Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 154

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 152Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156→Archive 160

Finally time to remove "interesting to a broad audience" from the rules of DYK

So in three of the last four sets we've had:

In each case it's evident that the hook is desperately uninteresting and certainly not "interesting to broad audience" which is mentioned as part of rule 3a of DYK, to whit: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. (bold comes from the rules page).

We've tried to cover this off a few times, but to no avail, yet we're now still seeing around one hook promoted to the main page (i.e. nominated, reviewed, promoted to a set and then promoted to a queue) which is clearly in breach of 3a. We've gone round the houses too many times. Either this rule should be enforced rigorously (like other rules, e.g. cited hook, long enough, QPQ passed etc) or it should be dropped entirely. This can't continue, drop the requirement or enforce the requirement. If you can't enforce it with current approaches, we need a new way to do QPQ to ensure such dross doesn't keep getting to the main page in absolute contravention of the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should be removing this rule. I find the Amazons hook quite interesting; the mythological tribe is known far less well than the river, which is what most readers would assume the sub was named for. The solution here is not to scrap it but to make the rule enforceable by fleshing out our definition of what constitutes a broadly interesting hook. I would be interested to hear proposals about that instead. I have a few ideas myself, but I'm too busy in RL to propose anything at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Vanamonde here. Sometimes, "obvious" hooks can work if they impart new knowledge or teach something that might not be completely well-known to a broad audience. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the three hooks (in the past four sets) are clearly in breach of that rule. It's not being enforced, it should be scrapped. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Here's an exercise, what is interesting to a broad audience about the third hook, for example? Remember, a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You were already told that the tribe and the river have the same etymological background, so that's a non-starter. The only route to enforcing this is to pass the hook by more than just the four individuals who get it to the main page. Ironically, you Vanamonde unilaterally dismissed a hook which had four editors sanctioning it, and a fifth upon discussion, in favour of your own erroneous version which was then binned out through ERRORS, and then I withdrew as a result of your unnecessary tinkering. The only way to ensure "broad audience" engagement is through more eyes on hooks at promotion time. QPQ does not support that right now, nor does last-minute unilateral admin action. In the meantime (and not waiting around for the availability of one admin), the rule is unenforceable and should be scrapped. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
"Interest" is subjective. What could be considered "interesting" to one person might not be so for others, and vice-versa. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the three hooks (in the past four sets) are clearly in breach of that rule. It's not being enforced, it should be scrapped. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It's being enforced in a significant majority of cases, but being missed in others. The argument that because it isn't being universally enforced it should be scrapped is rather like saying that all speed limits should be scrapped because the police don't pull over everyone going over the speed limit. Let's keep this rule, thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. We should look into how it can be made easier to enforce, not dumping it altogether. There's a number of fairly concrete ways in which we can operationally define "interesting" and "broad audience": we should be looking to elaborate those concepts in a way that's broadly acceptable. The rule shouldn't be scrapped unless the principle behind it is flawed, and I cannot think of more than a couple of people who believe that it is. Vanamonde (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The project is failing to enforce one of the fundamental tenets of DYK. Either start to apply it properly (e.g. today's set has a hook about an actress who rehearsed, it needs to be pulled) or bin the requirement. But it is curious that one hook which had consensus even beyond the nomination that it was just fine was tampered with and made erroneous unilaterally, while this hook which has universal agreement of its blandness is just given a free pass on the main page. Little wonder the project as a whole is a laughing stock. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I erred in not double-checking the hook I promoted, but other than that, switching in a more interesting ALT hook is routine, and something you recommend frequently. If you think I misused my tools please feel free to raise this at ARBCOM. Short of doing that, continually accusing me of misbehavior in a forum not intended to resolve this is disruptive, so please stop. Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You edited against consensus, that’s what you did wrong. And you refused to restore the perfectly acceptable hook. And then you tried to claim it was all kosher and not even apologise for the double standards and disruption. You acted unilaterally on the hook I created but didn’t do anything about this one? That’s disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Once again, you are shoehorning your belief that I acted inappropriately into a completely unrelated discussion which you initiated. And that's disruptive, if your purpose in opening it was really to discuss that DYK rule. Vanamonde (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No the clue here is in the inconsistency, why weren’t all these hooks modified or withdrawn? I give up, the continual deflection has worn me out. Please in future use a more consistent approach to boring hooks. That way things will not be so frustrating. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
My approach in promoting them is consistent, TRM: yours was far from the only hook I've pulled, switched, or otherwise objected to. At ERRORS yesterday I had the time to perform a quick fix on an inaccurate hook, but not to engage in the lengthy discussion that would inevitably result from a pulled hook or a proposed modification. That's not inconsistency, that's practicality, unless you would rather I had let the error languish? I wasn't otherwise engaged in these other examples you mention. So, once again, are you complaining about my action in that instance (which is irrelevant here) or about why your examples above were not pulled (which is a valid question, but again, has nothing to do with me personally?) I'm happy to discuss the latter. Vanamonde (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, FTR, you "corrected" the incredibly boring hook that ran today over at ERRORS, instead of pulling it. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
That's literally what I said, TRM. Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the need for interesting hooks is vitally important for DYK. Could it be that part of the problem is the QPQ system, which encourages poor reviewing? Or the scheduling demands which mean huge amounts of meat are needed for the grinder, reducing the attention to detail. Both are fixable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think another possibly bigger problem is that editors feel entitled to have their articles included in DYK even when they cannot come up with an interesting hook. The assumption is that almost all eligible nominated articles will eventually pass rather than that we're doing any amount of filtering for interestingness. See e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Sheng Zhongguo where (as reviewer) I faced a lot of pushback and calls for a new reviewer after refusing to pass a boring hook (and refusing to pass it for other reasons too but the hook part is what's relevant here). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There also is no accountability for reviewers and no mechanism to let reviewers know of bad reviews to potentially improve them in the future or caution them to do a better job. Or remove them from the review process entirely if need be when there is a history of not actually reviewing nominations properly despite being cautioned. The quid pro quo system is fundamentally flawed, just as the name itself suggests really. In the end almost anything is fixable and it probably would not even take that much to reduce the number of similar issues that come up day after day after day. But no one heavily involved in the project wants to do that. So here we are, talking about the same problems with hooks every day, talking about the need to get a handle on that... And what comes of it time and time again? Exactly, nothing. Just anything, even the tiniest of reform would at least be something to get this project out of its apathy towards the problems. But i have little to no hope that will happen. 91.96.115.68 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to repeat my points, but since you brought it up again, I have to say that although interestingness is subjective, your opinion that a violinist (Sheng Zhongguo) being named by a major broadcaster as one of the world's best artists is uninteresting goes beyond reasonable subjectivity, IMO. It's definitely not in the same league as a voice actress practicing for her role. And you also misinterpreted what WP:PEACOCK says, as I pointed out in my response. -Zanhe (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Concern about a hook in Prep area 2

I feel that the promotion was premature. There are objections outlined on the nomination page, which remain unresolved:

I did not see the consensus to promoted at this time. Here's the past discussion where similar concerns have been expressed:

Courtesy ping @Flibirigit: --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't promote this myself because of the final approval statement alone which included, "The objections appear to be spurious and may be motivated by personal issues between Icewhiz and other editors." That sounds like assuming bad faith to me. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is steady as there have been no edits in over a week, nor any discussion on its talk page. I do not see any issue with the article in its current state, nor do I see the requested move discussion as an issue since the title of the article makes no difference. This is a well-written article that should be featured in DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not think that the "final approval statement" was actually an approval statement. Three editors objected, while one supported. I don't see a consensus to promote. Multiple discussions with the nominator (Piotrus) took place elsewhere, such as:
There are clearly outstanding issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There is an open RM. I fully intend to AfD this article, as it is a NOTDICTIONARY and GNG fail, if the topic continues to be the 17th century antisemitic saying (as opposed to a derived concept), which is sourced to a large extent from PRIMARY 17th-19th century sources of a dubious nature. The reason the article has been stable for the past week is the RM waiting closure. Tags were removed from the article by an involved editor, without consensus. As for the hook - it presents an antisemitic saying (repeated in full in the title) as merely "sarcastic" and not antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the promotion. I encourage further discussion and edits on the article. Flibirigit (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have no problem with this being put on hold until Icewhiz gets his AfD which I predict will be closed as an easy keep, but per rules, Icewhiz is entitled to waste our time with said AfD, and the nom can be put on hold, we have no deadlines to worry about. I will note that the article has been stable for a week with no copyediting/neutality/etc. tags to be resolved, and no discussion is taking place on the talk page as all the issues but one (ongoing RM) appear to have been resolved (if Icehwiz disagrees, well, he is neither participating in any discussions anymore, nor is anyone else supporting his POV). The mentioned RM is currently at 6 oppose to 4 support (counting the nom), so it is unlikely that the article will be moved, or deleted (since nobody but Icewhiz even mention this is as a possibility). Effectively, this is already a stable, neutral article, and the only reason it is not DYKed is because a single editor keeps raising hell about it. Since we don't tend to give editors veto power, this is all a colossal and disruptive waste of time - but, as I said earlier, might as well till the AfD is closed, assuming it is started in a timely manner. PS. I want to stress that outside the ongoing RM and the threads of AfD from a single editor, the claim of K.e.coffman that 'There are objections outlined on the nomination page, which remain unresolved' is incorrect. All issues have been addressed (proof: no tags in the article, no edit warring, no ongoing discussions on talk except the RM). I have explicit and directly reached out to Icehwiz (User_talk:Icewhiz#Proverb_article) and asked him on his talk page what issues remain outside said RM and he hasn't replied to this issue on his talk or elsewhere for over a week, so again, let's be clear - the only 'ongoing' issue is the RM which seems almost certain to fail and the thread of AfD which also looks like it is going to be nothing but a procedural waste of time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews. Icewhiz (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The fact there are no current tags or edit warring is not proof that all issues have been addressed. There are ongoing discussions. I've been objecting to the lack of mention of antisemitism in the lead, for one thing, and after reading the RM and AfD I'm starting to question whether the various points of view have been adequately addressed in the body and whether some of the assertions represent original research and/or synthesis. valereee (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

Unfortunately, I don't really see how this hook is interesting to a broad audience. The hook amounts to "local personality founded local organization": while it might be interesting to locals of Forth Worth, its interest to non-Texans may be questionable at best. Could something better be proposed here? The sentences "A bigamy scandal involving her sister's husband (and Fort Worth mayor), W.S. Pendleton, drove Anna Shelton to eschew traditional women's roles", "She ultimately became one of Fort Worth's first female real estate developers and homebuilders, a successful venture that gave her a reputation as a shrewd businesswoman", or her involvement in the women's suffrage movement all could work better than what has currently been proposed. @SaturdayLibrarian, SL93, and GDuwen: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current hook is very uninteresting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
DYK isn't something I have really worked with, but I'm happy to assist GDuwen or whomever craft a better hook. The bigamy scandal is pretty interesting tbh. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with your analysis if the local organization wasn't notable and didn't have a reasonably well built article, but whatever I guess. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What about ... that Anna Shelton was driven to eschew traditional women's roles because of a bigamy scandal involving her sister's husband, a Fort Worth mayor? SL93 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It's more colorful, certainly, but I thought we were supposed to be avoiding unnecessarily negative or scandal-mongering hooks? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it’s nothing negative about the article’s subject which I thought was the issue. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@SaturdayLibrarian, SL93, and David Eppstein: Theoretically that rule mainly applies to BLPs, not people like Shelton who have been dead for decades. And the hook wording proposed above presents the matter in a neutral tone. We could also try combining the two hooks here, as a possiblity:
... that American businesswoman Anna Shelton, who founded The Woman's Club of Fort Worth, was driven to eschew traditional women's roles because of a bigamy scandal involving her sister's husband, a Fort Worth mayor?
That might be a bit too long, but it's just a suggestion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should use the hook I proposed above or a variation of it. People can find out about the organization when they click on her article. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
There would need to be some context about who this Anna Shelton person is in the hook though. Even one or two extra words could work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
... that American businesswoman and suffragist Anna Shelton was driven to eschew traditional women's roles because of a bigamy scandal involving her sister's husband, a Fort Worth mayor? SL93 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Would like to hear SaturdayLibrarian's thoughts on it first, then we'll need a new reviewer since GDuwen hasn't been on-Wiki in over a month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Fine by me! Thanks for pinging me Narutolovehinata5 and SL93. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Wasn't watching the page lately, but glad a modified hook made it to the queue for December 3rd.--GDuwenTell me! 20:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Frankel (producer)

User:Atsme and I would like to nominate Jerry Frankel (producer) together. Does this mean we both have to do a DYK review, or just one of us please? I created it and she did a great job at expanding it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Usually only one name is listed as nominator. If the nominator has more than 5 DYK credits, a QPQ should be submitted. If not, not. Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for Prep 5

A slot has been reserved in Prep 5 for Template:Did you know nominations/Hans-Joachim Schulze. Could someone else promote it please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations page issue

I moved a nom to the Christmas section and both the noms just left links to Template:DYKsubpage. I reverted my changes but now even the single nomination left in the section still just links to the same page. This is presumably some sort of coding issue, that I have no idea how to address. Gatoclass (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The approved noms page is currently in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, then I guess we need to move to two sets a day ASAP (the number of nominations should never have been allowed to reach this level anyway). Normally I will put my hand up to review and promote at least one set a day when we move to two, in order to maintain overall quality, but just now I don't think I can make that commitment, so we may have to tolerate this situation a few days longer. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I was going to suggest moving to two sets a day anyway. There are currently 240 approved hooks plus another 50 or so in the preps and queues. That's 36 days worth of approved hooks at the present rate of one set of eight hooks per day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably what we should be looking at first is getting the preps and queues fully filled, that alone would remove 30-odd hooks from the approval page, and then we'd be ready to go back to two sets. Even so, I don't think I could make a commitment to help out with reviewing and promoting for an accelerated run of more than a week or two as I'm busy at the moment. But even a two-set-per-day run of only a week would reduce the backlog by almost 60 hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early this morning; here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 14. Right now we have a total of 400 nominations, of which 242 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the eight that remain from September and early October.

