Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:05, 21 December 2016

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status

There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 08:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 8 hours ago(

)

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

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

background discussion from WT Village Pump (technical)

This problem has existed for a few months on Template talk:Did you know. Once you get down to the newest subsection dates, the templates don't transclude very well. We were told back in September that the problem was that page is exceeding Template limits Post expand include size. At that time, we had a large special occasion holding area for various special events. The holding area has very little in it now, and the number of nominations we have are otherwise a lot less. The problem is worse than ever. Regardless of what is causing this, can it be fixed? As the internet expands, so does the size of everything programmed into it, and DYK won't be the only ones this happens to. How do we fix it for the future? — Maile (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning Template limits would be a decision that would need to be taken at WMF level, and they're vanishingly unlikely to authorise it since it's not a bug, it's an intentional feature to prevent DDOS attacks. The way around it is to use fewer transclusions; remember that each DYK nomination includes {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK nompage links}}, {{main page image}}, {{DYKsubpage}} and {{DYKmake}} plus whatever else the reviewing bot adds, so each transcluded nomination counts as six or more transcluded templates. ‑ Iridescent 22:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard fix for template size problems is to substitute templates and to remove any nested transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how would DYK go about that? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick skim, the {{DYK conditions}} template doesn't appear to have any great use and has three nested templates of its own, so getting rid of that would save four templates-per-nomination immediately (with the current 53 nominations, that's an instant saving of over 200 templates, which will probably solve the problem on its own). Basically, go through the five templates I list above, and anything that's not actually both essential to your process, and essential that it remains unsubstituted, think about whether it would be possible to do without it or enforce substitution of it. You could also probably shave quite a bit off by ruthlessly enforcing a "no untranscluded templates in discussions" rule, and clamping down on anyone who uses {{od}}, {{tq}}, {{done}} etc in discussions. ‑ Iridescent 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither {{DYKmake}} nor {{DYKnom}} should be of concern, since they're commented out. I imagine that increased use of the {{DYK checklist}} for reviews is also contributing to the problem. Does the use of the {{*}} template contribute to the problem or not? It's currently being used by the DYKReviewBot. One template that we absolutely need to retain is the {{DYKsubpage}} template, since it is the final substitution of that template that closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every time this happens I hope it will finally be the motivating factor to do the seemingly obvious and move the reviewed/approved nominations to a different page. DYK that nobody can read that thing on a phone? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the answer is yes, templates that are actually transcluded all count, so if there's a bunch of templated bullets then that's definitely contributing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then calling Intelligentsium, to see whether the templated bullets can come out of the reviews done by the DYKReviewBot, and any other avoidable templates. Also pinging John Cline, who created {{DYK conditions}}, to see whether there is some way to get the job done more efficiently templatewise, assuming that the job still needs to be done. I have no idea whether the 2015 conversion of {{NewDYKnomination}} to invoke a Module with the same name rather than do the work in a template would have affected the need for DYK conditions or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BlueMoonset for your kindness and astute manner; inviting me to join this discussion. I was not aware of it until now, nor did I know anything of the circumstances forbearing it. I am therefore disadvantaged from giving an answer; ore the research I've yet to do.

When I catch up with the topic, however, I am confident that the answers being sought will be found.

If I wasn't so Spock-like, I can imagine myself getting all butt-hurt about not being notified of questions being asked of these templates, perhaps others as well. I was told in the past, things about my style in writing; and before that, of many ill effects that style was cursed to engender. Here, it seems that enduring months of template malfeasance was preferable to enduring discussion where I would invariably be. Being all Spock-like; and all: I feel terrible that this may in fact be. I really do.--John Cline (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments

