Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 111: Difference between revisions

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@Carlojoseph14, Simon Burchell, Mandarax, Yoninah, Victuallers, Sahara4u, and HJ Mitchell:

I have now removed[1] the two below hooks from Queue5 for the reasons given below. Apparently due to a bug in the echo or ping system, the pings didn't work here, so I ping the people involved again. I was not aware of this bug, and I don't think there is any method of checking if your ping has worked (apart from asking, which defeats the purpose of the ping of course...). Fram (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Fram, it is a very bad idea to leave a queue that is the next one to be promoted as you've left it: two nearly empty lines in the middle of the set. Is this really what you want to appear on the main page in a little over four hours from now? I'm hoping an admin will be able to move a couple of replacement hooks in from Prep 1, but if not, the main page is going to look quite messy at 12:00 UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Better messy than wrong. I'll remove the two empty lines. Fram (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no excuse for messy when it's as easy to remove a line as shorten it. Queues should never be left with partial lines, unlike preps. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, that's why I removed them immediately after your reminder here. Fram (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Stoned ;) Serten (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Namacpacan Church. @Carlojoseph14, Simon Burchell, Mandarax, and Yoninah:

• ... that the image of the Virgin Mary enshrined in Namacpacan Church (pictured) reportedly appeared in a dream of Pope Pius XII before he died?

"Reportedly" only in a few Philippine sources, not in a single source closer to the subject (Pius XII), making it look more like a PR stunt by someone in the Philippines than something really reported as having happened. I don't think the sourcing for this hook is sufficient to let it appear on the main page. Fram (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree - this is local Philippine folklore, attributed to a Philippine source. Such sourcing is not unusual for folklore. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then the article and the hook should make it clearer that this is folklore, not something reported by the Vatican or Pius XII biographers or news reports or... Something like "that it is claimed in Namacpacan (or "in the Philippines") that the image appeared to Pius XII before he died" (as far as that can be sourced correctly). Fram (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what the word "reportedly" does here? It's an image that reportedly appeared in a dream. Seems fine to me, and I'm very critical of such hooks. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't reportedly refer to some reliable sources, not folklore? It isn't reported in any source that would have any possible knowledge of what was in the pope's dreams, and it is not as if the Vatican is reluctant to talk about miracles (Mary appearing to a pope to discuss a Philippine image of her?) The current hook reads as if it has been reported in biographies of the pope or the like, not that it has been reported in some book but without a shred of evidence that it actually ever happened ("happened" in the sense that the pope ever said this). Basically, if you allow a hook like this, then you can repeat anything anyone ever makes up and add "reportedly" to it, and it would be acceptable (not talking about BLP violations here, I'm not accusing you or anyone of supporting these, I mean simple statements of un-fact). We should try to stick to the facts, not what the PR department of a local church has invented to make it seem more interesting to pilgrims. Fram (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We're specifically referring to images and dreams reported in the context of a Catholic culture, specifically in terms of the Namacpacan Church, which of course places the event within the realm of folklore. You're picking nits. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're specifically referring to dreams reported to be had by a pope, which doesn't place it in the realms of folklore. The hook makes it not clear it all that the reports come from the Namacpacan Church side, and not from the Vatican side. Simply rewrite the hook to make this aspect clear, don't give the impression that this is some widely accepted (in Catholic circles) miracle like Lourdes or something similar. Maria reportedly appeared to Bernadette in Lourdes, right, but the pope did not reportedly have such a dream in any reliable, well-sourced sense of the term, some Philippines fabricated this claim out of thin air as far as we can tell ("folklore" is a very friendly way to describe this). It's bad enough that we repeat this, but we should at least make it clear that this is something of a very dubious nature, even within the context of Catholic miracles. The "folklore" aspect isn't at all clear from the hook. Fram (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reportedly has its uses, but in this case it's WP:WEASEL. The hook should say, According to local folklore, .... EEng (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be redundant. All religion is folklore. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First, religion is religion. Folklore is Folklore. If the bunch of eager priests around the deathbead would have provided a pic for Pius in no time to hold it, I would tend to dismiss the story. I have proposed another hook, and I use the theological Criterion of embarrassment for the hook and as well here. The story is neither dubious nor a miracle at all, but quite appealing and very much useable for DYK. Serten (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Colquhoun. @Victuallers, Sahara4u, and Yoninah:

• ... that Janet Colquhoun had blind faith in her work?

Really? I think she would have answered that she only had blind faith in God, and that she would consider our hook rather blasphemous. Some here consider it probably "quirky" and "interesting"... It's not as if it is a central theme that everyone who has heard of her considers to be crucial[2]. One 1824 source mentions it on one page, so using that to create this dubious hook really seems to be quite a stretch. Fram (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• The book was about her belief that blind faith was a defend able religious position that is this side of antinomianism. This page has blind faith in it. Wikipedia has blind faith in it. This is a fact. Blasphemous?... that is just too silly. The Free dictioany says blasphemy is "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God" ... so strangely this may be relevant??? I strongly suspect that few people have heard of her. What has that got to do with it? If you think she is un-notable then say so. As you say "some" do find it quirky and interesting. What rights do you have to deny them their view? How is this process meant to work if you are going to behave in this manner with no rhyme or reason given apart from you don't like it. Can you please provide a reason for pulling this hook? The opinions above are just that. You should state a defend-able reason for discounting the views of your peers Victuallers (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You seem to be reading things in my comment that aren't there at all. I did not call her notability into question, I called the notability of the "blind faith" aspect of her work into question. Following your arguments, you would be equally happy with a hook that said "that Janet Colquhoun had engaging qualities in her work"? The words "blind faith" appear one (1!) time in her works[3], which is as often as "engaging qualities" and less than e.g. "strong faith". The hook is a play on words which has in fact very little to do with the subject, just like your defense has very little to do with either the subject or my criticism of the hook. Misrepresenting a subject and misleading the readers in this way is not helpful, "quirky and interesting" though you may find it. A hook stated "that Janet Colquhoun had secret pleasure in her work" would be equally quirky and interesting (or not), and a lot more truthful. Not a hook I would support, but a lot less objectionable than the one presented. We had the same problem (though degrees worse still) with the "jesus has risen today" hook a few months back. I hae no idea why you insist on playing the same game here but with loss of all the witticism of the original (its only redeeming quality, basically). Mangling the English language to get a quirky hook really isn't a commendable quality of a hook. Fram (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

My very real objection is that you offer no defend-able reason for pulling the hook and disregarding the views of your peers. Even if the English language was, in your opinion, mangled, then it does not distract from the idea that others did not agree with you and you disregarded their views. The book is about blind faith, she herself believed that her good works would save her soul and she needed no evidence of that because she had blind faith in her beliefs and the salvation that would arise from her work. The idea that you can work out what she would consider blasphemous implies that you are claiming the kind of insight that she too claimed. I suspect that this removal is not improving the project. Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Strange, I've defended my reason multiple times now. As for disregarding the views of my peers, I brought it here when it was in prep, and got no reaction, positive or negative. That I disregard the "view of my peers" as in the views expressed in the review and promotion is hardly my concern, I do the same in e.g. the below hook, and effectively in all the hooks I or anyone else pulls. "The book is about blind faith", you are aware that the hook and the article are about a person with a life, including 5 books? The hook is not about a book. Perhaps that is the source of your confusion? The rest seems to be some insight you suddenly have in her convictions, that she had blind faith that she would get salvation from her work? Please indicate where you get that from, I don't see it in the article or the sources. She had blind faith (probably) in God and her religion, and she probably believed or hoped that her works were good, God-approved, but that doesn't translate to her having blind faith in her works. Compare it to some youth sporters, who can have blind faith in their coach, and try their best to get into the team by their works, their efforts; but that doesn't mean that they have blind faith in their efforts. It's the same kind of leap you make in this hook, without any justification from the sources. Fram (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • The hook is neither sourced nor appropriate. The lady went on two day riding tour instead of using a two hour sunday train travel, that said, she had got stamina and "blind faith" is something else. Alternative proposed. Serten (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Serten The hook was sourced. Fram removed the sourcing. I have replaced it. In her first book she concluded that "blind faith offers the only hope from the the 'bottomless pit'. She was a philantropist who was involved with several good causes and her writing notes that the "fruits of faith will be evident in good work". This is quoted and is from a reliable third party source. The Oroginal Research above and supposition about her beliefs is not relevant. We have quotes based on 3rd party sources and these sources are checked by reliable editors. Rewriting the hook to flatter an editor who mistakenly removed the hook may be necessary to protect a very shaky position. But it is rewriting the hook to flatter an editor who mistakenly removed the hook and it is a very shaky position. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • Sorry, thats not sourcing the hook. Something like "... that Janet Colquhoun saw blind faith as a path to salvation?" would be appropriate. theology is a science, and should not be dealt with it in Sokal/quantum gravity style. Serten (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • I have now tagged the DYK nomination as a clear "no". The article creator is now presenting statements made by a critic of her work, as if they are quotes from Colquhoun or her works. I presented my reasons here. Such tactics are completely unacceptable. [4] is the diff. When you write "in her first book she concluded", followed by a quote, then that quote should be in that book, not in the interpretation someone gave of her books. To use this as support for your hook is indicative of the quality of the hook and the reasons I pulled it. Fram (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • As it was a self-nomination, it casts some doubt about the article as a whole. OK Serten (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hobby Horse Polo, now in Queue 4. @Serten, De728631, RTG, and Hawkeye7:

While technically all DYK rules were perhaps followed, I don't think that an article like Hobby Horse Polo should have passed in this state[5].