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) 20:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Machine translation in Prep 3 moved to draft

Template:Did you know nominations/Rue du Tapis-Vert @Joseph2302, Cwmhiraeth, and Flibirigit:

This was sourced to " Corns, Adrien (1989). Historical dictionary of the streets of Marseille. p. 360. ISBN 2-86276-195-8." Weirdly enough, that author doesnt exist. What we do have is "Adrien Blès, Dictionnaire historique des rues de Marseille : mémoire de Marseille". Of couse, when you use a machine translation, you may end up with "Bles" being translated as "Corns"... If an editor or reviewer doesn't even notice this, how much of the remainder of the article can be trusted? And how did anyone verify the hook? Fram (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Mandarax. Alex Shih (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Tool for checking number of DYKs

I remember a tool for checking how many DYKs a user has made, to see if they're QPQ exempt or not. Can someone link me to it? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a link to it – https://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/dyk.py – on every individual nom page. Select "QPQ check" from the DYK toolbox. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem of that tool is that it has the sum of both nom and make credits. I asked to have them distinguished, but no reply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It also misses credits where the bot was down and which were posted manually. EdChem (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil Etheridge

Would it be okay if this article (currently in Prep 6) be moved to Prep 2? The Philippine national football team has a game on December 6, and while Etheridge himself isn't playing in the game, his team is. Might be nice if we could have a special occassion hook for then, but it's also fine if this isn't accepted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Just keep an eye on the preps in case we go to 2 a day. Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Queue2: hook seems to be unsupported by the source?

Template:Did you know nominations/Wojak @Morgan Ginsberg, The C of E, SL93, and Flibirigit:

The source is this, but it's not really clear how that source really supports the hook. The article states how such memes were used to "providing welcome relief", not to express distress. The full reference to Pink Wojaks in that raticle is "Biz/, whose unofficial motto is “Buy high, sell low”, has been particularly prolific when it comes to churning out pink wojaks, with one Twitter account dedicated to sharing the best of the bunch." That's all. To change this into the hook, which turns the pink wojaks into something resembling the pink ribbons worn by breast cancer survivors and the like, is not clear. Fram (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been concerned about this hook, too -- both the support for the hook within the source and the notability of the source itself, which seems questionable to me. valereee (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the hook being pulled. My comment wasn't even a review, it was just stating that the expansion needed tag for a section was solved. The actual review is from The C of E. My response to Valereee above on the DYK talk page was only about the source's reliability. SL93 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"Or pink wojak, the permanently distressed trader whose every move goes against him" this part. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well PD-textlogo for the images is bonkers. And if we want to keep one of the images, then somebody needs to get busy with a fair use rationale and local upload. GMGtalk 16:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems like this should be pulled for the source problem and the image problem before it hits the main page. Getting the hook from the sentence stated by Morgan Ginsberg makes it seem like synthesis. SL93 (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Not only that. There are other statements that don't follow the source exactly, or are misleading, and it's basically an article coatracking 4chan content. Also, the Twitter account linked from the hook source doesn't exist any more. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I removed the images. I did upload some of them but I realized my mistake and nominated them for deletion over a month ago. I was planning on doing a fair use upload after they got deleted. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Wojak needs more participation. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Eh. It's pretty open-and-shut. Just needs to be closed really. Maybe User:Jon Kolbert is around today? GMGtalk 11:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Closed. Thanks @GreenMeansGo: Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Pulled. Fram (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So uh, now what? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A closed nomination

It was suggested at the bottom here that I bring this case up here, as it was closed quite quickly. "The article is new enough, long enough, stable, and neutrally written... and the hook fact is cited inline and verified", as the reviewer noted. --Leitirlad (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I would re-open this. Usually we should allow more leeway for newer editors, particular for something that can be so easily fixed. I have formatted the "Honours" section, but personally I would remove them entirely since they simply repeat information that has already been mentioned, making them redundant. Alex Shih (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I would be fine with reopening this; there were only nine days between review and closure, which is unusually fast, and I'm happy to give extra time to a new DYK participant. However, the hook will need to be shortened: it's 207 prose characters (we include spaces in the count), and needs to get below 200 to qualify. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Suggest exchanging "was invited to train" with "trained" to shorten it. That seems to make it 194 characters. --Leitirlad (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Nomination re-opened. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

3 December

... is another birthday, see Template:Did you know nominations/Hans-Joachim Schulze, for a change nominated in time. - Another concern: Claus Leininger was mentioned above as removed from prep, I replied, no response, the nom is closed, but he appears nowhere in prep, - please fix it one way or the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Which MDR station did he do his weekly talks on? I assume it was not the 'main' MDR stations but MDR Kultur or MDR Klassik? Should that perhaps be specified, at least in the article itself? Sorry if that is nitpicking, certainly is not wrong as written in both hook and article. Otherwise something of this nature really is not unusual at all for Germany, one culture dedicated national radio station exists as well as another one for each of the nine regional public broadcasters. It even is part of the core mission of the public broadcasters to convey culture amongst other things. But it might be unusual in other countries to have such programmes on the radio and hence may be interesting, so i won't complain about that for once even if i am not the big fan of the hook ;) 91.97.243.56 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd care if the stations had different articles, but they are all the same. Can check for precision, but not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, i understand. And it certainly is correct like this anyway. As i said, is in nitpicking territory. 91.97.243.56 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I reopened the nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Claus Leininger and added it back to the DYK nominations page. SL93 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

8 December

On a queens's birthday, I'd like to see her pictured, - gorgeous music, and a GA review by the Rambling Man as an extra guarantee ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
That's great! May the timpani and trumpets sound for you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

6 December

Less priority: Template:Did you know nominations/Bedford Presbyterian Church (New York) for Saint Nicholas. If only without image that day, I'd prefer a different day. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, sorry, I can't do an image slot on December 6. Next time, please ask your reviewers to move the approved hook to the special occasions holding area, so the prep builders will see it easily. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Understand, and as I said less important than the other. Will change the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It looks now as if another pic possibility opened that day, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 Panzer Aces

K.e.coffman, Yoninah I'm a little bit concerned someone might flag the DYK Panzer Aces (book series) hook as "stating the obvious":

I get what you're trying to say, but it doesn't say why Panzer Aces is the hook. How about this:

  • ALT1 - "that Panzer Aces is an English-language book series by the German author Franz Kurowski, who often mixed fact with fiction in his accounts?"

An English-language series by a German author is hooky (IMO). — Maile (talk) 18:18, 9 December2 018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a translated series is hooky, as books are translated all the time. But I'm open to input by others, or just going with the new hook. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) K.e.coffman It seems to me that a basic description of the series would be even hookier: "... that the book series Panzer Aces, which was commercially successful and widely read in the U.S., sought to portray "an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes"? Or something along those lines? Vanamonde (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I like that one a lot. Do we need to mention it was WWII German soldiers? — Maile (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If it's not too long, then this would be great. How about adding WWII here:
"... that the WWII book series Panzer Aces, which was commercially successful and widely read in the U.S., sought to portray "an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes"?
K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
196 characters. It works. — Maile (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That works for me; although re-reading, if we wanted to be a little more cautious, we could go with the following, which is 186 characters. It depends on how other sources see the books, though generally a scholarly source would be good enough for something like this. Vanamonde (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "... that Panzer Aces, a book series about World War II widely read in the US, was described as portraying "an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes"?
This one also works for me. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, thoughts on this last suggestion vs your previous? Vanamonde (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The latest version is excellent; thank you for the helpful suggestions. I copyedited slightly (above): U.S. vs US; and removed the hyperlink to WWII as it's common enough so that it does not need to be linked. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
An IP has filled the page with "citation needed" tags. @K.e.coffman: could you deal with those please? Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I moved this hook to Prep 3 to give some time for the cn tags to be addressed. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Nature hooks?

Preps 2, 3, and 4 all have a species-related hook in them. Perhaps we can spread them out a little, to prevent reader burnout? Courtesy ping Cwmhiraeth. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you do not want too many hooks on any topic, although I think biology-related hooks make a good foil to the biographies, politics and other repeated themes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. There are 8 hooks in each set; a flatworm or two lightens them up. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Emergency administrative action needed

To move special occasion hook for December 8, Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten!, from the image slot in Queue 4 to the image slot in Prep 4. Pinging @Vanamonde93: @Alex Shih: @Casliber: @Maile66:. Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

On it. Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved, replaced with Helen Hays. Vanamonde (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: thank you! Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Help nominating a new article

Hi everyone, the "create nomination" button is not working for me. Could someone kindly nominate Sarlacc's Pit cave for me? Sincere thanks. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Here is the nomination info:

  • ...that the largest striped karst cave ever found has been nicknamed Sarlacc's Pit?

Source: "The cave is the largest known of its type, a variety of "striped karst, which is marble interspersed with other types of ancient ocean rock, she said." and "The entrance to the cave, nicknamed 'Sarlacc's Pit' by the helicopter crew who discovered it, is seen in an undated handout photo." (both sentences from CBC article)

    • ALT1:...that no one will know until 2020 whether the newly discovered Sarlacc's Pit cave is actually the largest cave in Canada?

Source: "The exact depth and size of the cave has not been determined... future exploration of the cave is being considered in consultation with BC Parks, and that a team is likely to be fielded in 2020. (from Canadian Geographic article) and "A newly discovered cave in a remote valley in British Columbia might be the country's largest." (from CBC article)

Thank you! Done. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

MLS Cup: 4 hooks

The nominator of these 4 articles, SounderBruce, has asked that they all go up on December 8 and 9, presumably in honor of the MLS Cup 2018 which will be held on December 8. Having two hooks in each set about past MLS Cup competitions seems over the top to me. Is the MLS Cup as well known worldwide as FIFA? I'd like to suggest that we run one MLS Cup hook per day leading up to the competition on December 8, and then the anniversary hook for Template:Did you know nominations/MLS Cup 2003 on December 9. Yoninah (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Could we have one on Dec 8 and one on Dec 9, with the other two becoming regular, undated hooks? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
We don't want 4 MLS Cup hooks in 2 days. Agree with above suggestion that running 2 then and 2 later is sensible to avoid overkill. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
OK. Since the MLS Cup 2018 is on December 8, I'll keep the MLS Cup 2009 hook in that set, as it is the most "historic" worded hook, and move the others back to WP:DYKNA for later promotion. Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't think we'd run this many hooks about any domestic football competition, even the major European leagues. (Incidentally, FIFA is an international body and oversees the World Cup, which might qualify for such an idea, but that's not happening again until 2022 anyway). Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
We did manage to run a full hookset of soccer content for the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final. I think it can become a regular occurrence for major international competitions (World Cup/Women's World Cup/Euros/Copa America) that would slot in once per year. SounderBruce 01:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
MLS Cup and FIFA World Cup Final should probably not be mentioned in the same sentence. Until MLS can find themselves on equal playing field with the four major leagues, we should be careful not to put too much undue weight on them. Alex Shih (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I never said that we should run a full set for the MLS Cup. I'm saying that we should expect a hookset for major international competitions, which come around on a roughly annual basis (assuming Copa America doesn't change to follow the Euro pattern). SounderBruce 07:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I don't mind spreading out MLS Cup 2002 (as it could have a new ALT hook depending on the attendance of 2018's final) at a later date, along with MLS Cup 2009. I find MLS Cup 2003 to be a more interesting hook that could run on December 9. MLS Cup 2018 (which I will nominate tonight after completing the required 5X expansion) would need to run on December 8 (with a time-sentitive hook like ... that tonight's MLS Cup will be hosted by Atlanta United FC, a two-year-old club?). SounderBruce 01:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: To appear in the West Coast time zone which starts at 4 p.m., a December 8 hook would have to appear in Prep 5, and a December 9 hook in Prep 6. But why are we running MLS Cup hooks in successive sets? It seems from the above discussion that only MLS Cup 2018 is time-sensitive for Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Re-ping @SounderBruce: I'm getting really confused here. I mean MLS Cup 2018 is time-sensitive for Prep 5, which is December 8 on the West Coast. Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: To make things clear: I would like MLS Cup 2018 (which I have nominated, but still needs further work) to run on the latest set on December 8 UTC, so that it is taken off the main page just before the game begins (at 1 AM UTC on Dec. 9). The rest of the hooks can run in regular sets, since we missed the anniversary date for MLS Cup 2003 a week ago. In the event that MLS Cup 2018 can't make it in time, then I would like MLS Cup 2003 to run. SounderBruce 06:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: could you please be specific about which prep set you are talking about? Now that we've gone to two sets a day, the preps are being promoted very quickly. Yoninah (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The ideal set would be Prep 4 (8 December 12:00). Cwmhiraeth has already taken care of it, so I think we can mark this as resolved. SounderBruce 07:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 December 2018

The correct title of the Streeton painting is ‘The purple noon's transparent might’, not the capitalised The Purple Noon's Transparent Might. This was already discussed on the DYK's nomination page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC) HappyWaldo (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Changed, thanks for letting us know. Cheers, Mifter (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
One more quibble: the caption of the image needs changing too :) - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I fixed the capitalization in the caption. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Why the single quotes around it? Italicization is enough for a painting title. If it's a quote from a poem, use double quotes. Yoninah (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that's just convention. ‘Above us the great grave sky’ is another Streeton work that takes its title from poetry, and it always has the single quotes. They should be added to the caption as well. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Added those as well. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Chen Saijuan

I just noticed that Chen Saijuan is currently on the DYK main page, but there was no DYK notice either on the article talk or my talk page. I checked a few other hooks in the set and they seem to be normal, so it seems to be an isolated problem. Can someone look into it? Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Vanamonde93! -Zanhe (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Add image to approved hook?

