Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 141

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143→Archive 145

Prep 6 - monkey meat is eaten...

... that monkey meat is consumed in many parts of the world? Kingoflettuce, Cwmhiraeth, MX

Yep, just as most meats from most animals, like cow, pig, horse, kangaroo, zebra, dog, guinea pig.... this is a non-hook, i.e. it has no hook because it's a pure statement of fact, although even then the article lists it being eaten in 12 countries.... Can we do better, e.g. discuss its possible health issues, or even resort to something from the popular culture section, this being in the quirky slot and all? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Cwmhiraeth, ping fail... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it will surprise many people in the western world who think of monkeys as furry animals in need of conservation that they see in zoos. You mention dogs and guinea pigs, I could add locusts and snails, the culinary habits of people of other races is of interest in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No, it's just not that interesting, and the sad irony being that the article does actually contain some items of interest which would be far better suited to the quirky hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't surprise me. Most countries eat the animals most populous in their country. It's an animal, people will eat it. Not an interesting hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
How about this hook? I updated the United States section. @The Rambling Man:, @Kingoflettuce:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Joseph2302: Let me know what you all think. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
ALT - ... that people may get be fined US$250,000 for importing monkey meat into the United States?
Yes, much better than the original, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggest "be" rather than "get", as it is in the article: "... that people may be fined" — now all we need is an admin to change the hook in Queue 6, since it's no longer in prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Alex ShihTalk 17:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - "gruesome murder"

... that the murder of ten-year-old Victoria Martens was described by the chief of the Albuquerque Police Department as "the most gruesome act of evil"? WereWolf, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah

Since this crime took place only last year, it's eminently possible that family members, friends etc are still alive and may read this. Is it really the kind of hook we want to promote about a murdered child? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, haven't we been here recently on a different hook? No, we don't want this on the main page - but not only that, the alleged perpetrators haven't even been tried yet. This needs to be pulled. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, we have been here recently. I think we may need our admins/promoters to make themselve more aware and cautious when posting such insensitive and appalling hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The article is Murder of Victoria Martens, and I think you'll find that members of her family are due to stand trial in relation to her death later this year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see your point at all. Defending this promotion is shocking. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
One member of her family, actually. I'm sure there are plenty of others that don't need to see this plastered over the main page of a top 5 website (and we definitely shouldn't be doing so even before any trial has taken place). Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the nomination page which is here, you will find that before I reviewed the article, I asked BlueMoonset for advice. I also spent some time searching through WP:BLPCRIME and related policy to see whether this sort of article contravened any policy guidelines. I edited the article to remove the opening sentence which I had mentioned on the nomination page. I then reviewed the article with regard to DYK rules and approved it. Please explain what DYK rule it falls foul of. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Basic human decency? Fram (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it would have been simply decent to decline the hook on the grounds of bad taste. Please pull it, someone.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pulled Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

    • Here from Ed's posting: it is absolutely inappropriate to use that now from several angles. As noted above, there hasn't been any conviction yet, so that's a problem. And including a very slanted quote from a person deeply involved that tries to give the superlative view of the murder is against RECENTISM -- if analysts, well after the trial, called this murder as such, that would be fine, but in the here and now, it's just an inappropriate statement for a DYK/main page blurb. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ritchie. Frankly, we should never be showcasing hooks (especially ones as gratuitous as this) about murders where the victim's relatives may still be alive to see them. Have some basic decency please, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
These are clearly and reliably reported facts. There is no policy regarding WP:Family victim's feelings. But wholly agree regarding considerations of sub-judice. Why do we even have an article with the title Murder of Victoria Martens when there has not been any trial, let alone one, out of a possible three, convictions? For how long was it that we had to title Murder of Lee Rigby as "Death of Lee Rigby" etc, etc? Perhaps this is just the difference between conventions in US and UK law. Or is this the creep of non-newsworthy WP:ITN here? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Well there is quite a difference between UK and US practices. In the UK, once somebody has been charged with an offence, the press is not allowed to discuss it further for fear of influencing the outcome of the trial. In this case, there was a death, but we cannot even be sure there was a murder. I thought about listing the article at AfD, but the event has got a lot of publicity in the newspapers, so I guess it is covered by WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
If "we cannot even be sure there was a murder" why on earth do we have an article entitled "Murder of... "?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Quite, and this somehow passed through the multiple DYK "quality gates" is really problematic. Regardless of the circumstances, the nomination is inherently flawed due to the grossly insensitive nature of it, relating the sexual abuse, dismemberment and death of a child to DYK? What is wrong with some of you? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Martinevans123, assuming that the facts of the death are as described by the sources, it is clear that the child was murdered... without a conviction, we can't state who she was murdered by, but the autopsy result is conclusive. She died by manual strangulation and the manner of death was homicide. EdChem (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a useful source. Maybe it should be used in the article? Over here, in the UK, I seem to remember that we had weeks of "Death of Lee Rigby", despite eye-witness accounts and scene-of-the-crime mobile phone recordings splashed all over the UK tabloid press. I guess, under US law, an autopsy report that concludes "homicide" is enough to justify an article title of "Murder of ...", regardless of who was/ were the murderer/s? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I am far from an expert on UK or US law in this regard. What I meant to say to you before, Martinevans123, was that I had the same thought when I saw the article... "Should this article be titled as 'murder of XXX'?" I also wondered if it should be an article at all. On the latter point, the amount of coverage it received at the time, coupled with the coverage that will come from the trials, makes me think AfD would be a waste of time. BLP will become much less problematic if there is a conviction, and hopefully WP can collectively exercise editorial discretion over what is included. The post-mortem dismemberment and autopsy findings present a truly gruesome picture but also raise questions, including plenty of "why"s. One of those charged had apparently already served a prison sentence, so there is other potentially prejudicial material for the trial that will hopefully neither be reported before the trial nor included in the article here, even though sub-judice does not apply to WP. On the former point, a "Death of XXX" titling is justifiable, certainly, but the death itself was clearly an intentional act by someone. The autopsy finding descriptor of "homicide" is technically more accurate, referring to deliberate killing and being a broader category of which murder is s sub-set. Descriptions of the death as filicide have been removed from the article by Fram (and rightly so, that was a clear BLP violation). We could move the article (or start a requested move discussion) to "Death of XXX" or "Homicide of XXX" as "Murder of XXX" technically classifies the death as "unlawful" which can be argued as requiring a legal finding from a court (coronial or criminal). Actually, I'll do that. EdChem (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6 – Denes nad Makedonija

My DYK nom above is a special occasion hook that was supposed to appear on 2 August. However, as Queue 5 is scheduled to hit the MP in less than an hour's time, it will appear a day late (I'm guessing this was because of the recent change to one set a day). Would it be possible for an admin to swap the two queues? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Forget about it. Moot point now that Queue 5 has been promoted. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It was originally in the right set, but two sets got swapped around. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Can we please have a moratorium on swapping sets around? It really shouldn't be necessary, yet it's become an increasingly frequent occurrence, and now a special occasion hook has missed. We came within about an hour of a couple of other hooks missing their slots a few days ago even though they started in the correct set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

New DYK criterion?

I've had a few times, including recently, where I have been working on articles with the intent of a 5x expansion nomination and got distracted part-way through. I know that the 7 day limit is flexible, especially when the nomination page isn't huge, but I was wondering if another criterion might also be a way forward... something like a 10x expansion over 2-3 weeks? Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

10x is quite a lot of expansion, isn't it? I think we should stick with the 5x expansion, and the nominator can ask for a leniency if it's 2-3 weeks late. Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting replacing x5, I'm suggesting adding a bigger expansion with a longer time frame. EdChem (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No harm in this at all, like a halfway house to GA, and since it takes upwards of six months to get a GA review, this would be a convenient way of getting vastly increased articles sitting at GAN (for instance) at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to prevent you from nominating an article for DYK even though you are still working on it and have not yet achieved the fivefold expansion, in the same way that some people nominate their articles before doing their QPQ review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I think what @EdChem: means is that an editor maybe has only expanded it fourfold in the seven day period but (for whatever reason) then has a burst and expands it further but after the seven days have elapsed. I suspect this'd be a rare occurrence but sometimes happens. The other time is sometimes I come across an article htat was greatly expanded about 10 days' previous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@Northamerica1000: @Edwardx: I just promoted this hook:

Does everyone know who Jerry Garcia is? (I don't.) Could I add this:

That's probably a good idea. Garcia was relatively well-known in the U.S., but perhaps no so much in other areas of the world. North America1000 23:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. (I'm American, but he was before my time.) Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
That's fine with me too. I'm British, and had thought he was well enough known. It can be quite tricky to try to gauge what others generally know. Wonder if Garcia's ever been a question on Pointless? Edwardx (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I know who Garcia is, but even so adding the description does not make it less hooky, IMO. Vanamonde (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Adebe Bikila

... that Abebe Bikila (pictured) was not sponsored by Adidas and he did not carry "the fucking shoes" in the men's marathon at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics? Alex Shih, Cwmhiraeth, Janweh64.

Here for a few things:

  1. I don't understand the hook really, presumably many individuals were not sponsored by Adidas?
  2. It's not clear why anyone would be "carrying" shoes, "fucking" or otherwise, in a marathon.
  3. I'm struggling to make the link between clause A and clause B.
  4. This will no doubt get the "think of the children" treatment if it runs with that swearing, but that's a side-issue.

Perhaps someone could elucidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you have difficulty understanding the hook means that it is "hooky"; you will need to read the article to understand its significance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, I just pass it by thinking that it's somehow an error. If it's designed to be "quirky" then it shouldn't be in slot number one. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
So, a comedian made a non-notable joke filled with factual errors decades after the death of this great athlete, and that is the hook we choose to highlight this GA? It's the kind of information which shouldn't even be in the article in the first place, never mind "gracing" our front page. "The fact that you have difficulty understanding the hook means that it is "hooky"" is the kind of response one might expect here from some though. No, this doesn't make the hook "hooky" at all. If this was some well-known meme that got debunked, fine. But this? This isn't hooky, it's the typical frustrating trivia which some people here confuse with interesting, enticing, noteworthy, or even mildly amusing facts. Fram (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Some thoughts...
  1. This hook is not quirky, it's weird. With the Robin Williams joke / meme not well known, it's also obscure, at best.
  2. Since when did jokes become RS for hook content – see the nomination
  3. The quotation is misleading, as it appears in the hook to come from Adebe.
  4. The "fucking" was situationally appropriate in the joke, I guess... here, it is gratuitous.
  5. This should be pulled and a new hook proposed for the 7 August date requested.
Possible hooks might be:
  • (ALT1): ... that Abebe Bikila (pictured) was the first man to successfully defend an Olympic marathon gold medal, and did so by breaking his own world record?
  • (ALT2): ... that Abebe Bikila (pictured) set a world record in winning the 1960 Men's Olympic marathon, and ran the race in bare feet / without shoes?
  • (ALT3): ... that Abebe Bikila (pictured) won consecutive Olympic gold medals in the Men's Marathon, both in world record times, the first without shoes / in bare feet?
We can surely come up with something better than the hook presently in the prep. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, EdChem. ALT1 is very good, but there is no inline cite to the fact that it was his own world record that he broke. ALT2 is good, but I think ALT3 is even better, as it mentions both his Olympic wins. The ALT3 hook refs are verified and cited inline. Promoting ALT3 to prep. Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Chiming in late here, but to be honest I like the original hook a lot—it made me click over to see what it meant when I saw it in the nominations pile, which is basically the point of a hook. ALT3 is a cool standalone fact, which doesn't require reading the article to conceptualize. ALT0 is fun, interesting, and requires a click-through. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
All Alt hooks are vastly superior than the promoted one. Thanks to Ed for creating some viable options. I prefer some variation on alt 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Complete and utter bullshit. This is how the article appeared before I began working on it and improved it to GA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abebe_Bikila&oldid=759090731 It contained the following misinformation taken from a horrible "biographical" book written by Paul Rambeli, a work of fiction clearly labeled that Wikipedia editors failed to see as an unreliable source.

  • "Abebe was included in the Ethiopian Olympic team only at the last moment, as the plane to Rome was about to leave"
  • "Adidas, the shoe sponsor at the 1960 Summer Olympics, had few shoes left when Abebe went to try out shoes and he ended up with a pair that didn’t fit comfortably, so he couldn't use them"

This was propagated by Robin Williams, by a joke perhaps made now notable with Wikipedia's help in spreading it.[1][2][3] These false statements have been spread by Wikipedia since March 3, 2007 (TEN YEARS AGO!): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abebe_Bikila&diff=prev&oldid=112385552 Think of the damage done since then.