Yep, sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bot will now used the substed the template {{*}} - it's weird that the page exceeds the transclusion limit so easily though. The previous time involved {{hat}}, {{hab}} which were being used more than once per nomination, and had several transclusions underneath as well, whereas {{*}} seems to be just a Unicode character. However I think it may be a bit of a hassle to move hooks between two pages - if you move them the moment they are seen by a human, you would probably quickly get the same problem on the second page, but moving them back and forth would be a huge hassle. Intelligentsium 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have worked hard on the bot, but we didn't have this problem before it was activated. If the problems with it can't be ironed out soon, I think we are just going to have to retire it. That would surely be a better solution than having two separate nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's more trouble, but I think having a place where approved noms are gathered, for further intense scrutiny by the "eagle eyes", will extremely helpful, as well as solving the overflow problem. E Eng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bot had been down for a few weeks, and this problem continued even in its absence. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and... can we add the provision that nom page stays open until the bot closes it (maybe at the moment the hook moves to the main page, or -- better -- at the moment the hook comes off the main page)? E Eng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And have any dialogue on pulled hooks happen there, so that any nominator, reviewer, or other participant on that nomination would be aware of it as long as they watch-listed the open template. I don't know the mechanics of having a bot close the nomination, but it's worth asking Shubinator if that's possible to do in conjunction with whatever else DYKupdatebot does. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'd also like to add a further suggestion that adding the green tick (which is presumably what will trigger the bot moving the nom page to this new "approved area") should always be accompanied by a tentative designation of exactly one of the (possibly several) ALTs as the one to used. Further discussion in the "approved area" might change that, but this way once the nom moves to the "approved area" there's just a single ALT that the "eagle eyes" (our precious editors who focus on quality control) will have to focus on checking. E Eng 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If closing a nomination just involves subst'ing the DYKsubpage template and marking it as passed (with humans responsible for moving the noms between the various pages, except for queue -> main page), DYKUpdateBot can do this while promoting the set (not while taking it down). As BlueMoonset noted, the bot will not know about comments that should go into the "2" field. With this model, how will folks know which admin promoted the nomination into the queue? Shubinator (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The promoter simply posts on the bottom of the nom page e.g. ALT1 to Prep4 (without image). ~~~~. The bot closes the nom as it swaps the hook set onto Main Page (i.e. at the same time the credit boxes are posted to creator/nominator talk pages) and the 2= could be Swapped onto Main Page 0800 22 Jan 2017 UTC. This way, all concerns prior to the actual main-page appearance can be discussed on the still-open nom page, where it belongs; concerns arising after that time have to go through ERRORS as now.

I think it would be ideal if, while we're at it, we changed the bot actions of posting credits to editor Talk, and closing the nom pages, to the moment the hook set is swapped off of the main page. Then the nom page really stays open for the entire life of the hook, "cradle to grave". But I recognize this might be more complex to do. E Eng 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mark me as opposing the further suggestion: the reviewer should feel free to check and approve as many interesting hooks as seem appropriate and are properly support in both article and sources, but not all reviewers are the best judges of which is the best, and sometimes the person assembling a prep set will pick one good hook over another good hook because it better balances the prep set. To limit it to exactly one hook of the reviewer's choice also reverses the deference we've given to the nominator regarding proposed hooks.