First, I moved the article to the correct capitalization of the title. And then I removed 2.5 of its 8.2 kB to make it a bit more factual. This included unrelated padding of the article, incorrect statements, a source that had nothing to do with the the fact it supposedly sourced (the first source), general silliness (the image, the PETA lines, the region of origin), and no less than 3 copyvio external links (youtube links with clips from different German stations, all uploaded by the same Youtube user). Copyvio check is a general DYK requirement, and shouldn't stop at the text of the article. Fram (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Carlebach source is the same as in the Polo article, German station videos could be linked via a the First Kurfürstlich-Kurpfälzisch Polo-Club website, the region is still called Kurpfalz or "Electoral Palatinate" and the Not-involvement-of PETA a major asset. The picture due to its caption was rightly used. I agree with the move, the rest is sort of imperial overstretch ;) Serten (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The region is only called the Electoral Palatinate by jokers and/or people stuck in a timewarp, not by encyclopedias. The Carlebach source may have been useful for the polo article, but as it doesn't reference hobby horse polo, it can't be used to source the sentence starting with "Similarly to other polo variants,", a the source does not indicate whether it is similar or not, obviously. The PETA things is your OR / joke. The picture is unrelated to the subject, you create a joke to link it. While you are allowed (or even encouraged) to create articles on notable silly subjects, you have to follow our content rules, not make silly articles. Fram (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And the polo website probably also doesn't have the rights to host these videos, and even if they had, the youtube channels didn't. Please familiarize yourself with our copyright policies and external linking rules, and don't dismiss copyvio concerns so lightly, as they are one of the more stringently kept policies. People don't get blocked for a funny caption, but repeatedly ignoring copyright concerns may cause you trouble here. Fram (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lets del with different things different. a) Carlebach doesnt serve as a source for HHP but for other Polo variants. Segway etc would need a source. b) The picture captions clarified that the pic looks like, which is the case, but isnt about HHS. c) The fact that HHS has been on TV establishes notability, and I see the necessity to prove that. That said, refering to the youtube films directly might establish a copyvio, I would have to check that, but refering to the Clubs media page would help in gaining notability, which is - as well in my eyes - needed to for the article. Serten (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As this is an article about hobby horse polo, both the Carlebach source and the picture are not wanted. We don't add decoration for the sake of it, it should illustrate the topic of the article, not vaguely resemble it if you squint your eyes just right. As for the TV links, no one stops you from mentioning the TV appearances of the passtime, but you may not include the links to any page that contains copyright violations of them. Fram (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the PETA links. As to the other stuff, it was in German, I followed the DYK rules: assume good faith and blue tick. I was able to verify the hook with Google translate. ~ R.T.G 12:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was able to verify the whole article except one section, Origins, and that contained the hook and I was able to verify that so it seemed a go from as far as I could understand, but yeah, I did note the PETA links but I was editing the article and was taken with the hook and it just slipped me by... @Fram: ~ R.T.G 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There are only nine unreviewed hooks from the previous list, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing; at the moment, only 44 nominations are approved, leaving 313 of 357 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/ZMapp
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle album)
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Gun politics in the Czech Republic
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Turn Me On (Kim Kyu-jong EP)
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Evans
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Karlos Labajo
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Theatres in Sutton (Charles Cryer Theatre article only)
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Cross-border Terminal, Tijuana International Airport
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/United States Navy systems commands
• August 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tafelberg School (two articles)
• September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Lutefisk (band)
• September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Hermética
• September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Heather Stewart-Whyte
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Nobelium (two articles)
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Nile Delta toad (two articles)
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mikuszowice (two articles)
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/2014 Malaysian sedition dragnet
• September 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Kawasaki Ninja H2
• September 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Ji Dengkui
• September 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Don Bitterlich
• September 10: Template:Did you know nominations/German occupation of Belgium during World War I
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Young (musician)
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Gilindire Cave
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/The Stanford Prison Experiment (film)
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Mahikeng Airport
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/L.A. Takedown
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Second wind (sleep)
• September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Sinema (Swoope album)
• September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Never Say Never (Basement Jaxx song)
• September 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Facer
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert J. Healey
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Kurtiss
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Thornton's Corners GO Station
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Sikkim Scouts
• September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Kira Kazantsev
• September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese goral
• September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Marina Chan

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) 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Molecular gyroscope @RTG, Jinkinson, Hawkeye7, and Casliber:

• ... that a molecular gyroscope (pictured) can spin at 2,400,000,000,000 revolutions per second?

I have removed the leading hook plus image from the main page, as the hook doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article at all (it wasn't there at the time of the nomination or the promotion apparently either, it's not that it has been removed since). The queue had only been filled some 21 minutes before it was moved to the main page, so I didn't have time to catch it there. I'm not claiming that the hook fact is incorrect, I don't know, but a hook fact should always be included in the article. Fram (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"...and the rate for inertially rotating p-phenylene without barriers is estimated to be approximately 10¹² per second." @Fram: Which is shorthand for 2,400,000,000,000 RPS. ~ R.T.G 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So put it back quickly or we won't get the proper stats! ~ R.T.G 12:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"approximately 10¹²" is shorthand for 2.4 * 10¹²? That's, um, rather imprecise. We don't say that the speed of light is approximately 10⁸ km/s either, do we? Any reason that the hook has the more precise figure, and the article the very wide approximation? Any reason that the hook fact couldn't simply be included in the article as it is, and that no one seemed to notice this? Fram (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we did, not long ago @Fram:. We can't see things like light and molecular gyroscopes. You can't measure individual revolutions, two and a half trillion of them per second. This article is about the beginning of recording those speeds. And it's not a wide approximation at all. It is a directly precise one. It gives a single speed for each test condition. There is no one speed of light. It is a spectrum. 10¹² is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000. (see Power of ten). Add it back! ~ R.T.G 12:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, not to prolong this, but @ RTG "There is no one speed of light. It is a spectrum."??? Someone needs to tell Einstein he was wrong: speed of light is, of course, a constant. You may have been thinking of electromagnetic spectrum and wavelengths and frequencies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

My dissertation on phase propagation will have to be completely rewritten. ~ R.T.G 08:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How so? 10^12 is 1,000,000,000,000. (≠2,400,000,000,000) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with 78.26 here, I'm not following your logic or maths here at all. Power of ten doesn't seem to agree with you either (not a surprise, but I checked nevertheless). Fram (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I added the "2.4" to the article, because that is what the source said, which directly supports the hook. Now that the article and the hook match, I don't see why this can't be added back to the mainpage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: From Power of ten, "Trillion (Billion) [number beside the 10 in ^superscript]12 1,000,000,000,000 T tera" It's completely precise. It should say 2.4 times 10¹². If it doesn't, then that's an error. ~ R.T.G 12:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fram are you serious?? Did you not know that 2,400,000,000,000 = 2.4 x 10¹²?? Re-added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Fram is saying. What is odd is this: "10¹² is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000." which is completely false. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What TRM said. Casliber, did you even take the time to check this section and the article history before coming back in, guns all ablaze, to wheel war on this? You were wrong to add it to the queue, and you were wrong in your assumptions on readding it (edit summary) and in posting here. You should know by now that I'm perfectly serious when I remove DYK hooks. Fram (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the original hook was unreferenced in the article. And then a false assertion was made to suggest that two vastly different numbers (in fact, the point of the hookiness of the hook) were, in fact, the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Or you could say that part of the equation was omitted erroneously, but whos tellin. ~ R.T.G 13:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Sheesh, I know what a trillion is. Not only did none of you read the article when checking the hook, you don't read what is said here either. Now User:Casliber has reinstated the hook (which is technically wheel warring), claiming "(err yes it is)" as edit summary / justification, ignoring that it wasn't at the time of his promotion of the hook to the queue, and that it wasn't at the time of the removal of the hook by me. First checking here was obviously too difficult. I'll not remove the hook again, tempting though it is. Wondering whether, if all the people that reviewed the hook didn't even notice that the fact wasn't mentioned in the article, we can even trust such an article, obviously never crossed his mind. No, we need to have it back on the main page as soon as possible, because of, as RTG so clearly and bafflingly put it, "the stats"! If you consider the stats more important than getting it right, then please stay away from DYK. If you make statements like "10¹² is not only a precise figure, it is the exact same figure as 2,400,000,000,000. " after your error has been pointed out, then stay away from any scientific article. Fram (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm afraid we're all talking past each other, instead of collaborating. The article has been fixed (per RTG, it was a omission typo), the DYK hook has been restored, now that it has been shown to be correct. That should satisfy us. Kittens for everybody! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's more that there seems to be some ongoing and increasing decline in standards once again. This hook wasn't checked properly, that's the whole point of this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) That, plus the sense some people have that getting things on the front page is more important than checking and correcting. RTG demanded repeatedly to get this back on the main page before it was corrected, claiming that there was no problem. Casliber rushed to put it back, not bothering to check this discussion or the page history, and then rushed here to proclaim his disbelief, again apparently not bothering to check the discussion and the facts. The hook should have been checked against the article by 4 people. Add to all this that Casliber should not have reinstated the hook without checking the discussion per WP:WHEEL (no admin should have done this without checking the discussion, but least of all Casliber). Not "kittens for everybody" (although a cuddly kitten for you, 78.26, is well-deserved). The problems with DYK are seriously worrying by now, the rate of problematic hooks is getting way too high. Fram (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Quoting a fact does not equate pointing out an error. It's fixed. I've realised my error. You don't need to berate me. I was the nominator. It's a good DYK. I'm glad to have spotted it and known it would be interesting to see how many clicks it got. I'm glad you've spotted and corrected errors made by the reviewers and authors. That's it. I'm telling. ~ R.T.G 13:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? You're "telling"? What does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not telling. ~ R.T.G 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you really got me curious, what did you "threaten with telling." OR did someone threaten you? I don't get what yo are pointing at, but writing an edit summary as if you have some secret or as if someone else has made a serious error which you are threatening to tell is not the way to resolve a conflict. Starting with "Quoting a fact does not equate pointing out an error." may be correct in many instances, but not here. That you read over your error many times before someone else fixed it does not mean that no one pointed out the error, again and again. Would you have slowed down and read what you were writing, you might have found and fixed the error yourself. Instead, you were demanding to get it immediately reinstated because of the stats. That's a very worrying attitude. Fram (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram:, I've put it back (telling). If you want to fight about it I will. You think that an interest in the stats is an unhealthy DYK attitude? Come on. I only nominated it. Am I being berated? A fact is always a fact, including such as, pointing out an error is not the same thing as displaying a fact, even if you displayed the fact but didn't point it out.