This hook was an attempt to offer a retraction and correction. None of the ALT hooks are hooky. The ALT statements are things most people, with any interest in the subject, already know. If this hook offends your sensibilities save it for April 1. I object to changing the hook. And ask for a serious consideration as the person who has worked months to get this article to where it is. I suspect none of the people above care about the RS or Notability issues they mention. This is an attempt to remove the "fucking" by any means, which is exactly what makes it hooky. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Robin Williams explaining the Olympics puts the absurdity of the games into perspective". Rare. 2016-08-19. Retrieved 2017-08-03.
  2. ^ "Robin Williams and Abebe Bikila". Stride Nation. Retrieved 2017-08-03.
  3. ^ "Robin Williams Had Deep Running Roots". Runner's World. 2014-08-12. Retrieved 2017-08-03.
Firstly, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Secondly, DYK isn't necessarily for people "with any interest in the subject", it's on the main page so will attract allcomers. Thirldy, no-one said it offends their sensibilities, just "fair warning" was given concerning the fact that using such expletives on the main page invariably results in drama. So in summary, no, it's not "an attempt to remove the "fucking" by any means" by any means, it's an attempt to generate a hook that's readable and interesting, the original hook was neither of these. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: Can we have a couple more opinions, as prep 4 will likely be promoted in one day? Alex ShihTalk 10:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Just pull it back to noms, the last thing we need is a last-minute adjustment which is clumsily implemented. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Returned to noms page for further discussion. Yoninah (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned/Withdrawn submission

In Template:Did you know nominations/Kausar Mohiuddin the nominator wants to close the nomination.Please could some one close itRADICAL SODA(FORCE) 09:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Radio Erena

Hi. Would anyone like to nominate Radio Erena for DYK please? I'm not sure how to do this--the assessment part is impossible. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20sI have done it for you .Please take a look .The nomination page is here.If you want you can suggest a better hook at the ALT1 slot .RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 09:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - more clubbed hairs?

... that Cephalotes hispaniolicus ants have rare clubbed hairs on the rear corners of the head?

Is it just me or is this at least the second (maybe third) "clubbed hair on extinct ants" hook we've had here? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • We had one other cephalotes in June ("that the ant Cephalotes alveolatus (pictured) is distinguished by its clubbed hairs?"), and another Cephalotes in July where the DYK didn't state anything about clubbed hairs, but the article again made it clear that it had clubbed hairs. So it seems that clubbed hairs is a characteristic of Cephalotes, and not specifically of any species within this family (genus, whatever). The article has also some of the flaws already remarked upon with the other articles (e.g. lead: "At the time of description C. hispaniolicus was one [sic] six ant species placed in the Cephalotes multispinosus clade.", but body: "the multispinosus clade comprised of six extinct species and six extant species.")

Anyway, the article says "similar, but minutely sized clubbed hairs are rarely found on the rear corners of the head." Is "rarely have clubbed hairs" and "have rare clubbed hairs" really the same meaning? I would say no... Fram (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping Kevmin, Northamerica1000 and Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The article description indicates that the amount of hairs that are clubbed are rare. There is nothing wrong with the hook other then one editors personal dislike. PS The number error has been fixed. (somthing that could have just as easily been done by Fram, rather then it being used as shaming here.--Kevmin § 18:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I could not "just as easily" have corrected this, I had no idea which of the two claims was correct (assuming at least one was correct). Anyway, the hook makes it sound as if clubbed hairs are rare, but they aren't: all it says that in this one species, we sometimes get clubbed hairs at that position as well, based on the one specimen we have. And this follows a hook which you proposed which incorrectly claimed that another species of the same family was distinguished by having clubbed hairs, which apparently all species in the family have. Fram (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hooks are, by their nature, subjective, as they need to appeal to a broad audience. Posting yet another clubbed hair ant DYK a month or so after the last one is what I'm really questioning here. Is that all these ants have to offer in terms of hooks? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
That comment is a read herring when one looks at the sheer volume of people that look at the main page daily, and given the length of time between the hooks. Your disinterest in the subject is not reason to block the nomination.--Kevmin § 19:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Who said anything about "blocking" anything? I merely asked if there was something more than "clubbed hairs" we could say about all these various ants. The comment relates to the DYK supplementary rules which suggest hooks should be of interest to a broad audience. Which this abundantly is not. Especially hot on the heels of a near identical ant-clubbed-hair hook a couple of months back. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A couple of months between hooks makes this not "hot on the heels". Also there is no objective way at all to make the statement that this hook is not interesting.--Kevmin § 19:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's pretty safe to say, even subjectively, that "special clubbed hairs" on extinct ants (of which there appears to be many) will not be of interest "to a broad audience". This is a bit like me listing Boat Race DYKs every two months and telling the audience the type of boat the winner was rowing. It's factually correct, applies to dozens of similar articles, but would not appeal to a broad audience, so I normally look for different facts, regardless of how far apart they're listed. If these ants have only their clubbed hairs to interest us, I'm not sure we should keep passing them to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Would people say that "Humans have rare 6th toes on their feet" and "Humans rarely have sixth toes on their feet" mean the same thing? Because that is what this hook currently does. To me the first sounds like "contrary to other species, humans have 6th toes", while the second claims that "this only happens with some humans" and makes no comparison with other species. Fram (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with that is that the ant was first described in 1999, and more specimens may have been found since, but you could have
  • I'm fine with that, though I get annoyed that so many of the nominations I make are boiled down to that same wording. Its less interesting given the literally hundreds of species described from Dominican amber alone. placement of the hairs is much more unique.--Kevmin § 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • Well it's clearly enforceable, that's what's happened here, and if it's not inline with your interpretation of 5P, RFC is that way. It's in the DYK rules for good (yes) or for bad. So we need to observe it when bombarding our readers with trivia about extinct ants and their (maybe rare?) clubbed hairs... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the original hook about rare clubbed hairs would be interesting to someone who liked insects. Certainly no less interesting than something about where it was dug up. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    It might be (that's hardly broad) and might be more so if it wasn't the second such extinct ant/clubbed hair hook we've had in a couple of months and it might be if it was actually factually correct, Fram's analysis of the hook demonstrates that it's not even factually accurate. People can actually associate with things like geographical locations, etc, but I dare you to ask 100 people what a "clubbed hair" is and expect more than one percent of people to give you anything close to the right answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Then you click through and learn what a clubbed hair is. A couple of months is a lot different than a couple of days. One of the joys I find in Wikipedia is clicking through and learning something I didn't know before. In one case the hook told me that something was dug up in Hispaniola. Ok, but that doesn't encourage me (personally) to read more. Finding out what a clubbed hair is might. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, and that's a common misconception. People don't click on things they don't understand or aren't interested in, they just ignore it. I work with SEO, this kind of thing is so obvious that it's truly disappointing that people still believe that a cack hook with wikilinks will actually drive traffic to the target articles. It never works that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think one can necessarily draw firm conclusions about Wikipedia browsing behavior from search engine behavior. Browsing vs. searching may produce very different results. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Um, no. They don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We seem to be straining at a gnat ant here but so it goes. The way to see what hooks work and don't work is to look at the evidence – the number of hits that they get. The previous hooks of this sort were
Fossil Cephalotes alveolatus ant in amber
These got 1899, 6672 and 1042 views on their day, respectively. The picture is a confounding factor but that hook did reasonably well when compared with other picture hooks. Overall, for a fairly dull and obscure topic, these hooks did well enough. We should therefore respect the wishes of the principal author because back-seat driving of this sort tends to annoy and drive off our contributors. Andrew D. (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I think what the Colonel has done is to adequately demonstrate that all of these hooks were dull; the one with slightly more hits had an image and that's commonplace to see a spike in hits, especially when a thumbnail of something completely indistinguishable is added. Davidson's accusation of "back-seat driving" is actually an inevitable fall-out from a process which rewards its contestants by making rapid and brief reviews and actually paying almost no consideration to our readers. DYK stands for "Did you know..." and that is supposed to be a starter for ten when it comes to enticing our readers to read articles. The repeated "clubbed hairs on extinct ants" hooks are clearly not going to do that. The more this goes on, the more we need EEng to reappear to remind people that "interesting hooks" are the point here. We have plenty of "contributors" to the DYK project, so claiming this analysis of hooks "tends to annoy and drive off our contributors" is bunkum, although if it drives off those contributors who continually insist on dull hooks, that wouldn't be a bad thing. In any case, this project was supposed to encourage new editors, not the WikiCup or credit-hungry contingent. Perhaps that's got lost on some people here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Another anniversary-related missing-person article I'd like expedited

After a few months off from doing this sort of article (it's emotionally stressful to be writing about this all the time), I have another article about a missing person (nomination here) that I have created with an eye toward getting it on the main page on its anniversary date. In this case it's August 12, this Saturday.

Would someone be willing to review it in time to get it into the queues? In this instance matters are made more urgent by the fact that I will be heading off to Montreal for Wikimania perhaps as early as Wednesday and thus I will not be as readily available after that.

Of course, if whoever chooses to review it also happens to be attending Wikimania, they could certainly work on this with me in person. But it's better not to bank on that happening ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Review in progress. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Approved and ready for promotion for August 12. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

Template:Did you know nominations/Leonard J. Arrington is a new GA. However, the article appeared on the main page in the On This Day section last month. Is it still eligible for DYK? Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Point 1e of WP:DYKRULES states, "Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)" From the link you provided above, the article was a bold link on the page. North America1000 22:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote Prep 4 to Queue 4; Alex Shih can't do it because they have a hook in the set. Pinging Cas Liber, Maile, IronGargoyle, Vanamonde, or any other admin who happens to be around. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Aargh. I tried but my internet connection is dire today and dropping out like crazy! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Translation

Is an article that has had 5x expansion in the last seven days, but the expansion was by doing a translation of another Wikipedia, eligible for Did you know? (I'm asking about Cátulo Castillo.) --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hameltion, since an article that is a translation from another Wikipedia is considered "new" for DYK purposes, an article that has been 5x expanded with a translation of material from another Wikipedia should also be considered "new" in terms of expanded material. Go ahead and nominate it, if you haven't already done so. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I just wanted to check before I nominated it. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

There is only one article still unreviewed from the previous list, which was archived several days ago. Here is an updated list of 35 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 193 nominations, of which 58 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

One of the hooks from current DYK in which I submitted was pulled from the Main Page. While I am not opposed to such move, usually I expect to see some kind of discussion beforehand either at WT:DYK or WP:ERROR. Since it was pulled without discussion, I was not sure if this is common practice nowadays. Alex ShihTalk 08:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I would expected a note here. They've got a point, though - even the first sentence "Chinese Expeditionary Force was the name for Chinese Army dispatched to Burma.." is ungrammatical. I'll have a go at cleaning it up to see if we can get it put back. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Student coursework

I have started a discussion on the Education noticeboard that may be of interest to DYK contributors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.

Could we make a decision on whether to promote this nomination for Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.. The only concerns revolve around the formatting of the citations, and whether the nomination should be rejected because the article contains "bare urls", contrary to DYK supplementary rule D3. Clicking through to the link given there for "bare url" it states "Note that some citation styles, such as the MLA style, use full bibliographic citation that happen to display the text of the URL in addition to proper identifying information, like the author, date, and title of the publication. These are not considered bare URLs." This seems clear to me, and I propose to promote the nomination, which has been hanging around for far too long. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Since no other legal articles use this approach and since you yourself actually fixed the references (diligently) only to have the changes reverted, this should be failed and we should all move on. It was clear that the editor was being pointy by reverting your edit as your style was not only better for readers but compliant with the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, any editor is free to mark it as compliant and mark it for moving it to prep. I have looked at it and declined to tick it as I do not find rewarding the nominator's behaviour as appropriate. If you do tick it and it is promoted, it could be challenged – for the record, I'm not planning to, but it could happen. Since the reference changes were reverted and the nominator stridently defended them, it has languished; collaboration has seemed to be missing from the nominator, IMO. A discussion could be started on the talk page of the article on referencing, as a consensus could change the reference style which might be a valuable learning experience for the nominator, and it would clear the way for a sensible resolution and a DYK promotion. I also have no problem with TRM's solution of fail and move on. The problem is not only the technicalities of D3 or the arguments back and forth, it is the precedent that wikilawyering / stonewalling / being obnoxious with an "I'm right, shut up and do what I say attitude" can "win" when no one at DYK is obligated to tick / promote and that consensus (within policy) rules. EdChem (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, but you are producing all sorts of reasons to circumvent the DYK rules. The same is true of the "Gruesome murder" thread below. I don't see anything about "nominator behaviour" or "basic decency" in the rules. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Common sense applies generally, if you need to find a policy or guideline or rule that gives you permission to promote disgusting hooks, I'd say you should do it any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have chosen not to tick the article as I am not comfortable taking responsibility for asserting that I think this is either main page ready or D3 compliant, and yes the fact that the nominator is behaving as s/he is has made me much less inclined to stretch the meaning of bare url to not mean urls that appear as http://www.website.com/lots/of/ugly/annoying/bits/making/WP/look/amateurshish?query=RadmonCharacters#vhjbedklgu23y4p58ujhnr'tglni-92jtoblfvljxslvdk'wpoi[923ur[ob123lvkhasgc,nbzx.kdn;lm,mnbvdhdqwytfduwebflqrejyfgosduycgalusdyvfljerhbgklaufdhvaiqywevrkjh3vbeflkre;oijr;oijvq;oeijv. That there are archived refs to address link rot is helpful, but does not alter that the phrase "bare url" has a straight-forward meaning relating to a url appearing bare. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem here seems to be one of ownership. Here are my thoughts: There is a consensus that the style is not appropriate for DYK and the article can be fixed to meet that standard. 1. The article has been submitted to DYK. 2. While one or more editors are "credited" for any given DYK, this does not entitle them to have absolute say-so on the article or hook content. 3. There is no notable problem with the article or hook other than the citation style. 4. The current citation style may be allowed on Wikipedia, but it does not have local consensus and local consensus rules when there are conflicting guidelines. 5. This local consensus should be enforced (with appropriate behavioral enforcement for edit-warring and ownership if necessary) and the article promoted once stable. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
As I noted, the issue was already (and diligently) fixed by Cwmhiraeth, only to be objected to by the nominator who went so far as to Arbcom to get me banned for suggesting his approach was too much. This is a safe fail, just reject it and move on. No-one will suffer, nobody dies, and this mini-drama can be closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I see that you have promoted the hook to prep 3. Since the hook did not have a tick, I presume you have decided it is ready and promoted it yourself... aren't these two steps supposed to be done by different editors? BlueMoonset, am I correct in my understanding? EdChem (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It seemed destined to remain indefinitely on the nominations page, with nobody having the courage to either promote it or decline it. It had two "verbal" ticks on the nomination page and I took a pragmatic approach; it was a perfectly satisfactory article and perfectly satisfactory hook, the only problem was that the citations, although not bare urls, did not conform with the views of some editors on how citations should be formatted. The Manual of style states that "Editors may use any citation method they choose." I did not consider the formatting issue warranted rejecting the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
You often overlook rules when passing nominations, but that shouldn't be encouraged. This fails the DYK rules, which should apply here. Please self-revert and fail the nomination. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are referring to supplementary rule D3, I do not believe the article breaks that rule. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Then you're not reading it correctly. It explicitly prohibits links of the type "http://example.com". But no, that's not the only rule you often overlook when passing and promoting nominations. This should be failed (it doesn't actually comply with Bluebook style, despite what has been claimed, but hey ho). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I just took another look, and D3 says, References in the article must not be bare URLs. It doesn't say, "References in the article must not contain unformatted URLs". The references in question here, however, contain a great deal more than the URLs. The point of the rule is to prevent references from being nothing but a URL, and WP:Bare URLs makes a very firm distinction between a reference with only a URL and a reference with enough information to successfully identify the source of the information even if linkrot sets in. Indeed, that page begins, A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. Although I don't like the look of the URLs in this article's references, they don't appear to be violating any DYK rule, including D3. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset, but my question to you was about Cwmhiraeth effectively giving the tick and the promoting it to prep, which I thought was supposed to be done by different editors? Given all the controversy over D3 and the refs, are you thinking that it could be considered an IAR case to end the debate? EdChem (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
EdChem, I was addressing the issues raised in this subthread. As for your original question, my understanding has always been that the tick and the promotion should indeed be done by different editors. We've reversed people who have done approve/promote actions in the past. In any event, nominations should not be promoted without a tick as the latest icon given. I don't think I've ever seen a hook promoted before with its active icon an "X", and I hope I never see it happen again. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The article claims to be compliant with Bluebook referencing, and that's not true. Moreover, the combative nature of the nominator in reverting an attempt to make those references far more MOS compliant simply demonstrates that some hooks and some nominators shouldn't be encouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for DYK articles

