Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 155

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157→Archive 160

Prep 6

Eugène de Mirecourt.

@Gerda Arendt: the original hook reads a little awkward to me. Suggesting ALT1 and ALT2. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I like ALT2 best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have language nuance to judge, both ALTs seem fine. Ask LouisAlain also, who wrote the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
LouisAlain Do you have a preference? — Maile (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Something more in line with the article would be:
  • ALT3: Did you know that Eugène de Mirecourt wrote 100 scathing biographical entries of living literary figures in his serial Les Contemporains, even after having been jailed six months for insulting Alexandre Dumas?
— SashiRolls t · c 21:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely an attention grabber. And thanks for the c.e. on the article. @Gerda Arendt:, LouisAlain Does anybody else have an opinion of ALT3? Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth if we could get consensus for ALT3, do you think it might be a lead hook with the image? — Maile (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine with me. To bed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The source (footnote 7) does not match what's written in the 4th paragraph under Life. I don't know how the page creator pulled paraphrases like "scathing" or "biting" from this source. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I think "scathing" is from SashiRolls above, not the page creator. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is. But that fourth paragraph either needs to be rewritten, or another source brought in to verify the text. Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't ask me, I don't even know what "scathing" means. We could do ALT3 without that word, I guess. Mirecourt is mentioed seriously in bibliographies, - no need to put him in the infamy corner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

- Nothing beats an old eye catchin' title so I'll go for the third lede. LouisAlain (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAlain: please fix up the sourcing for this claim and then we can consider it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
P.C has reached new heights here. Damn if I do, damn if I don't. As a non native English speaker I probably hit a raw nerve without even being aware. Let it be. LouisAlain (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. A new hook was proposed, and I noticed that the sourcing is not adequate in the fourth paragraph under "Life". Looks like the current hook will hit the main page in a few hours. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

- Yoninah. Another case of "lost in translation" here. I wrongly understood you were asking for a source regarding the claim an old eye catchin' title etc. Apologies for my over sensitivity. LouisAlain (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we move the discussion to the reopened nomination? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dermophis donaldtrumpi

Could an uninvolved editor please take a look at this nomination and give a final decision? It's gone back-and-forth between being approved and being rejected, and neither the nominator nor the (many) reviewers can come into an agreement on what hook to use. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't gone back-and-forth between being approved and being rejected, nor have there been (many) reviewers. There has been one reviewer, the proposed hook was approved, and three editors have been filibustering ever since to try to kill it. I've proposed a compromise hook
ALT5 ... that a creature with the proposed name Dermophis donaldtrumpi is vulnerable to extinction?
More input would be appreciated.EEng 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Their objection/filibustering/whatever you want to call it, was because they felt "it was not neutral", thus they felt entitled to "veto" something. If this current hook is to be approved it should be approved by the original reviewer, not some drive by comments since the "core wikipedia principle" issue has been addressed. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes of course. Despite the muddled thinking that led to the idea that there are "many reviewers", there's only one reviewer, David Eppstein. EEng 04:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm definitely not opposed to other people actually, you know, reviewing, but the people who have contributed most of the text to that discussion haven't even tried to address the things one is supposed to address as a reviewer (i.e., whether the article and hook meet the DYK rules). And I don't think that in this case an additional review would actually do much to address the situation of the review being overwhelmed by non-review comments — several previous attempts at refocusing the review to be a DYK review have just been meet with even longer walls of text. So I think what is needed is for someone who does such things to close the review, rather than to add more to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
What the source states is "As an amphibian, the shiny animal is particularly susceptible to the impacts of global warming and is therefore in danger of becoming extinct as a result of its namesake’s climate policies". So the vulnerable to extinction bit applies to amphibians in general and not this caecilian in particular. ALT1j is a better hook, but I have no desire to wade into the controversy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Pardon the pun, but "DYK rules" don't trump Wikipedia policy. You're entitled to disagree that policy issues exist, but this doesn't mean that those of us who've expressed a sincere opinion to the contrary have failed to contribute relevant input. —David Levy 07:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
the people who have contributed most of the text to that discussion haven't even tried to address the things one is supposed to address as a reviewer (i.e., whether the article and hook meet the DYK rules). @David Eppstein: hook interest is a major DYK rule, which is what most of us have been addressing. And posting provocative hooks on the main page is just going to end with a trip to ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
MPJ-DK: Exactly one editor has used the word "veto" on that page, and it's you.
I find it perversely amusing that we've been accused of both "filibustering" and "drive-by" commenting, though. Under which category do our proposed hooks fall? —David Levy 07:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You might drive-by comment then find long-term parking and take the shuttle bus back to filibuster, I suppose. EEng 14:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
For topics like this I think descriptive hooks are fine, since they are already interesting by nature and does not need elaborate details. Alex Shih (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Peace has broken out on the nom page so no one upset the balance of power, I beg you. EEng 14:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have promoted this to Prep 1. In doing so I removed the phrase "that buries its head in the sand" because that is not in the article, so the final hook reads
... that the man who named a nearly-blind amphibian Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change?
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
For the record, sources are abundant on "buries head in sand" but no one remembered to go back and pull that into the article to support the hook. Speaking for myself I'm perfectly happy with the above. EEng 12:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

About that Trump amphibian hook

I'm still not impressed with the hook that was decided, in particular the insistence on not using the scientific term for the kind of animal and instead referring to it as a "nearly-blind amphibian". It's been reduced to simply "nearly-blind amphibian" though so I guess it's more palatable than the original insistence on including the phrase "that buries its head in the sand". But I fear that, if it passes through in its current state, could set a dangerous precedence of using DYK as a low-key way to criticize personalities that we don't agree with. While I would accept the current hook more-or-less, I would strongly suggest substituting "nearly-blind amphibian" with the term "caecilian", or perhaps as a compromise, rephrase it as "a caecilian, a kind of nearly-blind amphibian", in order to make it absolutely clear that the "nearly blind" phrase refers to the animal and cannot be interpreted as an attempt to slight Trump or any other politician. We don't want to have yet another long and drawn out discussion on ERRORS, do we? Pinging Cwmhiraeth who promoted the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You just don't know when to quit, do you? EEng 11:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Just playing devil's advocate here but then surely that could imply we're calling President Trump a caecilian? I'm in 2 minds about this because I am a big supporter of NOTCENSORED but I am also acutely aware of BLP which applies to all, regardless if they're peasant or president. I always lean towards letting something run even if some may find it personally distasteful as long as it encourages discussion or provokes article improvement. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not really, since there have been plenty of animals named after US president; this is not even the first animal named after him as there's a moth species that was named after him in reference his hairstyle. The issue I have is not with the term amphibian, but "nearly-blind" (and previously proposals to include "worm-like" or "buries its head in the sand). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with Narutolovehinata5 and think "nearly-blind amphibian" is better. The person naming the animal was making a political point so I don't see why we should try to conceal the fact. Personally, I am bored with this article and hook and think it is time to wrap up discussion and move on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Amen to that. EEng 11:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the Sully (dog) hook has a bit of WP:OLINK going on. Given there is a small target article word, I feel there shouldn't be additional links to Bush or his funeral pages because they are well known enough for them not to be needed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation style

The Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird nomination has been held up for a month and half because several editors have noted the referencing style as confusing. An attempt to fix the referencing was reverted by the nominator, who believes that citation style has nothing to do with the DYK rules. Could we have more input on whether this article is ready for the main page? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If we don't actually have a rule enforcing the use of sfn or "consistent" referencing style in general, we probably shouldn't force people to use it. With that being said, there is no reason for bare URLs, so I would fail the nomination based on WP:DYKSG#D3 since the nominator is unwilling to fix them and prefers closure anyway. Alex Shih (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Alex, I don't know who mentioned bare urls, but it is untrue. There are no bare URLs in the referencing. In fact, the majority of the sources are printed sources. SpinningSpark 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: The Bibliography section is almost entirely in bare URLs, no? I am not sure what's the misunderstanding here. I share your frustration over the use of sfn being not required, but there is really no harm in formatting the Bibliography section properly with {{cite book}}/{{cite web}} I think. Alex Shih (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The misunderstanding is that you do not understand what bare url means. It does not mean that citation templates have not been used. It means that, literally, only the url is visible to the reader like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Foreland which is not the case for any ref in the article I nominated. Citation templates are not mandated. WP:CITEVAR explicitly says To be avoided...adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates. There is good reason that the guideline says this—there is no consensus that templates must be used. There are pros and cons, but DYK is not the place for that discussion. The only discussion should be have I used a compliant style. I claim I have and no rationale has been presented to the contrary. The style I have used is guideline compliant, it is DYK rules compliant, and several articles I have written using that style have become featured articles. Demanding I use your favourite style is the thing that is against policy, not what I have done. SpinningSpark 22:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't get it - what is the actual problem here? the formatting is totally legit and allowed on Wikipedia, I am pretty sure that there are plenty of GAs that use that citation style. To block the nom for a style choice seems to wrong to me. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if it's something we're going to be linking on the main page, how difficult would it be to cite it so that's easy for the reader to find their way to the sources? It's not as if it's a massive article with hundreds of sources. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The sourcing is not "confusing" in the least - the claim appears to rest on the idea readers are idiots, and if that terrible (for many reasons) assumption were even true, its a good thing they will be exposed to new knowledge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it really more confusing than John Leamy (merchant) currently on the main page DYK? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • While to my knowledge the reference style used in the article is not prohibited and in fact has been allowed on DYK articles before, I can see why people think it may be confusing. The problem is that the footnotes only mention the authors and you'd have to go to the Bibliography to see which reference takes from which source. It's not unusual, but it can be confusing especially for readers who may not be used to this referencing style. I would suggest as a compromise, that for the footnotes the full reference be mentioned in the first use, then keep the "abbreviated" sourcing for the rest (I've seen such a style used in books and articles before). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    This is ridiculous. That the footnotes only mention the authors and you'd have to go to the Bibliography to see which reference takes from which source is true of the {sfn} and most other systems. On top of that, the suggestion that the full reference be mentioned in the first use, then keep the "abbreviated" sourcing for the rest is (aside from being undesirable for reasons I won't go into) completely unworkable, as there's no practical way to control the order in which footnotes are output. The system used in the article is completely OK, the only oddity being that multiple refs use exactly the same text instead of being bundled using < ref name="foo">. None of this is a DYK matter. EEng 00:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of that. All I was saying is that while a common referencing system that's accepted here, I can understand why those unfamiliar with it could be caught off-guard. I was not discussing the merits of using such a system and never intended to. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Then you need to work harder on translating your intentions into what you write. Do you recognize that your suggestion that the full reference be mentioned in the first use, then keep the "abbreviated" sourcing for the rest cannot possibly work? EEng 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no problem with this referencing system at the DYK level. If that's the only issue holding up the nomination (I haven't checked for other problems), then it should be passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not wrong but it is cumbersome. 8 Plarrs, 3 O'Connors (same page), 3 BMJs (same page). This system would be more suitable if Plarrs were a book and there were 8 different pages referenced in the same book or 3 different pages in the BMJ source. It's also hard for the reader to relate the notes to the bibliography which isn't completely in alphabetical order. It's overkill in this piece. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, a genuine question here for everyone because this is the only concern I had (I could care less about citation formats). The example given at WP:BURL indicates the current format used at the article (* Bramer, Dawn, [http://www.meopham.org/content/meopham-residents-renown "Meopham residents of renown"], Meopham Parish Council, accessed and [https://web.archive.org/web/20181202152103/http://www.meopham.org/content/meopham-residents-renown archived] 2 December 2018.) is still an example of bare URL (and this is how I always understood the term, of course I may have been misled?) would still not address issues concerning WP:LINKROT, something that I have never cared too much about but remembers some folks feeling quite strongly about it. If there is consensus that none of this should be a concern at DYK level, then let's have this written down somewhere so we won't be wasting our times again. Alex Shih (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    From the first line of that page bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page, which to me does not match the example given. The example given has the exact same info as it would have it it used the "cite web" format, so to me that does not like up. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    I see, as long as all of the information are manually typed out completely, it's essentially the same. In this case I am more than glad to feign ignorance and withdraw my earlier comments. How can we make this more clear/accepting for DYK promoters? Alex Shih (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Alex Shih: You allege that the referencing is open to linkrot, yet the very example you put forward of a cite not protected from linkrot has a link to an archived copy of the page embedded in it. How is that not protecting from linkrot? It is absolutely the standard way of doing it. In what way do you think that using sfn templates would help with linkrot? They don't have any fields for archiving at all. SpinningSpark 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    I nominate the very creative EEng to make it clear with as few words as possible. May I suggest a flashing animated trigger finger labeled "BARE URL" and pointing to an example. And below that, a flashing animated trigger finger pointing the opposite direction with the message "NOT A BARE URL" point at the correct style. — Maile (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    As if my dignity would allow such a thing.
    Seriously, the problem is that reviewers forget that DYK is (for better or worse) by design a lightweight process that demands only policy compliance + inline citations + that's about it. There's nothing to make more clear (as Alex Shih's requesting) except that reviewers should stick to the DYK criteria when deciding go/no go. Of course, they're free to point out ways the article can be improved. EEng 03:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:CITEVAR states that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles ... it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor". The issue was taken to Arbcom who ruled that "Wikipedia does not mandate ... citation style." The style in this case seems reasonably close to that used in featured articles such as the recent History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950. This issue should therefore not delay or disrupt the nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've said this several times—DYK is not the place to discuss the merits of rival citation styles—and I am resisting arguing the case for this style here. However, your comment is so full of errors of fact that I just have to correct some of them. The bibliography is in strict alphabetical order. It is in alphabetical order of author surname first, then in alphabetical order of journal or site name where the ref has no named author (treating a null author as the highest alphabetical value). Page numbers are given in the shortened cites for all references that are paginated. It is brainless to complain that page numbers are missing from a reference that is not paginated. It is true that dates have been omitted from the shortened references, but this does not make it more difficult to look it up in the bibliography, since the bibliography is in alphabetical order, not date order. Dates are necessary when there is a need to disambiguate more than one paper by the same author, but we don't have any of those so the dates would just be useless clutter in the shortened refs. Bundling was never raised as an issue by the original reviewer, nor was it part of the change to the reference style which I originally reverted (and in my opinion, bundling is not particularly helpful in any case in shortened references). SpinningSpark 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Help need

I managed to bugger up the nomination template. Assistance needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed, but the article is now at AfD: that needs to be closed before the nom can proceed. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, AFD obviously needs to be resolved. I am relatively confident on that score. I also expect that there will be an article name change. Thank you for the prompt help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Preps 3 & 5

@Cwmhiraeth and Gatoclass:

Could you or someone else at least partially undo this edit here? There's nothing interesting in a submarine sinking ships; the point was to not specify it was a submarine. Also, it was supposed to be in the quirky slot. Would it be possible to move the current quirky hook to another prep instead?

