations/Impossible Is Nothing (Iggy Azalea song) This is the first DYK nomination of Coolmarc, but he already has five DYK credits, due to other editors (including myself) nominating articles he promoted to GA status for DYK. DYK rules mean that in this situation Coolmarc has to supply a review. The five free nominations exemption is designed to allow editors to understand how a DYK review should be done, but Coolmarc does not have this opportunity, and may supply an inadequate review if required to do so. Should the rule be revised to instead say that the first five DYK nominations do not require a QPQ, instead of credits? sst✈ (discuss) 09:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Coolmarc's articles were reviewed in the normal way... even though Coolmarc was not explicitly the nominator one imagines they saw the reviews in the same way as a self-nom. --Errant (chat!) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd always assumed that the 5-free rule was for nominations the editor themselves have made, not articles that were nominated by a different editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I also understood it that way. Someone could write lots of articles that are nominated by others, but only the nominators have to do a QPQ to help the backlog at DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Should the wording in the rules be adjusted to reflect that it's only articles a given editor nominated that count towards their 5-article get-out-of-QPQ-free card, then, if that's how we're interpreting the rule? FWIW I agree that only articles a given editor nominated themselves should count; otherwise we're going to have too many 'reviews' that have to be done over. I know my first couple of attempts at reviewing other people's nominations weren't up to snuff. And there's no reason to expect that someone credited as a creator or expander of an article by another editor who nominated the article for DYK is going to follow the review — they may not even be aware of how to do so. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Prep 4 and 5

This hook in Prep 4 just looks silly:

... that the Palais des Fêtes in Strasbourg has hosted famous conductors and anonymous anime fans, though not at the same time?

The second part of this hook in Prep 5 does not appear in the article:

... that the Lenape potato was withdrawn because it was toxic, but it was used to breed other varieties used to produce potato chips?
Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
WRT to the potato hook, wouldn't Lenape is a parent of chipping varieties including Atlantic, Trent, Belchip and Snowden and a grandparent of several others cover it? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Can we go ahead and change it, or do we have to return it to the noms page? (I'll AGF your hook fact, cited inline.) Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
My point is that the second part of the hook is in fact supported in the article, in the sentence I quoted. (It also isn't my hook.) --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Now I see it, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Main page now down to 6 hooks (from 8 originally)

Aaaargh!

After removing the very unclear Zoka Zola hook (see above), I now also removed the Turtle Park hoos for being incorrect, even though it only had about one more hour to go on the main page.

Template:Did you know nominations/Turtle Park, @Tavix, Vesuvius Dogg, PFHLai, and Casliber:

  • ... that Turtle Park contains concrete sculptures of seven turtle species that are endemic to Missouri?

Endemic: "being unique to a defined geographic location,", "organisms that are indigenous to a place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere." So, are these seven turtle species really endemic to Missouri, or just indigenous (or native, like the article says)? The species are the Common snapping turtle (lives from Canada to Florida, so not endemic), the Mississippi map turtle (not endemic as well), the Red-eared slider, and so on. None of them, as far as can be determined since not all species are named in the article, are endemic to Missouri. None. Why did no one catch this? If you don't understand what "endemic" means, don't use it. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So why not just change it to "native/indigenous" then rather than remove it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing - as you're an admin Fram, just change it and maybe put a note on the article's talk page explaining the wording issue. Was there a need to kick up a fuss here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this was needed, as too many people obviously don't check hooks (or check hooks they don't understand). If the hook isn't correct, how am I to know that the rest of the article is up to par? The Review clearly was deficient, so off it goes. Fram (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fram: are you saying that you know how to fix things but you are removing them as a punishment? I'm not sure that you have the mandate for such behaviour. If you are claiming that you are clever enough to find errors in Wikipedia then that's fine, well done. Fix it and move on. At the moment you are causing disruption and I assume that is not your aim. Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No. I am claiming that if I note that a review was not done correctly (like here), I remove it because the most important thing is that we don't knowingly present false information to the reader on the main page. Then can follow a more thorough check, to see whether I was correct or not, and whether it is a lone error or some farther reaching problem. Take e.g. the Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo a few sections up. Both hooks were approved, one was put into prep but removed again as the fact was no longer in the article. I was then asked to put the other hook in (remember, it was checked!). Instead, I looked a bit further and noticed that that one as well was highly dubious (or rather that the whole article was dubious as a WP:SYNTH version of two contradictory sources).
So, in the spirit of "better safe than sorry", I simply remove the hook from prep, queue or main page and let the review process work it out (although in this case I would prefer not to run it again, as it already was on the main page for 11 hours).
I notice though that some of the regulars here (and I'm looking at Victuallers specifically) rather attack the person finding a problem than actually caring about the error. You seem to have your priorities still completely wrong, if you think that the disruption is caused by the person removing a blatant error from the main page. Fram (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The consensus here is that the removal of the hook was inappropriate. We are all freaking volunteers, and even major commercial websites can have typos on their front pages. WP:ERRORS exist for a reason. sst✈ (discuss) 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The review looks fine to me - due diligence was done, a wording issue was found and fixed, we are all human and not perfect. After all, Fram didn't follow instructions at the top of the page which says, in a red box, "Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here". Looks like an attempt to make a mountain out a molehill to me - the disruption is not about removing an error from a main page, it is talking excessively about it in an attempt to seek justice. Now I'm off, have fun folks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
With "the review", you mean my check or the DYK review? If you mean the DYK review, then no, due diligence clearly was not done. It's not "a wording issue", it's a completely different meaning which was essential in that one sentence. "We are all human and not perfect", that's true, that's why no action is being taken against any of the people involved. That doesn't mean that the issue shouldn't be raised here, to increase awareness of the problems. As for the red box at the top, do you know why that is there? For non-admins, so that they can post the error at a page where people who have the necessary rights to change the main page (admins like you and me) can swiftly see it and take action. History has shown that posting errors on the main page (or even the queues) here doesn't always get the swift necessary reaction. That's the reason for that red box. Not that once the error is removed from the main page, you are not allowed to discuss it here, where most of the DYK regulars can be found (after all, once it is removed, it is no longer on "the current Main Page template version"). But I notice that you join the crowd of DYK'ers who want to protect their fiefdom at all costs apparently, and don't really care about what is put on the main page through this project (you can add SSTflyer to that list as well apparently). I'm happy to see that far from all editors here think the same way though. Fram (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice, now you are commenting on editors. I just said that we are volunteers, we all make errors, and errors are unavoidable. Not everyone has perfect English. If we require every DYK reviewer to be able to understand the definition of "endemic", we would have even less participation from editors not from English-speaking countries, which usually have inadequate content coverage. Are you sure you want to drive productive editors away from the project just because of one misused word? sst✈ (discuss) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If you don't understand the words in a hook, don't review it. That seems rather obvious to me. Reviewing is (among other things) checking if it correct. If you can't even understand it, you are not able to do that check and should stick to checking hooks and articles you do understand. This is not what happened with Vesuvius Dogg (below), who understood the word but didn't know that it had a different, more restricted meaning when discussing animals (or plants for that matter). And no, I don't want to drive any editors away from here (I have done so in the past with people who made way too many errors, but that's a different story). But I have serious questions about people who care more about keeping a hook on the main page than about whether it is right or wrong, or people who don't know the difference between an error and a typo. If you claim that "The consensus here is that the removal of the hook was inappropriate. " then you have a strange reading of consensus, and your priorities wrt DYK wrong. Fram (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fram: there was nothing wrong with that word. In this case, it's a synonym for "native": ""natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous." I fail to see why you got so worked up over a minor "issue". -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't help you if you still fail to see it. Fram (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Fram, Tavix, sst✈ (and others): I am fully willing to fall on my copy editor's sword here, appreciating how endemism is currently defined on Wikipedia. In my QPQ, I confirmed that all the species of turtle replicated in concrete within Turtle Park are indeed "native" to Missouri, and in retrospect, the word "native" would have more accurately suited the hook. Only belatedly do I see the secondary definition of "endemic" (at Merriam-Webster) defines it as "restricted or peculiar to a region or country". Merriam-Webster's primary definition is looser, i.e., "belonging or native to a particular people or country" or "characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment". Again, my apologies for relying on the common definition and not knowing the word implied a greater specificity for some scientific readers. I learned a lesson here, and I obviously should have checked the wikilink. My apologies Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Very minor mistake. Don't let it affect your editing. sst✈(discuss) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No problem, no need for seppuku over this! Fram (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't find my sword emoji anyway. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, this unexpectedly blew up over a minor issue. Dictionaries use endemic as a synonym for native. Here's dictionary.com's definition: "natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous." Yes, it also means being unique to an area and the Wikipedia article defines it that way, but removing the hook for something that minor is just silly. However, now I see that "native" would have been a better word due to the confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It was hyperlinked in the template, but for some reason no longer when it hit the main page. I haven't checked whether the link was removed during the move to prep or during the move to queue, and would be interested to know the reason for this removal. Endemic, when used for animals, normally doesn't mean "native" but "uniquely living here". Fram (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "doesn't mean "native" but "uniquely living here"" per whom? As someone who works/ed in biology I have hear both usages equally. you are choosing only one definition and ignoring that the other usage is just as valid.--Kevmin § 15:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now I know the difference between native and endemic. Thank you. Wish I knew about this earlier. Sorry, I didn't learn this early enough for this DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing an erroneous hook from the main page that can't readily be rectified is acceptable. Removing a hook because there might be an error somewhere in the article is absurd and totally indefensible. If we applied that standard to every article link on the main page, the page would be devoid of such links. There is no guarantee of error-free content, that's why every article has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

True. Not relevant to this discussion, but true. In this case, the error (or severe ambiguity) was in the hook. Fram (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Prep 5

"... that the quality of the embroidering of the Albanian xhamadan would reveal social status?"

I started to read this article (Xhamadan) and noticed some odd phrases and changes of tense, perhaps someone (the promoting admin or sanctioning reviewer?) could explain what is meant by "and is orned with 6-10 broids"? That aside, the article is really rough and needs serious copyediting before it should be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is "really rough", apart from some clunky grammar, the meaning is quite clear. The only really problematic bit is the phrase you have highlighted, and that should be readily fixable. I'll give the article a copyedit before it goes to the main page if no-one else gets around to it beforehand. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I gave it a copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?

The Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following: wording has been part of the DYK nominations page since October 2011, after the test of a required review template that had reviewers checking off all such aspects was abandoned. The new wording didn't say "then indicate that you have reviewed all aspects of the article"; it's clear, given the actual wording coupled with the example that they expected the review be written out. And that expectation has been a part of DYK ever since.

DYK reviewing procedures aren't only in a single review document. Aspects can be found in many places—indeed, there have been many abortive attempts to get everything in one place, but until one succeeds and is approved, the various locations are all relevant: WP:DYKR, WP:DYK, T:TDYK, WP:DYKSG, the DYK nomination template editing window, and probably other locations I'm not remembering at the moment.

The rules do change over time, as consensus for such change is agreed to here on WT:DYK and in various RfCs that have been conducted. But there hasn't been any agreement here to change the practice of several years that reviews should specifically mention which aspects were checked, and many reviewers are careful to make sure that the reviews do mention each criterion checked and how the article/hook measure up to it.