  • Did you know one of Dave McKigney's "wrestling bears" killed his girlfriend in the 1970s?
  • Did you know Dave McKigney was killed in a car accident after trying to avoid a moose?
  • Did you know African-American wrestler Kasavubu was a star in Stampede Wrestling during the 1970s?
  • Did you know Kasavubu's wrestling career was cut short due to diabeties?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.205.193 (talk • contribs) 22:08 28 July 2017 (UTC)

None of the linked articles were created or expanded in the last week. Pppery 13:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Dave McKigney was created on July 19 and Kasavubu on July 20. I suggested them here on July 28 although I'm not sure how strict the 7-day limit is. 72.74.197.93 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pak Song, like Tom Stone (wrestler), is too short to qualify for DYK. The seven-day rule can sometimes be stretched for a new contributor making their own nomination. I would like to suggest that if you really want these articles to appear at DYK, you create a user account and nominate them yourself. It's the only sure way for them to appear, and signing up for an account is easy. Wikipedia is very much about people doing what they think needs to be done; it's all up to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Interesting to a Broad audience"

I think this parameter should be examined and removed from the DYK criteria. Its not supported by any WP inclusion guidelines at all, nd there is no way at all to ever make a balanced assertion something is to boring to a broad audience. It will always boil down to "WP:IDONTLIKEIT".--Kevmin § 19:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is precisely against the point of a DYK section, and precisely against the point of trying to encourage interest in Wikipedia and editing it. The actual problem is really with QPQ reviews simply accepting the technicalties of a DYK nomination and not really giving any due consideration to whether or not the hook is really of any interest at all. The sooner we learn to "fail" DYK nominations because they're boring, or repetitive, or inaccessible, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Creating a fail system based on the undefinable is not in anyway going to help the project, and the amount of times hooks are brought here simply because someone thinks a hook is "too dull" shows its not viable at all.--Kevmin § 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually it demonstrates that it works well. When dull hooks are brought here, there's invariably interest from a wider perspective which inevitably improves the hooks in question. The system works, it's just the ownership issues from nominators that needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. We should aim to have a mix of hooks from specialist and generalist areas and not play to some least common denominator of "broad audience". As long as we have a mix of hooks, audiences should find something within to draw their attention. I find The Rambling Man's repeated haranguing of other editors on this point to be particularly annoying and hypocritical. His mix of obscure cricket and boat race hooks could not be less interesting to someone without an interest in cricket and/or boating (and the hits for said articles while on the main page certainly bear this out). Have I complained about them? No, because I recognize that someone with an interest in cricket/boating would probably find them quite interesting, just like someone with an interest in insects would probably find the clubbed hairs of ants to be interesting too. Don't get me wrong, I think hooks should be interesting, and suggestions towards improvement (including to a wider interest) are always welcome, but this "disinterested individual veto" is frustrating. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    If anyone had an issue with any hook I submitted I would work with them rather than just bitch about their being "no issue". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "interest to a broad audience" parameter is one of the foundations of DYK, encouraging editors to create/expand articles worthy of a page in the encyclopedia. If anything, editors need to learn to mark hooks for failure on this issue because we are far too lenient in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Articles are already bound by the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, the "interesting" parameter here is not relevent at all to whether they are meet the notability guidelines.--Kevmin § 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The issue of inclusion guidelines is a red herring, as the question of whether an article should exist and whether it should be "featured" at DYK are different; not all articles created must be highlighted, and if there's truly nothing interesting to say about a particular topic then don't. That's not to say that we can't have specialist articles, as there have been some good hooks that even non-subject experts would find interesting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Since you added it back in 2012, no accepted definition of "broad audience" has emerged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    It's had "wide audience" since at least 2007. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: There is no way to ever define something as being interesting to a broad audience, especially with varying Main page duration for hooks meaning that whole sections of the world population are likely to totally miss hooks. Its NOT objective at all to assert that interesting is a MP criteria.--Kevmin § 05:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course it's subjective. I simply disagree that that is a problem. And I think by now we all understand your point of view. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • When assembling the prep areas, I would always bear this in mind. So baseball hooks would be scheduled while the US is awake, and cricket ones when the UK, India and Australia can see them. What would be truly useful to know is what time of day the readers look at the main page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I oppose "failing" DYK nominations if the subject matter is not "interesting to a broad audience" (which obviously is a bit subjective). Doing so de-inecntivizes article creation and for lack of a better phrase, I believe in an even playing field in that every notable subject matter can theoretically appear on did you know. With that said, I feel that the primary problem I have with DYK in general is rather than complaining about how DYK hooks don't appeal to a broad audience, the subject matters don't appeal to a broad audience. Most articles on non-specialist topics have been created by now, so I'd suggest we'd every once and a while, featured a few existing subject matters that don't normally meet the DYK criteria in an effort to appeal to a broader audience. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think the requirement for the hook to be interesting to a broad audience is very subjective and should be removed. It is in the interests of the nominator to choose an interesting hook so as to get as many people as possible to click on the link, but it should not be a requirement. (I created an article on a worm last week but couldn't think of an interesting hook so I didn't nominate it.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The phrase is too vague and debatable to be useful. It is redundant to what is said elsewhere on that page, "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." Per WP:CREEP and WP:TLDR, we should trim these rules of such excess baggage. Andrew D. (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lest people start complaining about the home page being too boring. I don't think "debatable" or "subjective" are issues, we can live with things that need discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It is a vague surplusage that often hinders DYK. As I have always said; what may be uninteresting to some, could be very interesting to others. If we remove this, we rightly get rid of an excuse for people to try and block DYKs just because they personally don't like it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting is a purely subjective thing. While you might find something really interesting, others may say "So what?". However, we should not be promoting really boring hooks. Things like ... that this film was released in 2017? or ... that this video has 100,000 views on YouTube? have no place on the Main Page. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose How do you define "interesting" to a range of people? You can't. You can easily define "dull" or "trivial" though. We get far too many of them, and that's what this parameter is designed to - if not prevent, at least stem the tide. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem with this criterion is that it is so subjective that it leads to endless debate. The problem with removing it is that there are hooks that are dull and uninteresting to the overwhelming majority of people with a pulse. Did you know "... that water is wet?"; "... that sand is found at the beach?"; and, "... that corn is the major ingredient in corn chips?" – hopefully, we'd all agree that the criteria should prevent hooks like these. As an editor of scientific content, there are articles with facts I find interesting but which are not easy to make clear for a broad audience, let alone interesting without a depth of knowledge related to the topic. For example, from the article on (E)-stilbene which I am presently expanding, I could have "... that bromination of (E)-stilbene yields the meso product, but the meso epoxide arises from its diastereomer (Z)-stilbene?" It could even be a double hook (the (Z)-stilbene article could be expanded), but to a reader with no experience with stereochemistry and meso compounds, I can't see this as interesting. I could have "... that the first articles on the Heck reaction demonstrated the synthesis of (E)-stilbene?" which is interesting to me as Heck is a Nobel Laureate for the reaction and the discovery was made independently with both groups preparing (E)-stilbene, yet my interest here depends on knowing what the Heck reaction is. I could go with "... that Nobel prize-winner Richard F. Heck's first paper on the Heck reaction demonstrated the synthesis of (E)-stilbene?" but that is much more about Heck than it is about (E)-stilbene. Though the expansion is still several thousand characters short, I still don't know for sure whether I can add a suitable DYK hook. After doing the expansion, if I choose not to nominate, that is my decision... but I would find it discouraging / disappointing to turn a 1700 character article into a 9000+ character article and then be "failed" for it being so "uninteresting" as to have no suitable hook. I rarely write articles that just barely make the 1500 character minimum, the articles I nominate tend to be substantive (in my view), and I find 1501 character articles which touch on the most obvious content and scream for expansion to be more gaming of DYK rules than a significant article on a narrow topic with a level of technical complexity that may have no natural / obvious "interesting to a broad audience" hook. I think the criterion in question would benefit from redrafting but not wholesale removal. EdChem (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment rather like EdChem, I think we're setting ourselves up for failure here. Whichever way this goes (and it's close, at the moment) we're going to end up with a lot of annoyed editors. The criterion is not, at the moment, easy to apply. Therefore, it should be made easy to apply. If we throw it out altogether, we are immediately going to be flooded with the most meaningless hooks, and we will have no reasonable grounds on which to require they be rephrased. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment one thing worth noting here is the relative infrequency with which a hook does get adjusted because it's dull. I haven't done the mining yet but I strongly suspect it to be below 1% of all hooks, I.e. More than 99% of hooks manage to meet this rule. So it really isn't a big problem, more like making a mountain from a molehill. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think TRM is underestimating and it is more like 4%, but we want EdChem's article, whether or not the hook is broadly interesting, because it is the sort of article we should be showcasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
1 in 25? One hook every three sets is being discussed for having a dull hook? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Quick check, three or so on this page, but nothing in the previous archive which goes back to late June, which would encompass hundreds of hooks. Cwmhiraeth, what are you basing your 4% on please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Its an estimate. Some dull hooks get picked up on the nominations page too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, at which point the nominators etc can discuss. I think Kevmin's primary issue is with hooks that are all the way to the bank and then get ditched, adjusted etc because they're dull. My estimate of 1% is ultra-cautious, and therefore I believe this is a non-issue. If nominators are regularly finding their own hooks to be called out, it speaks more of the subject matter and hook construction, than the rest of the community's efforts to provide interesting material in the only section of the main page which is about providing "interesting material" to the readers.
  • Comment We have to distinguish between a dull hook and an article that is not of interest to a broad audience. Looking over the last few months, it seems clear that page views tend to correlate with interest in the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this not be advertised somewhere to attract some input from editors not heavily invested in the project? Some neutral perspective from outside the utterly entrenched DYK crowd would perhaps help? Certainly only seem to be the usual faces, if one can say that in this case, that have butted heads over and over again commenting. I realise that my input counts for nothing, and that is totally fine but this process/vote as is now with the small group of regulars, whose opinions were made up from the start pretty much, seems rather flawed. Just my view as a lurker anyway, feel free to disregard. 91.49.78.71 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    That's a good idea, people are less vested in credits and WikiCup may have a different view on what they would expect to see in a "Did you know...?" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    Again with that? Last time I checked, the majority of people are out of the WikiCup and in later stages DYK points are not worth the same effort in order to keep track. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    So what? This problem hasn't just arisen. The rush to create bogus content forks and get dull hooks promoted for points has driven quality here too low, ao it would be great to get an outside view, perhaps to reset the regulars perspective on what the project should be striving for. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    My point was not about who is right or wrong, who gets what out of it, to nudge the process one way or the other or even to judge the motives of individual votes. It was to give people who do not have a predetermined notion of what the "correct" way of handling it is a chance to evaluate the idea and speak up about it. While i of course do have an oppinion on the matter, it is not my place to state that. In the end everyone here is just too convinced each of them is right and the other wrong, which certainly goes both ways. But then again that is just a drive-by opinion of a random person so i obviously understand that it has little to no worth. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    To add, while i definitely see The Rambling Mans point, thinking about articles like "fucking(sign)", about that town in austria, which got a pointles article split to have something to nomiate here (shame on me for lurking, i know). But i can also see the point of making it hard on nominations of very specialised articles in, for example, the sciences. In the end there probably just is no ultimate correct solution to deal with the problems that may arise either way, as with all things in life. But at least give neutral people a say in what the least bad way of dealing with this problem may be. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    One last note, how about making one "boring" slot above the quirky one, or rotate those day to day or whatever, and have it be eligible only for articles in the sciences or some other categories. That could keep blubs like "X was a singer for Y" of the mainpage while allowing specialised articles of certain categories to be able to still have their spot in the limelight. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    This is a great idea, a deliberate "boring hook" inclusion, which is "kind of" quirky yet allows those extinct club-haired ants to get their day, time after time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    My thinking was to have some sort of compromise anyway. So even if that "boring slot" had some kind of "stigma" attached to it or be disliked, it may be a good incentive to still come up with something interesting to get a regular spot yet still have the option to appear regardles. And as it would appear that the actual number of those boring hooks is quite low, a dedicated spot could probably quite easily work and of course wouldn't HAVE to be filled each day or however often it would run. I would obviously concede that "boring slot" would be a bad name though, call it the science slot, specialised slot or what have you. Just to give a neutral non judgmental name. Compromise, to me at least, is always better than proving one is right in a dispute. Just makes life easier than arguing endlessly over small things while still having everyone be a little content or equaly unhappy at the very least. 91.49.91.220 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – It it stays, an idea is to reword the passage to read as, "...likely to be interesting to a broad audience." North America1000 20:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Personally I'd prefer to see DYK completely revamped to showcase good articles, with a link and a short summary of the topic e.g. Henry VIII, King of England (1509-1547). But I can't see that happening any time soon. WRT to the discussion at hand, one person's interesting can easily be another person's dull, so remove the criterion. In any case, the dullness issue is so rare it won't make much difference anyway. Aiken D 21:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    If it's so rare, why not leave it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal: since the hope is to attract readers to new/recent/newly "good" articles, if an article is not capable of generating anything beyond a profoundly uninteresting or "X is Y"-style hook, then why would we want to highlight it on the main page? DYK has always had a tension between those who want to feature any article that's 1500 prose characters regardless of interest or quality, and to feature articles that have a certain level of quality and interest, and the various rules have reflected the consensus that the level should not be minimal. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That possibility (which is small) is already dealt with with the guideline to make the hook "hooky" so there is no reason to keep the broad audience portion. Also is it likely that such mundane hooks would ever flood the project in the first place?--Kevmin § 19:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, not at all. The main page of Wikipedia is a place to appeal to allcomers, not to scientists who are really into the rarity (or otherwise) of clubbed hairs on extinct ants. It's been brought up a dozen times by now, but some of the more academic articles simply aren't suitable for the main page DYK section which is intended to encourage new editors to update or create articles of their own. Recently they'd just be thinking "so Wikipedia is all about extinct ants, Ghanaian politicians and standard food items from an American diner menu". It must be better than this, and keeping the "broad audience" in mind is to serve our readers appropriately. In fact, to remove it is somewhat insidious as it then reflects the fact that this is becoming more about the editors than the readers. As I have noted, hooks are pulled from sets on a rare basis for pure dullness, this isn't a major issue apart from for those individuals whose hooks commonly fall into this situation. We deal with perhaps one dull hook in a hundred, or more, so to remove the "broad audience" is likely to cause a lot more damage than good to Wikipedia as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suggested above that we should instead be trying to fix the problem that was raised; that the criterion is subjective. Nobody seems interested in doing that, and so I oppose trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment so should this become an RFC? I think so, allowing the community to weigh in on whether a section of the main page should have an "interesting to a broad audience" criterion. It's clear that there are many vested interests in the "locals" so it's much wiser to open it up to the community. After all, this is on the main page. So I suggest that Kevmin makes this an RFC for all to see and comment upon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal
  • My idea of "interesting" is flexible. Anything intriguing, novel, or unexpected is fair game – I've never heard of a clubbed hair, so I click to find out more. What's not interesting is ringing the changes week after week with clubbed hair after clubbed hair, ant after ant, Pennsylvania water way after ...
  • While the interestingness requirement is seldom invoked, it saves us now and then. It should remain, though I wouldn't mind seeing the "to a broad audience" bit dropped.
  • I'll just repeat for the 100th time that the right way to choose hooks is by straight voting.
EEng 00:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