Same for prep 5, the Sportsman hook was supposed to be last. And could someone also undo the edit Cwmhiraeth made here as well? Its not even true, Sportsman sank several passenger ships.

Btw, I find it slightly annoying to be required to closely watch all of my hooks to make sure no one is changing their meaning in prep. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the first link change as it really is not necessary and there is no obvious discussion that I can find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I promoted both these hooks. The approved hook was:
I changed this to " ... that Safari sank 25 ships?" and put it in the quirky spot. According to the MOS, ship's names should be in italics and I didn't consider that the term "a safari" was suitable, it wasn't a safari, it was a submarine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: the problem is that Gatoclass' edit changed it to HMS Safari; HMS denotes that the subject is a ship. As for "it wasn't a safari, it was a submarine" - The whole point of the original wording was to make it quirky. I was fine with your wording, but adding HMS really made the hook pointless. And I again request that you self-revert here; that was my bad, I made the typo in the article and I suppose you copied "merchant" from it; however, Sportsman also sank several passenger ships and fishing vessels. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, the current wording, ... that Safari sank 25 ships? is not hooky at all IMO. What are we supposed to think, that we're talking about King Kong? You don't always have to be quirky with a submarine, and we're not going to run submarine hooks every time in the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With regard to the other hook, the approved hook stated:
and I changed it to " ... that a Sportsman sank twelve merchant ships during World War II?
Once again, a ship's name should be capitalised and in italics, and the word "Axis" was unsuitable because it was not mentioned in the article whereas the word "merchant" was. I see that you have since changed the word "merchant" in the article to "Axis" since I promoted the hook, and then complained here. Hmm... If you write accurate hooks that agree with the article and conform to the MOS, I will not feel obliged to alter them when I promote them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I will move the Safari to another quirky slot and revise the Sportsman hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's time for a new hook for this one. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Worth noting that the MOS is not policy. So the rationale for the change sounds off to me, especially when DYK rules call for hookiness. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the Sportsman hook is good and hooky but the Safari one less so, but we could use ALT1 or ALT2 instead:
ALT2 looks viable to me, let's go with that one. Oh, and the reason I added the "HMS" is because, as Yoninah pointed out, the hook is meaningless without it. And quite frankly, this strategy of using proper names to try and deceive the reader is hackneyed and in many cases isn't going to fool anybody and basically just insults the readers' intelligence. We allow it on April Fools Day, but even then only the best examples should be permitted. Gatoclass (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Gatoclass, ALT2 is shorter and best. ALT2 hook ref verified and cited inline. But there's one paragraph in the article without any citations, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Citation added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thank you. I moved ALT2 into Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, though nearly half of them remain to be included on this one. Here is an updated list with 37 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 6. Right now we have a total of 315 nominations, of which 175 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from October and the six from November.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How can I check how many QPQs I've done?

I can see how many DYKs I've nom'd, but how can I find out how many reviews I've done? Sorry if this has been covered before, I searched the archives and didn't immediately see one that seemed to cover this. valereee (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your objective is here. You can search in your contributions record for a string such as "Template:Did you know nominations", but that could get time consuming. What I do when I want to nominate one of my articles for DYK is to do a QPQ immediately beforehand as part of the nomination routine, rather than bother about whether I have done an "unused" review at some time in the past. There are plenty of unreviewed nominations waiting for reviewers. I hope that helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Mostly just curiosity, really. I too just do one for every nom, not sure whether I did one for my first nom, though I might have done it immediately afterwards just out of curiosity about the process, but it's unlikely that I didn't just go ahead and do one for my second nom because that would have made me feel very guilty. I was just wondering if there were any way to see whether I'd balanced out or maybe gotten ahead, in case I'm ever considering doing a nom but thinking I just don't have the time to do the QPQ. Which isn't likely, but that's the way my brain works: am I in the safe zone, or not? :) valereee (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I keep a list of my unused QPQs in a file in my computer. Then I just pick one when I make a nomination. Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I keep a list in my sandbox. Remove it when I use it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5: TV character

  • ... that actor Patrick O'Connor watched old episodes of Home and Away and talked to past cast members to prepare for his first-ever television role as Dean Thompson?
@Raintheone: @MX: @Cwmhiraeth:
This hook seems terribly mundane. Don't all actors prepare for their roles? Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Steven Seagal. EEng 04:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
How about: ... that Home and Away character Dean Thompson was described in 2018 as the serial's "new favourite bad boy"? Gatoclass (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Ooh, nice, Gatoclass. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'll substitute it in prep. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Fountain

  • ... that Rondebosch Fountain (pictured), a cast iron water trough for horses and one of the first electric street lights in South Africa, is being rebuilt in aluminium after the original was destroyed in a traffic accident in 2015?
@Zaian: @Johnbod: @Cwmhiraeth:
The hook is 227 characters without the "pictured". Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Are we ok now? Sorry, missed all this. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6: Caen

The first time I read it, I thought it was the Battle of Caen in 1944, making it a major unreported war crime. Should we mention the year 1346? Art LaPella (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)  Done Year added. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Titillating hook in T:DYK/Q1

In this #METOO age I'm surprised to see a poem on the female form described as titular. We don't want this hook to be a bust! I'll be watchlisting this page to keep abreast of developments. EEng 17:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a boob. GMGtalk 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Terrible shame if it falls flat. EEng 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You two are a real pair. Keep racking them up. valereee (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I wonder how long we'll be able to milk this. EEng 13:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: IMO not much longer, but either way please keep me abreast of any developments --DannyS712 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me guess... would that be because you don't want this hook to be a bust? EEng 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: lol I didn't see that you had already used that :( --DannyS712 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. EEng 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently other editors don't find this thread uplifting. EEng 23:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Interest is sagging, it seems. EEng 23:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, that sucks. But thanks for the mammaries. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Drat. Just when it was getting good. BTW, we must remember that it's Love that lifts us up where we belong.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

@MagicatthemovieS:, @De88:, @Cwmhiraeth:

The source: "A great example is Dylan’s “John Birch Paranoid Blues,” in which he dons the persona of a petrified American searching for communists from the comfort of his living room."

Let me say, I am tickled to death this song will be on the main page. One of Dylan's most biting pieces of political criticism. We need to tweak the hook somehow.

There is no "narrator". Dylan wrote the song, and Dylan performed it. The exact lyrics can be found at Dylan's official site:

"Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues | The Official Bob Dylan Site". www.bobdylan.com.

Nowhere in those lyrics does he pretend to be someone else. I guess the obvioius is to say Dylan was not taking on a persona, or being a narrator, when he performed his own Blowin' in the Wind. Or for that matter, almost anything Dylan wrote and performed in those years. Political commentators Stephen Colbert or John Oliver are not referred to as "donning a persona" so maybe we should reword the hook a bit. — Maile (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Another thought here, is that it seems a shame to use Dylan's song on the front page with some trivial comment, rather than comment on why Dylan wrote the song in the first place. Or even that it's the "talking blues" format. So much about Dylan could be in that hook. A bit of a shame that there is no focus on the song's content or Dylan's genre. — Maile (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Source:"When Bob Dylan Took a Stand Against Censorship". Time.
Offering an ALT hook above, after making a slight edit to the article. — Maile (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Dylan is clearly not talking about himself or his own views in this song, he's playing the role of a paranoid anti-communist, so I don't understand how you could think there is no "narrator" in the song, that's a term that's typically used when a writer writes from somebody else's point of view. As for the hooks, I think the original has the virtue of topicality, although it could probably be expressed better (Beauchamp is not talking about all critics but about what he thinks is excessive criticism) but the proposed alt looks fine to me, so in terms of content I don't have a strong preference either way. Gatoclass (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
If the article was about Beauchamp it might make sense to highlight his confused parallel between a satirical endorsement of the bizarre suspicion that Eisenhower was a Russian agent and the serious possibility that Trump is one. But the article's not about Beauchamp. I'd say the censorship is a way better angle. EEng 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Considering that the song was written in 1962 and has plenty of detail about the Ed Sullivan Show controversy, it doesn't make sense why Wikipedia is engaged in more Trump-bashing on the main page. Let's go with ALT1 or some form thereof. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You're interpreting the Beauchamp hook backwards, but nonetheless I agree that ALT1 (or some variation) is better. Someone do something because the Beauchamp hook is still in the prep set. EEng 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Substituting ALT1 in prep. Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the article and checking the sources, I modified the hook further [1] to reflect the fact that Dylan didn't just refuse to perform the song in censored form, but rather refused to perform on the show at all after the attempt at censorship. EEng 00:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Dylan certainly had the courage of his youthful convictions. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:CRIME please don't talk about someone's convictions without a reliable source. EEng 01:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, dear. That sounds like an infraction worthy of 20 lashes with a wet noodle. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Formatting issue

There seem to be a few variations on a nomination that was promoted to the main page. The promoted hook was: Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues.

Other templates which have not been closed are:

@MagicatthemovieS: next time you have a problem with typos, please don't keep opening new nominations. You can ask for help here on the talk page; it's a very easy fix. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth closed on Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues, but actually used an entirely different hook, the one from Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Society Blues, which has not been closed. Both templates were nominated and approved by the same editors. And then there's the third redlink template mentioned by Yoninah. Gatoclass BlueMoonset do either of you know how to merge those? — Maile (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Adding pings to this thread, hoping another admin can comment on if there is a need to rectify the multiple templates, since the bot links its notices to the nomination template listed on the Queue. For starters, the wrong nomination is listed in Prep. But how does the mix-up affect the rest of the process/archives? Please help, if anyone knows how to straighten this out. @Black Kite:, @Black Kite:, @Vanamonde93:, @Fish and karate:, @Casliber:, @Dweller:, @MSGJ:. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Well yes, I had problems at the promotion stage. Can you not leave the one I archived in the archives and just delete the rest, or archive them as unsuccessful? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
All things considered, I can see how you got mixed up. I got mixed up just trying to figure out how this happened. But if nobody else replies to this, then it stays as is. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I have taken Cwmhiraeth's suggestion and simply closed the Template:Did you know nominations/Talkin' John Birch Society Blues template. The hook has since been altered in prep, so neither nomination page has the right hook. I guess we don't have to worry about the one that's a redlink. Yoninah (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Lawrence Cowan in Prep 6

Cwmhiraeth, you changed "Mexican claim jumpers" to "local claim jumpers". I think this makes it less hooky and just bland/factual. As I said in the discussion with Yoninah, this is interesting because an American prevailed against Mexicans about something that happened in Mexico in the Mexican Supreme Court. MB 16:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the original hook is that it repeats the word "Mexico" or "Mexican" three times, which just looks clumsy. Also, why do you think it's surprising that the Mexican Supreme Court would rule in favour of a foreigner? Supreme courts generally have much more important things to think about than the nationality of involved parties. Gatoclass (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally I'd go with the thumb and the cat. EEng 19:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a little too trivial for my taste - also, there is no additional detail in the article, and as a general rule I don't think hooks should highlight facts for which there is no more information in the article than in the hook, it just leaves readers feeling shortchanged. Gatoclass (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Since we've never done a Hook Readers' Focus Group we'll never really know, but I always feel like once the reader gets to the article he'll be pleased to learn all the other interesting stuff there. For that matter there's nothing more about the mine in the article than there is in the hook. EEng 20:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I can assure you that this reader at least hates going to the bother of clicking on a link only to find there is no further information about the item that attracted his interest, and I'm sure I'm far from the only person with this response. Other than that, there is in fact some more information about the mine angle that is not in the hook, albeit only a little, but even a little is better than none. Apart from which, the cat/gun angle is basically just highlighting a fairly minor accident in a not uncommon category, ie people harming themselves on machinery. It also tells you nothing about what the person is notable for, and tends to suggest that there is nothing more interesting that can be said about him. Gatoclass (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well all I can say is that when Mexico sends us their hooks they're not sending their best though some, I assume, are good hooks. EEng 21:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@MB: As Gatoclass said, three Mexicos in one hook seemed excessive. If you want to emphasise your point, you could have

Hi-User:Allen3 (Allen Peckham) died in December 2016. Allen3 researched and wrote many articles about Arizona Territory and the territorial legislature. Allen3 started the Lawrence Cowan article. Allen3 should be given credit for Do You Know for the Lawrence Cowan article in appreciation for the articles Allen3 had researched and wrote. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I thought we were doing that while we finish up Allen3's articles. Right, MB? Yoninah (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. He left this one at just 88 characters, a photo and a few sources, but of course there is no problem with a DYK credit since he did get it started. MB 15:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I did work om the William Herring (politician) article which Allen3 started. It was a draft and I moved to be an article. Please free to edit and make any changes to the article-thank you again-RFD (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@RFD: it would be nice if you could expand it to start-class and nominate it for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, what about changing the link from claim to claim jumpers since I have added the term claim jumper to the article? MB 23:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@MB: I can't do anything about a hook that's already in the queue or on the main page. You would have to post at WP:ERRORS for that. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Littleneck clam

Please could someone add EdChem to the credits for the hook about the littleneck clam, now in Queue 1. He expanded the article dramatically and solved the problem when a point of which I was unaware was raised at WP:ERRORS at a time when I was offline. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Bright Memory

SoWhy, you moved Template:Did you know nominations/Birght Memory to Template:Did you know nominations/Bright Memory without leaving a redirect. As far as I can tell, you then listed it on the nomination under the corrected name of Bright Memory. DYK procedure has been to not move a mis-spelled template to another name. As long as what is within the nomination template is otherwise correct, a typo in the template header is not an issue. So right now, if you go under the nominations page and click that link, it brings up a blank page with "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted", causing a reviewer to have to click on the redirected link in that notice. Can you put it back the way it was, so other potential reviewers, and the bots can handle this? — Maile (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: Thanks for the note. You are correct of course. In this case, I fixed the template header instead now since the nom was already reviewed (still have to do the QPQ though) and otherwise it might cause even more confusion. I'll try to remember not to move in future though! Regards SoWhy 16:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/2

The hook for William Rose sounds like it was the butcher that didn't have the licence, not the apothecary. How about "that in 1701, the apothecary William Rose was charged with illegally practising physick on a butcher? Also physick should probably link just to medicine not medieval medicine. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done I also linked the word "apothecary". — Maile (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4

Could we find a better way of wording this hook? Medal of Honor citation specifically says this, "Took up the colors as they fell out of the hands of the wounded color bearer and carried them forward in the charge."