The obvious question is whether the DYK community wishes to continue enforcing full reviews—whether volunteer or QPQ—or wishes to let the requirement lapse or be modified in some way. The usual way to do this is through discussion and consensus; of course, if any reviewer is allowed to continue refusing to follow the requirement and approve review after review, it will become quite difficult if not impossible to ask others to do what he will not, and the requirement withers. I frankly hope it doesn't wither, because the written out review is helpful to promoter and nominator alike, and it has over time improved the breadth of reviewing and the new reviewers to understand what they need to do as part of a QPQ or other review. But if it does become obsolete, it should be because the many DYK participants have decided it is no longer needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Retain

  • Retain and enforce - For all the reasons discussed on this talk page for years, and for all the hooks pulled, for the most recent (but not only) discussion on Signpost of sloppy work on DYK, and for the outright feuds that have erupted over the sloppy quality of reviews. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding that the nomination template already has a Reviewers' template in the upper right hand corner. It's a simple check list that makes it easy and convenient to check off the review. It's not difficult to use. — Maile (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain As a long time contributor, I can say it takse little effort at all to actually indicate the aspects that have been reviewed. And its been a requirement for several years at least that the aspects are stated. Lava, its not going to kill you to follow the requirements.--Kevmin § 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain and enforce per User:Maile66. As I mentioned in a different thread, for editors who regularly review articles, this requirement could be seen as a bureaucratic hassle, but allowing them to just write "meets all criteria" is an open invitation to new/inexperienced editors to do the same. We have to enforce accountability at the ground level. As a side note, because of the long time it takes to build a prep – due to the need to re-review all the hooks, often finding problems, and returning newly un-approved hooks back to the nominator's court – I don't even bother looking at the ones that say "GTG" or "Fine with me". Yoninah (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah; today - Template:Did you know nominations/Baker Run, Windfall Run - you (1) unilaterally exempted another editor from the newness requirement, and, (2) did it through a conversation on outside the nom template. I considered heeding your call for "accountability at the ground level" [sic] and failing this otherwise excellent nom by Jakec, however, I'm not going to do that as I remain consistent and confirmed in my belief we should be enforcing quality rather than process. If you're going to demand other editors follow the letter of the law, it might behoove you to do the same. LavaBaron (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain - while, as Jackob points out below, there are a lot guidelines and criteria and unwritten rules and so forth to DYK, I've never seen these enforced as part of the rule to include all review criteria. I only check against, and include, the list of rules that appear at the top of every review template. All the rules are based off those basic rules. Sure, I forget to write out a criterion or two that I checked the review against, but, if someone challenges the review, it doesn't take long to explain that you simply forgot to mention in the review that you had checked the article against all criteria.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain and enforce. As I noted above, I think it's important to DYK to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain. I have long argued that we need better standards of accountability at DYK. This page demonstrates why I think so, but I want to emphasize that the hooks listed there are only the tip of the iceberg. In almost every hook set I review, I find misstated and erroneous hooks, hooks with obvious grammatical errors, hooks that barely make sense, hooks not worth reading, and on it goes. For every hook I pull from prep, there are probably a dozen others that need copyediting or amendment of one sort or another - and I only review a minority of hook sets. Sloppy reviewing is a perennial problem at DYK and we need to be doing everything we reasonably can to discourage it. If anything, we should be looking to enhance our review procedures, not degrading them still further. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with you 100%. And going hand in hand with that is at the very bottom of DYK Prep areas N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly. — Maile (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain and enforce. As a fairly new DYK reviewer and nominator, I find the requirement immensely helpful in reminding me to both be thorough in my review (and I hope no one intends that DYK reviews should be less thorough) and include all the relevant areas. On one of my recent reviews I almost forgot to double-check the status of the image included, but the checklist's requirement that each part of the review be detailed in the writeup saved me. I can't imagine any consequence of removing the requirement other than the quality of reviews declining (particularly as newcomers to the page might think all there was to it was writing "good to go!" without actually doing a review) and even more hooks being pulled from prep. Sure, some people might write that they did a full review without having done so, but that fact doesn't mean the current requirement should be rescinded. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think a rule like this would be much easier to maintain if we actually had one or more review templates, the way that GARs do. We've experimented with them, yes, but never developed them enough to introduce them to general reviewers via a stable page with wikilinks to it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple out there, but there are few adherents. It might be nice to have those templates—any idea who might put them together?—though like at GAN, some people prefer to write out their review than tick a bunch of boxes. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Create and enforce.
    • The nay votes are completely correct that the current phrasing is revisionist and POV. A full checklist has never been an actual part of the review process, just something occasionally demanded by the admins when it looks like someone has been completely halfassed. "{{DYKtick}} GtoG. -Capt½Ass" The review that started this off—this one by Lavabaron—is a good example of what has been perfectly acceptable in the past: he at least mentioned going through the the checklist.
    • Further, the current review templates are terrible.
    • Further, rule creep has been growing cancerously in DYK and needs to start being cut out.
    • Further, the improvement here is minimal. The halfasses who halfassed their checkmark will now simply halfass seven checkmarks and diligent reviewers will still need to doublecheck reviews.
  • Now, all of that said,
    • this is something people should already be doing.
    • It doesn't take any more time if the editors were already actually reviewing the article properly.
    • Having an even more formal checklist than the one we already have at the top of the template will help avoid obnoxious rule creep by editors such as Maile. The checklist will be the checklist and that will be the end of it. Petty demands for more hoop-jumping will require such editors to gather support for a change to the checklist itself (a higher bar) and make such changes obvious and explicit to new editors.
    • It will hopefully spur some helpful editors to streamline the review process. Using earwig shouldn't be an optional thing available in the sidebar: a link from it should simply be the thing that shows you actually did check for copyvio.
  •  — LlywelynII 23:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Rescind

  • Retain and enforce current wording of reviewing guide which does not require checkbox reviews Nothing is being "rescinded" where nothing has previously been enforced and where conflicting guidance is offered in multiple, equally valid, places. I object to the very wording of the proposal as POV-pushing. There's no evidence the community has ever been "enforcing full reviews." Also, this long proposal contains substantial editorial expository, opinion statements and historical revisionism, and is not a neutrally-worded proposal. A neutrally-worded proposal specific to amending the Reviewing Guide has been advanced below. LavaBaron (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Abandon, but make it abundantly clear to all reviewers that they must check the criteria. It is overly bureaucratic, and therein lies the problem. Nobody wants to type out a thousand-word essay explaining how the article meets every single one of the 100+ rules and criteria and sub-rules and policies and guidelines and unwritten rules and secret rules and whatever. What matters is the quality of the review itself, not how many words the review types on the nomination form. It would be easy for system gamers (and there would be a lot of those if we started enforcing the rule) to just slap up a thousand-word essay without actually reading the article. This rule doesn't stop people from making shoddy reviews, or from missing things. Here's another reason it's rather pointless: the prep builders don't just take it on faith; they basically do a full review all over again (but funnily enough, they just have to say "promoted" or "rejected"). So yes, there's no point. Just check all the DYK criteria and say that you've done so, and all is fine. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure retaining or abandoning it is the right question. I'm very much disturbed by Yoninah's comments which imply to me that DYK's need re-reviewing when being moved to prep. That sounds like a serious problem, and more to the point it sounds like a critical problem because they are not talking about the short form reviews but all reviews in general. Increasing the form of the review won't help with this issue. I think we should be discussing how to address bad reviews... ones that actually miss DYK criteria. Because then we can hopefully be more sure that whatever the review looks like it is of good quality. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Errant, back when I was taking my first steps in assembling prep sets, my mentors noted that assembling did not just involve balancing a set, it was also the point at which a new pair of eyes should recheck to be sure the article met the DYK criteria, since any single reviewer can miss things: hooks might not read well, the hook fact might not be in the article or the given source, a BLP issue might have been overlooked, and so on. Building prep sets take time, at least how I was taught: you should scan each article, spot check a few sources to see if facts line up and close paraphrasing isn't an issue, and see whether any issues leap out at you. Having a review that mentions those aspects that were checked is helpful in this regard: you know what the reviewer has looked at ... and if there's an omission or lack of clarity, you know to check that aspect more deeply. The prep assembly step and the prep-to-queue promotion are the only two places where that sort of quality control can be inserted into the DYK process, and very few admins will do it at the latter step (Gatoclass is the only one I've noticed lately removing hooks at that stage), so prep assembly is currently the most likely place to catch errors. I rarely assembled a set without sending at least one approved nomination back for repairs. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I object to the construction of the proposal. First, I'm extremely concerned this proposal has not been made in good faith and has been advanced as part of a long-term editor dispute. This discussion should be closed until one that is (1) neutrally worded sans editorial commentary by the proposer, and, (2) contains a concise and actionable proposal, is advanced. Second, and most importantly, the proposal has, in addition to its inherent POV problems, been abusively constructed so as to require a consensus to maintain the status quo; as noted elsewhere the reviewing guide only requires a written review must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The way in which this proposal is constructed will green-light an amendment to the reviewing guide if a consensus fails. LavaBaron (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think BlueMoonset intended this as a poll; it looked to me as if he was merely initiating a discussion, but when you !voted on it, others followed suit. I think it's going to be disruptive to start again at this point; however, if you are really concerned, you could perhaps collaborate with another user on the other side of the fence - Maile perhaps - to organize a new statement and deprecate the old one. I'm not going to have time to do this myself. I will add however that any new statement should not present your proposed amendment to the status quo as the status quo position, as I outlined in the discussion with you below. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
My proposal actually presented Maile's proposed amendment to the status quo position. The status quo being the wording that is present in the reviewing guide. To demand that the form the RFC take is in the offer of an amendment to the "unwritten custom" is an utterly impossible standard. Unwritten custom can't be amended because it's (a) unwritten, and, (b) customary. I'm at a complete loss as to why this is so difficult to understand. I'm also really concerned you had the time to close my RFC with a long expository about its problems with "subliminal" POV but, minutes later, find yourself too busy to address this one with its overt editorializing. LavaBaron (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, please stop claiming that this is all about "unwritten custom". As has been pointed out to you below, the requirement to explicitly reference all aspects of a review is right there in the instructions at the top of the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass as has been pointed out to you, the requirement that a review only contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have" is in the Reviewing Guide. I appreciate there is conflicting language, please proactively see this as a redundancy that needs to be remedied by evaluation of each of two equally-valid positions instead of presuming the Reviewing Guide is simply erroneous because of "accepted practice" (your exact words, AKA "unwritten custom"). LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't proposed anything. Nor do I care to.— Maile (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to Gatoclass, I am singularly and personally disallowed at proposing RFCs at DYK unless you or your compatriot participates. And, conveniently, you both say you won't. What an utterly bizarre interpretation of RFC guidelines - RFCs can't be proposed unless all sides agree to have a RFC. WP will grind to an absolute halt once that's applied system-wide. LavaBaron (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
NM - it appears Gator shut-down my neutrally-worded RFC as a precursor to lodging his own !vote ... even though he supposedly didn't have time to address any underlying issues. What a joke. Elections in Haiti in the 1970s were more even-handed than this. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I shut down the RFC because I believed it was malformed, and not to do so would simply waste everyone's time. There was nothing to stop you opening a new RFC with more appropriate wording, made in collaboration with others. As it happened though, this discussion then became the default RFC. I agree the opening statement of this one is not appropriate either, but rather than shut down a second RFC, suggested you work with others to rectify that. I'm fairly sure that those who have already !voted retain at this point are not going to change their minds regardless of the wording. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet your most recent comment [4] was that it "was not technically malformed." I think you need to maybe take a beat. LavaBaron (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Your misstatements of my comments are getting rather tiresome. There is no contradiction there. I said I believed the RFC was malformed at the time I closed it, but later conceded that perhaps it was not. Regardless, the RFC statement was still in my view not neutral, which renders it equally invalid. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you made a mistake in your rationale for closing. We seem to only disagree on the number of mistakes. LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Move to Abort RFC