I finally found a CC color image of the Type 80 radar, but my nom was already approved. Can I add it now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Just add a red icon and ask the original reviewer to review the image, too. Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

This hooks seems slightly inaccurate: although indeed temporary structures have apparently been used for more than 70 years, the current structure has only been around since the 1970s (after the original was damaged). Suggesting that this be rephrased. Courtesy ping Dumelow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I did mention this in my original nomination. It is technically true that a temporary bridge has provided the crossing for more than 70 years. However you could go with something like:
... that "temporary" bridges have provided a crossing of the River Trent at Walton, England, for more than 70 years? - Dumelow (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Pinging promoter Cwmhiraeth and reviewer Kosack. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I thought of that when I promoted the hook, and I think the suggested new wording is better. I will change the hook in prep. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Credit?

Ramsen (card game), the current lead hook, has no article credit (but maker credit, Bermicourt). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I put a DYK template on the article's talk page. Hope this helps. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.I was unsure if I could have done it myself, and if something needed to be fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
For the record, anybody can do it. Doesn't take an admin. All I did was copy one from another article in that set, pasted it into the Ramsen article with the appropriate changes. If there is anything that needs to be done, I'm sure someone will post here. — Maile (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about four hours ago; here is an updated list with 36 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through November 17. Right now we have a total of 395 nominations, of which 224 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four that remain from early October.

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) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

"The problem is not TRM, the problem is DYK. There are determined POV-pushers who will golf around a subject to try to crowbar it onto the main page, there are vested contributors determined to have their contributions recognises, there are fringe editors pushing views they know would never make it to the main page otherwise, there are trolls and so on. There needs to be a broader discussion of DYK. The small number of gatekeepers there are burning out." Guy (Help!) 23:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

I don't object to a change of hook but your proposed hook would not be accurate. This sea anemone has up to 36 tentacles (a younger individual would have fewer) and a sea anemone having tentacles is a universal characteristic while a burrowing sea anemone is very unusual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I wonder if you could find a source which says that it's unusual, then, and add that fact to both hook and article? Honestly this gets to a larger question about what constitutes interest (somewhat similar to the hook below, too); facts interesting to specialists may be boring to the general public, and vice versa. Vanamonde (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, there are about 1150 species of sea anemone worldwide and a small minority of them are burrowers, but it's not unique. I can't find interesting behavioral traits about each species I write about, but I can suggest the most interesting hook that I can identify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your reply, Cwmhiraeth. To be blunt, I think it's borderline, and it's not unlikely someone will pull this from queue or the main page. I find it hard to believe that any species has absolutely no unique and interesting features, but if that's true, it's not terribly well suited to DYK, is it? I've written several wildlife articles I didn't bother to nominate. Vanamonde (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's see how many hits it gets when its on the main page and see if invertebrates can hold their own. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That's not my point, Cwm. I think you know that. My point is that any article we feature should be able to provide a hook that doesn't cause a kerfuffle about interest, as this one is likely to. I found a factoid about the seven tentacles in the first set being unusual; would you be willing to craft a hook out of that? Vanamonde (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure! How about:
Resolved. Vanamonde (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

  • Zhang Yonglian; @Zanhe and Whispyhistory: The biology of sperm is actually a common topic of study. It's possible the general public don't know that, but there's a lot of other potential in the article, I think. The reason I brought this up, though, is the phrase "woman scientist", which isn't something I want to see on Wikipedia's front page in the way it's currently being used; her gender should only enter the picture if it's the subject of the rest of the sentence ("first woman scientist to do X" or something similar). Can we please rephrase? Vanamonde (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why "woman scientist" cannot be mentioned on the front page. I created the article as part of the Women in STEM meetup of the Women in Red project. And since her name is not obviously feminine, it needs to be explicitly mentioned. -Zanhe (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying it shouldn't: I'm saying it shouldn't if the rest of the hook isn't about her gender. If we wish to convey that her name is feminine (it strikes me that if the only reason this is hooky is that she's a woman studying sperm, in which case we should find a different hook; as I said, there's plenty of material) we should be finding a different way to do it. This isn't personal, and I don't think you're a misogynist; I think that the hook unintentionally uses phrasing that I would consider misogynist (just substitute "man scientist" in there and see how weird it looks). Vanamonde (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Zanhe, I would agree that it's more a matter of phrasing. How about something along the line of,
" ... that Shanghai Key Laboratory for Molecular Andrology was founded by woman scientist Zhang Yonglian for the purpose of studying sperm?" — Maile (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not terribly happy about that either, Maile66; how about "... that Zhang Yonglian, who spent 20 years doing classified research for the Chinese government, founded a laboratory to study sperm?" which doesn't even bring her gender into it; or if you're keen on highlighting her role as a pioneering woman scientist, "... that Zhang Yonglian did twenty years of highly classified research for the Chinese government, starting in her early twenties?" Or something along those lines; gender is made explicit without this awkward term. Vanamonde (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, whatever hook is decided on, I agree 100% with Zanhe that her gender needs to be there. However that works. — Maile (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to that; I just think there's better ways to introduce that information, and I suspect most women scientists would agree. Vanamonde (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer to highlight her main research focus, but I can accept your proposed hook for the sake of not offending the more sensitive readers among us. -Zanhe (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I assume you mean that sperm is her main research focus? How about "... that more than twenty years after she stopped doing classified research for the Chinese government, Zhang Yonglian published the discovery of a gene involved with the movement of sperm?" Vanamonde (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
How about something on male contraception? Regarding woman/female, I prefer neither but am not offended or flattered by it. Searching for these epididymis-specific genes and their roles in sperm maturation will be of help not only in understanding the molecular mechanisms of sperm maturation, but also providing new insights for personalized diagnosis and treatment of infertility and male contraceptive drugs design.[3] or "A condom in pill form is the final goal of my research," scientist Yong-Lian Zhang, PhD, tells WebMD.[4] or show that recombinant DNA vaccine targeting Bin1b can markedly reduce fertility in male mice, providing an alternative approach for birth control.[5] Whispyhistory (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Is the new hook settled, or should I move this back to the noms page for further discussion? The preps are being promoted fast and furious... Yoninah (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe and Whispyhistory: There's a lot of options here; which do you prefer? Vanamonde (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thanks @Vanamonde93:. the above proposed "... that Zhang Yonglian, who spent 20 years doing classified research for the Chinese government, founded a laboratory to study sperm?" is okay, short and then no need to alter or add to article. Is that agreeable @Zanhe:? or if you really want, the longer more complex one that gives "she" fits criteria but one becomes lost half way? Whispyhistory (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Not my first choice, but I'd rather move on to my next article than dwell on this minor issue. -Zanhe (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The part about the 20 years is verified and cited inline. The part about founding a laboratory is not explicit in the source. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: It is: "In 2007, Zhang established the Shanghai Molecular Andrology Key Lab". -Zanhe (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
...and I read the article two times without seeing that sentence. Thanks. Verified and ready to go. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also prep 4

The lead hook is about an eclectress, the next about a princess, - can we have a bit between the two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 5:Out to lunch

@Morgan Ginsberg: @Krelnik: @K.e.coffman:
This was discussed somewhat on the nomination template, but I am opening it up to wider discussion here. The hook fact seems trivial, and also implies some kind of connection between the perpetrators of the different attacks that doesn't exist. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK: A collection of "firsts"

Does anyone notice how many "firsts" there are in each prep set? Prep 2 has four "firsts"—first female student, first goal, first submarine, first singer. Prep 3 has three "firsts"—first ice rink, first president, first student. I tried to move some hooks around, but other prep sets already have a few "firsts" of their own. This is getting out of hand IMO. Instead of promoting these hooks, we should be asking nominators to come up with something else of interest. Yoninah (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't really see what's wrong with "first" hooks, they tend to be more interesting than say hooks about "Person X did Y". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with firsts. But Yoninah has noticed a repetition of multiple "firsts" per prep. Perhaps some of these hooks could be slightly reworded, so DYK doesn't look like we're compiling lists of firsts. Angela Brower for instance. How about, " ... that Angela Brower performed the role of Octavian when Richard Strauss’ Der Rosenkavalier made its debut in Colombia?" — Maile (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. I'll change it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah Just browsing through the preps with "first" in my search bar, I would agree that DYK has gotten pretty repetitive on use of that word. It certainly wouldn't hurt to break up the over-use.
  • Prep 2 currently has three "first" hooks.
  • Prep 3 has has three "first" hooks.
  • Prep 4 currently has two "first" hooks. (Yoninah's suggested correction in section below this one)
  • Prep 5 has one hook that uses "first" twice in the hook, and a second hook with a "first" - and those two hooks are one right after the other in the set.
  • Prep 6 has two "First World War" hooks right after each other in the sets.
I generally stay out of the prep building, but it wouldn't hurt to take another look at repetition of anything in the preps. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 Dan Crenshaw

Muboshgu I've seen Dan Crenshaw on the news after he won election. You mention in the article that he was a member of Seal Team Six when he lost his eye. That's a pretty impressive force to be attached to. They took out Bin Laden. Would you like Seal Team Six added to the hook? How about: — Maile (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes. three. Still impressive enough to want to salute him. Added to the hook. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4:Rodeo cowboy

@Giants2008: @PotentPotables:
A far more hooky hook jumps out when you read the article:
  • @Yoninah: Fine, but in that case you might want to mention that he did win that second straight title. Also, the sentence mentioning the heart condition doesn't currently have a reference right after it (it's covered by the ref after the next sentence); is that something you'd want to see fixed if you want to go with the alt? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: we don't have to write everything in the hook; otherwise, there's no need to click on it. The idea of him continuing to compete even though he knew he was ill is hooky enough. There's no problem with the cite being at the end of the next sentence; the sentences flow from one another. Yoninah (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Two sets a day?

The proposal to move to two sets a day for a while was made by Gatoclass above. I agree with him; there are currently 240 approved hooks which will take 30 days to work through at our present rate of one set per day. The set frequency change could be made for a fixed period such as a week (56 extra hooks) or ten days (80 extra hooks), if wished. In preparation for the change, Gatoclass suggests that all the queues and prepsets be filled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If there is no step up in quality control and assurance, this is a bad idea. The project can hardly manage to do one set a day properly... 91.97.243.129 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that we should step up to 2 a day, especially as there is going to be a big influx in January. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I also don't see people who are against the idea suggesting any alternatives. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
What alternatives would you like me to suggest? How to deal with the extra hooks? One idea may be to go through all approved hooks and articles and weed out all that don't meet DYK rules, including 3a, have other basic errors like paragraphs missing references etc. That should cut down the number a fair bit. And yes, that is what the nominations phase is for, i know. But that obviously does not do a very good job. After that, if there is still a huge number, yeah sure go ahead because the quality of the output will have been improved. 91.97.243.129 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The only two problems that I can see with that is getting everyone on board with that idea and making editors get upset enough to leave Wikipedia. I don't see anything happening without some sort of discussion that takes place off of the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Then list all affected articles here on the talk page for consideration and a general talk before actually pulling the plug on them? If it is only around 10 then it shoud be no big issue. If it is a lot more, then it should be obvious why i suggested it to begin with. And also, are you suggesting people would leave Wikipedia for getting hooks pulled when not following project rules to begin with? Becaues that is what i suggested, not randomly doing away with some but removing them for legitimate DYK rule based reasons.91.97.243.129 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we can clear the backlog much with only removing nominations with obvious errors. Certainly if it's around 10 articles, we can't clear the backlog much that way. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i may have not made myself clear. I don't expect it will be just 10, probably a lot more actually. But it will be something. And i did not say that it would clear the backlog entirely either. It would reduce it a bit, while at the same time improving the overall quality of the output. Two birds with one stone. Then you suggested people would leave Wikipedia when their hooks get pulled based on DYK rules and without discussion. Which i said could be talked about here by listing the affected articles BEFORE they actually get pulled to prevent hurt feelings and allow people input. Once that is done, there have been some hooks pulled, some fixed up and improved and so on (in other words, better quality control and assurance), then by all means, go ahead and post 3 sets a day for all i care. 91.97.243.129 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
If there were to be made a regular audit of newly approved hooks(weekly, monthly, whatever), the task itself would stay somewhat limited in scale and weed out the 'worst' hooks and articles that made it past qpq, or fix and improve them (obviously the preferable option). I would be on board with anything that improves quality, if anyone has better ideas. Once there is some additional process, reform of existing mechanisms or whatever that inspires confidence that quality will not suffer under higher output, you have me on board for however many hooks you want to run per day. Just as is, under current structure with current mechanisms in regards to quality assurance, i don't believe it is a good idea to do so. 91.97.243.129 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree with the current sentiment regarding the backlog, I am opposed to having two sets a day at this time. There were a lot of issues the last time we did this, and unless I can get an assurance that this won't happen again, I can't get onboard this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, there weren't "a lot of issues", there were fewer issues, proportionally speaking, as the list compiled by Vanamonde demonstrated. And the problem with weeding out nominations with issues is that you end up tossing FA-quality articles in favour of pathetic little stubby articles that just happen to conform with all the rules. The problem with "weeding out" is always the same, which is that the process is necessarily arbitrary and consequently unfair. Apart from which, the time you spend trying to figure out which articles to cull might as well be spent just promoting the extra sets anyway. We need to go to two sets a day, but as I said we may have to hold off for a few days yet as I'm not currently in a position to devote any time to reviewing the extra sets. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
They seem to be working well so far. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with it. Surely, it cannot be that big of a deal to, at bare minimum, make sure that within any 24 hour period, there should always be two sets in queue instead of one. It would involve just loading one extra set at a time. — Maile (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I should have the time to promote at least 2-3 sets in the next few days. I'm assuming we're not going to attempt this for more than a couple of weeks at the outside; in the circumstances, I think we can keep up. I think we should plan in advance a little, and try to fill all preps and all queues before we make the switch, if that's feasible. Vanamonde (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I should also have some time to promote some sets over the next few days if we make the switch. That being said, I agree with Vanamonde above that we should have all the preps and queues setup prior to making the jump as it also gives us the most time for quality control and less likelihood of missing a queue switch. Mifter (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose two sets a day, as it always leads to a significant decline in quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support two sets a day for a couple of weeks. We're at the point that the Approval page cannot handle any more transclusions (half of the special occasion hooks are not currently being transcluded as I write this), which is only going to get worse as the approved backlog grows. If the admins and other set builders and other DYK regulars make a good faith effort to do extra checking on the promoted hooks, and we start with all six queues and six preps filled, we should be able to get through a couple of weeks of two sets a day with at worst the usual rate of errors, and more likely a somewhat better rate due to the extra scrutiny. I'm happy to do what I can to help. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have switched the time back to 12 hours for two sets a day. I have already shuffled two special occasion hooks to their new slot, but please let me know if I have missed anything. I will check again tomorrow. Alex Shih (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: the queues changed to twice a day before we could reshuffle the special occasion hooks. I noted above which hooks should be moved from the queues into Preps 6 and 4, and also reserved the slots for them there. The empty slots could be filled with hooks from later prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Got it; you want the special occasion ones moved into prep, and new hooks moved into the queues to fill those spaces? I'll moved the hooks to Prep 6 as I'm working on it anyway; it might be a couple of hours before I can get to the rest. Vanamonde (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I was away, thanks Vanamonde93 for addressing the adjustment. Alex Shih (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Still help needed to move BWV 214 from q4 (pictured) to prep4 (8 December) where a place is reserved, and replace it q4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Done now, see below, thanks all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please deal with the errors

