Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

background discussion from WT Village Pump (technical)

This problem has existed for a few months on Template talk:Did you know. Once you get down to the newest subsection dates, the templates don't transclude very well. We were told back in September that the problem was that page is exceeding Template limits Post expand include size. At that time, we had a large special occasion holding area for various special events. The holding area has very little in it now, and the number of nominations we have are otherwise a lot less. The problem is worse than ever. Regardless of what is causing this, can it be fixed? As the internet expands, so does the size of everything programmed into it, and DYK won't be the only ones this happens to. How do we fix it for the future? — Maile (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Abandoning Template limits would be a decision that would need to be taken at WMF level, and they're vanishingly unlikely to authorise it since it's not a bug, it's an intentional feature to prevent DDOS attacks. The way around it is to use fewer transclusions; remember that each DYK nomination includes {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK nompage links}}, {{main page image}}, {{DYKsubpage}} and {{DYKmake}} plus whatever else the reviewing bot adds, so each transcluded nomination counts as six or more transcluded templates. ‑ Iridescent 22:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC) The standard fix for template size problems is to substitute templates and to remove any nested transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Exactly how would DYK go about that? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC) On a quick skim, the {{DYK conditions}} template doesn't appear to have any great use and has three nested templates of its own, so getting rid of that would save four templates-per-nomination immediately (with the current 53 nominations, that's an instant saving of over 200 templates, which will probably solve the problem on its own). Basically, go through the five templates I list above, and anything that's not actually both essential to your process, and essential that it remains unsubstituted, think about whether it would be possible to do without it or enforce substitution of it. You could also probably shave quite a bit off by ruthlessly enforcing a "no untranscluded templates in discussions" rule, and clamping down on anyone who uses {{od}}, {{tq}}, {{done}} etc in discussions. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Neither {{DYKmake}} nor {{DYKnom}} should be of concern, since they're commented out. I imagine that increased use of the {{DYK checklist}} for reviews is also contributing to the problem. Does the use of the {{*}} template contribute to the problem or not? It's currently being used by the DYKReviewBot. One template that we absolutely need to retain is the {{DYKsubpage}} template, since it is the final substitution of that template that closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Every time this happens I hope it will finally be the motivating factor to do the seemingly obvious and move the reviewed/approved nominations to a different page. DYK that nobody can read that thing on a phone? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Oh, and the answer is yes, templates that are actually transcluded all count, so if there's a bunch of templated bullets then that's definitely contributing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Then calling Intelligentsium, to see whether the templated bullets can come out of the reviews done by the DYKReviewBot, and any other avoidable templates. Also pinging John Cline, who created {{DYK conditions}}, to see whether there is some way to get the job done more efficiently templatewise, assuming that the job still needs to be done. I have no idea whether the 2015 conversion of {{NewDYKnomination}} to invoke a Module with the same name rather than do the work in a template would have affected the need for DYK conditions or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Thank you BlueMoonset for your kindness and astute manner; inviting me to join this discussion. I was not aware of it until now, nor did I know anything of the circumstances forbearing it. I am therefore disadvantaged from giving an answer; ore the research I've yet to do. When I catch up with the topic, however, I am confident that the answers being sought will be found. If I wasn't so Spock-like, I can imagine myself getting all butt-hurt about not being notified of questions being asked of these templates, perhaps others as well. I was told in the past, things about my style in writing; and before that, of many ill effects that style was cursed to engender. Here, it seems that enduring months of template malfeasance was preferable to enduring discussion where I would invariably be. Being all Spock-like; and all: I feel terrible that this may in fact be. I really do.--John Cline (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We have to do something soon. The nominations page is quickly dissolving into nothing but wikilinks with no transclusions. Yes, I know the Prep/Queue page has always been used as the holding area. We cannot control how other people edit nomination templates - i.e. large amounts of text, template comments, additional image suggestions. The way it has always been is not the way that will work for the future.

Below is my suggestion. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested solution

• The nomination page stays but only includes those which have received no approval whatsoever.
  • Reviewers who only are only interested in non-problem hooks have less to scroll through to find something of interest.
  • This would make a cleaner page for first-time reviewers who get confused by the glut we now have.
• The Prep/Queue page stays exactly like it is, nothing changes about how it works.
• A new subpage is created where any nomination that receives an approval is moved there by a bot (or human).
  • Special occasion holding areas, including April Fools' Day, appears at the bottom of this page. It stays consistently as is, in the fact that hooks are only moved here after approved on the main nominations page.
  • Prep promoters draw from this page.
  • Reviewers who like to check for problem areas on approved nominations look here.
  • Any disputed approval and any post-approval ALT hooks added are worked out on this subpage
  • Any hooks pulled from Prep, Queue, or the main page are put back here.

Please add comments below

Comments

• Yep, sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  The bot will now used the substed the template {{*}} - it's weird that the page exceeds the transclusion limit so easily though. The previous time involved {{hat}}, {{hab}} which were being used more than once per nomination, and had several transclusions underneath as well, whereas {{*}} seems to be just a Unicode character. However I think it may be a bit of a hassle to move hooks between two pages - if you move them the moment they are seen by a human, you would probably quickly get the same problem on the second page, but moving them back and forth would be a huge hassle. Intelligentsium 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  I know you have worked hard on the bot, but we didn't have this problem before it was activated. If the problems with it can't be ironed out soon, I think we are just going to have to retire it. That would surely be a better solution than having two separate nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  I agree it's more trouble, but I think having a place where approved noms are gathered, for further intense scrutiny by the "eagle eyes", will extremely helpful, as well as solving the overflow problem. EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  The bot had been down for a few weeks, and this problem continued even in its absence. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and... can we add the provision that nom page stays open until the bot closes it (maybe at the moment the hook moves to the main page, or -- better -- at the moment the hook comes off the main page)? EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  And have any dialogue on pulled hooks happen there, so that any nominator, reviewer, or other participant on that nomination would be aware of it as long as they watch-listed the open template. I don't know the mechanics of having a bot close the nomination, but it's worth asking Shubinator if that's possible to do in conjunction with whatever else DYKupdatebot does. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly. I'd also like to add a further suggestion that adding the green tick (which is presumably what will trigger the bot moving the nom page to this new "approved area") should always be accompanied by a tentative designation of exactly one of the (possibly several) ALTs as the one to used. Further discussion in the "approved area" might change that, but this way once the nom moves to the "approved area" there's just a single ALT that the "eagle eyes" (our precious editors who focus on quality control) will have to focus on checking. EEng 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  If closing a nomination just involves subst'ing the DYKsubpage template and marking it as passed (with humans responsible for moving the noms between the various pages, except for queue -> main page), DYKUpdateBot can do this while promoting the set (not while taking it down). As BlueMoonset noted, the bot will not know about comments that should go into the "2" field. With this model, how will folks know which admin promoted the nomination into the queue? Shubinator (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  The promoter simply posts on the bottom of the nom page e.g. ALT1 to Prep4 (without image). ~~~~. The bot closes the nom as it swaps the hook set onto Main Page (i.e. at the same time the credit boxes are posted to creator/nominator talk pages) and the 2= could be Swapped onto Main Page 0800 22 Jan 2017 UTC. This way, all concerns prior to the actual main-page appearance can be discussed on the still-open nom page, where it belongs; concerns arising after that time have to go through ERRORS as now.

  I think it would be ideal if, while we're at it, we changed the bot actions of posting credits to editor Talk, and closing the nom pages, to the moment the hook set is swapped off of the main page. Then the nom page really stays open for the entire life of the hook, "cradle to grave". But I recognize this might be more complex to do. EEng 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Mark me as opposing the further suggestion: the reviewer should feel free to check and approve as many interesting hooks as seem appropriate and are properly support in both article and sources, but not all reviewers are the best judges of which is the best, and sometimes the person assembling a prep set will pick one good hook over another good hook because it better balances the prep set. To limit it to exactly one hook of the reviewer's choice also reverses the deference we've given to the nominator regarding proposed hooks.

  As for the promoter, may I suggest that the promoter be required to fill in the 2 field with their promotion message? The bot's closing of the page will cause the time of closure to be added to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  The reviewer can approve as many ALTs as he or she wants, but (my suggestion is) that just one of them will be designated, tentatively, as the one that will appear. Further discussion might change that, selecting a different ALT, but starting at this point there would be only one ALT on the table at a given time for a given nom, so that attention can focus on it for error-checking and so on. To increase quality and reduce errors appearing on Main Page, it's essential that the checking process begin further upstream than it does currently i.e. currently this doesn't start until Prep, and now it can start when the nom is moved to this new "approved area". But it needs to focus on one potential hook at a time; if multiple hooks are in play, the checking just can't be thorough. I don't buy that this constrains prep set assembly enough to outweigh the advantages, and again I say that the designation of a single hook is only tentative, subject to change. EEng 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It will make it so much easier to scroll through the set of approved hooks when building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support sounds fine LavaBaron (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, since I have no major objections. I do have a couple of doubts though. First, my understanding of the technicalities is not great, but if this problem is arising from people using too many templates without substituting them, it would seem that this is relatively a small fix: and that unregulated use of templates in the review process is going to create a problem again sooner or later. So, wouldn't it make sense to create some guidelines for folks editing the nomination pages, to help with this? Second, I find that very many of the hooks that need reviewing at any given time, and indeed the ones requiring the most attention, are not "fresh" nominations, but those that have been reviewed already, but require a new reviewer for whatever reason. @Maile66: where would these fit in your scheme? Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 Regarding the guidelines, it does begin to be instruction creep. We cannot control what editors really do, no matter how many guidelines we write. As we experience on this talk page, a lot of editors aren't reading the guidelines anyway. So, we can spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and complaining on the talk page about those who do what they want, but we cannot control others. As to your second question, perhaps I wasn't clear. The minute a nomination receives a passing tic, it gets moved to the new page. There it stays, and any further issues or comments happen on that page. That means turn-around ticks on review questions, pulled hooks that were already promoted. Anything. EEng has suggested we keep the template open until when/if the nomination is off the Main page. Keeping it on that page does not close out the nomination, but leaves it there in a way that anyone with a given nom template on their watch-list will be aware it needs attention. New (first time) reviewers will have an easier time with unreviewed templates than figuring out why an already approved nom is in the midst of revision for one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Mail66 and Gatoclass: I think you're right about the guideline creep, but I didn't necessarily mean another page or another bullet point in the current set. What I mean is that we can do minor things that should still add up to something substantive. For instance, some folks mentioned templates (DYK checklist) that are only used at DYK: we can add a note to the documentation saying that they must be substituted, and also possibly have a bot substitute them every time. We can add to the DYK template edit notice, asking people to minimize their use of templates. And so forth. I imagine that other folks can think of other options. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Vanamonde, I think what we need to be doing is working out why this problem is occurring, and take steps to eliminate or minimize it, because it never used to occur even with 350 nominations and now it's occurring with just 150. If the number of nominations builds up again, the problem will recur. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: Keeping the nom open up until (and even through) the main page appearance seems reasonable to me, so long as the technical template issues can be addressed. I think it is fine and appropriate for a reviewer to choose a hook, but also to leave the choice open to the promoter, but I would like to see some reasoning posted. I've had a few cases where I've wondered why a hook was chosen (or not chosen), which I find frustrating and yet asking the promoter every time could get awfully intrusive given the relatively small group of set builders. Having another approved hook available is also useful in cases where an issue arises, because sometimes swapping hooks rather than pulling might be reasonable and appropriate. I would also like to see an explicit requirement that all ALTs be reviewed because I've had at least one case of offering several and only the first being reviewed / promoted on the presumption it was my preference (an incorrect assumption on that occasion, but understandable and arising from poor communication on my part). EdChem (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  I believe you make a valid point about the ALTs being reviewed. I've noticed the same thing. If all hooks are not reviewed, then the review isn't complete. It does a disservice to both the nominator and the promoter. Also, I have no problem with the promoter leaving a small note on the template about why a given hook among several available was promoted. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, Maile66, with my Timothy N. Philpot nomination, only the ALT0 has been reviewed and it was my fall-back option if all the others (which I think are more interesting) are rejected on undue negativity grounds. So, I posted here at WT:DYK requesting input, but the thread attracted no responses. I'm not sure what to do because the rules technically require all ALTs to be reviewed but making an issue of my case will focus on the reviewer, who is behaving as others do and does a lot of DYK work. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Good idea. There are currently several structural problems and the proposal looks like a sensible way forward. If there isn't one already, it would be good to have a page to document the process flow so that it's clear how a nomination progresses from page to page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've just converted Template:DYK checklist to use Module:DYK checklist, which makes each checklist take up about half the post-expand include size that it did before. This has resulted in 12 more nominations being visible at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know, but we are still quite a bit over the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I find it worrying that there isn't one bit about why this is happening - I don't mean technically, I mean temporally. The number of new articles continues to decline, there appears to be no (major?) change in the number of noms being posted per day, and I don't see anything about the technical limit being changed. This is the only time I've noticed it - it seems to have happened before but I assume for a short period? So why now, in 2016? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maury Markowitz: I think the cause of this might be the bot, which adds a bunch to text to every nomination. Pppery 20:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

    Ahh, so it's based on the total text, not the number of transclusions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yep. (It's actually more complicated than that, but) Pppery 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz We have actually been discussing this a great deal on this talk page. A year or two ago, our individual reviews weren't so complicated, except in the case of drawn-out threads. Most were pretty brief. But graphics, text, little check templates, and a lot of thing have increased the size of the individual nominations transcluded. We also now have the bot that does a preliminary review. However, that bot was down for several weeks, and the problem continued. When we pushed it to the limits, the visual kind of went kaflooey. Think of what happens with your browser if the cache doesn't get cleared for a long time - eventually things aren't working right on a given page. It's kind of like that. Have you read the green hatted text at the top? We've exceeded our Template limits Post expand include size, and only WMF can give us more. And that isn't likely to happen, because WMF has safeguards in place to prevent a Denial of Service attack. Little things help some, like not putting checkmark templates on the nomination. But in the long run, we'll be pushing the limits and need to come up with a solution. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I did, and also visited the link you have here. Neither stated this clearly, nor included any specific numbers or examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary and implementation?