Telling someone that you are telling is a classic infantile response synonymous with "Waaah!" and "No!", that I expect the odds to be good that any native level English speaker so spot it for what it is when it is that, but you are quite right to voice your suspicions and it is quite incorrect of me to use such frivolous text, even though the matter had been resolved with no telling needed, I should not have been telling at this particular time... ~ R.T.G 13:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not if I expected to be stood under anyway. ~ R.T.G 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"If you want to fight about it I will." Fight about what? I think I'll simply ignore you, as I can make heads nor tails of your responses here. Some of your sentences are perfectly clear and lucid, and then you add things like "A fact is always a fact, including such as, pointing out an error is not the same thing as displaying a fact, even if you displayed the fact but didn't point it out." which doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it. Fram (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram:[shorter] ...but displaying a fact has only a relation to pointing out an error based on that fact. Even in retrospect, by your response, I do not see indication that the particular error (omitted 2.4x) was one you were aware of, so you can't beat me up for it. You said it was not mentioned in the article, at all... and yet, without even looking, there are half a dozen references to the item dealt with in the hook:frequencies of meloecular rotation... ~ R.T.G 14:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet in your very first response here, you pointed immediately to the right sentence (the one with the error), but just couldn't see it, which continued for many back and forths afterwards. No, the 2.4... wasn't mentioned at all. Of course there were quite a few numbers of rotations, but not the one included in the hook. So I don't see why you are still defending this, or what you hope to achieve by prolonging this. Fram (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Fram, you are addressing me at length. You have a position of seniority with me here. So I am circumstantially more compelled to respond than in another situation. I have assessed the issue, back up there when I said I saw it. And I am at fault there. So all the while of the time I have been thinking, less of a fart than a hiccup, but your consequential tone is accusatory and requestive of me directly. Yes User:Fram I do review my conributions and, though I do not fix them all, I do purpose myself for the correction of content in the manner and intention as requested of me by the website. If someone thinks I am stepping out of line I want to hear it. If you don't want me to say that, I have a lengthy response, just for you... Why are you prolonging it, ~ R.T.G 14:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen: Isn't this now cured. It really now belongs on the main page, and remedial steps were promptly taken,
We have fixed the problem, and have only an unresolved failure to communicate. Fixing the blame and discussing the cause was important only so that we can learn from it. Further carping about this is not constructive.
Aren't we beating a dead horse?
Can't we move on? Please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The hook fact and the "discussion" with RTG can be left behind, as far as I am concerned. The wheel warring is now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#DYK wheel warring, a swheel warring is taken quite seriously and normally always results in an immediate ArbCom case. Fram (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a very interesting article. Well done for persevering to get this on the main page. I suspect that the scientists would be quite happy to know that their estimation is of the correct order - and it appears that ArbCom is inclined to agree. Apologies. Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You start with two good sentences, and then decline into irrelevant babbling in the final three. Which scientists? Where has it been shown that their estimation is of the correct order? We repeat their estimation, we don't make it more or less correct. What is ArbCom agreeing with? With the scientists? No idea where you get that. And "apologies"? You were not involved with the DYK or the discussion, so no idea what you are apologizing for or to whom. All very strange and confusing, and not really helping anything. Fram (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

12,000 clicks! ~ R.T.G 08:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual hook for Corn Run in this prep area was: ...that Corn Run received its name when bushels of corn fell into it during a flood? But somehow it morphed into ... that Corn Run may have been named for grain washed into it during a flood? Since the hook in the prep is more vague and wishy-washy, can someone please change it back to the actual hook that I nominated (and the hook that was approved)? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history, the initial change was made because while the article and hook state that Corn Run got its name that way, the source actually says "probably after the flood", so the hook made an extraordinary claim that wasn't backed up by the source. Because of this, using the hook exactly as it was approved can't happen. I agree that it's been watered down too far, so I've made a new stab at it, adding a qualifier and restoring "bushels of corn". BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. --Jakob (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

THe hook reads that

• ... that German TV broadcaster ZDF asked Dominik Kuhn (Dodokay) to fandub a Romney-Obama debate for their coverage of the 2012 U.S. presidential election?
• the article reports that German ZDF used Kuhn's fandub of a Romney-Obama tv discussion to start reporting about the outcome of the 2012 US presidential election

These are not the same thing at all. The refs are in German. Itt looks like the article was promoted before the review was complete as well?? Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dominik_Kuhn 162.119.128.145 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The review was signed off by User:MisterBee1966 before I promoted it. If you are able to read German, could you fix the article and the hook in the prep? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I took care of it myself. The hook did not match the wording in the article, and I replaced it with the correct copy. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Both hooks comply, the end of the video shows a coproduction and they produced the fandub together. Dodokay had major copyvio problems with the star wars video himself, but when that went viral, he was asked to do it legally. The reuters text refers to that in general. I think any issue has been fixed now. Serten (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there an action point for me here? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be so kind to promote it as gtg. Serten (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: no more action is necessary. The nomination template is closed. I made the correction to the hook in the prep set and it is now in a queue. Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

okay, thanks for clarifying MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of over 300 unreviewed DYK nominations. I would like to propose that any nomination that needs a QPQ review in order to be complete, and where the nominator has not done such a review, should be removed from the queue, after perhaps a month, as a failed nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Better ask for three reviews QPQ for self nominations and introduce that notice period of two months starting from 1/1/2015. It would help as well to gain less self nominations Serten (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Cwmhiraeth, all nominators should be required to review another nomination! – Editør (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And I would like to add that any reviewer who has one of their reviewed hooks removed from one the queues or prep areas is banned from the process for a week, and those involved with hooks that are removed from the main page are banned fro the process for a month. That way we may focus the mind of those desperate to push through reviews. Of course, since all reviewers are so dedicated to improving Wikipedia, this shouldn't be a problem at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose such a heavy-handed method is grossly unfair, especially when so many hooks are pulled over technicalities. For instance, one of my reviews was recently pulled from the prep because someone had changed the hook to one that I hadn't approved. Should I be banned from DYK for that? Then there's the matter of extremely subtle mistakes that no reasonable person could be expected to notice. And it could be gamed too. Suppose there was an admin who didn't like a certain DYK nominator. The admin could just make up a random reason to pull one of the nominator's hooks (or they could deliberately wait until it gets to the Main Page to slow the nominator down even more).

The OP's idea seems reasonable, but I don't think it would have that much of an effect since most DYKs are self-nominated by DYK veterans.

Serten's idea would either send the number of nominations into a nosedive (because nobody will want to review so many nominations) or send the quality of the reviews into a nosedive (because people will want to get the reviews over and done with).

A better idea might be to organize a DYK reviewing drive (sort of like the GA Cup, but for DYKs). That would certainly get people to do a lot of reviewing. Like the GA Cup, competitors could be warned and/or lose points and eventually be disqualified for doing crappy reviews. --Jakob (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"technicalities"? That's the whole point that DYK gets the "technicalities" correct. DYK has to get one fundamental thing right, a correctly referenced hook. There are other aspects (e.g. interesting hook, overall article quality) but so many times we see hooks being pulled because they're not referenced correctly. Whoever changed your hook to something incorrect would be banned from the process for a week (or a month if it had been a pull from the main page). Since everyone here is so focused on quality, this should never happen. And only those who truly transgress will be prevented from participating for a while, during which time they can learn how to improve their quality control approach. We have plenty of "contests" which appear to do nothing but encourage rate and not quality, so let's not do that... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the original idea of jettisoning "stale" nominations is a sound one. It would help remove this idea that just about anything that's nominated at DYK will eventually drag its sorry self onto the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Because the idea of banning any user for review mistakes has arisen before, and has once again risen above, herewith are pertinent instructions and information for banning anyone on Wikipedia, and who has the authority to do it. Just for the record, it takes community consensus on a case by case basis...every time it's done...and I don't see anything that gives one individual authority to impose this with the same free-flying leeway of yanking hooks. i.e....how would it be enforced, except for a lengthy debate every time somebody gets a hair up their nose and yanks a hook. Sounds to me like a great way to sidetrack the whole DYK process and bog it down in even more infighting (oh, excuse me..."debate") than has already been going on. WP:CBAN, WP:TBAN. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And, also, this REALLY important little detail: Bans are not intended as a short-term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified, because the ban is a decision that the editor may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site. WP:BANLENGTH — Maile (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this whole proposal would be very counterproductive. QPQ merely leads to poor reviews. This isn't a result of QPQ reviewers not caring or being negligent, but of them not having a sufficient understanding of DYK. Requiring total newbies to review nominations would further exacerbate this problem. The only reasonable solution to the backlog is experienced DYK contributors being willing to review and being more selective as far as hook quality goes.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66:, I think you misunderstand my point entirely. I'm not talking about a site ban, I'm talking about a DYK review ban (hence I said "is banned from the process" not "is banned from Wikipedia" or simply "is banned"). Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with all DYK nominations requiring a QPQ. If anyone doesn't understand the review process, they probably shouldn't be submitting any nominations either as the processes mirror each other. Three QPQs would definitely put me off submitting any nominations of my own, which are probably above average quality albeit not perfect (it's immodest of me to say that I know, but I generally take care with my work). One QPQ is already quite a deterrent for me with the general poor quality of nominations (because I generally take care with my work). So the quality of nominations and reviews could actually get worse, as people who take them seriously withdraw. I don't think clearing a backlog by some miracle will help, we will just get more and more low quality nominations and more and more backlogs. The real issue we need to address is the quality of nominations. HelenOnline 06:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that even more people should contribute by submitting "other's" articles, based on interesting aspects, fullfilling basic WP regularities. Those contributions should not at all being hindered by hooksourcing subleties or review regulations. The review process needs to focus on basic WP regularities, the hook requirements are more "wilfully maiming" than anything reasonable. Serten (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: The main page is a navigation page and no article. If you e.g. refer to recent good articles with "DYK that XYZ is now a good article", you save a lot of work, are within WP policy, and no hook must be sourced at all for that purpose. The hook should refer to a longstanding or important aspect of the article (which has to fullfill basic WP needs) but the hook needs neither a citation per se nor is there any need to stress a "correctly referenced hook". Serten (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. WP:V is not negotiable. If the hook cannot be reliably sourced it shouldn't be on Wikipedia end of story. HelenOnline 07:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a footnote on a navigation page? The main page does not belong to Wikipedia mainspace. Start of story. And its ridiculous to ask just for a citation end of sentence, a hook may describe a section or even larger aspect of an article, described in a variety of sources, take "Pluto is not longer a planet" as hook for Definition of planet. A hook like "XYZ has now received good article status" would refer to a WP internal process, no external sourcing possible. Serten (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand you sorry. There are no footnotes on the main page for DYK hooks. DYK highlights encyclopedic content in the mainspace, which should be reliably sourced. Requiring inline citations for the hook is one way of ensuring our hooks are actually correct. A lower standard of verifiability will only reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. Lowering quality control standards to hide poor quality lowers the value of the product. HelenOnline 08:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As said, the main page is not mainspace, its a navigation page. DYK may be interpreted (thats my proposal) as mere highlighting (navigating / pointing) from a navigation page to specific content in the mainspace. That mainspace content refered to and the article per se needs to be sound, stable and being based on basic policy. Thats the task of the review. Sourcing a navigation link is overkill, WP:V does not require that at all. Serten (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If providing such a source is a problem, requiring it is clearly not overkill. HelenOnline 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As said, if you want to block DYK with red tape on navigation links, feel free. Its not at all required by basic policy. Serten (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. How difficult is it to change the current policy of asking for a "sourced hook"?