QPQ credits

Our QPQ procedure provides an exemption for newcomers: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ. A problem occurs if a newcomer creates several DYK nominations. This can be over a considerable period of time; we all know that it can take a while before a nomination is reviewed, and that they can then wait some time before being moved to a prep area. Nor are nominations reviewed or promoted in the order that they are nominated. Read literally, the procedure would require nominations to be pulled at the last minute, even though the nominator may have carried out QPQ reviews for all but the first five nominations. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is one of these situations where an ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation. I think you'll find that formulating this precisely is very complicated. In practice there hasn't been a problemhave rarely been problems, and they're easily sorted out. EEng 00:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course there's been a problem. Why do you think I am bringing it up? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I've modified my statement. Again, I think you'll find that trying to lay the requirement out with mathematical precision is a difficult exercise. EEng 04:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK check

Can an admin check the approved hook for the Jordanian local elections, 2017, its urgent?

Can someone also patrol the article? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The hook doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand how 68 women might win seats, but how can a local council win a seat? The article suggests that it means that the seats for those local councils have been won by acclamation, and so the elections are cancelled, but the hook doesn't say that - so it's really unclear. Also, it should be "have already won seats" (and "slated" should probably be "due to be held on" or similar). Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: could this be discussed on the template? 66 women won seats, 21 local councils won seats, there are obviously more posts to fill so elections are not canceled (slated for, is also an indication). Anyway the hook is doomed, the elections started. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Would anyone like to nominate The Jewish Confederates for DYK? Please ping me if interested. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Any reason you aren't nominating it yourself? You have DYK credits in the past, so the process isn't new to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
They were gifted to me as a co-nominator. Basically I am not sure how to assess articles for DYK nomination. Is it really as complicated as it seems?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I have created it for you but I don't think you should have any doubts about it. The nomination process is much easier than you think. All you have to do is put your article name in the box on the template talk page then fill out the template. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Dranga Campbell - reliability of source

I would like to start a discussion here - Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Dranga Campbell - on the reliability of a source. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I withdrew it. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First computer game in 1914

Hi,

I've been expanding the article about El Ajedrecista, which is claimed to be the first game played automatically by a (electro-mechanical) computer, and was built by the designer of the Niagara aero car. While the article is not new, it has been expanded, cleaned-up and includes new references. Would these changes be enough for including it in a Did you know... snippet? Diego (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't qualify under the "newly expanded" criterion, but don't panic, there's still hope: bring it to WP:GA. It will takes some work, but I think you'll find it a rewarding exercise. It's indeed a wonderful topic. EEng 23:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the previous list having vanished into the archive less than an hour ago, a new one is needed—here is an updated list of 38 old nominations, which goes through August 3. Right now we have a total of 190 nominations, of which 61 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one left from June.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty unbelievable

I was updating the DYK stats for August and came across this record-shattering hook:

It logged over 600,000 hits! Congratulations to Linguist111! Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to detract from Linguist's achievement, my real admiration is for the brother. EEng 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea I broke a record! Thanks! It's seems that wasn't all though - somebody posted about it on Reddit and the discussion made its "Today I Learned" front page with 4,600 replies ([1]). Wow. Linguist111 01:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Without question such external exposure is the reason for the huge traffic. EEng 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Remarkable indeed. Congratulation Linguist111! Alex ShihTalk 03:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
From one former record holder, congratulations to @Linguist111:. Reddit is a powerful independent traffic director when it comes to people visiting Wikipedia, it's what helped me earn the record a few years ago with Silver Cross Tavern. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Truly awesome achievement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting. It was the most read article on Wikipedia on that day, beating articles like Glen Campbell (518K) and Guam (436K). The FA was 29th with about 50K. Andrew D. (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't find that out until yesterday (or the day before, I can't remember). Thanks, Andrew! Thanks all for the kind comments and the congratulations. This has motivated me towards getting this article to GA. It still needs a bit more improvement before it can reach that but we're on the right track. Linguist111 05:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Syllis ramosa

  • ... that the branched worm Syllis ramosa lives inside a deepwater sponge?

Seems a massive shame not to have used the fact it was the first such worm discovered with one mouth and multiple anuses. That would definitely be interesting! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Indeed. The worm is quite bizarre in other ways too. How about
This hook is currently in Prep 1, and the thread given above is copied from my talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done ALT1 hook ref is AGF and cited inline. I substituted it in Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I also shortened it for more impact. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm ... now I am unhappy. You have changed it to "... that the branched worm Syllis ramosa has a single mouth and many anuses?" This unique worm didn't choose to have lots of anuses, but evolved to live in a sponge, its body branching to adopt the shape of the many channels in its host, and thus having many tips to its branches. Here is an article about it in the New Scientist. Your changes to the hook has removed all that context - it could be an earthworm or a gut parasite! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That would be fine, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps ce ALT2 to shorten?

Thoughts, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, The Rambling Man? EdChem (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I prefer ALT2a too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll change it in prep. Thanks all. Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@MX: @Groupuscule: @Cwmhiraeth: Why is this hooky? And we're not talking about a 1500-character article either. Surely there's something more eye-catching to say about him. Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought the hook was pretty interesting. But I guess we could add an alternate hook for his entrepreneurship (though I hope it doesn't come off as promotional). MX (✉ • ✎) 12:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Maria Marte

... that María Marte is the only female chef in Madrid with two Michelin stars? 97198, Hameltion, Elisa.rolle

Now, that's interesting to a degree, but is a pretty tight intersection (female chef/Madrid/Michelin stars), but reading the article, it is absolutely astonishing to me that she was awarded her first Michelin star just four years after starting work as a part-time dish-washer in a kitchen! Just a thought that maybe others would find that more interesting than the current hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Aha, well perhaps the original hook is somewhat misleading. The restaurant she happened to work at received two Michelin stars, the first being when Marte seems to have been working as an odd-job chef, doing this and that. So is it even actually reasonable to claim that she herself has two Michelin stars, particuarly when it was actually the restaurant itself that was awarded them? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an unfortunate result of the common usage of 'Michelin starred chefs'. Commonly both the industry and society in general talk about the Chef-in-charge (not always the owner) being a Michelin chef, however technically it is the restaurant that wins the prize. Accurately if she wasn't a head chef in charge of the menu at the point it was awarded, she would be entitled to say she contributed towards the stars - they are awarded on more than just food - but would not be classed as a Michelin starred chef. When she was in charge of the menu/food, that's the point where her significant contribution would entitle her under the common usage to be called a Michelin-starred chef. If she was in both circumstances over a length of time, then really she is only a 1-star chef working in a 2-time starred restaurant. From looking at the article and sources in more detail, she was a sous-chef for the award of both stars originally, and these were confirmed subsequently when the restaurant was re-scored the following year after the change in Chefs (as is common in these situations - a change in head chefs can often lead to a change in quality - so a Michelin starred restaurant will be rescored at the next opportunity to make sure the new head chef is keeping up the standards). So she is entitled to call herself a 2-star Michelin chef. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, well now that's established, my first point remains, it's amazing for me that she "earned her first Michelin star four years after washing the dishes in the restaurant". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why its drilled down that much, I guess there are other female chefs in Spain who have 2? Its not uncommon for some major cities to have zero or 1 restaurants. Although its less uncommon than you think about KP's moving up the ranks. It depends on the size of the kitchen and the competition amongst the fellow employees. Its more interesting than being female and in Madrid however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Pinging the nominator Hameltion to join this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I already had. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
So, I'm the nominator. Here's a clarification: while she worked at the restaurant, but not as head chef, she can't be said to have been awarded the Michelin star. However, she does currently hold two Michelin stars, because she is the head chef, and the restaurant was re-reviewed after her promotion and kept its two stars.
While the current hook is true, if it seems a little iffy, or if the intersection seems too "tight", we could use the other hook I nominated:
ALT1: ... that chef María Marte has a tattoo of her first original dish, a caramelized hibiscus flower?
Either one works for me. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I like ALT1, and it's verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Switching to ALT1 in prep. Yoninah (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of everything! Sorry about the confusion. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hook

There was a request for the "BuyPower and NetcodeGuides match fixing scandal" hook to appear on the main page on Aug 20th. I have promoted it to Prep 6, but please could an admin swap it with one of the hooks in Queue 5 so that it runs on the correct day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ogboh audio

Emeka Ogboh is currently in prep 4. Would it be possible to run the free audio associated with the article/nom? Very rare that we get contemporary sound artists to release such clips, so it would be a treat for the front page. czar 02:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wonder if we have precedent for including sound as part of the hook? I imagine it would look something like this:
... that art curator Ugochukwu-Smooth Nzewi described sound artist Emeka Ogboh's workⓘ as capturing "the maddening hyper-visuality of Lagos"? Alex ShihTalk 02:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea. I'll update it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah! Alex ShihTalk 15:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 3 - leader of *insert non-notable group here*

.. that Lillie Rose Ernst, one of the first women to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis, was the leader of The Potters? Elisa.rolle, Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth

