Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 122

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125

Utterly unremarkable hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Margareta Hallin @BabbaQ, Gerda Arendt, and Ashorocetus:

As far as I can tell from our and the Swedish article, the Swedish Society of Composers is not some organisation you get elected to (like a fellow of the Royal Society or some such), but a kind of professional union where you have to self-elect, pay a membership fee, and that's it. Being a member of an organisation everyone interested can join (basically) is not really a remarkable feat or a highlight in someone's life, and if I were Hallin, I would be somewhat offended that this is chosen as the DYK fact of my life.

Neither the article history (nor talk page) make it clear that the page started as (and in many aspects still is) a translation of the Swedish Wikipedia page, which is technically a copyright violation. This should be addressed as well. This also makes me wonder if the author of the article (BabbaQ) has even read many of the sources used in the article, e.g. the source for the hook.

I would suggest to use as alternative hook the fact that she sung the main part in "Tsu and Sven-Erik Bäcks opera Tranfjädrarna", which won a Grammy Award: but for the fact that this record doesn't seem to have won a Grammy Award but a Grammis Award, a strictly Swedish award. Could still make an interesting hook, if it can be sourced. Fram (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am with you for a better hook, actually had expressed in the review that I thought it wasn't the most specific you could say about her. Placed the translated template on the talk. Ideas welcome. Grammis should be linked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I see that the article now has a tag for needing more references as well. I'd really recommend an admin pulls it, as it's pretty close to be displayed on the Main Page. I would recommend using an image from Silver Slipper and grabbing a bio hook from one of the preps. Jolly Ω Janner 08:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The tag was added yesterday and concernss - according to the edit summary - only the lists of her parts and discography, where I see details (such asrecordnumbers) but not in form of inline citations. I won't mind pulling and reopening the discussion though, as more transparent than a separate review here. - It's not close, some 14 hours away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed from Queue, new hook will need to be added (with picture preferably) in the next 8 hours or so. Fram (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, she did become a member of the Swedish Society of Composers in 1990. A reader can look at the article and make their own judgment. The article has lots of citations, albeit to Swedish books. Since they are in line, I would think WP:AGF would have been the Occam's razor solution to the problem.
I also removed {{ref improve|date=March 2016}} as it is unwarranted. You don't think the thirteen sources are enough? Your reverting of this because a section on Awards needs specific citation might be true, but it doesn't apply to the whole article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't pull it for being wrong, I pulled it for being, like the section title says, "utterly unremarkable". Her membership is not some kind of honor (nor shame, obviously). The reviewer agreed to pull it. Occam's razor doesn't come into play here. Fram (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
As for the "ref improve" template, I didn't add that one; perhaps whoever added it was influenced by the knowledge that the creator of the page didn't read most of the sources (probably), so that actual checking of the sources was needed. Fram (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Plus it's a BLP, we need claims, such as awards/titles etc, to be directly referenced. The article requires improved referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You could have done this with a section improve tag. I did. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it affects more than that one section, hence the article tag. Perhaps you misunderstand the point of the tag, on this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Did you actually read the thirteen books and articles in Swedish? Just saying. If not, how do you know your blanket assertion is true? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
No, my Swedish is poor. It's a BLP so we don't take chances, I thought that was obvious. If the sources exist then they can easily be added inline, I thought you would know that. Anyway, I'm done discussing this, you have two sets of tags on a BLP now, as you like it, I have other things to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

See this only now. The nom is open again, I referenced what I could (recordings and roles in plays) and suggested a hook. Review, please! - I removed the tags. If having the two film roles on IMDb is not enough, please find other sources, - she certainly played them. If having her prizes on the Swedish Wikipedia is not enough (I checked the years), someone please copy the sources from there, - I also have other things to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would add, in light of the 22 23 in line sources in the article, that it is replete with sources. I don't like it isn't an answer. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, please add that, but it doesn't make any sense in the context of the inadequate inline referencing for a BLP. That's a purely objective criticism, and by now I had hoped you would know that. Merely counting "in line sources [sic]" is an entirely unsuitable way to gauge whether a BLP is adequately referenced. I thought that was clear. It is, however, allowable to suggest that hook is entirely without interest, and that, by its nature, is a subjective call. "I don't like it" (which relates to "deletion" discussions, not DYK hook debates) is 100% acceptable in this situation, after all DYK is all about getting people interested in articles, interested in Wikipedia, interested in getting involved. I had hoped you'd also know that by now. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I added new material and an unimpeachable English language source. I think it would be the makings of a better hook. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Great, hopefully you can resolve the other tags, I checked the Swedish Wikipedia and the sources don't corroborate most of those items, good work on the stuff you've done so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, they do, at least in the articles about the individual awards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not true I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It is true for these four individual awards. Go to the Swedish wikipedia article on them.

Sorry, try again. And please note, I did go to the Swedish wikipedia article on them, that's what I said I'd done. And there I found nothing much of use. As to your list, the first article is entirely is referenced by a single and vague citation: Musikrevy 1976-88 (sic)? Anyway, thankfully the Hallin article now has an inline citation which is now far superior to that ropey choice. Perhaps you'd care to reinsert that reference back into the appalling Swedish article? The second is referenced by ... HTTP 404. The third has four references, none of which mention Hallin. The fourth has two external links, neither of which mention Hallin. Perhaps you've lost sight of what these tags mean? You need an inline citation which directly supports the claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Each of those Swedish Wikipedia mentions her. That's all I ever said. I too think the Swedish articles are all poorly sourced. I didn't say otherwise. Happy editing. Someone found sources for most of these, independent of the Swedes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
That's utterly insufficient. As I said before you replied, "I checked the Swedish Wikipedia and the sources don't corroborate most of those items". I couldn't have put it any simpler than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

"that during Operation Strength, a 15,000 lb (6.8 T) bomb (example of detonation pictured) served as a second diversion to the diversion?"

My reading is that the bomb was a diversion to the diversion, i.e. a second diversion overall, not a second diversion to the diversion. But it is early and I haven't had my third coffee. Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed "to the diversion". Should be clearer now. Jolly Ω Janner 08:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the point was that it was supposed to be hooky, so perhaps "a diversion to the diversion" would have been better. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
That implies something completely different too. The sources are offline, so I will ping Georgejdorner to see if he's able to reiterate exactly how the source phrases it, since it is offline. Jolly Ω Janner 09:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Pardon my intrusion here, but the source states about the bomb, "Looking to stage a diversion within a diversion....", the bomb was dropped. Operation Strength was a diversion. The bomb was a diversion within the diversion. Operation Moonmark was an extension of the diversion caused by the bomb. Hope this helps.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries, that's what I suspected with my suggestion of "a diversion to the diversion" above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely response George. This has greatly improved clarity. Jolly Ω Janner 19:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3 lead hook

I keep thinking that I didn't write this right. Usually you start off saying that something was named, not that it was renamed. I would like to rephrase it:

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Jim Hazelton hook from main page

Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Hazelton @Calistemon, Kingoflettuce, Cwmhiraeth, and Casliber:

  • ... that in 1964 Jim Hazelton became the first Australian to fly a single-engine aircraft across the Pacific?

The hook has two sources, one needs subscription so I haven't been able to check that one, and the other one[1] states "He was one of the first to cross the Pacific in a single engine aircraft" which doesn't support (or contradict) the hook and was probably not intended to source the hook but the second part of the lead sentence about this.

However, already in 1934 Charles Kingsford Smith and copilot Gordon Taylor were the first in their Lockheed Altair Lady Southern Cross. You can read this in these articles (particularly the Lady Southern Cross article), or in these sources: [2][3](" This was the first west-east crossing of the Pacific by air and for many years the only single-engine aeroplane to cross the Pacific Ocean."), [4][5]... Fram (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Terribly sorry. Should have been more prudent with my review. I did notice the paywall for the first source; should have AGFticked it instead. It seemed adequately referenced, and the sources provided some indication of Hazelton's being the first Aussie to fly a single-engine aircraft across the Pacific. Was not stringent enough! But to give Calistemon the benefit of the doubt, he probably did not mean to introduce this untruth. Thanks for spotting this, Fram − you certainly are indispensable to the project! Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Good job getting a correction on thre, guys, instead of just removing the error. The honesty and transparency makes us more respectable. Abyssal (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The Hazeleton article still has it wrong. What a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.240.68 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: I could not get behind the paywall either, but I did look at reference 4 which really supports the hook and gave me the confidence to promote it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No, sorry, but it really doesn't support the hook. "Back in September, 1964, he became the first Australian to fly solo across the Pacific in a single-engined aeroplane." Emphasis mine. I haven't checked if this claim is correct or not, but it was not the claim made in the hook (and the article for that matter). Fram (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for spreading misinformation, it really wasn't intended! I quote The Australian article from 20 June 2014: His desire to import new aircraft types led him to become the first Australian to pilot a single-engine aircraft, a Piper Comanche 400, across the Pacific in 1964. You can get past the paywall if you access the Australian for the first time. I believed The Australian to be reliable. My mistake for which I'm really sorry for. Calistemon (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem, in my experience the errors or problems are very rarely added intentionally, usually it is either carelessness or (like here) errors in the sources. Fram (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Building prep sets in March

During women's history month, I encourage prep builders to feature women generously. Looking at the ones already nominated (Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/8#Did You Know features - right now 21 approved, 29 not yet), and expecting more to come, three women per set seem not too many. Last year, many were shown in April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Gerda. It is Women's History Month, after all. Yoninah (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it might be wise to increase it to one or maybe two per set. I've recently been going on about one per every other set. Several of these nominations make no mention that they are to be posted in March, so this is probably why the special occasion holding area has been underestimating. I should find time later on to rectify this if someone else hasn't already. Jolly Ω Janner 22:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
They can go to Special occasions only after approval, - the other tool may have advantages ;) - My calculation is 50 nominated now, 12 days not yet assigned: two per set even without any new nominations. But there will be new nominations. That's why I said three seem not to many. Compare 2015, - and that was before Women in Red. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jolly Janner: I'm moving them to the Special Occasions section for Women's History Month as they're approved. Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
What happened to WP:NOTPROMOTION? sst✈ 01:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know exactlywhat you mean. These hooks will appear eventually, but it makes more sense - at least to me - to show them during Women's History month than later. Last year, some came in May. Prep sets are filled for two thirds of the month. 36 are open. Let's please try to accommodate at least those especially written for the month, - purple background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
When I was building some sets, I forgot about the special occasion holding area, but was trying to add articles on women anyway, and found a lot that hadn't been placed into that area...we probably need to do what Gerda suggests and add at least two per set, we are halfway through the month and there looks to be a ton not yet run. Montanabw(talk) 04:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Building prep sets

Several people regularly build prep sets and others do occasionally. When building a set I am always conscious of the possibility of an edit conflict so I usually use the {{inuse}} template to try to prevent this. Edit conflicts are particularly awkward as I normally build a whole set in one go before saving it, archiving each of the nominations along the way. I try to produce a balanced set geographically and in type of hook and this normally takes me almost an hour. Next I look at each of the hooks and may tweak the prose of some or look at any particular nomination that might be problematic. I do not examine each nomination in detail to check that the hook fact is properly cited and all the details are correct. If I were to do these things it would take too much of the time that I would like to use for more productive tasks.