• A hook is a (sourced) factoid found in the article.
• The deWP doesnt use hooks, but "de:teasers", (meaning a short sentence worthy for Teaser campaigning).

Teasers are small, cryptic, challenging, catchy descriptions of a pecularity in the article. To mention smaller, unknown articles which nevertheless deserve some attention to a larger audience is the main purpose of deWP's DYK. They base their teaser approach on the main page being NOT an article - it doesnt need footnotes - the main page provides the core navigation fork into WP. That said, the main page doesnt need sources per se and the navigation for the DYK articles may come along "teasing". Its up to us to come to a consensus on such a policy for DYK, I assume it would easen life a lot. Serten (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No way to get it through

What would this take?

• A Constitutional Amendment
• An Act of Parliament
• Consent of the Security Council
• A joint undertaking by the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the governments of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, the United Arab Republic, all members of NATO, and the Sultanate of Brunei
• A papal decree, ratified by the College of Cardinals
• The simultaneous appearance of Jesus and Mohammed at the Third Temple
• 500,000,000 Blue Chip Stamps (which aren't made anymore)
• A ruling by the World Court or permission from the International Monetary Fund (Note: only one required)

Let us know how you get on. EEng (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Get serious. If DYK doesnt fonction any more, somethings has to be done by those which work on DYK. Would you agree with the approach? I wont propose it without support from here. Serten (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am serious, at least in communicating the impossibility of what you're proposing. To be honest, I don't understand it entirely, but you seem, at least, to be proposing moving away from the "new content" theme, and that's a hopeless quest (though personally I'd support such a change -- the whole new content fetish is a complete waste of time and resources -- an arbitrary way of limiting

nominations). EEng (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Point is, a teaser may adress "new" or "interesting" (and of cause sourced) content, but may itself be misleading, funny and needs no sourcing itself. I took the freedom to redress the section. Some examples where the hook approach leds to fruitless discussions. Serten (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Colquhoun}} {{Template:Did you know nominations/Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg}} {{Template:Did you know nominations/Namacpacan Church}}

I still don't understand what this proposal entails exactly. The content needs to be sourced but not the hook fact? Do you mean that we should require all of the proposed articles to be sourced except for the fact used in the hook? Shouldn't we be holding the hook to a higher standard than the rest of the article?

There is currently no rule against hooks being funny or misleading. In fact, the best hooks are. The Colquhoun hook on the other hand is just wrong. I'm not sure what those other nominations are supposed to demonstrate.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article (and the current hooks) have to be sourced-based, the teaser do not need to be based on a source per se.

• Take the Janet Colquhoun article, her "believe in blind faith" was a possible teaser, but never a suitable hook.
• Namacpacan Church: The lengthy discussion about the hooks factual accuracy would be much shorter and less controversial on a teaser base.
• Max: The first hook was meant as a teaser, but failed.Serten (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I recommended that students from a education program class nominate articles for DYK. I'm cleaning up the noms (and hopefully can use this to create better instruction material) and will be reviewing other articles (not ones from this course) in lieu of QPQ reviews. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Now in Queue1, Template:Did you know nominations/Cream-spotted cardinalfish. @Gaff, AshLin, and Hawkeye7:

• ... that the tropical cream-spotted cardinalfish, described in 2014, is the sole member of the new genus Ozichthys, and a nocturnal mouthbrooder?

Some potential problems here. First, the article was created by User:Planonasus, who seems not to have been mentioned at the DYK (even though the nom was only three hours after the article creation, so not some ancient history forgotten in an expansion).

Second, the hook. The species was not described in 2014, it was described in 1976, and the genus was named and characterized in 2014.

Can anyone confirm my misgivings and change the hook accordingly if needed (or if you can't, let me know here and I or some other admin can)? Fram (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The hook seems overloaded with bait. It might be simplest to just cut it back hard:

• ... that the cream-spotted cardinalfish is the sole member of the new genus Ozichthys?

The word "new" seems adequate to explain why we might be interested. Note also that cutting out the fat gives more prominence to the fishy pun "sole". Andrew (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the hook to the above suggested one by Andrew Davidson (only half an hur left until it would hit the main page, so...). As above, feel free to revert, improve, ... if consensus is that what I put there isn't optimal after all. Also @EEng: as the editor who changed the hook from the promoted one to the above current one, thereby making it an incorrect hook... The original wasn't optimal, but one shouldn't change the meaning in an attempt to make it smoother. Fishy! Fram (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, his bark is much worse than his bite. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Monotypic genera are very common in the world of science, nocturnal mouthbrooders are not. However the sole reason imho this could be acceptable here would be due to the pun used here. AshLin (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I was debating moving prep 3 into the queue, but the hook for L.A. Takedown appears to be sourced to a blog. Now, it might be that there's something about this blog that makes it a sufficient source, in which case it's fine, but I don't feel qualified to decide such a thing. Could I have some more opinions please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anybody? No? Dust. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I've pulled it and reopened Template:Did you know nominations/L.A. Takedown. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Now at Queue5, Template:Did you know nominations/AI Mk. VIII radar. @Maury Markowitz, Hawkeye7, and 97198:

• ... that while developing the AI Mk. VIII radar (pictured), Herbert Skinner would test its output by using it to light his cigarettes?

Two potential problems I see. First, Skinner didn't test its output (that of the Mk. VIII), but of the early version of the magnetron / klystron they had in May 1940, more than a year before the Mk. VIII was ready (or really in development, the described tests happened during development of the Mark VII, if I read it correctly). Second, he didn't use the output to light his cigarettes, but the output lead (where I read the output of a klystron or a radar to be waves, but the output lead to be a physical object).

I don't know enough about the subject to be certain that my objections have any merit, so if anyone involveed or uninvolved can check this? Fram (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What's involveed? Sounds like something a cliché foreign-accented cartoon character might say Oh mon cheri! What I vood not geevf to be involveed wit yoo!

Anyway, taking everything you say as correct, this hook would comprehend all the problems you mention:

* ... that during the lab work leading to the AI Mk. VIII radar (pictured), Herbert Skinner would use the klystron as a cigarette lighter?

This works klystron in, which I think is one of the most amusing words in electrical engineering. Oh mon cheri! Your klystron! She is so byooteeful! (Output vs. output lead isn't an issue -- the lead is just how the output is delivered.) EEng (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• That would probably be a better hook. And indeed, klystron is a very nice word, sounds like something from a medical horror movie :-) Fram (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Us Tarrylung smokers would rather fry than switch the radar off!". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Igor! Switch on the klystron!" EEng (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, except I'd suggest "...while working with an early model of..." as opposed to the somewhat less direct "... that during lab work leading to". The AIS in question was, functionally, identical to the Mk. VII, and the Mk. VIII was a repackaged version of that. Maury Markowitz (talk)

How about

ALTA ... that during work on a predecessor to the AI Mk. VIII radar (pictured) Herbert Skinner would use its klystron as a cigarette lighter?

ALTB ... that during work on a predecessor to the Royal Air Force's Airborne Interception radar, Mark VIII (pictured) Herbert Skinner would use its klystron as a cigarette lighter?

(There might be more interest with a little context.) EEng (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

To allow some more time to discuss this, I have switched this hook with the lead hook from Prep2 (with which I couldn't fine any problems, although it would have been nice to see the Forsythe Saga used in the article as a source :-) ). I hope that this is not a problem. If anything needs to be done (qua protection) with the image that is now in Queue 5, please let me know. Fram (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can protect my own qua, thank you very much Fram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• We better hurry or this is going to move from prep to Q in its old form. Can a couple of people verify ALTA or ALTB, and express a preference. (I hope the readers of DYK appreciate all this behind-the-scenes scurrying around.) EEng (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ALTB much more interesting. Unless one is a real radar anorak, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I love the subhead at the bottom: "Build a VTVM" -- vacuum-tube voltmeter. What a blast from the past. EEng (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

am still setting my heart on "Minimum $ Hi-Fi", alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now in Q. Martinevans123, can you put that clever brain of yours to serious use for a minute and give the OK to ALTB, after which I think we can ask an admin to swap it in? EEng (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, Fram, The Rambling Man... somebody? EEng (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the old hook with hook ALTB. If anyone has a problem with this, feel free to change it back or to something else, but please drop a note here if you do. Fram (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Fram. SOrry, I just saw this; was teaching. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fram, Crisco 1492, could one of you admins please restore the comma after "(pictured)", which seems to have been dropped from the hook during the revision process? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Done! Fram (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

... an admin has now swapped in my clever brain, thanks EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I strongly prefer A of the two options. The second has more words but doesn't really add anything too useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I always believe we should give great weight to the preference of the creator/nominator. But I also think, MM, that by injecting "Royal Airforce" and "Airborne", it makes the teensy picture easier to parse. (I hope you don't mind that I cropped it -- though making the device bigger meant getting rid of the propeller.) EEng (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But that's the problem., it's not the RAF's, it was AMES, the Air Ministry. Civilians all the way! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that didn't get acted upon. But war is hell, of course. (Good thing he didn't grill anything with this makeshift microwave, or the fur would really fly! EEng (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you complain about the current lag, do something or quit complaining. Possibilities:

• reduce the amount of DYK per day
• include GA DYK on a more automatized base - its not our task to challenge GA reviews
• instead of the current "cite sourced hook fact" approach, use a "navigate to interesting and stable sourced aspect" strategy. Both is based on WP basic policy and has been used for years, but the hook-fact approach produces unnecessary red tape (the mainpage is about navigation, not containing footnotes) and deters involvement.
• Allow offsetting selfnominations of regulars either with 3 reviews and or nominations of other authors articles.