Now, it is not surprising that there are quite a few errors with two sets a day. From minor things to outright misinformation in hooks, motor racing in Switzerland for example. It can happen, it was obvious that it was going to happen but whatever. Can you at least make an effort to adress issues noted on the error pages? They sit there unadressed for hours on end, no one does anything and then a new set with new issues comes along... and goes unadressed as well. You lot wanted two sets a day, please make an effort with responding to errors. If you cannot or will not, change it back to one set. 37.138.236.162 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The majority of the errors are being reported on TRM's page, which we have every right not to check because it is the user space of someone who continually insults the project. On top of this, even errors reported on the only errors page typically need an admin to fix them, but there are only a few admin editors in DYK and their lives don't revolve around DYK. SL93 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So there are not enough admins willing to do DYK stuff, fair enough of course. The lives of the admins that do deal with it do not revolve around DYK, fair enough as well obviously. But all of that was known before the project increased the output, yet you did it anyway. There are error reports, some actually bad errors, like the Swiss one for example, which was just blatantly untrue. I am not asking for perfection, that is unatainable anyway. But what i do ask is, that with the knowledge that error rate increases and the time to fix it decreases with two sets a day, a more comprehensive effort is made to make Wikipedia not look stupid with blatant falsehoods in hooks in the worst cases. And if that effort cannot be made, as you basically confirmed, then going to two sets was a bad idea. And not caring about points raised by somone who insults this project... this is not about you, him or this project but the main page, the reader and Wikipedia as a whole. So false pride in something that has huge systemic issues that deserve to be called out is entriely misplaced, in my opinion at least. 37.138.236.162 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I got tired of looking at his page when I saw that many of them were just stylistic errors that could be easily debated as not being errors. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally, none of my promoted nominations or the promotions that I did myself went to either page for a while now and I fixed the errors myself when I noticed them. I guess that the very least we could have here is personal responsibility. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Look, i am not trying to beat anyone down here. Personal responsibility is all good and fine but some things will always get through. No one is perfect and knows everything, one assumes good faith with something and there you have a grave error. Can always happen and is fine... IF there is a chance it gets corrected. And there are obvious issues with that currently due to the two sets a day. I am not even blaming anyone personally, the main issues are systemic in my opinion. What i do have in issue with is the apathy and the thinking that all is going peachy, that two sets are awesome to cut down on a backlog(which they are, if it could be done better) without actually considering how the administrative side of it would be handled. I have been moaning about issues here for quite a while now and just am tired of always seeing the same things creep up for the same reasons. Especially if they are predictable things like not being capable of dealing with errors in a timely manner when running two sets a day. Not capable for a variety of good reasons, but that does not change the bottom line. But if one knows it will not work out great and one still does it... then that is a problem. 37.138.236.162 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think everything in DYK is going fine, but I don't know how to clear the backlog while also having more admins fix errors. I think that the DYK process went towards more errors when it went to QPQ reviewing because it looks like some editors are just rushing through them to get their articles on the main page. The purpose of QPQ was to help clear the backlog, but that obviously didn't help. I personally want QPQ abolished. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, at least we agree on something haha. 37.138.236.162 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You're not wrong in saying there are issues with the DYK review process: you're wrong in thinking they are unique to this process. The average peer review on Wikipedia is questionable in its quality: DYK just has the greatest number of reviewed items, and hence a large number of errors. Here, as with GAN or OTD or any other content curation process, when users acting in good faith make errors with reviews, we're unwilling to sanction them except in exceptional cases. So we have no way of ensuring review quality. This is frequently demonstrated here, but isn't unique to DYK by any means; I have personally flagged things at FAC (comfortably our best content review process) that were basic failings of WP:V or WP:NOR (both core policies) that had been missed by other reviewers; the user responsible for said failings had also carried out a number of other reviews. If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it. Vanamonde (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not claiming that there are no issues similar to this elsewhere. But DYK often enough does not even care about its own, selfmade ruleset and standards. So in that regard it does stand out to me a little (not that that even matters here). On top of that human error and the like that will just always happen, but less often with better review than QPQ perhaps. And the 12 hour cycle just makes all problems DYK has stand out more because the workload is much higher, same would be no doubt true for OTD as well. And need for somewhat swift action to get errors fixed is also difficult to manage as obviously everyone can spend their time as they wish. But again, those are all known issues. I had just wished a little more thought were put into actually how to manage the increased output,dealing with error, ways to perhaps improve the process etc., before implementing it. Even if the majority agrees, acting first and figuring out how to do it well after does not work very well (just look at Brexit lol). Like the suggestion by BlackKite, agree or disagree if you will, but a discussion about the like would have been great before going to two sets a day. Just to lay out a 'plan' or roadmap or whatever you want to call it about how to tackle some inevitable problems, like lack of admin time for example. 37.138.236.162 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: schedule shift

  • I have one suggestion. At the moment the sets are running from 00:00-12:00 and 12:00-00:00 UTC. That means that the first set runs whilst many of the UK and US admins who fix errors are asleep, whilst the second one doesn't. Why not shift them slightly? I suggest 03:00-15:00 (hitting evening editing in the US and a big part of the day in the UK) and 15:00-03:00 (hitting the rest of the day in the UK, and daytime in the US?) Just a thought, it might help and it might not, but might be worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know that it would make a huge difference, but it's a good idea and I'm willing to give this a try. I've ignored some normal talk page etiquette rules and created a new section for this to make sure people see it. Vanamonde (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't yet figured out who is where, but I always thought a bunch were in the Asia-Pacific area. I'm not even guessing if they're asleep. Bottom line ... admins have real lives, and this is more or less a hobby when they can fit it into their schedules. There is often abuse here, towards anyone promoting or trying to fix something. None of us get paid, none of us work for each other. I spend LONGGG periods when nothing DYK is watch listed for me. I have a short attention span for people who contribute nothing but complaints. And abusing people who are just here trying to help, trying to get it right, is just not acceptable. How people are treated is probably the #1 deterrent here. Anybody else besides me miss Crisco 1492? Treat all of us right. — Maile (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I live in the Philippines so I'm usually awake during the hours opposite US and UK editors, though since I'm online most of the day, I can do what I can do. Of course, since I'm not an admin, there's not much I can do once stuff goes up in Prep, so the best I can do is to find errors once they're in Prep or even before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2:Meghan Trainor album

@MaranoFan: @SL93:
This seems rather commonplace. She's not the first or the last artist to do it. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I've definitely seen some much more basic DYK hooks go through. An alternate one that also works is "... that Meghan Trainor's album Treat Myself has been described as 'filled with self-love anthems'" if you're okay with that one. Cheers.--NØ 12:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I don't follow current music. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 Derrick Barnes

Bradv, SL93 - One of those things likely to be challenged. The hook says what the article says. But the source wording makes this problematic, "Home for him was Hallmark, where in August 1999 he had become the first full-time African-American male writer on the company's payroll. (The company already employed a black editor and black freelance writers.)" So he wasn't the first black male copywriter working for the company. One assumes they were paying the free lancers. Barnes was either the first one on the company payroll, or the first one who was full-time (the source could be interpreted both ways, I think). — Maile (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I was going to suggest to add the first full time black copywriter on the payroll, but I don't know since it can be interpreted a different way. I'm not sure if we have a hook then after looking through the article. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I found this which says, " He is also known for writing best selling copy for various Hallmark Card lines and as the first African American male staff writer for Hallmark." It isn't an error then. I guess that the key word is "male" and ignoring the word "editor". SL93 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There's time to get this one straightened out. I think Prep 1 (Queue 1) will be Tuesday. — Maile (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a correct hook though. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Kansas City Star, Agate Publishing, and The Root. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a good catch, but I still think the hook is technically correct, especially after the additional sources shared by SL93. Bradv🍁 03:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done - agree that this is OK with the extra sources from SL93. Thanks for checking into it. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 Young Voters for the President

Chetsford, Mifter The hook says what the article says. But the source says the 52% was the total number of under-30 youth votes. It doesn't say what percentage voted for either Nixon or McGovern. "In the 1972 presidential election between incumbent president Richard Nixon and Sen. George McGovern, D-S.D., a record 52 percent of individuals between 18 and 21 cast ballots, but voting among young people would soon drop significantly." That is the only place in either source that mentions 52 percent. So the article, the caption in the article's image, and the hook, are not correct. as worded. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, but I thought that DYK articles need a lead and sections. I could be wrong. SL93 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's only required to be a minimum of 1500 characters, which is about a good paragraph or two. Can you find anything in the rules that specifies a lead and sections? — Maile (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, then I guess editors should stop tagging them as too short of a lead or as not having a lead when they appear on the main page. SL93 (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yep. I have an issue with tagging, anyway. People who stop long enough to leave tags, should just pitch in and help. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I just got a bit confused because according to TRM on his error page before, an article having too short of a lead is a DYK error. I also see him tag articles like Anna Shelton for it, but now it just seems like some of his other non-errors. Thanks for letting me know. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66 and SL93: I just saw this. I think the "requirement" comes from a combination of one of our rules saying we do not feature stubs, and a definition somewhere of a non-stub (can't be bothered to look for it) which requires sectioning. I'm not convinced of the need for this requirement (I think the length is enough for our purposes) but can't be bothered to try to fix it, there's far too many other things to bother about. If either of you felt strongly, though, a proposal to scrap a single sub-rule shouldn't be too complicated. Vanamonde (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
SL93 case in point on why we take our processes from the DYK Rules, Supplementary Rules, and Reviewing Guide. The only place the lead is mentioned is in the Supplementary Rules where it says the lead does not require citations. Anybody can have any opinion they want on their own user page. We operate by established DYK rules and guidelines.— Maile (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. SL93 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I know. I was just stating the obvious. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Maile66 - thanks for checking! It's actually just a coincidence that both figures happen to be 52%. The claim that Nixon won 52% of under 30 voters is referenced to the first of the two sources in the sentence, Journal of Policy History (the 52% figure referring to turnout is to the second, CBS News). The first source is a gated journal so you may not be able to access, but I did find this excerpt on Project Muse [6] (it goes into more detail in the actual article, but this should verify the basics):
Nixon’s effort for first-time voters (under twenty-four) exceeded expectations, as he won 48 percent of these voters, but he won 52 percent of the traditional, under-thirty, youth vote.The student vote went to McGovern, 52 percent to 46 percent, but Nixon won 49 percent of the noncollege first-timers.
As you can see, even more confusingly, the number 52 appears yet a third time, too! Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? I'm leaving for RL right now, so others can have a look at this. Thanks for your quick attention to this. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Chetsford summed it up correctly. During my review I was able to access the full journal article to confirm the figure, but also found it odd to see the recurrent 52%, and initially thought it could be a typo until I checked further. Happy to answer any further questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Chetsford, Mifter Do I understand you that the above quoted source confirms that the hook is correct? I find it an odd coincidence that exactly 52% is both the increase in the youth vote, and the percentage Nixon got of their vote. But by DYK guidelines, if that's what is sourced, then it would be a correct hook. Yes? — Maile (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct. To clarify:
  1. Nixon won 52% of the under 30 vote. (Journal of Policy History)
  2. McGovern won 52% of the vote of university-enrolled students. (Journal of Policy History)
  3. Overall, 52% of people aged 18-21 voted. (CBS News)
Number 1 is the one relevant to this hook, the other two are just confusing coincidences. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Maile, that is correct. To quote the source, "Nixon's effort for first-time voters (under twenty-four) exceeded expectations, as he won 48 percent of these voters, but he won 52 percent of the traditional, under-thirty, youth vote". If you like coincidences, in addition to McGovern getting 52% of the 18-24 vote, Nixon would also go on to win 520 electoral votes. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done I'm OK with the hook as is, given the above explanations and research into the sourcing. Thanks to everyone for their patience in verifying this. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5, Kawaji Toshiyoshi