As for the promoter, may I suggest that the promoter be required to fill in the 2 field with their promotion message? The bot's closing of the page will cause the time of closure to be added to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer can approve as many ALTs as he or she wants, but (my suggestion is) that just one of them will be designated, tentatively, as the one that will appear. Further discussion might change that, selecting a different ALT, but starting at this point there would be only one ALT on the table at a given time for a given nom, so that attention can focus on it for error-checking and so on. To increase quality and reduce errors appearing on Main Page, it's essential that the checking process begin further upstream than it does currently i.e. currently this doesn't start until Prep, and now it can start when the nom is moved to this new "approved area". But it needs to focus on one potential hook at a time; if multiple hooks are in play, the checking just can't be thorough. I don't buy that this constrains prep set assembly enough to outweigh the advantages, and again I say that the designation of a single hook is only tentative, subject to change. E Eng 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It will make it so much easier to scroll through the set of approved hooks when building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is an excellent suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds fine LavaBaron (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since I have no major objections. I do have a couple of doubts though. First, my understanding of the technicalities is not great, but if this problem is arising from people using too many templates without substituting them, it would seem that this is relatively a small fix: and that unregulated use of templates in the review process is going to create a problem again sooner or later. So, wouldn't it make sense to create some guidelines for folks editing the nomination pages, to help with this? Second, I find that very many of the hooks that need reviewing at any given time, and indeed the ones requiring the most attention, are not "fresh" nominations, but those that have been reviewed already, but require a new reviewer for whatever reason. @Maile66: where would these fit in your scheme? Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 Regarding the guidelines, it does begin to be instruction creep. We cannot control what editors really do, no matter how many guidelines we write. As we experience on this talk page, a lot of editors aren't reading the guidelines anyway. So, we can spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and complaining on the talk page about those who do what they want, but we cannot control others. As to your second question, perhaps I wasn't clear. The minute a nomination receives a passing tic, it gets moved to the new page. There it stays, and any further issues or comments happen on that page. That means turn-around ticks on review questions, pulled hooks that were already promoted. Anything. EEng has suggested we keep the template open until when/if the nomination is off the Main page. Keeping it on that page does not close out the nomination, but leaves it there in a way that anyone with a given nom template on their watch-list will be aware it needs attention. New (first time) reviewers will have an easier time with unreviewed templates than figuring out why an already approved nom is in the midst of revision for one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mail66 and Gatoclass: I think you're right about the guideline creep, but I didn't necessarily mean another page or another bullet point in the current set. What I mean is that we can do minor things that should still add up to something substantive. For instance, some folks mentioned templates (DYK checklist) that are only used at DYK: we can add a note to the documentation saying that they must be substituted, and also possibly have a bot substitute them every time. We can add to the DYK template edit notice, asking people to minimize their use of templates. And so forth. I imagine that other folks can think of other options. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per Vanamonde, I think what we need to be doing is working out why this problem is occurring, and take steps to eliminate or minimize it, because it never used to occur even with 350 nominations and now it's occurring with just 150. If the number of nominations builds up again, the problem will recur. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Keeping the nom open up until (and even through) the main page appearance seems reasonable to me, so long as the technical template issues can be addressed. I think it is fine and appropriate for a reviewer to choose a hook, but also to leave the choice open to the promoter, but I would like to see some reasoning posted. I've had a few cases where I've wondered why a hook was chosen (or not chosen), which I find frustrating and yet asking the promoter every time could get awfully intrusive given the relatively small group of set builders. Having another approved hook available is also useful in cases where an issue arises, because sometimes swapping hooks rather than pulling might be reasonable and appropriate. I would also like to see an explicit requirement that all ALTs be reviewed because I've had at least one case of offering several and only the first being reviewed / promoted on the presumption it was my preference (an incorrect assumption on that occasion, but understandable and arising from poor communication on my part). EdChem (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you make a valid point about the ALTs being reviewed. I've noticed the same thing. If all hooks are not reviewed, then the review isn't complete. It does a disservice to both the nominator and the promoter. Also, I have no problem with the promoter leaving a small note on the template about why a given hook among several available was promoted. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Maile66, with my Timothy N. Philpot nomination, only the ALT0 has been reviewed and it was my fall-back option if all the others (which I think are more interesting) are rejected on undue negativity grounds. So, I posted here at WT:DYK requesting input, but the thread attracted no responses. I'm not sure what to do because the rules technically require all ALTs to be reviewed but making an issue of my case will focus on the reviewer, who is behaving as others do and does a lot of DYK work. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea. There are currently several structural problems and the proposal looks like a sensible way forward. If there isn't one already, it would be good to have a page to document the process flow so that it's clear how a nomination progresses from page to page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just converted Template:DYK checklist to use Module:DYK checklist, which makes each checklist take up about half the post-expand include size that it did before. This has resulted in 12 more nominations being visible at the bottom of Template talk:Did you know, but we are still quite a bit over the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it worrying that there isn't one bit about why this is happening - I don't mean technically, I mean temporally. The number of new articles continues to decline, there appears to be no (major?) change in the number of noms being posted per day, and I don't see anything about the technical limit being changed. This is the only time I've noticed it - it seems to have happened before but I assume for a short period? So why now, in 2016? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maury Markowitz: I think the cause of this might be the bot, which adds a bunch to text to every nomination. Ppp ery 20:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Ahh, so it's based on the total text, not the number of transclusions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Yep. (It's actually more complicated than that, but) Ppp ery 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Summary and implementation?

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

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

"Just..." E Eng 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's not let the flame flicker and die. E Eng 04:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All hail Wugapodes!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me suggest the following:

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

Other points:

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

E Eng 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

E Eng 06:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wugapodes promoted this to prep 3 ~~~~

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

Pulled from Queue4: A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons

... that He was a pigeon?