In a nutshell: DYK should trigger involvement instead of deterring it. DYK is not about featured content, but about small and interesting articles nevertheless deserving mainspace attention. Allow for start quality but deny infringements of basic policy. Serten (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten, the statement that "its not our task to challenge GA reviews" is misguided at best, and dangerous at worst. GA reviewers can be excellent, incompetent, and anywhere in between, and it's usually just one person, which is why the original GA RfC made it clear that we were supposed to do a complete DYK review. We've had GA nominations that have had copyvios, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and so on. Nominated articles have been submitted to GAR and AfD, and have ultimately not appeared at DYK because they flunked the subsequent review there.

I'm also puzzled by your apparent wish to penalize self-nominations in favor of nominations of other's articles. Self-nominations are subject to the quid pro quo review, while nominating someone else's article means that no article reviews are required. It seems to me that this would do more to increase the current lag than any other proposal I've seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the GA "automatic hook", it would reduce hook-bickering to a minimum. Let the balcony work on GA, no need for DYK to contribute. You need more reviewers? Attract them! If someones contribution is nominated, you may interest them as well to do reviews. Serten (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, I have no idea what you're attempting to propose with an "automatic hook". How would it reduce "hook-bickering" if the hook is bland, unsourced, and so on? Who is "the balcony"? Why shouldn't DYK be involved in checking GAs that are nominated for DYK? (Just ran across another GA with close paraphrasing caught in the DYK review.) As for the last, we have a large number of nominations of other people's articles. Some do stick around and become reviewers, usually because they start nominating their own articles and eventually hit the QPQ requirement, forcing them to start reviewing, which they find they like doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That said, following changes (new text "big", strike for deletions, comments ion brackets) are suggested

DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

• To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.
• To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;
• To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers;
• To present facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure;
• To acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement;

* To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.

(....)

DYK is only for articles that, within the past seven days, have been either

• created
• expanded at least fivefold
• newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)

*promoted to good article status Articles may be of start quality, but still need to fullfill the core WP policies. (Comment_ Good articles would be better off having their own, more serious section, but the easiest thing is to include them like this:) DYK mentions recently promoted good articles, if they are suggested for the section, automatically with the following hook: ... that XYZ was promoted to good article status? (...)

a) The hook should refer to include a definite fact aspects of the article interesting to a broad audience.

::b) Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. :4. Within policy – Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright.

(...)

* When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones.

• The hook should refer navigate to established facts and aspects of the article that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than novelty, newness or current events.

* The hook should be neutral.

• Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
• Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates.

* When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content. Serten (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare the current Marina Chan discussion. Its a showcase for the current policy doing more harm than good. The article has about 80 sources, for each sentence, uses all templates you might imagine, but is as worse as you could imagine. The hook is nice, based on a true claim / aspect of the article, but using a wording probably never to be found in any source. Why bother? Serten (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC from 2013. Should you want to change anything about the inclusion of GA, I suggest you start a separate RFC on it. This is a touchy subject for some, either direction. — Maile (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a look on it, good idea to involve @Gilderien:. As said, my proposal doesnt touch the GA inclusion per se, but simplifies the current process. DYK should be proud to mention "small" and start class articles as well, but check the content navigated to as said. Serten (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - the image is perfect! — Maile (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil the fun, but that's a fair use image. --Jakob (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Now from Commons. These guys... Serten (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's good to laugh at our collective selves. Eerie how Statler and Waldorf fit the mood of so much that has happened at DYK over the years. Either direction. — Maile (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Our collective selves take different roles, on stage, from the balcony and behind the curtains. ;) Serten (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There are currently over 500 articles on Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles would be interested in doing a dedicated section. At first it might seem that it would depreciate the current DYK, but in fact it might draw attention to it, ~ R.T.G 16:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at Boston Society for Medical Improvement hook in Queue 1.

• ALTQ1 ... that in 1849 Henry Jacob Bigelow presented Phineas Gage to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (pictured), immediately following a phallic stalagmite?

Here's how the mention is in the article:

• On November 10, 1849, Henry Jacob Bigelow presented Phineas Gage to the Society. (The preceding and subsequent presentations of the day were a stalagmite "remarkable for its singular resemblance to a petrified penis", and a child cured of a swollen ankle by a Dr. Strong.)[21][22][23]

The hook, as reworded after it was promoted, is not what was approved on the template. The wording is awkward, as a stalagmite is inanimate.

— Maile (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Boston_Society_for_Medical_Improvement. The approved hook was

... that in 1849 Henry Jacob Bigelow presented Phineas Gage to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (pictured) along with a phallic stalagmite?

An inanimate object can indeed be "presented" -- nothing awkward about it. So what's the problem? Don't you think "phallic stalagmite" is an appropriate substitute for "a stalagmite 'remarkable for its singular resemblance to a petrified penis'"? I can't wait for this discussion to really get underway! EEng (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood. The stalagmite was presented, yes. It doesn't say that. I believe you meant it to infer that it was presented, but as worded it doesn't really come across that way. — Maile (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying, which is that there's some potential confusion as who or what followed/​was followed by who or what, though I think it's on the borderline as worth worrying about. What wording would you prefer? (If it helps, I've checked the actual minutes of the Society, and it was HJ Bigelow who presented the stalagmite as well.) How about this?

ALTJ ... that Henry Jacob Bigelow's 1849 presentation of Phineas Gage to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement (pictured) came immediately after the exhibition of a phallic stalagmite?

EEng (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait -- this went live 6 hrs ago. Too late. EEng (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever. As long as you know that all I meant was that it was the sentence structure that seemed a bit off, like a word was missing or something. But as you say...too late now. — Maile (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A good accompaniment for this might be Template:Did you know nominations/William Goforth (doctor) ~ R.T.G 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we having a theoretical discussion? The Boston Society for Medical Improvement has had its star turn already. The game's over. Flown the coop. The jig is up. Been and gone. EEng (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The page featured in the second hook in Prep 6, Parischnogaster jacobsoni, is tagged for excessive disambiguation links, including links back to its own page. Should the hook be returned to the noms page until the issue is cleared up? Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessary. A bot tagged it after a series of edits that have since been deemed unhelpful and were reverted, so the tag is gone. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can the hook for Robotomy be changed to:

* ... that '''''[[Robotomy]]''''' is the shortest-running show on [[Cartoon Network]]?

The wording in the article was changed to be more definite per GA; it is the shortest. Not sure if this makes it more or less interesting, so I'll ping @G S Palmer. ₂₃W (talk · stalk · pend) 04:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and the new wording is supported by the source, so I have changed it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

An administrator needs to devote some attention to filling the queues. All six are currently empty even though all the prep areas are full. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actual recent discussion at WP:ERRORS:

".. that while testifying in a 2004 lawsuit involving the meaning of the word steakburger (example pictured) a corporate CEO was grilled on the witness stand?" A CEO (who??) was grilled?? Really?? Tenorcnj (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Atrocious wording.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess it was intentionally chosen to be "amusing". Given that it is grammatically correct, and any reasonable person would come to the correct conclusions, I won't change it, but nor will I be bothered if someone else does! Harrias ^talk 15:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll remove it. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's become de rigeur, what the DYK crowds want to see, a jokey hook. @EEng: @Maile66:. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, but I think this went too far. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"Went too far"? Have you people lost your minds? A "grilling" is a perfectly common term for an intense line of questioning (see [12]) and as referenced in the article the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that

Burger King's attorney fired back, grilling the CEO about whether Steak 'n Shake's "Steakburgers" are still made of the "entire carcass" of beef, as an old menu once stated.

Of course it was intentionally chosen to be "amusing". In fact, if I may say so myself, it is amusing, and the editors of the Post-Dispatch think so as well, obviously.

What -- do you really imagine anyone would be horrified because of an inability to understand what's being said? Do you think of our readers as moronic frightened children who will get nightmares?

Next you'll be pulling hooks reporting that a politicial was "pushed" from office by a scandal, that negotiations "collapsed", that someone "floated" a loan, that there was an "avalanche" of complaints, or any other not-strictly-literal wording. EEng (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And no, I won't apologize for referring to certain of my fellow editors as "humor-impaired". I admit that my authorial vanity is wounded (I wrote the hook) but for God's sake, who put the skittish schoolmarms in charge? EEng (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would have been ok on April fools day, however I don't consider it appropriate otherwise. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Since when do lame puns count as "humor"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What, you claim to be be an expert? Requisition me a beat! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I only put "amusing" in speech-marks, because I hadn't even noticed that it was a pun, I just read it straight. It was only when I read this at ERRORS that I even twigged on the pun. So feel free to call me humour-impaired! Harrias ^talk 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you understand the metaphorical nature of the term grilled but didn't notice the tie-in to the steakburger topic -- if that's the way in which you're humor-impaired, there's no crime in that. But certain editors apparently feel the hook is not just insufficiently amusing (as they see it) but actually offensive -- and that is, to put it charitably, numbskulled. EEng (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a great hook -- but for the last, quirky slot. People don't expect humor or amusement to go with a picture. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But I take it you're not saying that this difference of position makes the difference between a great hook and one which should be pulled. I wonder what Belle, 97198, Hawkeye7 and others who worked on the hook think. EEng (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not have been pulled. And the removal of the pic made the DYK slot on the main page look strangely empty. Yoninah (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that some users don't understand that the word "grilled" was used appropriately to mean "subject to intense questioning or interrogation". If they knew that, they would not have pulled it. So it was a good hook and it should not have been pulled. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a brilliant hook. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a great hook, killed by bureaucracy at its worst. Want to know why editors are abandoning the Wiki? This. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I understood immediately and wasn't offended by it at all. Sometimes articles are boring and we need to be a little bit creative with DYK. HelenOnline 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

All in prep or Q now...