The article kendo mentions neither Kawaji Toshiyoshi nor any change during the time that he was active. The claim that he contributed to the development of it seems unconvincing. At the very least there should be something in the minor linked article that does not totally undermine the claim, if it is the case that his contribution really had any significance. Kevin McE (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging page creator @Arius1998:. Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The nominator hasn't edited in a week, but the hook is already live. Should it be pulled? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Replied at WP:ERRORS. Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Typo in queue 1

The hook about the French submarine Regnault say eighteenth century. That's a typo, the guy was in the nineteenth century. Please fix ASAP. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The place for errors to be noted is WP:ERRORS. I've already mentioned it there. Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5: Coin caption

Wu Zhu coin issued by Chengjia
Wu Zhu coin issued by Chengjia
@Zanhe:
The hook says the coin was issued by Gongsun Shu. The caption says it was issued by Chengjia. Moreover, there is no mention of the coin in Gongsun Shu's article, if it is really his "own" coin. Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Donald Trung already responded on your talk page, but I'm going to continue the discussion here as it's a more central location for DYK discussions. As Donald has already mentioned, Gongsun Shu was the only emperor of Chengjia and ultimately made all significant decisions for the state such as issuing currencies. Sources often simply call the Chengjia currency Gongsun Shu's coins. However, to avoid any possible confusion, I propose:
  • ALT1: ... that Gongsun Shu proclaimed himself emperor of Chengjia, complete with its own iron coins (example pictured), in defiance of the Han dynasty?
Note that I've added the word "iron" to the hook per Donald's comment, which is significant and interesting as iron currencies are relatively unusual in history. (source for iron coins: de Crespigny 2006) -Zanhe (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I don't think it's confusing to say that Gongsun issued the currency. If you have a source that says they were sometimes called Gongsun Shu's coins, that would be more hooky, especially for the image caption, which now gives a completely different name. It looks awkward to write in the hook "complete with". Perhaps it could be worded:
ALT2: ... that after Gongsun Shu proclaimed himself emperor of Chengjia, that state issued its own iron coins (example pictured) in defiance of the Han dynasty?
But right now there is no inline cite in the Chengjia article for the fact it was made of iron. Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: That's easy then. I've added the info that Gongsun Shu issued the iron coins for Chengjia, with an extra ref at the end of the sentence. Let's go with the original hook with the additional word "iron". -Zanhe (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The source is verified, and I'll adjust the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Three Lives, Three Incarnations

Right now I'm reviewing this nomination (a double nomination of two articles), and I had to reject the proposed hooks as they dealt with in-universe content. The nominator has suggested that he would instead consider nominating each article separately. If he does so, would there need to be a new separate nomination page for each article, or can the discussion remain at the current page? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion can remain at the same page; we've done that many times before. When the first of the two hooks is promoted, the person promoting it needs to keep the nomination page open rather than closing it as would normally be done, and has to be careful with promoting the correct DYKmake while retaining the other. If it seems easier, you can open new ones for the two individuals, but be sure to put a pointer to the original one, which would then be closed with a message that the nominations were originally made on December 4, but split as of such-and-such a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Let's not create another nomination page for this; the only difference here is instead of having two bolded entry, we will have two separate hooks. Just make a clear note for the promoter (as this is the part that can be screwed up, like BlueMoonset pointed out above) and it should be fine (since the two hooks ideally would be promoted to different prep areas). Alex Shih (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4

Vision of Lear: we shortened the hook so much that it now doesn't even say "opera" anywhere. "Librettist" could also be of a cantata or an oratorio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by Maile. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

All queues empty at T-1:15

Closing as confusing with above Time cycle. Please refer all matters of how many sets a day to the above section. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

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

all queues empty valereee (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Maile just promoted a set to the queue and I locally uploaded and protected the set's image (as the bot won't update if it sees the image unprotected on Commons or here). The bot should update everything momentarily. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, my mistake, I misread the template and thought we were overdue. Malie handled everything at 22:59 UTC. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
No harm, no foul. Nice to know you're paying attention Mifter. I also loaded another set in Queue 2, which will rotate while I'm offline. Gatoclass mentioned going back to the 12-hour cycle on Saturday. Probably after Queue 2 runs. I've never known how to change the cycle settings. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Maile, I agree a shift after Q2 runs sounds good. As an FYI, the time interval is determined by the setting at User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates (written in seconds). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Maile, Gatoclass, Mifter: What's going on? We're not having two sets for Christmas Day? I've loaded Preps 5 and 6 for December 24, Christmas Eve. You'd have to bring Queue 4 back to the prep area so I could rearrange the December 24 hooks if you're going back to one set a day starting on December 23. Then Preps 1 and 2 for Christmas Day need to be condensed into one set. Please advise. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I think you missed the discussion above in the "Time cycle" section, which is the main discussion here. My impression was that Christmas Day itself was going to be a single set; I'm not so sure about Christmas Eve. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I did read that discussion, but it seemed to contradict what's being said here. Could you give me a clear outline: December 24 - Prep ??, December 25 - Prep ??. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French submarine Armide

The hook for this nomination is:

  • ... that after the French-built Japanese submarine No. 14 was requisitioned by France and commissioned into its navy as Armide, the Japanese built their own No. 14 to the same design?

The hook is sourced to something called Navypedia. L293D, how do I know this is a reliable source? Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've wondered about this myself, and found that navypedia.org is cited by other sources, such as naval-history.net. I haven't been able to obtain information about the writer Ivan Gogin (there appear to be several ones). I would like to have a second opinion about this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I've cited it to Conways which is definitely RS Lyndaship (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Article is on main page and in prep 3

Confessionsofa Ex-Doofus-ItchyFooted Mutha is on the main page and in prep 3. SL93 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The nomination was probably not closed when it was promoted the first time. It should just be pulled. Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I found the problem here. The Point Of Graves hook was pulled and replaced with another hook without removing it from prep. SL93 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I removed it from Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

In Prep 4, we have a flower head pictured (after a plant in queue 1) while we could show the image of a smiling Wikipedian whose rules we should follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The lead images are not being rotated properly; the previous four were a nature hook, an object, a cave drawing, and now a nature hook. I moved another object (Cloughmore Stone) to a later prep set to get in a person image. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's three non-nature images between the two shrubs, and the mace pagoda really is an excellent image. So I'm not keen on changing that one. I think Yoninah's move was a good one, though. Vanamonde (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 when you're finished with Prep 4, I could move the Raymond Arritt image to a later set. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW for a lead image, I would use the 0.002 percent quote as the hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: It's an interesting quote, but it might be trickier to work in along with the fact that's already present; but I'll leave that to you. If you want to switch that hook out, go ahead: but after seeing Gerda's comment here, and given that I've pulled that already, I wonder if we could just use ALT1 from there instead, along with the picture; I think it's a slightly more interesting image than Arrit's. Vanamonde (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 the bishop image is very interesting. ALT1, not so much. The bishop could also be moved to a later set and we'll work on the hook. When are you removing the "under construction" template? Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I place the template there while I'm reviewing the set prior to promoting it, which I am now ready to do; but if you still want to shift Arrit, I can hold off. Personally, I think if we're going to have Hall in Prep 5 and Kempf potentially in Prep 6, we don't need Arrit to be pictured too. The Kempf hook has been pulled, so we have plenty of time to come up with a different hook. Vanamonde (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Oh. I thought the bishop was ready. Well, I'd like to return Arritt to the noms page for a better hook, and I'll swap in something else shortly. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I was quite satisfied with the Arritt hook, but I won't get in the way. Go ahead and switch in another hook, and when you're done I'll review it and promote the set. Vanamonde (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to beginning: I'd like Arritt pictured. It's not so often that we can honour someone who did a lot for this project. RIP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We're working on it, Gerda. It's been pulled for the moment because Yoninah was dissatisfied with the hook, but there's slots open for it to go back in as a picture hook. Further hook suggestions would be welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Jiraiya (artist) in Queue 5

The MTV source does say that he has been called the "Tom of Finland" for the Land of the Rising Sun (i.e. Japan), but that source is referencing an article that says "kind of a Tom of Finland for the Asian market". Maybe it could be changed to ... that the gay manga artist Jiraiya has been called "kind of a Tom of Finland for the Asian market"? SL93 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

Honestly this hook is kind of bland. It might be interesting to some I suppose, but it's not exactly splashy, especially if you're unaware of the context of what she did. Could another hook be suggested here? Personally, suggestions include the fact that she continued writing a newspaper column despite being blind, or being called by one as "perhaps Dayton's most outstanding citizen." Thoughts? Courtesy ping to nominator Valereee and promoter Cwmhiraeth. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You could keep the present hook and add "for a day". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I also liked alt 1 -- ... that Paul Laurence Dunbar dedicated a book of poetry to Charlotte Reeve Conover? valereee (talk)
Thank you, valereee, but that doesn't tell us anything about Conover and also raises questions about who Dunbar is. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
As a Daytonian I am appalled :D valereee (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived nearly two days ago, and only four nominations from it still need reviews. Here is an updated list with 39 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through December 5. Right now we have a total of 305 nominations, of which 160 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from October.

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) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Expedited review requested

Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 24 has been proposed to run during Advent (before Christmas). An expedited review is appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Quick review for Christmas hook requested

Could someone review the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS P48 (1942) please? I've specifically expanded this sub so I could make a christmas DYK out of it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Review underway. Yoninah (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: - replied there. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Point of Graves Cemetery

Dear all, this nom was pulled from prep and then was approved with a new hook. Should this nom template be re-added to somewhere on T:TDYK? I noticed that T:TDYK is now maintained by a bot. I haven't touched this giant discussion page for ages and am not sure how I should re-add this nom. Can someone re-add this nom to the list of approved noms, please? Or better, just review and promote it to prep, please? I wish the bot could make it easier to decide which edit of its to revert in order to restore a nom. Perhaps the nom can appear in the edit summary? Just a thought. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's odd. I added it to the Approved page, but I can't promote it because I reviewed it. Yoninah (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It was promoted to Prep 1 by Mifter — Maile (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Transferring Natan Yavlinsky from WP:ERRORS

  • ... that Russian Jewish scientist Natan Yavlinsky was credited as the inventor and developer of the world's first working tokamak (pictured)?
    • The Tokamak that is pictured is not the one that Yavlinksy designed. From the stamp's description is depicts a "T-15[1], built 1983-1988 and operated 1988-1995 in Moscow". Yavlinksy designed his T-1 reactor in 1951 (per the article). The article has a picture of the T-1 reactor, which should be used instead of the stamp image. Railfan23 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's going to be that simple, because the image license for the other image is a bit questionable. I don't see how the tag used is applicable when the image is from 1958. @Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and Arius1998: any suggestions? I suspect the best thing to do would be to swap in a different picture hook. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Shortage of Christmas hooks

We only have two or three Christmas hooks - and they are all music hooks. If somebody could whip up a Christmas-themed nomination or two - not about Christmas music - that would be very helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  • There's a gem of an idea for an article in "Pancho Claus: A Tex-Mex Santa from the South Pole". USA TODAY. Christmas is really not my area of subject matter, and I don't believe I could whip something up quick enough. But for anyone who wants to write something a little uplifting, a lot comes up on a Google search for Pancho Claus. — Maile (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
That looks very viable, thank you Maile. Any takers? Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've searched Royal navy records for U- and S-class submarine losses on 24 and 25 December, and I've found one sub: HMS P48 (1942). If I could find a speedy GA reviewer, I could have it ready for Christmas, but I wouldn't have any jaw-dropping hooks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Urgent Approval needed

Oh dear! The DYK queue stands at 0 now...Let's panic erm what should we do? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

What we should do is promote another set! Which I've done. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe if we went back to one set per 24 hours, it would be far more manageable...... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
As you can read in the section above labeled "Time cycle", the sets are in the process of being returned to one set a day after Christmas. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of minutes ago. Here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers all non-current nominations, those through December 17. Right now we have a total of 263 nominations, of which 144 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from October those from November.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Credit template problem in next queue

Gatoclass has changed a hook in Queue 3 and added its corresponding credit template, but left the removed-hook credit templates unchanged. Since of course I'm not an admin, could someone fix this for me please? The NMS Mărăști and NMS Mărășești credits should not be given out. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks L293D. Merry Christmas, Mifter (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Time cycle