  • Support - As per Gatorclass, this was not intended to be a RFC and "the opening statement of this one is not appropriate." LavaBaron (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The more you post, the more it becomes clear you don't have a good grasp of Wikipedia structure as a whole, and DYK in particular. The one you made is an RFC, because you labeled it so - that's your doing - you're the one who stuck an RFC template on it so it would be posted to Wikipedia editors at large. This doesn't claim to be an RFC, and never did. It's a talk page consensus, which is how things get done here. You can't shut down editors voicing their opinion on a talk page, any talk page. This is not a dictatorship where one editor gets to rule, or one editor who doesn't like to bother with the process can get it all tossed out for them personally. And administrators don't hand down rulings like a Supreme Court. At the end of the day, everything at Wikipedia gets done by talk page, of one place or another, and no lone person has a right to shut that down. And what you tagged as an RFC, that also takes consensus, either direction.— Maile (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What can we do to empower you to post with WP:CIVILity and not launch scathing personal diatribes against other editors, as here? Believe it or not, an actual human being is behind this account with real human feelings, and I'd prefer not to be called a dictator. Not sure how calling other editors dictators contributes to building an encyclopedia, quite frankly. LavaBaron (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And there you go again, misquoting. I didn't call you a dictator. I didn't call anyone a dictator. I said DYK is not a dictatorship. I'm sure you realize that all the time you've spent posting on this page, you could have done a lot of reviews and actually listed what you checked in the review. I don't know what your agenda is, and I don't care, but the process is the process. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
My "agenda" is to build an encyclopedia. I'm starting to wonder about yours. LavaBaron (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps you can explain to us all why it is so difficult for you to just follow the instructions on the nominations page section "How to review a nomination" that quite clearly states:
  • To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

    Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

Not only have you resisted and talked around doing that, but you keep posting hither and yon that the instructions don't say what should be listed. It looks pretty clear. Please tell us why you find it so difficult to follow those simple instructions. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide lists everything. How can you keep insisting the instructions don't say what you're supposed to check? — Maile (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, it is a very poor choice of wording to say on a review template: "I'm editing with another editor holding a gun to my head." And whatever topic ban you're referring to in the sentence before that, I've seen nothing like that on this DYK talk page. It has no place on a nomination template. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
As per the Reviewing Guide you cited, the only requirements in a written review is to place an icon and "be sure to give a thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." I always stamp an icon and I always give a thorough explanation of problems or concerns. I really do believe you still think the Reviewing Guide says something else. You should really take a moment to read it carefully, slowly, and deliberately. Wikipedia is not a race. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Time to Conclude?

It's been a few weeks now, and the discussion and !voting seems to have come to a natural end. Have we come to a consensus? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

no; a new RfC should be opened in view of LlywelynII's observations - as this is a proposed creation of policy it should be a properly formatted RfC, policy should not be made by cliques in backrooms - also, as two different admins have held this was not neutrally worded, whether it's closed or not it will simply be an expression of the opinion of several editors and will not be binding on anyone - editors are free to adhere to or disregard this "consensus" as they see fit LavaBaron (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Any other opinions on whether consensus has been established? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first eight days of November. As of the most recent update, 95 nominations have been approved, leaving 206 of 301 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from October.

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) 06:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Seoul Lantern Festival

  • I decided to be bold, and approve a submission that was made 23 days after creation by a brand new wikipedian. In this case several editors expressed a desire to overlook this rule in favor of following the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:IAR. I agreed and approved it. I hope no one objects. I feel we need to be encouraging to new editors and have a little grace for them in order to not scare them off (particularly when they do good work, as this editor has).4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Fallout Shelter

@Kiyoshiendo:@Famous Hobo:@SSTflyer: In Fallout Shelter in prep 3, the article and the hook says that the game was the most popular iOS app in UK & US on the day of it's release. The source cited in the article says that it was the "most-downloaded free app in all of the US and UK on its very first day of availability". either free should be added to the hook, or another source should be found. I'm surprised that this was not caught by the GA reviewer. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. sst✈(discuss) 15:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearing the backlog

It would be helpful to have some of the older noms I have reviewed moved to prep if anyone is able to help. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Prep 1

"that Chinese soprano Guanqun Yu won the Belvedere International Singing competition...."

Why is this worth noting if the "Belvedere International Singing competition" doesn't even have an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The Belvedere International Singing competition is one of the major competitions for classical vocalists. The fact that it has no article is more a reflection on the fact that only a tiny number of editors edit in the area of opera as opposed to say sports. It would be like winning the Olympics for an opera singer. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be appropriate for someone like you, who seems to know about it, to create a stub so we can at least link to it, in order to demonstrate to our readers that it is, indeed, notable. P.S. is competition really not capitalised? The website calls it "Belvedere Singing Competition".... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest this hook is pulled until some decent work is done on helping the hook prove its significance, i.e. getting an article up and running about this so-called "major competition" which doesn't even have a stub article. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Increase to three sets per day?

Right now all queues and preps are filled up. This may indicate increasing activity on DYK. When all sets become clear, we can reduce to seven or six per set. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, an increase makes sense. Before we see the usual round of calls in opposition, there are currently 98 approved hooks shown by Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count with 38 approved hooks in the Special occasion holding area and 96 hooks in the queues and prep area. This means there are 232 approved hooks waiting for promotion to the Main page, well above the magic 200 level that SSTflyer called for the last time an increase was discussed. An increase to 3 sets of 7 hooks per day would also help address The Rambling Man's complaint that the DYK section is too long. --Allen3 talk 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If memory serves it was once 4 sets a day. I think we should go to some dynamic setup where the number of sets per day varies between 1 and 6 but it will always be enough so the number of "ready and waiting" hooks in the regular (non-special-occasion) is between 3 and 6 days. If we find ourselves dropping to having only 3 days worth of stuff queued up then we do 1 fewer set per day (minimum 1 set per day). If we find ourselves consistently having 6 days worth of stuff queued up then we do an additional set each day (maximum 6 sets per day). If we get down to only 1 set per day and need to shrink, put out fewer items each day. If we get up to a set ever 4 hours and are past a 6-day backlog, increase the number of items per set. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I said about two weeks ago, the project was struggling to maintain one set a day so let's just enjoy the backlog, especially with Christmas coming. Do we really need to keep repeating these things? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The backlog of approved nominations has become too high. We can always revert to two sets a day when it is sufficiently reduced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Wikipedia Asian Month is ending, and new nominations will slow down (they have already slowed from the beginning of November). With holidays coming and people having less time for Wikipedia, it's better to keep the sets filled. -Zanhe (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – mainly per TRM and Zanhe. We need to ensure that sets can still get filled in December. Allen3, please note WP:ADMINACCT. sst✈(discuss) 07:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Still a little premature I think. By my calculation we are perhaps 50 hooks above normal. That's about three days' worth of hooks. I don't think that's a lot to be concerned about. Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated facts (or trivia) used to get a better hook

Animal X is discovered at location Y, which has also been used to film unrelated movie Z. That's a "fact" that doesn't belong in the article about animal X or movie Z, only in the article about location Y. The movie had no influence on the animal (not even on the naming of so), the animal had no influence on the movie (it wasn't used in it for whatever reason), so why mention it? Oh right, because it makes for a good hook (and gets you safely beyond the 1500 character limit). DYK should be subordinate to our articles and general rules about what to include, not the other way around.

It's too late to prevent the example in case, which I found through other problems with the edits by one of the editors involved: Template:Did you know nominations/Habronyx minutus. @Thine Antique Pen, Nvvchar, and PFHLai:. But perhaps we can do better in the future? Fram (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the problem, to be honest. Looks like an interesting fact to me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What has the fact that a movie was filmed (years later!) at the same spot that a holotype of a wasp was collected to do with that wasp? It is an interesting fact about that location, but it tells you nothing whatsoever about the wasp. So what is it doing in an article about the wasp? Filler, that's all. Has any source before Wikipedia even made the connection? It wasn't in the sources given in the hook sentence, which had two sources but neither of which mentioned the wasp. I thought a hook fact should be in the sources given, not found with a connect-the-dots method... Fram (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's because I removed it for the above reason, as you are probably well aware (you know enough to note that it was "just" removed). But feel free to continue, meanwhile I'll explain why I just removed a hook from the DYK section at the main page. Same old, same old. Fram (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hook removed from the main page

@4meter4, George Ho, and Yoninah: Template:Did you know nominations/Liao Changyong

  • ... that baritone Liao Changyong won first prize in three different international singing competitions in 1997?