So it's one thing for there to be a lot of support, but it's another for someone to do it. What next? EEng 01:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• We do need to work the mechanics of this. And we need a bot to help, perhaps Shubinator's bot or something already in existence that just need extra code for this. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Just..." EEng 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The nomination page seems to have returned to normal. Has someone actually resolved the problem, or is this as the result of some faulty nomination being promoted and archived? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that interesting? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only a matter of time before the problem comes back, and there were other good reasons for doing this. Thus I hope the extensive paid and pampered staff in charge of doing things like this get right to it. EEng 05:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

EEng, the problem did not fade away gradually but came to a sudden conclusion. One moment there were a host of nominations not properly displayed and a few hours later, there were none. This happened, as far as I can tell, late on the 12th November or early on the 13th. I think it was due to a problem nomination which was promoted and archived at that time, and will likely not recur. I suspect, without good evidence, the Moses Bensinger nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been a problem in the past and (I repeat) there were other reasons for doing this. (Commenting mostly to keep the thread alive.) EEng 19:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is more than one theory about why this happened, and we don't know for sure. But at this point, it's not happening. This would certainly support the idea that exceeding Template limits Post expand include size was not the problem after all, or this would still be happening. We have recently seen how one background edit can affect DYK like the bottom card being removed from a house of cards. We don't know why this happened, and we don't know why it stopped. What I have proposed here about a separate page for approved nominations would be a large undertaking to implement and maintain, unless there was a bot involved. I think the above Supports are mostly because it would be easier for promoters if we had a separate page for approved nominations. I yield to the majority, however this turns out. But we still need to get it implemented if we go with it. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset, Cwmhiraeth, and EEng: I just noticed right above the special holding area, we are having this transclusion problem again. And it's getting worse. It magically clears up for a few days, and then clogs up again. One of the great mysteries of the universe. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Maile, the number of active nominations (and therefore templates) has been steadily increasing, so it's natural that we'd run into the transclusion problem. It had been happening with 160 or more active nominations; now it's happening with 250/260 or more. That's quite a difference. If we had four or five prep/queue sets built at any one time, we wouldn't be having transclusion problems at the moment, though if the number of noms continues to build, we would regardless. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Let's not let the flame flicker and die. EEng 04:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

All hail Wugapodes!

I saw this and whipped together a script that managed to do the first part of the reorder: put any hooks that have been accepted onto a different page (and remove all the accepted/closed ones from the nom page). You can see the output on User:Wugapodes/Did you know/Approved hooks and User:Wugapodes/Did you know. If people like this and think this is something I should continue working on, I can make it so that the holding queues are on the other page like suggested. Let me know if this is helpful or not. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

YES! YES! YES! Everyone, please review what Wugapodes has done so far. (Wugapodes, by "holding queues" do you mean the special holding areas for e.g. holidays?) Also, let's all remember that this was a package of ideas about changing the sequence of events in review, approval, and promotion, especially with regard to when nom pages get closed and so on. Let's make maximum use of this opportunity to implement as many good ideas for improving things while this sucker wonderful volunteer Wugapodes is willing to dig in and do the work. EEng 23:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I did mean the holding areas. Poor phrasing on my part. Be sure to let me know of any ways I can procrastinate writing help. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I like what you've done. Please pursue this — Maile (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks good. One thing I noticed, at the moment the nomination José Antonio Raón y Gutiérrez for 23 October appears on your approved list. The template is splattered with ticks but the nomination has not in fact been approved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome work! But yes, we do have to decide how to deal with "challenged" nominations, where the approval is superseded by a later comment. Also, perhaps approved nominations should remain visible until they reach the main page, to encourage discussions to occur there and not on the main DYK talk page if they get pulled from the queue. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, great idea. For your algorithm: it has always been the case that the final icon rules; that's how Shubinator's DYKHousekeepingBot builds the List of DYK Hooks by Date table on the DYK queue and nomination pages. So if the final icon of the six allowed is one of the two ticks, then the nomination goes on the approved page; if red arrow, question mark, slash, or X, it goes on the regular nominations page. I queried Shubinator a couple of days ago about updating his bot to combine the contents of the current noms page and a new Approved noms page, and he hopes to have something ready to test by the end of the week. We'd need to decide on a name/location for the approved page: I would suggest an /Approved page directly below the current nominations page (Template talk:Did you know/Approved). I don't believe we want to use the word "hooks" in the page name because each entry is an approved nomination, not an approved hook. Finally, because Special occasion hooks are supposed to be approved, they should be kept on the Approved page but in their own section where the new moving bot should probably not be allowed to make modifications. We may want a stub of a Special occasions section on the regular nominations page, also where new the bot should not go, with much the explanation that is there now, along with a link to the approved special occasion nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me suggest the following:

• Once the green tick appears, move the nom to the Approved page.
• If the green tick is later overridden, don't move it back off the Approved page -- too confusing and doesn't happen so much that it matters. Thus the Approved page is really the "got approved at some point even if maybe it's not currently approved". This way more eyes get on a "troubled" nom, and that's a good thing.
• I thought about having a delay of X hours, after the green tick appears, before moving the nom to the Approved page, to give a little time in case the original tick is going to be overridden, but again I don't think it's worth the complexity (and sometimes we're trying to rush something through the process, so we don't want a delay).

Other points:

• Keep the nom page open until the hook is swapped off the main page. In fact, all the ancillary stuff that currently happens as the hook set is swapped onto the main page (closing nom page, handing out credits to user talk pages) can be delayed together to the swap-off.
• I'd like to make a plea for not importing, to the Approved page, the date structure of the main nominations page. Please, just add newly-ticked noms to the end of the page, so that those doing QA can simply watch for new stuff at the end. Please, please. This obsession with maintaining some kind of priority structure based on "date of creation or date expansion began" is completely stupid. (Having special-occasion holding areas is fine, and of course prepbuilders are free to jump around the Approved page in selecting hooks.)

EEng 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Antony-22: My interpretation of the proposal was like EEng's, even noms approved but later challenged would be on the approved page, and I think that's a good thing per EEng. Though if we'd like to discuss which is better, It's an easy change. @EEng: I'm not sure what you mean with your first other point, are you proposing a change to the way hooks get promoted to queues or is this something I can change in the script? I agree with your second point, and was how I wanted to set it up but I decided to not rock the boat too much. If others like that idea I would be glad to make that change. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The current procedure is that the prep builder selects a hook from a green-ticked nom page and adds it to a prep set; at the same time he/she closes the nom page (by changing some parameter in the enveloping template, and subst'ing it). Unfortunately, this means that if there's later trouble with the hook, there natural venue for discussing it (the nom page) is no longer available -- this is the main reason you see so much "pull" discussion at Talk:DYK. Also, in the current procedure, as the bot swaps a Queue of hooks onto the main page, that's the moment that the bot goes to the talk pages of the various involved editors for each article, to post congratulations.

My idea is this: when a nom is selected to donate a hook to a prep set, the nom is no longer closed; instead the prep builder simply posts a comment at the bottom of the nom, "To Prep 4 (without image)" or whatever. After the prep set becomes a queue set, and then is eventually swapped onto the main page, no credits are given as they are now. Instead, 24 hours (or whatever) later, as the hook set is swapped off the main page, at that time the bot passes out credits to editors (as it does now, just 24 hours later than it used to), plus (a new job for the bot) the nom page is finally closed. This way, the nom page remains open "from cradle to grave" for discussion of problems, no matter how late they arise. Also (hate to say it) if the hook is modified during its main page appearance, the credits that appear in various places will quote the final hook as of the moment it's swapped out, not the original (presumably inferior) hook that was swapped in at the beginning of the 24 hours. EEng 05:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, can I suggest that we take this in stages? There's an immediate issue: the nominations page is too big. There's going to need to be a lot of coordination between the new Wugapodes bot and the Shubinator bots. DYKHousekeepingBot is going to need to keep track of how many nominations there are between the pages, and be able to count both kinds (approved and not approved) on both pages. It's also going to have to figure out which nominations out there aren't yet transcluded, which involves checking both pages. Adding the rest into the initial separation stage is going to cause all kinds of delays in the separation. Let's concentrate on getting the pages separated before redesigning the whole process.

As for keeping the nominations open after promotion, I think this is going to cause more problems than it solves. Assuming we do keep the nominations open until they've been promoted to the main page and left it—remind me how we make sure that an open nomination isn't in one of the preps or queues or on the main page so it doesn't get promoted multiple times?—DYKUpdateBot (which puts the notifications on article and user talk pages) will have to do the close. The notification of promotion is now less friendly: instead of being told that the article you nominated is now on the main page and you can go see it there, you get notified after it has left the main page, so you probably missed it. I think you're being optimistic about the number of people who will see formerly approved hooks on the approved page; reviewers generally won't go there because the hooks are supposed to be approved. Special occasion hooks that run into trouble rarely find reviewers after the fixes have been made because they're in an area where only approved hooks should be; I think we'll be looking at the same thing here. Finally, the set builders select from both green- and gray-ticked nominations. It's the tick that counts, not so much its color. (With the gray AGF ticks, more care should be taken.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, for "green tick" I should have said "green or gray".
• I don't care too much when the credits are handed out -- do them during swap-in if you want -- but I feel strongly about keeping the nom page open until the final swap-out. Right now Talk:DYK is far too cluttered with discussions that should be going on back on the nom page, where all the relevant background already is. [Later-added point]: I do see the value of having involved editors notified at the moment of swap-in to the main page, since they can monitor for vandalism etc. Of course, that assumes they log in and find the notice, but we can but try.
• I'm not being optimistic about the # of people will be reviewing the Approved page, because I think there will be few such people -- people like TRM and Fram, our resident eagle-eyes (with eagle beaks and claws, of course). Right now serious post-tick QA doesn't start until the hook is in a prep set, by which time it's already a hassle to pull it back; this new Approved page, in addition to making prep-building easier and solving (we hope) the technical transclusion-limit problem, provides the perfect place for that final QA to take place. I think we'll find that most of the attention now directed at Talk:DYK (which should really be a place for policy and process discussions, not individual hooks) will switch to the Approved page. Obviously for any of this to work the nom needs to stay open until final swap-out.

EEng 06:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: EEng suggested writing a comment, but I think a template like they use for categories at AFD might be useful. It could keep track of the whole history, including who promoted it to prep and who removed it from a queue and when. Something like:

Wugapodes promoted this to prep 3 ~~~~

So it's obvious but not intrusive. I think the suggestion is a good one because I agree that discussions of a nom, even after being promoted, should take place there just so the history is easier to see. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(All hail!, indeed!) @Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth: The two of you do the major lifting in promoting to prep, so your input here would be good feedback. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

When hooks are reviewed they are often clunky, ungrammatical or otherwise not ideal. As a promoter, I consider the wording of the hook and if I think only trivial alterations are needed, I will move it to prep verbatim, and make alterations when it is in the prep set. Afterwards, others may also think it needs rephrasing, so what appears on the main page may be far removed from that on the template. I think it would be useful for this history to be available from the nomination template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

make alterations when it is in the prep set -- We've all done this, and we've all gotten in hot water at one time or another for it; it's the wrong place to be doing that. I submit that if you think a hook on the Approved page needs tinkering with, you should post something to the nom like, "Isn't there a grammar problem with ALT1? I think this ALT1a corrects it...", then propose your ALT1a and move on to find a hook elsewhere, giving time for those watching the nom page to evaluate your suggestion. In other words, either take the hook as approved, or suggest a change, but don't edit it on the fly or in prep -- the people who know the article, the topic, and the nom's history best aren't watching there. Because this is all happening under in the "Approved page fishbowl", our sharpest eyes will now be on these final adjustments. EEng 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to be distinguish the noms on the approved page by their status: approved, challenged, in prep, in queue, on Main Page. This could be either by having separate sections for each, or having an index or some other visual difference between them. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether a nom is approved-unchallenged or approved-challenged or gone-to-prep will be apparent by the ticks and comments at the end of the nom. (Perhaps we could have a "gone to prep" tick, but again I emphasize that it should be specified exactly which hook went, w/ or w/o image, which prep set, who moved it, etc.) ("Gone-to-prep" includes three sub-stages, really: in Prep, moved to Q, on main page; and swapped-off-off-main page closes the nom and removes it from Approved.) Weparate sections would make it a little easier on prep-builders, but at the cost of a lot of complexity, and we can always add that later if experience suggests it would be worth it. EEng 17:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Question @BlueMoonset, EEng, Wugapodes, Cwmhiraeth, and Antony-22: Depending ... if the hooks are left on the new "approved" page after promotion, then I think we need to do a little rewriting on the how-to of promoting to prep, etc. Specifically this part:

In the DYK nomination template

1) Replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage

2) Replace |passed= with |passed=yes

3) Check in Preview mode - if it was done correctly, everything will be against a pale blue background. There should be no stray characters (like }} ) at the top or bottom.

4) Edit summary should indicate which prep area you are moving the hook to.