This might be interesting if anyone could actually determine who or what "The Potters" were. Since the group is so non-notable as to not even have an article, it renders this claim unremarkable, and certainly not interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The hook was shortened but if you link to the Ernst article, the Potters were all women artist at the beginning of the 1900s and some of them, like Sata Teasdale, the Parrish Sisters and Zoe Akins did reach notoriety later on.
At her time - which is expressed in the more interesting fact in the clause, that was unusual. The other suggested hook said something about first superintendent, - I preferred art. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, but without an article about The Potters to back up some claim of notability, it's somewhat meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Elisa's turn to propose. - Or to write a stub on The Potters. - Why - with approved hooks from June - was this already in prep anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
And actually, look what you've found: The Potters does exist, and points to nothing related to this at all. This looks like a duff hook, a bad promotion, I'd push it back to the nominations area until it can be properly resolved. Certainly not ready for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
When I promoted this I removed the "an artistic group of women" because I found it unimpressive and I thought readers would click on the hook to find out who "The Potters" were. Perhaps TRM would like to propose a more "interesting" hook for this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the best idea is to write a stub for The Potters. Yoninah (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The Potters (art group)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This could easily become a double hook if User:Elisa.rolle will write a 1500-character article for The Potters. I have left a note on her talk page. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Sincerely I plan to write about the Potters one by one, I do not think a page collecting all of them is a good idea. Sara Teasdale already has her page, I wrote about Caroline Risque and the Parrish Sisters. A page about the Potters would be simply a repetition. This is the reason why I have the section on Lillie Rose Ernst's page, she was the mentor, and when someone talks about the Potters, she is the first to be mentioned. Willialmina Parrish was the founders. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
if this is enough: The Potters (group) Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant! Just what is wanted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Elisa.rolle: Yes, thank you very much. BTW when you copy text from one Wikipedia page to another, you need to add Template:Copied to each talk page. I did that for you. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I did some expansion on The Potters (group), but it still does not have 1500 characters of original text to qualify for a double hook, as much of it was copied from Lillie Rose Ernst. (If more original text could be added, it would be great.) However, I think the hook should be changed to reflect Ernst's job in the public school system rather than her being the first woman graduate, and also to align with the sources. She was not the leader of the group (another woman was), but its mentor. I suggest:
ALT1: ... that Lillie Rose Ernst, the first woman assistant superintendent of instruction in the St. Louis public school system, mentored the artistic group known as The Potters? Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
ALT1 is fine for me. I was not fond of the idea of a double hook. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Elisa.rolle: Well, I have just added enough text to give The Potters 1500 characters of original text. I wouldn't mind a DYK credit for a double hook.
BTW as the article creator, you shouldn't make any changes to your hook in prep. Post a notice here and ask another editor to do it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
ok, what is the next step? Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We need someone to check and verify the hook for The Potters. Since the prep set is about to be promoted, I'm returning the hook to the noms area for further work. Anyway, Caroline Risque is running in the very next prep set. Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1

@GregorB: @Usernameunique: @Cwmhiraeth:

What is a "fictional film"? Yoninah (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the previous list having vanished into the archive a couple of hours ago, a new one is needed—here is an updated list of 39 old nominations, which goes through August 14. Right now we have a total of 190 nominations, of which 83 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one left from June and the two from July 4.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't this a double hook?

In Prep 2, we have:

In Prep 3, we have:

@Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:

These hooks are virtually identical (in prep 2, the songs are a piped link; in prep 3, they are directly linked). Why aren't they running as a double hook? Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Because I don't like double hooks, - it takes away from the single one. It would also be very long with the name of the songs added to the first. the scoring is unusual and should not get lost in a piped link. I could say something different about the songs, - it was just that they were created first, and that hook seemed most interesting. I wanted to say something different about Amalie, but a reviewer almosted insisted to use that fact ;)
ALT1: ... that Brahms composed the first of Two Songs for Voice, Viola and Piano more than 20 years after the second? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would suggest using ALT1 for Prep 3 – or maybe even for a later prep, as the Prep 2 hook is running in the image slot. If there are no objections, I'll change it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah, I would agree about a later prep (no sooner than Prep 5, I hope), since a double hook seems to be off the table even though I think it's a better solution; two Brahms hooks in successive sets or even a day apart is a bit much even if the Joachims are removed from the mix. However, the problem with ALT1 is that the article's lead has the composition of the second in 1883, and the first the following year: one year, not over twenty. Even if Brahms made extensive revisions to the second in 1883, its initial composition (it being "set to music") occurred in 1863, and the lead should reflect this fact. Otherwise, it's going to confuse and mislead the main page reader as it just confused me. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my mistake, - I shouldn't edit past midnight. The years were correct in the article, and in the infoboxes until they were combined (which I don't think was a good idea). - Next possible double hook was mentioned here, - again I'd think that the lady deserved her own, but would not object to simply bold her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing up the article. I'll move ALT1 into a later prep set now. Yoninah (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeframe

What's the average timeframe from promotion to appearing in DYK? I looked at the documentation but didn't see this. Just curious. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say, very variable. When I promote I work from the oldest nomination forwards, so If the nomination has waited several weeks before being reviewed and given a tick, it may get promoted within a few days. On the other hand, if it is approved soon after nomination, it may have to wait several weeks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 19:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep promoter needed

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

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - She & Him discography

... that holiday albums released by the musical duo She & Him account for 40 percent of their discography? Cwmhiraeth, Usernameunique, Damian Vo

The source says "She & Him, who now have holiday albums accounting for 40 percent of their total output." but it's unclear to me if that means 40% of everything they've ever released (which is implied by this hook), or 40% of their sales (which seems eminantly more likely, especially given the stats in the lead). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your query but the hook seems to follow the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Discography is not 'sales'. 6 albums and an EP - where two of the albums are Christmas albums does not 40% make. It is however roughly 40% of their total album sales (where known). On a related note, what sort of PC rubbish is it naming it 'holiday albums' in the DYK? They are Christmas albums, both with 'Christmas' in the title, and holiday albums is a redirect to Christmas Music anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so I think the hook is misleading, it's not 40% of the discography (i.e. a % of the number of items they've released, and even a cursory glance at the target article demonstrates that's clearly not correct), it's 40% of the sales. Suggest this is booted back to noms where it can be discussed properly and perhaps a better (clearer, less dubious) hook can be selected. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Pulled from prep; nomination reopened. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought about that when reviewing the nomination, and considered changing the hook to "total output," but figured output and discography were closely related enough. Simply changing it to "account for 40 percent of their total output" would solve the problem. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Unless you can precisely define "output", then no. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Depends on your perspective. "Output" is supported by the source, it's just not explicated. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Um, that's what I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, where's the rule that says a hook need not only be supported, but also parsed out, by the source? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Well you may have missed the bit where hooks are supposed to be comprehensible to our readers. If you and the nominator and the promoter don't actually know what "output" means and actually all agreed to promote a different hook anyway, what hope? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I would interpret "output" of a musical artist to be the same as their discography. An artist can be said to have put out X number of albums, those X albums are their output not the thousands or millions of copies of those albums.--Khajidha (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Then the claim is incorrect, because 40% of the entries in the discography are not "hoilday albums". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If we mean sales, why not just say so? ... that holiday albums released by the musical duo She & Him account for 40 percent of their sales? --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Um, that's the whole point. We don't know what we mean. The source says "output". The hook says "discography". But if we don't actually know, we shouldnt be using it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Idea for a DYK article

Hi. I'd like to suggest an unusual article for your project. Moose Cholak was a pro wrestler from the 1960s who wore a moose head to the ring. I also thought it'd be neat to have a picture along with the DYK "hook". Thanks for your time. 72.74.198.169 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I just completed and nominated 1972 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts robbery for DYK; it can be found under August 26. I would like very much for it to run on Monday, September 4, since that is the 45th anniversary of the event (and, coincidentally enough, also Labo(u)r Day in the U.S. and Canada). The queues for that day are wide open. Could someone oblige?

By the way, as noted in the nomination, I do realize that this means that we will have consecutive days with hooks related to thefts of art from the same museum, since my hook for 2011 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts theft has already been approved. I can't do anything about the coincidence of anniversary dates; indeed, it's noted in the article about the 2011 theft. I hope this does not greatly disturb anyone. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: It's been reviewed and promoted to prep 2 for September 4. Alex ShihTalk 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - ... that the ciliate Zoothamnium niveum appears white because it is covered with symbiotic bacteria?

Honestly, while the "interesting to a broad audience" still forms part of the rules here, can someone explain to me what makes this in any sense interesting? Kbseah, Cwmhiraeth, 97198. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Not one of the people you pinged, but I find this interesting. Would it be more interesting to you if it was rephrased something like "the ["real colour"] ciliate Zoothamnium niveum appears white because it is covered with symbiotic bacteria?"Red Fiona (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we're supposed to be surprised that any symbiotic relationship is so extreme/tight that that the colour of one partner is completely overwritten by the other. That's why I thought mentioning the "real" colour of Z. niveum might make it work better for a general audience. Red Fiona (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, Redfiona99. A more verbose version of what I was trying to convey is: "the ciliate Zoothamnium niveum appears white because it is covered with symbiotic bacteria, unlike most other ciliates which are typically not covered in bacteria and which are not so conspicuous, and this was the reason for its being named 'niveum' meaning 'snowy'." So there are two points which I think are surprising because they are uncommon for most organisms: being covered in beneficial bacteria, and their being so dense that it changes the appearance/color of the organism to the naked eye. Sorry if that wasn't brought across very well, and I am open to suggestions on how to render this pithily. Kbseah (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Adding a link to Zoothamnium niveum for the convenience of anyone reading this thread. That TRM finds the hook uninteresting reflects on TRM's lack of interest in biological topics rather than the hook itself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
False, it reflects the fact that I don't understand the hook, if something is covered with something else with colour A, why to a layman should the fact that the original something then appears to look like colour A be of interest? Please refrain from trying to understand how my brain works. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the point that you find unclear, The Rambling Man. Yes, it's not surprising that being covered in something with color A would make you also look like color A, but here the surprise factor lies in the fact that these bacteria are microscopic and typically invisible, but they cover this organism so densely that it appears white. This isn't a common phenomenon. To use a humorous analogy, it is not notable that carrots are orange, but it is notable (at least at a personal level) when one turns orange from eating too many carrots. As an alternative hook, how about "the ciliate Zoothamnium niveum is so densely covered by symbiotic microbes that it appears white to the naked eye"? Kbseah (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
That's an improvement, definitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Can the hook still be changed? I see that the DYK nomination template has been archived and should no longer be edited. Haven't done this before. Kbseah (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
We can either re-open the nom (undo the closure) and relate this discussion there, or simply change the hook as it sits in the prep area. Either seems fine to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Have done the latter, with a link to this discussion in edit summary Kbseah (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - ... that after appearing in more than 50 films, the American television series Quantico was Priyanka Chopra's first-ever audition?

Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Krish!

Quantico isn't an "audition", it's a TV show, perhaps this should say ALT1 "... Priyanka Chopra made her first ever television audition for American series Quantico?" The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not retain the meaning of the original hook with
I wasn't aware that was the original meaning, so she made no auditions for any of her film roles at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I see that now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
She never had to audition for any films as after winning Miss World, she was offered over a dozen films. Her first few releases worked and she got more offers. She never auditioned until 2015's Quantico.Krish | Talk 11:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the point is she auditioned for Quantico, it's the English that needs work I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
So @The Rambling Man: Is everything okay now?Krish | Talk 12:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikicoding question for nomination discussions

Sorry if this is a rookie wikicode mistake, but I've responded to comments on my DYK nomination here, but they don't show up. If you look at the code in the template version, however, they're in the code and show up in the specific template for the nom. Is this a weird server lag issue, or am I missing some piece of basic code to get my comment to appear? Will my comment be seen? Thanks! Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Owlsmcgee No mistake is rookie! It takes some time for the Template edit to display on the DYK page, and it seems that it has now been displayed. I hope that helps! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for your help! Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Owlsmcgee and Adityavagarwal: If you want to see it immediately, you can click the link at the top which says "Click here to 'purge' this page," and then push the "Yes" button on the following page. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - "... that Thomas Richard Morris was formally addressed as His Worship?"