We were initially only going to run a 12-hour time cycle for a week or two, it's been 18 days now, the number of filled preps has just about dried up, and IMO we should probably take a break over the Christmas/New Year period as it's a busy time for most people. The number of approved nominations has not dropped as much as I would have liked, but I think it should probably be two or three weeks before it will build up to a problematic level again, so we can renew a 12-hour cycle again sometime in January if necessary. I therefore suggest we go back to a 24-hour cycle tomorrow (Saturday) assuming that is feasible. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to switching back to 24 hours soon. We do not have enough editors to maintain a 12-hour cycle indefinitely. That said, we need to address the long-term problem here. Over the first 15 days of December, there were 135 nominations. With the Wikicup beginning in January, this is likely to increase. The average number of approved nominations per day, and the average number of featured hooks per day, need to be equal. We therefore have to a) approve fewer, b) feature more than one set a day, or c) explore some combination of the two. I believe we can potentially kill two birds with one stone by trying to address our perennial "hook interest" questions, but there's other ways to sort this out, too. Vanamonde (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Over Christmas, there are always fewer editors, promoters and admins about. So we should revert back to 24 hours, and we can re-evaluate in early January. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
A shame more of the backlog wasn't cleared but we can always go back to a 12-hour cycle in January once the holiday period is over. Kosack (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I have not filled any prep sets for the last five days because I have been in hospital, but I have recorded some statistics. On 5th December there were 393 unapproved hooks and 223 approved ones. Today there are 297 unapproved and 173 approved ones. The reduction of 100 in the number of unapproved hooks is impressive and at least partly due to Mifter, who seems to have reviewed a lot of hooks. I will fill some prep sets now that I am back, but I agree with Gatoclass that it might be best to return to a 24 hour cycle in the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you've been unwell Cwm! Please don't rush back to set building if you don't feel up to it.
Mifter, you have done a terrific job for the last couple of weeks, but I think perhaps it's time you took a break from approving nominations, as the main reason we had to go to 12 hours was because we had too many approved hooks for the page to handle, and we are probably going to get another influx of approved hooks in January. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Temporarily going back to the 24-hour cycle would also resolve the issue of not having enough Christmas hooks for two sets. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I have no objections with switching back to one set a day around Christmas/New Years. Gatoclass, I'm also happy to pull back on reviewing hooks to keep the overall numbers at a manageable level. My goal was to clear out some of the oldest noms that had not yet been approved prior to the WikiCup rush and it looks like most of them have been handled (also with Christmas next week my general availability will be limited). Cwmhiraeth, I am very sorry to hear you were ill and hope everything is alright. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Mifter, I don't think there's any problem with you continuing to review hooks; there are currently 123 unapproved hooks, and that number could still be reduced. The key is not getting it so low that people have trouble finding unreviewed nominations to use for QPQs. (The big number is the total hooks, currently 270, and the small number is the approved hooks, currently 147.) I'd like to point out that when we started the shift, with 393 active nominations, 223 of which were approved, the queues and preps were mostly filled (nine or ten), while at the moment only four queues and preps are filled. This means we've reduced the numbers by 40 more than it appears, since we have 40 fewer queue/prep slots filled today; if we had nine queues and preps filled, it would be 230 total noms, 107 of which are approved, which is a reduction of 163 nominations in toto. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Can i have an update on this? Cuz it seems like there's no consensus on the time cycle, which would affect one of the recent promotions I have done. (Prep 5 pictured hook) VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: the new schedule is in the next thread, under "Christmas sets". I returned your promotion to the special occasion holding area for January 1. Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Christmas sets

  • Can I suggest we make the change to the 24-hour cycle on December 24th, with Queue 5 and Queue 6 being two sets for Christmas Eve and Queue 1 being a single set for Christmas Day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, Narutolovehinata5, Mifter We have one approved hook for Advent (should be run before Dec 25), two approved hooks for Christmas Eve, and six approved for Christmas Day. Prep 5 right now only has 7 hooks in it, none of which are about Christmas. Prep 6 is full, with no Christmas hooks. I have no objection to the suggestion, but where do we get enough hooks for two sets on Christmas Eve? Perhaps Cwmhiraeth is suggesting we leave things as they are on Christmas Eve, and don't go back to one 24-hour set until Christmas Day? — Maile (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
It's normal to have only one or two themed hooks for Christmas Eve, so three Advent/Christmas Eve hooks distributed among two sets should be fine. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the six themed hooks for Christmas Day, they are all music hooks with one exception. IMO we should not be running five music hooks in one set regardless of whether they are themed or not. So I would suggest three for the Christmas Day set and the others on Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, or alternatively, we run two sets on Christmas Day with two or three of the hooks in each set. Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
When you have decided which prep set is going to be allotted to Christmas Day, anything already promoted to that set can be moved wholesale to another prep set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, please be specific:
  • December 23 = Queue ___
  • December 24 = Queue ___
  • December 25 = Prep ____
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I closed the below section, because it was confusing this one. Mifter and I were just probably thinking outside the box, so to speak. Please refer to Gatoclass and this section as to how many sets will happen on Christmas Day. I think Gatoclass can give a more clear idea of what the current plan is for Christmas Day hooks. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gerda. We won't have 5 music hooks in one set that way. Can we leave it as Preps 5 & 6 for December 24, and Preps 1 & 2 for December 25? That's the way I filled them. Yoninah (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a mess. Somehow Prep 6 became the first set for December 25. Queue 4 and Prep 5 just became the sets for December 24, but Queue 4 is totally unsuitable for that date. I need to go to bed now; I'll be back in 9-10 hours. I put a special occasion hook for December 24 in the holding area. Hope this sorts itself out while I'm offline. Yoninah (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I think you may have been misled by the promotion changeover processing; as a by-product of the automated process promoting a queue to the main page, the table that shows the times is wonky from the moment the process starts until it completes. Right now, here's the promotion schedule; "Prep/Queue" means that it's currently a prep set, but will be promoted from queue (same number):
  • December 23, 12:00 UTC: Queue 4
  • December 24, 00:00 UTC: Prep/Queue 5
  • December 24, 12:00 UTC: Prep/Queue 6
  • December 25, 00:00 UTC: Prep/Queue 1
  • December 25, 12:00 UTC: Prep/Queue 2
  • December 26, 00:00 UTC: Prep/Queue 3
Will December 26 be the first day where sets run 24 hours rather than 12 hours? It's probably wise to make a definite decision. If we did changeover then, it would give Arritt a full day on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a heads-up that I am slapping together a quick article on Pancho Claus, as suggested by Maile above. I might be able to find a free image for it, so if another suitable image isn't available it could be used for a lead slot. I will add a link to the nomination when the article is complete so that somebody can quickly verify it. I probably have time to write another quick article as it happens, but haven't been able to find a subject for it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I have reviewed this hook and it is highly suitable for use on Christmas Day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah I have moved the approved nomination to special holding area for Christmas Day. Is it possible to move lead hook Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) to Prep 1, which is Christmas Day everywhere except the United States? And then move Pancho Claus to Prep 2 lead hook for the United States Christmas Day? Gatoclass, I like what you did with the article. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done I did what you suggested, Maile. I'm glad all my work last night didn't go to waste. @Gatoclass: your article is great, but I think you could do more with the hook, like:
ALT1: ... that a "Tex-Mex" version of Santa Claus known as Pancho Claus (example pictured) rides a cart pulled by burros, and distributes charity to poor children? Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah I like the ALT1, and have changed it slightly as it takes more than one burro to pull the sled. I would suggest in the image caption to remove "A" as not necessary. Thank you for promoting the nomination. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
ALT1 is fine by me too. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. I substituted it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I reread the source and corrected the article based on it. The hook needs to be corrected too, such as:
ALT2: ... that a "Tex-Mex" version of Santa Claus known as Pancho Claus (example pictured) wears Hispanic-themed attire, rides a lowrider, and distributes charity to disadvantaged children? Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
In that case, you might want to go back to the original hook, because "wears Hispanic-themed attire" is redundant to "Tex-Mex version" IMO, and AFAIK there is only one, atypical, Pancho Claus who rides a lowrider. Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: OK. I was just trying to add some color to it. Yoninah (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass:, Yoninah the Pancho Claus in the image is wearing a Zoot suit and fedora, which is definitely not hispanic in origins. And that's the Pancho Claus who arrives in a lowrider. That's in the source. How about:
ALT3: ... that one version of Pancho Claus, a "Tex-Mex" version of Santa Claus who brings gifts to disadvantaged children, wears a zoot suit and fedora (pictured), and arrives in a lowrider"? — Maile (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I like that. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm divided on whether we should name Richard Reyes in the hook/image, or just let readers click on the article to find out to themselves. Seeing as how it's the season when there might be little kids out there who believe in Santa Claus, maybe we could just let them be surprised by reading the article. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: since Reyes doesn't have a Wikipedia article, this won't go over well at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I guess that decides that issue. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm just waiting on Gatoclass's response to ALT3 before promoting it. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
A person isn't really a "version" though is he? It might work if you substituted "version" with "interpreter". Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I think the original hook is the simplest, which is always best. Can we leave it the way it is? Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, leave as is. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, Yoninah I changed "version" to "portrayal". That's a nice actor's definition. It's in queue now, so it would take an admin to change it, but I have no issue if it gets changed back to "version". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: please change it back to "version". It's not a role, it's a local tradition. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Gatoclass: @Casliber: @Vanamonde: to deal with this, please. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean @Vanamonde93:. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: thanks. It's very frustrating having the queue locked to only admins and everyone seemingly on Christmas vacation. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we please just at the very least keep the Adoration of the Shepherds in the lead hook in Prep/Queue 1 so we do have at least 1 picture hook on the true meaning of Christmas? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It is the lead image in Prep 1. We're talking about Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

December 27

I understood that on 26 December, we return to 24 hours. If not, the Stölzel cantata comes too soon (prep 4), if yes, the pictured Carsten Koch hook (prep 5) comes too late for Christmas and would better be moved to 1 January, 2 January or 6 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes that hook needs to be shifted too. I really love the picture though...I don’t wanna give it up...but if we swap with Prep 4 lead hook, would that be good? Pinging Yoninah Cwmhiraeth and Gerda Arendt Mifter. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Based on the above thread, I estimated that the Stölzel cantata would fall on December 27, Prep 4. I also tagged it with a hidden note to make sure it stays on December 27. I am returning the Carsten Koch hook to the noms page for promotion in January. Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The Stölzel should go 27 and no other day. I'd like Koch best on New Year's Day, because his part of the project began with IV for that day, but the image would fit 6 Jan best (because it's from part VI, the only one with all soloists together), also the kind of star on top. Both much later than we have preps for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful if someone could make a definite statement as to when the timing change is to take place, and then we minions could promote nominations to sets appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's going to be Boxing Day. Gatoclass (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, the Prep 3 set, when promoted to the main page at 00:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC), will be the first to run for a full 24 hours, and after that we continue at one set a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. We have made a really good dent in the backlog, with nominated hooks down by around 140 and verified hooks down by nearly 100. A good effort by all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Admin needed to change DYK back to 24 hours (one set per day)

If an admin could please change us back to one set per day immediately, it would be greatly appreciated.

To do this, on page User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates, please change "43200" to "86400"; that will instantly adjust things to one a day. (In case you're wondering where 86400 comes from, that's the number of seconds in 24 hours).

Pinging a few admins, including Gatoclass, Cas Liber, Maile, Vanamonde, Mifter, and Alex Shih, to increase the chances of this happening so the next queue is promoted 21.5 hours from now rather than 9.5. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Alex Shih (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I submitted 8 hooks, apparently none work, please help

I submitted 8 hooks at Template:Did you know nominations/Lila Gene George, but @Yoninah: seems to have a problem with all of them. I honestly think that the hook "...that American pianist Lila Gene George wrote a piece of piano sheet music of a poem by Algernon Charles Swinburne, an English poet who contributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition?" is a great hook as well as "... that American pianist Lila Gene George studied under composer Nadia Boulanger, one of the leading composition teachers in the 20th century, for nine summers in France?" SL93 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@SL93: My main problem is not with the hooks but with the referencing for the article. I see you added a new hook (above) and will comment on it later. Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I added more sources since you last looked, but I do know that there is nothing wrong with local sources. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@SL93: I wish you had been around to defend my two articles that got deleted for being local subjects with local sources. Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: It can be a hard fight if there are only local sources. When I created this article, I also had International Encyclopedia of Women Composers. Because of you, I also managed to find Pan Pipes of Sigma Alpha Iota Quarterly, Volumes 73-74 and Flute Music by Women Composers. Flute Music by Women Composers also has biographies for every composer listed according to its Google Books description, but her entry isn't in the free preview (damn it). SL93 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I can also add that she is listed in The World Who's who of Women, Volume 2, but her entry is not fully available to view (damn it again). SL93 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@SL93: I can view the whole entry for George in Flute Music by Women Composers, p. 44. Do you want me to add dates and places to the article? (BTW it says she studied with Boulanger only from 1971 to 1974.) Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be great. I was thinking maybe both versions of it could be added because I don’t know how to verify which one is right. Then maybe just remove the part about how long it was in the hook. I’m on on my way to work now so I can’t do anything for a few hours. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The hook is being questioned as to whether it is interesting. SL93 (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Other ideas welcome

Please see discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Peng Shilu. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the original reviewer has tonsssssss of ALTs to review now :moonface: VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Concerns for Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts

This is regarding Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts DYK currently on Queue 6. The article in question contains Gyan Publishing House reference which is not a WP:RS per this & is listed on WP:MF. I suggest removing the ref from the article and pulling the DYK down if possible. - 58.27.134.35 (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@58.27.134.35: I have removed the reference. Thanks for notifying. As the DYK is using another reliable source, it is not affected. Thanks again VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Picture slot, Queue 5 – Raymond Arritt

Discussion moved back to nomination page. Please comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond Arritt.