• ... that the upcoming film Freeheld is based on the true story of a police officer's battle to transfer her pension to her domestic partner?

Verdict: PULL No literal battle took place.

• ... that the Amsterdam businessman Maup Caransa (pictured) lent his name to the ugliest building in the country and to the sons of the gods?

Verdict: PULL (a) Name was not lent, but used without authorization; (b) no actual gods were involved.

• ... that under Orfeo Vecchi, the Santa Maria alla Scala Cathedral returned to a place of musical prominence in Milan?

Verdict: PULL Cathedral did not "return", but in fact remained stationary the entire time.

• ... that Norah Wilmot was the first woman in Britain to win a race as an officially licensed racehorse trainer?

Verdict: PULL Horse trainers do not win races‍—‌horses do.

EEng (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Never fails to amaze me, the contradictions that happen here all the time. The lead hook on August 23, 2013 could be seen as genuinely offensive to some. And the article was written and nominated by an editor who was blocked indefinitely the day after nominating it. OK, I get we - we don't censor. But heaven forbid that a hook should be boring to any individual with the power to pull it. And even worse that something should make it if requires the ability to think above the level of a kindergarten child without a computer. If only Freud were alive today, he could use DYK as his basis for an entire book. — Maile (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the offense seems to be, not that the hook was boring, but that it was lively. It's a shame, too, because with 10,000 views after less than 6 hours on MP, this was well on its way to being one of the most-viewed DYKs ever. EEng (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nah, with only 10k views, it wasn't even close. --Jakob (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I said one of the most viewed. 25K gets you on the board (given it was in the first slot) so with next-day spillover included it could easily have reached that. EEng (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Proving once again that hookers don't get the respect they deserve, despite providing an important service.

Perhaps administrator Phil Knight, who pulled the hook, will have the courtesy to drop by and explain in what sense the hook was "over the line". He may find himself on the hot seat, subjected to a grilling by incensed editors. (Disclaimer: Seat is not actually hot, visitor will not literally be grilled, and editors will not in truth be incensed i.e. actually alight with anger. Visitor will not be expected to draw a literal line.) EEng (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh! Some of these saintly admins deserve a roasting. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) important civility caveat: this is not a real threat of torture and death using a device from Ancient Rome c.AD 258

Actually, I think I'll take this page off my watchlist. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad you can see the funny side, Phil. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ....hmmm, must stock up on my dry roasteds ...

• Phil Knight, in all seriousness, per WP:ADMINACCT I am asking you to explain your use of administrative tools to substitute your personal taste for the judgment of the dozen or more editors who discussed, endorsed, and promoted this item. EEng (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Phil Knight, I'm not kidding about this. As an admin you are expected to explain your actions on request. Now please do that. EEng (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The way I read it, Phil's personal taste had nothing to do with it. He was responding to comments by pulling it. My comment above was not directed at Phil's actions, by the way. It was more a general comment about what gets pulled around here. And, yes, I do recall that some hooks were pulled for being boring, although I think the persons who pulled them said "not interesting". Give Phil some credit - at least he wasn't blowing his own horn and going on and on and on and on and on....and on. Really, some around here are in love with what they perceive as their own brilliance. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

OK then, he was making a knee-jerk pull based on two other persons' personal tastes ("A CEO (who??) was grilled?? Really??" and "atrocious"), and that's even worse. And the first doesn't even seem to be an objection, but a cry for enlightenment from someone with a gap in his or her vocabulary.

Hooks do get pulled from prep or Q for being boring, but not from MP -- that requires something being either seriously incorrect or genuinely offensive.

As for what you call "being in love with [one's] brilliance", I'm sorry if that's a sentiment you're incapable of sharing in, because an almost universal requirement for good craftsmanship (whether in wordsmithing or ironsmithing) is pride in one's work. See right. EEng (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

nosh on. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time in a few months that wiki-panic has set in over a hook and resulted in unilateral action that no one seems to agree with post-facto. It's our job to protect our readers from zealots, not kowtow to the first (or second) zealot that complains. But I'm not sure further debate will help, it seems pretty clear consensus has been reached in terms of the original action, the only remaining question is what to do about it? Now that we're into the water-under-bridge era, do we want to consider future binding changes, or simply let it drop? I'm not adverse to the later in spite of being upset by this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As for the systemic problem, my only immediate thought is that it's too bad that, just at the moment a set moves to MP, it is stripped of all the links back to the nom discussions and so on. Perhaps if there was an easier way to reach those, while the set is live, there might be more consideration and less knee-jerk reaction to ridiculous "complaints". Perhaps immediately after each hook, on the same line, the link to its nom pages could be carried within a <! -- type comment, for easy access.

And (and this, of course, stems only from my love of my own brilliance) can the hook be run again?EEng (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It ran for 6 hours, right? How many hours do the hooks run for right now? If 12, run it for 6 more hours. At least, even if not run, the hook could be put in the archives, and listed on the stats page. I'm surprised, though, that with all the hooks about various animal penises, people who said the word "nigga," and legends of castrated dogs, the steak-burger hook about a CEO being "grilled" is what people find offensive? Out of all the numerous, slightly offensive humerus puns?--¿3family6 _contribs 14:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to complain about atrocious wording, check out this AP article about Thomas Eric Duncan, the first Ebola patient on US soil: "As infectious in death as he was in life, Duncan’s body was cremated."--¿3family6 _contribs 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like admin Phil Knight is simply going to ignore the repeated requests that he explain what in the world he was thinking. I, for one, am willing to interpret this as an implicit apology by him for butting in without knowing which way is up. EEng (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But which way is up? Oh well, "have it your way" (or not). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

For the amount of time the hook for Steak burger was present on Main page, it received 9,648 page views, per Stats.grok.se. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, the majority of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has three that have been waiting over six weeks, the second has 20 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the third has two waiting for three weeks. The remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

There is one nomination that needs to be reviewed right away if it isn't to miss the anniversary of its premiere on October 29 (Template:Did you know nominations/Locus iste). At the moment, only 19 nominations are approved, leaving 324 of 343 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

Over six weeks:

• September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Hermética
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mikuszowice (two articles) (ALT hooks need checking)
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/2014 Malaysian sedition dragnet

Over one month:

• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Karlos Labajo
• September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Heather Stewart-Whyte
• September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Nobelium (two articles)
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Young (musician)
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert J. Healey
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Kurtiss
• September 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Province of Perugia
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Rechthuis
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Princeton Lectures in Analysis
• September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Eritrea
• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/South-West African legislative election, 1978, Transitional Government of National Unity (Namibia) (three articles)
• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Cengiz Aktar
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Reptilians (Starfucker album)
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Barney Burman, Joel Harlow and Mindy Hall (three articles)
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Enterprise (soundtrack)
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Stranger Hollow
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental issues in Kolkata
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/International Wrestling Association (1970s)
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Tiella
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Antananarivo Province

Over three weeks:

• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Turn Me On (Kim Kyu-jong EP)
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Czech language

Also needing review:

• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle album)
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Gun politics in the Czech Republic
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Evans
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Theatres in Sutton (Charles Cryer Theatre article only)
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/HOP Ranch
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Cross-border Terminal, Tijuana International Airport
• August 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tafelberg School (two articles)
• September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/George H. Harlow
• September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Antananarivo
• September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Never Say Never (Basement Jaxx song)
• September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Hamming
• September 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Settman
• September 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Sikkim Scouts
• September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/1960 U-2 incident
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Locus iste
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Caitlin Doughty
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Insurance Building
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Theodosia Trollope

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) 22:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the heading "Rules for evaluating other people's hooks and articles", supplemental rule H2 states: "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article". I would like to discuss the meaning of this rule.

DYK is not about approving articles, it is about showcasing articles through the use of teaser hooks. So I think supplemental rule H2 really equates to "You're not allowed to approve your own nomination". However some people seem to equate the rule with "if you suggest an improved hook, a third party is required to evaluate it and approve the nomination." Waiting for a third party slows the review process down and contributes to the backlog (because re-reviewing an article is spending time that could be better spent reviewing another article). Let me give you an example.

I have just reviewed this nomination. It passed all the DYK criteria but the hook read "... that churches in the borough of Guildford include a former telephone exchange, two 19th-century barns and the "Bingo Chapel" (pictured)?" Now I was unhappy with this because not all "places of worship", the term used in the article's title, are called "churches". This gave me three options, either put a and suggest an alternative hook, or put a and request the nominator propose an alternative hook or change the hook myself and approve the nomination. I took the third option, changing "churches" to "places of worship", but expect to be told I shouldn't have done so. In my view various alterations of the hook by the reviewer such as improving the grammar, spelling, punctuation, substituting synonyms and rearranging clauses should be permitted. I also consider that if a completely different hook is suggested by the reviewer and subsequently accepted by the nominator, the reviewer should be allowed to complete the review and approve the nomination. After all, the nominator wants his article to be approved, but the reviewer is independent and has no COI in approving the nomination, so why should third party approval be required? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree the rule is over-protective. The only justification I can see for this is to stop some 3rd party from inventing a new hook entirely and then including the new hook in their own approval, without consulting anyone. We do allow reviewers to amend an existing hook. However, a nominator and a reviewer should be able to jointly agree a new hook entirely. Victuallers (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes to an existing hook should be fine. But if a new fact is introduced to a new or existing hook, it should be scrutinized by another person. For example, in this nomination, the reviewer suggested a new hook with a new "fact" and the author/nominator approved of it. But I noted that it was not supported by a source, and later found a source which showed the "fact" to be false. It can be difficult to look critically and objectively at something which you've written yourself, whether it's an article or a hook. A third party should always check for issues which might have been missed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The rule is not over-protective, given the number of reviewer-proposed hooks that have run into trouble. Reviewers are just as prone to error as the nominator, and base facts on the article without checking the relevant sources, etc. I don't mind reviewers smoothing the prose in a hook—promoters do so when putting a hook in prep, and people can make similar adjustments to the prose once a hook is in prep. But when new facts are introduced in a new ALT, then that hook needs an independent reviewer, the more so since some promoters don't seem to be rechecking hooks when they put them in a prep area. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What you say seems sensible – I had expected to be criticised for the hook change I made in the illustration above. It seems that minor changes to the hook by the reviewer are allowed but the introduction of a new fact, in an ALT suggested by the reviewer, requires a third party to complete the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ditto Mandaraz, BMS. When a reviewer finds himself doing more than light editing of the article, or is proposing a substantively different alt, he/she should step back from the reviewing role. EEng (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: That the Special occasion holding area be moved from the bottom of the nomination page to the top. This will increase their visibility. It also means that the prep area builder doesn't have to start by scrolling to the bottom of the page and back again. It decreases the likelihood that a special occasion will be overlooked by increasing their visibility to editors checking the nominations. I open the floor to debate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support - — Maile (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - There has sometimes been a rush to fill these special categories up last minute. Moving these special days to the top is not disruptive and could alleviate that issue by making them more visible. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: the page's table of comments lists all the dates at the top. If there's a date coming up, it can easily be seen from top or bottom, and one click takes you there. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