When a hook gets pulled from the front page or gets condemned as faulty while in the queue, several people get called to account, the nominator, the reviewer, the prep builder and the admin who moved the prep set to the queue. Of these, the first two have a personal benefit from their involvement with the hook while the last two are merely keeping the DYK system working freely. I think the prep builder has enough to do in creating the set and should not be blamed for pulled hooks. It might be helpful to have a more clear delineation of the duties of each of these participators to help everything run smoothly but without unnecessary duplication of effort. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was the prep builder's duty to make sure the hook is properly cited and all the details are correct. Therefore it takes me longer than an hour to build a prep set, because I run each article through Earwig's make sure there are no copyvios. And if there are, I spend more time notifying each hook nominator as to the problem. I think we all have major responsibilities in getting a hook to the main page, and if we slip up occasionally, we should all be treated with respect rather than finger-pointing. Yoninah (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
"without unnecessary duplication of effort." if we didn't have that many problematic hooks in prep, queue and mainpage, I would agree with you. As it is, the extra checks by prep- and preferably also queue-builder are not "unnecessary" at all but a needed step to decrease the number of problematic hooks (with "problematic" ranging from the minor to the truly major problems). Pinging the editors involved is not "finger pointing", but a way to get their feedback (as they should be best placed to judge whether the complaints have any merit), and to educate them if necessary (like in the fact that references and external links shouldn't be copyright-violating sources). I can recall very few instances where actual finger-pointing has been done, and that was only for too often repeated problems. I also recall instances where not pinging the editors inolved led to complaints, as if things were done behind their back. As usual, it is hard to please everyone when starting a discussion about possible problems. Fram (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: I hear you. I just feel embarrassed when I slip up. Yoninah (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As Yoninah says, it is one of the duties of the prep set builder to recheck the hook and article: confirm that the hook facts are in the article, are sourced by the end of their respective sentences, and that the sources do actually contain the facts in question. This is a crucial check point: reviewers vary in quality and knowledge, but someone who builds prep sets should be sufficiently well versed in DYK to check not only the hook, but take a glance through the article see whether there are glaring issues. Back when I assembled sets regularly, I came to expect that when building a set at least one of the hooks I'd been planning to include in the prep set had hook or other issues. Instead of promoting it, I had to supersede its approval with a slash icon and point out the problems with the hook and article. It wasn't just hook issues either: articles were too short, not 5x expanded, had blatant close paraphrasing, were very poorly written, etc. Building prep sets does take time when done with the proper checks, and there's no good way around it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see that I am going to have to do more checking when building sets. And as Yoninah states, it is embarrassing to be hauled up to explain one's errors. In fact I tend to avoid promoting articles with claims of first etc. There's one there now in Prep 6, "... discovered more novel viruses than anyone previously?" Such claims tend to be rather nebulous. No-one has actually counted the number of viruses discovered by different researchers, but someone has suggested that he leads the pack, and it has become an accepted fact. And the other day, there was a fact, stated by the BBC, and mentioned in the hook as "reputed to be", and it was still challenged and removed.
But to return to my original query, If the prep builder is to check things thoroughly, is the person who moves the set into the queue expected to do this too? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
IMO, the queue promoter's minimum responsibility is to ensure there is no vandalism in the queue and that the credits have been listed (i.e. that a review has actually taken place). Ideally, they should check the image for licensing concerns, hooks for use of language, and the articles for other criteria. If we enforce promoters to ensue the latter, we may end up with stalled preps... Jolly Ω Janner 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've said this before plenty of times and I'll say it again. In my opinion, prime responsibility for checking the accuracy of hooks lies firstly with the nomination reviewer and secondly with the administrator promoting the set from prep to the queue. Set builders should certainly be encouraged to check hook accuracy, but their prime responsibility is to build a balanced set and expecting them to check all aspects of a nom as well is asking a bit much in my view. Set builders should certainly do a quick eyeball check of articles before promoting them to prep to ensure no obvious flaws, and be encouraged to do more, but reviewers and queue promoters are in a much better position to focus on the fine details of DYK compliance. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, your opinion doesn't seem to reflect how DYK has actually worked for the past couple of years, since in practice the administrators who are queue promoters rarely focus "on the fine details of DYK compliance". You do, but who else does? For the years I've been around, set builders have been crucial to checks, and indeed I was taught that it was an important part of my job as set builder to ensure the hook I was promoting was valid and the article was okay as well. People who build sets are presumably more experienced at DYK than regular reviewers, and more likely to spot issues; as I noted above, I rarely built a set without sending at least one nomination back for additional work. Administrators should, of course, be far more experienced than that, but given how many problematic hooks are slipping through, either we need to add another layer of checking to the initial review, we need to be very sure the prep set building functions as a better check, or we need to get buy-in from all of the administrators who currently move from prep to queue that they'll do the lengthy checks required for an eight-hook set where the entries may only have been checked by a very inexperienced reviewer who didn't really know what they were doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I very much agree on the need for better quality control, and have said so myself many times and proposed changes and improvements. The problem is that people disagree on the best approach. I think it's great that you thoroughly check nominations before promoting them to prep, it would be great if everyone followed your example and I strongly encourage people to do so. At the same time, I don't want to do anything to discourage set building, because it's an absolutely crucial step in the process. I'd rather people built a set without thoroughly checking every aspect of a nom, so the set is there ready to promote to the queue at the right time, than that they not build sets at all, because if the sets aren't built, either it's a lot more work for the existing quality controllers, or else sets end up not getting promoted on time.
Now that we are having this discussion however, it occurs to me there's a simple solution to this problem right at hand. If we had some sort of template that set builders could add to say they had thoroughly vetted the set, administrators would know that those sets without the template still needed a thorough check before promotion to the queue. In fact, requiring that someone, in effect, "sign off" on the validity of each set, could well be a simple and straightforward way of adding the extra level of oversight that too often has been found lacking. It could also prove to be a useful method of getting more users to participate in quality control, as everyone could see which sets were still in need of verification. Maybe it's time we tried such an approach? Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding a page that specifies the responsibilities of the updater. Do we even have one?
Other than that, I am having second thoughts about my suggestion above. I only rarely build updates myself these days and may be underestimating the number of hook issues one finds when doing so. I don't think we would want stacks of problematic hooks promoted to prep, only to have to demote them all again, that would arguably waste even more time. I still think the notion of some sort of formal set verification, possibly splitting responsibilities to some degree with set builders, might be worth considering though. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I normally start by collecting a set of hooks and then checking them all. To thoroughly check them all takes several times as long as reviewing a single hook. Checking is of course total duplication of effort. I don't run Earwing, but like the others have seen all sorts of problems. Not all can be laid at the feet of the reviewer; the articles can change between when they are reviewed and when they are tapped for a prep area. Only once I have a set do I commit the prep area really rapidly. So although it takes about an hour to build the prep area, it appears in series of updates over a few seconds. It would be much easier and quicker (and I would do it far more often) if the prep builder did not have to recheck the hooks. But there are dummy spitters who throw tantrums over problems with the hooks. There is also though, also the possibility of errors occurring at the prep builder stage. The problem here is caused by doing things in two passes. When I go to move the hook into the prep area, you have a limited field of view. So there is the possibility of problems when people weave additional instructions into long-winded discussions, which can leave the prep area builder confused about which alt hook should be promoted. In one case, they tried to change the credits in the discussion instead of altering the meta-data. Again, the prep area builder cannot see this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: "It would be much easier and quicker (and I would do it far more often) if the prep builder did not have to recheck the hooks. But there are dummy spitters who throw tantrums over problems with the hooks." This sounds as if you would prefer to build preps and queues without further checks and don't really care that this would mean more errors on the main page, and only don't do this because some others don't like to have errors on the main page. I presume I have misread your intentions here, so could you perhaps clarify or reword these two sentences so that it becomes clear what you really mean (perhaps providing examples of what you mean with "dummy spitters who throw tantrums", so that we can better understand your frustration)? Fram (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The are always errors in the articles. If we agreed on how many was acceptable then I could tell you whether the extra check is worthwhile or not. Often the prep area gets checked again by someone when it is put up far enough in advance People carry on about things like articles not meeting the MOS, somehow unaware that is not a requirement below GA level. The worst dummy spit I had to endue was over an image. It had a valid copyright tag on Commons, but it turned out that the uploader was not the photographer as he claimed. We had no way of knowing that, and per WP:CONSENSUS were not permitted to challenge it if we had. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"There are always errors in the articles". True but irrelevant, we are discussing errors in the hooks. It isn't a DYK requuirement that an article is errorfree, and I don't think the archives are filled with complaints about errors in articles (perhaps a few exceptional cases where there were more errors than facts, but that's about it). In the hooks, no errors are acceptable. They may be inevitable, but abandoning the checks by perp builders is not the right response. Thank you for your examples: complaining about the MOS seems to be very rare here (it happens at the DYK nomination discussion, but that, again, is not what we are discussing here, this is about prep building), I see people improving grammar and the like but these don't lead to hook removals or heated discussions normally; as for the image discussion, yo uaer wrong: while we have no jurisdiction over the copyright status Commons gives to an image (which is what your WP:CONSENSUS links says), we have every right to remove such an image from an article or a hook if we (enwiki) believe the image to be a copyright- violation or otherwise problematic. While there is no rule that you should check whether an image at Commons is truly freely usable, we should immediately remove the image from the hook (and preferably the article) if there is reasonable doubt about the copyright status. Perhaps the way the person who made this claim was a "dummy spit", I haven't seen that discussion; but they were right that the image, once it was with reason challenged, should have been removed, and you were wrong if you claimed that it should remain because of WP:CONSENSUS. Fram (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not claim that the image should have remained; but I do concede that all I did was check the copyright status on Commons, and made no effort to investigate further. As you say, there is no rule that you should check whether an image at Commons is truly freely usable. But many people didn't agree with you, and I received a torrent of personal abuse. As the prep builder, I check for more than just errors in the hooks. But while I the main problem is with hooks that are not supported by the supplied sources, the prep builder usually has to make judgement calls about whether the hook is sufficiently neutral, whether it focuses "unduly on negative aspects" of a living person, or whether it is "otherwise problematic" (ie offends someone's sensibilities). Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5 - "adumbrate"

"adumbrate "? Really? Certainly uncommon from whence I come. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I take it that I'm the only person that's never ever heard of this phrase.. ? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know it either, and it seems hardly correct. These verses don't "foreshadow" these things, they evoke or mention them. Fram (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, cool, I thought I was alone. I've gone for "describe", although I was tempted by "talk of". I'm easy either way, but "adumbrate" had to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm the editor who initially approved this nomination. Adumbrate does not only mean "to foreshadow." It also means "to give a description of something that includes general points about it, but no details." I thought that the hook was particularly catchy and interesting because it included a word that was rather unique and unusual. Indeed, the term "adumbrate" is a much more precise and nuanced term that "describe." I also think readers will be much more likely to click on the link if we use the word "adumbrate" as they will likely want to learn more about what that term means. The Rambling Man and Fram, can we restore the original language? Simply using an obscure word is no reason to change the meaning of a hook. I'm also pinging Smerus, the original author of the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
If there's a more common word to replace my substitution that's fine. "adumbrate" isn't even used in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Although the article may not use the word "adumbrate," the article tells readers about the things that are mentioned in the haiku. "Adumbrate" certainly isn't an inaccurate term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
No-one is questioning the accuracy, just like no-one would question that a myocardial infarction is an accurate term for heart attack. Since the article itself doesn't even use the term, I'm not sure how our readers will "learn more about what that term means". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
If NOT OBSCURE and NOT HARD TO COMPREHEND isn't a part of WP:NOT, it should be. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the term "adumbrate" to the text of the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but I still disagree with the use of such an obscure term in the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and I disagree even more with using such an obscure term in mainspace. While we don't dumb down, most of our readers don't have doctorate degrees. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I will admit that my position in this matter appears to be in the minority, and I will defer to the consensus here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Admirable. Thanks. I tried making a joke out of combining adumbrate and admirable, but I think I'd have been even less funny than usual --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As the author of the article and the hook, may I kindly be allowed a comment here? If you were really concerned about this, you might perhaps have had the courtesy to let me know you were querying it. Fram, you have deliberately picked a tertiary meaning of the word 'admubrate' to score your point; but the Oxford English Dictionary gives the appropriate definition 'to outline: to sketch: to give a faint indication of', aboslutley in order here. For User :The Rambling Man's English comprehension I cannot take any responsibility; but the fact that the word is not used in the article is utterly irrelevant - unless you can indicate the rule that says each word in a DYK must be in the article? To explain a joke is of course always tediopus, but for those who don't get the point, the essence of the original poems (and of Matthews's music) is that they are deliberately pretentious, and the hook was designed to reflect this. If it makes people loo up 'adumbrate' in a dictionary, so much the better. More seriously, the hook as some twit has ill-informedly changed it is incorrect as the haiku do not 'describe' the items listed at all. Therefore please either change it back or remove it fom the queue as I do not wish my reputation as an editor to suffer.--Smerus (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • A few points. (1) the fact that the word did not appear in the article was relevant as it was being claimed that our readers would go to the article to understand the word. That was impossible. (2) Reading comprehension: there seems to be a fair few of us who have never even heard of the word, let alone comprehend it, not just me. (3) Avoid the personal attacks, that will help things go your way. (4) it seems that "outline" would be a perfect replacement to describe, given the chat above and the various dicdefs being bandied around. (5) Hewn is not obscure at all. (6) you might perhaps have had the courtesy to let me know you were querying it. - you were pinged at 4pm yesterday, so no excuses. (7) Using all this bold, including on the section heading, has given me a headache. (8) Have a nice day, I hope someone does precisely what is needed so the tantrums can stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This is utterly unreasonable and inadequate; your gloating is not solving a genuine problem. A prime feature of DYK hooks is that they are correct; thanks to you, this one is incorrect. I never claimed that readers would go to the article to have the word explained. The hook was properly promoted before you decided to get your word in. You unilaterally changed the hook to one which was incorrect, without getting my feedback. I was not pinged by you when you lodged your objection, only by another editor eight hours later. Some of us (e.g. me) work and and can't respond promptly to pings (n.b. there was at that time less than a day before the queue was due to go live). You respond to my genuine concerns and anger by calling them tantrums (although I am apparently not allowed to deprecate your behaviour). 'Outline' would indeed be correct - if to me less preferable - but the word in there now, thanks to you, is 'describe', which is incorrect. You are the one who has made it incorrect - yet contrary to the spirit of WP, you seem not in the slightest concerned to remedy this. You could as suggested by User:Jolly Janner simply link 'adumbrate'- why didn't you, if you were so concerned? Moreover, there appears to be no mechanism to prevent this incorrect hook being published within the deadline now only a few hours away. I hope that some one, somewhere, can do something, as you seem to refuse to do so.--Smerus (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
No, no gloating at all, and no personal attacks either. We really ought not to link to Wiktionary, it's not brilliant by any means, and if we suddenly have to start linking terms on the main page, we should think twice about how we communicate with our hundreds of millions of readers. Your belligerent attitude is what is "utterly unreasonable". I'll go for outline. That's why I asked for feedback here, by the way. Have a good day at work, me, I'll be next to the pool with my cocktails. Or I'll be at work too. One or the other. P.S. You don't own the hook, so next time you think you need to be "consulted", feel free to keep an eye on your "own" work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Smerus: "Fram, you have deliberately picked a tertiary meaning of the word 'admubrate' to score your point" Uh, no, I didn't. I picked the very first Google[6] hit, Merriam-Webster, where the first meaning is "to foreshadow vaguely". Even in the Oxford dictionary, it is not a "tertiary meaning", it is the second definition[7]. Fram (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Smerus, you used adumbrate in the meaning of "to give a description of something that includes general points about it, but no details." because you think this most accurately describes the haiku. So in your view, the haiku give a description of "cherry blossoms, hair loss, and pub opening times". Actually, the haiku don't, making your hook wrong. You can read the haiku here[8]; none of the three can be accurately said to be descriptions of these subjects ("it looks really nice" is not a description, the third haiku is a description of a november evening, not of pub opening times, and the middle one has no description of hair loss but of old age). Removal of the hook may be best, but not because it no longer uses "adumbrate" which was wrong no matter what meaning of the word you wanted to use. Perhaps "evoke" would be a better choice all round. Fram (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Minor change to hook on main page

I changed

to

(adding "long" after the measure) I thought that not having an indication after the measure was weird (I first even thought that it was a mistake for 700m²), so I hope that the current hook is better. If not, feel free to revert of course (or ask me to do so). Fram (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

New Day hook removed from Queue 5

Template:Did you know nominations/The New Day (newspaper) @Gareth E. Kegg, Ritchie333, Cloudz679, Yoninah, and Casliber:

  • ... that the publishers of The New Day believe 500,000 people have stopped buying British newspapers regularly?

Most UK newspapers publshers would be bery happy if only 500,000 people had stopped buying British newspapers.