5) Save

So, will a bot actually close out the template once a hook has retired successfully from its main page appearance? — Maile (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. My proposal is that the promoter do step (4) when taking a hook to put in prep. (As I said before, maybe we'll invent a new tick/template for "gone to prep".) Then, as the hook comes off the main page, the bot does the other stuff. EEng 23:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Step 1 and 2 right now actually close out the nomination template, and that's done manually by the promoter. So, you can't have a step 4 without 1, 2, 3. But...yes...that was the question. The template will stay open until the hook has had a successful run on the main page. Then a bot closes the template. Yes? — Maile (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, ok... I guess. I still don't see what the confusion was, but I think we're somehow saying the same thing. EEng 23:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Maile, at the point that this goes live, we're going to have to have already prepared numerous revisions to the various instructions, not merely to that one section, assuming all these changes are made to the process. We'll probably also want to put warnings on the Prep pages that there are changes and promoters should familiarize themselves with these before building sets. You never know when someone who's been away for a few months will come back and use the process they know, unaware of the changes since they left. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess that was my main concern, that promoters wouldn't know the new routine. And I agree that the new process should be posted in numerous places. Even if promoters are currently active, and checking this talk page ... if they haven't participated in this wall of text on how it will be changed, they might be completely unaware. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You leave for a couple hours and suddenly there's a bunch of new stuff.

• @EEng: I'm not too concerned about edits that happen in prep. Like the guide says, we can't stop and ask the nom about every change, plus it's CC licensed so might as well take advantage of that. If it's a big change, send it back (or don't promote), but for small grammatical errors and rewordings that don't change the meaning, I think the way it's done is fine.
• @Antony-22: I actually like that idea. I think having, minimally, an "approved", "promoted", and "pulled" section would be useful for promoters and reviewers. I'll think about how to add something like that in.
• @Maile66 and BlueMoonset: I'm thinking about how to actually implement a lot of this and I think a lot of changes can be done on the back end of templates and bots to make procedure changes minimal. Essentially all that happens when the DYKsubpage template is subst'd is that it includes the archival template. If we just edit that template to not do that any more, we can keep it open but still keep the actual procedure similar.

If you need me, I'll be in template space trying to whip up some examples/proposals. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You know, actually, maybe the changes shouldn't be minimal? Perhaps this is a good time to actually streamline the process, simplify, and make it easier for editors. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about edits that happen in prep -- Unfortunately experience shows that judgment, by persons not previously involved in a particular nom, about what constitutes a big change vs. a small rewording has been (to put it charitably) unreliable. It makes little sense for a detailed review and discussion process to be followed by a silent tinkering visible only in the edit history of the Prep template, made by someone who's been looking at the nom and the article for 90 seconds. And yes, we can ask the nominator and reviewer about every little change (in the sense of posting a suggested change to the nom change and waiting for comment) -- part of the reason it's healthy to have, to the extent possible at any given time, a large pool of approved hooks awaiting promotion is exactly so there's no hurry to promote any given hook, and thus comment can be invited on even apparently minor changes. This is the main page, after all, and there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. The guide says what it says currently because the current process forced us to make many such on-the-fly changes, and we were just closing our eyes and hoping for the best. One salutary outcome of the current effort should be to put an end to that by keeping the nominator and reviewer in the loop until the very end. EEng 04:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• @EEng: Right now it takes some searching to figure out which puck is the most recent one; it's a minor annoyance right now when I'm scanning through the noms to find a hook to review. Even having a prominent banner at the top of each nom would work, if people don't want them divided into sections, though if a bot's controlling the page sections wouldn't be hard to maintain. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we rechristen the |passed= parameter as |status=, then it could take on values like some_hook_approved, hook_to_prep, appeared (i.e. has finished its main-page appearance, though maybe this is just closed), and these could manifest as the banners you're envisioning. Back on the giant concatenated nominations page, it could be the change to some_hook_approved that signals the bot to move the nom to the Approved page, instead of the mysterious scan-for-bottom-tick system used now. (We can still have the ticks, for humans.)

I really think having a bunch of sections is gilding the lily. Just add newly approved noms at the end, and prep builders should look for hooks, in general, near the top. Plus the special-occasion hold areas, of course. EEng 04:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I misread Antony's post as talking about promoting hooks, when he was actually talking about finding noms to review. Since the reviewed noms (|status=some_hook_approved) will move to the Approved page, what is now the Nominations page will have only noms that haven't been approved yet, so finding a "virgin" should be easy. EEng 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was in fact talking about the new approved hooks page, but I was making an analogy with finding a hook to review. Just like people scan the noms page right now to find one to review, people may also want to scan the approved hooks to find one to promote or double-check, so it's important to be able to tell its status at a glance. Either displaying a prominent banner or having the bot keep them in separate sections would work for this. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

New template

For those interested in the idea I floated about an afd-like template, I made one that handles promotion and pulling. You'll want to see {{DYK moved}}:

{{subst:DYK moved|alt=1|toPrep=3}}

ALT 1 promoted to prep 3 – Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

{{subst:DYK moved|fromPrep=3}}

the nomination was pulled from prep 3 – Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It has pretty intuative syntax (looking only add human-readable parts, "DYK moved alt 1 toPrep 3" and "DYK moved fromPrep 3"), it pulls left so it stands out and starts a new conversational block, it produces a standard output that is easy for bots to look for and parse. It could also be incorporated into the current {{DYKsubpage}} template in addition to the "status" parameter EEng mentioned above to automate the process perhaps. That will be my next goal. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please pace yourself. We need you for the long haul. The benefits of all this could be far-reaching. EEng 04:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's all been rather simple. Believe it or not it's a nice break from my other work...not sure what that says about me. I tend to follow an iterative design model: prototype, seek feedback, and then scrap or adjust. I think it's easier for people to discuss changes when there's something to work off of which is more what I'm trying to provide than finished products, perhaps that wasn't clear. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Some comments/questions

(1) The blanks would be filled out by humans, for the bot to sense and do its thing. Right?

(2) If "alt=" is left blank, does it assume it's the non-alt hook?

— Maile (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the value was always explicit i.e. use 0 for "ALT0" i.e. the original hook. EEng 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(1) That was my thought, yes. If you look at {{DYKsubpage/sandbox}} and Template:DYKsubpage/testcases you can see a mock-up of how it would work. Instead of subst'ing the dyksubpage template like previously, the promoter would fill in alt= and prep= which would automagically add this comment line. When it leaves the mainpage, a bot would subst the template closing it.

(2) For promotions it assumes alt 0, though that can also be explicit or treated as an error to leave it blank, for pulled hooks it just says what prep it was pulled from (if this gains traction, we'd want to add pulled from queue and mainpage also) but the specific hook that was pulled can be specified as well. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:BlueMoonset that we should take this in stages. As I've said previously, modifying DYKUpdateBot to close out nominations when taking sets off the Main Page isn't on the table right now. Let's focus on addressing the immediate issue of the nominations page, and then we'll have plenty of time to fine-tune other parts of the process. Shubinator (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

But it is on the table. We're discussing it now. Do you have any other reasons for not discussing it other than that you say we're not discussing it? EEng 22:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, what is being discussed here is going to require extensive modifications to DYKUpdateBot. Shubinator, the bot owner, has effectively said that this isn't something he can accomplish quickly: it's going to require discussion, specifications, and time to write and test, not to mention the necessity of getting the existing bot and Wugapode's proposed new bot not to get in each other's way. Right now, we have an immediate problem that needs solving: the nominations page is too big and dozens of nominations are not being transcluded, making it extremely difficult for people to work on them. To separate them, another of Shubinator's bots, DYKHousekeepingBot, needs to be modified to deal with two separate pages rather than one: a new Approvals page on top of the current Nominations page. Once that's done, we can safely separate the pages, the transclusion problem goes away, and the design of the new process can take center stage. It's a matter of priorities and time available to work them. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if the implementation is done in phases, but the design (rough, at least) should all be up front, especially if, as you say, it will require changes here there and everywhere, to avoid re-redoing stuff over and over. EEng 04:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

New page setup

"Conscience does make cowards of us all"

The native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pitch and moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
– Hamlet III.1

Can the poetry, you clouted pox-marked mumble-news! EEng 19:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Click here to refresh the Shakespearean Insult Generator

@Shubinator, BlueMoonset, EEng, Maile66, and Antony-22: It seems like we've all had wonderfully productive discussion, but what I think we need next is to decide what we are actually going to do and when. I think we all agree the first thing that needs to happen to get the nominations back in order is splitting the pages. I can do that literally whenever. What seems to be the biggest holds on actually doing it are (in order of my perceived importance):

• How such a change to the nomination page would affect with Shubinator's bots
• How a bot moving noms from one page to the other would interact with Shubinator's
• How the approved hooks page would look/function
• What changes to the DYK process would need to be made to document these changes

Given this, I have a few questions. The first is for Shubinator: what do you need from me to most efficiently modify the DYK bots so that they can work with the most minimal change of splitting the pages? The rest are general things to discuss, in order of imminent necessity:

1. How should the approved hook page be organized: like in the example (retain date sections), like EEng suggests (just add them to the bottom as we find them), like Antony-22 suggests (approved section, contested section, pulled section), or some other idea?
2. Are the more superfluous suggestions made so far worth discussion after the immediate problem is solved?
3. If so, how and where should that discussion take place? Like we have been already in this section, in a new section on this talk page, on a subpage to craft a proposal RFC, or some other option?

Hopefully we can get the immediate problem solved asap, while also improving the project. The discussion has been great so far, and I hope for more, but let's not "lose the name of action". Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes

• In some ways, I wouldn't mind if this went to a separate page RFC. But what usually happens then, is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and participation drops. On the other hand, this particular thread has been open since November 1, and it's down to the few of us to figure out the mechanics.
• I think it is probably visually essential to retain the date sections, so that we can focus on getting the older nominations promoted. Otherwise, I think older nominations would fall through the cracks. IMO, when BlueMoonset started the regular updated sections on older nominations needing DYK reviewers, it was an improvement in bringing eyes to nominations that had been forgotten. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wugapodes, I didn't see that there would be any significant changes to the Nominations page (Template talk:Did you know) itself insofar as the existing bots were concerned. There would be fewer hooks transcluded there with a bunch having been moved to another page, but varying numbers of transclusions are normal. (I suppose it might depend on whether the page changes while Shubinator's bot is reading it, but wouldn't that cause a collision error now if it could have happened?) There will inevitably be some textual changes to the instructions when the page splits, and then as the other proposed changes come on line, but it seems to me that the documentation modifications will take far less time than the design, specifications, coding, and testing. Please see below about the page split. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I had posted to Shubinator's talk page a while ago, while this conversation had been moribund for a while, asking what he would need in order to revise DYKHousekeepingBot to check through two pages, of nominations and of approved nominations, and still be able to build the List of DYK Hooks by Date table that appears on the Queues and Nominations pages and lets us know how many hooks are out there and how many of them are approved. Losing this functionality (and knowledge of how many are approved) by separating the pages—the bot wouldn't see any on the Approved page—seemed to me to be a very bad idea. Per our discussion there, I've just created the bones of an Approved page, and seeded it with four hooks from December 6 plus the Special occasion hooks for next year.

My assumption was initially that the Approved section would have subsections by dates, but when I created a page today for Shubinator to test with—Template talk:Did you know/Approved (which I figured we could then populate for real once the bot was working)—I noted that the discussion seemed to be veering away from dates, so it might be best to just combined everything on the Approved page into one line on the List of DYK Hooks page. (I didn't populate any dates, just the main section as a whole.) Since Maile seems now to be heading back toward dates, maybe Shubinator should allow for date and non-date headers in the bot code revision, combining the dates from both pages, and adding lines for each additional category on the Approved page (but only one line for the entire Special occasions section). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I noted that the discussion seemed to be veering away from dates to continue quoting Hamlet, "ay, there's the rub". I honestly have no feelings about how the approved page should be set up as all (except Antony-22's) would be trivial to implement (the sections-by-status would require some changes to the process to be viable, so perhaps we should stick a pin in that one). So trivial, in fact, I'll program it to do both and when we come to a decision on that, have it output the one we agree on. I'll get to work on that, incorporate the structure you have at Template talk:Did you know/Approved already, and should have something ready soon. Thanks for your response, it really helped clear things up. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So, perhaps a stupid question, but how will the special holding areas work? Will they be nominated on the nom page and then moved to a section on approved when approved? If so, is there some consistent formatting that the bot can look for to know to move it to a holding queue? If not, then this may be a minor snag. Two solutions could be to have humans do it (for now or forever), or to modify the way dates are requested to make it bot-readable. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

After the bot moves it to the normal part of the Approved page, someone can then pick it up manually and move to the right special holding area; I really don't like locking too much structure into bot code. Since we're adding all the bells and whistles it might be nice to have a template parm |special_occassion= |special_occassion_requested=; it needn't be more than yes/no, and if it's yes that raises one of those famous colored banners to warn everyone it's not on the normal assembly line. EEng 06:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Special occasion should be a manual move: for one thing, it isn't an automatic grant. A human reviewer needs to take a look at it, and if they agree that this is indeed sufficiently special, and meets the criteria (it shouldn't be more than six weeks in the future, for example), then they can move it by hand to the Special occasion section and set up a new date section there if necessary. I would imagine that some of the time the reviewer will approve and move even before the bot takes action. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The date separations is a valueless complication for no purpose. If newly-approved stuff is added at the bottom, and prep builders work from the top, it will tend to be FIFO, which is good enough. EEng 04:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Re dates, after having just read BlueMoonset post beneath mine, it occurred to me that we need Shubinaor's feedback on what might be the best avenue to take on that. I'll go with the majority opinion on this, as long as it is workable for Shubinator. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

DYKHousekeepingBot can go either way on date sections. Right now it supports date sections, if we remove them the bot will need minor tweaking, definitely doable. Independent of the bots, when I was building DYK sets, the date sections were useful in reducing edit conflicts. Shubinator (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something only the bot will be editing the Accepted page anyway (adding noms that have just transitioned to some_hook_approved, and removing them at the end of their life) -- the exception being the rare time a hook is moved from the main Approved list to a special-occasion area. So I don't understand the edit-conflict argument.