Suggesting an ALT below: — Maile (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Die Göttin der Vernunft

Gatoclass - My very nice hook, which was approved, has been replaced without even notifying me by something boring, (and which is not fully justified by the citations) with which I do not wish to be associated. What on earth is going on here? Is there time please to take this out entirely and replace it with something else?--Smerus (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I just noticed the same (and had a similar question for Fallt mit Danken, yesterday, which was then fixed). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Phew, restored at the last minute!--Smerus (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK notifications

What happened to DYK notifications yesterday. My user talk and Talk:151 North Franklin were not tagged yesterday when it was on the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Gatoclass forgot to restore the credits after they reinstated the hook ([2]). I'll do it now. Alex Shih (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow's queue: Issue with Harry E. Huffman

... that 13 was a lucky number for American movie theater magnate Harry E. Huffman?

The number 13 is a lucky number for more than one person, such as the entirety of Italy. I propose this:

... that 13 was a very prominent number throughout the life of movie theater magnate Harry E. Huffman?

@Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth: as the creator and promoter. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sakes, it was a lucky number for him. And this is the English Wikipedia, not the Italian. "Very prominent number", what the heck is that supposed to mean? Just leave it as it is. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I might consider the number 1 to be lucky. Does that make it important? What made the number 13 important to this person was how much it popped up throughout their life. "was a very significant number". Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It "popped up" a lot in his life because it was his lucky number. And this is the English wikipedia, not the Italian. In the English speaking world, thirteen is widely regarded as unlucky, so readers will instantly understand that it's unusual to have it as a lucky number. The hook is concise, accurate and to the point, there is no need for a change. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
And yet the hook fails to recognise why it was his lucky number. "Did you know that the number 13 was lucky for x" is about as interesting as a packet of Jatz. We can't comment on what the readers will find interesting or unusual, all we can do is hope that we can hook as many people as possible. Surely you agree that the ways in which the number 13 appeared throughout his life is a lot more interesting than the mere fact that he considered it lucky. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes it does, and so what? it is a hook, not an entire article, and I don't seen an error here. It pulls out a fact and presents it. if we demand that each hook is dumbed down by providing exhaustive context then it may as well only feature one or two articles at a time. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Was it a "very prominent number" throughout his life? The source doesn't say that, it just mentions a few instances where he apparently chose things numbered thirteen because it was a lucky number for him. Saying it was a "very prominent number" also implies some sort of weird coincidence, which it probably wasn't. The original hook was certainly interesting to me and I'm sure would be to many people, so I don't see any need for change, but perhaps we should see what others have to say. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW, my apologies for the bluntness of my original comment, I was in the process of refactoring it when you replied. However, while I resile from the tone of the comment, I stand by the substance. Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK drove him to it.

Mikhail Borodin

Would someone do me a favour by updating the hook for Mikhail Borodin (Template:Did you know/Queue/5) before it goes live? I'm not sure how to go about doing this. In response to some concerns issued at WP:ERRORS2, I've produced the following: "...that Chinese revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen referred to Comintern agent Mikhail Borodin as his "Lafayette", a reference to the aid provided by the Marquis de Lafayette to the American side during the American War of Independence?" RGloucester — ☎ 22:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: your hook is way over the 200 character limit. Shorter hooks are preferable. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but apparently the shorter one wasn't clear enough. Would you please fix this? RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Only administrators can touch the queues. I pinged Amakuru who posted your new hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
IMO the original hook was fine, the name was linked so that anybody who didn't know who Lafayette was and what he did could go and read the article. We don't have to spell out every detail in a hook, that's what links are for. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Are we promoting hooks by blocked users?

User:FiendYT has this hook waiting for promotion: Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Petty. Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I brought up that one of FiendYT’s hooks made it to the main page on ERRORS even though they were blocked. The response that I received from 3 editors was that it wasn’t a DYK policy to ban contributions from blocked editors. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
That's weird. Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Pingjng the only DYK contributor that posted there - @Maile66:. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, SL93 It would be interesting what replies you get here.
  • 1 - The article was written, DYK nominated in December 2018, and approved on Jan 9, 2019. The editor was blocked on January 10, 2019. WP:G5 deletion polilcy :"To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." Doc James was the blocking admin, and it looks like on the user's talk page they were blocked for spamming in regards to dental clients, not related to the subject of the DYK nomination.
  • 2) - If anyone can find DYK policy that mentions a blocking policy, please post here. I searched through the rules, supplementary rules, and reviewing guide before replying to at WP:ERRORS.
  • 3) - Does any of that negate the quality of the article or nomination, and does DYK want to have an RFC to create a policy in contradiction to how Wikipedia handles blocked editors?
  • 4) - If the approved nomination is not promoted, does that negate the reviewer using it as QPQ? They did the work reviewing it, and were not involved in the block. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion. This user was an undisclosed paid editor plus was spamming links for pay despite prior warnings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I more or less concur with what Maile has written above. Unless a nominated article is CSD#G5 material, we should be treating it on its merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
My take is that any pages created as part of block evasion could be G5, but this isn't one of them. If the created page is part of the reason why the user was blocked, then the nomination should be declined as part of the denying process. Anything else should be treated on its own per above. Alex Shih (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with what those said above that solely a user being blocked is not a reason for an article of theirs to not appear in DYK. I think it goes back to the old saying, comment on content, not the contributor. The contributor may be blocked, but if the content is good, that shouldn't be a reason not to promote. The purpose of DYK is not to give credit to the user but to introduce interesting facts about new material to readers, which usually helps improve the articles as well. Another thing to remember is that blocks aren't punitive; they don't mean that the user is no longer a part of the Wikipedia community or anything. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense that their DYK hooks should not appear on the main page; after all, we don't delete all the creations of a user if the pages are constructive just because they're blocked (of course, G5 and stuff is a whole different story). The rest of my opinion is basically what Maile and Alex said. Best, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we fail nominations that don't try to meet the criteria?

Most nominations are more-or-less compliant with the DYK criteria, though it's unfortunate that by the time they are reviewed and any minor issues are fixed, they're not as recent as they ought to be. Lately I've noticed some nominations, though, that don't make a good-faith effort to meet the criteria at the time of nomination. They acknowledge QPQ is not done, or on one occasion, the editor nominated first and only then started the edits that would sufficiently expand the article. I feel these should not get the same leeway in correcting issues with the nomination as others do. Would it be WP:POINTy to immediately fail these nominations when I encounter them? It seems like that's the only incentive there could be for nominators keep the process running smoothly. Kim Post (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If we dropped DYK's stupid newness fetish, requiring nomination on a crash schedule, people wouldn't be tempted to do things like that. Anyway, as long as the article comes into compliance promptly I don't see the need for yet again more ways to tsk-tsk people. EEng 18:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about how I feel when it comes to that, but I'm not sure why nominators can't complete a QPQ first. I always do a QPQ before or right after I expand/create an article for DYK. It just doesn't seem too hard to me. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes an editor is too rushed (in Wikipedia-land or in real life) and just needs to get the nomination in on time; the QPQ and further editing will follow. As it usually takes a few days (or more) before the nomination is even reviewed by someone, I don't agree with penalizing editors who do that. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I the consensus is that it's alright to do, it should probably be in writing somewhere. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Incomplete nominations delay the process and are part of the reason reviews take a long time. This is not fair to editors who do follow the rules. Quick-fails are a normal part of GA and FA reviewing in part for this reason. Is a good faith attempt at compliance (not strictly compliance itself) really too much to ask for? Kim Post (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Your thinking is absolutely backwards. Incomplete nominations are quite obviously not part of the reason reviews take a long time. Reviews take a long time because there's a huge backlog, even counting the 95% of noms that are fully ready. If a nom says, "Nominating now, but give me a few days to get the article fully ready and do a QPQ", there's plenty of other noms available for review. EEng 20:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
My observation has been that the QPQ is generally not done until a reviewer makes note of the fact that it is still needed. Nominations are understandably forgotten when there is no activity on them, but this avoidable back-and-forth takes up reviewer time. If your advice is not to review nominations that don't meet the criteria, then the backlog would simply grow indefinitely. Kim Post (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this depends entirely on the type of "failure to meet" we're talking about. If a person nominates a two-sentence article saying they're going to expand it later, it may not be unreasonable to fail it; we shouldn't be passing stuff that is basically incomplete. A QPQ is slightly different; I often nominate articles before completing a QPQ, because I spend all the time I have available on a given day on writing, but I don't want to forget to nominate. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, there are so many things wrong with the DYK assembly line of low-quality article and hooks that fussing about the 3% of noms that are openly nominated as "Nominating now, gimme a few days and I'll let you know when it's ready for review", and the 1/2 % which never do get ready, is a severe waste of attention. EEng 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I am certainly less willing to review hooks where the nominator hasn't even made the effort to do a required QPQ yet. As far as I'm concerned they can languish unreviewed until the nominator fixes the obvious deficiencies of the nomination. If they've done enough nominations to need a QPQ, they've also done enough nominations to have no excuse for being unfamiliar with the rules. I would be happy with segregating such partial nominations into a separate waiting area to make it clearer to nominators and reviewers that the nomination needs to be complete before it is suitable for review. Am I the only one? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to nominate an article if the nominator knows it hasn't yet been expanded to meet the size req. That is not using the process in good faith. I wouldn't think of nominating an article I "plan" to get ready for DYK, so I would be OK with a fail in that circumstance. As far as the QPQ, it should be done before or shortly after a nomination. I suggest a rule that a nomination be failed if a required QPQ is not done within a week of the nom. MB 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I am planning on bringing 2019 EFL Cup Final to DYK after I created it yesterday but I know it's not ready yet so I am waiting until I can get the details I need to add before I do. I think QPQs should have a time limit to avoid stockpiling, a week seems reasonable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
What's wrong with stockpiling the QPQs? That's the only way to ensure that I have one when I have a new nom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I've got QPQs stockpiled from five years ago – no kidding. They'll get my stockpile when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. EEng 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your perspective, EEng. If a stricter regime is what you want, surely the most obvious cases are the ones to start rejecting first? Kim Post (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I want a stricter regime in terms of the final product, not in terms of meeting some breakneck schedule – which in fact is one of the (many) reasons DYK quality is currently so low. EEng 04:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
7 days is "breakneck"? Damn being a Wikipedia celebrity and overall swell comment poster such as yourself is obviously much busier than I could ever imagine. What kind of improvement in quality do you predict if there is a 14 day time window to nominate instead of 7 days? New articles can have PLENTY of improvements and expansion done after nomination, is it not possible to produce quality articles with enough quality in 7 days? So what do you think will happen if we go to 14 days? I agree here is a problem - I am just not sure how the time limit is the cause of it. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
It is possible to produce a quality article in 7 days, if you happen to have the time and motivation and sources and good luck, but often what you in fact get is a not-so-good-to-mediocre article in that time – an article which might be really good in another few weeks or months or years. The whole newness thing is really just an arbitrary way to throttle input to the overloaded DYK review process. It has long been my contention that DYK should feature GAs only – imagine if all the effort going into reviews here was redirected to the enormous GA reviewing backlog. Now hold on to your hat while fifty people pile on to tell me that DYK's mission is to feature new content and blah blah blah, as if it was self-evident that that's a worthwhile mission. EEng 07:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a change in focus to GA articles would lift quality tremendously, that would solve the quality issue almost instantly. That would produce thebdesired effect much more than giving someone another week to nominate. Any yes we would lose the "feature new artivles" aspect, but that is not a law of nature and should be worth a discussion at least. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The eldest Oyster looked at him, / But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye, / And shook his heavy head—
Meaning to say he did not choose / To leave the oyster-bed.
EEng 20:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to lose it completely if you just put a hard limit on it. Say, each user gets three free DYKs, which meet the existing requirements (except for time). This gives new users an achievable bar to feature their content on the main page. But after three DYKs, your nominations must be good articles. Modulus12 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
THE ABOVE ^^^^ IS A BRILLIANT IDEA! EEng 20:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:DYKRULES. Please see Item 5a under Eligibility criteria: "You can do your QPQ review before or after you make your nomination, but for your nomination to be approved you will need to provide a link, at your nomination, to your completed QPQ review. For help in learning the reviewing process, see the reviewers' guide."
  • If DYK still welcomes new contributors, we need to be flexible for the newbies. No matter how long they may, or may not, have edited at Wikipedia, DYK is a new experience for some. They don't always understand the length or QPQ requirement at first go-around. And sometimes it takes more than once or twice at nominating before all those rules are remembered. It took me several nominations before I finally figured out all the "do this" and "don't do that" stuff. Fortunately, I landed at DYK when there was still some semblance of helping new editors, rather than tossing them out on their ear. Not everybody learns, or remembers, at the same level. Some take more time than others. I know. The first review I did was one sentence, "This looks good to me." And nobody got upset that I was clueless, just gentle prodding to help me understand. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed we should be welcoming to newbies. QPQ doesn't apply to new contributors, so there is no issue there. But when a QPQ is required, everyone should be able to get one done within a week if they haven't done it beforehand. As far a meeting other requirements, I specifically said if the "nominator knows..." I did not mean we shouldn't be flexible with someone that doesn't understand the rules. MB 00:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In my case at least, if a nomination is all but good to go and all that's outstanding is a QPQ, I first try to contact the nominator again, and if they are not editing or unresponsive, I tend to donate one of my (many) unused QPQs. But if there are many outstanding issues and not just a missing QPQ, I usually give them a week, then mark for closure if there is no response. I very rarely quick fail unless necessary, and I try to avoid it for newer editors since they're still learning the ropes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not having a QPQ done at time of nomination is not that big a deal - can still to the actual article review, just cannot give it the final approval. the ARTICLE not being close to the DYK mark or actually hitting it at time of submission is wrong. For GA there have been ANIs filed for people submitting an article and then go "Well I have 4 months to get it ready", why should DKY be different? Using the "I have time logic" I would like to put in a DYK nomination for Captain America vs. Hulk (marvel movie) that I'll write in 2-3 weeks, that's cool right? MPJ-DK (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think we should just extend the nomination window to 30 days after the article has been created/expanded. It would give users more time to polish the articles and identify possible issues, as well as avoiding the necessity of nominating articles which haven't yet met the criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd also wish if we just got rid of the six-week special occasion date limit or expand it. In many cases, people might be put off doing article creations/improvements intended for special occasion date hooks because the proposed date is too far away. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree to both suggestions above - (1) Extend the nomination window to 30 days; (2) Lift the special occasion date limit. There is no limit on April Fools day, so why do the others have a time limit? — Maile (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
There is an effective limit for April Fools hooks, which is one year. April Fools is a special case because qualifying hooks don't come along all that often (although, let's face it, the hooks that end up being featured are often not that terrific anyway). A year for other annual special occasions sounds excessive to me, indeed I'm not sure why special occasions apart from April Fools should get a longer limit at all - why can't people just create special occasion articles in their sandbox? Gatoclass (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Encouraging people to put otherwise solid articles in draft space or sandboxes seems like it defeats the point of DYK, which is to improve the encyclopedia by highlighting recent contributions. You wouldn't want people to withhold good contributions for the sake of DYK timing. Kim Post (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Extending the nomination window makes sense to me, but with it we should increase the minimum article size to maybe 3000 readable characters and/or a 5x expansion to above 3000 characters. EdChem (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a good idea to couple one potentially controversial proposal with another IMO. If you wanted to make such a proposal, it would be better dealt with separately. Gatoclass (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I'm not planning to push it and maybe no one else agrees with me, but I think expanding the character requirement is a good reason for a greater timeframe, and would also help cut down on the only-just-1500 character almost-stubs that come along for time to time. I think increasing article quality is a good reason for a linked change, and more persuasive to others watching the DYK project. EdChem (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Quality reviews Maybe it's me, but it takes time to do a QPQ review justice. Just see the daily DYK errors caught at Wikipedia:ERRORS2. In the occasional times I placed an IOU, it's real life happening, and it also seemed like an uncontroversial practice until now.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • from vacation: I have been guilty of nominating short, late, without qpq, in not the best English, and am glad I found forgiving reviewers. I try to be lenient myself. I like the collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I always start QPQ within a very short time (like, the same day) of nominating, but I've had it take weeks to get that QPQ finished if the article I'm reviewing has issues, and even a simple issue combined with a nominator who doesn't edit daily can make a QPQ take more than seven days. If I had to wait until QPQ was completed before nominating, my article would be too old. The only way around that is to build up a stockpile of QPQs. valereee (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I've never interpreted "completed QPQ review" to mean that you have to approve the hook. Checking the size/newness/guidelines/hook, etc. is substantially completing the review. I think we can AGF that if you have done a review, you will also do any follow-up necessary and can use the QPQ on your nomination at the point you have a performed full and complete initial review and notified the nom of the result. MB 16:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Same: when you have done your review, that's what counts, however long the other party may nee to adjust, and the review completed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to mention someone who doesn't have a Wikipedia article on the main page?