Cwmhiraeth, Curlymanjaro, Yoninah

Isn't it the case that many thousands of individuals are formally addressed as His Worship? In what way is this interesting? The original hook was much more interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"His or Her Worship is an honorific prefix for mayors, Justices of the Peace and magistrates in present or former Commonwealth realms. " (Worship (style)). Considering that he was a JP, it is weird that the article only states that he was adressed as His Worship when he was mayor... Then again, it seems that his main claim to notability is being related to some other politicians, there seems to be a singular lack of reliable, independent sources about the man, just passing mentions and listings in local election databases. Fram (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Worship (style) is incorrect. Mayors may be called "your worship" for all I know, but judges and magistrates (the same thing as JPs) in the Uk are addressed as "your honour". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"in present or former Commonwealth realms." Also Mayors are technically JP's in some countries historically. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Then the article Magistrate (England and Wales) is wrong as well. Then again, I presume Judiciary.gov.uk is wrong as well, claiming that "Magistrates - In court" are addressed as "Your Worship, or Sir or Madam". Then again, what do they know about this? Fram (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing - they are Enemies of the People (or at least they are if you believe everything in the Daily Mail is true) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, sorry for my recent absence regarding the nomination, I just thought I'd let the DYK process take its course. From the off, I do prefer my original hook; though I respect association to a notable politician is not enough in itself to justify a DYK nomination, Rees-Mogg's been an obsessive source of speculation in the UK's media as of late and I feel this hook is particularly relevant amidst the current popularity of his profile. By this measure, I'm inclined to agree with The Rambling Man. As for general notability re: local politicians, I point your attention to the George Albert Watts article, a Mayor of St Pancras without the same family connections. Noswall59 has done fantastic work on local politicians in the East Midlands and I think we'd all benefit from their input on this particular nomination. Curlymanjaro (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
George Albert Watts has one source which gives me a 404 error, and which wasn't independent anyway (as the source is the employer). So that example is more a counter-indication of notability than anything else. Fram (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Fram – the Watts article is an odd one to point to if you're looking for claims of notability. He may well be important, and with the right amount of research one could probably build an article on him, but there's nothing in that article at the moment to say so. My thinking is that, at least in times gone by, senior local politicians and JPs could meet WPs notability requirements if local newspaper sources and obituaries are considered to be substantial enough coverage. I always err on the side of caution because there is not really any test case, although J. H. Bowman is one I created which fits this criteria (it could be expanded with more research too). If Morris had an entry in Who's Who, or a reasonable-length article about him or obituary in a newspaper then that might give you a more rounded picture of the man and also give us a better article, plus indicate notability. As it stands, this doesn't seem to be the case. Morris probably was a wealthy, politically important person in his locality, and popular in high society. But he seems to have kept under the radar on the whole and a dearth of research has kept him there. The biggest barrier you are likely to face is (a) the unfortunate and frustrating lack of secondary research into 20th-century English local politics; and (b) the difficulty in accessing and searching post-1940s newspapers, especially at a local level. Ideally, you would be best to find out when he died, and see if you can find an obituary. As for the original issue, about interesting hooks, I'll leave that up to those who are more experienced than me in that department. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

Suggest this is booted back to noms since the original note seems to have generated the sort of discussion that should happen before a hook gets promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Returned to noms area. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Mongolism

I have promoted this hook to Prep 4 but wonder if it would be better worded as

  • Cwmhiraeth: I agree with the second version, actually my original hook wasn't referring to that, but the reviewer thought it was a more interesting hook. I stressed in the article that the term was later changed, so is more than fine for me to change the hook as well. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm amazed this has been passed. The second part of the hook is not cited (I have just added a cn tag) but there is already another tag in the article; it relies extensively on a blog and a lulu.com publication, both self published sources so neither are reliable and should be removed; it needs to be copy edited and an incorrect page number is given for the PD source. It is a very long time since I was involved at DYK in any way but is this really the currently accepted standard? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • not sure about this comment. the source for the hook is: [1] Page 27 is the correct page and if you seach the txt you find this text: "BROUSSEAU, Kate, (Miss), born in Ypsilanti, Michigan, daughter of Julius and Caroline Yakeley Brousseau, a resident of California since 1877. Educated at L. A. High and L. A. State Normal Schools; studied at University of Minnesota, University of California, University of Chicago Law School, in Grermany and in Paris. Docteur de L'Universite de Paris, 1904. Professor of Psychology, Mills College. Made psychological survey of inmates of Sonoma State Home for the Feebleminded, 1914-15, giving tests to about 1400 children; served in French Army, 1917-19, as directrice des Foyers du Soldat, on Lorraine Front; with French Army of Occupation in Germany and in devastated districts of Northern France; assistant to Dr. Toulouse in examination of street railway employees, Paris, 1917; awarded commemorative medal by French Government, 1920. Author: "Education des Negres aux Etats-Unis," "Mongolism, a Study of the Physical and (Mental Characteristics of Mongolian Imbeciles." Member: American Ass'n. for the Advancement of Science, American Ass'n. of University Professors, American Ass'n. of University Women, American Women's Overseas League, Ligue d' Hygiene Mentale of Paris. Home: 2617 Cole St., Oakland, Calif." I added the other sources, sorry I forgot it, but it was available as a pdf online: [2] And I added also an internal reference for the Lancet sentence: [3] Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The page number appears to be page 28; I have also just removed the ref to Wikipedia that was included a few minutes ago. Please remove the Anderson and de Vere refs, as stated above they are not reliable sources. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I added a wikilink to Mongolian idiocy. The other two sources are an addition, and not the only source, therefore I would prefer not to remove them. Even if the book is selfpublished, it's well referenced and historical in nature. The blog is a detailed and specific one, devoted to historical profile, again well referenced. We removed the part of the hook referring to the book and/or blog and the hook refers only to the PD 1928 source.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • They are not reliable sources and should be removed. If the information is correct it should be available in valid sources. Anyway, whatever, as I said earlier, if this is the acceptable standard at DYK for the main page, so be it. I see the page number has finally been corrected. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the two unreliable sources. I can't see where "the first class to graduate from from [sic!] University of California, Los Angeles" is sourced though (it was in the lulu.com source...). Best to pull this for now. Fram (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Fram: the hook is sourced: [1] "BROUSSEAU, Kate, (Miss), [...] Educated at L. A. High and L. A. State Normal Schools; [...] Author: [...] "Mongolism, a Study of the Physical and Mental Characteristics of Mongolian Imbeciles."" the "L. A. State Normal Schools" is the former name of UCLA and BROUSSEAU attended and graduated the first class. As said before, the two sources that were removed are not used for the hook. Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • So, it wasn't in the article. Furthermore, she didn't graduate from the University, she graduated from the Normal School, whose facilities were taken over by the University in 1919. No one can graduate in 1884 from a University which only started in 1919 obviously. Fram (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: may you please withdraw this DYK? as I said I did not like it much from the start (it was changed by another editor) and I'm sort of tired of people who are questioning the article even in points that are CLEARLY sourced (source "studied at University of Minnesota, University of California, University of Chicago Law School, in Germany and in Paris" article: "She then studied at University of Minnesota, University of California, University of Chicago Law School, in Germany and in Paris." and they added a tag "citation needed"...) Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There is not a tag beside that particular sentence so the above comment is inaccurate. Unfortunately, it does not help to add refs that do not include the cited information. I would respectfully suggest that this is not the only article on which this is happening; I placed an HTML comment on another article that recently appeared on the main page as a DYK, Katharine Peabody Loring, and it is still there unaddressed. Greater scrutiny of the articles overall appears to be required. Thank you, Fram, for becoming involved as I was just going to walk away from it and chalk it up to ever falling standards at DYK. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • SagaciousPhil: the nice thing about History is that everything remains isn't it?:[3] maybe you were so prone to put not necessary tags that you forgot where you put them...
ETA: your comment: "I still do not see the info in the calisphere ref" I wrote in the edit to read the Description field in the source I provided: [4]: DescriptionLooking southeast across S. Bunker Hill Avenue showing a Queen Anne Revival style boardinghouse at 238; it was originally built as the home of Judge Julius Brousseau in 1878. An apartment building at 244 is partially visible on the far right. Both of these structures have been demolished. LAPL 00091536 Photograph was originally mounted in Vol. 3 of Appraisal report : Bunker Hill (333.01 A6525-2).
you are done, I'm done as well. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: I have pulled this hook from prep 4 based on the discussion here and the article creator's wish to withdraw (and thus not re-opening the nomination), and replaced with another bio hook from prep 5 for the time being. Alex ShihTalk 01:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Binheim, Max; Elvin, Charles A (1928). Women of the West; a series of biographical sketches of living eminent women in the eleven western states of the United States of America. p. 27. Retrieved 8 August 2017.Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  2. ^ "Downs The History of a Disability" (PDF). Retrieved 3 September 2017.
  3. ^ "Mongolian idiocy". Retrieved 3 September 2017.

Special anniversary expedited review request

Biko (song) just passed GAN; I'd love to get it on the main page on 12 September, the 40th anniversary of Biko's death (incidentally, when Steve Biko is scheduled for TFA). Would somebody be willing to supply a quick review Template:Did you know nominations/Biko (song) here? I've yet to do a QPQ, as there's a strange dearth of unreviewed nominations at the moment, but I'll supply one within 24 hours. Vanamonde (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Reviews completed. Needs to be put into a queu. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done In queue. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: It's been placed in the Special Occasion holding area. It will be moved to Prep 4 when that set opens up for September 12. Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, misunderstood what was meant by "queue." Which considering the name of "Preps & Queues," should have been obvious. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Its in Prep 4 now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Much appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lyndsey Scott

I was wondering about this article. Does it really need 10 (ten) pictures of that young lady in it? There is a whole gallery called "Lyndsey Scott modeling, 2016-2017" which looks quite out of place in an encyclopaedia. The articles Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell only feature 5 pictures each, the article Tyra Banks features only 4 pictures. It smells a bit of over-promotion. --Edelseider (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it is patently ridiculous and pure promotion to have that many images of a computer programmer. Two at most. And it's not a dyk issue, anyone can trim it down. If no-one else does, I'll do it myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with The Rambling Man. Way over the top, even for a model. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the modeling gallery, as it is quite excessive and promotional. I'll leave it for someone else to trim down another two. Alex ShihTalk 15:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - non notable group (again)

... that Daisy E. Nirdlinger was the first president of the Women's Advertising Club of St. Louis and an author of children's books?

This "Women's Advertising Club" is so non-notable that it has no Wikipedia article so why is this considered of interest to our readers? Cwmhiraeth, Usernameunique, Elisa.rolle. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

the original hooks were different, the one focused on the "Women's Advertising Club" hinted to the fact that it was a club for working women at the beginning of the XX century, and that was notable. I suggest to go back to the original hook ALT0: "that Daisy E. Nirdlinger (pictured) was the first president of the Women's Advertising Club of St. Louis, open to working women in the advertising business?" --Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It still doesn't really impart the real notability. Was this the first such Club? I guess I could assume that women working in advertising at that time was reasonably rare, but that's not coming across in the current hook at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I moved the hook to Prep 5, and also came here to note that it is not hooky at all. Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the notability isn't the name of the club, but rather that it was an advertising club for women during the early 20th century (apparently founded in 1916). Perhaps this would work better (article would need to be adjusted to incorporate the 1916 source):
... that Daisy E. Nirdlinger was the first president of the Women's Advertising Club of St. Louis, founded in 1916? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Usernameunique: good for me and I can include year and source in the article. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hook ref verified and cited inline. I tweaked the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The seaweed and the limpet

If anyone would care to look at the nomination for this red seaweed and keyhole limpet, I would be exceedingly grateful. At the moment it has got bogged down in an interminable concern about - well I am not quite sure what the concern is about. The last comment was "If you don't want to properly source the content, you can reapply after taking it to GAN. It seems like this meets the quality threshold for many of your species kinfolk." My kinfolk? Am I being compared to a limpet, clinging on tenaciously, I wonder? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Left a comment, but the reviewer has not been by for a while, so if that continues to be the case a new reviewer might be the best option. Vanamonde (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The reviewer left two comments yesterday but they are a few posts up from the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
A new reviewer is needed in any event; the current reviewer has yet to post a review icon despite dozens of edits there. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Conducting editions of a compliation?

  • ... that Reinhard Peters conducted several new operas, Wilhelm Killmayer's Tre Canti di Leopardi, and several editions of the CD compilation Musik in Deutschland 1950–2000?

Template:Did you know nominations/Reinhard Peters @Gerda Arendt, Usernameunique, and Cwmhiraeth: (from prep 4)

This hook doesn't seem to make much sense. They didn't "conduct several editions of a CD compilation", music they conducted was included in several CDs of the compilation series though. The recordings on these CDs were much older than the release of the compilation. Fram (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

How is this?
  • ... that Reinhard Peters conducted several new operas, Wilhelm Killmayer's Tre Canti di Leopardi, and contributed to several editions of the CD compilation Musik in Deutschland 1950–2000?
If time permits, there will be an article on the compilation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the word "volumes" might be more accurate than "editions", based on Fram's description of a compilation series. Perhaps "and performances on several volumes of the CD compilation series"? (I'm also not sure whether "contributed" is the right word, since these were pre-existing recordings, not new ones made for the series.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I used "conducted" to keep it simple. Better wording welcome. His were not volumes, but parts of volumes. "several of his recordings chosen for the CD documentation ..."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
"several of his recordings were chosen for the CD compilation Musik in Deutschland 1950–2000" should do it. --Khajidha (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I have amended the hook in the prep area accordingly, though it would read much better if the "Tre Canti di Leopardi" was omitted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed about omitting Tre Canti. (The piece isn't even mentioned in Killmayer's article.) Further, it would be good to bring the new wording back to the article, which still uses the phrasing in the lead and the body that was deemed problematic for the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
If you read the nom, I added Killmayer (late) as a tribute to a great composer who recently died. I can create an article on the leopardi if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1: ... that Chris Rowley is the first West Point graduate to pitch at Major League level?

This hook has a missing word. It should be "... that Chris Rowley is the first West Point graduate to pitch at the Major League level?" --Usernameunique (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. Here "Major League" is being used as shorthand for Major League Baseball. We would say "at MLB level" not "at the MLB level."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Since the source says "the first West Point graduate to pitch at the MLB level", adding a "the" shouldn't be a problem. However, the hook is basically a copy of the original source, which is not good. I'm changing this to match the wording of the article (now fixed to say "pitch" rather than "play", which was not supported by the source): "to pitch in Major League Baseball". (I'd wait for further discussion, but the prep set could be promoted to queue at any time, since it's due to be on the main page in about seven hours.) I think having the word "baseball" in the hook is important (see WP:DYKSG#C2). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominations needing work

There are currently 39 articles that are still pending approval. Some of these just have minor issues remaining (e.g., needs QPQ), and some had problems identified after their initial promotion, and so are hidden away on the "approved" page. At any rate, I thought I would come up with a list identifying the articles and the work that needs to be done, so that we could perhaps cut into the list.