What the source actually says is that there are 500,000 people less per year buying newspapers.[9] Fram (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Since that hook was not approved—only the original (aka ALT0) hook was approved by the reviewer—I'm puzzled as to why it was promoted in the first place. I'd normally suggest a simple substitution, but the article should be made to reflect the source first. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: ALT2 was not struck when I came to promote this. I saw the reviewer's question about the publisher's claim in ALT1 and Ritchie333's correction in ALT2, I read the source, and I felt it was an acceptable solution. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As a follow-up, can an admin please move a hook from one of the preps to fill the hole in Queue 5 left by Fram's removal? Perhaps the Operation Phalat hook in Prep 3, since its not similar to any of the nearby hooks in Queue 5. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
500,000 people per year doesn't make sense, which year is that? Probably only the last year. The 1st order derivative on the graph shown at List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation doesn't look linear. Also see this source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It at least makes more sense than the hook, and it matches the source, which the hook didn't... Fram (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
In your opinion, perhaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Palm Sunday

A week ago, I nominated Bachs cantata #1 for Palm Sunday, 20 March. Template:Did you know nominations/Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. It still needs a review, and the queues/preps are already filled. Any chance? - Bach's birthday the next day might be an alternative. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, Montanabw, Cwmhiraeth this is good to go and I've made room for it in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5. Jolly Ω Janner 09:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to all involved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi is it necessary to articles to have archived references to prevent link rot in order to be promoted? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but it's widely unaccepted to use bare URLs. Jolly Ω Janner 19:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Selena

I checked Talk:Selena. I saw that it was featured as DYK last year. However, it also appeared as Featured Article in 2006 and part of OTD three times. I don't know why it was approved without checking prior history. --George Ho (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

An examination of the article history shows it was delisted from FA, then promoted to Good Article, so no problem there. Also, seeing as this was in the past, I'm not sure exactly what it is you want us to do. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
An article which appeared on ITN in the past may not appear on DYK. This does not apply to articles which appeared on OTD. sst✈ 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it being nominated again or something? It was last featured in October, so I'm guessing it was either a mistake or the rules were different back then. Nothing we can do about it now. SSTflyer, bold-linked articles that appeared at OTD are ineligible as DYK candidates. Jolly Ω Janner 06:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I guess it was a mistake then. Too late to fix now. sst✈ 07:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Queues need filling

Just a friendly reminder that the next queue is empty and the template is scheduled to update in five hours. Thanks in advance. Jolly Ω Janner 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've clean-swept the lot. Now 6 preps to fill again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Breakdown of content

When was the last time someone did this? i.e. over a given time period (let's say a week), how many articles are new, how many are 5x expanded (and if so how old), and how many GA-promoted....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to see how many contributions nominaotrs have been round/how long they've been editing Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I'm posting a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through March 9. As of the most recent update, 62 nominations have been approved, leaving 148 of 210 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the fifteen from February that have previously been listed.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 4

A while back, I put a necrophilia hook in the quirky slot and User:BlueMoonset moved it out, saying that necrophilia isn't quirky. Now I just moved a similar hook out of the quirky slot, but User:Jolly Janner moved it back, and it's now in the queue. I'd like to ask for consensus here as to whether this hook belongs in the quirky slot. IMO, it isn't a quirky hook in the first place. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, when I first saw that nomination, I was hoping somebody would come up with a different hook. And I don't know what that hook would have been. But perhaps it's only a small few who remember the Death of Gram Parsons when Phil Kaufman stole the corpse and burned it at Joshua Tree in the desert. It wasn't against the law to steal or burn a body, at that time. He was arrested for stealing and burning the coffin. After Gram and Phil, what's a little necrophilia? — Maile (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Yoninah, I must admit I feel uncomfortable with necrophilia on the mainpage. In fact I'd be uncomfortable with any link to the article really. However I am happy to go with any consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Cas Liber, the initial question was whether the hook should be in the quirky slot, not whether it should be on the main page at all. We have had a necrophilia hook in the past that was quite controversial and was removed from the main page; see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 105#Necrophilia hook discussion. I don't think this hook should be in the quirky slot if it is retained, since the reason for placing something there is that ending on an upbeat or quirky note rounds an update off nicely and encourages readers to come back next time for more—I can't see this hook encouraging readers to return. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The legality of necrophilia is quirky (at least in today's society) and that's why I put it in the end slot. Why would it encourage readers to return less so than any of our other quirky hooks? The previous discussion involved murder as well as necrophilia and I think this was the main reason behind its removal. Probably not in the same level of offense as this hook. Jolly Ω Janner 04:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my assertion that this hook is not quirky. I would also like to point out that it is not hooky. It sounds more like a news report. As Maile suggested, I think it should be returned to the noms area for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support quirky slot – From wikt:quirky: strange in a somewhat silly, awkward manner, potentially cute. I think necrophilia may be considered awkward. Wikipedia is not censored. Such a hook should be effective in getting readers to read the article. Why would "upbeat" content necessarily encourage readers to come back next time for more? sst✈ 07:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hook and article are incorrect, per the sources, @Salvidrim!: An admin needs to pull this hook, pending correction. Hook says ... that despite admitting to necrophilia, Karen Greenlee only spent 11 days in jail for theft of a hearse and delaying a funeral (article also says she was fined $255). Why wouldn't stealing a hearse be "grand theft auto", and therefore more than 11 days in jail and a minor fine? Is it illegal to "delay" a funeral, which is acutally the pre-burial ceremony? Source #2 is not clear to me if it's a verifiable source. But this is the one that says she was charged with stealing the hearse. Source #1 is the book The Corpse: A History, and Source #3 an interview from the Sacramento Bee, both say it was illegally driving a hearse and interfering with a burial. — Maile (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia prefers paraphrasing to copied statements. "Illegally driving a hearse" is thus paraphrased as "theft of a hearse", which is well supported in numerous source describing the offense as "stealing the hearse", "stealing the Cadillac", etc; there are more sources on the talk page that directly call it a theft (that will be used to expand the article at some point, I've just dumped them there for now). "Interfering with a burial" is paraphrased as "delaying a funeral" -- sources variously describe the offense as interfering with a burial and funeral rather interchangeably so both are synonymous in this case. No specific sources use the terminology "delaying" so I'd be fine with directly using the verb "interfering" if that sits better with you. I've changed it in the article, and can change it in the hook if you tell me where. and in the queue. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose quirky slot for reasons expressed above. Wikipedia may not be censored, but that doesn't mean we go about giving special treatment to such hooks, and equating "strange in a silly, awkward manner" with necrophilia (it certainly isn't "potentially cute") is beyond my comprehension, given that a significant proportion of readers will find it disgusting rather than awkward or silly. The first and last slots are the special ones for DYK—much like you take special care with the first and last stories in an anthology—and this one doesn't qualify. (I give it a 50/50 chance of surviving the main page if it gets there in its current form; I rather expect some admin to pull it, either of their own accord, or as the result of a complaint at WP:ERRORS.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where Wiktionary got "potentially cute" from, but I couldn't find it in any other definitions of quirky. [10], [11], [12], [13]. It certainly doesn't go with my own understanding of what quirky means. It's also not like we're intentionally giving it special treatment, as all new articles are worthy of being featured on the Main Page. If anything moving it from the quirky spot over a non-quirky or upbeat hook would be to give it special treatment. Jolly Ω Janner 20:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what hooks are being referred to here, but the second one - the admission of necrophilia that attracted only an 11-day sentence, struck me as a pretty bizarre sentence and therefore a quirky fact. The hook clearly has an element of the macabre, but that's never been a bar to the quirky slot before. "Quirky" does not necessarily mean upbeat or amusing, it just means strange, oddball, weird or bizarre, and while I personally prefer quirky hooks that are both quirky and funny, that's never been a requirement. I have sometimes thought that hooks referencing truly horrific or tragic events should not be put in the quirky slot, though clearly not everyone agrees judging by some of the hooks I've seen in the slot in the past. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not sure I stated my position accurately in the previous post. For the record, I do think that "quirky" implies an element of humour - but people differ on what they find humorous. Quirky hooks that are not especially humorous but just strange or oddball are probably also acceptable. But I really don't like seeing hooks in the quirky slot that pertain to horrific or tragic events, even if the highlighted fact is itself quirky, because the impression left by the grim subject matter tends to overwhelm the quirk. And at times, I have removed hooks from the quirky slot for that reason. Having said that, what constitutes a suitable "quirk" is always going to depend to some degree on personal taste, it's not entirely quantifiable. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: WP:OVERCITE and DYK

I know that this topic has come up before, but is the DYK requirement that a hook be directly cited meant to over-rule WP:OVERCITE? In this review, that was approved for a different hook, an editor objected that there was no citation for ALT 1. But there is a citation for ALT 1, as ALT 1 is a condensation of two consecutive sentence, the second one of which has a direct citation. For DYK, are we supposed to write articles that have long, convoluted sentences so that they can pass nomination? Or are we supposed to violate WP:OVERCITE and, if a hook involves multiple sentences or a paragraph, stick a citation at the end of each sentence? Or are hooks that condense several sentences (or even an entire article, as one of my nominations did once) be discontinued? My thought was that the spirit of that guideline is that the hook content be cited, yes, but that with a hook composed of multiple sentences (or a paragraph), the phrase is what needs to be cited, not necessarily every component part of the hook with its corresponding sentence (I hope that made sense). I've found my understanding to be what is generally practiced at DYK, but there are some reviewers who are very strict (and sometimes I have been, just to defuse things).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The top of the cited essay has a disclaimer saying "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.", so I think DYK's rule 3.b) should override it. Jolly Ω Janner 05:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
When in doubt, overcite. Montanabw(talk) 06:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a nice find, Maile. My own understanding of the rule is that it's there to make fact-checking a lot easier. Not just for the designated reviewer, but for anyone reading the article when it's featured. When promoting hooks, I also sometimes turn a blind eye to the rule when I think it's easy and obvious which citation is used for the hook. If the issue is raised on the nomination page then I think it's best to resolve it, however. Jolly Ω Janner 22:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
In general, yes, I try to resolve things, and I might've tried to work things out if this had been the only hook. I just strongly feel that in this case, the recommendation was detrimental to the article prose.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I totally didn't notice that WP:OVERCITE is an essay. I wrote the above late at night recovering from a cold, after a whole day's bout of editing, so I apologize for mistakes or harsh tone. But, to get back to the point, I've been intentionally trying to improve my prose style and flow, and this seems like a step backwards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
It's alright and I don't really see any solid work-around which can combine our rules and that of widely accepted citation styles. One could always remove the inline citation after it's featured on DYK? if it's that much of a concern. It's not ideal for article stability, but if you're heading towards GA or FA it'll help. Jolly Ω Janner 03:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Temporarily adding it for DYK and then removing it later is what I was going to end up doing. But I think it's very silly for DYK to have a requirement for article content that not even the FAC have.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The main reason the citation rule is there is so reviewers can quickly confirm the hook statement. Even with the rule as it is, it is sometimes very difficult to confirm the hook, often because the writer has messed up the cites. So requiring that the nominator cite the relevant sentence(s) is also a good way of getting them to re-check their own cites before nominating.
I don't recall the issue of citation of consecutive sentences all associated with the hook being raised before, but I think it would get messy if we started to try and add caveats to the existing rule about exactly when a sentence should be cited. So I think if somebody asks you to cite every sentence that pertains to the hook even if those sentences are consecutive, you should just go ahead and do it - and you should probably do it anyway. You can always remove the cites after the DYK has appeared on the main page if you think they are overcited, but I think we need to keep the rule simple. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that this may have been suggested before, but would it be possible to deprecate this rule, and instead require the DYK nominator to specify the source if the hook is not directly supported by an inline citation? sst✈ 09:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed wrong hook from Prep 4

  • ... that the largest single collection of one woman's clothes owned by a British museum came from Emily Tinne, who also owned the first motor car in Liverpool?

Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Tinne @Worm That Turned, Staceydolxx, IndianBio, and Allen3:

As the source makes clear, her family owned the first motorcar in Liverpool[14]. Whether she ever owned it later in life is not supported by the source, she certainly wasn't the original owner of the first motor car in Liverpool (which would be highly unlikely in any case, she was born in 1886 and there were motor cars in Liverpool at least as early as 1901, see e.g. William Watson (motoring pioneer): probably significantly earlier as well, as evidenced by this image). Fram (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I added that it was her family, not her. The second fact now seems a little tangible, so I'm open to the second phrase being removed all together. Jolly Ω Janner 11:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Which is the kind of discussion that needs to be had at the nomination page, not here or in the Prep area. Removed again, reopened the nomination, there's no rush. Fram (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"J8: Don't be afraid to ruthlessly trim hooks of extraneous information and clauses." would have been an easier solution. Jolly Ω Janner 12:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
...which you didn't choose. Fram (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization issue in Queue 6 – admin needed

In the Philippe Pierlot hook, "17th-Century" should have a lowercase "c": 17th-century music?

Any admin can fix this in Queue 6 now, before it hits the main page at midnight UTC. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hook in Prep 4 needs tweaking

Template:Did you know nominations/Yasemin Adar @CeeGee, Captain Assassin!, and Allen3:

She wasn't Turkey's first European Champion in Wrestling, they had many male European Champions over the years. Perhaps someone can find an elegant way to rewrite this? Fram (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a slightly different approach—I was working on trying to decipher the sources (Google translate is not at its best with Turkish)—because I also didn't like the "performed shot put" phrasing. I decided on "first European champion in women's wrestling". Hope it proves satisfactory, but if not, feel free to modify further. Incidentally, I was interested to see that this had a regular tick instead of an AGF tick: good to know that Captain Assassin! can read Turkish. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Swoon of Mary

Re Queue 3: the image caption is "Detail of the Swoon of the Virgin in the Marienkirche", but should be something like "Swoon of Mary, detail of an altar in the Marienkirche", - Mary is complete, it's part of a crucifixion pictured on the Berswordtaltar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot down?

It's been almost an hour past the regular update time, and the queues are filled, but the bot has not updated the DYK page. Manual update needed? -Zanhe (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated and notified Shubinator. Materialscientist (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Error (from a GA!) on Main Page corrected

For 8 hours, we claimed

Template:Did you know nominations/Ape Escape (video game) @AdrianGamer, Rhain, Khanate General, and Ashorocetus:

Considering that that controller was already discontinued a year before the game was launched might have caused some concern with the GA and DYK reviewers, but apparently not so. The hook fact was not supported by the two sources given, but no one catched this. Please, everybody, be more careful, we have way too often such errors on the main page (e.g. two days ago, we claimed that an Austrian law forbade teachers to marry, but that law only applied to women).