Template:Did you know nominations/A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons @Kingoflettuce, David Eppstein, and Cwmhiraeth:

Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the hook "C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." Fram (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be pulled, and I would cite Template:Did you know nominations/The customer is not a moron as precedent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I suspect the articles confuses varieties with species. E Eng 15:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I proposed for it to be saved for April 1. The reviewer took note of that too. Tx. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honoring the nominator's original request, I have moved the template to April Fool's Main Page - Awaiting verification. There is plenty of time to work out the hook now. — Maile (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See Cut Sleeve's DYK: ... that He was gay? Certainly would do the trick for April 1; no need for tinkering, just waiting. Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also addresses Fram's concern, in my opinion, because the character in the story named "He" becomes a pigeon, so the hook is stating a fact about the plot – just like with the Cut Sleeve DYK, where a character named "He" was gay. The consequent problem, though, is that at least the "He becomes a pigeon" aspect of the plot needs to be supported with a citation to a reliable source. This should be a solvable problem, but it does need to be done, IMO. EdChem (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basic uncontroversial plot/story points can be reliably sourced to the work itself as a primary source is reliable for information on itself. This is the same for books, films, tv series etc. Interpretation/abstract concepts need a secondary source to comment on them. 'Becomes a pigeon' (assuming he does indeed become a pigeon) would not. -edit- although from reading the article, the story itself infers that he was always a pigeon in human disguise, so 'transforms into a pigeon' as the article words it would be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"was a pigeon" (as originally proposed) in itself is accurate enuf but that can be sorted out in due time. Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't run it on Christmas Day. Could cause confusion. E Eng 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that the only known French limerick is:

"Il y avait un jeune homme de Dijon

Qui n’aimait du tout la religon.

Il dit: “Eh ma foi;

Je deteste tous les trois,

Le Pere, et le Fils, et le Pigeon"? source Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical DYK work there. "The only Limerick I know in French" gets changed to "the only known French limerick" and hey presto, Wikipedia remains a proud member of the posttruth movement! Fram (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Fram OR - let's have another one then! To save you looking, there are none at Limerick (poeme), where all examples are in English. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Let's see, your OR is incorrect, my OR is correct, I can live with that. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are there very few Limericks in French, I understand there are very few French in Limerick. E Eng 04:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Une dame au bord du Nil S'amuse avec un crocodile, Lui lance des pierres Avec un lance-pierre Et l'animal croque... Odile. [1]

C'était une dame de fer Qui brûlait au fond de l'enfer On fit sur ses cuisses Griller des saucisses Pour le diner de Lucifer[2]

Native de Vic-en-Badoit A la fête comme il se doit S'en va la gentille Charlotte Sous sa robe point de culotte Qui te l'a dit? Mon petit doigt[3]

And please do your "research" a little bit better, there is a French language example listed at [4]. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth and the role of the promotor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose finding that promoter in question "doesn't follow the requirements coupled [sic] with that role" LavaBaron (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but there's no doubt that probably because she's the only one doing it, the pressure is becoming too much and mistakes, many of them, are being made all too often. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I recognise that Fram has some utility to the project".

Facepalm Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new issue

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

The error was introduced by User:Yoninah, not by Cwmhiraeth.[5] Fram (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Sogdia

PericlesofAthens nominated Sogdia for DYK back in late August, but it was rejected for insufficient expansion in September. The article was then promoted to GA in October, but the nominator did not renominate the article for whatever reason. This is a great article about an ancient civilization (thanks Pericles!), and I really think it deserves to be read by more people. Can we reopen this nomination? -Zanhe (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe: Well, you can do that if you want, bro. However, I generally do not resubmit DYK's that were failures, even if it has passed as a Good Article by now. Generally speaking, I don't like wasting my time on things if nothing comes of it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe, the time to renominate it was in October, when it did qualify as a new GA. Indeed, I see that I suggested that in the original nomination itself: submit again should it become a GA. Since it's December, I'm afraid it's too late to submit it anew. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I wasn't around in October and never saw the GA passing. However, it does not have to be submitted anew; the original nomination can be reopened and is not technically late. I just feel this is the type of article we should feature more on DYK. -Zanhe (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the original nomination cannot be reopened after three months. It would need to be a new nomination. And, as I noted, that one would also not be eligible, as it is actually (and technically) too late. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not technically late? MPJ-DK 00:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was nominated too early, not too late. Anyways, I'm just hoping we could apply WP:IAR for a worthy article like this. I'm not personally involved in the article (although it's a subject I'm quite familiar with and interested in), just something I stumbled upon. -Zanhe (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep builders needed