I have just removed the above hook from the main page, as it simply wasn't true. He won the Toulouse competition (one of the three from the hook) in 1996, not 1997. No idea where the 1997 idea comes from, none of the sources seems to explicitly mention it, some are somewhat ambiguously worded though. [5] mentions only one competition, [6] mentions the three, but the way it is worded only places the last one in 1997. A source for the 1996 year? [7] (there are others as well, if you want them). Multiple sources discuss how he won three tournaments in 1996 and 1997 as well. Fram (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And if you really are not convinced yet, let's go to the official site: [8] lists him under 1996, not 1997. Fram (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And changing "1997" to "1996 and 1997" was too difficult, I take it? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not interested in keeping articles on the main page, I'm interested in getting a functional DYK. With other admin who don't seem interested in getting it right, only in getting it interesting and keeping things on the main page, that's not easy, but one can only try. OR if you prefer the official explanation, which I've given ad nauseam at earlier occurrences of these kind of problems: if this aspect of the hook fact hasn't been checked properly, how am I to know that other aspects (copyvio, correctness, general state of the article) have been checked any better? A wrong hook is a red flag that the DYK check was not done as it should. Windowdressing and rapid fixes are not the way to deal with such a red flag: removal and thoroughly rechecking is what is needed. Anything else? Fram (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination template has been reopened; a new hook can be proposed, and a new review should be done. (The original review didn't mention checking for neutrality or close paraphrasing, both of which are needed, along with the general recheck.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you User:Fram for catching my error. I misread the one source. I have added the reference provided above to the article and corrected the factual error. I am confident that the rest of the article is error free and in compliance with all wikipedia policies. I have suggested a second alt hook. Sorry to have caused a problem. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
While I would like to thank Fram for alerting us to factual errors on high-traffic pages, Jakec is right that he deliberately left a falsehood on a page instead of fixing it, which strikes me as against what Wikipedia is all about if I'm honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to agree with Jakec, better first read correctly what he is talking about. Jakec discusses changing the hook on the main page, not the article itself. To me getting a falsehood of the main page is about 1000 times as important as fixing it in the article, as that is about the difference in views it will get (very conservative estimate, that is). It's nice to see where your priorities lie though. Let me recapituale: next time I see an error on the main page DYK section (already checkd by four persons and read by a few thousand, but sometimes I check it nevertheless), I must a) correct the hook b) correct the error c) ignore the fact that this may indicate a problematic or incomplete review (as in this case) and d) shut up? And your goal with this is a) improving Wikipedia or b) getting rid of people critical of your precious DYK? Perhaps you should better shut up about being "honest" about "what Wikipedia is all about" and first tackle the more serious aspects of DYK and everything that is wrong with it. Fram (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, you know what? The next queue to hit the main page contains at least one incorrect hook. Deal with it. Fram (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I refuse to have anything to do with any area of Wikipedia where I believe there is too much hostility, like this. I've deleted about 1,000 articles (mostly CSD A7), yet I somehow don't feel the need to personally attack the creators for being thick or anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You 'refuse' to have anything to do with it (fixing the problems) but are happy to criticise those who spot errors and actually remove them from the front page? How on earth is that 'refusing' to deal with it? Whining about hostility when your contribution was to berate others while stating you are not getting involved... Shameful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear you feel that like. Have a hug. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Fram, is it the last hook, the one which had a last gasp change, a contraction (argh!) and doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim on Beverley Peck Johnson is cited in the book source given, but the link is wrong. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, two problems in one set then? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I wasn't discussing the current main page but the next queue to hit the main page, queue 5. The incorrect one I meant, which I can just as well reveal now that Ritchie333 has shown his true colours above (I couldn't have siad it better than Only in death did), is the Keith White (disabled yachtsman) one. He can hardly "become the first disabled person to sail solo around the world" when we have already had people like Charl DeVilliers[9] or Robert E. Case (for who, I have to say, I haven't found a really reliable source yet). List of circumnavigations would have been a good starting point for that hook. And of course there are others, like Vincent "Vinny" Lauwers, who won a Laureus Award (more or less the most prestigious sporting award in the world) in 2001[10] for sailing around the world solo, non-stop and unassisted, as a disabled person (paraplegic). Fram (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
the hook for tomorrow says "... that Keith White, a one-armed sailor, set out on 25 October 2015 to attempt to become the first disabled person to sail solo around the world?" What it should have said was "... that Keith White, a one-armed sailor, set out on 25 October 2015 to attempt to become the first disabled person to sail nonstop solo around the world?" Of course, he failed due to a massive equipment failure. But if the queue and the hook is fixed, then we can get on with our lives.
I say it is more important to fix the problem than it is to fix the blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I have amended, rather laboriously, Template:Did you know nominations/Keith White (disabled yachtsman) to reflect the extra word "nonstop". May we proceed? Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
'Got the hook pulled. Amended the article to clear up any questions. The hook was corrected. Did a second review. Should be good to go. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hey all let's please be kind to one another. I personally am grateful that user Fram spoke up and was diligent in reviewing my article. We need editors like Fram doing this kind of work. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Well actually we need more editors who review DYK hooks and their associated articles more carefully, admins who promote them to double check the reviews more carefully, and fewer calls to increase the throughput. Quality, not quantity. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
We need both everyone. DYK needs to be factually accurate. Period. It also needs its process to run smoothly and timely. Both are important. Let's not criticize how people are helping, and just value the fact that everyone here has something of value to contribute. I think we can all agree that the hook I originally wrote in good faith had a factual error, and that Fram was most helpful in bringing that problem to light. I certainly don't want a bad hook with my name attached to it on the main page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeat, with emphasis: And of course there are others, like Vincent "Vinny" Lauwers, who won a Laureus Award (more or less the most prestigious sporting award in the world) in 2001[11] for sailing around the world solo, non-stop and unassisted, as a disabled person (paraplegic). The intro from the linked article: "Vincent Lauwers (AUS), who, in 2000 was nominated for the ISAF World Sailor of the Year Awards in recognition of his successful solo, nonstop unassisted circumnavigation a world first, won the disability category at the '2001 Laureus World Sports Award'"

How hard is it, after an error is pointed out, links to evidence given, and the important fact stated, to get it at least right the second time round? No, instead here people believe that adding "non stop" to the Keith White hook will solve the problem, and at Template:Did you know nominations/Keith White (disabled yachtsman) multiple people believed the same. @Fiddle Faddle and Yoninah:. I know I should only comment on hooks and process, and not on editors, but this episode is really stretching my patience and credulence to the limit. Please, everyone, get your act together. Fram (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 5

I am not happy with the Frederico Marques hook in Prep 5. He may have been the youngest tennis coach of any player in the ATP top 100 ranking when the source was published in January 2015. But the ATP rankings change all the time, and players hire and fire their coaches frequently, so I don't think we can assume the hook fact is still accurate, even if it was correct at the time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, according to the João Sousa article (the player Marques coaches), Sousa hit the ATP top 100 in July 2013 and still is there (at 33 as of the end of November 2015). Would your concerns be satisfied by changing "is" to "became"? (I'm going to do that now, because something does need to be done.) This does not say that he necessarily still is the youngest ever (which would presumably be as of July 2013), but I think I prefer it to using "has been", which reads as if it no longer is the case, something we do not know either. If you have another suggestion, by all means make it (or make the change directly to the hook). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I changed the hook by adding "earlier this year" but I now realise that it is still wrong. I think it would be better to return the hook to the nominations page and have a completely different hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your hook edit because it didn't work, and then got an edit conflict here. However, looking at the source again, perhaps "has been" is the way to go: it's definitely true, because there was at least one moment in time where he was. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: I changed "became" to "has been". Did you have concerns with that, or are we set? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's still dubious. In January he may have been the youngest at that time, but there might have been a younger ATP coach at an earlier date. I think hooks with "youngest", "oldest", "newest", "first", "only" etc are fraught with danger, especially when they rely, as in this instance, on a statement from a "commentator" or "non-expert". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Then by all means feel free to pull it back from prep and reopen the nomination if you feel it's dubious. I don't see that the two ALT hooks have been reviewed, so we can't substitute a replacement hook. Possibilities for a new hook could include that Marques coached the first Portuguese (male?) player ever to break into the ATP top 100. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to ... that Portuguese tennis coach Frederico Marques was recently reported to be the youngest coach with a player in the ATP top 100? Hopefully that will address the concerns outlined above. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am happy with that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

December 12 Special Occasion holding area

Right after the template for Hank Sanicola, the template for 363 Copa De Oro Road has disappeared from the nomination page, and all the nominations following that, including hooks for December 16 and 25, are listed as links, not as full templates. Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know has exceeded the post-expand limit. The solution is to start closing nominations. As long as the number of incoming nominations exceeds the number of nominations that are either promoted or rejected, this type of problem will continue. --Allen3 talk 00:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list will be archived soon, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first week of November. As of the most recent update, 135 nominations have been approved, leaving 200 of 335 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from October and the first week of November.

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) 05:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Undeleted article

The article on Trent Zimmerman was deleted for lack of notability in February 2015. It is about to be undeleted as he was just elected as a member of the Australian House of Representatives and thus is now a notable politician. In being elected, he reportedly became the first openly gay man elected to the House of Reps, which strikes me as a good DYK hook fact. When his article is undeleted, it will need updating based on his election. Will it qualify as a new article for DYK (from the date of undeletion) or would it need a x5 expansion? I have no idea what is in the deleted article, not being an admin. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Article undeletion would count as an article moved into article space, so 5x expansion should not be needed. sst✈(discuss) 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The article is now back in article space. I am interested in opinions on who should get authorship credit in a nomination, and should I be nominator or author or both? Thanks again. EdChem (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Multiple authors can be specified for DYK. Since you moved the article into mainspace, you should get one of the credits, along with other editors that have made significant contributions. sst✈(discuss) 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Trent Zimmerman, thanks for your advice. I have posted at the article talk pages and the article's other authors. It's been ages since I did anything at DYK, have I missed anything (I know I need to do a review)? Regards, EdChem (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Issues

I tried to nominate the new article Wilson's Allen for DYK but the template only appears as a call and not as the actual template. What's wrong? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, it's all about precision in the template title, i.e. avoid the capital N in nomination. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Query about newness of Persian art

I began this by copying sections from various articles on distinct periods/media, detailed in the history. I have greatly expanded and rewritten it (it is now 50K raw bytes), adding well over 1500 bytes, but not to the extent of 5x the old material. Does this meet the criteria? Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And please don't tell me I could go for GA. I know that. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
DYKcheck says no. It is about 1.6 months old already, and expansion was not sufficient. It is hard to get a large article expanded 5×. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I know that too, but this is not answering my question. It is 5 days in mainspace (replacing a deleted redirect), though parts of it are no doubt years old in other articles. If DYK check says 1.6 months, it has a glitch. I should have mentioned that, sorry, but people are putting too much faith in DYKcheck if you ask me. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It does definitely meet the newness criteria. (Personally, I always use the page history, and not the DYKCheck tool to verify that.) As to your original question, I think that it technically fails the criteria (specifically criterion A5. But seeing as it's a very lengthy and well-developed article (and you say you've added significant original content to it), I'd be inclined to say that we can IAR here. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a try, citing this discussion (other views welcome). Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 2

The hook for Old Nupe Market is "while some sources claim that the Dutch built Old Nupe Market in Matara, Sri Lanka, a Dutch website claims that the British built it?". The Dutch website in question is a wiki so am unsure why would it be a RS.

  • Further sourcing issues within the article are that the ref 4 only says "The building is believed to be erected in A.D.1784 probably by the British" but in the article it is not stated as probably.
  • Another "A number of websites claim the building was built by the Dutch in 1775 and is believed to be one of the few surviving Dutch buildings from that period" citing one newspaper which claims "believed to be the oldest surviving Dutch building" and does not specify 1775. Cowlibob (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook from prep due to these issues, and requested a new hook that doesn't deal with whether it was built by the Dutch or British. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace Day hooks should presumably be in Queue 1 and Prep 2, but mostly aren't

It looks like the seventeen hooks in the special occasion area for Ada Lovelace Day on December 10 (the bicentennial of her birth)—more than could fit in a single day, admittedly—have not been promoted to Queue 1 and Prep 2, the two sets that are scheduled to be run on that day. We'll need an admin to handle promoting hooks into and moving hooks out of Queue 1, and someone to do the same for Prep 2, which will eventually be promoted to Queue 2.

Please note that Prep 5 and Prep 6 should not be the destination of any of the hooks moved from Queue 1 and Prep 2, since December 12 is the Frank Sinatra centennial, and those preps, per consensus above, are reserved exclusively for the Sinatra hooks also in the special occasion area. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio tools

I recently discovered this tool, which has greater capability than the current tool listed in Template:DYK tools. Would there be support for adding the new tool to the toolbox, or even swapping in for the old one? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Antony-22, Mandarax, and The Rambling Man: I added Earwig's copyvio tool to the Toolbox, and also kept the Labs Dup Detector. My experience is that Earwig's tool has gotten a lot better, but Dup Detector should also be an option. Quite frankly, I think it's a bonus day when a reviewer really does check for copyvio, so let's give them options to do that. Revert me if you disagree. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I use and cite/post Earwig's Copy violation detector regularly in ALL my DYK reviews (e.g., Template:Did you know nominations/Clementine cake. Recommend it heartily. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Earwig's tool should be used with caution: my experience is that it can give a false sense of security. I found significant close paraphrasing and outright copyvio of a source where Earwig said there was only an 18% chance of a copyvio, and have discovered the hard way that a 0% score can mean that the tool couldn't access the website quickly enough (or the link doesn't go a page with any real text) rather than being the result of an actual comparison. I still like Duplication Detector: you have better control of the comparison granularity, and I find it easier to spot close paraphrasing in the surrounding text, even though it can only handle one website at a time. I would be opposed to removing Duplication Detector from the list, and think it best that it is listed before Earwig. One significant problem with Earwig use is that people look at the number, rather than the actual copying the number represents: Earwig can't tell whether this is a site that has mirrored the Wikipedia article, whether the text in question is a quote in the original or in the article (and, if properly cited in the article, a perfectly valid form of copying), etc. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
When I use Earwig I read the articles, and always check the individual comparisons (which it lists, and you can click on). I also read the sources, so I can bring to bear my eye and experience It is only one tool, and is not a substitute for comparison of the article and the sources. It takes time to do a proper DYK review, and shortcuts give unreliable results.
False positives also result, particularly when it is an older article (e.g., one that got promoted to GA), as the Wikipedia article may have been copied on the web. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes to both. And no matter how diligent the process, copyvios still crop up. If only the two of you were the average reviewer. On one end, we have reviewers like you two. On the other end, new reviewers who do the best they can but haven't quite caught the knack yet. And a whole wide spectrum inbetween those two. But it's one more tool. We put it out there and hope for the best. — Maile (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing hooks in prep without consultation or approval

I had a DYK up just now but was vexed to find that the hook had been changed from:

  • ... that the King's Foundery for casting cannon (pictured) became the first Methodist chapel after a great explosion?

to

  • ... that the King's Foundery for casting cannon became a Methodist chapel after a steam explosion?