We've been going around for many years not naming people on the main page who do not have a Wikipedia article, per The Rambling Man's directive. Since his absence from the DYK project, a lot more hooks have sprung up with names of people who don't have a page, like:

  • ... that the BBC head of drama Mal Young stated that the Slater family in EastEnders was created due to a deficit of "solid families" in the soap? (Prep 1) -- Actually, not a good example, because there is a Mal Young page. But you get the point.
Can we have some consensus on whether to include such people? I think this should be written into the rules as well. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, no example at all then! I don't think we should have a rule about it, but a) it is acceptable and b) it should generally be avoided. The speakers of quotes used may be one of the cases where it can be used, though one could just say "the BBC's head of drama said that...". I wouldn't mind a rule against the unnecessary use of "stated". Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't really have a preference either way, but I agree with the sentiment above that there shouldn't really be a hard rule against it and such things should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, what if the DYK article is about a character, and the hook involves said character's actor (who happens to not have an article)? I've encountered a few cases like that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't see anything wrong with it as long as it is a person in a point of authority that needs to be named to support the fact. (Here, the BBC's head of drama explaining a decision on a BBC drama seems to be the right expert). But in this case, given the authority this person has, why not just go with "that the Slater family in Eastenders was created due to a deficit of "solid families" in the soap?" --Masem (t) 23:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If it's not already Wikipedia policy, we should not have a special rule. If it is already Wikipedia policy, then we don't need a separate rule. I just scanned through the Today's featured article/December 2018. Their blurbs are more of a synopsis, and you don't necessarily find an abundance of names dropped into the blurbs. But being right at the top of the main page, they'd be the standard. Check Dec 3, and you see the names "Cynegyth, Æthelburh and, late in life, Wærburh" have no links. December 6, "Kitiwaha" has no link. Dec 18, "Charles Brungardt" has no link. And there are blurbs that have linked names. But TFA is scrutinized enough before the main page, that if this were a Wikipedia policy, they'd follow. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Overthinking it. WP:BLPNAME applies. If the name would be inappropriate to have in the article per BLPNAME, then it shouldnt be on the front page and likely wouldnt, as it wouldnt be contained within the article. In Mal Young's case, he is/was the head of BBC Drama, giving an interview in which he was explaining why the BBC's flagship soap drama was making the decisions it was. Thats more than acceptable for inclusion in an article on the soap/family, and by extension, the main page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Look, I know Mal Young is a bad example. The fact is that well-known people are often not linked to avoid overlinking, as in this hook currently in Queue 4:
  • ... that Marianne Schech appeared as the Dyer's Wife in the U.S. premiere of Die Frau ohne Schatten by Richard Strauss at the San Francisco Opera?
  • But I'm talking about non-notable people. As Narutolovehinata5 points out, we have had a number of no-name actors being promoted in hooks, such as this recent promotion:
... that actor Patrick O'Connor watched old episodes of Home and Away and talked to past cast members to prepare for his first ever television role as Dean Thompson?
  • The fact is that bad hooks are often edited in the preps and queues, and are almost always commented on at WP:ERRORS2. What I'm trying to suggest is some kind of guideline for nominators so we don't have to have all this correcting and rewriting. Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So far everyone seems clear there shouldn't be a rule. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The only rule is no redlinks, nothing wrong with mentioning someone without a Wiki page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Dean Thompson is an article and quite justifiably has the actor's name who portrays him. Easily satisfies BLP for name inclusion. Stop overthinking it. The inclusion criteria for names of people in articles is not 'notability'. So its largely irrelevant if they personally have an article or not as long as BLPNAME is satisfied. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule it should be avoided, because if the person isn't notable then mentioning them usually adds nothing useful to the hook and may only confuse the reader. For example, from the abovementioned hook, the phrase "the BBC head of drama Mal Young stated ..." would be better just as "the BBC head of drama stated ..." if the person wasn't notable. Having said that, there may be occasions when there is a valid reason to mention a non-notable person in the hook (though I'm struggling to think of one offhand) so I'm not sure a hard-and-fast rule would be helpful. "Avoid where possible" is probably the best approach. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Johnbod's example of Dean Thompson is a valid example of when such a name can be used. If the character is notable but the actor is not known for anything else, the actor won't have an article but he will and should still be mentioned by name in the article about the character and can logically also be mentioned in the hook. Regards SoWhy 07:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy and would add that the reviewers/nominators should not have the burden of who is notable and who is not. Nobody has universal knowledge of who might be a notable person in an area they are not familiar with. Who is mentioned in the hook should be relevant to information in the linked article. In and of itself, lacking a bio article is indicative of nothing except that nobody has yet created an article. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over an hour ago, though over half of them remain to be included on this one. Here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 11. Right now we have a total of 312 nominations, of which 168 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from October and the six from November.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Can hook facts come from article footnotes?

Asking for clarification because of a question raised at Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Eaves. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and from captions that are sourced, too. I once had a hook based on a footnote here: Template:Did you know nominations/Brasheedah Elohim. Yoninah (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This is Football 2002

Also, you should revert your change to the This is Football 2002 hook, because the source doesn't say it was the first game to feature diving, just that it was a unique feature at the time of its release. Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Unique means the first/only. If it's unique to the game, how is it not the first? Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The source doesn't explicitly state that it was the first video game to feature diving, only that it's unique among the current spate of games. Most likely it was the first such game, but the source doesn't explicitly state that. Only yesterday, I was castigated by the same party who proposed the change to this hook over a change I made to another hook which relied on a fact that was implied rather than explicitly stated by the source. The same principle applies here, you have to stick to what the source actually says, not make assumptions about what it might have meant. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If this is the case, the article is also incorrect: "introduced a number of features unique...". Not only was the feature unique to the game, it also introduced it to football games (bit of a tautology). Here's another article. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The article says the feature was unique at the time, which is an accurate reflection of the source, which says: Despite there being hordes of games on the horizon, This is Football 2002 does have features that make it unique. That is, a feature unique by comparison to the hordes of games on the horizon. As I said, while in all likelihood it was the first game to feature diving, the source doesn't make that claim, so we shouldn't either. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"... that This Is Football 2002 was unique among its contemporaries due to the introduction of deliberately diving?" This effectively says the exact same thing while not explicitly saying it was the first. I think it also mitigates TRM's concern (as it gives a time frame). @Gatoclass, The Rambling Man, and The C of E: Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"Contemporaries" to my mind is a word that refers to people rather than things, so that might be a little confusing. Perhaps it would be better to drop the "unique" angle altogether and go with something like:
- that's from the BBC source, and would have to be added to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds good @Gatoclass:. I had wanted to say the first game to allow players to dive however (even though it probably was), since I can't find a source to confirm that then what you have said is fine by me. I used was to clarify it was in the past however I'm happy to accept compromise if it is felt that it is unclear. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Updated. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Really old error?

On Template:Did you know nominations/James Dredge, Jr., James Dredge, Sr., the DYK read

This should have been

How should we deal with this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, should Talk:James Dredge, Sr./Talk:James Dredge, Jr. / Template:Did you know nominations/James Dredge, Jr., James Dredge, Sr. / Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/January#30 January 2013 be amended/annotated/corrected/fixed in some way? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
When really old errors of DYK hooks are discovered, annotation seems logical to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Logical, and as a hook is effectively a fork of the article, that also seems advisable. I expect that old dyks are a resource for new content, here and elsewhere, so the widowed content requires maintenance or a general disclaimer: "These facts were created for DYKs, please refer to current article", something like that? I would prefer that this sideline (DYK itself) is not promoted on the front page, perhaps it should be an in-house magazine style quick read for editors. cygnis insignis 08:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
No doubt LBGTQ editors of all ages are among our content contributors, but I hardly see why that's relevant. EEng 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Special occasion requests for February 8 and 13

I submitted a DYK for on January 15 for Template:Did you know nominations/Silver Quilty to appear on February 8, but the original review has not edited in almost two weeks. I also just submitted a DYK today for Template:Did you know nominations/Gord Renwick to appear on February 13. I hope I have submitted nominations with enough advance notice. Reviews are appreciated. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect hook pulled from Main Page

Template:Did you know nominations/Børge Ring @DannyS712, Joseph2302, and Cwmhiraeth:

Ring got his Oscar in 1985, but Max Rée got one in 1931 already! Tambi Larsen won one in 1955... Fram (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: Apologies. I think ALT1 is fine. Thanks for the catch! --DannyS712 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This ran for nearly eight hours before it was pulled. Should we reopen the nomination to consider ALT1, or do we think that it received a long enough run? Back in the days when we ran three sets a day, it would have been eight minutes short of a full run; it's even the bulk of the time it would have gotten in a two-set day. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that it was an unnecessary pull, I think it should be run again. Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Michelle Leslie

  • that catwalk model Michelle Leslie claimed police in Bali, Indonesia, planted two ecstasy tablets in her handbag and then asked for a US$25,000 bribe to avoid conviction?
Isn't there a rule about running blurbs that could refelct negatively on living people? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK Reviewing Guide says, "If the article includes information about living individuals, make sure it does not violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. This applies even if the article subject is not a living person." — Maile (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I would have pulled this hook had I seen it, for the reason given, but it's been and gone now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin Attn, please: Is a February hook now in January?

Am I reading Template:Did you know/Queue/3 right? Template:Did you know nominations/Something Good - Negro Kiss was held for February, Black History Month but is it now appearing January 31? Not a huge deal but since the special occasion was arranged and, can it be delayed? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It needed to meet the self-assessment deadline.[FBDB] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:: Hi. Self assessment deadline? What is that? It was reviewed by someone and then placed in the special occasion holding area diff by someone else in late December, and then scheduled late last week by someone else, apparently a day early. But what self assessment are you referring to? -Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
That's an error; not sure how it happened. Could an administrator swap it with a different hook so it can run in Queue 4 or later? Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Swapped with Grand Central Palace from Prep 4; since that's scheduled for 1 February UTC, I think that should be okay. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: thank you! Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

2 February

Template:Did you know nominations/Im Frieden dein, o Herre mein was requested for 2 February because it's most closely connected to that feast day? Can we at least try. It needs a review, and if successful could replace "our" Albert Dohmen who could come any day. - Sorry, one of the many things I missed over vacation. - I may add detail about the early version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

on it valereee (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the template -- not seeing normal buttons etc nevermind, got it valereee (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It's approved! Can someone please move it to prep 5?