I don't know what the reason is for this continuing problem; if we don't have enough people to do good checks of our articles, then we should perhaps reduce the rate of DYKs on the main page. But to simply carry on like this is not a good idea. Fram (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(Oh, and it apparently also showed the wrong image, not the Dual Analog but the DualShock. If we can't even get our nerdy articles right...) Fram (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If we reduce the rate of DYKs, the backlog will implode. I already struggle with frequent crashes of my web browser while on the nominations page, so I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. IMO, the promoter should give a final check of the hook's accuracy. It's possible they did in this case, since when I saw it posted at the errors page, I too discounted it because I misread the DualShock as the Dual Analog. Jolly Ω Janner 08:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should be a lot faster in closing DYK nominations for problematic articles, instead of accepting everything. There are nominations for very poor articles which just meet the literal requirements of length and newness, and which then need weeks of rewriting and rechecking by others to get them to an acceptable level. Instead, we could do a review, give the interested people a week to correct the problems, and if this isn't done to a reasonable level, reject the DYK application. Be more gentle and lenient with new editors, more strict with experienced ones, but let go of the mantra that every DYK submission will get its Main Page spot. Remember that DYK is only what, one in fifty or so of all new articles anyway, so it's not as if everyone gets there. Fram (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That is something I could get behind (even if it was temporary). Ctrl + F + Israel should be an easy way of picking out such nominations. Jolly Ω Janner 08:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Fram makes a good point. I have rejected a number of nominations, but I can probably count them on the fingers of one hand and they only go there after a torturous review with multiple participants. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
As someone who has picked up the slack on nominations that need lots of work and/or have been abandoned by their nominators, I totally agree with Fram's suggestion. DYK should not be an automatic door to the main page. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Corrections notice

Can we gauge consensus on whether we need to add a "Correction" note when erroneous DYKs have been on the main page for "too long"? An example is shown here added by Fram. I have removed it until we are satisfied that we have a consensus to add such a correction and that it has a consensus for its format. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the village pump then, only discussing this among DYK regulars doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I have readded the correction until there is a consensus not to use such statements, as it should be there now, not weeks later (I don't plan on adding disclaimers for old errors, I only added these a few times for errors in either the current or the previous DYK)). Fram (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
By all means initiate the discussion, just stop taking unilateral actions and changing the way we deal with long displayed errors. A consensus should be formed in how best to detail these things. Particularly side there was some doubt and errors in your correction disclaimer. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
There was some doubt, yes, by someone apparently unable to read a source correctly, repeatedly. The same editor who at first rejected the Errors report by another editor as well. I don't really care about these "doubts". I care about getting errors of the Main Page, and about publicly admitting errors, which is something we should have started doing a long time ago. Feel free to initiate a discussion if you disagree. Fram (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Fram and The Rambling Man: I don't care where the discussion is held, but stop wheel warring. Fram, you added it, it was removed. Editing a protected page to add it back was wheel warring. TRM, removing it again was wheel warring. Blocks and desysops can follow that sort of behaviour. BencherliteTalk 10:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry, I stopped. Seriously disappointed in TRM though. Typical for some DYK regulars , but he normally isn't one to be included in these protective measures and knee-jerk reactions. Fram (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing knee-jerk about removing a "correction" from the main page of Wikipedia, whose wording was poor and where consensus did not exist for its inclusion. We shouldn't be using the main page as a sandbox. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The only one thinking the correction was poor was someone who first misread the source and then continued to suggest wrong hooks... Fram (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC) instead.
I meant the disclaimer was poorly written, and went onto the main page as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Fram (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): T:DYK is a protected page, so I believe you two guys just engaged in wheel warring. I would stop that if I were you.

As for the note - in my opinion, Fram is way too fond of making unilateral changes to T:DYK - which usually means pulling hooks without consensus, sometimes for minor and very fixable issues. He also never follows procedure when pulling hooks, but always leaves the cleaning up to someone else. This kind of behaviour is cause for concern. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot, procedure is more important than getting it right. Please indicate which of my pulls from the mainpage (which is what T:DYK is about) required "cleaning up" to be done by someone else? The currect one? This one? This? Or that one? This? Perhaps this one? Feel free to continue going down the history of that page. It doesn't look to me as if I left such a terrible clean-up behind me or that not following some procedure here caused any problems. The current error was noted at WP:ERRORS 6 hours before I removed it, feel free to tell me how you propose to get a consensus for DYK hook removal that is fast enough (i.e. in 10 to 15 minutes) to be useful. But thanks for confirming the view I have of DYK and some of its regulars. You clearly have a good view of what the most important issues are. Fram (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Fram states "I care about getting errors of the Main Page." Could I suggest to you Fram that you check the Queues or Prep areas rather than leaving the error until it gets to the Main Page? There's plenty of time for scrutiny in these locations and then there will be no need for public apologies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have pulled plenty of hooks from preps and queues as well. I don't always get to them in time though. Nothing is stopping you from checking preps and queues more diligently of course. But don't suggest that others have "plenty of time" to do things differently as if the problem is that I didn't check the queues in time. Or do you suggest a "nothing can appear in DYK on the main page until it has been signed of by Fram" clause? That would be a novel idea... Fram (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to make you happy, I'll remove a hook from a Prep area in a few minutes. Fram (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
No Fram, I am talking about the fact that you never bother posting your hook removals to WP:Did you know/Removed per procedure, but always leave it to someone else. Nor do you ever replace hooks you have pulled from the main page with another hook to maintain balance, nor do you consult at WP:ERRORS before removing hooks. And now here you are adding "corrections" to the main page, apparently without consulting anyone yet again. If you want to do something like that, the right way to go about it is to get consensus first. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope. The "rule" that a hook removed from the main page should be replaced by another one is an extremely silly one (so if after 9 hours we remove an incorrect hook, the correct replacement only gets a DYK slot for three hours? Yeah, that will be appreciated by the people who worked on that hook...) which no one seems to be bothered about in any case (judging by what happens when someone else removes a hook). If someone believes /Removed is of any importance, they are free to add any removed hooks to that page. But that is not "cleanup" like you claimed, and demanding that whoever removes a hook somewhere adds it to that page is useless burocracy. As for consulting at WP:ERRORS: you are aware that the hook removed today was raised at that page at 01.13, and only got removed at 07.30 or more than 6 hours later (with DYK only running for 12 hours anyway)? Yes, it is really best practice to let errors linger for hours on the main page while we try to find a "consensus" that a hook is factually wrong. If you have any sensible, useful objections, feel free to make them. If you have complaints about actual errors that I made in my removals, go ahead! But I'll happily ignore your comments until then. As for DYK rules: my concern is to get correct information on the main page and especially incorrect information off the main page. If any DYK rules make this harder or slower, they should be ignored by any admin worth his salt. Fram (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
In my experience, problems posted at WP:ERRORS generally get responded to quickly, if not, then it might be appropriate to respond with unilateral action, but you don't even try to consult. And some of your pulls from the main page have been over very minor problems that could have been quickly fixed in situ. As for DYK Removed, it is part of the process of hook removal whether you think it's "useless burocracy" or not, and leaving it to somebody else to record the removal is discourteous. The problem is not your interventions Fram, but the way you make them, which is unnecessarily disruptive. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you please indicate which of my main space removals was over "very minor problems"? I probably shouldn't have done this one in hindsight, but I made quite a few removals since (listed above), and probably quite a few before as well. All of these were for clear errors (never a "very minor issue" in my book), and "quickly fixing them in situ" is just as unilateral as removing them, and much more likely to be wrong as well. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to correct an error in the hook but to leave it in the article, so this means yet another extra step in error correction. When the hook is removed, the error may still be in the article but it will get much, much mess views, severely reducing the problem. Oh, and "As for DYK Removed, it is part of the process of hook removal": no, it isn't, as far as I can see. It is not in the DYK rules or supplementary rules (or Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide for that matter). Not that I care that much about such rules when getting errors off the main page, but since you seems to care so much, you should be easily able to indicate where in the process this is said. Fram (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Fram, I am not going to quibble with you endlessly over this. The point, that I am surely not the first to have made to you, is that you should not be acting unilaterally to pull hooks from the mainpage or be making other potentially controversial mainpage edits without appropriate consultation, because it leads to unnecessary disruption as it did today. I appreciate your commitment to quality, but the methods at times could use some improvement. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"You do things wrong, and you didn't follow the rules there!" "Can you provide examples of A and the rule I didn't follow for B?" "I'm not going to quibble over this, you get my point". No, all I see is false accusations and claims to make a point, and you then expecting me to accept that. As long as you don't show that my unilateral actions cause more problems (for our readers, I don't care about discussions here) than they fix, I'll continue to "unilaterally" pull hooks from the main page, and I suggest you do the same whenever necessary instead of having baseless discussions here. A pulled hook can always be reposted later; a posted error will be seen by thousands, which can not be undone. I much prefer making the occasional error with the former instead of letting the latter linger out of fear for "the rules" or the reactions of some people here. If I consistently pull correct hooks, then it may be time to rein me in (just like people consistently writing, accepting or promoting wrong hooks should be directed elsewhere); until then, please think hard about what is the purpose of DYK and Wikipedia and what our priority should be. Fram (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Today, you wheel warred over a totally novel mainpage "feature" you thought up all by yourself, and you're still convinced there is nothing wrong with your approach? If this is how it's going to be, I can't see this ending well. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Which was the third time I used this "totally novel" feature, with no problems (and a few "thanks") the first two times. But at least now you are complaining about something else, instead of the things you first brought up but failed to substantiate. Nothing wrong with "that" approach, of course. A great way to get someone to listen. Not me, of course, but someone, somewhere. Fram (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've said before, "being right and being an asshole are not mutually exclusive". I tend to agree with Fram more often than not over stuff, but find their methods of working, treating the fixing of errors as some sort of moral crusade against other editors, as opposed to working with them, to be problematic. Perhaps with a little more tact and compassion, people would have been willing to improve their standards as opposed to getting defensive and complaining, and we would have less complaints on WP:ERRORS as a result. And don't wheel war, you'll get pulled up to Arbcom, who have an endless supply of tar and feathers. Just saying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have mixed thoughts on the concept of a corrections slot, although slightly in favour. However, it's unlikely to be dealt with properly. Main Page material gets reviewed by multiple editors to ensure is is accurate, yet this opens up a double standard where by sysops can post material unhindered. Indeed, when both myself and another user indicated the best course of action and concerns over the disclaimer's facts, we were met with a brick wall instead of waiting for the best course of action. It also opens up edit warring. I doubt we would ever be able to gather a consensus in quick enough time to post a disclaimer for each hook removal, so the best course of action is to simply remove it. I feel sorry for our very confused readers who witnessed the Main Page over the past 10 hours. Jolly Ω Janner 10:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    • You indicated a "best course of action" which was worse than the original hook. You also dismissed the original error report (by another editor) even after you checked the hook. You were met with a brick wall because you were wrong time and again in this discussion. I feel sorry for the editors who got wrong information on the main page for 7 hours. Since then, they no longer got the wrong hook, and some of them got a correction instead. No need to feel sorry for those. And we can always create a process where hooks get swiftly removed, and a correction posted in the next DYK slot. This would give us more time to discuss the wording of such corrections, if necessary. I don't see the need, but if that would alleviate your concerns... Fram (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
      • If consensus is formed on the exact wording in time to post a correction then that should work out. It would prevent a correction from spreading more inaccuracies and edit warring. Jolly Ω Janner 11:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 medal diagram

Setting the poor quality of the diagram aside for a second, I'm posed with the concern that this is original research. There is no source listed on the image's diagram page, so we cannot verify that it is an accurate depiction of the medal. Then there is a second concern. If it is accurately derived from the medal, then it may fall under copyright violation (I'm not an expert on Indian originality laws, but I know that it would fail in the UK and thus have to be transferred to enwiki). Any chance we can go with something else? Jolly Ω Janner 07:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Gomphidius glutinosus 131007.jpg and File:Nikolaus Harnoncourt (1980).jpg are the only other images in the set's nominations. Not so sure Harnoncourt, since his connection to the article is rather weak. Jolly Ω Janner 08:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I promoted it, but I suggest you move it, without the image, to another prep set and replace it with something else. There are plenty of nominations with good images to choose from. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I moved the hook to Prep 4, so it will still run during the day in India; I'll leave the selection of a new lead hook to someone else, since there's no rush. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done, I've gone with File:San Caio - Achille Pinelli.jpg, which ties in well for Easter Sunday. Annoyingly it will have to be deleted off Commons and transferred to Wikipedia, but this shouldn't cause any disruption during its feature, as Commons backlog is probably worse than ours at DYK! Jolly Ω Janner 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Never mind, it appears Yoninah already filled it up and I added it to a different prep. Jolly Ω Janner 23:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue3: Recorded In Hollywood (Records)

Template:Did you know nominations/Recorded In Hollywood Records @78.26, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and Casliber:

The body of the article, the label depicted in the article, and reliable sources used in the article, all seem to use Recorded In Hollywood as the full name of the record label, not Recorded in Hollywood Records. See e.g. this, this and this. Things like Parlophone, EMI and Motown don't have this extension, so it doesn't seem that it is needed (for articles where no disambiguation is needed, Mercury or Apple wouldn't work without a qualifier of course). Shouldn't we stick with the official and most common name (which are the same here)? Fram (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 March 2016 (queue 4 "yatai")

Minor edit request: per MOS:FOREIGN, as an uncommon foreign word yatai should be italicised in the final item. —Nizolan (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Done, thanks! Fram (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 problem with "All for Jesus"

Template:Did you know nominations/All For Jesus, All For Jesus @The C of E, 3family6, Allen3, and Casliber:

From the source, page 410, Google snippet view (a longer version of the text quoted in the article to support the hook):

  • "[...] Passion of the Holy Redeemer, by J. Stainer, the words selected and written by the Rev. J. Sparrow Simpson. It is arranged for two solo violins -tenor and bass- and chorus, interspersed with hymns to be sung by the choir and congregation. This is a first and a very successful attempt to supply an easy and short form of Passion music suitable for use in ordinary parish churches. It is about forty minutes in length, and suitable addresses, or brief instructions, could be introduced. [...]"

My reading of the source is that "The Crucifixion" by Stainer and Simpson was praised etc., not that "All for Jesus" specifically was thus praised ("All for Jesus" is not a 40-minute piece interspersed with hymns, it is one of the hymns in the piece).