BMS has a point. A change of location would have minor benefit if any, so I doubt it's worth the confusion of changing. I might suggest, however, that we put the hold area in a colored box or something, to prevent what I did once, which was not notice that a hook was for a special date, so that I promoted it prematurely. EEng (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to store those hooks in a special section on the queue page?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I just promoted the white shift dress of Jean Shrimpton. (Someone should double-check it is bound for the right queue.) It came with an image, but sadly, one not in the article concerned. I don't think people are looking at the Special occasion holding area Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Maybe we should rename it. If the 49th anniversary of a dress being worn is a "special occasion", then I'll have to radically alter my perception of the words "special" and "occasion". Maybe "Date request holding area". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The possessive apostrophe here looks problematic: "sovereign immunity does not extend to states' joint bridge commission?" Shouldn't it be "does not extend to states' joint bridge commissions"? I'm not as WP:BOLD with this as usual as it's headed for the main page soon ... maybe someone else will comment. — Brianhe (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some definite WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY etc.–type problems in the article for sure, though that can be fixed. However, the hook is dangerously close to implying a generalization to all bi-state bridge commissions and so on, and [omit song and dance about Court of Claims, precedential value, etc.]. The following makes it appropriately narrow, I think:

... that a lawsuit over the construction of the Cochecton–Damascus Bridge (pictured) led to one court ruling that sovereign immunity does not extend to the commission that built it?

However, this probably should be pulled and worked out on the nom page. EEng (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Boring. Boring. Boring. How about: ... a court held in a suit about the Cochecton–Damascus Bridge (pictured) that sovereign immunity does not extend to the building bridge commission? Much simpler. Why are you worried about legal truth (whatever that is), when it was one case that was decided, nothing more. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like DYK is descending to a new low with "hookiness". This is dry as Sahara sand. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, I can't make a silk purse out of every sow's ear. I was just trying to narrow the hook to avoid a potential mistaken implication, especially since the article cites the court's opinion directly, which is really a no-no except in very narrow circumstances. So again, this should go back to the nom discussion, whether for policy reasons or boring-ness. Personally I think a ruling on sovereign immunity could be quite interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Return. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Should any admin decide that the hook does need to be pulled (no takers so far), the hook needs to be replaced immediately by a vetted lead hook from another queue or prep: the move from Queue 6 to the main page is about 80 minutes from now at midnight UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Template:Did you know nominations/Locus iste nomination has been approved, but the set it should be a part of—hitting the main page at noon UTC on October 29—has already been promoted to Queue 3. Can an admin please promote the nomination to Queue 3 (checking it first, of course), and move the hook that it displaces in the queue to an open spot in one of the preps? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: There are two nature hooks in Queue 3; one could go. Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tree. @Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth, Oceanh, Captain Assassin!, Yoninah, and HJ Mitchell:

• ... that the tallest known tree is 115.66 metres (379.5 ft) tall?

A GA. The hook reflects the article. But the article doesn't reflect the source, which starts with "Researchers have confirmed that a 379.1-foot tree in Redwood National and State Parks is the world's tallest -- a foot higher, even, than originally thought. "[13] 379.1 foot, or 115.55m; not 379.5 foot, or 115.66m. Fram (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I looked in the article and found the 115.66 meters figure in a source, so I changed the hook to be more precise when I moved it to prep. Now I don't see that figure in the source given at all, so I'm restoring approval for ALT2B as it was originally stated. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I expect the anomaly came about because the source uses imperial measure and the article metric, and it is difficult to get the "convert" template to oblige. I have adjusted the article, with the imperial measure now rounded to the nearest foot. It must be difficult to measure the height of a tree with accuracy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, there is one sure way to measure a tree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Can we get an admin to repromote this hook to the penultimate slot in Queue 2? That queue was reduced to six hooks when the hook was removed, and since the hook in the nomination is approved and was correct prior to its promotion, it would be great to have a full seven hooks in the queue and this hook back where it was in said queue. We have nearly eight hours before the queue hits the main page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are currently three completely unreviewed Halloween nominations:

• Y Template:Did you know nominations/Chaonei No. 81
• Template:Did you know nominations/Witches of Benevento
• YTemplate:Did you know nominations/Belinda Nash

... and one that appears to be ready for re-review:

• YTemplate:Did you know nominations/Idstein Castle

Halloween is quickly approaching, so these will have to be reviewed soon if they're to make it in time. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've ticked one and polished two others. Victuallers (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Halloween hooks are being placed in Prep Area 1. I have left space for three more articles. Reviewed the ones above and someone else needs to move Template:Did you know nominations/Belinda Nash and Template:Did you know nominations/Idstein Castle to the prep area asap. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Promoted. I'll look at Template:Did you know nominations/Witches of Benevento now. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7 beat me to it. This page is mostly unsourced and needs a lot of work to get in shape for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, everybody. I see that Hawkeye7 included a "beheaded" belfry, as well as a mortician and another not-too-heavy death hook. And Yoninah added a witch-hazel hook. How clever and resourceful of you two to create a full, themed set! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Atrocious wording, over the line, too jokey, might scare little ones. EEng (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Just kidding of course. I especially like Smoke Gets in Your Eyes. EEng (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Nagle. @Mandarax, Cwmhiraeth, G S Palmer, and HJ Mitchell:

• ... that Florence Nagle and Norah Wilmot were the first women licensed as racehorse trainers in Britain, after Nagle won an Appeal Court ruling in 1966?

Not true. Nagle was the first, and Wilmot was the first to win a race, but Auriol Sinclair (sometimes given as Auriole) was the second to obtain a license, not Wilmot.[14][15]. Or at least I can't find any source claiming that Wilmot was the second. Fram (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nagle's ODNB article reads: "In July they [the Jockey Club] stated that they would be prepared to grant training licences to 'suitable women' and on 3 August Florence and Norah Wilmot received their permits." SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilmot wasn't the second, she was the equal first. But of course I accept that the ODNB doesn't have the magisterial authority of the Daily Mail. Eric Corbett 13:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Polley's book (available via Questia, page 96) also only mentions Nagle and Wilmot: "Her High Court victory in February 1966 forced the Jockey Club not only to grant licences to herself and Wilmot, but also to any 'suitable women'." SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if Nagle, Wilmot, Sinclair and Louie Dingwall may have gotten the first 4 licenses together.[16]. By the way, the ODNB doesn't indicate that Nagle and Wilmot were the only two to receive their license on that day, but that they were either among the first, or the first. Fram (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It may look like that to you, but that WordPress blog to which you link doesn't say that. And if your speculation is correct then that gives the lie to your earlier claim that Auriol Sinclair was the second woman to receive a licence. Eric Corbett 13:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I gave two sources claiming that Sinclair was the second, you gave a (better) source indicating that Wilmot was one of the first (perhaps one of the first two, but that isn't clear from that source). I'm just trying to find some definitive answer, and having a discussion. I'm not replacing the ODNB with a blog (although it is an official blog from a museum, not just some random blog). Fram (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that, but it's very clear that your initial claim about Auriol Sinclair being the second woman to be granted a licence by The Jockey Club is untrue. Eric Corbett 13:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have seen no source that contradicts it. If you find a source that confirms that Sinclair did not have her license on or before 3 August 1966, then you can safely say that my claim is untrue. As it stands, we have a source stating that Nagle and Wilmot received theirs on 3 August (without any indication that they were the only ones that day), and a source stating that Sinclair was the second woman to receive her license. Fram (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Jockey Club's treatment of Wilmot was the "catalyst" to the case being undertaken (according to Somerfield, page 109); this book also only specifically refers to Nagle and Wilmot; in Somerfield's book, although she is not specific, note the order the names are listed in: "By the end of the year licences has been granted to Mrs Nagle, Miss Wilmot, Mrs Dingwell, Mrs Gladys Lewis, Miss Pamela Seaton Leadham, Mrs Anne Biddle and Miss Auriol Sinclair". (page 112). Fram, is the Daily Mail the "reliable source" you're referring to? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That, and the Sussex Express. Not having access to the ODNB (or, for that matter, Somerfields book), and considering that these aren't the gossippy celebrity "news" things for which I would never use the Daily Mail, I considered a rather clear statement in those two papers (they are two different articles, although likely based on the same source) a sufficient to pull and rediscuss the hook. If consensus is that the original hook was correct and my sources mistaken (or that this scenario is, lacking definite proof, the most likely), then the hook can be rerun as it was of course. Fram (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to step back from this and wait for some response from others, although ... hmmm the Sussex Express? Seems more like a local rag to me ;-) ... I do, however, have a copy of the Somerfield book in front of me - a true bargain. ;-) SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for input from others as well. It's hard to judge at once how reliable something like the Sussex Express is (or, for that matter, many books). Pulling hooks is a "better safe than sorry" strategy, one can always readd a hook to the queue, but one can't undo a main page appearance. Finding apparently reliable sources that contradict a hook, and not immediately finding sources that undenoably support it, it seemed wiser to pull it (it is not as if our queues are definitely errorfree and should be trusted blindly ;-) ) Fram (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and just clicked on your "bargain" link. :-D Fram (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We have two very simple solutions: 1) Just split the DYKs into two separate hooks again, each was independently verifiable, or 2) say "among the first" in the above hook. End of problem. Montanabw^(talk) 06:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Fram has pulled the above hook from Queue 3, there are only six hooks in the queue. As noted earlier in WT:DYK#Special occasion hook to Queue 3: admin needed, the special occasion hook Template:Did you know nominations/Locus iste should run in Queue 3 if it's to appear on the correct day in Europe. Since a hook will need to be added to the queue anyway, I'd like to commend this one to the admin looking to get the queue back to seven hooks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we please just make BMS an admin? EEng (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. WP:RFA is that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Duh. Do you really imagine I don't actually understand how babies admins are made? EEng (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• The way RFA is right now, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Well, okay, maybe my worst enemy. It would be interesting to see the reactions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No is indeed the right word. I've been asked to RFA before, but have declined. Thanks for the vote of confidence, EEng. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see Crisco has done it. Well done Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you change your mind, you have my vote too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading the did you know section for years, and recently I've noticed a strange excess of the word "the". For example, today it says "the Romanian communist Constantin Doncea" where for years it would just say "Romanian communist Constantin Doncea". I wondered why this had been happening and after lots of searching aournd I found the dyk staging area. The example I gave had "the" added with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_5&diff=630211294&oldid=630183847. I checked through the histories of the varieous preparation areas and found that the same person, The Rambling Man, had done this all over the place, justifying it with something like "title". This probably refers to "false title". That article says: "Some usage writers condemn this construction, but others defend it." It also mentions William Safire. He was a highly respected New York Times writer on the subject of the English language, and is regarded as an expert on the matter. Safire says in http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19FOB-OnLanguage-t.html?ref=magazine&_r=0 that it's a trendy practice to avoid, and "inserting the in front of the identifier adds unnecessary emphasis and — to the native speaker — looks and sounds funny." As a native American speaker, I completely agree. Saying "the Romanian communist Constantin Doncea" makes it sound more important than without "the". Is Doncea the only Romanian communist? After all, it says he's THE Romanian communist.