 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eugène de Mirecourt

This nomination has been stuck for a while now due to sourcing issues regarding the hook fact. Some help is now appreciated in helping out solving the problems. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Saving you a lot of reading; The hook is
* ... that Eugène de Mirecourt wrote 100 biographies of his contemporaries in a weekly series Les Contemporains, including Alexandre Dumas, Hector Berlioz and George Sand?
and we even have some of these in Wikisource (see article). The ONLY question about these well-sourced essays about his 100 contemporaries is: "Can they be called "biographies"? If you say yes, fine, and if you say no, then suggest a word instead. Read one before you do, please. On Wikipedia, we call such things biographies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
ps: Victor Hugo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I didn't read anything, but how about calling them "profiles"? Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, that sounds a bit like OR. Look at the example. The title is simply Hugo, but it says below, in all capitals, "Biographie du poëte Victor Hugo". It's the common name, and not too limited in meaning. Our featured article says: "The first biography of Berlioz, by Eugène de Mirecourt, was published during the composer's lifetime." How would "profile" sound there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
So what's the problem? The example that you show of Victor Hugo clearly says "biography". Why can't this move on with the hook you printed above? Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yocemento, Kansas

I have moved this article from q1 to p6 as the article contains many unsourced statements. IveGoneAway, please finish sourcing the article or it will have to be pulled from prep, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Is it fair to ask you for some indication of which statements are unsourced? Am I inferring correctly from your statement that the number of outsourced statements is too great to identify? I am thinking the situation is that I need more detailed page by page citation of the references that are already there? I am not trying to be argumentative, I want to do this right, but want to expend my time most effectively, since I infer from your comment that I need to hurry. I hope the effort I started this morning is seen as made in most earnest good faith. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I wondered about that also. After Gatoclass posted this, I looked at the article. DYK guidelines state, "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." It already has that, with 73 inline sources as of yesterday. Please be specific. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, that guideline is out of date. It's been accepted practice for quite a while now that articles should be fully sourced, those that are not regularly get pulled from the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Then the guideline should be changed. On the one hand, I'm glad you're doing everything you can to make sure nothing gets yanked from the main page. On the other hand, "accepted practice" has a tendency to be interpreted as individual perspective, and editors who post here need to be able to cite the guidelines. Not just you, but anybody can put any spin they want on something not in the guidelines. What I see you applying here is something pretty stringent, so put it in the guidelines.— Maile (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
IveGoneAway, just by way of example, in the Railroad construction and conflict section you have the following unsourced statements:
  • "Even though the Smoky Hill Trail was more hazardous than the Platte River route, it was the most direct route from the East to Denver."
  • "Another of the photographs taken near the location is the more famous image that Gardner entitled Westward The Course of Empire Takes Its Way. Taken days before the signing of the Medicine Lodge Treaty, it shows a staged construction party at end-of-track, which was then only a couple miles west of Hays City. By the time of these photographs (mid-October, 1867) Rome had been largely abandoned in favor of the permanent settlement of Hays City."
The point is that you need to go through the article and source all statements, excluding the lead or statements that summarize other sourced content. Hope that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: That is why I added citation to Haworth and Yost in the lead; their status is confirmed later, but it does seem that every clause in article leads needs citation, hence my comment on the lead in Typhoon Ofelia.
  • Re: Even though the Smoky Hill Trail was more hazardous ...
Reading your comment, I had recollection of citing that, or at least struggling to cite it, but I didn't, and now it took seconds to find a source ...
I have made a number of additional citations this night, mostly in the 1860s-70s sections. I will next try to see what I can do about the Highway alignment now that I understand more of what you are after. But I am pretty sure I can't steal any more time to work on it until Wednesday night.
Also, Gatoclass, I wanted you to know that by posting here, I only received a brief notification on Notices; clicking on it immediately removed it from notices, I almost thought it was a bug. Fortunately, I kept looking and found the post. Moreover, even though I have added this to my watchlist, edits here are not appearing there. The one "u|IveGoneAway" did set an Alert. IveGoneAway (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah:, Cwmhiraeth courtesy pings to the reviewer and promoter. Perhaps one of you can offer IveGoneAway some insight. I'm at a loss on this. It seems to me it would be beneficial to give the nominator specific text/sentences to correct. The nominator should not be left to guess where the perceived infractions are in the article. Give I'veGoneAway a list, and they can work specifically located issues. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, IveGoneAway has not been "left to guess" what needs to be done, I gave them an explanation and they appear to have understood and to be addressing the problem, but have asked for some time to complete the job, which is fine by me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
On reflection, my explanation may not have been sufficiently clear, as I see that IveGoneAway is adding citations within paragraphs that are probably not necessary. You can cite multiple sentences, even entire paragraphs, with a single cite, assuming that everything in the paragraph is sourced to the same work and the cite is at the end of the paragraph. What you can't do is leave content completely uncited, as with the two examples I gave above. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Some of the presently unreferenced material is written in the present tense, for example, "The original creek channel remains, water still ponding where Benecke's sportsmen fished in 1873", and is probably original research which is why it is difficult to cite. But by and large, I would think the article is sufficiently well cited for DYK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"Benecke's sportsmen (that ) fished in 1873" are visible in Benecke's No. 51 presented higher, but the reader has to click through to the wikimedia image, which is poor enough that I uploaded the detail from the SMU source. Would it do part of the job to ad the detail as a citation, of is that OR? (I didn't think it would fit the layout to add the detail image).
Part of the excitement of finding the citations for the article was the astonishing detail that was recorded in some of these pictures. I was surprise to see that I had captured the channel where Benecke stood watch over the fishermen with the rifle in the reenactment that I shot (OR?); looking at my shot again tonight, I just now realized that I caught the very spot (although, I didn't have a boxcar to stand on top of). The fact that the original channel remains can be easily verified by comparing No. 51 with modern maps and existing photographs. I was surprised to see that the aerial photos showed water in the old channel; I am guessing it is a beaver dam (like Benecke's), but verifying that by visiting again would be OR(?).
I will take a stab at citation tomorrow night (too late tonight (coaching kids wrestling)), I don't think it is hard, as long as citing the No. 51 detail, topos, and aerials is acceptable (synthesis?).
Just give me some more time, most of it is already cited elsewhere, I can do a lot just by duplicating the cites. I think see what you mean by some of my concluding sentences on the paragraphs; I generally meant them them summary of material cited in the paragraph above or transitional to material cite in the next paragraph ('least, that's how I remember it). I have material to augment the statement about the GBR needing to be relocated. IveGoneAway (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, I spent too much time tonight looking in the wrong place for the citation that backed the realignment due to accidents. I hope I have caught most of the many concern, because tomorrow night is wrestling practice, then I am traveling for the weekend, but I will check in regularly and respond on my phone if necessary. IveGoneAway (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, have to leave town now. I hope I did enough to remove the risk of de-queuing. 05:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for February 4

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Erica Pappritz requested this to run on February 4 but I missed his last message so I could only approve it today. Can someone do the necessary double-check and promote it to prep 1 which should run on that day? Regards SoWhy 11:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1

Could this hook possibly be tweaked? I understand it's for Black History Month, but the hook itself lacks interest to those unfamiliar with Ansel Adams. Perhaps another hook could be suggested here that ties in with his African-American heritage, or something about Johnson's work itself? Skimming through the article, he appears to have quite an interesting life and thus there's possibly other material here. Courtesy ping @Animalparty, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I rather imagined that Ansel Adams was a household name in the US, rather like Winston Churchill is in the UK or Imelda Marcos in the Philippines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that photographer David Johnson (pictured) was the first African-American student of Ansel Adams, famous for his images of the American West?
  • ALT2 ... that David Johnson (pictured) was the first African-American student of environmentalist and iconic American West photographer Ansel Adams?
Narutolovehinata5, @Animalparty, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: Two alts offered above. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile, but if people don't know who Ansel Adams is, the added words are just taking away from the main subject of the hook, who is David Johnson. I think we need a new hook here. Since it's the next to be promoted, I'm returning it to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ansel Adams is one of the most iconic American photographers, and these new hooks only add needless clunkiness and pedantry. In my admittedly Americocentric view, Adams doesn't need defining or qualification (the subtitle of Johnson's book is simply "The Story of David Johnson; Ansel Adams' First African American Student"). The proposed hooks draw too much focus away from the subject. And if this hook lacks broad interest, why change now? Most hooks are terriblly dull these days, especially to people unfamiliar with the subject. Being a 'first' or any superlative is inherently more intriguing than the mundane factoids that routinely flood DYK. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And as DYK editors have often pointed out, Ansel Adams is linked, for those who don't know him. Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping or something?

Can someone please point me to the discussion around the changes to the Lady Shani hook that was made after it was moved to the queue? As the nominator I was a little surprised to see what I consider a fairly butchered and poorer version of the approved hook show up on the main page. Is it no longer a courtesy to at least try to include the nominator?? Especially since the original version was factually correct and error free? Is this no longer a thing around here? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 made the change. Just out of curiousity re the new hook, what is an "unscripted injury"?— Maile (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've changed it back to the originally approved hook, the only one that makes sense. Apparently Vanamonde93 was only trying to correct an already-changed hook, which Modulus12 had altered incorrectly while still in prep. The change in prep is where the hook was altered in contrast to sourced content in the article. Hope it's all OK now. — Maile (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I strongly disagree. The original hook and your now current hook make it sound like everything was Lady Shani's fault, and that she was stripped of her title. Which is not what I read in the article. Modulus12 (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It needs to be discussed here with input from MPJ-DK. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the hook should be discussed at WP:ERRORS, since it is currently on the Main Page. Discussion of lack of courtesy pings could take place here. Modulus12 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think I was the first to change it in Prep here. The original hook was not clear at all as to who was causing what, and as my edit did not change the substance of what it was saying, I think it was within the bounds of simple copy-editing. I knew the antecedent of "her" was still not clear, but that's the best I could do. And I could see this complaint coming from a mile away. Not sure if Vanamonde93 was acting on that basis. Modulus12 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I changed it to avoid the phrase "got too real", which is completely unencyclopedic language. The present version is better, though it strays a little further from the source. I would have thought "unscripted injury" was self-explanatory; the matches are usually scripted, the injury was not according to plan; but I'm not hung up on preserving that aspect of the hook either. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah so "too real" is not an encylopedic description of a wrestling match where the participants usually work together to not cause harm to each other but instead one of the participants decided to actually fight her opponents? I don't see that personally, but then again I had no say in the matter once it hit the queue. Follow up question, is there a time where an injury is the plan? a "legitimate injury" is better, then again "injury" says it all IMO without needing modifiers. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: No, "got too real" would be too colloquial for any hook. I added the "unscripted" because the average layperson would expect injuries to occur in wrestling, and is likely unaware of the scripted nature of these bouts. Please see my reply below about pings; it certainly wasn't my intention to offend you. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there have been several complaints about this hook, I have changed it to:

Sadly, there is a big lack of courtesy here nowadays @MPJ-DK:. It seems if you want to preserve a hook you made that was passed according to policy then you have to spend the entire preceding day watching either the queue, ERRORS or some unofficial clandestine shadow page for any inkling of tampering. Then even if you detect it in time, because it's in the queue as a non-admin, you have to bring it here or ask an admin to get it put back. Courtesy pings should be a requirement, not just a gentlemanly thing to do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Or you could just make sure that the hook isn't shit. Seems like a lot of poor writing and unsupported "facts" are making it through the DYK process. --Khajidha (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of lack of courtesy. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I want to be 100% clear, I have no problems with alterations being suggested or made, no one is infallible and I own my mistakes. My problem it the fact that I was surprsied by the content of the hook. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK I don't think most people had a problem with your asking what happened. I think Gatoclass came up with a pretty good compromise. The C of E I've noticed the same thing you have, but not sure it's a recent happening. It would be nice if all changes to hooks were discussed here first. Kind of hit and miss on that happening. One of the hang-ups about that, is the time delay between anyone's original post, and the resultant answers. Sometimes there is no response. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's the trouble; if someone is reviewing a queue a few hours before it's due to hit the main page, as I was, there usually isn't much time for discussion. It's also often the case that the admin reviewing the set only has a couple of hours to spare. In such situations, we're left with a choice between pulling a hook, or modifying it: just proposing a change is rarely good enough, because there's no guarantee that the issue will be resolved before the hook hits the main page. Some folks object vociferously to modifications without pings; others object equally vociferously to pulled hooks. I try to strike a balance between modifying those hooks which have easily fixed issues, and pulling those which don't. I don't see how else to do this. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
"Time is the enemy of quality", but that's a systemic problem. I get the rational, you are in a crunch and felt like you had to act, it is the situation that the process put you in, I do not blame you for that. Could still have been pinged with a "hey I modified this for <<Reason>>" or something instead of a surprise.. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6 - Please restore outdated

In queue 6, why was "outdated" removed from the Parliamentary snuff box hook? I would like it restored please because I wrote it as it was intended to hook the reader in with the "politicians are out of touch" stereotype alongside the "one rule for us, another for you" implication. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Gatoclass removed it when he transferred it from Prep 3 to Prep 6. Modulus12 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
"Outdated" is redundant, of course a snuff box is outdated, that's what makes the hook quirky and you don't need to hit the reader over the head with the idea. "Outdated" is also confusing because it implies there's a more up-to-date snuff box somewhere. The hook is much better without it IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl

Why isn't this DYK page linked anywhere after promotion? SL93 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I see where it was pulled. A notification and a reopen would have been nice. Total bullshit. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Reopened nomination and re-posted at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Yoninah, I simply didn't have time to do it at the time and will follow up on the hooks I pulled tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

CS Alert

Can anyone explain what has happened to Template:Did you know nominations/CS Alert (1890)? It was promoted on 29 Jan, but is not in the approved noms, the queues, or the archive. SpinningSpark 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: When a nomination is promoted to a Preparation area, it is removed from the list of approved nominations. This nomination is currently in Prep 1. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew that, but I searched the page with the wrong term. I hadn't realised that the "CS" prefix had been dropped from the hook. SpinningSpark 19:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
From Template:Did you know nominations/CS Alert (1890) you can click "What links here" in the sidebar and the Prep or Queue should show up in the short list of pages that link to it if it has been placed in one. Also, I hope you don't mind my removal of the prefix; it was redundant with the "cable ship" immediately preceding it. Modulus12 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The change is fine by me. It just made me lose track of where it had got to. SpinningSpark 22:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

Hi. In Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir, I approved this. However, afterwards some people brought up objections, and after going back and forth I recused myself. Should this be moved or something? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why should it be moved? Discussion continues on the DYK template. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Yoninah, thanks for the kind reply. I see that this DYK is currently transcluded in the page for accepted DYKs [3], I am not sure if that is the place where this DYK will be able to find new reviewers to take this up of should the hook be moved back to un-approved page, where the reviewers are expected to take this up. If the approved page is where it should be and new reviewer will take it up from there, then I have no concerns. Note this is just me asking, since I am not familiar with how DYK reviewers take up the old DYKs.I just want to make sure that this DYK moves on with the process correctly. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over five hours ago; only ten of them remain to be included on this one. Here is an updated list with 39 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 23. Right now we have a total of 335 nominations, of which 181 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two from October and the four from November.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent additions lists

It seems to me that the 00:00 entries on the recent additions lists are being entered on the day after they actually appeared. For instance Cyclonic Niño is listed as 26 January, but the pageviews clearly show that it was on the main page on 25 January. This seems to have been the case for a very long time. SpinningSpark 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks to me like DYKUPdateBot is programmed to apply a date to match when it moves a set. Example is Man Mohan Singh (pilot) from yesterday. When it moved the set from the Queue to the Main page, it was January 27, which is the date that shows on the article and user talk pages where it left a notice that the article appeared on the main page. But moving the set from the main page to the archived page was January 28, at exactly the time it has in the section header. — Maile (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: so do you agree that this is wrong? It should be the date the item was on the main page, not the date it was moved into the archive. SpinningSpark 19:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion whatsoever about it. You need to ask Shubinator, since he created it. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shubinator: So let's ask. SpinningSpark 09:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Promoters needed

Since both Cwmhiraeth and I worked on these hooks, could someone else promote them to prep?