Without objections to my reading of the source vs. the hook, I'll remove the hook in a few hours time and reopen the nomination. Fram (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: That's why the hook mentions the Crucifixion because it was included within that. Also the Crucifixion is a 40 minute piece, I would hardly think that that could be called a "short form" for congregational singing which is why it is a ref to AFJ because the rest of the Crucifixion is performed by the choir. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
If needs be, here a reworded ALT: ... that "All for Jesus, All for Jesus", as a part of The Crucifixion, was praised as a first successful form of Passion music suitable for use in churches where the congregation could join in? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem I have with the hook is that a more recent review of the oratorio puts the work in a far less favourable light. So I think we would need multiple sources to make the "praised" element stick. Maybe initially praised would work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The C of E, that's equally wrong. The source doesn't mention All for Jesus in relation to the praise. Your hook gives the impression that no good Passion-related singalong hymns existed before "All for Jesus", while the source believes no good all-round Passion oratorium, including some singalong hymns, existed before the "Crucifixion". You can't use praise for the whole as praise for part of it; it's like saying that some review considered song X to be "brilliant", while the review only said that album Y (which contains song X and also A, B and C) is brilliant. Fram (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: I have included the source where Stainer calls it rubbish to give the balance, with regard to the hook I am going to lessen the focus on being first and successful and propose ALT1... that "All for Jesus, All for Jesus" was the closing Passion hymn of The Crucifixion and set aside for congregational singing? (Though we can drop the Passion mention if you think it necessary). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll remove it from the queue and reopen the template, it is clear that the original hook is not OK (I hoped that perhaps somewhere else in the source the hook was supported, but apparently not). Discussion about a different hook belongs at the template page, not here while the hook is already in the queue. Fram (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: That seems a bit long-winded especially given it is due to run on Good Friday which is tomorrow. More people will see it here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Then it will run on another day probably. No need to rush things because of a not-so-special "special occasion" (Good Friday). Fram (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Note that we already have the "Swoon of the Virgin" image and hook for this queue anyway, so it's not as if this occasion is ignored. Fram (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I presume you're not a Christian then because you wouldn't say that otherwise. The hook was created a month ago so there was ample time for it to be checked and so it was guaranteed to run on the set day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Easter is the special occasion, Good Friday not so much. It isn't even a holiday in many Christian countries, unlike Easter, Christmas, Ascension, ... And the problem is not that it wasn't checked in time, the problem is that you wrote an incorrect hook. Fram (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a special occasion, just not often a holiday.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone care about the facts? Seems this is just punishing "@The C of E:" who appears entirely innocent. How apt that this is on Good Friday. Wikipedia says "Good Friday is a widely instituted legal holiday in many national governments around the world, including in most Western countries (especially among Anglican and Catholic nations) as well as in 12 U.S. states" .... but the important point I see is that we have a(nother) micro-drama on the DYK page. If it really is a fact that "It isn't even a holiday in many Christian countries" then why does no one find a ref and quietly fix the article on Good Friday - or does that spoil the DYKtalkgame. If it isn't then someone deserves an apology. Happy Easter C of E, I suspect your good work is being sacrificed for no good reason. Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you @Victuallers: and a happy Easter to you as well. I'm just disappointed that I created this back in January specifically to be held for Good Friday with the hope that holding it for so long would allow any issues to be detected in advance and the fact that nothing was said until Maundy Thursday. I am grateful that members of the community were quick and helpful to re-review and put it back in time for Good Friday though I do feel that the above comment was more of unawareness rather than out of any malice but I do not want to get into another drama like Jesus Christ is Risen Today (the so-called "Easter Scandal") from a few years ago. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed to replace hook

Since Queue 3 now has an empty final hook, I'd like to suggest moving in the Prep 1 final hook (Sarah Nash Gates), since it's the best available for the quirky slot. As it is a bio, the sixth and seventh hooks in Queue 3 should be swapped so that the set doesn't end with two bios. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I did re-approve the old nomination, too, so maybe that could be restored with its new hook?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
But the new hook is not so hooky. I would leave it out of the quirky slot. Yoninah (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: But surely the Queue could be rearranged or maybe the hook could be moved to the other Good Friday queue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Not now, chaps
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have restored the original nomination with the newly approved alt. With regard to the "hookiness" issue, the original hook wasn't hooky either but I thought the set read okay. The last hook isn't quirky but it does meet the "upbeat" criteria in the sense that it deals with a spiritually uplifting subject. And arguably a flippant end to a Good Friday hookset might be considered a bit inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, you promoted it to the Queue without closing the nomination! You're lucky that no one else promoted it since, or we would have the same hook in a Queue and in a Prep! Lucky for you, I cleaned up the mess you left behind (and improved the hook at the same time). Please, in the future, follow procedure when promoting hooks, and don't leave the cleaning up to someone else. Not much "uplifting" about that hook, just two boring bland facts, but I can't really be bothered to start that discussion as it is apparently ultra-necessary to get this hook on the main page tomorrow. Fram (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the error - no thanks for the snark. Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, what do you expect if you complain about the "mess" I leave behind by not following a "rule" which can't be found in the actual rules and which has no real impact whether you do it or not, when you leave behind a mess which actually is in the rules and does have a potential serious impact? I know that your error is easily made and could happen to me just as well, and that it is no big deal. But perhaps it will learn you not to use much more minor perceived problems as reasons to attack someone who tries to get errors from the main page. Inventing rules and mistakes to score a point is a lot worse than some snark, don't you think? Fram (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
"C'est magnifique, Hookey Street." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5: removed Gehan Mendis hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Gehan Mendis @Joseph2302, Staceydolxx, Yoninah, and Coffee:

This is sourced to This Wordpress copy of this newspaper article (no idea why the direct link wasn't used instead of the Wordpress link), but the source doesn't support the hook. It seems that he almost scored five centuries, and that he did score five half-centuries (or more). The "almost" is because he was stopped at 96, which is of course almost a century, not almost a half-century. Why it is important that someone almost became the twelfth person to make a rather obscure (though far from easy!) feat is not clear either, but that's a different discussion. Fram (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the hook that had been agreed, see ALT0, which was approved and is well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it was a hook you proposed anyway and a claim which is still in the article as well. Fram (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Corrected in the article, and ALT0 is clearly better anyway.
Guessing we can't just readd it to the queue it was in? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It's already been replaced and the queues are fully protected. Was it for a special occasion? Jolly Ω Janner 18:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
No it wasn't for a special occasion, I guess i'm just impatient. Although the below discussion seems to want something removed from Queue 5, so if that happens then this one could be readded there. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It actually turns out that the hook that replaced it was a special occasion request, but not for that day! I've ask Coffee to help out, but if any other admins are interested, the Christianity in football hook should be reserved for prep 1 or 2. I was probably to blame for not labeling it. Jolly Ω Janner 18:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5 similar topics

I just noticed that two articles I've contributed to are in Queue 5, Jeannie Mole and Liverpool Women's Suffrage Society. Both topics are regarding Women's Rights in Liverpool at the turn of the 19/20th century. I don't mind of course, but it might be worth splitting the hooks across different queues? I'll leave it to others to decide. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You are an admin. Be bold. SSTflyer 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise this. I would also recommend you be bold. Try to avoid removing anything from its special occassion slots though. It's mostly Christian and Lady Gaga stuff at the moment. Jolly Ω Janner 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

Aside from breaking all rules, that Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald hook isn't a hook; it's a mini article. Yoninah (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It is too long. Be bold and send it back. Jolly Ω Janner 09:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I did a quick trim. SSTflyer 09:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, SSTflyer, but now it's not hooky at all. I'm sending it back. Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I realised it had problems and I expected someone else to trim the hook, but I promoted it because it was a female biography and Women's History Month is just about to end. How about

Queue times

What happened to the old schedule that had UTC starting at 12 noon and 12 midnight? Yoninah (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah, every once in a while the DYKUpdateBot hiccoughs, and either a set is promoted manually, or the bot is restarted late. At that point, the newly promoted set gets a late start. Rather than cut it off arbitrarily at the next noon or midnight, which might be 2 or 7 or 10 hours away, the bot starts moving the start times back to noon and midnight by 15 minute increments, either adding or subtracting those 15 minutes until we are aligned again. While the next change is at 01:11, the one after that will be at 12:56, then 00:41, and so on. (The table for the next six queue promotions doesn't show the effects of the upcoming 15 minute changes, which is either a feature or a bug.) Assuming we don't have any more server glitches that affect the bot, we'll be back to midnight/noon promotions on March 30 at noon UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that! Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I'm posting a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through March 17. As of the most recent update, 56 nominations have been approved, leaving 160 of 216 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the fifteen from February and early March, most of which are left over from the previous list (and in a couple of cases, from the past couple of lists).

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed article spun off from older one from Queue1 (next hook on main page!)

Template:Did you know nominations/Welwitschiaceae @Casliber, Kevmin, and 97198:

The largest part of the hook article, added by Casliber here, was taken (without attribution!!) from Welwitschia mirabilis (here). That text wasn't added by Casliber in the first place, and was in the source article long before now (e.g. in this version of late 2012[15]).

According to DYK rules, an article needs to be new, not simply spun off from another article. And of course such a spin-off needs proper attribution per our copyvio policies (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for a complete explanation).

Promoting a queue from prep to queue, when one of the hooks is of your own making, is also probably not best practice, but that is not the reason I removed this hook.

I'll reopen and reclose the nomination as "rejected" for the above reasons.

Queue 1 needs an additional hook to be complete again. Fram (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fram, since it's an admin task to work on queues, may I respectfully suggest that you fill the slot that you have emptied yourself? Queue 1 is the next to be promoted to the main page, and you've left the queue in non-main-page-ready shape. Prep 1's "red-rust bryozoan" hook seems to be a potential prospect, since it's not a bio and otherwise seems to fit in the set. You'll want to check it, of course, before moving it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the attribution to conform with CC BY-SA 3.0. Thanks for spotting it and rejecting it, Fram. Although this was a clear case for rejection, you may be interested to know that our articles are allowed to use copied text so long as it doesn't make up more than 20% of the prose count (but not without attribution!). Jolly Ω Janner 07:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I have checked that hook and moved it to Queue1; I'm not used to prep- or queue-building, please let me know if I did anything incorrect here. Fram (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The addition looks fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3 Northern Ireland hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 @The C of E, Cwmhiraeth, Checkingfax, and Casliber:

A. This is not about all Northern Irish politicians, but the small subset of MLAs (Member of the Legislative Assembly (Northern Ireland)).

B. "More than one job" only means that they are not allowed to be at the same time also a member of "the House of Commons, European Parliament or the Republic of Ireland's Dáil Éireann". They can still (as far as I can tell) be e.g. the mayor of a city or some other political job (never mind having a non-political job of course).

C. The bill has no exceptions for politicians from East Londonderry. It has an exception (ending in a month and a bit) for people who were double-jobbing, and the last remaining one in that situation happened to be from East Londonderry. No candidates from East Londonderry (or anywhere else) will be allowed to double-job (to use that term) after the elections from May 2016.

Hooks may be quirky and intriguing, but I fear that this one is too inaccurate and misleading to be acceptable. Fram (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The C of E here. Maybe then reword to ... that Northern Irish MLAs are not allowed to hold more than one elected position apart from one from East Londonderry? Or if needs be put it back in AFD holding area . The Royal C (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Most normal mortals would be intrigued by the hook and wonder what on earth it was talking about, but I just knew Fram wouldn't like it. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Back home after work here. I agree with Cwmhiraeth that it would be more intriguing to use it as it is. I think that otherwise Wikipedia would be a very serious place with all us very serious people taking things very seriously! Which I think may have happened here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that it was meant for AFD where such an issue wouldn't be flagged. If it went through a regular nomination, I'm doubtful that it would be promoted with these issues raised. Considering that Fram hasn't pulled it, I guess there is a chance for it. Jolly Ω Janner 21:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
But it's not in an April Fools queue, it's in a standard, "serious" queue. I don't mind intriguing hooks, but there's no excuse for making a hook incorrect just to make it intriguing. As it's not in an AFD queue anyway, I'll pull it and reopen the nomination. Fram (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: But it isn't necessarily incorrect given that the last person in NI who can double-job (until the election) is from East Londonderry. Also did you check my proposed alternative that rewords it and fits it more along what you stated was an issue? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying "you are not allowed to veto a US congress law unless you are from Chicago" (I probably have US law wrong here, but I hope you get the drift from my example). That A is from B doesn't mean that B is a deciding factor. You could replace in your hook "unless they are from East Londonderry" with "unless they are born on 15 February 1953", it wouldn't change the meaning of your hook one bit but would show better how wrong it is. As for your newly proposed hook, it fixes one of the three issues, and the double-job bit comes from the sources. The "last politician" bit is still incorrect. By the way, from the article, "The show car was unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show, and was named "Provo" after the Italian word Pravda, meaning trial or test." Pravda is Russian ;-) Fram (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Prep numbers will be reversing with respect to timezones

Just a friendly reminder to prep builders. Due to the intention to have three preps on 1 April, preps with odd numbers (2 April onward) will now feature during the daytime in Asia and preps with even numbers will now feature during the daytime in the Americas. It will stay this way for the foreseeable future. Jolly Ω Janner 21:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, wait, wasn't the idea to have three eight-hour preps? How would that alter feature times for later sets? Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, the idea is indeed to have three eight-hour preps, and then switch back to twelve-hour preps. However, for the past several months and for the rest of March (30 and 31), even-number queues (00:00 UTC) run during Asia daytime, while odd-number queues (12:00 UTC) run during American daytime. For those who have been used to this rule of thumb, Jolly Janner was just noting that after we run three queues on April 1 (4, 5, and 6), the opposite will be true: the 00:00 UTC promoted queues will be odd-number yet run during Asia daytime, while the 12:00 UTC promoted queues will be even-number yet run during American daytime. It's going to be tricky to remember what's going to run when for the next few days; once we hit April 2, the chart on the Queues page will once again be accurate in showing what runs when. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I do not understand the rationale for running Asia-oriented hooks in the daytime and Americas-oriented hooks in the daytime. I, for one, look at my computer at night. Since we switched to 12-hour sets, I was under the impression that we don't have to note at what time of the day or night things appear. This puts an added stress on the prep builder. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
It's just a reminder, not a suggestion. You're more than welcome to ignore it. Jolly Ω Janner 10:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed to add new quirky hook to Queue 3

As per title. SSTflyer 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: @Allen3: @PFHLai: Since Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 is being held for April Fools Day again, with a newly approved ALT9, I recommend moving Template:Did you know nominations/Pyongyang Maternity Hospital into the quirky slot in Queue 3. I verify that it meets all criteria and is good to go. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Pyongyang Maternity Hospital to Queue 3 as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bit of sexual innuendo

Does anyone else prefer the sexual innuendo of domination (that I think was implied) at Virgin Atlantic Little Red? Squashed, as used in P5, seems less catchy to me. Maybe I just have a dirty mind! Jolly Ω Janner 20:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I do suggest reading the discussion of this on the nomination template; it did come up there. Not that it's the final word or anything, but the rationale as to why "dominate" wasn't chosen there is worth reading: Template:Did you know nominations/Virgin Atlantic Little Red. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jolly Janner: You do have a dirty mind if that is what you thought! I wasn't intending any innuendo in it. If you want to go for innuendo, we could change it to ate or swallowed but squashed, as in underfoot of a giant, was initially what I had thought of but if others are happy, I don't mind it being changed to ate or swallowed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, but I was only in it for the sexual innuendo. It doesn't look like anyone else is a fan of that though. I had best take a cold shower. Jolly Ω Janner 09:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
What is April Fools Day on DYK without one innuendo hook? I don't mind if you want to make it one just as long as the British giant and little red virgin remain in the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

