Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123→Archive 125

Removed from main page: ... that Polyclonoolithus is one of the only dinosaur eggs known from the Hekou Group in Gansu?

Template:Did you know nominations/Polyclonoolithus @Ashorocetus, Kevmin, and Casliber:

What does that even mean? "... that Polyclonoolithus is one of the only dinosaur eggs known from the Hekou Group in Gansu?"

Please, can someone dissect this sentence grammatically? To me, it looks to be an unhappy marriage of two or three ideas crammed into a single hook.

Feel free to readd it when corrected, I didn't see an easy way to phrase it comprehensibly without losing one or more of the probably intended meanings (only a few eggs are known from the Hekou Group, Polywhatever is only known from eggs from that group, Polyagain is the only recognised dino from those eggs...) Perhaps something like "That Poly is only known from dinosaur eggs from the Hekou Group in Gansu"? Fram (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It may not be primary-schoo-simple, but it in no way seems incoherent. It's more a case of you failing to read the article. Polyclonoolithus is not a dinosaur, it's a family of eggs (see Dinosaur egg#Classification, linked in the very first sentence of the article). Hekou Group is a rock formation, which is in Gansu. This is pretty much the same, grammatically, as saying "badgers are one of the only known carnivores from Ireland". How this somehow came to be considered worthy of removal is beyond me. GRAPPLE X 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Grapple. There is nothing wrong with the hook. It seems perfectly intelligible to me.4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
But it is not "one of the few" or "one of the many", it is the only oogenus known from there at all. There are a few eggs known (as in shells), and one oogenus. But you can't use both at once. Fram (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, having now read the article. The hook fact is not accurate as written and should not have been given an approval tick. That said, the writing of the hook was fine in terms of clarity which was the issue originally brought here. Nice catch on the factual error. A new hook should be proposed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I thought that the discrepancy between the hook and the article was simply due to a poorly written hook, as it sounded strange to my ears. Not being a native English speaker, I demur to you (plural) that from a grammatical point of view, there was nothing wrong with the hook. It has since been reinstated (which I can understand, seeing the above), but now we have found that there is a problem with it anyway... It would be good if some other people gave their opinion as well, I don't feel comfortable removing it a second time. @BorgQueen:, like I just said, no problem with your revert, but considering the comments since, I'ld like your opinion on this as well please. Fram (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually the article IS correct, Polyclonoolithus (italics people >.> ) is the only described oogenus from the Geologic formation. NO other oogenera have yet been described, making the hook accurate. Fram, please actually read the articles before claiming inaccuracy. --Kevmin § 19:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, other eggs are known from the Hekou group (just no identified oogenera), so the hook is accurate as stated. The eggs discovered in 2009 were mentioned in the "Discovery" section of the article. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kevmin:, please don't assume that I haven't read the article before I claimed inaccuracy. "One of the only" means (in a rather confusing way) that there are others; since no others have been described, we don't know if there are others or not (other eggs have been found, could be from the same oogenus, we don't know and apparently no one does. You wouldn't write "one of the only" if there only was one, I hope. No idea why this hook couldn't be written in an unambiguous way instead of this confusing and rather misleading one. Fram (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be misleading to say "the only" because there are other eggs known from the site which have not been classified as Polyclonoolithus. Anyway it's a little late to worry about it now. Sorry about all the confusion, I could have made it clearer, you're right. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that's why I would have done a hook saying something like "that the only known Poly... dinosaur egg comes from the Hekou Group" or something similar, to avoid all problems and get the interesting fact across more clearly. Water under the bridge, opinions can differ and all that. Fram (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Gosh..been busy IRL and look what I've missed. I did read through it when promoting it and felt it was ok...but it was late and the article is a bit tricky to follow in places...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a great writer. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not as great a reader as I thought, so I guess it's time for a grouphug ;-) Fram (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:D Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, try harder. Case closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