There were two changes made: changing "great" to "steam" and changing "the first" to "a". The latter change was quite annoying because it significantly lessened the impact of the hook. This place was indeed the first Methodist chapel and so that's a much bigger deal than being just one of many.

It was tricky to trace through the DYK process to see where the hook was changed but it seems to have been these edits. I don't understand what the editor was thinking as the disputed fact was stated quite clearly in the article and supported by a good source. This was accepted by the reviewer but what's the point of having a formal review and approval process for hooks if some passerby can casually change the hook later without any consultation, review or approval? Is there some guideline for this already or should there be some additional safeguard? Surely the nominator and reviewer should be notified of any such changes rather than finding out when it's too late to do anything about them?

Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the source supporting the first Methodist chapel clearly says first London chapel. New Room, Bristol looks to be the first of all. "Great" is an editorial choice of word (there is, so far as I can see, a source describing it explicitly as such). Per the DYK rules hooks are subject to copyediting when they are promoted. --Errant (chat!) 13:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec, took me some time to research the below) While I have nothing to do with the above nomination or changes, I would like to point out that whoever removed "first" did probably a good job, as evidenced by e.g. [12] and [13] and many other sources, like the Rough Guide to England[14]. Some other sources give the Foundry as the first one, but it certainly isn't clear cut (the confusion probably stems from the fact that we have a clear date for the start of the construction in Bristol, but not an immediately obvious date for the completion of it or for its first use).
It's funny that if I change a hook and report it here, I get scolded by some for not just changing it quietly; while here, when someone did change it quietly, they get scolded for not contacting everyone involved. It's hard to correct someone else's errors or dubious facts in a way that pleases everyone apparently :-) Fram (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • My point is not to argue the details of this case; that's water under the bridge now. My point is that edits should not be happening "quietly". The original authors and reviewers of the article will tend to have a natural interest and understanding of the topic but won't tend to see changes made in the prep areas unless they are drawn to their attention. The process would be better if they were pinged or notified in some way. Andrew D. (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"the disputed fact was stated quite clearly in the article and supported by a good source." but "some passerby can casually change the hook later" doesn't look as if the "it happened queitly" part is your main or only objection, it gives a strong impression that the change itself was contested by you, and the way it was done. Note that the reviewer said "The hook fact is interesting and appropriately cited inline to an offline source for which I will AGF." AGF should probably be abandoned at DYK. Fram (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and something else that wasn't changed but probably should have been: "King's Foundery" is almost never used as the name for this location. To be exact, combining it with "Methodist chapel" and excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors, we get a grand total of 6 hits[15], and 8 for "King's Foundry"[16]. In contrast, we have 670 for "The Foundery"[17] and a whopping 6440 for "The Foundry"[18]. I don't think it is good practice to use a barely used name when there is a perfectly acceptable common name for it (it's not as if "King's" was an essential part of the hook, removing it doesn't change the meaning at all). Fram (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I used the same "narrow" search for all four results, to indicate the clear difference in common vs. uncommon names. I did not make the claim that no other sources using "king's Foundery" existed, but see no reason to believe that the distribution of the results would be any different with other generic searches. Feel free to prove me wrong (Prove, not provide anecdotical evidence), e.g. indicating why the Google Books distribution of 72 hits for Wesley + "King's Foundery"[19](which includes your example) is not clearly the uncommon name compared to the 19800 for Wesley + "The Foundery"[20]. While Foundry vs. Foundery is indeed a complication, "King's" vs. "The" is a nobrainer. Fram (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The most common name for the place is just The Foundery – that's why the page was given this title. But that title didn't seem to work so well in the hook sentence; it seemed to need more context. I therefore considered the other names such as King's Foundery or Bagley's Foundery and decided that the first was the best. I would have have been quite happy to discuss this and other issues at review time but no-one made anything of it. My general point again, is that it's best to have these discussions before the hook appears on the main page, rather than after. Keeping the original parties informed of developments is therefore sensible. Usually this happens via the watchlist mechanism but this doesn't work so well in this case. Andrew D. (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • For this aspect, yes, that should have been discussed at the nomination. For the "first chapel" issue though, that should never have been proposed in the first place. It seems unlikely that one can write an article about the London chapel and not come across mentions of the slightly earlier Bristol chapel in the course of your research. And the reviewer should not have AGF on it, but should have done some research of their own. It's not something that's hard to find online, or in another language... Fram (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: (who seems to have made the change[21],) as this section was started about her actions (even though it has somewhat boomeranged). Fram (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did make the 2 changes in prep. I was quite puzzled by the wording "first Methodist chapel", because I didn't see anything in the sources given about it being the first in the town. Then I thought it should be "First Methodist Chapel", which is how some churches style themselves, but I didn't see that in the source either. So I changed it to "a Methodist chapel", which seemed to be the intent of the hook ("Did you know that a foundry became a chapel?"). I also changed "great" to "steam" because "a great explosion" is rather archaic wording. My goal in all of this is to avoid hooks being pulled later along the line, in the queues or even on the main page, for inadequate sourcing. Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining your thinking. One of those edits was summarised as "ce" and so, by implication, was quite minor. The other summary was more elaborate – about the "First Methodist" point. Did you realise that involved editors such as myself were not likely to see your change and its summary? Do you have a view on how we should keep in touch with such developments? Andrew D. (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The more I think about an answer, the harder it is to come up with a response to that. The fact is that there are numerous Queue watchers who re-review the hooks that are in prep, and numerous administrators who re-review the hooks that are in the queue, and it is not unusual for hooks to be tweaked and even pulled at any stage. The best I can suggest for concerned nominators such as yourself is to keep an eye on T:DYKQ. If you see a change in your hook as it sits in prep or in the queue, post a notice on WT:DYK. Since every set appears on the main page for 12 hours, and a good number of sets are prepared and waiting in the wings, your hook won't be rushed to the main page before someone replies to your concern. Yoninah (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've had similar problems in the past. Perhaps for the future we should make a rule that if the hook is changed after approval, a message should be left on the nominator's talk page. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Antony-22 I think that's a good idea, as long as there's an exception built in for unambiguous grammar and punctuation fixes. I'm constantly adding or removing commas to hooks, often before but sometimes after they make it to prep, and it would be terribly bothersome and possibly a little bit bite-y to drop a template message for that kind of change. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The notion of mandatory notification of hook changes has been proposed a number of times before and has always failed. It would just add another level of difficulty to quality control and be a further discouragement to participation in it. There is nothing to stop users from monitoring the queues for themselves. The best solution, of course, is for users to ensure their hooks are accurate and well written in the first place, then they need have no concerns about later copyediting. Gatoclass (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Users should be watching their nomination templates throughout the DYK process anyway so they know of any issues that may arise while it's being reviewed, so when it is promoted to prep, they'll know and can keep tabs on the prep until it is promoted to queue, and then watch that until the hook hits the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

weird glitch

Why do I have a scroll bar on the left hand section on this page: Screenshot It only happens on that page. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You can invoke DYKcheck on the main nominations page; each time you do, it moves on to check the next one in the list. (This feature was probably used more in the Olden Days, before nomination templates.) The default behavior is to fix the sidebar on that page so you don't have to keep scrolling to access the DYKcheck button. To disable this, add:
fixedSidebar = "never";
to your .js file. (Ugly Ketchup, in your case, that would be User:Ugly Ketchup/vector.js.) For more details, see User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Rapid-fire mode on T:TDYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 3

" that violinist Mia Matsumiya, who created a popular Instagram account highlighting the online harassment that she had faced, used to hide in band lockers in middle school due to her small stature?"

She hid in "band lockers" (what are they?) because she was small? Or does this really mean "was able to hide in..."? Why? Because of online harassment (that would be odd)? Or does it mean something else? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

My best guess is that it means exactly what it says: While she was in middle school she had some (unspecified) reason to hide which is related (in some unspecified way) to online (or possibly offline) harassment, and that due to her small size she was able to hide in band lockers, and that she actually did hide in band lockers. [Band lockers are lockers that school students used to store band instruments - they may be big enough to hold several large instruments like tubas.]
The fact that you asked this question indicates that this hook may be confusing to others as well. Perhaps a less confusing hook could be chosen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I pulled it. Omnibus hooks with two or more unrelated facts are often a bit awkward, the last phrase isn't clear, the issue isn't really clarified in the article and the source for it looks a bit questionable. I could have just struck the phrase and used the rest for the hook but perhaps the nominator would like a chance to address the identified issues. Gatoclass (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Gatoclass is an "omnibus hook" something that we've talked about extensively? It sounds really important to me that we ensure we stop promoting such meaningless hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of an omnibus hook, a hook with two or three unrelated but interesting facts can be very good. In many cases though, nominators will try to improve an uninteresting hook by adding an additional uninteresting fact, which just makes the hook worse. And sometimes an additional fact, even when interesting, can just confuse the issue. So you have to treat each case on its merits. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Co-ordination with OTD for Lovelace/Sinatra sets?

I'm thinking that the Lovelace and Sinatra anniversaries should be listed at WP:OTD on the relevant days to help clarify why the DYK sets are devoted to associated topics. I'm not familiar with the workings of OTD, has somebody arranged for this to occur or can someone do so if it has not been done? Gatoclass (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion. Lesson to be learnt for today as OTD has failed to pick up on Ada Lovelace and the picture they have chosen could easily have been Ada. Still maybe when we look at the clicks we can find out whether readers like seeing a themed set of hooks. (I remember once that we had a set about a single place in Oregon, but I forget the details. Victuallers (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 2

"that in 2000 Midori Suzuki was a soprano in Sigiswald Kuijken's recording of Bach's Mass in B minor which uses one voice per part?"