This is the current lead hook for Queue 5 (nomination page, contributors to the discussion and promoter: Flibirigit, Gerda Arendt, me, Softlavender,Vincent60030, Yoninah, Narutolovehinata5). I have a few concerns:

  1. As it stands, this leaves open the possibility that Arritt's IPCC involvement did not necessarily occur before the Nobel Prize was awarded.
  2. Arritt and the other ISU academics were not contributors to the IPCC, they were contributing authors to one or more IPCC reports.
  3. The credits are a little strange: DYKmake for IntoThinAir and Softlavender, DYKnom for Flibirigit, Gerda Arendt, and me. IntoThinAir is the main author, Flibirigit nominated the article based on suggestions from Gerda and me, and did the QPQ. I am not sure, however, why Softlavender's article contributions ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11] adding 3.5% of the text) – important minor edits and tweaks though these are – are DYKmake-worthy when my edits ([12] [13] [14] adding 17.5% of the text) are not? Do others think I have earned a DYKmake credit?
  4. I think the hook needs changing, perhaps to something like:

I am sure these are too wordy (the 'a's are probably ok), but at least they are accurate. I believe that the current hook is not and so some change is needed. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Although informational, I think all the hooks are way too wordy. And I don't think it should be having so many shortforms. I don't find these attractive. If you ask me, I would still let the approved one in the queue to proceed. Sometimes for a DYK things are ommitted so it's normal. About DYK credits, I think you should ask Flibirigit about this. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I don'zt believe that we need to mention Al Gore at all, - could be "a shared Nobel Peace Prize (with a link). I also don't believe we have to be overly precie in any DYK hook. Yesterday, the German Wikipedia ran this hook: "de:Fröhlich soll mein Herze springen!" We could return to his cute math, remember ALT2? Once there, do you remember I suggest to run it on New Year's Day? - Peace and Sharing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I get the ALT3b's as under 200 characters and with no initialisms (added second after comment from Gerda). In the original, Arritt is described as a contributor to the Panel that won the prize, whereas he was a contributing author to two of its reports. If we leave this as it is, it is likely to get commented on as an ERROR. I'm fine with omitting information but not fine with factual inaccuracies. I would have gone with one of the proposed hooks with the Arritt quote, but these were rejected on the nomination page. (posted after (edit conflict)) EdChem (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC) and edited 07:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber, Gatoclass, Vanamonde, Mifter, and Alex Shih: I recommend this hook be pulled from the Queue and returned to the nomination area for further discussion. Flibirigit (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: So are you gonna reconsider the credit claim for EdChem? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
May I also offer to substitute with Template:Did you know nominations/Regolith-hosted rare earth element deposits? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Once we discussed so much here, I wouldn't do it because this is the more visible spot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ALT3b1 and 3b2 are inaccurate, as they imply the IPCC won the Nobel for the 2001 and 2007 reports specifically, when in fact it won for its "decades" of research. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook while it's still under discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: could you please replace the empty hook with the one I suggested? Thanks VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do you want that hook in the lead slot Vincent60030? Gatoclass (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to replace it Gatoclass VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: the Loschbour man hook at the end comes with an intriguing image; not sure why that wasn't kept for a picture slot. You could pull one of the quirkys from the preps, and I'll put in another quirky there. Yoninah (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I had to pull that hook too Yoninah, due to problems identified at WP:ERRORS. I'll look around for some replacement hooks a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: well. There are no special occasion hooks here, so you could swap the whole set with one of the prepared prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but then I will be up half the night vetting all the new hooks, it's much easier for me to just find a couple of extra hooks to plug into the existing set. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg

@Gfosankar and Yoninah: in Prep 5, there is the following hook:

Her birth date is not cited in the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

December 31

Could Template:Did you know nominations/The Death of General Montgomery in the Attack on Quebec, December 31, 1775, (approved), be scheduled for December 31? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Next time you have a special occasion hook, please make sure it's moved to the special occasion holding area. Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Zeete (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

For the same date: It happened again that I missed a birthday nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfgang Unger, help welcome, - would be nicest on his birthday even if he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done I cleared a slot for it in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Queue tweak

In Queue 6, the quotation marks around Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts should not be bold. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Reviews mixed up

For my DYK nom Rami Barracks, I reviewed Walter LaFeber. However, as I looked now at the approved DYK noms list, I surprisingly noticed that my review is located under Guêpe-class submarine, which is totally incorrect. Hopefully, the error can be corrected. CeeGee 10:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Please explain, because I don't see that. Or was something corrected already without saying so here? Which you could do yourself as long as the noms are not closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

New User script

Hi. Just wanted to let everyone know that I have made a user script (User:DannyS712/DYK claim) to easily "claim" reviews. See this at work here. I'm happy to answer any questions, fix any bugs, etc --DannyS712 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1:German speaker

  • ... that after hearing Gert Westphal recite works by Thomas Mann (pictured), Mann's widow Katia described him as "des Dichters oberster Mund" (the poet's principal voice)?
@Gerda Arendt:@Mifter:@Cwmhiraeth:
Even though this is the image hook, I daresay it won't get many hits. It moves quickly away from the main subject (Westphal) to Thomas Mann and his widow, and then doubles back at the end, making it hard to parse. I think that a hook focusing on Westphal himself, even without an image, would be better. I suggest:
ALT1: ... that Gert Westphal, one of the best-known speakers in German, was described as "der Caruso der Vorleser" (the Caruso among recitators)? Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I also think we should write the hook in English and skip the German. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion was long already, as you probably know. The praise from the widow of one of the greatest writers in German is much better than some comparison with an opera singer, which seems far-fetched - I heard him (Westphal), he had nothing typically operatic in the presentation of literature. Also this hook doesn't say who said so and why. Reading Mann was his specialty, and is very much about him. - We need the German because the translation is free, "Mund" means "mouth", and "oberster" means "highest" or "top". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I hear you. I don't have any other solution but to keep it as is. I still feel that it, and the image of two people who aren't Westphal, is confusing. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The original hook isn't even grammatically correct. "Him" would grammatically refer to the most recent matching noun, Mann, even though the intended meaning is for it to refer to Westphal. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Right. So now we have:
... that after hearing Gert Westphal recite works by Thomas Mann (pictured), Mann's widow Katia described Westphal as "des Dichters oberster Mund" (the poet's principal voice)?
Getting worse by the minute. Yoninah (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there no particular reason why we can't just go with something like 'described Westphal as "the poet's principal voice"' and just omit the German? The translation doesn't have to be exact as long as it's accurate. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
There many "no", not sure that I get the question, but she didn't say "voice" nor "principal". - You could, however, write something in English that is not a quote. I can't do that in short, lacking language to do so, along the lines of: "understood her husband's prose and read it convincingly/ideally as if he had written it himself". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I much prefer Yoninah's proposed hook, it's much easier to understand and more accessible to the general reader, I got the point immediately upon reading it, whereas with the other hook, I'm not even sure if the quote is meant to refer to Thomas Mann in particular or poets in general. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    Do ypou believe that our young generation even knows who Caruso is? We recently rejected a hook because we were afraid they don't kow what the Scala is. - Repeating: star attitude and operatic behaviour was nothing he stood for, but Thomas Mann was. In reading the dialogue of Strauss and Hofmannsthal, he was the sensitive writer, of course, and Fischer-Dieskau the composer. Should I add that to the article and make a hook from it? As much as I love Italian opera, it has nothing to do with him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't need to have anything to do with him, it's an analogy, and a very effective one which gets the point across about what this person was good at, whereas the other hook is an arcane head-scratcher. Also, far more people know who Caruso is than Mann, so it's a much more accessible hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
On reading this thread, my principle question is, why does it matter which of these rather similar hooks we use? I don't suppose Gerda is bothered how many people actually click on the link. She wrote the article because Gert Westphal was someone that interested her, and I see little point in twiddling around the hook to try to get a few extra clicks. Let's reserve our energies for spotting actual errors, the kind that Fram pounces on! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, these hooks are not similar. Too many personalities are involved in the original hook. If Gerda thinks it's important to say that Westphal recited Mann better than any other poet, then please write that straightforwardly in the hook and source it in the article. Yoninah (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominators are rewarded by getting their article on the main page, but that doesn't mean we must promote any hook just because it happens to be the nominator's preference. The interests of the readers take precedence, which means that hooks should be as interesting and engaging as possible, and in this case, Yoninah's proposed hook is much more interesting in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, why - if we have only room for one analogy - should we use an Italian famous tenor, when the subject was a German modest recitator of literature. It's a wrong analogy. Better stop then before using it, "... that Gert Westphal is one of the best-known speakers in German", only that "speaker" is so ambigouos that is also seems a waste of characters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The closeness to the Mann family can be seen at the graveyard. - I added the fact mentioned above to the article, something to play with:
ALT2: ... that Gert Westphal and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau recited from the correspondences between Zelter and Goethe, and between Hofmannsthal and Strauss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Honestly this feels even more complicated; sometimes less said is better. For disclosure, I actually don't see what's wrong with the original hook and think it's fine as long as the German part is removed; is there no reason why we can't stick to a variation of that instead? As for Yoninah's proposal, it's also fine but the nominator doesn't seem to be fond of it. With that said, ALT2 IMO is the worst option thus far, as it doesn't address Gatoclass' concerns (i.e. familiarity to a broad audience), since the only really recognizable names there would be Stauss and maybe Goethe. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Why would you think that Fischer-Dieskau (aka DFD) would be less recognizable than Caruso? Just as great a singer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of what Gerda Arendt is saying, perhaps rewrite the original hook as something like:

Does this reflect the sources and the German language comments? EdChem (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

How about just authenticity?
I'd tweak ALT4, the ending might be better as something like:
It's wordier, I admit, but I think it reads more clearly. EdChem (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC) PS: Edited to add more concise ALT4b. EdChem (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
If we have to use the image, I support ALT4a. Thanks, EdChem. Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
With image, I prefer ALT4b, thanks EdChem. Without, we could play with ALT2:
ALT2a: ... that Gert Westphal and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau recited from the correspondence of Hofmannsthal and Strauss who created operas such as Der Rosenkavalier together? (which could be added to the article, - much of the correspondence is about this well-known opera.) There's a recording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Glad to help, Gerda and Yoninah. It's always nice to find a solution through a productive discussion.  :) EdChem (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done Substituted ALT4b in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6: Gossip

Discussion moved back to nomination page. Please comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexina Maude Wildman.
@Sky Gazer 512: @Vincent60030: @SL93:
We had this discussion a while back with one woman calling another "an elderly gorilla with sex appeal". This isn't quite as bad, but it is one woman attacking another, and the attack reference (East Lynne) is obscure. Why is this in the quirky slot? Can we come up with a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Re-ping @SkyGazer 512:. Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I actually couldn't tell if it was an insult for not because I have never heard the term. ... that after Alexina Maude Wildman's death, The Australian Star named her as the most favored journalist in Australia at the time? SL93 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Or I do like ALT3 - ... that Alexina Maude Wildman wrote what was likely the most widely read column in The Bulletin, despite editor and co-owner J. F. Archibald's belief that women could not write poetry? SL93 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I like ALT3 too. But what's the connection between poetry and a gossip column? Yoninah (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The connection is that the subject wrote the column. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I agree. The subject wasn't a poet. It looks like a real loose fit. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a source was lost along the way? This source says, " She began writing as a schoolgirl, and regularly contributed poetry and prose to the Bulletin." SL93 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
We need the page creator to respond here, and fix the article text too. Yoninah (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand the concerns about ALT2 and am fine with something different. The problem with adding what the Australian Women's Register article says is that it gives us little information and what it does give would be hard to incorporate with the flow still making sense. The Australian Dictionary of Biography says clearly that her poems were rejected in 1885. Both ADB and AWR (I'm a lazy person so I'll just use these abbreviations for the rest of this post) state that she begin writing her gossip column in 1888. So was it in 1886 and 1887 that she actually wrote poetry for the magazine? How would it makes sense to suddenly go from She submitted her work to The Bulletin in 1885, at age 18, but was declined, causing her to complain in person to she frequently contributed poetry to the Bulletin before her gossip column? Now, of course, if the AWR could provide more details about this we could add that to the article, possibly even mention the different-source conflicts if they would exist, but unfortunately it doesn't. We might could do a hook that talks about the fact that her gossip column was likely the most read part of the magazine at the time despite her initial verses being rejected, although it is not as interesting. The hook SL93 suggested about what The Australian Star said could work as well; that would probably be my [personally preference if none of the hooks I had suggested before in the original nom would work. I'll read through the article again and see if I can think of anything else.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
(ping Yoninah and SL93 as I forgot to do so before)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I've added SL93's suggestion as an ALT4 and commented on the nomination page.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

6 January hook request

Hi all, I have Template:Did you know nominations/Earth Has Many A Noble City‎ as a special occasion request for Epiphany on the 6th of January. Could I get a review for it so it can run on the 6th please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ready for promotion to reserved slot in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
And promoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, though there wasn’t much activity on it between Christmas and New Years. Here is an updated list with 35 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through December 21. Right now we have a total of 253 nominations, of which 131 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two from October and those remaining from November.