Maybe where the person who keeps adding "the" is from, it's normal practice, but in other parts of the world, it sounds odd. One person should not be able to overrule what everybody else has written, and force his personal preference on the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inglefoot (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, why isn't he just called Rambling Man?! I think we should be told! The Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That column you cite also mentions that using that the is standard practice in the NYT. I agree with the rationale for using the that's given in that column: omitting the the makes it sound like it's an official title or something.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I cannot wait to see DYK regular Rambling Man go off on this! Like vinegar and baking soda! EEng (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  You mean "the DYK regular...." The Rambling Man (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  No need to go overboard, Inglefoot; this is definitely a topic ripe for a civil discussion about the merits of "the". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Signpost: "DYK Debates Indefinite Use of Definite Article". EEng (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The definite article should not be used if it would suggest uniqueness or distinction when this is not accurate. For example, the subject in question, Constantin Doncea, is described on that page as "a Romanian communist activist". The indefinite article is used there because he was one of many such communist activists. This issue seems more important than the one of false title. One can usually tell real titles from such descrriptive phrases because the formal titles are capitalised. Andrew (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the case above, the definite article is the correct thing to use, because it is referring to a definite person: namely Constantin Doncea. The fact that he is one of many Romanian communists is beside the point. He is the "Romanian communist Constantin Doncea", not a "Romanian communist Constantin Doncea". If there was a comma, then the indefinite article would be fine: "a Romanian communist, Constantin Doncea". Harrias ^talk 14:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That however is only a statement that if the or a is used, it should be the, I have no particular feeling either way on whether to include it or not generally! Harrias ^talk 14:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I tell you what, I'll leave it to you experts to address the issues which make it all the way to the main page. Add WP:ERRORS to your watchlist, ensure you're an admin, and pick these up on a daily basis. It will free up time for me to focus on improving articles. Thanks y'all! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

.. you mean improving "the articles"? (Or just improving definite articles?) Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, improving a article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad you're giving this up, TRM, because all your additions of "the" have been driving me crazy. It slows down the reading pace and just adds extra characters to already long hooks. Here are your latest "fixes" - can you "hear" the difference between these hooks:

• ... that Amsterdam businessman Maup Caransa (pictured) lent his name to the ugliest building in the country and to the sons of the gods?
• ... that the Amsterdam businessman Maup Caransa (pictured) lent his name to the ugliest building in the country and to the sons of the gods?
• ... that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected to represent Vadodara, Gujarat in the parliament by a victory margin of 570,128 votes in 2014—the second highest ever?
• ... that the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected to represent Vadodara, Gujarat in the parliament by a victory margin of 570,128 votes in 2014, the second highest ever?

Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, don't worry. I'm sure you'll be prepared to do all the fixes at WP:ERRORS when they crop up every other day! To my "hearing" and "education" there's nothing wrong with what I've written. But hey, it's up to you now! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I see that time has been wasted recently fussing about this at ERRORS [17]. Please, give it up, Rambling Man. In current usage this is a question of rhythm, pacing, and emphasis not appropriately resolved by rigid prescription in either direction, notwithstanding what Miss Snodgrass, Sister Beatrice, or Preceptor St. John-Smyth may have beaten into you. EEng (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's a question of correct grammar. You give it up. Incidentally, one such error was fixed following that report, so there, I win, yeah! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but see, plenty of very well-educated people disagree with you. This blogpost [18] sums it up well: "In other words, this is a matter of style, not grammar. If you’re not a journalist following Times style or the like, the choice is up to you." If you keep fussing about this you'll end up in the same loony bin as those driven insane the compulsion to stamp immediately out any split infinitive, or sentence-ending-in-preposition, across which they run. EEng (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Who's wasting time now?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you mean that trying to arrest your apparently inexorable march to the infinitive-unsplitters' loony bin is likely in vain, that may be, but I feel you have enough redeeming qualities that I should at least make an effort. If your worry is that I invested any significant time in my just-prior post, put you mind at rest -- that kind of thing is second nature to me now. EEng (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer was you. You cannot arrest me from doing anything. Now, back to your regular "program". Get your focus back! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, quite agree! This is a complete and utter waste of the time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

He says that there will be error reports and when none materialize, he makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy by reporting it himself. But this is not an error or "a question of correct grammar". The renowned authority on the English language whom I mentioned above, and I'm sure many others, say that it's not only correct, but preferable to omit "the". It's a personal preference, and reporting it as an error is disruptive. If you want to talk about errors, see where he indiscriminately added "the" to make "the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi". "Prime Minister" is not a false title, but an actual title. It's correct to say "the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was..." or just "Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was...", but not the way he had it. Thankfully, somebody corrected The Rambling Man's error before it appeared on the main page.

In the link provided by EEng, one user points out that it may be a British usage rule, and The Rambling Man sarcastically calls this "American Wikipedia". So the solution is to change everything to comply with British rules? I hope he doesn't go around doing things like changing "color" to "colour" all over the place, which would be just as disruptive. According to the statistics (https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm) 39.6% of the English Wikipedia's traffic is from the U.S. and 10.8% is from the United Kingdom, so it doesn't make any sense to change everything to conform to British usage. Whether one agrees with the grammatical convention or not, the dyk blurbs are informal headlines which should be allowed to reflect the common usage of this form. Nobody should have the right to impose a personal preference on the rest of the world, and overrule dozens of other people who wrote those blurbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inglefoot (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasting more time I see. I'll keep reporting the errors. Bye now! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A hook in PREP 3 claims that:

... that while serving as chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission, Dixy Lee Ray was chauffeured to and from her office along with her Scottish deerhound and miniature poodle?

The article goes even further, claiming that this was a daily occurence. The source cited in the article doesn't say that though. It states that:

"Occasionally reports about her two dogs, a 100-pound Scottish deerhound named Ghillie and a miniature poodle named Jacques, who accompanied her to the AEC office, eclipsed reportage about her professional activities. Ray lived in a 28-foot motor home parked in rural Virginia and was chauffeured to the AEC offices in Germantown, Maryland, in a limousine."

In other words, there were occasional reports about her dogs being in the office; there's no reason to assume that they were there regularly, as the hook seems to imply, or let alone daily, as the article claims. There is certainly no mention of the dogs accompanying her in the limo.

Two more quibbles:

• The hook "... that efforts are underway to help Mahikeng Airport, a former air force base, regain its status as an international airport?" (Queue 4) is vague if not misleading (in addition to being incredibly dull), since construction to turn it into an international airport has already begun according to both the article and cited source.
• The article about Robert Young (PREP 2) is too short (block quote doesn't count towards 1,500 characters)

--Carabinieri (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm reading the Dixy Ray Lee source differently: While covering the important work she was doing at the AEC, occasionally the newspapers would report instead on the fact that she was bringing her dogs to work with her. They "accompanied her to the AEC office" all the time. Yoninah (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I added another cite for the chauffeuring part. Yoninah (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• BTW I do believe there is a mistake in the page name. Her name is spelled Dixie Ray Lee on the Washington State Senate site, among others. I'm unable to move the page without an administrator. Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Yoninah. That new footnote helps. It still doesn't support the claim in the article about this being an everyday occurrence, but at least it backs up the hook. --Carabinieri (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• If, for any reason, it should become necessary to pull the Dixie Lee Ray hook, note that the reviewers missed the fact that DocumentError has just had a fifth main-page DYK hook, and this would be the sixth. Hence, it would then need a QPQ to get back to prep. (If it stays there, I don't think we can in good conscience ask for it.) Also, I have pulled the Robert Young hook as being too short (1257 prose characters only). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am happy to contribute a QPQ, Template:Did you know nominations/Tiella, to DocumentError to avoid that piece of red tape. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Yoninah. Searching on the internet leaves me less than sanguine about "Dixie" being the preferred spelling. The covers of her two books both spell her first name as "Dixy", the Washington Secretary of State's site also has Dixy as does the National Governors Association and her New York Times obituary. Google search gives 44.9K hits for "Dixy Lee Ray", but only 20.2K hits for "Dixie Lee Ray". I was thinking of changing the hook based on your post, but I now think that would be a bad idea. The Times, especially, would get the name right (and would have corrected it by now if it had been wrong). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, looking at FN3 in the article (this source), it shows a campaign poster with "Dixy" in huge letters. I think the article needs to revert to only using "Dixy", or perhaps "Dixie" as the alternate. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the investigative work, BlueMoonset, and for reverting my changes. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You will find the article Robert Young is now long enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm restoring approval on the nom page. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)