Template:Did you know nominations/Alexina Maude Wildman - promoted to quirky slot Prep 5 — Maile (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Goldberg Variations (play) -  Done now in prep 6 without picture VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cynthia García Coll

There have been concerns raised here that the hook isn't quite hooky. Unfortunately I'm not a terribly creative person really. Any input to try to wrap this old nomination up would be appreciated. GMGtalk 14:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Rule #1 exception request at Template:Did you know nominations/MAX Red Line

Hi all. The nominator at Template:Did you know nominations/MAX Red Line missed the nomination period of their first GA and DYK by a few days because while Legobot advertises DYK as an option, it forgets to inform about the time window. Since the hook is not boring and the user is genuinely likely to not have known about it, I'd be willing to grant an exception in this case. Any objections? Regards SoWhy 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I would support that. That rule has been relaxed for newbies in the past, so this wouldn't be setting a precedent. SpinningSpark 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I would not want to exclude this nomination for such a date technicality. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It would be particularly silly to decline this, especially given that we've got a bunch of nominations even older than that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a large backlog of hooks: the approved hooks alone would take well over three weeks to run, so we should be strictly enforcing the limit (and have had hundreds of nominations active for so long, that it's pretty much always the case). That said, we typically allow a few extra days for first-time nominees, as alluded to above, and this is certainly a case in which we should do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all for the input. I'll complete the review then! Regards SoWhy 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Current lead hook: Grande roue de Montréal

A request to pull Grande roue de Montréal for lack of referencing has been made at main-page errors. Can anyone fix it? Pinging @Jon Kolbert and L293D:. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Addressed, thanks for the ping. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Timely addition to 7 Feb queue?

Is it too late to request a timely addition to the 7 Feb queue? This - Template:Did you know nominations/International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela - is pending final approval by Raymie but, once/if they okay it I was wondering if it could be inserted to run tomorrow? I know that's short notice so no problem if not. Chetsford (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Crisper drawer

Hi - I have a Level 2 DYK Emergency to report. This - Template:Did you know nominations/Crisper drawer - was approved but I don't see it in the Preps or Queues or the approved nominations, and I don't think it's run. I think it must have fallen through the cracks. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The hook was pulled from Queue 1 by Fram per this thread at ERRORS. Since it was not relisted at WP:DYKN asking for a new hook or adjustment to the article wording, I am relisting it now. Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived nearly five hours ago; only eight nominations from it remain to be included on this one. Here is an updated list with 39 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through January 30. Right now we have a total of 344 nominations, of which 204 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the top three, which are over three months old and have been carried over for the last several of these lists.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4 hooks

When the DYKbotdo tag was added to Queue four, it somehow changed all the hooks that were worked on in prep 4, as seen here. Is there an administrator who can look into this? Courtesy ping to {(ping|Amakuru}}. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix ping, @Amakuru:. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, I have fixed the error now.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:DYKN is messed up at the moment

Right now, all nominations below the section "Articles created/expanded on January 22" are not displaying correctly (specifically, it appears someone forgot a </small> tag somewhere). I've tried troubleshooting but I can't find the page or nomination that cause the error. Could someone fix this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:  Done - see [4] --DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo

I just realised the DYK hook for Newbury Park tube station has a typo...before the station is mentioned there is an extra “the”. Can this be corrected? Thanks VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 01:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about something on the main page are typically discussed at WP:ERRORS. Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I’ve forgotten. Reposting there VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 03:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: The "the" is a standard addition to all British subjects per British English. We do the same for Germany and Australia hooks. Look at how you wrote "realised" instead of "realized" in your query. You are using British English. Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
-ize is not a safe distinction: [5], [6] Bazza (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: in this hook I don’t think it is necessary to add a “the”. Never heard of this rule of adding a “the” in this context. At the station is correct but not at the [pronoun]. It also sounds truly awkward. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm British and I'd never think of putting a "the" in that particular sentence. You wouldn't say, for example, "I'm travelling to the London Euston station today". Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's interesting. I'm American, and I would! Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Advertising

In Prep 3 we have:

but I dohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&action=edit&section=10n't really think we should be promoting this product on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternative wording:

Produced is a better word here, since the company was founded, but the shea butter is produced. I also want to remain true to the cited source. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit yes, but she is the founder of the company. It looked odd to me that she produced the product, when it was her company that produced the product. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We could say... Amina Gerba (pictured) founded the company that made the first shea butter skin care product to be organically certified? This way we avoid having produced and product in the same sentence. Flibirigit (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Second thoughts: Pinging Flibirigit, also article nominator Toreightyone: founded the company that made is really clunky. It would be best to say she produced it or created it. We need to fine-tune the wording in the article and possibly add another source for this. Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
"...that Amina Gerba (pictured) founded the company that made the first organically certified shea butter?" ~ R.T.G 00:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't credit me if you use it just, thanks ~ R.T.G 00:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
We typically avoid consecutive wikilinks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Well that's where the clunkiness you mentioned was coming from. You could delink one, but the extra words aren't in the founded part :} ~ R.T.G 00:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe there too, "...that Amina Gerba's (pictured) company produced the first shea butter with organic certification?"
Perhaps this can work too? "...that Amina Gerba's (pictured) skin-care company created the first shea butter to be organically certified?" Toreightyone (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Toreightyone: But shea butter is a natural product. They created a skin-care product containing shea butter, and the product was organically certified. Perhaps it would work to specify the product, like:
The reason I promoted this to the image slot is because the image is so striking. But if we are getting nowhere with this hook, I could return it to the noms page for other suggestions. The part about her immigrating from Cameroon and creating a STEM program for girls is very interesting, as are the international forums she creates. She could also be moved to the special occasion holding area for Women's History Month in March. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I was struck by her being the only girl in a family of 19 children. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Perticularly since that is not supported by the source used for it...[7]. Fram (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
... "la femme d’affaires Amina Gerba, 18e de 19 enfants, seule fille de sa famille"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
This roughly translates to "...businesswoman Amina Gerba, 18th of 19 kids - only girl in her family..." Oh, I see what Fram means, the source only mentions that she is the only girl in her family to go to school, not that she is the only girl in her family period.
Also, I am all for Yoninah's suggested hook of "...that Amina Gerba's (pictured) skin-care company created the first shea butter cream to be organically certified?" Toreightyone ––(talk) 12:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not now, chaps Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cwmhiraeth, you would do better to continue to refuse to answer my posts, as it would avoid such rather dramatic foot-in-mouth moments. Next time, read the whole sentence, not just the part that confirms your idea but which lacks the qualifier that follows. Fram (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I should have realised a long time ago that although we lesser mortals sometimes make mistakes, Fram never does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Making an error is normal. Making an error, getting it pointed out to you that it is an error, and making the same error immediately again, is less normal. Well, for most of us it is less normal. A select few have turned it into a habit. Fram (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
But the article (and source?) doesn't mention cream. Really, everything has to be accurately sourced in the article, not to mention the hook. I'm returning this to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I add an image after the fact?

When you first make a nom, it uses a template that makes it easy to add an image. I forgot to, and now I can't get back to that template. So what do I do now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maury Markowitz. Put the following coding below the DYK nompage links but above the actual hooks:
<div style="float:right; margin-left:0.5em;" id="mp-dyk-img">
{{main page image|image=[IMAGE HERE WITHOUT THE FILE: PREFIX]|caption=[CAPTION HERE]g|width=133x150}}
</div>
I think it's supposed to go above the invisible comment "Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion" as well, as that's what the image parameter in the original DYK template automatically does. If you could link the nomination where you're wanting to add an image and say what image you're wanting, I can do it for you. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Extra credit isn't always a good thing

The two credits for Garluark in Queue 6 should be removed. (They belong in Prep 4, where I've already added them.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6

The article says it was caused by precession, a change in the direction that the Earth spins. To call it a change in the Earth's orbit is, well, sort of right but not really. The orbit didn't change its position in space. What changed is the direction of the Earth's rotation, and therefore the orbit RELATIVE to that rotation has changed. The nearest point of the orbit to the Sun is called the perihelion. So to put it another way, as I understand it, the orbit's perihelion didn't go from winter to summer; summer went to the orbit's perihelion. I suggest changing "Earth's orbit around the Sun" to "the direction of Earth's rotation". User:Yoninah User:Jo-Jo Eumerus Art LaPella (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To me that sounds like Earth's now rotating backwards, so I don't think that works. Plus, apsidal precession is a change in Earth's orbit in space; that together with axial precession creates the precession that the article discusses. "Earth's orbit around the Sun" was the most generic term I could find to describe this phenomenon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Queue 2 - Episode 5820

For Episode 5820, shouldn't the hook say "The Queen Victoria pub" for the benefit of those non-British and non-soap watchers? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Longest running column (queue 3)

Template:Did you know nominations/Malathi Chendur @Naga sai sravanth, Yoninah, and 97198:

The source seems to say that the column is included in the Guinness Book of Records or otherwise noted by Guinness, but doesn't explain wy exactly (I base this on Google translate, a human translation of that bit of the source is welcome). It is unclear what "world record" this would be, Guinness[8] gives Jack Ingram (no article yet) as the writer of the longest running weekly newspaper column, 71 years, of which at least 58 years continuously. Leonard Barden has a weekly chess column in British newspapers which ran (runs?) continuously for at least 62 years[9]. Fram (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, this was also flagged elsewhere, I can't verify this claim either, and I think it should be pulled unless other detail is forthcoming. Fish+Karate 13:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, Fram - Suggest that if this is not resolved an hour prior to DYK update time, we move this back to Prep, and put a different lead hook in Queue 3. The nominator has not edited since January 31, and right now it's evening hours in India. — Maile (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I suggest you pull it and move it back to the noms page for a new hook. I checked and double-checked this before promotion, and it seems to come down to reliance on the one source. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: why not just delete "a Guinness World Record" from the hook? The number of years is pretty impressive on its own. Yoninah (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking. — Maile (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: @Yoninah: Then it's okay for me to just delete "a Guinness World Record" from the hook. I will also modify it in the article.Naga sai sravanth (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done Naga sai sravanth@Yoninah: thank you. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about the DYK process at this stage, so forgive me if this isn't the right place, but wouldn't "was published" be better than "appeared" (appeared where?)? Fish+Karate 15:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe that's a toss-up. In America, when referring to a syndicated column, it's usually referred to as "appeared weekly" or "appeared in 200 newspapers" or "ran for 10 years". I don't know about India, but I'm assuming the nominator knows.— Maile (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: @Fish and karate: I think both "appeared" and "was published" are appropriate.Naga sai sravanth (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed a hook from Queue 6, someone please do whatever else is needed

I removed the Konya Tropical Butterfly Garden hook, as there was significant disagreement at WP:ERRORS, and it was increasingly unlikely it would get resolved before midnight UTC. Could someone who understands DYK processes please help by (a) replacing the hook with another approved one, and (b) reopen the hook discussion (there's no issue with the article eventually showing up on the main page, just with the wording of the hook)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @CeeGee:, whose article it is. Also, here's a link to the ERRORS discussion, to help clarify what the issue is: [10]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved Tucson Girls Chorus into Queue 6 from Prep 4. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Re-opened and re-listed the nomination. Thanks for letting us know, Floquenbeam. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer needed

This hook for Black History Month needs a speedy review so it can go into the queue in February:

Additionally, two approved hooks are waiting in the special occasion area for promotion during February.

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've approved the hook/article and added it to Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Special occasion holding area, so it is currently awaiting promotion to one of the prep areas. I believe I did this correctly, but it's possible that I missed something, as I've never approved special occasion hooks before; if I have I apologize.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 17:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3 - National Football League All-Star Game (December)

Issue resolved with addition of sourcing

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

DYK nomination 1942 National Football League All-Star Game (December)

ZappaOMatic, Wasted Time R, Yoninah my first thought was sentence structure in that the football game didn't have the flu. The article clearly states it was the flu, but in reading the source at the end of that sentence, it only says, "Baugh wasn't feeling well and didn't think he could make it." If there is no source that mentions the flu, Yoninah, you could just substitute ALT1. Simington's heart attack and retirement is the last paragraph of the linked source. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: That's weird, I could've sworn the source I cited mentioned the flu (or at least one of the sources cited). Either way, I just added another newspaper source ("Baugh [...] would not have played in the charity game because he had been suffering from influenza") that should suffice. Zappa⚡Matic 20:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Message posted by HLHJ

This is slightly off-topic, but could I ask for views on teaser hooks at Template:Did you know nominations/Salton Buttes, please? HLHJ (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Just ran across the above message posted on the DYK April Fool's Day talk page. Moving it here so it can be properly archived. The hook already ran in October 2018. — Maile (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep 3

@Spinningspark: @Dumelow: @Cwmhiraeth:
The lead doesn't say where this company is located. I fixed the link to Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company in the lead but not in the body. There are no talk page ratings. Please fix this up before it goes live. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hook is now in Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I can't rate an article I wrote myself (and I don't understand why it needs doing now). By the way, I don't really think that the change from "bottle stoppers" to "bungs" in the hook is an improvement. The former is more informative and provides a good contrast with the high-tech submarine cables. It is also what the sources say. SpinningSpark 23:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is any requirement in the dyk rules for an article to be rated? I am away from my computer for a few days but I am sure someone will rate it when it hits the main page. I concur with Spinning Spark about changes to the hook wording. Why go with something different to the article wording, the sources and the approved hook? Surely people will know what a bottle stopper is? - Dumelow (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 DoneCertainly more than a bung :) I'll make the change in prep. Yoninah (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It's required not to be a stub, but in this case clearly isn't. (I don't see why the author can't rate their own article, personally.) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a need to rate unrated articles for DYK; as noted they just shouldn't be stubs. There also isn't a reason why an author can't rate their own article if they know how to apply the WikiProject criteria: I've always given my articles a rating when I set up the talk page, and rate conservatively if I think it might be a borderline case. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I make sure there are ratings on every article before I promote it. I also rate conservatively, so if you see I gave an article "C" class when it should be "B" class, please upgrade it yourself. I also rate my own articles. Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • ... that some water birds use their webbed feet (example illustrated) as an aid in elaborate courtship displays?
Yoninah Do you think you might want to move this to be the lead hook in one of the other preps? Queue5 lead hook is a goose. Queue2 lead hook is penguins. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: yes, I noticed that. I swapped Prep 3 and Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep 6 (shuffle hooks with other sets?)