April Fools hooks need review

We are only a few days away from April Fools Day now, but there are still a bunch of hooks at WP:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know that need verification. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Equally we also have a lot of hooks for AFD, more than the size of the current prep arrangement allows for. What can be done to ensure as many get on as possible? Will we either expand the size of the sets or go back to the 3x8 arrangement for the day? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer to see the best 16 hooks selected, and leave it at that. Some of the entries aren't all that good IMO, and some are not very April Foolsy. Although on the other hand, it's unlikely the 16 hooks that I think are the best will be the ones selected anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Gatoclass, since most AFD hooks are short, 8 hooks per set won't use as much space as 8 regular hooks, leaving the DYK section shorter than usual. Increasing to 9 or maybe even 10 would probably balance the main page better. (As I'm sure you know, we have tools that allow one to check how much space a prep or queue is likely to take on the main page.)
Also, there's one still-to-be-reviewed nomination on T:TDYK that should perhaps be included in the AFD list: Template:Did you know nominations/A Prank. I've just added a "review again" icon to it, and I'll be adding it to the list of older noms above, since it belongs there under February 29. Thanks for taking a look, and doing anything necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think trimming them down would be a better option. It would also leave us with some nice quirky hooks for the following week. We currently have 24 ready to go (maybe 25 with Parvoblongoolithus), so we probably need to trim it down by 5-9 hooks. Below is a list of 12 hooks that I think are not among the best. It's very subjective, but a lot of these can still be kept as we don't need to remove 12. If there are any that strike agreement with others, maybe we can hold them back for after AFD? Jolly Ω Janner 20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Pooh-pooh
  • Computer says no per CoE
  • Hacking (rugby) per CoE - (I think most people in the UK are aware of hacking)
  • Hu Dunfu
  • Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
  • Suaeda fruticosa
  • Unexpected John Cena per CoE
  • Cut Sleeve
  • Anthony Hidden
  • The Frog God
  • Seth Bogart
  • A Prank
  • In past years we ran three sets (24 hooks) for April Fool's Day. There are currently 22 approved hooks, and 3 awaiting approval. That's only one too many, assuming all are approved in time. -Zanhe (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Images

Is there any specific criterion that points to images? What I mean to say is that do reviewers promote an image to DYK based on a specific criterion or is it just randomly selected? I often see images are left out without any provided reason. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If I understand your question, you want to know why some nominations that contain images are promoted without the images. The reason is that only the lead hook can have the image. There are more nominations with images than can be accommodated for the lead hook. That's one reason. A secondary reason, is that it's a promoter's choice of which hook can be the lead. But the bottom line is an oversupply of nominations with images. The criterion for Images. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can an article have more than one DYK appearance?

I was wondering whether an article can be re-nominated as a DYK, after already being in the DYK section many years ago (before the current DYK criteria were established).

I ask this because the article Second Avenue Subway appeared in Did You Know? twelve years ago, when the DYK project was relatively new. There doesn't exist a nomination template called Template:Did you know nominations/Second Avenue Subway, but the article appeared in DYK in 2004 because it was a new article.

Now, it qualifies as a possible did you know nominee again, because it passed the good article criteria. Now, my question is, can I nominate the "Second Avenue Subway" article for DYK? epicgenius @ 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: According to WP:WIADYK#Eligibility criteria point 1e, " Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)" So assuming it ran as a DYK in 2004, then unfortunately it isn't eligible to run again, sorry. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it ran March 26, 2004. I wasn't around in 2004, but maybe DYK didn't use templates then. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No, DYK didn't start using templates until late 2011/2012. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302, Maile66, and The C of E: Thanks to all of you for your responses. Looks like a lot of work for nothing I guess I'll have to find another article to improve for DYK. (I was really hoping to nominate this article because of the lack of a DYK template, though.) epicgenius @ 00:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

QPQ exemption rules are unclear

The QPQ rules are unclear about what constitutes a "DYK Credit". Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide implies that it counts the number of the nominator's previous nominations, but that is not clear from the rules or the supplementary rules. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

@The C of E: I noticed you changed your hook after ALT7 was promoted to prep. I wonder if a slight change in the wording of ALT7 would please you better?

Disputed close

We have a disputed close at Colonel Johnson where Fram closed, I reverted with an action plan but Fram edit-warred to restore the close. As Fram and I have a history of conflict, please could we have some more opinions to establish a consensus. For the record, my action plan to resolve this quickly was

...this has been due to my activity on other articles such as Merikins, which is scheduled for April 1, tomorrow and Peter Williams (dance critic), which is an older nomination. I also have other commitments in my personal life and have been quite unwell lately, which hasn't helped. I don't agree with all that is said above but, to show willing I have done another QPQ review at Kamal Foroughi. BlueMoonset said that another QPQ wasn't needed here but I am willing for this other one to be counted too so that we no longer have to argue about this issue. I will today do some work to expand Colonel Johnson even more, even though this is not strictly necessary by DYK rules. So, please give me another 10 hours and then take another look.

Today would be a good day to get this wrapped up as I'm happen to be on leave, my illness isn't too bad and the other, older DYKs all seem to be advancing nicely now. It would be silly to get hung up on procedural issues when we have a promising topic to work on. Andrew D. (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the above action plan was posted after the DYK was closed. Nothing had been done on the article since the nomination on 6 March nor the review on 16 March. Andrew Davidson is more than welcome to work on the article and improve it, it badly needs it. This is not dependent on it being a DYK or not of course. As the article nominator, you shouldn't reopen a closed review you disagree with. If you don't have the time to get all your nominations up to scratch in time, then either nominate less articles or accept that some will be closed as unsuccessful. Finally, don't nominate articles as is you have worked on the 5* expansion when you have done nothing whatsoever to expand the article, like with Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Williams (dance critic). Taking credit for the work of others is really rather low. Fram (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I started the Peter Williams article. Another editor then expanded it. I then did lots of work to clean up their expansion and yesterday arranged for an expert reviewer when it seemed that the nomination was languishing. I've spent many hours on that topic in good faith so Fram's complaints seem vexatious. For him to now close that nomination too seems to be another breach of WP:INVOLVED as it appears to be retaliation for disputing the first close. Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • You started it in 2014, another editor expanded it (partly with a copyvio) in 2016, then you nominated it claiming you had expanded it with him. Only after the nomination was about to fail did you start on the cleanup. Noticing your tactics on the disputed nomination and your claim of doing work on other nominations, I noticed this one (and the "Merikins" one, which I have no problem with) which had clear problems, both in your initial actions and in the expansion. Articles expanded by adding copyvios (and their editors) shouldn't be rewarded with DYKs. Fram (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, closing it was the right thing at the time. The correct action after closure is to request it be reopened here and perhaps notifying the closing reviewer, rather than reopening it yourself. If you do the required edits today and are satisfied yourself that it is ready, I wouldn't object to someone reviewing it. It would be unfair to request Fram to perform any further review. However, if someone does want to review it, I don't like the idea of them using it as a QPQ (it could be better used on a recent article), so it can either be a purely voluntary action or maybe you could review a second (or third if you include Guy Ropes) nomination yourself? Jolly Ω Janner 09:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) DYK is not a reward; it's a labour of love and vale of tears. DYK credits are not worth anything, even within Wikipedia, where all the glory goes to FA, it seems. I stick at it mainly because I like the whimsical nature of the hooks and the process is usually fairly easy-going. I'm not here to score points in a cup or whatever else might be going on. It's just nice to see a topic through to the end. I'm quite willing to resolve any and all problems for Colonel Johnson and Peter Williams; Fram just needs to get out of the way. The question here is what is best for the encyclopedia - that these topics get more work done on them or that Fram should succeed in his obstruction and so cause me to spend the rest of the day doing something else? Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no reason at all why you can't "see a topic through to the end" and "resolve any and all problems" and make sure "that these topics get more work done". The DYKs are closed, the articles are completely open for you to edit and improve as much as you like (or as is needed). Your attempted blackmail implication that if you don't get DYK credits, you won't work on these articles any longer is quite telling but not really a reason to revert these closures of course. Fram (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Without the DYK process to provide a workflow, those articles would just join the infinite list of tasks that would be nice-to-have but are not especially pressing. With Fram hovering around, looking to find fault and cause trouble, it would obviously be most sensible to let go rather than escalate and burn out. There is a window of opportunity to get work done on these articles. It's not the end of the world if it doesn't get done but why should we make ourselves suffer? Fram's motivation seems to be to destroy DYK but I'm not seeing him presenting a more workable alternative. Simply working on articles for no particular reason is a lack of process rather than a better process. Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Andrew; it would be much easier to have this argument if you'd done the work on the articles. No? I don't always agree with Fram, but in this case he has done things right. You don't need the DYK to be open to fix the articles... --Errant (chat!) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There was no "fix" required for Colonel Johnson which was large enough to pass the DYK threshold. Fram just wanted it to be bigger and better. In effect, he was trying to impose a requirement of completeness. That's appropriate for FA work but is not a requirement at DYK, which is explicitly for new topics which, by their nature, are not fully developed. Fram's requirement was not reasonable but I said I planned to do more in any case. No exact timetable was set for this and so it is even more unreasonable to suddenly impose a deadline without an opportunity to meet it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Andrew D erred in nominating this article before it was ready for review - Andrew, you should keep articles in your sandbox until they are ready for DYK, then nominate them when you move them to mainspace. Having said that, I can see no reason for closing the nom, Andrew has said he is ready to finish it, and nominations sometimes hang around for months before they are promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't use sandboxes. One reason for this is that my work is often done for editathons and so others are working on the same redlinks too. In this case, the article was started to fill in a redlink in the Hetty Reckless article which was done for Black Women's History at WP:WIR. Redlinks have to be resolved by linking to pages in mainspace, as we can't link to drafts, right? Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, an article has to be ready for review when it is nominated for DYK. It doesn't have to be finished, in the sense that it is perfect, but it does have to meet all the DYK criteria at the time of nomination. Otherwise, you are just wasting the reviewer's time. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Supplementary rule D7 states: There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. Your article has a single sentence under the header "Farming". That's clearly unfinished. The only expanded section is on his early life and education, is that what he is notable for? The lead section is supposed to summarize the main body, but it includes things not even mentioned in the main body. The article is clearly in an unfinished state and needs to be completed before it is eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I was not familiar with that supplementary rules pages which, now I look, seems to contain 62 rules! When the issue of completeness was raised by Fram, I agreed to expand the article further and still intended to do so. The issue is therefore not whether the article should be expanded but whether the DYK window should be slammed shut so abruptly. If the nomination stays closed, the article is not likely to get that expansion any time soon. If I was given a little time, such as the 10 hours I requested, it would get done. The quality would be fine as I have already got the sources and structure assembled. Jolly Janner's proposal sounded reasonable but I'm not sure of the details when it comes to observing all those rules. Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Jolly Janner is correct to say you shouldn't reopen the nomination yourself, but request a review here. Otherwise, I concur that there is no reason you shouldn't be given a little more time to finish the article - just as long as you accept that next time you nominate an article, it must already be fully complaint with the DYK criteria when nominated. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I was busy back at work today and, this evening, have been focussing on Merikins while it's up as one of the April Fool items. I should have time for Colonel Johnson tomorrow (Saturday). Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Counter-Strike: Falklands

... that Counter-Strike: Falklands pays homage to the 1982 Falklands War?

I really don't think this hook is interesting, as it's almost a dictionary definition (and a fairly obvious one based on the subject's title). Captain Assassin! any thoughts? I don't normally outright pull hooks for being dull, since the promoter would almost definitely have to check for its level of interest. In this case, it was promoted by an IP with very few edits (presumably a dynamic IP or someone forgot to sign in...?). It's currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. Jolly Ω Janner 08:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

SSTflyer, these look like your edits... did you forget to log in? Jolly Ω Janner 09:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I also noticed that the hook was dull. I think it should be returned to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Jolly Janner, I wouldn't think those edits were by SSTflyer, since two of the hooks the IP promoted were nominated by SSTflyer. But it's clearly someone familiar with DYK prep building, though not the best judge of an interesting hook; I think it was a good idea to pull it so it can get a better hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Questions about the nomination of Sarawak article for DYK

This article just achieved Good article status today. I am planning to nominate it for DYK. However, this article already appeared on the main page in the "On this day..." section a few times. So, is this article still eligible for DYK nomination? Any help is very much appreciated. Cerevisae (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

On this day makes it ineligible per rules. Jolly Ω Janner 07:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your info :-) Cerevisae (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

April 3 special occasion hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Ned Garvin is waiting to be promoted in the Special Occasions area for April 3, which would seem to coordinate with Prep 3 or Prep 4 after the queues are returned to a 12-hour cycle. (I would promote it myself, but I reviewed it.) Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Moved it to Prep 4. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Would ALT2 be a better hook? --PFHLai (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I liked ALT1 better, but you can change it if you like. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gypsy sauce

I am requesting input/another reviewer for my nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Gypsy sauce. I don't feel that the present reviewer (Fram) is providing an impartial or objective review relative to the general rules at WP:WIADYK, and is basing the review upon various minutiae and their personal theories about the topic, against the notions stated at WP:DYKNOT. Cheers, North America1000 15:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed hook from main page

I removed the Caerhowel Bridge hook from the main page.

Template:Did you know nominations/Caerhowel Bridge @Z105space, Smerus, and Allen3:

The current bridge is not built "on the site" of the wooden bridge, but a few hundred meters away. See e.g. this. The source used to reference the hook also only says "near this spot"[16]. Fram (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

When I saw you removing this from the Main Page, I attempted to verify some of the facts and found that the timber bridge was never "destroyed" in the way that it was implied. British Listed Buildings simply states that it was replaced following the floods. It never said that it was destroyed or even damaged. I can't believe how erroneous this prep set was. Jolly Ω Janner 15:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
While that bit indeed wasn't supported by that source, it at least could be found in other sources ("destroyed" or "swept away"), so I didn't mention it. Fram (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
You are quite right. I've added a reference to the sentence about it being destroyed. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 16:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I also removed "of the first" from

Because there is no evidence that the hula-hoop (ca. 1957) was among the first products, even though Day-Glo was commercially used since about 1945. Fram (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Template:Did you know nominations/Day-Glo Color Corp.

... and I removed another hook as well:

  • ... that soprano Margareta Hallin could have performed internationally, but decided to stay in her homeland instead?