One of the things I find really annoying about the date sections we now have on the giant nominations page is that new noms are popping up here and there all the time within the current 7-day window, so there's nowhere to watch to just see new noms as they arrive. If the date sections are just "date moved to Approved page" that's fine, but please don't arrange them by date nominated, because that means new stuff will always be appearing all over the Approved page, and those doing QA will have no way to find new additions systematically. EEng 02:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I apologise in advance if this is a really bad idea, but what about a page that was a sortable table with a link to the nomination page, status, nomination date, etc. No transclusions, the bot could just add to the list, update entries, and remove items when they come off the main page. Length would be a non-issue. Wouldn't that help us a lot with working through the nominations in varying stages? An editor could sort by status if looking for pulled / needing review, or by date, or even by nominator / approver / promoter, if that was somehow useful. Include if there is an approved image, so we could look for older approved hooks with images, etc. EdChem (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If, as I think you're suggesting, this would be an auxiliary structure that summarizes and indexes the content of the other page(s), then that really is something we can add later without impact on the design we're developing. EEng 09:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

EdChem I'm not sure if you're suggesting the table as the separate page we're talking about, or converting the nominations page to wiki links instead of transclusions. For one thing, wiki links also add to a page's size and bog it down. But the big issue is the visuals. Promoters should be able to scroll a page to eyeball potential hooks to complete a set. If we make it a system where they have to click on each link to see what it is, we discourage the incentive to promote hooks. Did I misunderstand what you are suggesting? — Maile (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that when someone's scanning down the Approved page looking for a hook to promote, it's more difficult if the already-promoted hooks are mixed in. I agree that they should stay in date order within the sections, just without subsection headings. I know having the bot juggle noms between sections is a bit more work, but it also makes things a bit easier for promoters down the line. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The colored banners you proposed should make things easy enough. Maintaining the structure you're proposing will require constant bot intervention. It's technical rococo. Simple is better. EEng 19:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng and Maile66: I didn't really have a concrete proposal, just an idea that was a thought-bubble. On reflection:

1. I would keep the nom page with the transclusions for the nominations yet to have an icon added (ticked, needs work, no, etc.).
2. I was originally thinking of the issue of which order is best, which a sortable table would allow each editor to tailor to their own needs. However, Maile's point on transclusions for the in progress / pulled / etc page is well made, so I guess what I am suggesting would be an adjunct.
3. My table page suggestion could summarise both pages and allow anyone to see every current nomnination in one place, by oldest, or status, or whatever else in the table. Statuses could be something like "nomination" (for on the current page), "new reviewer needed", "pulled", "GTG", "GTG (AGF)", "Waiting for action" (for when the nominator has been asked with a ? or / icon, or has acted and waiting for further input from the reviewer), "Promoted" or "In prep / queue". Having a table with no transclusions but only links means we don't run into the issue we presently have with too many templates.
4. Obviously any decision is contingent on consensus on the way forward, refinements / alterations / rejections / etc of suggestions made, and agreement from the bot operators on practicality and reasonableness, etc.

EdChem (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: have you seen Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report? It seems rather analogous to what you're suggesting in that it augments the GA process by summarizing the nominations and directing attention to the older ones in each category (and overall). Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I see that is one option. With nominations spread across two or more pages, a single page summary would (I think) be useful, and it needs to leave out the transclusions to be viable. I'm just throwing in an idea that seemed to me to address the concern over ordering and to be useful more generally, without advocating any single approach as the way forward. EdChem (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, DYKUpdateBot doesn't read the nominations page or the prep areas, so we're good on that front. DYKHousekeepingBot will need to be modified to 1) reflect the noms on the Approved page in the table generated at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count, and 2) not count nominations transcluded on the Approved page as orphaned nominations. DYKHousekeepingBot only reads the noms pages, so it shouldn't conflict with any nomination shuffling. #2 is a one-line change. As BlueMoonset mentioned, we've been iterating on #1, take a look at the modified bot's output here: User:Shubinator/Sandbox/DYK hook count. Feel free to provide feedback! Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

DYKMoverBot Prototype

Happy holidays everyone, I have completed a prototype of the nomination mover script. It is currently set up to out put two styles, with date sections and without date sections. I have a few more things to work out before I can submit a BRFA, but the formatting for each page is set enough for feedback. Take a look, decide which you like best, make that preference known to me somehow. A possible option is to quasi-A/B test it. Use one for a few days, use the other for a few days and determine which was best for your workflow. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth and the role of the promotor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The DYK project has ongoing problems with review quality and promotions. Discussions started with specific examples are easily derailed, as this one has been. Cwmhiraeth has made mistakes but also devoted considerable time and effort to the project and is one of the few editors doing the necessary task of set building. Fram and TRM have located many errors, a valuable contribution towards quality control at DYK and for the encyclopaedia as a whole. There are examples of less-than-ideal communication from numerous editors, though hopefully we all agree on the importance of producing high quality encyclopaedic content. I strongly suggest that a future discussion approach topics of QPQ, review quality, hook choice, promotions, and set building from a general perspective in the hope of a discussion that actually progresses towards addressing ongoing problems. EdChem (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

---

At User talk:Cwmhiraeth#List of Mormon missionary diarists, User:Cwmhiraeth just said about a disputed hook he promoted: "I am just a functionary that collects approved hooks and moves them into sets."

It has been pointed out to Cwmhiraeth in the past that a promotor has a totally different role, as explained in Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook. This doesn't seem to get through to them, so could someone please emphasise this again (and again and again if necessary). The accuracy of hooks and reviews is also the responsability of the promotor, not just of the reviewer and nominator. Too many hooks have to be pulled, and if the main hook promotor doesn't fulfill that position in the way it is supposed to happen, we have at least one part of the explanation of why so many problematic hooks reach preps, queue and main page. Fram (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You have taken my comment out of context. In this instance I was explaining to TRM that the function of the promoter did not include a consideration of whether the article's title was the best available. In fact I have followed this up by seeking the article creator's approval for the article name to be changed, but this goes way beyond the basic functions of a promoter. The comment was also a single sentence and in no way completely covers the steps I take before promoting a hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It was the fact that the title and and the lead of the article were simply incorrect, not just not the "best available". Factually incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The article needed to be renamed and the lead needed to be rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

And you still promoted it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As I explained above, I did not consider whether the article's title was the best available when I promoted it. Now that you have brought the matter to my attention, I have moved the article to its new title and rewritten the lead, a thing you could perfectly well have done yourself, and certainly not part of the duties of a set promoter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The point is you promoted an article with a fundamental failing. You didn't need to edit it but you certainly shouldn't have promoted it. I guess you didn't read it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of context? It matches your view exactly. You can compare it to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 130#Should I be topic banned from DYK?: "I am inclined to AGF not-easily ascertainable facts when reviewing hooks whereas Fram is dedicated to finding errors in them, so a few of my reviews are later proved to be incorrect. Most of the hooks that Fram has pulled with which I am associated are ones I have promoted to Prep. I believe Fram has an unrealistic view of what a promoter should do before promoting a hook." Fram (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this. Template:Did you know nominations/Richard L. Alexander appearing on Queue 4 was reviewed by Cwmhiraeth (hence why I choose here), but it says in the nom that User:GrinandGregBearit was the article creator; they weren't, User:TeriEmbrey was. I assume this mistake was made because of Grin's inexperience but a simple check of the page's history by the reviewer would have picked this up. Could TeriEmbrey be added to receive credit for this DYK too please? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: He's a new editor of Wikipedia and my intern. This article was mostly his work. I do not need the credit on this one. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TeriEmbrey for clarifying that (though you do deserve a co-credit if you wanted it). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Move to Close Thread Cwmhiraeth is obviously an exceptional promoter who has voluntarily self-accepted a heavy workload for the benefit of the project; a spirit of volunteerism for which many of us are appreciative. I'm unclear what this thread is about other than complaints of a general nature involving things that are essentially, within the overall pantheon of his work, minutia that could be better handled by a quick and cheerful, one or two sentence "hey buddy, FYI!" on a Talk page. I'd suggest it be closed. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We can remove Cwmhiraeth's name from the section head but it seems important to keep this thread open to talk about exactly what is the role of the prep builder. As Fram notes, too many mistakes are flowing through to the queues. We cannot rely on the reviewer (many of whom are newbies or just trying to get in their QPQ so they can nominate their own hook) to assure that everything's fine. Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's do that. And examine the role of the promoter. Right now we have just about one person promoting hooks, and as demonstrated above, making numerous errors in doing so. Or ignoring numerous in doing so. Depending on your expectation of the role of a promoter/set builder. For what it's worth, I read through whole articles and discover fundamental problems with around about one every set or two. So I'd approximate that to a 10% error rate. Now I'm told by Cwmhiraeth that it's not her job to actually react to errors in articles, just to build sets using erroneous articles. I find the whole thing somewhat odd. I will continue to monitor every single DYK that goes through here, but I'm more focused on article quality while Fram (as you can all see above) is doing a fine job of analysing the hooks for veracity. Too many mistakes at the moment, thank goodness we're down to just one set per day.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, many of us are aware that you consider a promotor deliberately ignoring the requirements for promotors and too often promoting erroneous hooks (including errors introduced by you) "things that are minutiae" (if you want to use big words, make sure you get them right). This has gone on for years and clearly isn't solved by a "cheerful" talk page message (this is a talk page, by the way). If the main promotor of hooks here doesn't care enough about having correct hooks, articles where the title matches the content somewhat, BLP policy, and so on; with the result that way too many hooks need pulling (and many others correcting in preps, queues and while on the Main Page from WP:ERRORS, like today). Fram (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be a talk page but it sure ain't cheerful! Even the spelling of participants in this discussion is subject to withering scorn from the OP (speaking of which, minutia is correct; minutiae is the plural form). LavaBaron (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As this is specifically about one editor who does most promotions here but doesn't follow the requirements coupled with that role, I have reinstated the section header. If you want a general discussion of the role, start another section or a subsection please. Fram (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose finding that promoter in question "doesn't follow the requirements coupled [sic] with that role" LavaBaron (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  Noted, but there's no doubt that probably because she's the only one doing it, the pressure is becoming too much and mistakes, many of them, are being made all too often. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"The pressure is becoming too much"? Oh goodness! LavaBaron (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you ok? I simply suggested that the pressure on Cwmhiraeth to fill these sets is getting too much, hence the increase in errors. I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you don't care about others or have a different view, but your discussion style is inaccessible, at least it is to me. You attempt to use big words and get it wrong, and you seem unable to empathise with others. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi TRM! If you want to discuss my vocabulary I encourage you to use a non-DYK forum to provide diffs about how I "use big words and get it wrong" [sic]. As a topic, that may not be 100-percent relevant to prep building, or DYK generally. Thanks so much! - LavaBaron (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted! Please now desist. Your previous comment: (Oh goodness!) was at best unhelpful. As I mentioned before, your posts aren't doing you any favours, and I imagine if they continue in this manner, it won't be long before you're out of the game again. Thanks so much!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This tête-à-tête is not topical; self-collapsing to keep it from derailing thread. LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

TRM, your comment, to which that was in reply - "the pressure is becoming too much" - was also not helpful. Cwmhiraeth is an adult, experienced editor, not a quivering wreck. Your comment about my vocabulary - "you attempt to use big words and get it wrong" - was simply a drive-by insult that has nothing to do with prep building (and was incorrect, as the absence of diffs show) of the exact type for which you were de-sysoped. (And, to clarify, I've never been "out of the game".) Now let's agree to stop here so we can pay attention to topical matters. Cool? In a spirit of cooperation I'm happy to let you hat this sub-discussion from my 22:09 comment on, if you like. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Re: the pressure comment, that's a huge part of why I stopped doing it - I stopped trying to fill the role of "getting a mixture of hooks put in front of the prep reviewers" when it became more about blaming the person who moved an approved hook than the two people who actually made the error in the first place (nominator and reviewer). I would love a clear definition of what is expected of a prep builder because I got different input from different people and frankly just dropped it when I got fed up with being pulled in 7 different directions. Kudos to Cwmhiraeth for sticking with it at least.  MPJ-DK  22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely second the kudos to Cwmhiraeth. Hope she sticks with it, I really appreciate her work! LavaBaron (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to Fram's original criticism of my prep-building, I routinely do all the things mentioned in Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook, with the possible exception of (2) in the first section. Do I seem to remember when Fram tried to build a hook set and we ended up with an unbalanced mass of country houses, several of which had to be pulled? TRM has yet to have a go at prep-building I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that; didn't know who was responsible, though. Just remember I thought I'd logged-in to Zillow, instead of Wikipedia. Ai-yi-yi! LavaBaron (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange, because only one country house was in that set. Yet another unhelpful comment from you, as expected. Fram (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, on numerous occasions I've stated to you that I don't have the long periods of availability you seem to have every morning to dedicate the required time and effort to building a hook. Therefore I'm not going to do a half-arsed job of it. That's why I would recommend to others that if they don't have sufficient time to do it accurately, checking each article and hook, then they shouldn't do it either. Just a quick glance at this page indicates that the prep-building standard, and associated promoted hooks/articles, is still in need of drastic improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to remember incorrectly, none of them had to be pulled: Ritchie333 mistakenly pulled one based on an error on his part (not knowing the difference between portable computers and laptops). Only one hook was about a country house. Getting back to your prep building, if you now routinely do the things required from prep builders, then that's an improvement. Now if you could also reduce the error rate in doing your checks, DYK would really get a lot better, and we wouldn't have days with 5 pulled hooks (all of them with you involved in one of the three main steps, twice as the reviewer and three times as the promotor). Of course, with better nominations and reviews the problem would also be reduced, but if we can't even remove people like LavaBaron (also involved in one of the 5 pulls) from DYK, then there is little hope of that happening. Fram (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been stated above that too many hooks are having to be pulled. Actually, I think hooks are only pulled to any extent when Fram is "on duty". Fram provides a level of hook scrutiny that others don't. In the first half of 2015, Fram was absent from Wikipedia for about six months. I doubt whether the level of DYK ERRORS reported by members of the public rose during that time. If there were errors, nobody noticed them. So, let's survey the present field:

• Hill-Crest; the source appeared to support the hook until you looked at it more closely. An error.
• Going out on a limb; you chose to interpret the word "limb" in the source as not meaning a bough. You were wrong.
• Filibus; you will see that guidance 4 for promoters states "Hook [fact] must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated)." It does not state that the promoter should check whether the hook fact is still true, or should look for other sources to disprove it. That is a level of scrutiny provided by you; without your intervention this hook would have passed through the system without objection.
• Egypt at the 1906 Intercalated Games; this was a pedantic quibble. The first ever opening ceremony at a (quasi)-Olympic Games more than a century ago and you think two Egyptian athletes might choose not to take part, on the basis seemingly that at modern games, some athletes avoid the opening ceremony. Really?
• A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons; this pull involved a DYK rule that the community has recently been discussing and that several people thought should be abolished, so policy rather than error.
• Irene Garza; This also involves a policy matter, BLPCRIME, and is not an error.