Pardon my ignorance but what does "uses one voice per part" mean, and why is it notable or significant or interesting? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Apart from which, the hook appears to be unsourced. Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, can you respond to these concerns please? Gatoclass (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
"uses one voice per part" means that each part (soprano, tenor, bass) uses a single voice (singer) rather than multiple voices as is normal in choral works. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the page to the which the hook facts are referenced, there is a summary at the foot where if you click on "BWV 232 - S. Kuijken", you get to this page which supports the hook. I would add the extra reference but I don't think Gerda likes people fiddling about with her nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I thought that "one voice per part" is self-explanatory, but we could link to the article OVPP. The explanation above is good, we could also say that only the soloists form the choir, which means that (in this case) she has to sing not only her three arias/duets but the whole long complicated thing. It's a much higher achievement. Better wording welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I added the ref (no. 158 of the recordings). Sorry, I wrote the article in some haste to do a little bit for Asia month which was in November ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I linked to OVPP in the article, but it's not an article I would like to see linked to on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 2

It's all biographies. Isn't it supposed to not be more than half biographical (N5)? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's also like that in Queue 1, which Casliber approved. The edit history in Prep 2 (made by Victuallers) notes that it's for Ada day, which I assume refers to one of the Ada Lovelace branded edit-a-thons, since Ada day isn't a holiday (it doesn't have an article and the only mention of an Ada day in the Ada Lovelace article puts the day in October). I say scrap them both. I'm all for more coverage of women at DYK - I've been working on Singapore Women's Hall of Fame members and have sent a few to the main page - but I don't like novelty DYK sets where only a small portion of power users are going to understand the reference, and using 16 women bio hooks now means that there are going to be a lot of future sets that won't have women bios. If scrapping the sets doesn't happen, they at least need to be re-ordered, because it looks awful to have the bold part of each hook be in the same spot for so many hooks in a row. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's the bicentennial of Ada Lovelace's birth; this was discussed last month in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#Two Ada Lovelace Days? 10th December is her 200th birthday, and set up at that time. Under the circumstances, a last-minute scrapping would seem inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: Ah, I didn't see that discussion. My comment about re-balancing the hooks still stands though.
- Queue 1 would look better if it were re-ordered to Parsons, Liang, Lehr, Fadaeeva, Bouzat, Hay, Lim, Sahl-Madsen. That'll break up where the bold part is in each hook. Also, the M in "Multiple intelligences" for the Sahl-Madsen hook should not be capitalized.
- I'll work on Prep 2, which will involve swapping out at least one hook because there's no way to salvage it as is.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Toshiko Yuasa should not be moved since it's for December 11, not for December 10. I've already done a bit of moving around in Prep 2, but there was only so much that could be done. (I also separate Catherine/Katherine—we have three of those, plus a Kathryn, in the set.) The only remaining unpromoted hook for December 10 is also, alas, of the "that [name]" format, so it can't help matters. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I loaded prep 2 into queue 2 - hopefully that is where it is supposed to go. Gatoclass (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, the sets work well. Featuring humans on Human Rights Day is a good idea. sst✈(discuss) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/History of York City F.C. (1980–present)

Hi, this nomination was given the green light over two weeks ago, but still hasn't made the main page. I've never known this stage take more than a few days, and just wanted to make sure this nomination hadn't fallen by the wayside. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattythewhite, sorry about the delay. The nomination hasn't fallen by the wayside, and it will be promoted. It's just that we currently have a backlog of 148 approved hooks, or over nine days at the current burn rate, so two weeks isn't out of line these days what with new approvals being made all the time. The good news is that there are only 15 other approved hooks that have nomination dates as old or older than yours, so yours is likely to be promoted to a prep area fairly soon. Best of luck, and thank you for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I had suspected that to be the case, but wanted to ask the question just in case. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not overlook Garage rock article

Please do not overlook the Garage rock article for inclusion in the DYK. It is an article that covers a whole musical genre--one that, in terms of acts who recorded, is probably the largest of all rock genres, however little known to many. It was a magical moment that transpired in rock's golden age in the 60s and is vital reading for anyone who loves the music of that era. I had nominated the hook line, "... that garage rock was the first form of music to be called "punk rock"?," which may come as a surprise to many, but it is true. The article is loaded with interesting and eye-opening facts--it probably could produce a whole host of hook lines. Yet, I get the feeling that it is being ignored. We have had several of the best music editors working on it for a long time. In the last several months I have worked incredibly hard to build a mammoth expansion onto the article, and it is now one of the largest music genre articles at Wikipedia--and just went GA. You cannot but feel hurt when you get the feeling that something this big is being greeted with indifference. But, quite frankly that is how I feel right now, and that just isn't right. I ask you to please not to deprive this majestic article of the widespread attention it richly deserves. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice plug Garagepunk66, but as I already explained to you on my talk page, entirely unnecessary since your article has already been approved and it's only a matter of time before it is featured. Please be patient, there are well over 300 nominations right now and they can't all be promoted at once, yours will be promoted like all the other approved articles in due course. Gatoclass (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't realize how backlogged the queue is, so I appreciate your kind reassurance that everything will be OK. I've been really busy writing new articles and other things, so I didn't get a chance to read the response you gave on your talk page--sorry. I can gladly wait and be patient--I perfectly understand. If it wasn't such a big article, It probably wouldn't matter much to me, but I'm sure that you know what goes into writing these kinds of things--it was a big job. Just please understand that when somebody works this hard on something and it means a lot to them, they are going want people to see it. Perhaps Wiki could come up with a plan for notifying editors when their DYK nominations are approved for eventual inclusion. They could send a robo-message to the editor's talk page that goes something like this: "We have approved the hook line. "...." for the article, "....." and we are happy to announce that we are planning to include it in one of our upcoming DYK profiles. However, there is currently a long waiting list and it may take awhile (approx. time estimate), so we ask you to be patient while we configure it into our queue. Thanks. DYKBOT Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Garagepunk66, if the nomination template is on your watchlist, then you will be able to see if the article is promoted. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make sure it gets on there! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Garagepunk66, the hook was promoted to Prep 4. Assuming the current schedule holds, it should be promoted to the main page at 12:00 UTC on December 14, and remain there for 12 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That's great. I realize that there is a long backlog of articles, so I am grateful that you could fit it in. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

December 12: Frank Sinatra centenary

On Dr. Blofeld's initiative, a sizable inventory of hooks (16 at last count) have been approved and slotted into the Special Occasion holding area for December 12, the centenary of Frank Sinatra's birth. The centerpiece of this list is the main article, Frank Sinatra, which attained GA status. Dr. Blofeld has suggested that the main hook and image, Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Sinatra, should run in the lead slot for all 24 hours. We would appreciate consensus from other DYK editors. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Two different hooks, for 12 hours each would be a great idea IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A very good suggestion by Gerda, I'd not seen that, yes a 24hr showing of Frank Sinatra with a young photo and a older photo later and two different hooks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah, and yes, I agree it would be better to change both the hook and image (while linking to the same main article) so that readers will not mistakenly conclude the same set is still on display. I also endorse the idea of a younger Frank Sinatra for the first image. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Trembling lips

What to do about the last three hooks

Hi all. I just built the Sinatra sets, and there are three hooks left over. One of them was Christmas themed, so I boldly moved it to the Christmas holding area. That leaves two left. I'd like to propose that, for these two Sinatra preps only, nine hooks are allowed per set. This would allow us to put one of the two remaining hooks in each of the two Sinatra sets. Before I do that, I wanted to get the all clear from the community though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging everyone from above: Yoninah, Dr. Blofeld, ErrantX, Montanabw, Vesuvius Dogg, Notecardforfree, Gatoclass, The C of E, 7&6=thirteen, SSTflyer, Gerda Arendt, Bencherlite, Eman235, and Seth Whales.

I think moving the Sinatra Christmas hook to the Christmas set is a good idea. I am not keen on two nine-hook Sinatra sets though. Why not just allow them into the queue naturally, like any other hook? It's only two hooks after all. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I would support nine-hook sets. Nine hooks is still within the optimal range of number of hooks (six to ten). If I remember correctly, there have been periods in the past when sets had nine hooks. sst✈(discuss) 04:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Eight hooks puts us right on the edge of the proper length these days. It's been a very long time since we've gone over eight hooks in a set (over four years at least). You can test the current length against the main page on the Prep 5 and Prep 6 pages in the "See how this template appears on both today's Main Page" underneath the Hooks section, and also see how long they might be with the two unpromoted hooks temporarily added to the hook section: we don't want to unbalance the page by having DYK extend much past the bottom of On This Day. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see my reply below. —David Levy 07:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Not everybody is going to approve of running sets dedicated to a single individual. Running outsize sets on one topic will just worsen the impression. I think it would be better to just stick to sets of the standard length. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Whatever is decided, main page balance needn't be a factor. ITN has no predetermined quantity of items, so we routinely add and remove them to compensate for any variance in the left-hand column's length. It's no problem at all.
One of the concerns that I've seen expressed is that readers will be presented with too many Sinatra-related hooks at a time, making them more likely to skip the articles. We could utilize the two extra hooks and reduce the Sinatra overload by switching back to three DYK sets for the day (with updates at 00:00, 08:00 and 16:00 UTC). That would give us six hooks per set, which seems much less overwhelming than eight or nine. We could also add an extra link at the bottom, leading to a page containing all three sets (for the benefit of readers who miss one or two of the eight-hour windows). —David Levy 07:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Precedent for celebrating a person "outside" the day is on the Main page: ... that Jean Sibelius described his string quartet Voces intimae as the "kind of thing that brings a smile to your lips at the hour of death"? His birthday was yesterday, but in California it just ends as I write this. Worse: The hook about the real person, remember made GA for yesterday, has not yet appeared because there must be some rulez (where?) that prevent DYK mentioning something that is highlighted by the TFA (which was his Eighth Symphony that he burned). I have no idea what our readers will think when that will finally be shown some arbitrary day. I find it unfair to give 2 1/2 sets to Sinatra and not a single hook to Sibelius on the day of his birthday, but found other things unfair before ;) - I don't care too much what will happen with the leftovers. I proposed another Sibelius for New Year's Day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Caesars Palace, a big Sinatra associated venue passed GA. Any chance of squeezing Template:Did you know nominations/Caesars Palace into the queue for tomorrow? I'd drop one of my lesser ones in favour of this if needs be. BlueMoonset, Gatoclass and Nikkimaria?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY DONE. Someone can add that one to the queue. Too much fun, and a Butte, Montana connection ... Evel Knievel's famous wipeout. Montanabw(talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Recommend relaxing QPQ to ignore historical DYKs

The QPQ check tools don't properly check very old DYKs, so nominators with very old nominations may get a free pass on the QPQ requirement.

I say formalize this: Only DYK activity in the last 12 months will be "counted" toward QPQ. If your DYK "credits" minus your QPQ "review count" is at least 5, you have to do a QPQ. If it's less than 5 (or negative ) and you do a DYK nomination today, you don't have to do a QPQ.

If 12 months is too short I'm okay with making it 24 months.

If we do NOT make this change, then we need to update the instructions so reviewers are clearly instructed to check the nominator's ancient edits to Template:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know for evidence of making or reviewing DYK nominations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposal. I don't understand why we would want to allow experienced DYKers to avoid having to do a QPQ because they've been inactive for a couple of years. We still have a huge deficit of reviewers, and this new loophole would only make things worse. I have no problem with pointing out in the various instructions that the automated QPQ checker is flawed in that it misses some of the older DYKs, and that if it shows fewer than five that a manual check of the user's talk page history is recommended to ascertain what the actual number is. (Though I would check the user's talk page history for evidence of DYK activity rather than the above suggestion, since it will find DYK messages from even before the current automation was implemented.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Just go by the tool's maximum capability. If you want to update the text then just add a vague mention having to pass the tool-check. No need to write the tool's limitations into policy. BlueMoonset: Don't start with manual forensic analysis of edit histories. We are Wiki. A friendly, good enough, somewhat chaotic system is better than a high labor bureaucracy. Alsee (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As a DYK contributor, I am OK with having to have a qpq within two years; we always need new reviews, but sometimes people who have been away for a while need to get their sea legs back. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Three reserved sets for Sinatra?