I was just verifying the hooks in Prep 6, and I found that half relate to similar subject matter of one type of another.

  • Green Jacket Shoal is a ship graveyard
  • Edward Henslow is tied in to an Army fitness school
  • HMS Saracen (P247), a sunken submarine
  • 914-915, 919-921 is about Fatimid invasions of Egypt

Is it feasible to swap some of these with hooks in other sets, for variety? — Maile (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved two of the hooks out to another set. Prep 3 is also full of death and disaster; I'll try to swap hooks out of there as well. Yoninah (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Landestheater Detmold Prep 2

Issue resolved, hook has been promoted to queue

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

DYK Landestheater Detmold

Gerda Arendt, Xwejnusgozo The only place 1915 is mentioned, is in the infobox, and it's not sourced there. The article says, "It was rebuilt in the years 1914–1918 during World War I..." that the cornerstone was laid 30 May 1914, and that it finally re-opened 28 September 1919. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: The 1915 date is mentioned in this source, which is why I approved the hook. I must have overlooked the fact that the date is not included in the article, and I agree that it should be included. Perhaps Gerda Arendt can make the required edits. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I saw, however it says reopened 1915, while the theatre's history says reopened in 1919. I didn't know how to resolve that. Perhaps some official reopening once the war was over? Who knows? Looks to me that the outside - which is pictured - was there in 1915. - The hooks now says 1914 to 1918 which looks kind of right. We could also say during World War I which might be "hookier". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 promoted this to queue and did a small edit that took care of the issue. Thanks for getting back.— Maile (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special occasion request for 22 to 25 February

I have recently review and approved the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Economic history of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos. The nominator has just requested it to run it during the anniversary of the People Power Revolution from 22 to 25 February. Courtesy @Alternativity:, the nominator. Please consider if possible. Flibirigit (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Should appear on February 25. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived, so here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through February 8. Right now we have a total of 329 nominations, of which 193 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five from last year.

Over four months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

February 27 special occasion request?

Template:Did you know nominations/Reina Ueda has already been approved. Among the subject's anime roles is the character Mallow in Pokémon Sun and Moon. Since Pokémon Day (February 27) is coming up and Mallow is a main character, would it be alright to move the article to the special occasion area? I understand that there's already another voice actor special occasion hook for the 22nd, but a gap of five days doesn't sound too short. It's okay if this does not go through, it was just a thought (I was actually planning to create another article for that date but I've yet to get around to doing it). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved it, would have done the same if the request was in the nom. We had two Leipzig music hooks yesterday, 5 days is great ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2nd special occasion request

Special occasions request submitted at Template:Did you know nominations/György Pásztor for the 96th birthday of György Pásztor on March 2, 2019. I'm willing to help with translation if needed. Flibirigit (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I assumed good faith for the Hungarian sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Out of sync

Hi, I might have put your system out of synch with either this edit or adding a photo after I reviewed the article. Right now we have two identical entries under different dates on the approved page. Sorry for the trouble. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

checkY Resolved - Not a big deal, but thanks for letting us know. Wugbot moved it to approved almost immediately after you approved it. Then when you re-added it to the nominations as "restore lost nomination", Wugbot just did its job and moved the second template to the approved list. — Maile (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Commas in DYK

CLOSED IN FULL
Per the current conversation in Post-close discussion, I am (re-)closing this as No Consensus. Participants did not agree on much, but this discussion was well attended. Consensus is moderately against Option 3, however. Consensus is slightly for trying to avoid this scenario entirely with alternative sentence structures.
  • Reasoning for No Consensus: Most editors fundamentally disagreed with what is and what is not proper comma usage and grammatical form. The opposing views are irreconcilable.
  • Further notes: Editors seemed to agree that while this arguement would be one best to avoid, neither side offered an excellent solution to this matter. Many !voters provided Option 3 as their compromise/alternative, but it did not seem to make many happy. There was not enough discussion on the issue of reframing clauses to avoid the comma problem, so a definitive statement cannot be made on that beyond what has already been said here.
  • Aside: Some editors took issue with having a universal policy in this regard. I just wanted to make sure that was noted here.
My apologies for the discrepancies found with the previous close. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Question: In general, should introductory adverbial phrases in DYK hooks have

  1. Just a comma at the end of the phrase,
  2. Commas at the start and end of the phrase,
  3. No commas

--DannyS712 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Example: (taken from DYK archive, 1/31/2017), all relevant commas in bold red

Did you know...

  1. ... that during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii, the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?
  2. ... that, during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii, the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?
  3. ... that during the 1873 mutiny of the Royal Guards of Hawaii the Hungarian drillmaster Captain Joseph Jajczay and the adjutant general Charles Hastings Judd were attacked?

--DannyS712 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Pings to users previously involved in this discussion(s), in a nonpartisan (without regard to view): @Bilorv, Jmchutchinson, Kevin McE, Yoninah, SashiRolls, Tagishsimon, Fish and karate, Bazza 7, Amakuru, and Floquenbeam: --DannyS712 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

information Note: Archived before the RfC ended, unarchived --DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
information Note: 30 days have elapsed, discussion has pretty much died down, close requested here. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Just to clarify, the second example you list, if a consensus reached on it, would mean that the templates for Prep, Queue and nomination should be changed. The change would be a comma after the word "that". If you don't change the templates, requiring consistency on that would be too hard to enforce, on every nomination and promotion made. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I disagree. This would only apply if the hook included an introductory adverbial phrase. The first hook currently on the main page is that the red ochre sprinkled on the body of Jane Britton (pictured) 50 years ago today ultimately turned out to be a red herring in solving her murder?, which has no such phrase. Accordingly, I think that we wouldn't want to change the templates, because then that would confuse people in cases of the comma not being needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • First option (generally) - We don't want run-on sentences on Wikipedia, and option three is a bad example of such a case. While option two is in theory acceptable, it reads awkwardly and can ruin the flow of the sentence. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not the first option as it isn't grammatically correct. The second option doesn't look great but it seems like the only solution for long sentences like the example given. But the third is also acceptable—it's not a run-on sentence as it doesn't have two independent main clauses. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fourth option: put the adverbial at the end of the clause (standard word order). If this is really unpleasant (due to an overly long subject for example) I would suggest the first option as a distant second choice. Note that the first option appears to be standard style for major newspapers. You can test this yourself by searching for "She said that until" or "He said that unless" (etc.) at any search engine. Eliminating the optional "that" entirely would also be a good option, though that would require thinking outside the box :-⊠ SashiRolls t · c 08:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Not equivalent sentence structures: 'unless' and 'until' in many cases are putative clauses essential to the meaning of the sentence, not parenthetical details in a minor clause, which is what we are talking about here. Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Kevin, concerning content clauses and reported speech, I encourage you to pore over the Puddlestones, particularly chapter 11. If you prefer to look at concessives, conditionals, reasons / causal, temporal adverbials (like until, when, etc.), manner arguments, means arguments, situatives, etc. etc. using the "She said that when" or the "She said that because" or the "She said that [though / notwithstanding / by / failing that / slowly ]" test, you will see that usage in major press outlets and government pubs follows option 1. Though I've studied the grammar of many languages over the years, I don't believe I've ever met a putative clause. (French, incidentally, does not follow the same rules, because the French love tiroirs, which are, of course, you will have guessed it, a translator's bane). I would have thought that putativity would be something like what you see in the following participial: "She said that—alleged to be too sick to work—Billy had nevertheless been seen on en.wp preaching the good word about SuperFluo-Commas." (FWIW: I believe that unless is usually called a conditional, until a temporal). This question of commas is not a grammar question per se but a stylesheet question. I reiterate my support for option 1 and my suggestion to seek to put adverbials at the end wherever possible. As a writer, I know this is quite often clearer and is almost always possible if you put on your thinking cap and avoid stacking too many clauses / "opening too many drawers".
PS:Of course, as Yoninah points out below, good judgment is much better than any rule. Option 3 is also good when the clause is say 4-5 words or fewer and easy to scan. SashiRolls t · c 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Reads best and is perfectly cromulent. Fish+Karate 10:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. It properly sets aside the phrase (in the way one might when speaking). Otherwise option 3. I find Option 1 disconcerting as I don't know what the comma's for. Bazza (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    Is this an Engvar thing? Although a blog, [11], from the UK, gives examples of how many commas to use. At the end, two is suggested for embedded for adverbial clauses such as (from today) Did you know that in 1933 Green Bay Packers president Lee Joannes personally loaned the organization $6,000 to keep it in operation?.
  • I think you should also present hooks that have just a date in front, like:
  1. ... that in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
  2. ... that, in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
  3. ... that in 1873 Foo wrote his thirtieth novel?
I have been marking up hooks per Option 1, but I am also fine with Option 3 as long as the hook isn't too long, in which case at least one comma is needed to avoid a run-on hook. Option 2 looks totally cluttered with commas. Yoninah (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is a very poor example on which to base the discussion, as it has so many determiners and connectives. It is nearly 2 years old, so appears (to me at least) to have been searched out as an extreme example, for which a different solution may be suitable than would usually be the case. Option 1 is simply wrong; option 2 would in ordinary prose be my preference, especially in longer sentences; but in the strange presentation of DYK, in which the opening of the sentence is replaced by an ellipsis, I would !vote for option 3. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Kevin McE: This was not searched for as an extreme example. However, the rules of grammar don't change based on the content of the clauses, so I think it doesn't matter what the example is. Yoninah's example with Foo is equally valid in terms of the grammatical makeup. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
But grammar admits of alternative treatments to a situation, and this is a rather extreme example (as is Yoninah's at the other end of the scale) If not deliberately to show a lengthy example, why dig out one from nearly 2 years ago? Kevin McE (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kevin McE: I didn't want to choose one I had already brought up at errors, so I went to the archives. Its january, so I clicked on january 2017. This was from the first day that showed up, right in the middle, and was the first one I saw with this issue. I didn't want to go cherry pick the perfect example, so I just used the first one. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree Kevin, this was a sensible example. I think that given that en.wp hacks off the complementizer clause entirely to give itself a sort of
  • Whereas blablabla,
  • Whereas blablabla,
  • Whereas blablabla,
cachet/credibility, it *does* make sense for short clauses like those Yoninah gives above (and the current one up for review which has no comma) to simply delete it. So I've added that to my comment above.
  • Option 2, as proper English, as recommended by most style guides. About the only conflicting comma advice you'll find on such phrases will be in journalism style guides (like AP Stylebook), because newsprint opts for compression over clarity. WP is now written in news style, as a matter of clear policy. I also agree with the pption 4 idea, to the extent it does not conflict. That is, try option 4, then option 2. Use option 1 only as kind of a last resort, when the phrasing is very short and the commas may seem unnecessary. Option 3 is simply wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1, or (better) avoid. The original example is so convoluted that it should not be considered.
  1. ... that in 1873, Foo wrote his thirtieth novel? but why not
  2. ... that Foo wrote his thirtieth novel in 1873? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3, largely depending on the length of the phrase. Option 1 is grammatically incorrect. Frickeg (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1, strong oppose 2 Reads the best and is indeed grammatically correct. As this is a indirect statement a comma is not required at the start of the adverbial phrase. A comma is optional at the end of longer phrases so option 3 would not be good either. Reywas92Talk 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1. As Reywas points out, it is not actually grammatically incorrect because the comma is not present as part of a fronted adverbial, but as a way to break up the sentence to aid reading. This 1 is simply a better variant of 3. Also, English doesn't actually have formal rules anyway, and is defined by its usage, so the "trump card" that opponents of option 1 appear to hold is well and truly dead. When asking which version is best for readers, 1 is the only answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1, under much the same reasoning as Amakuru. And (@SMcCandlish) I think the comment above about AP is wrong. The first piece of advice in the Stylebook on commas is "As with all punctuation, clarity is the biggest rule. If a comma does not help make clear what is being said, it should not be there. If omitting a comma could lead to confusion or misinterpretation, then use the comma." The single comma in Option 1 is typically there because most people naturally follow such a common-sense idea. Modulus12 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    In actual practice the AP rule is generally interpreted as "omit any comma that is not strictly required", which is what is boils down to. Other style guides, and other forms of writing, do not take this approach, and use commas more logically and systematically. This is especially important in a medium where we have no control from one day (or even minute) to another over what the content is going to say. Omitting a comma that doesn't seem absolutely necessary in one construction frequently produces garbage writing via the palimpsestuous process of collaborative editing after others have expanded on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option, 1, or, option, 3. Eschew excess hesitation! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The argument that it is grammatically correct to add a comma after the initial "that" is flawed in the given context, because a DYK hook is not a full sentence, but a fragment of a sentence. The beginning of the sentence occurs in a different location, namely in the section title. This means that there is already an effective break in the sentence - the ellipsis that occurs between the "Did you know ..." and the "... that". By adding a comma, you are causing the reader to pause twice in quick succession, as the sentence reads "Did you know ... that, ...?" This has the effect of interrupting the reader's train of thought in an irritating manner - as he has to stop and think about why a comma is there - rather than enhancing his comprehension as a comma in the same place in an unfragmented sentence would do. Since the intention of grammar is to enhance readability and comprehension, I think this is one situation where it is better to bend the rule rather than impose it in a context in which it has the opposite effect to that intended. Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
So the problem is with the format of DYK itself. Change it to "Did you know that..." and "...blahbitty blah blah?" --Khajidha (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You could do that, but it wouldn't resolve this particular issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I might also add that I think options 3 and 4 are unviable as 3 is inevitably going to result in difficult-to-comprehend run-on sentences and 4 would clearly impose awkward sentence structures just for the sake of adhering rigidly to a preferred grammatical convention. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is my preference and is what I normally use when promoting or tweaking hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as it is the only one to actually follow proper usage. --Khajidha (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We should decide that this is not to be changed at the last moment due to someone complaining in WP:Main page/errors. There have been far too many requests for very minor issues at WP:Main page/errors that can end up making the hook worse. All three options match acceptable English use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not an appropriate matter for a DYK-only mandated style Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Reads and looks the cleanest.—Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • None. Why does this need a specific pseudo-policy? Let the DYK creators and reviewers come to a consensus on what is best, rather than adding more bloat. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Options 2 or 3 To me, Option 1 is simply ungrammatical. Moreover, I don't think it is common usage in published prose. Consequently I find it confusing to read because I am left wondering what clausal structure that lone comma is indicating. I am amazed that so many commentators consider it acceptable or even prefer it; I would guess it depends on whether grammar has been formally taught in school. English is quite flexible about whether to add commas, which is good, but nevertheless it is helpful to follow some basic rules. Otherwise commas lose their meaning. Whether Option 2 or 3 is to be preferred should be left as a judgement call depending on the complexity of the sentence. Jmchutchinson (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - the first option looks clunky if indeed it is not ungrammatical. Option 3 has potential to cause ambiguity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close discussion