So how many of these are actually errors? I would say two, Hill-Crest and Filibus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Limb" wasn't pulled, I asked whether it was correct or not, some others agreed that it was ambiguous, but together we concluded that the hook was right after all. So I was right to question it and right not to pull it. Good work all around. This one wasn't counted in the 5 pulled hooks, as it wasn't pulled to begin with.

The others: trusting a 1997 source for a current claim is always a bad idea and should always involve a search for more recnt counterindications. "Egypt" was not "a pedantic quibble", and it is this kind of thing (among others) that makes you ill-suited for your promotor or reviewer role. Egypt was at the games, there was an opening ceremony, so (goes your OR synth which has troubled you in the past on DYK as well) the Egyptian athletes all must have walked in the opening ceremony. The sources say nothing about who walked behind the Egyptian flag though. The hook was also incorrect in its claim about contemporary sources.

But the worst is Irene Garza: so putting a hook that violates our BLP policy rather badly on the main page is not an error on the part of the reviewer and promotor? (The nominator specifically indicated his misgivings about the BLP aspect of that hook in the discussion). As the reviewer on that hook, it was your responsability to ensure that it didn't violate our BLP policy (Wikipedia:Did you know rule 4). You made a serious error in this case.

I do love your argument that if our readers don't notice that our DYK hooks are incorrect, it's not a problem. This of course makes the assumption that every reader who sees an error will run to WP:ERRORS or here, and not simply go to some more reliable website instead and leave with the conviction that Wikipedia is an amateur club. And this of course makes the even worse assumption that it doesn't matter if we get it right or wrong, as long as no one notices it. Fram (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• With all due respect, folks, this is going nowhere. If we want to have a focused discussion about the role of the promoter, then go for it, but this has degenerated into a polite slanging match, and is not productive. I am sorely tempted to close the thread myself, but can you both not recognize each other's utility to the project and move on? Vanamonde (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Great point. Not sure there's a positive terminus to this thread, it will probably just accumulate a few additional weeks of back-and-forth and then peter out. No actionable proposal has been advanced and the discussion seems largely to have failed to capture the interest of third parties. LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I recognise that Fram has some utility to the project but I am not sure that Fram realises that I have too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, if I thought you had no utility to the project I would have started a topic ban discussion at WP:AN a long time ago. Of course you have some utility here, the question is whether that justifies disregarding the requirements for DYK, not caring whether the readers get correct information or not, or e.g. considering posting BLP violating hooks and articles on the main page "not an error". People can have some or a lot of utility to the project but ultimately cause too much problems to be allowed to continue unchecked. And of course, utility to "the project" (DYK) is always subordinate to the effect you have on Wikipedia and what we present to the readers. Showing incorrect information or BLP violations to millions of people can not be justified by reasons like making DYK run on time or creating balanced sets of hooks. The latter are a bonus, the former are what should be avoided at all costs. Fram (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

With regard to Irene Garza, I mistakenly thought I had promoted the hook whereas I now see that I was the reviewer. In that case I was indeed in error. I tend to avoid reviewing BLPs as I am not particularly familiar with policy in this area. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"I recognise that Fram has some utility to the project". Facepalm Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Un-be-lievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A certain degree of utility. We may have more accurate hooks but in the process we have lost so many people who don't like to be humiliated. The people who used to build prep sets and no longer do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd stop digging yourself deeper now. This process is flawed, you do a job in promoting flawed articles, flawed hooks, the QPQ process means people are just here sanctioning hooks to self-enable. Humiliation is emotive, I'd prefer that you recognise that Fram points out to people where they make mistakes. In your case it's in double figures for the few months. And that's one set per day. We used to be at 3 sets a day, wow!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth doesn't strike me as being in any kind of hole, deep or shallow. In my opinion she's responded to the concern of another editor in a way that is polite, receptive, compelling, and factually and analytically correct in every way. And, her efforts have been applauded by other editors both in this thread, and in other threads currently open on this page. LavaBaron (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted, but actually Fram has demonstrated time and again that her responses are not compelling, factual, or correct in "every way". Please read all the threads before making such inappropriate claims. And for what it's worth, I applaud her "efforts" but the results are simply not up to scratch, time and again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No opinion can be an "inappropriate claim." It is possible for two rational beings to look at the same set of facts and form different opinions based on those facts. I appreciate and respect your different opinion in this matter. LavaBaron (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, your opinion is 100% factually incorrect. Let's leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

... annnnd scene. I'd suggest, having established one side is "100% factually incorrect", this is probably a good place at which to wrap things up and for Vanamonde93 to revisit his previous suggestion of closure. LavaBaron (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it suits me. It's about time we curtailed this ongoing fanclub for someone who continually promotes errors. Especially from those who create such drama in the first place. I wholeheartedly support this thread's closure, without prejudice of starting yet another to analyse, yet again, the behaviour of those who continue to poorly review or poorly promote hooks. Scene! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

A new issue

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.

---

This nomination was erroneously "fixed" by Cwmhiraeth before heading to the main page. Is there a pattern here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The error was introduced by User:Yoninah, not by Cwmhiraeth.[1] Fram (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fram. I was going to attest my innocence here but now have no need to! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What was my error? What does "notionally illegal" even mean? Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Theoretically illegal" I guess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The error was changing the hook from the one that was written by the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

O-kay. But I thought it was a typo. I did look in the article first to see what it was talking about, and saw: However, because Mazuism is not officially recognized as either Taoist or Buddhist, Chinese law considers it a tolerable but illegal cult, which to me means "nationally illegal", so I thought I was fixing the error. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"tolerable but illegal" == "notionally illegal". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand it. Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. In cases like this it's better to consult the nominator before making a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec)When in doubt, come to WT:DYK and ask (like I did in the "Going out on a limb" section). Some people may react badly if your concern is unfounded, but that's a lesser problem than incorrectly correcting an article (even pulling is better than erroneously correcting it). Fram (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram. I hear. I will try to do that in future. Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt

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.

---

• ... that in the carol "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt", printed in 1622, the angels are requested to come from Heaven with instruments, to play and sing of Jesus and Mary, and for peace?
• My version "... that in the carol "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt", printed in 1622, the angels are requested to come from Heaven with instruments, to play and sing for Jesus and Mary?

• @Gerda Arendt: After promoting it, I made two changes to this hook in a single edit which Gerda afterwards reversed. One was changing the word "of" to "for" because this carol seems to have been written as a lullaby and is not about Jesus and Mary as such. The other change, which is the one Gerda objected to I guess, was to remove the last three words and their reference to "peace". I do not believe the lyrics mention peace; the word they use is "Ewigkeit" which seems to mean "Eternity". Perhaps our German speakers can check this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  German speakers like Gerda you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There are others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we take a look at the nomination? I said there that the hook is mostly a translation of the lyrics, which was accepted. The refrain contains "von Jesus singt und Maria", "von" meaning "of", "of Jesus sing and Mary", not "to Jesus and Mary". The last stanza says "Singt Fried den Menschen", "Sing peace to the people". Without it, I wouldn't even have written the article. The carol was written during the Thirty Years' War, but I want to spar readers that on Christmas Day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate rendered the last verse:

• "Fried sings the people far and wide,
• Eia, eia, susani, susani, susani,
• God's reward and eternity.
• Alleluia" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Which would make a brilliant hook for April 1 perhaps, but is not really useful here... "Fried sings" is the part Gerda just explained (correctly) as being about peace. Fram (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Which says a lot about Google Translate, I am sorry to say. It's bad anyway, but especially when it comes to older poetry. "Fried" = "Friede" = "Frieden" means peace. In German, a poet can often skip a syllable for the meter's sake which doesn't change the meaning, Compare "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott", short for "Eine feste Burg ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite why anyone would consider Google Translate to be preferable to a native German speaker's version is beyond me. How insulting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Insulting is less the point than utterly unsourced. Look how easily you arrive at a term such as "God's reward". Nonsense. "Gott Preis" means Praise to God. Translate should at least say award ... - "Ehr" (honour) was left out anyway.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

General practice is if you personally do not speak another language, you take it on good faith that someone who does is correct in their translation. Questioning a translation using google translate over a fluent speaker is a waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If this thread makes people VERY cautious regarding Google Translate, the time wasn't wasted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fram and Gerda, but not TRM. I still think the word "of" should be changed to "for". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble thanking TRM even when he is clearly correct, like here or with that section higher on this page where you asked a stupid question and couldn't accept TRM's answer even when I indicated clearly that he was right, and you just had to ask the same question again from me. If you can't accept answers simply based on who they are from, then you are making a very clear ad hominem attack. Please stop doing this (and stop using Google Translate if you can't even look at it with a critical eye yourself). You have had trouble with German-sourced hooks in the past, when you were wrong as well, so perhaps stick to English-language sourced hooks only? Fram (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, no need for the pointedness, that you distrust a native German speaker over a German source and instead cite Google Translate as superior is truly worrying. I would certainly leave all the foreign-language hooks to those who know what they actually mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) There is no way "von Jesus und Maria" can be translated to "for Jesus and Mary", it's "of Jesus and Mary" (in a broader sense than the scene at the manger), in all stanzas the last word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• It is amazing how Fram and TRM can turn on me for doing as I thought proper, checking on a hook I was promoting and then bringing up the wording of the hook in this forum for discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  I didn't "turn on" anyone, I was amazed and disgusted that you would prefer to use Google Translate over a native German speaker. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  I have not complained about you checking on this hook or bringing up the wording here: but if you then continue, after Gerda's 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply, to question here by bringing up the most ridiculous Google Translate version, and then insist on a) dismissing TRM just because he is TRM, and b) continuing to claim that your version is better anyway, then you shouldn't be "amazed" that anyone "turns on you". Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 128#Eleonore Büning hook in Prep 1 was a previous example of you trying to pull the same stunt. You are free to bring issues here for discussion, but you shouldn't change hooks where you lack the right knowledge and expertise, and the proper means to research it correctly; and you should accept the expertise of others when things get explained to you, unless you have a good reason to doubt it or them (and Google Translate is very far removed from being a good reason). I am amazed though that I have to explain such things to you. Fram (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree that one should not trust google translate over the word of a native speaker in good standing. But surely the point can be made without the unhelpful value judgements. In this case, I suspect Cwm thought a mistake had been made as the phrase is somewhat counterintuitive.