The articles are ordered by date, with those that just need a QPQ, and those that need a full review, singled out at the bottom.

Please feel free to cross these off as they are resolved.


Full review needed:

And some gratuitous pings, to get more eyes on these nominations: @Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Gerda Arendt, The Rambling Man, and Yoninah: User:7&6=thirteen, had to go to your archived talk page to figure out how to ping you. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has worked on these! Down from 39 to 27 in just one day, and many of the ones with pending issues look as if they are close. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@TheSandDoctor: @Usernameunique: @97198:

The article doesn't mention anything about the mid-1980s. In one place it says the group has been feuding since its formation in 1962, and in another place it says the feuds began in the 1970s. The hook needs to be changed. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The article does? See here Yoninah. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, the article uses "World War III" in three different places, apparently describing feuds over different periods, one of which does appear (by virtue of the section in which the statement resides) to be the 1980s, though the years are unclear enough not to support "mid-1980s" in my view (since it seems to have been set aside in 1989). However, with that sort of factual disagreement within the article itself, the hook cannot run as is. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset How about this then?
If not, may I suggest swapping for the other approved hook within the nomination? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with doing that is that it isn't accurate: the "World War III" period was the last half of the 1980s according to Richards. I have pulled the hook from prep 2 because I think a bit of work is needed on the article itself with regard to the three uses of "World War III" as well as with the hook; specifics are listed on the nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"I think a bit of work is needed on the article itself" - well WP:GAR is thataway; in the meantime, According to the Rolling Stones, the band's autobiography, talks about "World War III" on p. 247, or there are sources here, here and here if that's deemed insufficient. It basically peaked around the time Keith Richards was recording Talk Is Cheap because the Stones were inactive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Removed the third mention from the article, and proposed some ALTs. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Source?

Resolved

Template:Did you know nominations/Lai Ning — fortunavelut luna 08:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Two sets a day?

Since we have many active reviewers now and the backlog is under control more than ever before (thanks to awesome reviewers), would it not be the time to go for two sets a day? The number of approved DYKs is also at a peak now, and keeps increasing every day! So, maybe like earlier, we could have two sets a day, instead of just one. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adityavagarwal that we should move to two sets a day to reduce the backlog to a more sensible figure. That we have such a high proportion of approved articles (161 out of 185 as I write) is largely due to User:Usernameunique who has done sterling work whittling away at the backlog of unapproved nominations. I suggest a reserve of 80 to 100 approved nominations is about right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It will have to be closely monitored. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, do it, but don't let the quality of reviews and promotions suffer for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih, Casliber, and Vanamonde93: If people are generally happy with this change, we need an admin to implement it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I can do it, but somebody needs to tell me what to do :) The intricacies of the code are things that I can never remember, though I think I've done this before... Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll do it shortly after the next set changes at 0:00 UTC. Alex ShihTalk 13:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Since this is the first time I am going for a special occasion hook, I suppose 23rd September is the International Rabbit Day, so maybe we could reserve the hooks Yunnan hare and Natal red rock hare for that day? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thank you very much! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done I've changed the time back to 12 hours, hopefully it will be fine. The bunnies are in line for the next next prep 3. Alex ShihTalk 03:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

National Nanotechnology Day

National Nanotechnology Day is coming up on October 9 (because nano is 10^-9, of course), and it would be great to have some DYKs for the day. I have some suggestions below; I'm happy to give a quick DYK (or GA) review if I haven't been involved in improving the article myself.

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) What about a DYK on the day itself? It doesn't appear to even have a WP article yet. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like there's potentially enough sources from the different organizations who participated to write a National Nanotechnology Day article. It might be better as a section of National Nanotechnology Initiative though. For that matter, it would be nice to expand National Nanotechnology Initiative anyway. It would need about 12,000 characters to be a 5x expansion, which is a lot but attainable. There are extensive sources—I've listed a bunch on its talk page. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Animal husbandry

Since Cwmhiraeth nominated this and I suggested the ALT, another editor is needed to promote this to prep (preferably to the image slot). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, 7&6, I didn't realize that the ALT didn't have a full review. Now it's ready for promotion. Yoninah (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Promoted to prep 3. Alex ShihTalk 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: thank you, but you promoted the wrong image. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Fixed, sorry. Alex ShihTalk 00:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you know ...

Indeed, you're right, and I'm wondering how it came about. The first was written on the species when I was new(ish), and the second one on the genus, which is the correct procedure when a genus contains a single species. Also, the coral had been moved to a different family in the interim. Is this a DYK record? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Tags placed on current DYK

Resolved

Can someone explain to me why KATMAKROFAN keeps insisting that Plated (meal kits), which is currently on the main page should be tagged. I may be too close to the article, but I don't understand the complaints.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this one (no. 2). Generally, I don't think tags on top of an article do much good. I haven't seen a casual reader improve an article prompted by such a tag, and the watching regulars can be reached on the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote prep in the next 35 minutes—the prep set is now complete. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Industrial farming vs. Beatrix Potter

  • ... that songs and books for children (Beatrix Potter illustration pictured) often depict happy farm animals in attractive countryside, glossing over the realities of intensive indoor rearing and slaughter?

from Prep 3. Template:Did you know nominations/Animal husbandry @Chiswik Chap, Cwmhiraeth, Cognissonance, and Alex Shih: and User:7&6=thirteen (from whom pings don't work, I believe?).

First, as the source [5] makes clear, of course Betrix Potter and the like do this, as "intensive indoor rearing" didn't exist yet. "Since much of the classic literature we’re talking about here was written before the advent of factory farming, when land-based agriculture was the norm, you could say that it presents a fairly faithful view of how farming used to be." So no "glossing over" but "a fairly faithful view". Also problematic is that the source isn't a neutral, independent source, but a seriously partisan one: Compassion in World Farming is, according to our own article on them, "a campaigning and lobbying animal welfare organisation" (although apparentmy a fairly good and honest one at that).

This section in this GA needs to be rewritten, and the hook should be pulled and replaced by a better one. Fram (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: ping gone wrong... Fram (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The Tale of Pigling Bland by Beatrix Potter
The Tale of Pigling Bland by Beatrix Potter
The hook is about children's books in general, both ancient and modern, and not just Beatrix Potter. But you could change the hook to
...which ignores that the source given calls it "a fairly faithful view", not "glossing over". And the article explicitly discusses this in the context of such old books (Potter and Winnie the Poo). Fram (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The source says "But these much-loved books often paint a picture of farming that’s more rosy than it is realistic. Nine times out of ten, these fictional farms feature ruddy-cheeked farmers and their happy animals, who are free to roam rolling green fields and pretty meadows." and "Since much of the classic literature we’re talking about here was written before the advent of factory farming, when land-based agriculture was the norm, you could say that it presents a fairly faithful view of how farming used to be. But here’s the thing: even contemporary kids’ pop culture paints a relentlessly glossy image of farming, avoiding the harsh realities of food production at all costs." (my emphasis) - The source is fairly represented by the hook, and indeed by the text of the paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You took two disjointed piexes of text, and ignore the even contemporary kids’ pop culture (just before your second bolded text!). The source has one description of the old books, and one about contemporary pop culture, and you not only succeed in mixing these two in one text and hook, but to fail to recognise this even when it is pointed out to you. Staggering... Perhaps not only the DYK needs to be pulled but the GA status revoked as well if this is the level of source reading that is being done. Fram (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, expanded the bolded bit, you're right about that. The point we're making is that kids' culture, books, songs, films, all of it, not just or even especially Beatrix Potter, consistently emphasises the happy animals in sunny surroundings, which is what both the hook and the source say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
No, what the article and hook say is that Potter, Milne, ... gloss over the harsh reality of factory farming, even though factory farming was not the norm at that time at all. Juxtaposing the old classics with the current livestock farming situation just won't do. Fram (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the problem is that an illustration from Beatrix Potter's works (written before factory farming existed) is being used to illustrate a comment about how modern children's literature depicts modern farming. The picture is irrelevant to the point being made and misleads the reader as to the realities of Ms. Potter's time. --Khajidha (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Also note: pigs don't actually walk upright, wear jackets and waistcoats, and politely converse (as they do with modern farming methods). I mean, thousands of parents still read these stories, which are ostensibly about "pigs" and "rabbits" and so on, to their children today, but they don't explain that pigs don't actually walk and talk or that animals are routinely factory farmed for meat? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
And Peter Rabbit's father was savagely murdered and eaten, so it wasn't all happiness and light. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Citation needed. He was cooked and eaten. He might have willingly put his head on the block after his clearly domineering wife drove him to suicide. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Why can't I get a McRabbit Sandwich over the counter these days? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, surprising, given the deeply entrenched Thatcherist subtext. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have pulled this, as this would have hit the main page in a few hours time. I have not reopened the nomination, nor have I replaced the hook (the image hook!) in the set. As it is still in prep, anyone can make the necessary changes if they want to. Fram (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure the nomination could be easily kept, and the picture still used, if the hook was tweaked to something like ".. that songs and books for children (Beatrix Potter illustration pictured) often depict happy farm animals looking after themselves, without the need for any farmer", etc. ? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I reopened the nomination on the Approved page. Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you can ping 7&6=thirteen by doing {{ping|7&6{{=}}thirteen}}. Pppery 23:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have just refilled Prep 3, and it can be promoted as soon as an admin comes by (pinging Alex Shih, Cas Liber, and Maile, in the hopes that one of them are on line and available in the next 40 minutes or so). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5 - List of songs recorded by Steps

The citation referencing the hook is dead. Usernameunique, Yoninah, Calvin999. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. The archive URl isn't working for some reason. I'll re-archive it.  — Calvin999 09:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I've re-archived it but it's still saying it can't open it. Should I just remove the archive URL? because the original URL works fine.  — Calvin999 09:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Remove the archive and try using the tool available in the "History" tab to add archive links to all citations, if that's not what you're already doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I tried it again on Webcitation.org  — Calvin999 10:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I used the tool and it's saying that some are dead now when they aren't?  — Calvin999 10:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A monument for the 1838 Mormon War in France?

(prep 6, the next queue to hit the main page). Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Coonsman @Elisa.rolle, Adityavagarwal, and Cwmhiraeth:

At first, I thought it was simply a case of poor capitalization, and "Missouri war memorial" would do the trick. But according to the article, this really is a memorial for the Missouri War, which is actually the 1838 Mormon War... There was no "Missouri War" during World War I, this is a war memorial erected to honour the men from Missouri who died in 1917-1918 instead. Fram (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


sorry if I do not remember but I think there was not a wikilink to Missouri War and the meaning was that the war memorial was paid and put up by rhe state of Missouri. Could we change it in Missouri World War I memorial?Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The link to Missouri War was present from the very start in the article[6]. Fram (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
How about

Leftism, that fabulous Leftfield album...

[[ (in Prep 6, the next queue to hit the mainpage). Template:Did you know nominations/Jiva Pandu Gavit @Fitindia, Kosack, and Cwmhiraeth:

It may be a surprise for the 3 representatives from the Peasants and Workers Party of India that they are not leftist (and perhaps the same can be said about the representative from the Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangh, the Rashtriya Samaj Paksha and the Samajwadi Party). Fram (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Leftism, rightism, centrism and Indian politics don't mean much to me, rendering me utterly unfit to promote such hooks to prep. However, as you're stuck with me, I have changed the hook to read.