Many of the older DYK nominations that have been reviewed and approved were reviewed by me, and some of them have been waiting weeks for promotion. Promoters are discouraged from moving to prep any nominations they have themselves made or approved. Since, at the moment, I have been doing most of the prep-set building, I am not allowed to promote these hooks, and they need to be moved to prep by some other editor. This one for example has been waiting since the 2nd November. There are currently two slots in Prep 4 which a "novice" promoter could fill, as well as some completely empty prep sets. There is no obligation to fill a whole set and instructions for promoters are given above each prep set on the Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q page. Good luck! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the editors who responded to this request. The present Prep 3 will be live on Christmas Eve and the present Prep 4 on Christmas Day, so we need to accommodate the hooks in the special holding area in these sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hooks in Prep 4 (corresponding to Christmas Day) have to be moved to a later prep set when one becomes available. Yoninah (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/Warren Allmand says that this article appeared on ITN. Can it still qualify for DYK, after a 5x expansion? Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on if it was the bold link: Eligibility criteria 1.e - Articles that have featured (bold link) ... 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.) — Maile (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was not bold, and in the recent death section: 2016 December 13. Should be OK. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It was in RD (added 11 Dec, removed 14 Dec, my time zone), so it is still eligible under criterion 1e, quoted above by Maile. EdChem (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

Two classical music hooks in a row here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was me trying to accommodate an Advent request that had been overlooked. I will swap hooks round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

"that in 1967, President Hastings Banda established the Order of the Lion, Malawi's second-highest honor?"

I can see that it's called the second-highest honor in the lead but this appears to be unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in footnote 1. I added the fact to that citation. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

". that in 2010, footballer Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team, the Rangers?"

Ok, this is another case where not being commensurate with the language has introduced an error upon promotion. Firstly, I've adjust it to "the association footballer" since we get so many complaints that many people don't understand that in this context "football" means "soccer". Secondly, it's never "the Rangers". Never. So I've excised the "the". Finally, it's disingenuous because the match was only a friendly, ... In a pre-season testimonial game ... so it wasn't actually that significant. Would propose, on top of my corrections, that the concept of a friendly is introduced to the hook so as not to deliberately confuse our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not to add the "friendly" was discussed at length in the DYK review, and it was decided to shorten the hook to increase its hookiness. Pinging @EdChem: to join this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Yoninah, and thanks to the editors (most likely, Cwmhiraeth) who have filled several queues and so we have time to consider concerns which are raised.
The Rambling Man, I was not aware that there is a convention on the definite article "the," and I accept that what you say is true, but I also am uncomfortable with "Rangers" on its own. Fortunately, it is easy enough to write around. I also don't think "the" is needed before "association footballer Neil Alexander." I can see the concern about needing "association" as a modifier of footballer for clarity, so that change is fine with me.
On the question of being disingenuous, I doubt that is anyone's intention here, but we equally don't want to be unintentionally disingenuous. I don't think the hook implies what sort of match was involved, though readers familiar with soccer will likely suspect a friendly given the event described. I have requested input from the Association Football WikiProject here, and suggest (based on the above) several alternatives – some links could be included or not:

(ALT1a): ... that Rangers player Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team in a 2010 association football friendly?
(ALT1b): ... that Rangers player Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team in a 2010 friendly match?
(ALT1c): ... that Rangers player Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team in a 2010 association football match?
(ALT1d): ... that Rangers player Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team in a 2010 match?
(ALT1e): ... that Rangers player Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team in a 2010 friendly?

Pings: Kosack, as the nominator, do you have any thoughts / comments? IndianBio, as the approver of the nomination, do you have thoughts / comments?
My preference is ALT1d or ALT1e, but I think that any of these would be acceptable. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well "the" (i.e. definite article" is included before "player" etc in BritEng typically. And one reason I've pointed out that the hook is slightly misleading is that players often go out on loan to other clubs, they usually (if ever) don't play against their parent club and if this hook had been an example of a goalkeeper actually playing against his parent club in a competitive match, that really would have been one of the most interesting hooks I've seen. As it was, it was a friendly so anything goes in those cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my DYK hooks in the past, it's normally been accepted to use footballer as the description but link the word to association football. If the need is for the hook to include association football and mention the friendly, I believe The Rambling Man's current version in the prep area as the most suitable. Kosack (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

As I am not conversant with Christian tradition, I would like to know if the Saint George and the Dragon image and hook need to be in Prep 4, which is scheduled for Christmas Day (December 25). We have a nice image for Jesus in the manger that would also go well here. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St George and the dragon are not connected with Christmas and could be moved to another set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. @Cwmhiraeth: could you promote The Babe in Bethlem's Manger, as I reviewed it? Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that hook "... that "The Babe in Bethlem's Manger" (Nativity of Jesus pictured) is thought to be a traditional Kentish folk carol but its tune is described as being "very much of the 18th century"?" why couldn't it be both a Kentish folk carol and an "18th century" tune? What makes these mutually exclusive? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved hook "... that "The Babe in Bethlem's Manger" (Nativity of Jesus pictured) is described as a traditional Kentish folk carol, despite claims it was from the 18th century?"