Getting back to the hook in question, it does seem a little too long and detailed to me. I would suggest dropping "with instruments" as I think it's redundant given that the angels are being invited "to play". Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The hook should reflect the article. The mentioning of specific instruments in this particlular song is obvious and unusual, even deriving a new verb from trumpet. ("trombt": wonder how Google Translate deals with that?) Lutes, harps, violins, organ, - imagine the sound! Is "instruments" as a summary really too much for Christmas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it might be "obvious and unusual" after reading the article, but those qualities are not at all conveyed by the hook, where the phrase "with instruments" is conveying no information not already contained in the phrase "to play". You have to remember that new readers do not have the same familiarity with the topic as the author, and will therefore not necessarily grasp the intended meaning. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the kind of redundant "play", how is that? - "Play" is ambiguous, could also mean "play with the baby", "instruments" is clearer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a nice solution, Gerda :) I just added the word "musical" for clarity. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The point about the hook was already being made without the value judgments (why are they unhelpful? Sweeping stupidity and insults under the carpet doesn't make them any less stupid or insulting). The problem is that Cwmhiraeth then insists that he knows better, despite the clear fact that they obviously don't know better at all. Coupled with the fact that they have a history of this kind of stunts, it shouldn't come as a surprise that he gets some backlash. Fram (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, no, Cwm didn't insist that they know better, they brought the issue here for further discussion, which is the right thing to do when there is a dispute. And when somebody is constantly attacked from a given quarter they are bound to start getting defensive. In any case, I think the point has been made now and shouldn't need to be repeated. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think suggesting a native German speaker's word on a hook they themselves created based on German-language text is not suitable and instead Google Translate and a personal (yet incorrect) preference is entirely unsuitable behaviour. Once again, people should stick to things they do know about and avoid things about which they don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the number of mistakes native speakers of English make when interpreting their own sources, is it really so outrageous for Cwm to suggest that somebody other than the original author take a look at the sources? Why do we need reviews in the first place? Nominators make mistakes, and sometimes it takes a third party to recognize them. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. Cwmhiraeth suggested that Gerda was wrong and Google Translate was right. That's the problem. Once again, people should stick to things they do know about and avoid things about which they don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

All true, except that wasn't what Cwmhiraeth did here. They wanted to criticize the hook for mistranslating German, when they have absolutely zero knowledge of German (if you don't know what "er" means, then you have no business trying to translate German). Furthermore, normally when people want to check something in a hook, they haven't first changed the approved hook to their own incorrect version in prep, like Cwmhiraeth did here. If they had trouble with the hook, theu should have asked their questions at the nomination, not promote it. Why do we need reviews in the first place if nominators, who normally can't even be bothered to remove errors from hooks, start introducing errors because they know obviously better than a native speaker? They should have simply asked "I do not believe the lyrics mention peace; the word they use is "Ewigkeit" which seems to mean "Eternity".", to which Gerda or someone else could easily have replied "Fried, not Ewigkeit", case closed, everybody happy. But that's not really how this has been handled of course. Fram (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I already agreed it was an error of judgement. What I find disagreeable is the endless harping about such errors. But as nothing I have ever said on the matter deters you, it's clear I'm wasting my time here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only your own time either. What difference does it make if you and I agree that is an error of judgment, if Cwmhiraeth doesn't recognize this and learns anything from it? They didn't learn anything from the previous time they thought they could magically translate German better than everyone else, and have now added the "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll promote my version instead of the approved one anyway" attitude. But the main problem plaguing DYK is of course the harping about such things (though apparently not the harping about TRM or others?). Fram (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, everybody is somewhere on the learning curve, so I guess we could all use a little education somewhere along the line. In my experience however, attempting to publicly pillory somebody every time they make a mistake is neither an appropriate nor effective method. Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind your inaccurate description of reality, your more effective alternative is...? Fram (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you even have to ask the question speaks volumes. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did wonder if you were really advocating privately pillorying them instead, but I just wanted to check. Your refusal to answer seems to indicate that that is indeed your preferred method. Thanks, I'll pass. Enjoy your volumes! Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so "I still think the word "of" should be changed to "for"." should be read as "you're right, my knowledge of German is insufficient to know whether the hook is right or wrong and I'll accept your interpretation of it since you clearly do know German"? The point clearly needs to be repeated since you clearly don't get it either and only are in this discussion for poor Cwmhiraeth who is "constantly attacked from a given quarter" when they constantly make errors and learn nothing from it, but decide to attack TRM constantly without good reason (I don't see you jumping up and down when that happens, which seems a bit selective). Fram (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that sometimes people don't see the point immediately is not a reason to castigate them. This is supposed to be, you know, a collaborative project, where the project is advanced by the collective intelligence of all participants. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, and Cwm inevitably makes a few given their volume of output here. I wonder how often we'd be seeing similar threads on this page if you were the one doing the lion's share of the promoting? Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I at least wouldn't promote a hook which I doubted despited having no knowledge of the source language, and while promoting it change it to my own preferred wrong version. To claim that Cwmhiraeth makes "a few" mistakes is again sweeping problems under the rug. No one is obliged to do anything here, but if you do it, you have to do it right, certainly on high-visibility pages like the Main Page. Finally, Cwmhiraeth isn't castigated for not seeing the point, but for their arrogant atitude that they do see the point better than everybody else despite lacking the knowledge needed to even make a coherent point about this hook. Fram (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you are convinced you can do a better job, you are more than welcome to put a few updates together yourself. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I remember the stupid and vengeful criticism you and others tried to give the last time, including an incorrect pull you didn't seem to care about one bit (again the selective criticism). Like I said, my interest is keeping errors away from the main page, not so much having a DYK section on the main page. If the people who want a DYK section can do a good job, fine, otherwise just don't bother. Fram (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to say how inspired I am at seeing how the spirit of Christmas has filled every heart with peace, joy, and love for all mankind. EEng 14:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Can't you hear us all singing fried? Like the 18th century Christmas carol says, "Harp, the angels sing" (hey, it's nearly correct, should be good enough!) ;-) Fram (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If we can all sing, fine, but Google Translate has only Fried sing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It's finger-lickin' good. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• The proposed hook seems too unsurprising – lyrics about angels and the baby Jesus are the conventional stuff of Christmas carols. I think the fact about it being something of a reaction to the strife of the Thirty Years War works better as a hook for me. As for the strife here, I have some German myself and have access to expert translators but would not involve them in such an unpleasant fracas. Andrew D. (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Christmas spirit is all very well, but some of us don't necessarily "celebrate" Christmas at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, something we can all heartily join togther to celebrate, the good old Thirty Years' War. Sounds familiar for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Another thought. The Christmas Carol Reader indicates that there's some confusion about this carol, Susani, as there are various versions and other similar carols. Perhaps this could be the basis of a hook? One of the related carols is Luther's "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her". I notice that that article contains a sound clip: It would be be a nice Christmas feature for DYK to have some music like this, eh? I have no great expertise in such sound files myself but perhaps there's a wiz who can get together with Gerda to arrange this. "Musick has charms to soothe a savage breast"... Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Thirty Years War and Witch trials come already two days earlier (now in Prep 2), - we don't want to bore the readers with the same thing twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't translate the German article, only parts I thought relevant. German readers don't have to be told about the peace bit, because they can read it in the lyrics. Regarding the other "Vom Himmel hoch", see the talk page: arguments, arguments. I tried to save this song from an existence as just a redirect to the bottom of the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Second break

@The Rambling Man: This discussion has all come about because you misunderstood my post with the Google Translate result. I did not prefer Google Translate to Gerda's statement and in fact found it amusing, but I was just demonstrating that it did not contain the word "Peace". Before changing the hook to my version I had earlier translated the whole carol with Google Translate and I also translated the whole corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. Neither produced the word "Peace". The relevant paragraph of the German article translates as

"The text is an invitation to the angels of heaven to come to earth and to make a new song to the newborn child of Jesus. In a playful way the musical instruments are listed in the verses, which can be used for this purpose."

Nothing about "peace", and also suggesting the angels were to sing "to" the newborn child not about the child. I sought a third opinion, I thought Fram would probably provide that, and look where it got me! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you asked for a German speaker to help, but Gerda is precisely that. Then your recalcitrance in accepting the word of a subject-matter expert made matters worse. Seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it, leave it to others, or at the very least, have some respect for those who do know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram and The Rambling Man: Would you two care to fucking drop it already. You both are on a crusade to purportedly "improve" the quality of DYK, but all you have consistently and purposely done is hound anyone that is actually doing the labor of construction and promotion, while actively AVOIDING doing any of it your-self. Its seems clear at this point that your purpose is to not improve the project, but to run it into the ground by chasing anyone away that is doing the work. Your methodology is not productive an you actively are killing the project.--Kevmin § 20:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry about that. If you think preventing errors getting to the main page is "killing the project" then perhaps the project raison d'etre is flawed. Thanks for your comment though. For what it's worth, I've noted several times (i.e. more than six) that preparing sets etc takes a lot of time. And if you don't have that much time, you shouldn't do it. I don't have that much time. All I can offer is a filter on errors and other such issues getting to the main page. Because obviously none of us want to see errors getting to the main page. Of course, you're welcome to help here, I'm not sure if I've seen you specifically working on hooks, sets, error prevention etc. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Nevertheless, it's much better to make proactive comments on the hooks in the preps and sets rather than to resort to childish swearing which really only makes you look like you're not capable of dealing with a sensible adult discussion. Please refrain from such outbursts in future and let's deal with the issue at hand, i.e. the numerous mistakes being made here, almost daily. Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Preventing errors is great, but you are not doing that anymore. you are actively hounding the only person that is doing work, and then being very vindictive and rude (against the warnings at the arbcom we just had) when the one person misses the tiniest thing. BUT you refuse to step in at take up any of the work load that you so vociferously are complaining about. The project is not flawed its being actively strangled by you and Fram, (who both have stated that the project should not exist. It seems pretty clear that you have motive to kill the project through your "help". Also swearing does not make someone childish, it is a way of accentuating a point, and used by people of all ages that are frustrated at a situation. If you want to help the project stop being purposefully vindictive about it. I will not refrain from outbursts when I see a situation that is killing a project.--Kevmin § 20:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you're mistaken once again. No-one is actively hounding anyone. We are just making sure we have fewer errors going to the main page. Sure, if you'd like to pursue this through Arbcom, go for it, that's your right, and you'd be better off doing that rather than aimlessly shooting off here if you really believe it. Fram and I (and I speak for Fram here tentatively, but I'd like to think we have at least a little bit of similar mindset) are doing our best to prevent this complete joke of a process from continually spoiling the main page with errors. Now, just because we have one dedicated user pushing stuff into preps and sets, it makes little difference. The onus isn't on Fram or me to get the promotions right, we've both already said that's not our bag. But what should have been take on-board by now is that much more care and attention should be taken when promoting sets. Especially, e.g. in this case, when it comes to reviewers or promoters taking unilateral decisions, even though they don't know the language, to modify hooks. If you ever get properly involved Kevmin, perhaps we'd be able to take this conversation forward. Feel free to outburst as much as you like, but be aware that most of us are used to this kind of thing, and we usually ignore it and continue to strive for excellence on the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I dont think I am though. You are showing just how little regard you have for the project and those who contribute to it when you call it a "complete joke of a process". Please outline your next step if Cwm leaves the project, given that all other promoters have stopped exactly due to the castigation they are given for missing anything that is deemed an an error.--Kevmin § 20:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have utmost regard for the intention of the project, the implementation is completely broken as has been the case for a couple of years and has been clearly publicised by more than just me and Fram. The two of us (and a few others, e.g. Black Kite) do our best with limited time to reduce the number of errors promoted to the main page, despite the various "quality gates" needed to pass a DYK. That, on average, there's error in about one in every two sets means the project isn't working, its QPQ function is failing, there are reviewers and/or promoters who aren't doing the job properly.

In answer to your question, if Cwmhiraeth leaves, then the project will have one fewer individual promoting badly conceived or erroneous hooks to the main page. If that means no erroneous hooks are promoted, so be it. The hysterical and hyperbolic "castigation" claim is nonsense, I impart advice on erroneous hooks daily and do it neutrally until such a time that it's clear that the point hasn't been made. As before, I look forward to you, Kevmin, helping out here. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I see you have carefully avoided the point of my question. I will ask a second time: Please outline your next step if Cwm leaves the project? when you step up to take up the slack. You are the one that has constructed the massive time frame for promoting, in that you assert, with no backing data, that a DYK review needs to have more attention given it then that of a GA or FA, with a micro examination of every reference, every sentence, and every word, to make sure that no possible ambiguity exists. However you have attacked Cwm for doing just that in the above section, asserting that Cwm should have just assumed good faith on the nom even though there was question of the wording. If AGF had been applied you would have asserted that a second or third person should have reviewed it, (based on your exact actions in the past month alone, and the closed "questioning" of Cwms actions less then a month ago. You are far from neutral in the wording you continue to use, and have used for over a year now.--Kevmin § 21:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't "carefully avoided" anything. As I said if Cwmhiraeth leaves, then the project will have one fewer individual promoting badly conceived or erroneous hooks to the main page. Perhaps you didn't read that? I, amongst others, have strived to avoid sending erroneous DYKs to the main page. You seem to overlook that very key point. What's more interesting is that you seem to do absolutely nothing here other than to commentate on other people's actions. Why is that? Are you actually actively engaged in making DYK a better place or are you just here to attempt to lecture those of us who are actively making it a less erroneous project? I think before you lecture me (or at least poorly attempt to do so) you should look far more closely at your own contributions. Thanks! By the way, please provide diffs for when I said in that you assert, with no backing data, that a DYK review needs to have more attention given it then that of a GA or FA. That would be very helpful!! In the meantime, your "fucking" swearing is not needed (...You are far from neutral in the wording you continue to use... - funny!), and really exemplifies that you need to work harder on your communication skills, despite your subsequent censoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you are striving for 0 errors on the main page (something that will never happen, and something that is contributed to by every section of the main page). But you are laser focused and and rude in your attempt, which gets you nowhere if you want collaboration. You are oddly fixated on the use of one word, and you are attributing to me a level of knowledge about me and my communication/maturity that one would only have if they spent a notable amount of time interacting with me, which you have not. How you come to that conclusion, based on one word, I dont know, but you are using it to avoid my question again. I saw your response, but it is not an answer to the question that I posed, it only is a purposeful bad faith assertion of how the project would be. I will ask a third time: Please outline your next step if Cwm leaves the project?--Kevmin § 22:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kemin, you moved my comment which was in response to the beginning of this subthread to above it. Please fix that. I may make little sense but please not that little. Look at the time stamps. Better don't touch other users' posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to reduce errors, zero is impossible, obviously, but let's try to get it below one per day, eh? Not rude, just direct, and I'm not sure if you've ever done anything around here but commentate, but I could be wrong. I'm not fixated on anything, your lack of communication skills is not my problem at all, that you felt the need to give me a "fucking" lecture is your issue entirely. My next step if Cwmhiraeth is to continue in exactly the same manner as I have been doing, to ensure a minimum number of errors hit the main page. There's no "purposeful bad faith assertion of how the project would be", there's a simple statement of fact, the project would have one fewer individual promoting errors to the main page. That's a simple pure honest statement of fact. The world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows, and we've been putting up with dumploads of issues from the DYK project. If you contributed here, you'd realise that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am reopening this thread to give @Fram: a chance to respond to Kevmin. TRM has already responded (hidden above) and need feel no obligation to respond on Fram's behalf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  Very kind, selective hiding, that's always helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I did reopen the thread, but Fram reverted my action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Fuck off, Cwmhiraeth. Fram (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Typical displacement activity. Unwilling to answer the question asked by Kevmin, Fram attacks me instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, no question in there. What are you aiming to achieve with this line of enquiry, other than the exacerbate the clear divisions which already exist in the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

With peace and joy

Postlude: I find the above discussion closed with my comment which has been moved still above the question that it answers. I came to present another occurrence of Fried, in my latest FAC to which I welcome all you quality-watching users ;) Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125! Google Translate says "With Fried and Freud I go there", "go there" being a very harmless euphemism for "die" ;)

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.