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) 04:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hooks relating to Queue 4

Queue 4 is due on the main page in about 10 hours from the timestamp of this post. A couple of issues:

Guêpe-class submarines

It contains the following hook:

It struck me as strange that a submarine would be designed with such a limited operating range. In reading the article, I found that "were solely intended for use in harbor defense." That is very different from not being designed to operate outside of a harbour environment... if only for transiting from one location to another. I notice also that the design included a range of more than 200 km, consistent with movement between harbours. I suggest a change to match the wording of the article:

I am posting here rather than at ERRORS to seek input and thoughts from the nominator, reviewers, etc, rather than a unilateral decision. Inviting input from L293D (nominator), the other significant editor of the article (AustralianRupert), the reviewer (Wasted Time R), and the promoter (97198). Link to nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Guêpe-class submarine. EdChem (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the review, I tried to get the nominator to expand on whether the submarine's limited role was due to technical limitations or to naval doctrine, but without much success. In any case, I think your alternative is safer, if less hooky. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. And EdChem since this is already in the queue, I think you should post it at ERRORS right now and ping the relevant parties. There are also editors who comment at ERRORS who would know something about this topic. Yoninah (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, there's a discussion at errors about whether or not to start the hook as "... that the ..." and arguing about commas in multiple hooks. I don't think that such trivialities as factual accuracy are of much interest there right at the moment, sadly – at least, not when there are grammatical issues / "errors" to nit-pick over.  :( EdChem (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@EdChem: well, this is an error, and that is not ... Pinging Gatoclass and Maile for help here. Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: well ... this is probably not what anybody wants to hear from an admin ... but I burned out on the "comma wars" and see it as one of those "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments. Early in my adminship, I responded to one of those at ERRORS - I can no longer remember if the nitpicking was to remove one, or add one - but I did whatever it was that was requested. Then I got a message of indignation of " ... why did you do that?" As far as I am concerned, commas - to use or not use - really depends on what part of the world you were taught grammar, what generation, and a lot of scenarios. Nobody has a lock on a defining comma style. And it is all stylistic. And it is all about how many people you can get to agree, or disagree. I agree with EdChem to keep the above issues on this talk page. Let ERRORS take care of whatever is over there. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: thanks for your input, but I was actually asking you to take care of fixing the hook in Queue 4 that is about to go live. Could you replace the hook with ALT1 above? Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Quirky slot

The quirky slot hook is:

How is this quirky? I thought the idea was to bring a smile, end on something odd but up? This hook just turns my stomach, someone advocating a conspiracy theory that a group of scientists (usually blamed on Americans / Fort Detrick / USAMRIID) created HIV, deliberately infected people with it, and then deliberately or carelessly / incompetently released it. Yes, conspiracy theorists are just as eligible for DYK as anyone else... but in the quirky slot? And shouldn't the hook make clear that the "theory" has been utterly discredited?

I also have concerns about the article. Seale certainly has written about and advocated for this theory, but does he still believe it or do so? I don't know and the article doesn't say, but as a BLP, I think it should indicate – at present, the article has no comment that I can see from Seale on the subject that's beyond the 1980s. It's also a near-orphan (a grand total of one incoming link, from Lyndon LaRouche, so not from any article about HIV and its origins, not one like discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories, not list of conspiracy theories, and no hat note on John Seale). This makes me wonder about the check on whether the article is an orphan that is part of a review (here is the nomination page). I'm also surprised that there is not more in the article on how flawed and rejected this theory is.

So, I'd like to ask if I'm the only one who is unsure about whether this hook should be in the quirky slot, whether the hook needs modifying, and whether the article is main page-ready? Courtesy-pings: Creator / nominators: Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory, reviewer 97198, and promoter Yoninah. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree its controversial and not suitable for the quirky slot but the content is well supported by the sources and the article states in the first sentence and in the relevant section that his theories have since been discredited. I have no objection to adding the word "discredited" to the hook. I have kept it fairly tight on his views but feel free to add greater context. People don't have to be either dead or right to be worthwhile article subjects and eligible for DYK. I hope you agree the tone of the article is suitably sober. It's an episode in the history of medicine, the significance of which was recognised by the Wellcome Library when they added his and his colleague's papers to their collection. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@EdChem:, Philafrenzy solving part of this issue, I moved the hooks around in the set. The card game is now the quirky hook, and Seale is the 5th hook. I have no comment about the rest of the above concerns. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, thanks for the updates to the two hooks in this thread. Philafrenzy, certainly the article is carefully written and sober in tone, and I don't mean to offend, but there are aspects that leave me feeling a little uncomfortable. I'll look again more carefully and give it some thought and we can talk at the article talk page, if that's ok. Thanks for being open to discussion.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Dermophis donaldtrumpi

EEng, copied below is the message left on my talk page regarding Dermophis donaldtrumpi. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have pulled this hook for now and reopened the nomination. (See extensive discussion at WT:ERRORS.) Is there another hook that can be substituted, or is it okay to run with one hook fewer than planned? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ it's always a good idea to mention here any changes in the queues. If the issue is revolved in time, that hook can go right back into queue. If not ... either you can move a hook from a prep area, or the community here can suggest one to be moved. Thank you for the notification. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, if you look at the errors discussion and the comments at the nomination page, I think there is already consensus. Will you have a look and see what you think? EdChem (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
MSGJ I have no opinion at all on any of the hooks. If the community reaches a consensus, I will be glad to put it in the queue. But I prefer to stay neutral on the wording of the hook. Thanks for asking. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
For now, the two Dermophis donaldtrumpi credits should be removed from Queue 5, as should the comment left behind (it now appears to say that the preceding hook is a special occasion hook). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. As we get closer to the deadline, if this issue is not resolved, another hook can be moved up to fill the slot. Please don't depend solely on me for that. This is a weekday, and I can be offline for hours. — Maile (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5:Black-draped portrait

George H. W. Bush portrait draped in mourning crêpe
George H. W. Bush portrait draped in mourning crêpe
George H. W. Bush, lying in state in the United States Capitol rotunda on December 3, 2018
George H. W. Bush, lying in state
@Narutolovehinata5: I deliberately didn't promote this image to an image slot because at thumbnail size, the image is so vague. If someone is able to crop out just the painting, it might work. Pinging @David Levy:. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, as the reviewer I specifically said that this picture would not be good to use in the lead because of the details, the original one that was proposed was much better but was withdrawn because the nominator wasn't sure on the copyright (maybe that could be used if someone else can confirm if it is free to use). The other alternative is to use the photo of his coffin in the rotunda instead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we can still go with this as the image hook, but with the casket image instead (as suggested by The C of E)? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I've cropped the photograph of the coffin in the Capitol rotunda. (The portrait image appears likely to be deleted because of copyright issues.) —David Levy 11:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think the picture of the coffin adds anything to this hook, and that it should be returned to a non-image slot in the queue. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. The photograph is only tangentially relevant, particularly given that it wasn't taken on the National Day of Mourning. —David Levy 13:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I moved it out of the image slot. Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You guys and gals did good!!

Computer mice dancing for joy

You all proved the system works. We went to two sets a day on December 16, and continued it through December 25. Errors got handled, and the project worked just fine at two sets a day. The main page was never short a hook. You people are awesome, and that needs to be said once in a while. — Maile (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This gal thanks! Got many wishes fulfilled, three hooks on three days of Christmas, and the special one with for the image slot on New Year's Day with "our" music, - just not Raymond Arritt yet. Happy 2019. Extra cute: three birds yesterday ;) - planning or coincidence? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. I thought it went well too. As for the three birds, just a lack of co-ordination between different parts of the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear! DYK is still a great engine of enthusiasm. Its tireless teamwork and prodigous productivity is a model for other parts of Wikipedia that are flagging and falling behind. Well done, everyone. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 1: One exception

@Chetsford: @Zigzig20s:
I promoted this hook because I liked the image, but I feel the hook wording is misleading. The article never explains why The New York Times said "with one exception", so it's kind of a red herring. What do others think? Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you change the hook to
They might, but it doesn't bother me too much. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. I like your alt. I'll substitute it in prep. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominator and article credits not received

The Raksha Country and the Sea Market, nominated by User:Kingoflettuce, appeared on the main page on January 5 but did not receive a DYK credit. Yoninah (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, I'm seeing credits on the article talk page and the nominator's talk page, both done by the DYKUpdateBot at the time of promotion to the main page. What do you think is missing? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't see it on the talk page because it was placed at the top, not the bottom. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 22:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Two hooks removed from main page, please take more care

As discussed on WP:ERRORS, both the Phascolosoma granulatum and the Sonia Orbuch hooks were removed from the current main page DYK section as both were factually incorrect. A completely different hook for Orbuch has been put back in the meantime. Please be more careful during all steps of the DYK process to avoid such factual errors on the main page please. Fram (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well if ARBCOM hadn't banned DYK's best error finder..... Joseph2302 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #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) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin still needed to update the next prep number from 4 to 5; non-admins can't do so when the queues are empty due, though we can at other times. Thanks to any passing admin (pinging Cas Liber, Alex Shih, and Maile, in the hopes that one of them is around) who can fix this. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 5

Is the use of the word "infamous" appropriate here? While it does appear to fit the content of the Reactions section, they don't seem to outright say that the speech is "infamous". Should the word be removed or substituted, or be kept as is? Pinging @Catrìona and Jo-Jo Eumerus:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The article clearly uses the word "infamous" in quotes, and cites an offline source. We could also put "infamous" in quotes. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, @Narutolovehinata5:, @Catrìona and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just put quotes around the word "infamous", as that's how it is in the article. As a matter of style, I think "infamous" should be outside the link. Maybe it doesn't need to be there at all. The only place that word shows up is exactly once, in the last sentence of the article. I have doubts that it should be there. I could access the referenced P. 8 via Google Books,which does comment on the speech. The beginning of the paragraph is on p. 3, 4-7 are maps, and it continues on p. 8 with the quote from the speech. The word "infamous" is not there, but "Tito's Holič statement has become his moral epigraph". I don't see "infamous" at all. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I removed the word "infamous" from the hook, since it's not in the source. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, as someone with an interest in political science, the hook sounds cute, but I'm not sure about the significance of the fact about Saturday classes versus weekday classes. Perhaps something better can be suggested here? He appears to have quite a distinguished career, and the hook as it stands doesn't really seem to give much justice to it. Pinging @Wasted Time R and CeeGee:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Many students normally avoid Saturday classes at all costs, so I thought it was pretty hooky. But if you look at the original nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Walter LaFeber, I gave an ALT1 at the time. Is that any better for you? If so I'm fine with using it instead. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who personally tries or tried to avoid Saturday classes whenever possible, I can relate. But I don't know if non-academics would get the connection. I would have normally suggested ALT1 instead, but lately we've been discouraging "first" hooks, so we might have to try something else. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
How about:
ALT2 ... that Cornell University professor Walter LaFeber gave his farewell lecture on American diplomatic history before nearly 3,000 people at New York's Beacon Theatre?
I didn't propose it originally because it was in the article before my expansion, however there is much more detail about it now. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I like ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " ... that the description of the beech orchid took place in The Sydney Morning Herald?" Casliber I've added the word "first" in front of "description". That's how it is in the article. Otherwise, why else mention where it was described? — Maile (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
That is fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to stay out of above discussions. Because the original hook had reminded me about my student time at the RWTH Aachen University, where my Experimental Physics professor W. Fucks' Saturday morning classes in 1964 attracted about 1,000 students and their girl friends while his weekday classes were attended by about 300 students only. Please excuse me all. CeeGee 10:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles created on PLOS

Can we have more eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/Selfish genetic element? This article was expanded with material first published on PLOS wiki and peer-reviewed journal. Apparently, this has been done on previous articles as well. It is being argued that PLOS articles should be treated the same as Wikipedia articles in draft for newness rules. We need consensus on whether or not this is an acceptable practice. SpinningSpark 11:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I really need some input here, I don't want to have to decide this question unilaterally. To clarify, the points at issue are; has rule 2b (The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articlesDYK articles may freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy, with proper attribution. However, because the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded) been broken if,
(a) the nominated article has been drafted on the PLOS wiki (where it is viewable by anybody) beginning more than seven days before nom, or
(b) the nominated article has been published in (a PLOS) journal, less than seven days before nom.
Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It is my interpretation that the DYK rules about "new or expanded" articles mean only new or expanded here (en.wikipedia). Anything else is not relevant. MB 19:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@MB: Sorry, it is relevant, but I accidentally quoted rule 1b instead of 2b. See the text replaced above. SpinningSpark 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Rule 2B is from the section on LENGTH, not on newness (which is how you first posed the question). How was the PLOS material used (rewritten for WP or closely paraphrased)? When was it published there? MB 21:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a direct copy, with minor reformatting for refs etc. The article was published in the PLOS journal 15 November, one day before nominating here. The PLOS wiki article was started in June. One question that needs resolving is do we go along with the argument that the PLOS wiki has the same status as Wikipedia draft space for DYK purposes. SpinningSpark 22:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like it is new material and perfectly acceptable as a DYK, within the intent of the rules. In this case, I would say yes, PLOS wiki has the same status as WP draft space. But if this was published on PLOS years ago, then the answer would be no. MB 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: Ginbuna

  • ... that some forms of ginbuna carp practice a type of asexual reproduction known as gynogenesis, in which the male sperm contributes no genetic material, but its presence is required for the female to develop eggs?
@Glorioussandwich: @Ummimak: @Cwmhiraeth:
The hook is over 200 characters and needs shortening. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Re-ping @Umimmak:. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that. I’ll suggest
  • ... that some forms of ginbuna carp asexually reproduce via gynogenesis, in which the male sperm contributes no genetic material but is still required for the female to develop eggs?
which is 182 characters. Umimmak (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Umimmak: thank you. Could we tweak that as:
... that some forms of ginbuna carp asexually reproduce via gynogenesis, in which the male sperm contributes no genetic material but is still required for egg development? Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I don’t have an issue with that. I doubt Glorioussandwich will either. Umimmak (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Umimmak: thank you. So I'll substitute it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, though two dozen nominations from it remain to be included on this one. Here is an updated list with 38 nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through December 26. Right now we have a total of 280 nominations, of which 144 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three from October and those remaining from November.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_154&oldid=1085471613"