My version "... that "The Babe in Bethlem's Manger" (Nativity of Jesus pictured) is thought to be a traditional Kentish folk carol but its tune is described as being "very much of the 18th century"?"

@The Rambling Man and The C of E: I changed the hook to the present version, as it better follows the source which is talking about the tune as being 18th century while the lyrics are traditional. If you can suggest better wording, please do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a suggestion, I'm just saying that to a non-expert reader, I don't understand why it couldn't be a "traditoinal Kentish folk carol" and "18th century". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think either would do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we're assuming that no traditional Kentish carols came from the 18th century? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rule C6 is not a rule

Once again I see that "rule" C6 is being invoked, in spite of never being a "real rule". I remind everyone that C6 was inserted, apparently in bad faith, with no discussion and considerable negative backlash. I also point out that it is a complete unnecessary rule, as @Fram:'s example shows - the hook in question was terrible and any number of other, real, rules already cover that example. And all the others. And yet this illegal rule is still "on the books". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to enlighten us on which hook you're referring to? And I suspect that many here will tell you that if you don't like the way things work, you need to something about it. E.g. start a discussion to have C6 removed if you feel so strongly about it. Do you have a diff for the "bad faith insertion"? I would say that calling it an "illegal rule" is somewhat hyperbolic.... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not created in the normal way, it has been part of DYK for six years, and was treated as a real rule up until the point that Maury Markowitz ran afoul of it. I point everyone to the discussion he initiated earlier this fall, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive 132#C6 appears to have never actually been a rule, yet it continues to be applied. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about the "He was a pigeon" hook further up the page. But I'm not certain. And, in that case, I've already noted that C6 is not a barrier given that "He" is a character in the book and does become a pigeon, so if there is a suitable citation in the article, then that hook would summarise a plot point and thus have the required real-world connection. Running on April 1 has also been proposed. EdChem (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A suitable citation to anything but the plot, you mean? Even then, Wikipedia is supposed to be written from an out-of-universe perspective, not an in-universe perspective, and I see no reason why DYK hooks should be an exception (excepting April 1, which too often is an unfunny adolescent disruption festival around Wikipedia but which so far seems to have enough support to remain). Fram (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt

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

@Gerda Arendt: After promoting it, I made two changes to this hook in a single edit which Gerda afterwards reversed. One was changing the word "of" to "for" because this carol seems to have been written as a lullaby and is not about Jesus and Mary as such. The other change, which is the one Gerda objected to I guess, was to remove the last three words and their reference to "peace". I do not believe the lyrics mention peace; the word they use is "Ewigkeit" which seems to mean "Eternity". Perhaps our German speakers can check this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
German speakers like Gerda you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Google Translate rendered the last verse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is amazing how Fram and TRM can turn on me for doing as I thought proper, checking on a hook I was promoting and then bringing up the wording of the hook in this forum for discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "turn on" anyone, I was amazed and disgusted that you would prefer to use Google Translate over a native German speaker. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second break

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

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

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

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

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

Further comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am reopening this thread to give @Fram: a chance to respond to Kevmin. TRM has already responded (hidden above) and need feel no obligation to respond on Fram's behalf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind, selective hiding, that's always helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuck off, Cwmhiraeth. Fram (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With peace and joy

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

Nominations for 15-19 December not displaying correctly

The nomination templates for nominations posted from 15 December aren't displaying correctly on WP:DYKN at the moment. I suspect that something has gone wrong in Template:Did you know nominations/Shuixian Zunwang, but can't see what it is. Could a more DYK-savvy person please look into this? Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D Please see this thread. The short of it, is that we outgrew Template limits. Too much on the page. As we move approved nominations to the prep pages, the bottom ones start to appear fully. There was a consensus above to move all approved nominations to their own separate page, but nobody with a plan of how to implement and maintain the solution. And there are some who feel that would add more complications than it would solve. So...it's just visual...wait a few days, and the date you're looking at now will appear fully. — Maile (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we could clear Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware, today on its 3 month anniversary & the oldest and perhaps longest nom on the page, which only needs a minor re-review, that would allow space for most of them, I'd think. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Maile. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

Appears to have two Polynesia hooks right now. Surely these could be separated...? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the hooks for Shafiqa Habibi (8 December) and Licancabur Lake (19 December)

... that journalist Shafiqa Habibi was one of only three women candidates in the 2004 Afghan presidential election?