Prep 4/Caroline Winslow

Folks, I've just pulled this out of Prep 4 because I believe it not to be ready for the main page. There are grammatical errors, but more importantly, there are statements verging on the promotional: statements I would have flagged if I had reviewed this at NPP, let alone DYK. These need to be fixed before the article may be featured. Also, there is now a hole in Prep 4 that needs filling. @Cwmhiraeth, Gerda Arendt, and Elisa.rolle:, nomination page. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I heard that Elisa wants to withdraw from DYK, see her talk. Could it simply be closed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have filled the hole in prep 4 with another bio hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Cwm. Gerda, that's an unfortunate result. I haven't been too active here lately, so I'm unsure what conflicts led to the withdrawal. From what I've seen, Elisa.rolle's articles were imperfect (and which of us writes perfect articles?) but a definite net positive. The issues I just flagged are non-trivial but not fatal. So, I'm not going to close this at least for now, to allow any interested watchers to step in. I'd fix these myself had I the time. If anybody else closes this, I will not object. Vanamonde (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you speak to Elisa, who has used the term Witch hunt, on her talk. I have a busy weekend, sorry that I can't help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
stand on my position, if there are issue with this DYK I prefer to withdraw it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have copyedited the article and think this nomination should proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the term "witch hunt" is not only inappropriate and a clear violation of Assume Good Faith, but we've been seeing quite a few withdrawals of nominations from this editor when issues are found with her nominations. Perhaps a mentor could be found who could help her navigate these issues and help her avoid them in future submissions? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
My approach is and will continue to be to withdraw the nomination when unnecessary reason are found to block my DYK (see pulling a DYK from Prep for having included a sentence from a 1899 article, obviously in Public Domain, including the source and clipping the article, but not adding the PD notice, or this copyvio report [7] where all read sentences are positions achieved). I stopped to assume good faith on those editors long ago, they have proven more than once, there is no good faith, but a clear hunt for stupid reason. And I do not need any mentor since I will not write DYK anymore, thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
As I explained in the nomination, the issues are largely not specific to DYK. They include things like missing attribution of both PD and Wikipedia text, close paraphrasing or copying of non-free sources, and use of unreliable sources - all of which are non-stupid problems which carry over beyond the DYK context. Thus, even if you choose not to submit articles to DYK any more, a mentor would not be a bad idea. This, on the other hand, is. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: Care someone to explain how you can paraphrase: "executive secretary of the Oregon Tuberculosis Association", "state president of the Oregon Federation of Women's Clubs", "President of the General Federation of Women's Clubs", "the Oregon Federation of Women's Club", "the Oregon Federation of Women’s Clubs established The Saidie Orr Dunbar Nursing Education Fund Trust", "University of Oregon Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives", because this is the reason why some editors pulled a DYK from prep with a copyvio report of "Violation Unlikely 24.8% confidence". I asked Alex Shih to withdraw the DYK and I deleted, and will continue to delete the copyvio tag the editor put on the article. And I lost count how many time this happened in the last few days. Sorry there is no good faith here. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That is not in fact the reason why I pulled the article - you can see my explanation at the nomination page. You should not be removing tags from articles without addressing the problem. And per above, since these problems have recurred in several of your nominations, I again encourage you to review the relevant guidelines and apply them to your editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle, Nikkimaria has been DYK's go-to person for close paraphrasing and copyvio problems for many years now, and our prep sets are always the better for her careful eye. So if she has tagged an article with the copyvio template, then it has copyvios. I think you have a misunderstanding of the Earwig tool, since it has its own limitations and its percentages are far from ironclad: I've found clear copyvios with scores as low as 9%, so its use of "unlikely" is all too frequently wrong—one should always look at the highlighted text to make an accurate determination. Take the "oregongfwc.org/history.html" source: Earwig gives "Violation unlikely" with a "21.3% confidence", yet there is an entire paragraph copied: In 1941, under the sponsorship of the Oregon Federation of Women's Club, legislation was introduced and passed by the Oregon Legislature providing for blood testing of prospective mothers in an effort to detect and control syphilis. (Since "Oregon Federation of Women's Club" is expanded from "OFWC" in the original, it still counts as copying.) Similarly, in the "17.4% confidence" source, "fconline.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker-profile/index?key=DUNB001", the sentence Scholarship are awarded to individuals accepted to master's or doctoral nursing programs in Oregon under the condition that they must practice in the state upon graduation. is identical except that "are awarded" was "awards" in the original. Your ideas for what is acceptable to take unchanged from the original source are clearly too broad if you believe either of these are permissible, or not sufficient to warrant an article template. Please do not continue to delete such article templates; it is not appropriate for you to do so. Copyvio issues are among the most serious here at Wikipedia, and they should be dealt with promptly when discovered. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: "Scholarship are awarded to individuals accepted to master's or doctoral nursing programs in Oregon under the condition that they must practice in the state upon graduation" is the OFFICIAL reason to award the scholarship. Not only should not be paraphrased, paraphrasing should be discoraged. This is not my opinion, this is common sense.
and the sentence "In 1941, under the sponsorship of the Oregon Federation of Women's Club, legislation was introduced and passed by the Oregon Legislature providing for blood testing of prospective mothers in an effort to detect and control syphilis." is from an official webpage of the OFWC that does not have copyright notice.
but as I said, your "good" editing can continue as you please, I will withdraw my current DYKs one after the other as soon as this type of reviews are done, and above all will not write more, achieving a double purpose: my peace, and less work to you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
first evidence [8] "The death of Mrs. Saidie Orr Dunbar in Portland Monday removed from the scene one of the ablest women in Oregon history. Her great work was in the field ef public health. As executive secretary for the state organization to combat tuberculosis she toured the state regularly, setting up local groups to aid in the fight against TB. Her concern for public health did not end with combatting this killing disease. She promoted the setting up of county health departments in the general cause of better health. Her proven qualities of leadership and of organizing ability brought her addi-tional honors and responsibilities. She was president of the Oregon Federation of Women's Clubs in 1923 and of the General Federation from 1938 to 1941. Other causes claimed her interest and her guidance, such as the mustering of women for war work in World War II. Oregon is a far better place to live in, a better place to rear families in be-cause of the devoted public service of Mrs. Saidie Orr Dunbar."
my article "Saidie Orr Dunbar became the executive secretary of the Oregon Tuberculosis Association in 1913 and served in that position until her retirement in 1951. She toured Oregon regularly, setting up local groups to aid in the fight against tuberculosis. She promoted the setting up of county health departments. [...] From 1923 to 1926 she was the state president of the Oregon Federation of Women's Clubs and was a member of the National federation. She was elected President of the General Federation of Women's Clubs in 1938 and was in role until 1941. [...] She was involved in the American Way of Life program during World War II." --> Copyvio report not available since article is not online.
second evidence [9] (NOTE the webpage DOES NOT HAVE copyright notice) "From 1938 - 1941, Oregon’s Saidie Orr Dunbar served as President of GFWC. In 1941, under the sponsorship of OFWC, legislation was introduced and passed by the Oregon Legislature providing for blood testing of prospective mothers in an effort to detect and control syphilis. In 1942, OFWC had 137 clubs and 5866 members. [...] In 1946 the Penny Art Fund Scholarship was started and the first scholarship given in 1948. In 1948, GFWC held their 57th convention in Portland. In 1956 the Saidie Orr Dunbar Nursing Fund was established and in 1961, the Virginia Lang Music scholarships were established."
my article "She was elected President of the General Federation of Women's Clubs in 1938 and was in role until 1941. [...] In 1941, under the sponsorship of the Oregon Federation of Women's Club, legislation was introduced and passed by the Oregon Legislature providing for blood testing of prospective mothers in an effort to detect and control syphilis. [...] The American Lung Association and the Oregon Federation of Women’s Clubs established The Saidie Orr Dunbar Nursing Education Fund Trust in her honor in 1956." --> Copyvio report: Violation Unlikely, 21.3%, confidence
third evidence [10]: "Saidie Orr Dunbar Nursing Education Fund, 822 John Street, Seattle, WA United States 98109, Telephone: (503) 924-4094, Type of Grantmaker: Independent foundation, Established in 1956 in OR, Purpose and Activities: Scholarship awards to individuals accepted to master's or doctoral nursing programs in Oregon under the condition that they must practice in the state upon graduation."
my article "The American Lung Association and the Oregon Federation of Women’s Clubs established The Saidie Orr Dunbar Nursing Education Fund Trust in her honor in 1956. Scholarship are awarded to individuals accepted to master's or doctoral nursing programs in Oregon under the condition that they must practice in the state upon graduation." --> Copyvio report: Violation Unlikely, 17.4%, confidence
fouth evidence [11]: "Saidie Orr Dunbar, fourteenth international president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, 1938—1941. During her term, Saidie instituted a two—year course of study on Latin America that culminated with a Good Neighbor Tour to South America in 1940."
my article: "She was elected President of the General Federation of Women's Clubs in 1938 and was in role until 1941. She instituted a two-year course of study on Latin America that culminated with a Good Neighbor Tour to South America in 1940." --> Copyvio report: Violation Unlikely, 15.3%, confidence
All copyvio reports are GREEN and the violation is unlikely due to the fact they are mostly accomplishments and positions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
If you feel a particular phrase from the source should not be paraphrased, then put it in quotation marks so it's clear it's been taken directly from the source. But just because a source does not have an obvious copyright notice, doesn't mean it's free for us to use. See WP:COPYOTHERS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Elisa.rolle: You are missing the point, Elisa. Anyway, I have copyedited Saidie Orr Dunbar to 0.0% so hopefully it's fine to remove the maintenance template now. If you have any article that has been asked to be copyedited for issues, just ask me or anyone else, or else just try to incorporate the texts properly, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 16:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Alex Shih, maybe I'm missing the point at this point, but the improper behaviour of others pushed me to this point. Thank you for the editing job on the article, I will check no important info had been lost. In this case I trust you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Elisa.rolle, there has been no improper behavior by others, and it is unfortunate that you continue to believe there is. You should not continue to believe that Earwig's report's numbers are a confirmation of a lack of problems, because it is not. Since you don't believe us, I am pinging The Earwig; perhaps he will be convincing as to what his tool's scores actually mean. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, I seem to have missed the party here. I don't particularly appreciate the suggestion that Elisa.rolle's nominations were being pulled with malicious intent, but I work on south Asian politics, an area which makes this insinuation seem refreshingly polite. Elisa, please, don't turn allies into enemies. I for one am pleased to see articles on notable women that did not previously exist at DYK: I've created and nominated few WIR entries myself. I just believe we need to do the subjects justice before featuring them on the main page. This includes addressing issues with grammar, copyright, neutrality, and sourcing. It isn't too much to ask you to adhere to community norms on close paraphrasing, even if your personal opinion is different: I have strong personal views on many of our guidelines, but I do not let them get in the way of improving articles to a common standard. If the DYK process is stressful, I'm sure there are a number of editors both here and at WIR who would be willing to look over entries before they are nominated or reviewed. I don't believe there are many people here who do not wish to see more WIR entries at DYK; nor are there many (any?) folks who bear you personal ill-will, and I think in your own interests it's time you realized that. Vanamonde (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde: nope, sorry, stating again, for my own peace I will not write DYK anymore. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I'm not sure what you want to achieve more than me already stating that I will not partecipate anymore in DYK so that to avoid further problem. This attitude is starting to really resembling the witch hunt you said at first it wasn't. I kindly ask you to stop here for the good peace of me and you all as well. Thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I find that attitude unconstructive, particularly as not submitting creations to DYK does not exempt them from policies about copyright, sourcing, and MOS: but we cannot compel you to submit anything here. Vanamonde (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know what's going on here, nor do I have an interest reading through this entire conversation, but I take it that some people are wondering where the copyvio tool gets its numbers from. In short, absence of a result (or a low %) means little and is not something you should draw conclusions from (nowhere do I ever claim that not finding a violation means no violation exists), and larger percentages mean that the tool happened to find a possible source with a lot of words in common (either relative to the size of the article, or in absolute number of words). Its main job is to scan for possible violations in lots of articles quickly; once you've found something or narrowed in on a particular article of interest, you need to do a manual check and evaluate how similar things are yourself. Simply getting a low percentage says nothing about close paraphrasing or similar issues, and getting a high percentage doesn't mean a violation actually exists. For a detailed explanation of numbers, see this conversation. — Earwig talk 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde: I think you have missed a bit of background here, and sincerely, I do not want to dig it out again. It irks me that people throw words like not respecting copyright and/or sourcing, when my articles are ALWAYS sourced and that I go on even clipping articles which are not available online to allow everyone to see the source. But alas, everyone is entitled to decide what to do and not to do, and I decided not to write DYK anymore. As you said, I think it's a loss of representation on the DYKs but I hope someone else, with better patience (and attitude?) than me will cover. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominations needing work

Creating a new list of nominations that either need a full review, or have problems that need to be addressed. Special thanks to BlueMoonset, who usually fulfills this role but has kindly supported this effort.

There are currently 32 nominations on the list. Several of them are awaiting closure, only need QPQs, or simply need alternate hooks to be verified. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Awaiting closure:

Needs QPQ:

Other issues:

Review needed:

Prep 4

@JuneGloom07: @Gronk Oz: @Cwmhiraeth:

This hook focuses on a non-notable production mixer who does not have a Wikipedia page, and who only earned a nomination and not a win. This is not going to attract too many hits. The article does have a nice length, so it shouldn't be so hard to come up with a real "hook". Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, another hook for the sake of it. If Wikipedia doesn't care who Klaus Landsberg is, why should any of our readers. This is basic stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree, though that is the ALT hook - is the primary one okay? --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pulled. I don't care about the hits, much more important is that the hook is not supported by the source. The hook states that he got the nomination for his work on that particular episode, but the source [12] indicates that he got his nomination for his work on the series (and yes, he worked on most or all episodes, not just this one, in those years). This alt hook should never have been accepted or promoted. Fram (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Too quick

Maybe going to two sets has been a move too soon, I'm seeing material already in the Queues that I haven't even seen in prep sets, and errors are creeping in, several of the most recent prep and queue articles have had to be tagged for various general Wikipedia issues, which should have been picked up by nominator, promoter or admin creating queues. More haste less speed people. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Since we moved to 2 hooks/day almost every set has not been queued in advance, and there's a significant increase in issues being raised here. People are being too focused on getting it done quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, let's switch back. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Valid points with which I agree. The backlog has reduced to 100 and I would support returning to one set a day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it alternatively be possible to make an effort to fill up some more of the preps in advance? That would give more time to re-check the hooks (I can do some of this if it would help) before they get precipitously close to the main page. In 9 days the approved nominations have gone from 161 to 104 (not counting the 17 currently in prep), for an average reduction of 6 per day. 3 or 4 more days of 2 sets would likely bring the backlog down to the low end of Cwmhiraeth's original suggestion of 80 to 100. It could also remove most of the hooks that are older than 3–4 weeks, and the less time that passes between approval and appearance on the main page, the less room for additional problems to crop up. But like The Rambling Man said, the emphasis should be on quality hooks/articles. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
If there is no opposing views I'll switch the timer back to 24 hours after the current queue. Alex ShihTalk 10:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Alex Shih, please be sure to switch back only after the midnight posting to the main, rather than a midday one. (Actually, we're about an hour off, so the posting will be at 01:00, 27 September 2017; any time after that will be fine.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Alex ShihTalk 01:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_141&oldid=1143358530"