Template:Did you know nominations/Margareta Hallin @Notecardforfree, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, and Allen3:

So she didn't perform at Glyndebourne, Edinburgh, Covent Garden, ... ?[17] I think she would be surprised if she saw the hook about her. She performed at Glyndebourne twice[18], her 1960 performance of the Magic Flute has been published by HarmoniaMundi. This Dutch article[19] gives a long list of international performances between 1956 and 1960. Fram (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I realize now that this hook gives the false impression that she never had a single performance outside Sweden. Mea culpa. I was trying to convey the fact that she could have had an "international career" (as this author said) but decided to stay in Sweden instead. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
And what now? Remove the hook from all archives because it could be misunderstood, a little bit? - That article was a great collaboration, any way. Thanks to all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Filling preps

If anyone wants to fill some preps I'd be really grateful. I am busy elsewhere but will be happy to move preps to queues a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cas, I've just finished off two if you'd like to promote them when you have a chance. 97198 (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
If we're short of volunteers, I'd rather we wait to post updates every 24 hours or something than rushing crucial fact-checking procedures when filling out preps... Jolly Ω Janner 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Casliber: Three preps have been filled. -Zanhe (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Zanhe: thanks, if anyone wants to check and load more I can fill....(but as @Jolly Janner: says don't skip the checking...) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed image hook from Queue4

Template:Did you know nominations/Anil de Silva @Nvvchar, Miyagawa, Cwmhiraeth, and Casliber:

The picture is not of cave paintings in Dunhuang and Maijishian Grottoes in Gansu, but of a painting on tiles found in a tomb in Luoyang, Henan province (or Luoyang, Boluo County in Guangdong Province). See here for info on the origin of this painting. The painting was not discovered during the Silva expedition, it was a Chinese painting she used in a book on Chinese art.

This is the second time (at least) we have had a Nvvchar picture hook where the picture did not show the actual subject, the previous one was Template:Did you know nominations/Devanahalli Pomello. Fram (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I got Queue 4 re-stocked. Can someone re-review this hook-set before it gets on MainPage in a few hours, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I'm posting a new list of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through March 9. As of the most recent update, 90 nominations have been approved, leaving 168 of 258 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from February and the first dozen or so from March that are left over from the previous list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Salamis

I have just promoted Battle of Salamis to Prep 4 but cannot archive the nomination because something odd has happened to the template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Jolly Ω Janner 06:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Funeral on Sunday?

Prep 4 has the Actus tragicus, and will appear on Sunday. Where I live, funerals are held any other day. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe the prep areas are still available for anyone to edit, I'd suggest switching it for a suitable alternative from another, later prep set? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The reason Gerda has asked for help is that she should not be moving or editing her own hooks once they have been promoted. I don't see, however, why there is a necessity that the article run on a day when funerals are held as opposed to one where they are not; musical works are worth reading about on any day, whether composed for funerals or christenings or coronations. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Well that's a load of nonsense twice over. If Gerda wants to move the hook, fine. If Gerda can move the hook, fine. Let's not get too bogged down here, or else the machine will grind to a halt (which is currently happening). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the hook, someone who cares to fill the gap in prep 4 should do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Rambling Man. And indeed, I thought I might move a hook but not my "own". - I like honoring occasions, such as the TFA last year, in honor of the author who died the year before that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 is full. Admin required to promote to queue. Thanks, SSTflyer 13:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done it. Midnight here in Oz and am going to get some shuteye. If folks do preps I can fill queues in am. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Casliber: Two more preps have been filled. The queues are empty. -Zanhe (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Loaded up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Casliber: Thanks. I've just filled too more preps. -Zanhe (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Great/thanks. done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing admin help template unless I've read the subsequent discussion incorrectly. Mkdwtalk 23:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Queue 4

It would be better to link thus: "NMR spectroscopy" NMR is most commonly used as a synonym for MRI, making it a little misleading as a synonym for NMR spectroscopy.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

Victoria Coates

I would like to ask if Template:Did you know nominations/Victoria Coates should be held at T:TDYK#June 8 (end of US primaries) or later. Please advise. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

April archive

Where is it? Awien (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Up to March is there in the archive, but nothing for April. Awien (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's right there at WP:Recent additions. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, *below* March, Feb. Jan., etc., not above as the pattern suggests. Thanks! Awien (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I threw in a {{TOC left}}, next to the nav' panel. I hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Consistency! Brilliant!! Awien (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Filling preps redux

If anyone feels like checking and filling preps, I'd be grateful. I have other things to do but will check back in a few hours to load. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Two more prep sets are ready, thanks to PFHLai, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah. -Zanhe (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking for a template

Can someone please direct me to the template to notify other users that an article they've contributed to has been nominated for DYK? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:APersonBot operated by APerson. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66: So other editors will automatically be notified then? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Joseph2302 The bot was developed to notify contributing editors who are not the nominator. So, the nominator doesn't get the notice, but any other listed contributing editors do. I don't know how often it runs, but if you are referring to your nomination of Farmers Cricket Club Ground, the bot should take care of that. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks. And yes, that was exactly the article to which I was referring. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Joseph2302, the specific template that the bot uses is {{DYKNom}}. APerson (talk!) 19:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Date for special holding on primaries

I've changed the section heading special holding for end of U.S. primaries from June 8 to June 15. Washington D. C. holds their primary on June 14. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dara Nusserwanji Khurody

The subject DYK is already approved since a week but not yet selected for any queue. I know that we have many approved hooks, but I wanted this to get featured on main page before 28 April so I can claim points for it in the WP:Wikicup. I assume its reasonable to request here to get this hook in some queue to feature on main page. Thanks in advance! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Promoted by User:SSTflyer. Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Time period between New / 5x / GA nominations?

The DYK rules seem unclear to me on explaining whether an article that has been on DYK once for being New can then be eligible for a 5-fold expansion, and then again for attaining Good Article status. I imagine it would be OK if a reasonable time had passed between each stage - but what constitutes a reasonable time?

I ask this because I had a 5-fold expansion DYK for my work on the Mont Blanc massif back in February, and it has now reached WP:GA status. It would not seem appropriate for me or anyone else to submit it again so soon. But out of curiosity I looked for the rule that determines this, and could not see any clear statement. Is this an omission in the rules, or have I missed it somewhere. Any thoughts? Parkywiki (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary rule D1: Items that have been on DYK before are ineligible. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - there's none so blind a those who cannot see! It makes sense.Parkywiki (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed

The queues are empty. I've just filled two prep sets, and need an admin to promote them. @Casliber: are you there? -Zanhe (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have verified and promoted one set, I don't have time to do both. Gatoclass (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Gatoclass, that'll keep the bot happy for another half day! -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Importance of Being Earnest (opera)

As editors will see in the nomination discussion, I created an article for The Importance of Being Earnest (opera) and made a DYK nomination for it as a new article. Rather than rewrite the synopsis (which is basically the same as in the play The Importance of Being Earnest), I adapted the synopsis from the article on the play, changing and adapting it to relate to musical aspects of the opera. The play article is cited in the opera article as a source of the synopsis. Even without the text borrowed from the play article, the opera article is of sufficient length for a DYK new article. The question raised by editor Nikkimaria (who has suggested I raise the issue here) is, does a new article qualify for a DYK nomination if part of it is a 'reprint' from another article, even if the 'new' content of the article qualifies in its own right? Thanks, Smerus (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

My answer - I am the reviewer - was yes, because there's enough original prose (2.5k, not even borderline) in the rest of the article. But I will listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. If text is copied from an older Wikipedia article, then that has to be expanded fivefold before the article is eligible for DYK. Nikkimaria is quite correct about that.
I'm not sure what to do in this case because I haven't closely compared the texts, if there is substantial difference, then you could probably count it as new text, Duplication Detector only appears to flag two or three sentences. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The paradoxical situation then arises that if I delete much of the borrowed text (which I could do quite simply), the article would qualify. Seems a bit odd.Smerus (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Smerus and Gerda Arendt. This is a new topic that overlaps with an old one, not an expansion or spinoff of an existing article, and I don't think the 5x rule should be applicable in cases like this. The borrowed text is not essential to the article, and as Smerus said, can be easily deleted to satisfy a strict interpretation of the DYK rule, which does not make sense. -Zanhe (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
And how exactly are you going to define "cases like this"? The rule might result in an occasional anomaly but it works well most of the time and making exceptions looks like a potential slippery slope to me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
When the letter of the rule can be satisfied by actions detrimental to the encyclopedia (such as deleting valid content). See WP:IAR. -Zanhe (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
If you pass this one, others will start using this as a precedent for getting their own half-copied articles approved. I don't want to have to start deciding when copied content is "valid" or not. Gatoclass (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You don't have to delete it, you can keep all the information there if you want to and just reword it. Or you can delete most of it and restore it to your satisfaction after the article has appeared. Yes the rule does seem a bit pointless at times, but it's there for a good reason, which is to stop people nominating "new" articles that are actually 90% lifted from an existing article. Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit of the rule. But in cases like this where the rule seems pointless, we need to boldly apply WP:IAR, instead of bending over backwards to obey the letter of the rule. -Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

To save heartache I have now rewritten an abbreviated synopsis section which removes all text taken from the article on the play. Hope this is now OK.Smerus (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I approved that but think the rules have been misinterpreted above, and would not like that as precedent. The article is not an expansion of an existing one but a new one, therefore the rules about 5* expansion don't apply. Correct is that the content common to another article (common for good reason) is not prose that can be qualified as "new" content, but there is enough new content in the article to be acceptable for DYK. Correct is that the common content needs an attribution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the rules have not been misinterpreted; indeed, they're quite clear: If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. It's how things have worked at DYK for years: the precedent is long established. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The rule (which I had missed) is kafkaesque in this case, and probably anyway, but that seems normal on Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed image hook from queue1, needs replacement in the next 4 hours!

Template:Did you know nominations/Mary, Queen of Hungary @Borsoka, The C of E, Zanhe, and Casliber:

The article doesn't seem to state that she was twelve, and the given facts actually contradict this: she was "born in the latter half of 1371" and crowned "17 September 1382", so either aged 10 (see e.g. [20] or aged 11 (e.g. [21]) but never twelve. On the other hand, some sources give 1370 as her birth year and state that she was 12 at the time of the coronation[22], so this needs further work. A GA! Fram (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem: Gatoclass replaced the hook (but didn't close the nomination), which was accepted AGF, but it is wrong as well. Perhaps it is time to simply disallow AGF hooks?

Template:Did you know nominations/Welsh Church of Central London @Gatoclass, Zanhe, and The C of E:

The source used is available online (at least for me), [23]. The entry for Capel Bedyddwyr Cymreig (Wels Baptist Church) (two names which coincidentally are not used in the article lead) makes it clear that the ceiling had to be cut away to heighten the organ pipes, not that the roof had to be cut away to install the organ. The text also makes it clear that that ceiling and the roof are not the same here. Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for it since I can't access the source and was thus obliged to AGF the hook statement. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Antlions to the rescue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Slow down DYK?

At the moment, we have one queue and nothing in the prep areas. This means that the replacement hook in the lone queue will be in prep/queue for at most 3 hours, and the next queue will be in prep/queue for at most 15 hours. We recently had a (very) late queue replacement as well, and more and more "DYK is almost late" messages. Perhaps it's time to slow down DYK, e.g. to only 6 articles per queue? Fram (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I will fill a prep set shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

The image for Old College has a lot of dark shadows in it. If it's that dark on my computer screen, it will probably be very dark on an IPhone. Could we replace the lead image? Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

...that while three and a half years old, Elizabeth Randles and her blind father played for King George III and his family?" (and the caption: "An older Elizabeth playing with her father")

I think the hook should at least clarify what kind of "playing" was being done for the King et al. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is now in Queue 3, and will need an administrator to fix. Unfortunately, the article does not say that her blind father also played for King and family, just Elizabeth. (The cited source also mentions Elizabeth only in this regard, as does another of the article's sources.) She did play piano; that much is clear. So the hook needs more modification than just the addition of her instrument: I'd suggest deleting "and her blind father" and adding "piano" after "played". (If the father is deleted here, then the word "blind" might usefully be added before "father" in the caption.) The picture makes it clear enough that she's playing at the keyboard. (Alternatively, one of the other approved hooks could be used, though "child prodigy" would need to become "child piano prodigy" in the original hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the hook and caption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I'm posting a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through March 28. As of the most recent update, 51 nominations have been approved, leaving 185 of 236 nominations still needing approval. There has been a distinct slowdown in reviewing older nominations, which has contributed to the current low number of approvals: only 16 are new listings this time, while we have 22 left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these; they've been waiting quite a while.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Misformatted nomination that was never transcluded and never reviewed

Can a reviewer please review Template:Did you know nominations/New York City Subway? It was submitted by Kew Gardens 613 (talk · contribs) on February 29, but he never transcluded it onto T:TDYK, so it was never reviewed. Thanks. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a 50 DYK award.

Let me just start by saying I have enormous respect and admiration for you all. That said, I have 47 completed DYKs [24] and 4 that are in the queue. I got shafted at 25, and had to settle for a DYK Pony [25], which I'm pretty sure isn't even a real thing. It's embarrassing to have to ask for an award, so I'm not complaining or asking, but just making a general observation. (And if someone tries to shut me up by giving me a DYK Ostrich or DYK Blobfish or something, I will seriously lose my s&#$.) Let me just close by saying I have enormous respect and admiration for you all. LavaBaron (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Sorry you didn't get your 25 DYK medal; I just belatedly awarded you one. As for the next medal, you haven't updated your stats on WP:DYKLIST (which still says 27), and this tool shows you have 46 credits (U.S. Army Herald Trumpets was credited twice for some reason). Once it reaches 50, please update DYKLIST, and your medal will be duly awarded (hopefully you won't have to wait so long this time). Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Zanhe! LavaBaron (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed to reset the queue

Looks like DYKUpdateBot forgot to clear Queue 2 and update Template:Did you know/Queue/Next after copying its contents to T:TDYK. Admin needed to manually reset the queue. Also pinging Shubinator. -Zanhe (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have completed the update manually. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Gatoclass, but now Queue 3 needs to be reset. DYKUpdateBot is still broken and not resetting the queue. Unfortunately Shubinator does not seem to be active lately. I don't know who else can fix the bot. -Zanhe (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done Gatoclass (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Just saw. hang on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed hook from main page: "first woman" is not the same as "first person"...

Template:Did you know nominations/Klara Johanson @97198, Cwmhiraeth, Zanhe, and Casliber:

  • ... that Klara Johanson was the first person from her Swedish hometown to sit the upper secondary school final examinations?

Sources in the article for this claim:

  • [26]: "she became the first woman in Halmstad to present herself for the upper secondary school leaving examination" (emphasis mine)
  • [27]: "she was the first woman in her home town to pass the final school examination at advanced level" (emphasis again mine).