So was this entire RFC moot because despite Option 2 only garnering ~30% approval, it was concluded to be the correct choice by TheSmartPersonUS1 on the basis of something in MOS:COMMA that says it must be this way? I thought the closer was supposed to be reading the consensus of the discussion, not dictating their own opinion of how WP:MOS applies to this (without any acknowledgement of the counter-arguments in the discussion). Modulus12 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I call for a re-count. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and boldly reverted the close (personally I feel that the RfC should actually be closed as no consensus, since editors can't seem to agree on anything, though there seems to be a slight preference for the first option). Also, I'm not exactly sure if it was even an appropriate close in this case considering the closer's apparently lack of experience in RfCs (this appears to be their first time closing an RfC, and they only started editing last year and have otherwise not been too involved in discussions). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yah, No, TheSmartPersonUS1, you dont get to close based on what YOU think the right option is, re-open this and have someone else deal with it.--Kevmin § 02:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
For reference, I have copied TSPU1's closing statement below. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've decided that it is No. 2, because No. 1 would need a comma between "Did you know that" and "during", and No. 3 has no commas, even though it is grammatically correct to have a comma between certain phrases. Go to MOS:COMMA. From America, TheSmartPersonUS1 (TSPUS1) (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm also surprised this wasn't closed as no consensus. Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I support a no consensus closure. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I also support a no consensus closure. It could be argued that more advocated Option 1, but there is otherwise much diversity in which option is supported. Given how many regulars we have here, the sparse participation above is no consensus. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that it should be Option 1 or 2 (with most support for 1). Prior to this RfC, multiple WP:ERRORS reports were issued against hooks in the form of Option 1, asking for the comma to be removed (converting to Option 3), or for a comma to be added (converting to Option 2). The RfC's result is that Option 3 is resoundingly rejected. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

OTD rule review

I don't wish to bring this up but I've noticed that Emiliano Sala ran a few days ago after having been in OTD as an RD. As we, know articles are ineligible for DYK if they have been on OTD but these articles sometimes do slip past the rule (Treaty of Waitangi is an expample). However I feel that sometimes this just becomes a race to see which project can get the article run first. So I think we should have a quick review of the OTD rule, to see whether to affirm it, say RDs don't count or even as long as the article was nominated before it ran on OTD then the nomination can continue? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The rule states "Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)" Thus Emiliano Sala was eligible as he'd appeared on RD, but not on the main ITN or OTD sections. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please get rid of the "Not a stub" qualification

"Not a stub" was written a long time before I was ever involved here, by editors who are no longer involved here. But since it has no relevance here at DYK, perhaps we could just get rid of it. The 1500 word minimum is applicable.

Ratings are only relevant to individual projects that actually have talk page project banners. I often rate my own, because I am active in that particular project. Most of the projects are either inactive or completely dead, but even if they were all active, their standards would not necessarily be DYK's standards.

Could we please remove the "Not a stub" criteria, since it's really quite meaningless to DYK. — Maile (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It was written before I first got involved too (Feb 2007, for my sins), but I think it still has application for articles that, while >1,500 characters of prose, clearly fail to mention important aspects of the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
But wouldn't the lack of content come up in the review anyway? Even on the projects, the word "stub" has different criteria from project to project. In some cases, "stub" means a new article of one or two sentences. I've seen "stub" on some new articles that are over 5,000 words. "Stub" is not relevant to DYK. — Maile (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Imo, it's basically a shorthand for "is suitable for linking to the main page". Stubs of 5k characters (I assume you don't mean words? that would be the length of a featured article) are usually an undifferentiated, poorly cited, unwikified, Google-translated mess -- and if they are not, the reviewer can (and should) simply upgrade them. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this is a wholly unnecessary criterion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree in terms of the WikiProject ratings. However, no article should be promoted to the main page that still has a stub template on the article itself. If it warrants a template there, then it shouldn't be in DYK on the main page, and if it doesn't warrant the template, said template should be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: "clearly fail to mention important aspects of the topic" does not make an article a stub. According to Wikipedia:Content assessment that would make it a Start-class at worst. Even C-class "is still missing important content". I don't think that ommission of material should be a criterion for rejecting a DYK. If you want all A-class articles at DYK, you will need to give editors a lot more than seven days to write them. SpinningSpark 16:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Usually, when a nom has a stub rating, it is just inappropriate, often an expander has forgotten to re-grade (or doesn't think he should do it himself). I've been caught that way myself. The solution is just to re-grade, or if reluctant, ask reviewers to do so. Has anyone got examples where there have actually been problems with the rule? Failing that, I see no reason to change it. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I also usually just remove a stub rating that in most cases was simply forgotten to change, in articles that I expanded and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with removing the criteria, as its not relevant to DYK, only to individual projects. I usually class articles I write as start class anyways since they are by default at least 1500 characters.--Kevmin § 20:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with BlueMoonset. We should keep the rule, but simply (as part of the reviews) remove inappropriate stub tags and stub ratings. If (as sometimes happens) an article meets the 1500 character threshold but the tags are still appropriate, it should not be approved for DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The creator/expander is not permitted to re-grade the article herself, but our rule D11 says to re-grade the article. It doesn't say whose job it is, but the wording that it should be removed "before promotion" implies that it is ultimately the responsibility of the prep area builder. MilHist articles can be listed for reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Where do you find a rule about no self-assessments? I thought this was ok up to the B level (after that, there are more specific rules). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      You're correct; my mistake. You can self-assess in the stub to C range. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Indeed - this is not sufficiently widely-known! Hardly anyone goes around checking and revising ratings, and since the people who add them in the first place typically do strings of them with a few seconds between them, and almost entirely assess them on length, a very high proportions of the ratings we have are very dubious/wrong (normally being far too low, when compared with the criteria). Except (perhaps) for new articles, people should be encouraged to self-assess, rather than wait for someone else to come along & re-rate their expansion, which will probably never happen. Personally, I will self-assess as B sometimes. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I too sometimes self-assess as B, if I'm sure I've exhausted all the sources. I hadn't realised that it wasn't the done thing. In my experience very few projects are active enough to get a knowledgeable reviewer prepared to do a literature search! (MilHist might be the exception, but I don't work in that area very much.) Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I think we're ok - in fact WP:ASSESS, the relevant guideline, only says "Two levels, GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article), are assessments made by independent editors, rather than by WikiProjects." Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
            • It depends on the project: some WikiProjects (Anime and manga and Japan come to mind, but there are also others) use B-class as a kind of "mini GA" and thus require an independent reviewer. Not sure how common this is, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • MilHist has very specific rating rules. Classical doesn't rate at all. I was reluctant to self-assesss, but was encouraged to do so, - it saves a reviewer time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be removed because I've had it numerous times that a hook gets blocked from promotion just because they forgot to remove a stub tag or talk page notice. It is out of date and should be taken off the rulebook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with the rule because any article long enough for DYK is inherently no longer a stub. I base this on AWB, which automatically removes {{stub}} in an article if it "has more than 500 words (comments, categories, defaultsort and persondata are excluded from word count)". Just remove any tags in the article and adjust the rating on the Talk page also to at least start. The DYK check tool flags this; anyone (nominator, reviewer, promoter) should just remove it. MB 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I usually put a stub template on an article when I create one. I do so because they are visually pleasing, may help in attracting experts in that class of topic, and explicitly encourage others to help develop the article. For example, {{ecology-stub}} says "This ecology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." This is quite appropriate for a new article and so it is disruptive to force editors to remove this for DYK. Andrew D. (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Move to March 7

If it isn't too much trouble, should I move Ida Dorsey back to the nominations page with a suggestion for her birthday, March 7? Sorry I am unfamiliar with the Special occasion section and your procedures, but I'm glad I saw it now. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. You are amazing. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2: Green Bay Packers stadium

@Gonzo fan2007: @Dumelow: @Cwmhiraeth:
Am I missing something, or is this just not hooky? Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Returned to noms page for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

QPQ

I'm new to DYK, and I owe someone a QPQ.

I've just noticed this now. According to "what links here" from my talk page, I've contributed to the following DYKs, listed chronologically:

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Koo
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Wu Zhaonan
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Chang Ya-chung
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Gao Changqing
  5. Template:Did you know nominations/Chen Chao-long
  6. Template:Did you know nominations/Chuang Shu-chi
  7. Template:Did you know nominations/Chiu Hsien-chih

On Koo, Wu, and Gao, Zanhe was kind enough to share credit, but I was only ever notified that Leslie Koo had reached ITN (diff), not DYK. As such, when we collaborated on Wu Zhaonan, I assumed that it was my first addition to DYK. I did not perform QPQ until the nomination of Chiu Hsien-chih to DYK. (QPQ here) I mistakenly believed that Chiu was my sixth DYK, but as the record shows, it is my seventh. I will rectify this issue with a second QPQ as soon as I can, but I figure I should ask. Is it possible there a bug in the QPQ checker or the way credit is awarded after eligible articles appear on the main page? Vycl1994 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vycl1994: I might be wrong but my understanding is that only one QPQ per submitted article was required, usually performed by the nominator. So you are probably ok. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Vycl1994: Thanks for your honesty, but I wouldn't sweat over it. You didn't nominate Leslie Koo, Wu Zhaonan, and Gao Changqing, and didn't claim the free QPQ credit for those (and QPQs were supplied for them). As long as you do QPQs for your new noms, there's no reason to worry about the old ones. -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Caroline Katzenstein - Prep 1

DYK Caroline Katzenstein

@Gardneca:, @Yoninah: This is not an error issue, and I love the article. And I love that you made it the lead hook. But could we choose a more meaningful hook for this woman's life? Kennedy and Nixon were contemporaries who ran for President against each other in 1960. This woman's suffrage activities spanned 58 years (1910-1968). Even if you go with the original hook of writing to Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Kennedy - writing to presidents is not hooky (IMO). Much of America has written to a president in their lifetime. This was an incredible woman who joined a remarkable women's suffrage train trip across the United States to get passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After women got the vote, she continued for equal pay rights, and she published books. She was a heavy-weight supporter of equality for women. Writing letters is the least of what she did. — Maile (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where the hook in prep comes from, it seems none of the approved hooks, with ALT3 prefered. I also wonder if we shouldn't keep her for 8 March IWD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. She'd definitely be a good one for a lead hook on International Women's Day on March 8. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll return it to the noms page and guide it toward a better hook. In the March 8 lead slot she's going to have stiff competition from a horse. ;) Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, I tweaked the hook because "fought for women's suffrage" didn't sound so neutral. Yoninah (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Please help with the wording. Neutral or not, I thinks it describes it rather precisely, but if you don't agree, we need help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I left a message at WT:WIR asking for input on a hook. This is right up their alley. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Black History Month

Just a heads-up that there's still two weeks left in February, Black History Month, and we have no more special occasion hooks for it. This month honors African-American contributions in the United States and Canada. Would anyone like to nominate something? Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No dude - "Black History Month, also known as African-American History Month in the U.S., is an annual observance in Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Where would find a list of recent good article promotions? It might include some ideas. Flibirigit (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've got more sources to use on Shubulade Smith to get it over the 1,500 character limit, it's just her biography and work is not exactly full of thigh-slapping and rib-tickling japes, so I can't think of a good hook to use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've got it above 1500 characters, but I can't think of a hook beyond "Did you know ... that Shubulade Smith thinks British mental health care is institutionally racist?" which isn't particularly nice and is controversial. Can anyone else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
... that Shubulade Smith spoke up against perceived racism at Maudsley Hospital? Flibirigit (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done Ritchie's nomination approved and in the special occasion holding area for February Black History Month. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, in Canada, but anywhere seems rather fine, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Alanscottwalker; I added it above. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, my nomination for Hildebrando de Melo recently passed, but I'm not sure how closely it applies to Black History Month. De Melo is a black artist from Angola, but doesn't have ties to African-American history. I recently worked with students to create a bunch of new pages for children's books that have won the Coretta Scott King Award. Many were too short to qualify for DYK, and are too old now, but Let the Children March would have been a good candidate... I guess hindsight is 20/20. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Since Let the Children March is only nine days old, and very applicable to Black History Month, I think we should bend the rules. Any objections? Flibirigit (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No! @Rachel Helps (BYU): please nominate it and I'll review it. Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, @Yoninah: I've nominated the page and it's under February 5th, though I'm not sure if the hooks are interesting enough. We may expand other drafts for other Coretta Scott King award-winning book pages, and I'll see if we can nominate them for DYK this month if applicable. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, see nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Let the Children March. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The hook is approved and waiting in the special occasions holding area under Black History Month. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed and approved the latter, - please find a spot in a queue or prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done Template:Did you know nominations/Bad News for Outlaws promoted. Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_155&oldid=1085471630"