Prep 1

"... that her sassy, self-confident performance in the "Soy Yo" music video has turned 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez into a Latina icon?"

"sassy, self-confident"? Is this a quote? If so it should be in quote marks, if not it's not encyclopedic or neutral in tone and needs rephrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• It comes from the Fox News source which says "In (the video), she plays a sassy and confident girl.." which I would say is not the same thing as the hook is claiming. There are lots of possible hooks here, it should be easy to find one that is accurate. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The hook wording has been extensively discussed on the nomination template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat the issue: the hook is neither encyclopedic in tone nor neutral. If it's a quote, fine, mark it as such, if it's not a quote, it needs rewording. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• In addition to the point TRM has made, I am concerned that the hook is not actually in the article. The hook describes Sarai as giving a "sassy, self-confident performance," but the article uses that phrase to describe the character she portrayed. So, is the source describing the character she portrayed or Sarai herself? It seems to me the article is referring to the former and the hook to the latter. EdChem (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

How about we leave the adjectives out entirely:

• ... that her performance in the "Soy Yo" music video has turned 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez into a Latina icon? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That just gets us out of the adjective frying pan into the noun fire. EEng 11:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "performance" is good, but if you have a different suggestion, please mention it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "icon" needs to be attributed or at least quoted. (Sorry, I didn't notice that icon was in the original hook anyway, so I guess we were already in that fire.) And the article lead should not be deadpanning that she's an icon, as if that's her job description. Talk about PEACOCK! EEng 12:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

EdChem is right; I mixed up the hook and the source. I don't understand what's PEACOCK about how I wrote the lead. Here is an alt suggestion for the hook in prep:

ALT1: ... that 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez plays a nerdy-looking girl with a sassy, self-confident attitude in Bomba Estéreo's "Soy Yo" ("That's Me") music video? Yoninah (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator needed to change hook in Queue 1. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah I don't mind doing the swap. But given that it's your nomination, and your suggested new hook, it needs to be approved by another editor before I do the swap. There's plenty of time, since that queue isn't due on the main page until Wednesday the 28th.— Maile (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, my apologies, I hadn't noticed the need for input, thanks for the message. From the point of view of my issue, ALT1 addresses the problem. However, I don't see that the issue which The Rambling Man raised is addressed, so I am pinging for comment. Describing the performance of an 11 year old as sassy in Wikipedia's voice is not something I am comfortable with, but it is a word used by the source, so I suggest quotation marks, such as:

• (ALT1a): ... that 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez plays a "sassy and confident" but "nerdy tween" in Bomba Estéreo's "Soy Yo" ("That's Me") music video?

@Black Kite, EEng, Cwmhiraeth, and Maile66: as others who have commented for thoughts / comments / further issues / approval / etc. Thanks, and Merry Christmas, Greetings of the Season, and other appropriate felicitations to all! EdChem (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: I've made a couple of further tweaks. The descriptor "nerdy" is not used by the Fox source but it is in the New York Times source (the other one used for the relevant sentence in the lede of the article). The character is described as "the nerdy, round and confident tween" which I have parsed as "nerdy tween" instead of "nerdy-looking girl." Having made this much of a change, I feel unable to tick, my quotes and re-ordering can be seen as enough to make me involved / conflicted / whatevered. EdChem (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Since I've agreed to switch the hook with what is approved, I'm neutral on this. I'm still puzzled by a comment on the nomination page about the word "spunky" not being a comfortable word. Spunky is so commonly used (in America, anyway) in a complimentary way about any youngster with a lot of energetic spirit. I guess it's a regional objection. Whatever is agreed on here, just let me know when it's time to switch out the hooks. — Maile (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, here is a dictionary definition for "spunk." You are referring to definition 1, but I am certainly familiar with uses 2 and 3, and those certainly make the term "spunky" problematic for an international encyclopaedia front page. Sassy does not have the same geographic connotations (none I am aware of, in any case), and it is used in the sources so is acceptable as a quotation, in my opinion.  :) EdChem (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow...Assuming the Mary Tyler Moore Show ran in England and/or Australia, there must have discomfort when Lou Grant told Mary Richards, "You've got spunk!" and she took it as a compliment. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Why just England and Australia? Here in America we read 19th-century English pornography too, you know. WRT the new hook, my only concern was calling the subject an "icon" in WP's voice, so I'm good. EEng 22:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's why. This kind of stuff would cause a coronary in midwest America, and the Westboro Church would be all over it too I'm sure. This is why care should be taken when using the word "spunk" or "spunky" from a British POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input, but I object to using all those quote marks in ALT1a. The reason you don't see "nerdy" and "self-confident" in the sources is because I paraphrased them. Yoninah (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and created an unverifiable NPOV hook. Hence the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: We could reduce the quotation marks by just leaving the title of the video in italics and removing the translation. I didn't put "sassy and confident [but] nerdy tween" (or anything like that) as the quotations are from different sources. Removing the quotations changes the descriptors of Gonzalez' character from that provided by a source to one offered in Wikipedia's voice. This is less problematic as a description of a character than it was as a description of the 11 year old herself, but it is still arguably inappropriate to use in that way. "Sassy," "confident," and "nerdy" are used in the Fox and NYT sources so can be quoted without raising concerns. This would all amount to the following:

• (ALT1b): ... that 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez plays a "sassy and confident" but "nerdy tween" in Bomba Estéreo's Soy Yo music video?

This is also tighter, and we now have confirmation that Maile66's and EEng's concerns are addressed, as are mine. EdChem (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: OK, fine, I guess. It's funny, I review so many hooks a year but I don't quite get why it's important to put these character descriptions in quotes. I notice you haven't changed the article at all. Shouldn't you be putting these descriptions in quotes in the article, to match the hook? Yoninah (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I know you do a lot of reviewing, which is appreciated. For me, describing a child with a word like "sassy," which can be taken as having sexual connotations, in Wikipedia's voice is at least problematic. Using the word for a performance by a child is potentially justifiable in WP voice if supported by multiple sources, or as a quotation from a single source. And yes, you are right that related article changes are needed too, but I am unsure why I alone would be responsible for them, as appears to be your suggestion. Given your objection, however, I was waiting to see what consensus was and I also feel like I am juggling many issues at once – not just on WP, either. Your question prompts me to investigate whether broad sourcing exists to remove quotation marks.

• In addition to the Fox News source (sassy, confident, and nerdy) and the New York Times (nerdy and confident), there is:
  • The Tico Times [2] – uses "sassy"
  • Latin Times [3] – uses "nerdy" (obliquely)
  • Remezcla [4] – uses "confident", gives a description that fits "nerdy" but does not use the term
  • Hipgive (Hispanics in Philanthropy) [5] – uses "nerdy," "confident," and "sassy"
  • Peru this week [6]] – uses "sassy"
  • Huffington Post [7] – uses "confident" and "spunky"
• Yoninah, any more sources you are aware of? I am inclined to say these do support a description in Wikipedia's voice, but will seek TRM's perspective.

@The Rambling Man: Do you think these sources collectively would support the description of Gonzalez' character and performance as that of a "nerdy-looking girl who is sassy and confident" in Wikipedia's voice, both in the hook and the article? Perspectives / Input from others here at WT:DYK welcome too. EdChem (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've never had a problem with the use of those words as long as they are in quotes because of their non-encyclopaedic nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am asking whether you consider this sourcing would allow their use without quotation marks. In other words, is there the breadth of sources to support them as a neutral description reflecting a breadth of sources rather than an opinion needing attribution to a specific source by the use of quotation marks? The requirement for references is a given. EdChem (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll reiterate then, the language is not encyclopaedic so either needs paraphrasing into neutral tone, or quoting. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: OK, I put the character descriptions in quotes in the article and added the relevant cites. Here is my ALT2 with each character description quoted separately:

ALT2: ... that 11-year-old Sarai Gonzalez plays a "nerdy" tween with a "sassy" and "confident" attitude in Bomba Estéreo's "Soy Yo" ("That's Me") music video? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the argument can be made for removing the quotation marks based on breadth of sourcing, but TRM evidently does not agree, so I think using them is the low-conflict way forward. Yoninah's changes to the article match the hook ALT2. I see no objections to it other than stylistic. @Maile66: is this sufficient to make the change to the queue set? EdChem (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah and EdChem: Hook now in queue 1 swapped with Yoninah's ALT2. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all. I admire and appreciate all the work you put into this, @EdChem:. Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah, it is always nice to hear when one's efforts are noticed and appreciated, and especially as I was concerned that you might feel I was being an obstruction to your nomination moving forward. I'm glad we have reached a solution that avoids the hook being pulled from the queue. EdChem (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hook pulled

I've pulled the current pictured hook due to a blatant error. The transmission of the tank weighed 5 tons, not the steering system. Please process accordingly, thanks. Stephen 22:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I can only imagine the onslaught of Facebook posts taunting us over this. EEng 06:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. Is that supposed to be a joke? Stephen

That you pulled a book based on something in a children's book would make my adding a joke superfluous. EEng 11:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That the kid's book was used as a reference for DYK content featured on the main page is the biggest joke here. Nice to know you've found your place to contribute. Stephen 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I had checked that, and the kid's book -- the one you quoted at Errors to justify pulling the hook -- isn't cited in the article. On the other hand I now can't find the book fact in the article either, so I'm not sure what's going on. Nonetheless relying on a children's book at Errors is naturally going to invite incredulity. Nice to see you've found your way of contributing, too, after a fashion. Gatoclass, what's going on? Where's the hook in the article? EEng 13:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Its complicated - The original nomination was failed/had a number of issues. The eventual hook was not the original. Tank steering systems does contain the basis for the hook: "While moderately successful, these early systems were large and extremely heavy; the one in the Saint-Chamond added five tons." however that is only if you accept the 'transmission' as being the steering system (its not by itself, its part of it). And it is not mentioned at all in the Saint-Chamond (tank) article at all, but as it is not the focus, that is not technically against the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh oh, I was looking at the Saint-Chamond (tank) article, so Stephen, my apologies. (A) How did we end up with a hook sourced to a children's book, and (B) when did they start naming tanks after saints? EEng 14:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Presumably after the S.Herman was named after St Herman. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I did exactly the same thing as you for five minutes looking through the history before I realised a)the fact there was an extensive history meant it wasnt the DYK target, b)it was clearly never in that article because tank afficiandos are unlikely to source tank specs to a childrens book! The original nomination was back in September and the Saint-Chamond was never part of it. It was proposed as an alt due to the original nom having issues, lots of other issues etc. The Saint-Chamond picture was never even in the article to start with. Clusterfuck all round I would say. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Most tank steering systems steer via the transmission - that is a major point in the article. And it appears you neglected to read the other source in the article, which says (page 92): "The transmission was described in the program: a single generator coupled direct with the engine supplies current to two motors in series. The independent control of each motor is accomplished by shifting the brushes. Each motor drives through a two-speed gearbox to a worm-reduction gear and from thence through a further gear reduction to the sprocket wheels driving the road chain wheels."[8] I think it should be abundantly clear from that description that the transmission system is the steering system in this type of arrangement. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference didn't support the fact. It was raised on errors, it got pulled. I'm not going to read through the article and concoct my own original research. Just do things properly next time, OK? Stephen 09:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to "concoct your own original research". However, before you decide to disrupt the main page by pulling the image hook, it doesn't hurt to check a couple of adjacent sources to ensure the hook fact isn't partly contained therein. It took me all of two minutes to find the above quote. I'm not saying you weren't within your rights to pull the hook, but this is a pull that might have been avoided with a little further investigation, so I hope you will bear that in mind for future reference. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

But its not. The relevant source makes no mention of the 'steering system' it just says the petrol driven electric transmission weighed 5 tons. Which is not necessarily the same thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know, the point I was making is that the adjacent source contains a much more detailed description, and that checking that one might have prevented the hook pull. Even if that wasn't the case, the main point is that checking one or two additional references can sometimes clarify the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the adjacent source and I cant see any mention of weight of the transmission or steering at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The weight of the transmission is supplied by one source and a description of it is supplied in the other. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

So you used source A and source B to reach conclusion C which wasnt listed in either? Sounds like WP:SYNTH to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think there is sufficient information in the two sources to reach the given conclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that this hook has done the rounds twice now. For it to be pulled is an abject indictment of DYK and yes, Happy Christmas, but get your house in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

• Caption should be in italics, per the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Consistency should be applied to whether the possessive 's is inside our outside the wikilink, cf. Liverpool's with Iris Murdoch's and Jean-Paul Sartre's... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@HazelAB: — Maile (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Come on, Maile66 just fix this yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• "... was the first book about Jean-Paul Sartre's work to be published in English ..." I couldn't find that in the provided source, but it's late on Xmas day so I may be missing some stuff... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This hook also uses the phrase "first book" twice, some copyediting would help. EdChem (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of providing the source quote on the template, but it's not required. You have to squint a lot at the tiny source. p 1 says "By the time her first published novel Under the Net appeared in in 1954, she had already produced a small book on Satre." A footnote on pg 182 of the source says "Murdoch is the author of the first book-length study of Satre in English..." — Maile (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• "to be called Father of Bowling" well in English, and per the article, I'd expect to see this as "to be called the "father of bowling"...", but your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: — Maile (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 you need to remove these hooks. If you can't take responsibility for minor tweaks per house style and sources, you shouldn't be promoting sets. As is clear from the array of issues in just two queues, you should leave it to someone else please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Mirjam Wiesemann has an unreferenced section, tagged as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: — Maile (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion on TRM's talk. Sorry, I have other things to do on Christmas Day than source published works that are mentioned in authority control. In Germany, we still have Christmas even today. Patience please. It will be solved by the time it appears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• "with large glass windows", the source actually calls them "walls", not "windows". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: — Maile (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