I don't know why there are three sets reserved for Sinatra hooks when there are only enough Sinatra hooks on the nom page to fill two sets. I hope this doesn't mean somebody is planning to submit another bunch of Sinatra hooks - two sets is more than enough IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just built out the Sinatra sets and there were only three hooks left, so I removed the notice from prep 1. I'm going to propose a solution for those last three hooks in the Sinatra thread above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Didn't see your solution, but how about moving the remaining three into the other queues, one each, just to keep the theme going? Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sinatra hooks

Just found an abandoned Sinatra hook and promoted it - temporarily - to prep 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Maxine Cheshire. It SHOULD become part of a Sinatra hooks set, but I'm not an admin and the hooks are already in a queue, so I can't do it. Also, I approved Caesar's Palace and it also need to go into a queue. If there are three other approved hooks sitting out there, what shall we do?? Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, the remaining Sinatra hooks are being promoted as regular ones after the date. Sixteen hooks are plenty for the anniversary, and there's one in Prep 4. The Cheshire hook is now in Prep 2 since we don't want any nine-hook sets. When an admin comes by, Caesars Palace can be swapped in for another of Dr. Blofeld's hooks in Queue 6, which could be swapped out to Prep 6 to space out the overflow. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I thought the idea was to keep hooks in the queue for 24 hours, but whatever works. No worries. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
No, just the lead article (Frank Sinatra) is up for 24 hours, but with a different hook and picture for each 12 hour stint. All other hooks get the standard 12 hours on the main page.
We do need an admin to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Caesars Palace (by Dr. Blofeld) to Queue 6 in place of one of the later hooks by the same author; I'd suggest that Dean Martin's Bel Air mansion (aka 363 Copa De Oro Road) be the one that is replaced (and swapped out to an empty slot in Prep 6). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who got this all together, but I just wanted to say that I liked the idea here. Great work, DYKers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't have anything against Sinatra, but I don't recall ever seeing so many items on a single topic in such a short period of time. I get it that it's his birth date, but was this discussed? OK, I just found the discussion above. My personal opinion is that this was overdone. Sundayclose (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No Dead murder

The individual parts of the following hook are true, but I consider the hook as a whole to be misleading:

... that the American murder ballad "Rain and Snow" was performed by the Grateful Dead throughout their career?

It's apparently true that some versions of the song are murder ballads, and it's true that the song "Cold Rain and Snow" was performed by the Dead, but the version they sang was not a murder ballad. (Nominated here, and currently in Prep 1.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed the word "murder" and the "murder ballad" link; the article makes it clear that the Dead version is not a murder ballad. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 December 2015

The fifth item in queue 4: "that the Tusheti National Park, called "12 best places you’ve never heard of" by BudgetTravel in 2011, has rich biodiversity with aesthetic terrain, hamlets, old defense towers, and folk culture?" should presumably read "that the Tusheti National Park, called one of the "12 best places you’ve never heard of" by BudgetTravel in 2011, has rich biodiversity with aesthetic terrain, hamlets, old defense towers, and folk culture?" Awien (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Awien (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, done Victuallers (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Awien (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us up to the final week of November. As of the most recent update, 149 nominations have been approved, leaving 200 of 349 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those remaining from the first part of November.

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) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Una Ryan Una Ryan hook

To avoid perplexing the reader, I suggest the hook for Una Ryans be "* ... that British-American biologist '''[[Una Ryan]]''' and Irish biochemist '''[[Una M. Ryan|Una Ryan]]''' each emigrated from their countries, study infectious disease, and were honored with the [[Order of the British Empire]] and [[Prime Minister's Prizes for Science]], respectively?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is to be a little bit intriguing... --Errant (chat!) 16:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Confusing isn't the same as intriguing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Moffat

I managed to put in the wrong name in the template name. Should be Alex Moffat (trade unionist) Need to be fixed. Thanks. And my sincere apologies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Never change a template name, only change in the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
... where it's correct --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

St. Nick's Ho-Ho-Ho-Hotel

A hook for the St. Nicholas Hotel is currently in Prep 5. Does anyone else think this should be saved for Christmas Eve? Currently, only one item is being held for that day. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. Please pull it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree that this hook would be a natural for Christmas Eve. Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Russia, which comes with an image of reindeer pulling a sleigh, would seem to be another possibility. --Allen3 talk 11:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
As creator of the article, I think it is a GREAT idea. Please save for Christmas Eve. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Prep 4

that Iris perrieri was named after Baron Eugène Pierre Perrier de la Bâthie?

So what? Without a link to the Baron, or any context as to who or why this is of note, this hook is without any interest whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I rather like the contrast of the species name and the rather long name of the Baron, but suspect I'm in the minority. The Rambling Man, do you think it would be improved by adding, before the final question mark: ", who ran a speciality plant nursery in Albertville"? That does give the further contrast of a Baron running a plant nursery; I don't know whether "in Albertville" is helpful or not. (The same source covers the original hook and the proposed addition.) Unfortunately, the Baron doesn't have an article on English Wikipedia (his nephew does), and I don't think the one at the Spanish Wikipedia would be of use here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
My thinking is like BlueMoonset's. It strikes me as interesting as it is so esoteric. Happy to pause shifting the set onto Queue 4 while other folks have their say. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, BlueMoonset, I think that would improve things a little, right now there's nothing indicating that this Baron was in any way interesting or different from the thousands of other barons around. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no point in retaining the baron's name in the hook if they are not notable. You could go with a hook like "that iris perrieri was named after a baron who ran a specialty plant nursery?" But obviously somebody would have to verify the nursery statement. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't know that he's not notable, the name by itself interested both Cas Liber and me, and I'd checked the nursery statement against the source before mentioning the possibility here; I added the new final phrase a while ago. "Perrier de la Bâthie" got a smile out of me, so I left the name intact. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Participants here are good at checking sources for reliability and do a lot of content review. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This was one reason I ran for RfA - to help here. Maybe next time. Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If it weren't for Rationalobserver, you would have passed. I think most users know who is the main problem. sst✈(discuss) 07:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about trying again next spring. RO is now indef blocked - and for something that had nothing to do with me - so maybe there will be hope. Montanabw(talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you know

The Wikipedia Mop of Unlimited Power
The Wikipedia Mop of Unlimited Power

EdChem (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Updated last bullet point in recognition of BlueMoonset's post below EdChem (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like Montanabw(talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, EdChem, and also Montanabw. I appreciate the kudos, though I caution that no one should be overly impressed by my apparent pluperfection. However, I regret that I must disagree with the final hook starting with the word "but", and disclaim all interest in the mop, something I have been doing on my talk page on occasion for a couple of years now. Being an administrator is not how I would like to spend my time on Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If you become an administrator you don't necessarily need to use all the tools... you may run for RfA just for asking for the rights to edit protected DYK areas (queues, the Main Page, WP:ERRORS, etc.) sst✈(discuss) 08:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Romanian images

At Template:Did you know nominations/Rock relief the reviewer is insisting that a freedom of panorama image shot in Romania, from Commons, is changed. I'm sure we have had other such ones. Is this reasonable? Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I commented there. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Eve anniversary hook review request

And while we're at it, I have one last anniversary-related hook for this year: Sodder children disappearance, for this Christmas Eve, the 70th anniversary of that event. We have a week to go, so it's not as much of a rush, but time is growing short. Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Putting old DYK notices at the top of the talk page

Has anybody else noticed BattyBot wandering around old articles that passed DYK and moving the old hook to the top of the talk page? Apparently this is the way the MOS says it should be done, however a random sample of my own DYK nominations don't have this, and DYKUpdateBot doesn't seem to put the notice in the same place. Since the MOS describes what we already do, as opposed to what we should do, it sounds like the MOS (and possibly therefore one or both of the bots) should be changed. Thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you link examples? A spot check of 2015 and 2014 DYK-passed articles doesn't show this phenomenon. Maybe it's not consistent? — Maile (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:A4061 road, Talk:Richard Wright (musician) and Talk:Terraced houses in the United Kingdom are all at the bottom, but Talk:Dublin Castle, Camden was bot-moved (I reverted it). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked and found Talk:Tatjana Gsovsky where the bot added a banner shell, but placed the DYK above it instead of below. BattyBot, can you fix what you did yourself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It sure did. Well, one of the things it says is that it used AWB/Talk page and General fixes. Which then says Note: When making fixes to talk pages, it is helpful to also use the custom module User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects for template redirects. So, perhaps @Magioladitis: can shed some light here for those of us who are not technical enough to understand what he has in that code. — Maile (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, The placement is done by AWB itself. What should be the correct place? The current placement is defined at WP:TPL. I can modify the AWB code dependeding on the consensus and then run a bot to adjust everything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, Maile66, and GoingBatty: for my reply. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no preference. But this is the place for the DYK community to express their views on how that should look. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggested to EEng that the bots get whatever primal urges they have out of their system ("Oh, BattyBot! Port me to that platform for some horizontal integration! Go ahead and expose my implementation and directly access my low-level interface etc etc") and then leave it be. As for serious suggestions, I'm used to seeing it below projects, so that's probably the best place to put it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: please check Wikipedia:Talk_page_layout#Lead_.28bannerspace.29 points 9 and 10 and change accordingly. I have no strong feelings on anything. Just a remark, till now DYK template was considered of equal wight to the article history template and that's why is was put in that page as that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Only the DYK bot didn't know that ... - There certainly is an inconsistency, because once a former "only"-DYK article advances to FA, the message gets swallowed by article history, loosing details such as the link to the DYK nomination. Perhaps we should look at that also, but somewhere more general. - In away I think projects may be more important to our readers than the hierarchy of article history, and should therefore appear on top, generally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I've split point 9 into a separate point and put it later, so what's there reflects what I'm used to seeing more closely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

rev 11757 updated AWB's code to match consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and GoingBatty: et al. I can run my bot to put DYK in the correct place if there is consensus for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Queue 2 fix needed

Can an admin please fix the second hook in Queue 2? The required space between the ellipsis and "that" is missing, and needs to be inserted. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Feb 3 special holding area

I have moved Buddy Holly Center nominated by @Michael Barera: to a Feb 3 holding area, to commemorate the date of the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper. Just thinking along the lines of what we've been doing recently. I wonder if anyone would like to try getting these articles through GAC to make them eligible for DYK:

Just a thought. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we get this hook in at the last minute?

A couple of days ago I noticed that this coming Sunday would be the 35th anniversary of the Announcerless Game between the New York Jets and the Miami Dolphins. It was mentioned in a few related articles but there was no separate, standalone article on the only game in NFL history ever broadcast on television without any commentators. So I challenged myself to research and write one quickly, which I was able to do. It's not complete yet (as I write) but the bulk of it is there, enough to support the nomination I now have in the queue.

Now, can we get it in for Sunday in the North American time zones? It looks like there's some space in Prep 4 (which, assuming it feeds in to Queue 4, would be the best place for it) where it could go; if not, Prep 5 is empty.