... that the environment of Licancabur Lake (pictured) on Earth has been compared to early lakes on Mars?

So the powers that be at DYK did not deem it necessary to state that Shafiqa Habibi was actually a candidate for vice-president but you deem it necessary to clarify that Licancabur Lake is indeed located on Earth? --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I've already pointed out that "on Earth" is entirely pointless, but my comment was deemed unworthy of consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both; I've changed it to "in Chile" instead, hope that's better! Fram (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was, indeed, my suggestion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6 - Warionia

There's a more interesting aspect to the perfume, according to the source (and now the article), the women who use this perfume from this plant "believe that the supernatural powers attributed to the plant make them more seductive". That should be worked into the hook which currently is rather bland. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging nominator @Cwmhiraeth:. The quote could be paraphrased as making them more "sexually alluring". Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like ALT0, with its suggestion that a pungent odour is alluring, but we could change it to ALT1 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 ... that the desert plant Warionia saharae has a pungent smell and is used by local women as a perfume?
- Changed in prep to: ... that the desert plant Warionia saharae, which has a pungent smell when handled, is used by local women as a perfume?
ALT1 ... that a perfume made from the desert plant Warionia saharae is used by local women who believe it makes them more alluring?

I liked ALT0 a lot, too. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's missing the point, all women think that perfume makes them more "alluring", but not all of them think it's related to "supernatural powers" from the perfume they're wearing. Seriously! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking sources or the article and just going from this thread, how about:

(ALT2): ... that perfumes made from the pungent Warionia saharae desert plant are reputed to employ its "supernatural powers" to make women more seductive?

I think the juxtaposition of pungent and perfume is worth preserving, but I also think the "supernatural powers" is hooky. Does this alternative seem reasonable, supported, and hooky? EdChem (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 is much more hooky and interesting than the others. In this case its length allows it to be more interesting rather than detracting from it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator of the article, I do not object to any of these hooks, but someone else will need to make the alteration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done ALT2 is verified and cited inline. Changed hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so here's a list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through November 18. Right now the nominations page shows 276, of which 107 have been approved, but that doesn't include the 35 nominations that can't transclude because we have too many transcluded templates to show them all. A few of these have initial review info from the DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ten that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over three months old:

~~September 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware~~

Over two months old:

~~October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Egypt at the 1906 Intercalated Games~~

Over six weeks old:

October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Angola
October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Angola at the Lusophony Games
October 29: Template:Did you know nominations/George S. Zimbel
October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Pat Loika
October 30: Template:Did you know nominations/The J's with Jamie
October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Farmdrop
November 1: Template:Did you know nominations/José López scandal
November 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarai Gonzalez

Other old nominations:

November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Lolita (Leah LaBelle song)
November 16: Template:Did you know nominations/East Zhejiang Maritime Affairs/Folk Custom Museum
November 16: Template:Did you know nominations/FDT (song)
November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Lesser Himalayan Strata
November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Okavango Dyke Swarm
November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Subduction polarity reversal
November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Application of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy in Geology
November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Geological mapping of Venus
November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Detrital zircon geochronology
November 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Deleon
November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Geological history of the Precordillera Terrane
November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Paleostress inversion
November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Huangling Complex
November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Improper Solicitation and Graft Act
November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/3D Fold Evolution
November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Monazite geochronology
November 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Schwesta Ewa
November 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Mitten wir im Leben sind
November 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Allen Fox
November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Benjamin Marconi
~~November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Trans-Universal Zombie Church of the Blissful Ringing~~
November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Molly's Game
November 20: Template:Did you know nominations/List of New Zealand cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut
November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Kjell Eriksson (radioman)
November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Italy
November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/MagicBands
November 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Barada Mukutmoni (three articles)

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) 18:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer feedback to Wugapodes for approved DYK holding page

Summary and implementation being worked on now by Wugapodes. Please give him feed back in the section linked here. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed hook on main page

... that Revolutionary Communist Party candidate Anadi Das defeated the incumbent assembly speaker in the 1962 West Bengal election?

changed to

... that independent candidate Anadi Das defeated the incumbent assembly speaker in the 1962 West Bengal election?