They were floor-to-ceiling windows which I suppose you could call walls. I suppose it's best to follow the source and say "glass wall" user:SounderBruce do you have a thought on this?. - Brianhe (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Brianhe: I believe glass wall would be the best term to use here. I'll change the article to match the source. SounderBruce 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, yep, that's what I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, no building of any size can actually have glass walls in the normal load-bearing sense of the word; so TRM has them both ways. It's like it's Christmas all over again. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I'm just going by the reliable source used to verify the claim. Cheers! (And if you're unaware of the term glass wall, used architecturally, better do some reading up before putting your foot in it!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

• Might want to think about a different lead image, that one will simply draw criticism of free advertising for McDonalds, and you all know it! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Edwardx: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. In defence of the image, one could argue that the company and product are already very well-known, and the image quality is high. The problem is that we will struggle to find any other image related to Jim Delligatti that would be suitably licensed for the main page. Edwardx (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the use of the image will make any difference to their sales given that they spend billions globally advertising it. It's the only appropriate picture for that hook apart from Delligatti himself, which we don't have. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You miss the point. I'm not saying it'll have any tangible effect on McDonalds, but it will have a tangible (negative) effect on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• "by the US Central Intelligence Agency to topple" unnecessarily verbose, we all know who the CIA is, so just "by the CIA to topple" appropriately linked would be much hookier. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: I'd actually disagree that everybody knows who the CIA is (we aren't writing to a solely western audience) but I can't be bothered to argue. I'm travelling and am therefore on a phone. If there is a change to be made I'd be grateful if you would make it. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 15:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I'll hold off on any changes. I agree with you that it is an assumption that "we all know" what the CIA is. Who is the "we"? I think it should stay as it is. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, you didn't link hula yet you expanded out CIA? Nonsense. Most of the western world knows what the CIA is, the point of hooks is to be hooky, not verbose. Would you expand NASA? I doubt it. So the same applies here. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TRM here, the CIA is an extremely well-known organization, for those few people who may somehow never have heard of it, they can follow the link. I have therefore trimmed the hook accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• "was the first settler boy born in Seattle?" boy is most unusual here. I would suggest it would be the first male settler born... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, he was a boy when he was born. But n.b. he was not the first settler child, there was a girl born before him. I try not to call people 'male human' and 'female human' when we have other words for that. - Brianhe (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought about this some more. Would "...was the first baby boy born to the settlers of Seattle" work better? - Brianhe (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Why can't we speak encyclopedically, e.g. male child? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It is specifically at odds with the guidance at WP:GENDER which says to reserve 'male' and 'female' for discussion of biology. This is not such a case. Brianhe (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines on these pages are often written by consensus of a tiny number of people, and should not necessarily be considered the last word or be followed slavishly. I think I would much prefer "male child" in this context as "boy" just doesn't read right. In the absence of consensus however, I have rephrased the hook more or less to Brianhe's suggestion above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Semra Ertan has a sentence ending a paragraph without a reference, contrary to the DYK criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: which criteria says that? I thought Rule D2 calls for at least one cite per paragraph. In any case, I added the cite and moved some things around. Yoninah (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• " both towns connected by the 1931 opening of the Perley Bridge declared a half-day holiday to start at noon?" no, both mayors declared it a half-day holiday. Also, this could use some context, i.e. what date is a half-day holiday, and actually, whether the mayors declared it to be the case, is it real? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@MB: — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Saying the towns declared the holiday is a summarization. I don't know all the mechanics - perhaps the mayors did it unilaterally, or perhaps the entire town council (or whatever the government of a Canadian town at the time was called) was involved. The "town" refers to the government entity with the authority to declare holidays. The date is implied as the date of the opening of the bridge, when the opening ceremony/dedication was held. The exact date is in the article. I didn't think that detail was needed in the hook. MB 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it would be nicer if you just said "deemed X Y" where X is day and Y is month, to be the holiday. And I still maintain the mayors did it, not the towns themselves. That needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Link hula. If the article deems it necessary in the lead, we should observe such a technical requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

linked. — Maile (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Problematic nominations

The hooks for Eriksen M/25 and Zorobabela Kaʻauwai bring up blank pages when accessed from the Nominations page. I'm not sure about the first, but the second of these is because @KAVEBEAR: has moved the template page to a new name, which I know is discouraged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Erikson M/25 isn't opening from the nominations page because of that extra slash. It tries to find a nomination named 25. Looks like it's been approved: Template:Did you know nominations/Eriksen M/25. Wonder how Shubinator's bot will react to that? — Maile (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Both of these have now been fixed (Mandarax handled the Erikson M/25). I'm not sure why Shubinator's bot would have problems with either of these, since it doesn't depend on the DYK nompage links template, which was the source of the above issues in both nominations. Of course, if KAVEBEAR moves the template again, all bets are off. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

• "a Master Baker Certificate" which is so un-notable that it's not even linked, let alone has an article, so my question here is ... "SO WHAT?" Certainly there seems some discrepancies between the articles, one is "a ... certificate", one is "a Master Baker certificate".... is it like the 5m swimming certificate I earned when I was five? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this an error? EEng 20:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, given there's no such thing as "Master Baker Certificate", I'd say..... YES! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the sources, and a Google search, there is. EEng 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you missed the point, twice. We don't have an article on it, it's capitalised differently three times, and it seriously lacks real interest "to a broad audience". But thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree the reference is superfluous if we don't have an article on the topic, and the hook would be better without it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree the hook would be better off without it too, but that doesn't make the original hook wrong. There are probably very few hooks that I couldn't improve to some tiny iota of a degree, but that doesn't mean the entire works of DYK should be constantly gummed up with my last-minute insistence that everyone attend to my personal nitpicks. EEng 17:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(a) no-one mentioned error (except you), (b) prep area is currently hardly "last minute", and (c) it appears that this "personal nitpick" isn't just personal, at least one other editor agrees. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because, once you've raised the matter, other editors agree that it's an improvement, doesn't mean it was an improvement worth raising at this late stage of the process. If it's not an error or serious deficiency, you shouldn't be bothering everyone here with it. EEng 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory as to the purpose of this page, as noted at the top: This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Thanks so much! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a place for discussion, but we have our hands full with actual errors without endless chewing over of every point -- very often trivial -- that happens to occur to you. EEng 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Evening Hymn "Te lucis ante terminum"" curious about the italics here. Why is "Evening Hymn" in italics when it's not actually part of the title? Why is it thus capitalised? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The piece is published Evening Hymn, no more, which could be anything related to evening. "Te lucis ante terminum" is much more precise, relating to "Te lucis ante terminum", and ringing bells with readers. Had the publisher known that 90% or more performances would be in Latin, he would probably have called it that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

So, is "Evening Hymn" actually part of the title? Or is it something else? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Trying again: The piece is published Evening Hymn, no more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Again I agree with TRM here, the fact that the piece has apparently been published somewhere as "Evening Hymn" doesn't mean that the hook needs to reference both names, why not just stick to the name of the article title? Gatoclass (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My reason #1 was that Gardiner composed both English and Latin, and the English is even above the Latin in the Novello edition, below in Carus. However, I know of only performances in Latin, which thus became the common name. Reason #2 is that while some readers will immediately recognize the Latin, for others it will be Chinese, while Evening Hymn tells them something. It's always published Evening Hymn, afaik, not "somewhere". Quote from the Carus Foreword: The Evening Hymn "Te lucis ante terminum" is the best-known work by ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but as I understand it, MOS states that a song name is rendered in quotes not italics, and certainly, it looks weird to have a song name rendered in both. How about just having the Latin name together with an English translation instead? Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Only that it is no song. The Latin Gregorian chant is a song. Gardiner's setting - three different settings of the stanzas, + coda, + substantial organ solo - is no song. It's a Hymn but not a hymn. Compare Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (J. C. F. Bach) vs. "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just added a pair of parenthesis to indicate that the Latin is an alternative name by which the piece is known. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Why should we deviate from the exact notation of a respected publisher from 2004? The incipit specifies (the all too general) Evening Hymn. When it's in brackets it looks like a translation, which it isn't. - I didn't look up yet who put this hook in prep for when the year terminates, - a wise placement! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What works in one context doesn't necessarily work in another. This work is known by two names, its proper name (Evening Hymn) and its informal name (the first line of the Hymn in Latin). Running them both together in a DYK hook just confuses the issue, so in light of your objection to my previous solution, I have eliminated the informal name from the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's about the worst "solution", for me at least, because that way the article title doesn't appear in the hook - and the "terminum", corresponding nicely to the termination of the year, is lost. The work is known ("common name" = article title), at least by those who know it, as Te lucis ante terminum. - Now I wanted to help those who don't read Latin by supplying the official but not common name as a help in English. If that is not acceptable (but see above: why should we deviate from a publisher's notation, with the incipit as added precision?) an alternative could be: ... not his evening anthem Te lucis ante terminum. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have run out of time to discuss this now, so will not be able to return to this discussion until tomorrow, my apologies. Gatoclass (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• "that Joan Acker and Miriam Johnson of the Center for the Study of Women in Society found that "Do you shave your legs?" was the question most strongly correlated to identifying with feminism?" well according to the article, "In a tribute to Johnson she wrote, "The question that correlated most highly with who was most likely to identify with feminism was 'do you shave your legs?' We had a good laugh over that." so it wasn't anything like the two of them "found that". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What the article says is

Acker remembered an early research project with Miriam (Mimi) Johnson, a "Feminism Scale". In a tribute to Johnson she wrote, "The question that correlated most highly with who was most likely to identify with feminism was 'do you shave your legs?' We had a good laugh over that."

So, yeah, in their research they "found that" (though "correlated with" would be better than "correlated to"). Your insistence on always finding something wrong with everything is completely out of control. You may now flame, as usual. EEng 20:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, if you like, I take a minute or two to check each hook, like perhaps a reader would do, and then I work on verifying it, like perhaps 5% of readers would do. I couldn't find it easily here. Your explosive response is fascinating. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your momentary restraint is a pleasant change. The article supports the hook 100%. EEng 21:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe at some point in the future you'll realise that I'm checking every single hook and most of them need work. I actually do some work on those, unlike most of those who "contribute" here. Let's see how this goes.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, most hooks could be better, but I disagree that most "need work". So far in this set, one of your complaints may potentially have merit, and on that one we'll see. EEng 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, wrong again! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, right again. All these hooks could have run just fine as they were, with the possible exception of the minor change to formatting of the Hymn title. And even that wasn't a big deal. EEng 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy faces all round! Your badgering won't stop me I'm afraid. These days, I'm stronger than you ever thought possible. Mu-ha-ha.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no badgering. I'm just trying to get you see that we have to use our limited resources in a more focused way. EEng 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Z.A. Ahmed (Indian politician) lead is totally inadequate, amongst other issues, so tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the hook? EEng 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing. It has to do with promoting articles which are not in a fit state. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a very short article, so the length of the lead does not look inappropriate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It's in keeping with many of the Indian politician bios that Soman brings to DYK. Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not the absolute length, it's the fact it fails to summarise the major points in the article. And just because other bios have equally poor leads, it doesn't make it right, as I'm sure you're aware. Or at least you should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To appear on DYK articles need not be perfect in every way, such as the lead being adequate. If you want to improve the lead, improve it. Or don't. But it's not a DYK issue. EEng 17:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

But the problem is that the article itself is little more than a summary of the major points of his life; he was director of this, supervisor of that. Nothing stands out, and if you summarize his various hats in the lead, you are essentially just adding a repetition of the article's contents. It does a disservice to readers by making them read all the same information twice. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, his exile isn't mentioned at all, for instance. He has sections relating to early life, education and family which aren't noted at all, etc. So plenty of stuff stands out to be summarised. The lead does _not_ summarise the salient points of the article, that is fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, in my view the article is virtually nothing but "salient points", and forcing the reader to read them all twice is just doing them a disservice. But if you think the lead needs more information, go ahead and add it. I won't do it because I can't see that it would improve the article, but maybe you can see something I've missed. Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I can see a whole section about his exile to Pakistan which is covered in two paragraphs of text yet seemingly not worthy of even a passing mention in the lead. Seems clear to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All right. It was just as quick to expand the lead myself as it would have been to spend more time debating it here. Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well done. Hopefully all such other nominations will be improved similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

---

• I suggest that, the next time Rambling Man posts such a list of scattershot points, editors simply skim it for anything useful and take action (by changing the hook, editing the article, etc.) or do nothing as they see fit. There's no need to rework things to his satisfaction or debate with him. If his comment deserves ignoring, just ignore it. (Well, I guess it would be useful for an editor who has reviewed one of the points to say, "I don't see anything worth bothering with here", and unless someone wants to give a second look, the rest of us can just skip it based on that review.)

Our goal isn't to make hooks and articles perfect, but to have high confidence that they're good enough. There isn't time for all eyes to be constantly diverted to TRM's often-trivial nitpicks, even if sometimes they lead to some improvement. I wouldn't be posting this if he would restrict his comments to concerns which, if confirmed, would be disqualifying. EEng 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)