Removed from main page (like I have said before, I don't do simple word replacements to correct hooks with factual errors, if they are wrong I remove them. We have shown this for four hours, that should be sufficient). Fram (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted! I'm surprised I missed that because I was perfectly well aware that the claim was for first "woman", but I concentrated on checking the "first" aspect rather than the precise hook wording. I would repeat what I wrote here a week or so ago, but that would be boring! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Fram, and sorry about that. I obviously made a mistake when writing the article and carried it over when I wrote the hook. 97198 (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed "vulture" hook from Queue3 (the next queue)

Template:Did you know nominations/Soğuksu National Park @CeeGee, Zanhe, Joseph2302, and Casliber:

First; black vulture should point to Cinereous vulture (the European black vulture]], not to the American black vulture as it did.

More importantly, the European black vulture is not an endangered species, but a near-threatened species, which is two steps removed from endangered. You can search for it here. Fram (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sheep shagger

How the hell did an article promoting such a ridiculous stereotype get into the front page? I have seen ridiculous DYK before but this a whole new level of incompetence. The the fact that the creator of the article "is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire" should already have been a red flag.--Catlemur (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, don't go down the WP:NPA route. If you're going to criticise just because you don't like the topic, please relate your arguments to the content of the article rather than argumentum ad hominum against its creator, which just so happens to be me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The main problem is in the DYK blurb which simply states that Welshmen engage in bestiality without any context whatsoever. Unless a person goes on to read the article he/she simply sees an out of context, offensive, clickbait statement. There is no ad hominem here.--Catlemur (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There is when you specifically go out of your way to mention a userbox of the creator which is totally irrelevant to the subject of the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Writing a single sentence on Wikipedia bares no burden on me. As far as referencing the benefits of British (English) imperialism in Wales goes, you might consider reading the following articles Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, Glyndŵr Rising, Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English.--Catlemur (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought the whole purpose of the bold link in DYK hooks was precisely clickbait? Or are you missing something fundamental? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that some Welshmen are still living people, WP:BLP needs to be considered. This would be the equilivant of saying "Did you know that some women are called whores?" — Maile (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. Read the article. Whore is an offensive term in all contexts. Sheep shagger is puerile and as such it only takes someone genuinely stupid to find it actually offensive. Time to start moaning about Gropecunt Lane again I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I used to be alive. But then I read the front page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The same is sometimes said of residents of Wyoming. It's offensive and we really do need to have a few standards around here. Montanabw(talk) 02:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
And then you get the "all Southerners (US) screw their cousins" crap...[28] which I wouldn't be surprised to see on the main page either. It sounds like the Welsh/English insults had a big influence on some people in America, but it's far from the first offensive hook to make it (I'm reminded of a "have sex with whoever the heck you want and never mind the consequences" advocate who got up there a while back, in a hook that included strong profanity). Seriously, a lot of this junk needs to stop. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Review needed for nomination for April 22

I just finished Maxwell House Haggadah for the April 22 Passover prep set. Would someone be able to review it quickly? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Done! White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

Should stub-class articles be posted as DYKs? Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that they should not. That being said usually, stubs are shorter than the 1,500 character limit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In my experience the article assessment process is missing critical steps in its procedures (e.g. a reviewer should at least skim through an article's text before making an assessment, a step that is not possible given that most assessments are performed by reviewers working at a rate of 5 to 7 articles/minute), and is often not worth the electrons used to display the results. That being said, it is a safe assumption that any article which satisfies DYKs criteria for minimum size, proper referencing, and depth of coverage is not a stub-class article. If you find an article that is miscategorized as a stub, feel free to correct the incorrect assessment. --Allen3 talk 21:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, too often I have had expanded noms held up on the technicality that the project tags hadn't been updated from when it was a stub. Which quite frankly is a minor inconsequential thing that doesn't affect anything to do with DYK given the article has clearly moved on from the one-or-two-sentence stub phase. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, the assessment of "stub" for Documents for Contingencies (Other than a Plan D Situation) Which Justify Application of Emergency Measures on a National Scale is correct. Not worth pulling this late on, but needs to be avoided in the future. Maybe the instructions need to be made clearer. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Can a DYK nomination promoted without a consensus on the hook?

During the DYK nomination of an article about a London restaurant, I suggested that the proposed hook can easily be regarded as an advertisement for the restaurant ([29]). Philafrenzy, who was not the nominator, stated that the article cannot be described as an advertisemenet ([30]). After I suggested that another reviewer should decide ([31]), Philafrenzy promoted the hook ([32]). Since I thought that my concern had not been addressed, I sought community assistance ([33]) on two community portals ([34], [35]). Ibadibam (a new user who had not been involved in the debate) stated that the hook "is just someone's personal opinion, not factual information, which is the scope of DYK". Philafrenzy approved again the original hook ([36]) and Cwmhiraeth promoted it. On my approach, Cwmhiraeth answered that he/she promoted the hook because it "had been twice approved by a respected editor" ([37]). Based on the above description, I would like to know if a hook can be promoted without a consensus, especially if the period for comments was not closed on community portals. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

that Yi Qiu was the first recorded weiqi player?"

Firstly, the article is not quite so definitive, in that it says "described as one of the best in his era and reportedly "the first recorded weiqi player", but worse, it lacks the inline citation that is demanded by the rules, despite being promoted and then sanctioned by a promoting admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: What are you talking about? The hook is supported by two inline book citations which have been checked by at least three users besides the author. They can be also easily verified online, such as here and here. -Zanhe (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now, but the hook is still wrong. But thanks for your tone, very much not appreciated but noted, nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh and I see your pathetic indignation comes after a series of edits to the article in question, well done you for keeping that quiet! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The two inline refs were already there before my most recent edits, see this version after your minor edit. You made a false accusation against people quietly doing the hard work, then call the resultant indignation "pathetic" and refuse to acknowledge your error. Now that's what I call pathetic. -Zanhe (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
No, you sneakily removed the unreferenced quotation, and then went into indignation mode. Nicely done, noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
What "unreferenced quotation"? Show a diff that proves my "sneakiness", otherwise that's pure WP:Personal Attack (and do you think I'm naive enough to be unaware of a thing called edit history?). As an admin, you should be well aware of that. -Zanhe (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's get back to basics to help you understand. The version I reviewed was this one with an "unreferenced quote" (yes, that) namely ... reportedly "the first recorded weiqi player", having ... which drew attention to the hook which simply stated that Yi Qiu was the first recorded Go player, not that he was reportedly the first. Then, onto some edits, mainly this one which took place about three minutes after your indignant repost above where the quotation mysteriously disappeared into plain prose. That is all. If you are so shirty that I dare question the hook, the suitability of the quality of the article etc, including those who overlooked a major issue such as an unreferenced direct quotation, then that's simply your problem. Now, time for both of us to continue in our own ways, mine will be to improve Wikipedia. 晚安. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your so-called "direct quotation" is not a quotation at all, but a paraphrase of what the sources say, only mistakenly placed in quotation marks by the author Kingoflettuce. The direct quotation is (and was) cited in the footnotes: "Yi Qiu was the first named go player in literature, being mentioned by Mencius in the 4th century." I removed the quotation marks when I was promoting the hook and saw it was not a quotation, hours before you posted here. There's nothing sneaky about it. Also note that the sources do not use the word "reportedly", and neither does the body of the article, which is why I removed it from the lead. -Zanhe (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Direct quotations are shown in quotation marks, much like this was. Your edit took place at "Revision as of 17:21, April 17, 2016" while my comment was made at "Revision as of 12:55, April 17, 2016". Unless you have a time machine, you're making this stuff up. Please stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Aren't you capable of reading a simple diff? Again, I removed the quotation marks in the article body with this edit at 04:05, 17 April 2016, almost 9 hours before your first comment at 12:55. After seeing your comment and rereading the article, I saw there was another quotation and the unneeded word "reportedly" in the lead that I had missed, which I then removed. You obviously did not read the short article beyond its lead, and jumped to the wrong conclusion that the hook lacks an inline citation. Then you assumed bad faith and launched your smear campaign ("pathetic indignation", "sneaky", "making stuff up" - all your words). You're really pushing my patience to limits. One more personal attack and I'll see you at ANI, to which you're no stranger. I really don't know how someone like you get to keep your admin privileges. -Zanhe (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, so it was your mistake to leave a direct quotation in the lead unreferenced before promoting it, which you then amended shortly before your blowout here. I understand, no need to apologise. Hopefully we can all learn from this experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK. SSTflyer 05:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, I don't need to apologize for a stray quotation mark that I didn't add to an article I didn't write? How generous of you! And my blowout? Then who's the one who made a false claim, and then hurled one insult after another: "pathetic", "sneaky", "making stuff up"? I've surely learned from this experience, especially that someone with a lengthy block log and an even lengthier ANI record can manage to keep their admin privileges and go around insulting hard-working editors with impunity. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, take the advice of SSTflyer, time to move off the horse. I'll keep checking the queues to make sure these errors don't make it to the main page. You keep doing whatever it is you do, besides making threats. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I am telling you to drop the stick, TRM. SSTflyer 07:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I am telling you to drop the stick, SST. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Being the humble creator of the article in question, I would like to sincerely apologise for my Wikiineptitude, having introduced the redundant "reportedly", without which this small conflict would not have transpired. But I don't see it as a real issue, unless you want to be pedantic. Rarely does a source say "so and so was reportedly". Hence if "reportedly" is noted in the article, it is an assessment by the editor, and not something explicitly mentioned in the source, in most cases. I saw the need to add 'reportedly' because there is only one true source backing this story up, that is the ancient Mencius text. Ala Yi Qiu was reportedly (up till here my assessment) "the first recorded weiqi player" (direct from source). To me it was the same as saying YQ was, according to Mencius, blah. I hope this clarifies my use of the word. This is elaborated in the body, to be fair. Again, I humbly apologise, let us move on since this has already been fixed and featured. Stop being a snarky arse and act more in good faith, to one, and to the other, stay awesome and continue doing legitimate, good work :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: There's no need to apologize. We don't normally use "reportedly" in a 2,300-year-old story, but adding it was really no big deal either. Writing thoroughly referenced articles is hard work, and making minor mistakes is inevitable, but in most cases they can be easily fixed without drama. It only becomes a problem when they are used as a weapon to attack good-faith editors, which is unfortunately what happened here. -Zanhe (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. Now you have both learnt about the obligation to reference direct quotations, hopefully we won't have to deal with your errors again. Now back to your regular programs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, it's always other people's fault, never yours. You've already been told twice to drop the stick, yet you simply cannot stop taunting and sneering. Read WP:ADMINCOND, and I hope you can learn to "behave in a respectful, civil manner in your interactions with others." -Zanhe (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in this instance it was other people's numerous errors that I picked up just before the item went onto the main page. You should be thanking me. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I should be thanking you for all the good work you've done (which is plenty), and I should also be thanking you for showing us what a bully you can be. Last year an editor I barely knew came to my talk page seeking help to stop your harassment, back then I gave you the benefit of the doubt and advised him to move on (and you even chased him to my talk page). Now that I have firsthand experience of your personal attacks, next time my reaction will be different. I know you may feel invincible after surviving numerous ANI complaints relatively unscathed, but my final piece of advice to you is that if you don't change your bad behaviour, your luck will run out one day. Now back to your regular programs. -Zanhe (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with luck. I couldn't care less about the opinion of those who have no respect for the encyclopedia, and those who make lame and half-hearted attempts to excuse themselves for their own errors should be corrected. You are lucky that this is where it ends for you. It could have been a lot worse. I hope you take some advice and stop making such egregious errors in future, I look forward to seeing you communicate better and improving things around here. I have no time for these ANI threats, I have not misused any tools, moreover I have acted to make sure the integrity of the encyclopedia, and this little jokey part of it, remain intact. I also couldn't care less what your "reaction" will be "next time". That's entirely irrelevant. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a fan club, not a chat group, not a Facebook alternative. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 – Four Seasons Mall

The seventh hook in queue 6, regarding Four Seasons Mall, should have a comma after Minnesota, per MOS:COMMA. SJ Morg (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done – thanks to User:PFHLai. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Corrected hook on Main Page, the USA is not the whole world...

Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto III @Rhain, AdrianGamer, Yoninah, and Worm That Turned:

This is only sourced for the US, and e.g. in Japan this isn't true. Whether it was true worldwide is not clear, and certainly for 2002 it is dubious that it sold more than e.g. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, while for 2001 The Sims has been claimed to be the best-selling game as well[38] (the source used for the GTA claim doesn't seem to include PC games). Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec also is a contender for the 2001 title. Mind you, it may be that the hook claims were correct after all (no list aiming to give worldwide sales per year seems to exist), but it wasn't supported and shouldn't have been posted like this. Fram (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: You're totally right. I apologise for letting that mistake slip through, and thank you for correcting it. In response though: the article claiming that The Sims was the best-selling game of 2001 is tricky, since it's only a passing mention and doesn't refer to a reliable sales tracker; Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire wouldn't fit the "in the USA" bit, since it wasn't released outside Japan until 2003; and Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec is actually referred to on the official NPD press release as the fifth-best selling of 2002. Specific video game sales numbers have always been difficult, and this is clearly no exception. – Rhain ☔ 14:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem. I stated that I have no evidence that any of this sold more than these two worldwide, but at least they also had massive sales in at least one of these years. The Pokemon was released in Europe for the last few months of 2002 and sold a lot there, no? In any case, I'm not disputing that the hook was correct for the USA, we have a reliable source for it (though it doesn't include PC games which get a separate NPD list). Fram (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the article, Ruby and Sapphire was released in Japan at the end of 2002, but nowhere else until 2003. It's just a shame that the video game doesn't have an equivalent to Box Office Mojo, specifically for issues such as this, but I suppose the NPD Group is the closest counterpart. C'est la vie. – Rhain ☔ 14:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see where I went wrong for Pokemon: in the reception section, the article states "The games enjoyed success in Europe as well. They were the second best-selling games of the holiday season in 2002", but the source given is about 2003. That typo set me on the wrong track. Fram (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I also sincerely apologized for the error I approved. NPD Group only tracks retail game sales, so it may be a good idea to further modify the current hook. (though digital sales is not really important at that time) I haven't thought about this point when I was approving the hook. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that "USA" should not be used to mean "United States" in hooks or elsewhere on Wikipedia (per MOS:NOTUSA). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer requested so that hook can be added to Prep 4 (Passover hooks)

I am hoping that someone can help do a quick review of Template:Did you know nominations/Ha Lachma Anya so that it can be added to this prep set in time for Passover. Many thanks to Yoninah and everyone else who has worked hard to make this Passover set a reality! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: I reviewed the new hook. Please check the nomination page. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Ha Lachma Anya is now ready for promotion to Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_122&oldid=1136423671"