Template:Did you know nominations/Anadi Das @Soman, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Cwmhiraeth:

According to the source, he ran as an independent, not as a candidate for the Revolutionary Communist Party of India.[6] The source quote given at the nomination, "Au Bengale, le camarade Anadi Dns a battu le président de l'Assemblée législative dans la circonscription" also doesn't support (nor contradict) the party claim.

I have not changed the name of the candidate, even though the official source calls him Anadi Dass (with double s) instead of Anadi Das. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly remember the first Google Books link saying that he was a member of the Communist party. But now that page is not displayed anymore. Some other sources (such as http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/SE_1969/StatReport_WB_69.pdf) call him a RCI member but that might have been a different party alignment during a different election. As for Das vs. Dass, different sources use different number of "s"es. My impression is that Indian names often have such alternative spellings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't change the Das(s) because these things tend to vary. It's clear that Das was a Communist, but not so much what his affiliation was at the time of that election (officially independent, in reality ?). Fram (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller parties, like RCPI, often put their candidates as independents. So while it is technically correct to call Das an independent as he ran on an independent ticket, he was put forth in the election on behalf of RCPI and he represented RCPI in the assembly. I would keep the original hook. --Soman (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good source for this? Fram (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source quote is quite clear to indicate that Das is a 'comrade', i.e. a party member. You also have https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=CNeNAAAAMAAJ page 416 which clearly states Das as a RCPI candidate in 1962. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "comrade" can point to any communist party (there were a few in India at the time). I can't access thatGoogle Books link though (I see that he is mentioned at page 416, "10.01. Anadi Das" and so on, but what I can see gives no indication of his party at that election (that line discusses two elections at once in any case). Fram (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case it is a Trotskyist publication, so they wouldn't call anyone from CPI as 'comrade'... And yes, p. 416 clearly lists Das and the 1962 election under RCPI. The party name is given above 10.01, and 10.02, 10.03 etc are other RCPI legislators in the state. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of India (Marxist) doesn't seem to be Trotskyist, FWIW. In any case, I would prefer an independent source, perferably from the period, to contradict the official source. This one looks too much like political recuperation. We can be sure about the hook as it stands now, i'm not really sure about the original version of the hook. Perhaps some others would like to chime in about this? Fram (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revolutionary Communist Party of India (not a reliable source, I know) lists Das as a 1969 candidate (and winner) for the party, but not as a 1962 candidate. Fram (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) the ref saying "Au Bengale, le camarade Anadi Dns a battu le président de l'Assemblée législative dans la circonscription" is a Trotskyist publication. 2) "Election results of West Bengal: statistics & analysis, 1952-1991" p. 416 explicitly states that Das was a RCPI candidate in 1962, copy-pasted "Revolutionary Communist Paity of India — RCPI 10.01. AnadiDas Howrah-West (1962)/Howrah-Central (1969)" --Soman (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also have "In the next general election in 1962, Anadi Das and Kanai Pal (ex-RWP) were nominated by the RCP(K) for Assembly seats of Howrah Central and Santipur, respectively, and both were elected.[51]" from https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/india.htm --Soman (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Dehm, which may make a good bio hook to complete Prep 4, Christmas Day. Yoninah (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hook says he was fired but the article says he was suspended, they are not the same thing, which is it? Gatoclass (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 462: / Line 462: @@
 *I am reopening this thread to give {{ping|Fram}} a chance to respond to Kevmin. TRM has already responded (hidden above) and need feel no obligation to respond on Fram's behalf. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 *:Very kind, selective hiding, that's always helpful. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 10:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
+**Fuck off, Cwmhiraeth. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 10:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 === With peace and joy ===

Revision as of 10:05, 21 December 2016

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

Suggested solution

Comments

Summary and implementation?

All hail Wugapodes!

Pulled from Queue4: A Strange Matter Concerning Pigeons

Cwmhiraeth and the role of the promotor

A new issue

Proposal to reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Sogdia

Prep builders needed

Question

Prep 5

Prep 1

Prep 2

Prep 4

Rule C6 is not a rule

Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt

Second break

With peace and joy

Nominations for 15-19 December not displaying correctly

Prep 4

Comparing the hooks for Shafiqa Habibi (8 December) and Licancabur Lake (19 December)

Prep 6 - Warionia

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Please offer feedback to Wugapodes for approved DYK holding page

Changed hook on main page

Prep 4