Can someone do this? It shouldn't be too hard to verify and approve. Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Could someone please move this to Prep 4, or, if that prep has already been promoted, could an administrator move this to Queue 4? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Announcerless Game

I am not sure what is going on here, and I appreciate another editor stepping in. User:Daniel Case requested a quick review of his nomination and I responded to it today with a review and an approval tick. User:George Ho has objected to the quick promotion, arguing that there are older hooks that need to be promoted first. I have never seen that kind of logic in prep-building, and Special Occasion hooks are always promoted before others. As it stands right now, Prep 4 is open and waiting for any editor to swap in a hook, and even after that prep goes to Queue 4, there will be time to swap in this hook as a special occasion request. Thanks to all for expediting this hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

By my view, this should be promoted, not held back, and at least one of the six bios moved out of prep 4. Going to see what I can do now; George Ho should not be blocking a special request like this, especially when it's easy to move prep hooks around and we do it all the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's done: Daniel Case's hook (I used ALT5 with the "35 years ago" wording) is now in Prep 4, and that set now only has four bios in it. With any luck, an admin will promote that prep plus a couple more, and it will run on time. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us up to the final day of November. As of the most recent update, 133 nominations have been approved, leaving 211 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one remaining from October and those from the first three weeks of November.

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) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas hook

Hey. Could someone please check this out? I think it's a good fit for Christmas Eve although more importantly I think that if it runs after Christmas it will stick out like a sore thumb. Would be super grateful. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Panyd: I have reviewed it but put it in for Christmas Day, feel free to move it to Christmas Eve if you disagree with me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Übers Gebirg Maria geht

This hook was just approved and needs to run in the lead slot in Prep 5. Since I just approved it, I cannot do the promoting. Could another editor please move the lead hook in Prep 5 to a later set (after Christmas) and put this one in its place? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've opened up the image slot for this hook in Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. FYI, Prep 6 has a cocktail image, hardly Christmas-y (unless it was a Christmas drink, which it's not. I'll muck around and see what I can fix in the image department, revert me if I foul up anything... cheers! Montanabw(talk) 18:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: we're waiting for Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110 to pass GA; it has a nice Christmas image. Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 129 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 345 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 24 nominations that were approved at least half a month ago; about a third of these are over three weeks old and have been waiting since late November. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 24 have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the hooks don't have to wait much longer than they already have.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of unnamed parameters in {{main page image}} is crashing DYKUpdateBot

Set builders and uploading admins, please be aware that every time any of you decide to omit the |image= parameter and instead use an unnamed parameter to specify an image file in a call to {{main page image}} the omission will cause DYKUpdateBot to crash when it attempts to process the associated queue. The bot operator is aware of the problem and is looking to harden the bot against this issue. Due to the complexity of processing context-free grammars, it is unlikely that the bot will ever have the code to fully replicate the WikiMedia template processing code (such an effort would essentially require the addition of a compiler front-end to the bot). Problems in the {{main page image}} calls in the current sets has been corrected. --Allen3 talk 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I re-added Dispenser's Checklinks and Disambiguation links back into the DYK toolbox for the review template. Those tools seem to be working OK right now. — Maile (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Shortage of Christmas hooks

It seems we only have thirteen nine Christmas hooks so far - and three of them are about Christmas beetles. Ideally we should have at least sixteen (on a variety of topics). If somebody could conjure up a few more at this late stage, that would be much appreciated. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you count the one on the cantata, mentioned above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
No, because that is listed for Christmas Eve, not Christmas Day. And it seems I miscounted - looks like we only have nine Christmas Day hooks, so we are seven short of two full sets. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It was composed for Christmas Day and should go there, sorry if it's not clear. But first the GA review needs to be completed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: now the cantata article is GA, the DYK review can go ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, but as we can hardly run two hooks about Christmas beetles in the same set, we still effectively only have nine hooks even if that one is approved in time. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I only see 2 Christmas beetles; one I put in Prep 2 and the other I found was not yet a 5x expansion. I hope the GA for the cantata is finished today! Yoninah (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah, not sure which Christmas beetle hook you are referring to that is not yet a x5 expansion. I think we should approve "Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus" even if it isn't a x5 expansion, though we could leave it a little longer to see if the nominator can expand it a little further. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that Template:Did you know nominations/Anoplognathus viridiaeneus is lacking a few cites. If User:Casliber is online today, I'm sure he can add them. User:The C of E is also usually online all the time; hopefully he can add about 700 char to Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus. Otherwise, we could go ahead and IAR it.
There happen to be a lot of "Women in Religion" hooks in the noms area right now thanks to the recent editathon. I just pulled one from that list for a Christmas Day set. Yoninah (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed there are quite a few hooks about Christianity that are not about Christmas specifically. I guess we could use some as a last resort, but I'd prefer to see Christmas hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've got ... that the Christmas Tree in Trafalgar Square is shipped to London from Oslo every year and is around 75ft tall, provided somebody does the GA review ASAP. I see Gerda has already put out an APB. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

@Ritchie333: I can take care of this for you, but I have a question about some of the referencing format. Right now, it's citation 11. When I go to the link, it takes me to the article on Jstor, which is subscription, and should say so in the citation format. I would like to fix format things like that as I go along. I'm asking up front before I get involved. You tell me. If you're OK with that, I'll take on the GAC. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: I copyedit GANs as I go myself, so that's fine. I should be able to get replacement sources for everything (sorted out a ton of dead links and bad sources already!) so if you think the article could pass with work, give it a go! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated Christmas operas by User:Voceditenore. See Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas operas‎. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @4meter4:, I approved that hook and put it in the special occasion area.
@Gatoclass:, what do you think about using this hook on Christmas: Template:Did you know nominations/Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi? Yoninah (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass and Ritchie333: Depending on how Ritchie333 writes up the hook, the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree, and why Oslo ships it to them, is in its way kind of touching. I finished the GAC review and am just awaiting Ritchie333 taking care of some minor things. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Right, all up at Template:Did you know nominations/Trafalgar Square Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding hooks, I find that people are not scouring recently promoted GAs much, so there might be something there. I have another couple of ideas for expansions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber:, @Gatoclass: , @Gerda Arendt:: Regarding Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus, I have made the necessary expansion so it can now be put back in with the rest of the Christmas hooks please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I've reviewed it; in the meantime I think Trafalgar Square is good to go for prep, if my calculations are correct if it goes in P2 now it will hit main page when the Queen's Christmas Message is on, which is about as perfect timing as you can get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I have promoted Trafalgar Square to prep 2. Could you please recheck my nom as I have now completed the QPQ. Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"Frank Sinatra Christmas Collection" is now approved and promoted, thank you Ritchie333 and Yoninah. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
see Template:Did you know nominations/Prostanthera lasianthos Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Casliber! I have verified the article, now it just needs someone to promote it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bach Christmas cantata is also approved and waiting in the Christmas Day holding area. Yoninah (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that one is that we have too many music hooks already. We might do better going with the hors d'oeuvre hook to complete the final set, or some other hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Really? After all the work that Gerda put into getting it to GA in a matter of days? Prep 1 only has 2 other music hooks; Prep 2 has 4 of them. Yoninah (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I hope the cantata article hook can appear the day for which it was performed, 25 December. Bach had to write a different cantata for the 26th, and another for the 27th. Perhaps other Christmas music is less date-related and can appear the 26thwhen Germany still celebrates, and California still is on the 25th? - I am nor sure of the image, - it's better larger. - Music is one of the internationally understood languages, - can we have too much? Or of laughter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know much about Christmas, but the abundance of songs and carols seems to indicate that music is a big part of it. Yoninah (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but there are many aspects to Christmas and featuring too many music hooks makes the set look unbalanced. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess if prep 1 has only two other music hooks, you might squeeze it in there. It would have been nice to have a greater variety of hooks though. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just promoted the cantata hook to Prep 1, which still has one more unfilled slot; it had only six hooks before I promoted it. Given the laughter mentioned in the hook, I opted for the quirky slot, but I'm perfectly happy for someone to rearrange the set if they have a better idea. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I preferred the one-man 30-character play for the quirky, but I won't quibble about it. But it seems we still have one more empty slot. The hors d'oeuvre hook is still there as a backup if needed - we could have used some more food and drink hooks this year. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

My free time is a bit in short supply, but I will try to buff Costus chartaceus, Blandfordia punicea and/or Blandfordia cunninghamii. Anyone is welcome to help. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/In the Workhouse – Christmas Day is ready and waiting in the December 23 nomination area for someone to approve and promote. Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have verified it, somebody else will have to promote it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions error

I was going over Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/October just recently and I noticed that the "Berta Bobath" hook appears twice (once at 01:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC), and once at 00:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)). In checking to see if the DYK was actually run twice I found the hook in Queue 4 here on Oct 17, but I was unable to find any evidence of its having been queued for the Oct 22 post. For reference, here is the queue where all of the other items in that grouping appear. It looks to me like the "sexuality after spinal cord injury" DYK was somehow replaced with a duplicate for "Berta Bobath" when the hooks were all archived. Is that possible?

The only evidence I see that might go against this is that "Berta Bobath" received an unusual view-spike echo on the 22nd (see traffic stats). Then again "sexuality after spinal cord injury" also received an obvious spike on the 22st too (see traffic stats). So I don't know... Does anyone have any insights here? -Thibbs (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible: it appears that David Levy added the Berta Bobath hook at 21:17 for a repeat on October 21 to fill up the DYK portion of the page after the spinal cord hook had been removed by The Rambling Man at 19:49 (TRM was responding to a report at WP:ERRORS); see this diff for the exact moment of the addition. (It was subsequently moved up one position because it was highly inappropriate for the "quirky" slot.) It actually ran until 01:29 on October 22, because we were a bit off cycle, and also had to do a manual update. This does bring up a question of policy: should hooks that have already been run be recycled like this? We do allow hooks that were pulled early in their run to be fixed and come back for a full run, but hooks that are pulled early don't show up on the "Recent additions" page. Hooks that made it to the end do appear, so if they are run again to fill up a set, they'll make a second appearance under "Recent additions". This strikes me as undesirable. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest programming the bot to omit items tagged with some sort of "do not archive" syntax (in the form of a template or hidden comment) and formatting recycled hooks accordingly. —David Levy 19:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be necessary to modify the bot if hooks were not recycled. I've never heard of the practice before now; when did we decide it was an appropriate thing to do, and how often is it done? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be necessary to modify the bot if hooks were not recycled.
It wouldn't be necessary to recycle hooks if bad ones were kept off the main page in the first place.
I've never heard of the practice before now; when did we decide it was an appropriate thing to do,
I don't know. It predates my involvement, so it couldn't have occurred recently.
and how often is it done?
Probably not very often. (It's possible that I'm the only administrator to do it recently, but I'm unsure of that.) Fortunately, many of the bad DYK hooks are salvageable through revision. —David Levy 19:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Since you probably are the only administrator who currently recycles DYK hooks, David Levy, you should probably make any necessary bot change request on Shubinator's talk page, since DYKUpdateBot is his, and you can decide between you how to indicate to the bot when there is a recycled hook that shouldn't be included under Recent additions for a second time. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind manually removing the second instance from the archive. So If I'm the only administrator who currently recycles DYK hooks, modifying the bot might not be worth the effort on the part of Shubinator (ping) unless such a change happens to be quick and easy. If so, a format along the lines of the following probably would work best.

* ... that this represents a new DYK hook, linking to a recently improved '''[[Wikipedia]]''' article?
{{dyk rerun}} that this represents a reused DYK hook, preceded by an example '''[[template]]'''?
* ... that this represents another new DYK hook, linking to a recently improved '''[[Wikipedia]]''' article?

The hypothetical template would transclude the normal asterisk and ellipsis, so the output would be unaffected. —David Levy 22:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, if it's a rare case, best if we can address it manually. Also, in my opinion it makes sense for the hook to appear twice in Recent additions if it was in two different sets. Shubinator (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_119&oldid=1137408672"