200 character limit

Does the 200 character limit for length of hooks include wikimarkup? You know, the '''[[]]''' at minimum, plus any other brackets needed to link other articles? Also, does it include spaces? And if we pipe a link, does it include the hidden part of the link, or just what is visible to the reader? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's 200 visible characters, so it doesn't include any of that.--Launchballer 16:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It does include visible spaces, but as Launchballer notes, not any of the behind-the-scenes wikimarkup, just the actual visible characters. The initial ellipsis and space are not counted in the total, but the final question mark is. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5: Insert Name Here

Can some people please check the Queue5 hook for Insert Name Here? Template:Did you know nominations/For What It's Worth (game show), Insert Name Here. @Launchballer, Lemuellio, and Jolly Janner:

A) What is meant is the first UK TV panel show (see e.g. The News Quiz for a much earlier UK Radio panel show hosted by the same Sandi Toksvig)

B) What is meant is the first female to regularly front a panel show: e.g. Have I Got News for You has had multiple women to front the show, but none of them were a regular host

C) Why is A Question of Sport not a panel show?

D) If C doen't count, what about What the Dickens, hosted by ... Sandi Toksvig?

It seems as if a completely new hook will have to be found for this one... Oh well, at least I have learned that Stephen Fry will be replaced by Sandi Toksvig! Fram (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Those of us with long memories will recall Sandi Toksvig hosting the "Sandwich Quiz" on No. 73 several decades ago, but calling that a "panel show" is stretching it a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I cannot verify it myself, but another reviewer extracted this from the source: "the first female host of a mainstream comedy TV panel show". My guess is that The Times author doesn't consider A Question of Sport a panel show and doesn't consider the other ones as mainstream. I admit it seems confusing, but we'd need a reliable source that disputes this. Such as classifying A Question of Sport as a comedy panel show. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone familiar to British TV that it is both hosted by a woman and "mainstream". Jolly Ω Janner 15:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Page 110 classifies it as a Panel Show. This should be pulled. I'm not sure if The Times got this one completely wrong or were trying to be overly precise. Either way, I don't think there's any unambiguous solution. My preferred solution is to go with the original hook proposed in the nomination, which would require editing For What It's Worth in queue 4. Jolly Ω Janner 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
[1] "There are other BBC panel shows with women presenters – including Sue Barker on BBC1’s A Question of Sport and Victoria Coren on BBC2’s Only Connect. However, these shows are not strictly of the “comedy” variety, although their devotees may beg to differ. " So at least this reliable source disagrees with the hook as written. And of course we make a bit of a fool of ourselves if a DYK hook contradicts our own articles, like List of British game shows#Panel games. Yes, most sources support the claim in the hook, though with added qualifiers. Even so, most were ranging from debatable to flat-out wrong. Fram (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The Times remark, and any further reproduction of that fact, can be blamed on John Lloyd, who first came out with it and was consequentially paraphrased. You can probably just add the phrase "mainstream comedy TV" to the hook.--Launchballer 16:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
To any sysops, please remove this and re-open the nomination before it reaches the Main Page in six hours. I've also requested this at the errors page. Jolly Ω Janner 05:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The hook has been removed, but that leaves Queue 5 short a hook. Since the removed hook was in the quirky spot, perhaps the quirky hook from Prep 4 would do the trick, assuming the prep hasn't been promoted to queue by that point? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Beatles hook removed from Main Page

Not having learned anything from my previous removal of a hook from the main page, I have now done it again... Template:Did you know nominations/Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad

@Nvvchar, Ms Sarah Welch, Johanna, and Jolly Janner:

As said on WP:ERRORS, it wasn't a Beatles' recording (this isn't even claimed in the article) and it didn't top the charts (it made the top twenty in two countries and "did well" in another). Fram (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, John Lennon also had no hand in the recording of this single (also according to The Radha Krsna Temple (album)#"Hare Krishna Mantra" single. Not a lot of this hook actually remains after fact-checking.

Something like that? Fram (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

    • Well, the hook was accepted in AGF mode, since it wasn't linked in the article. No idea why not, as it is available online at [2]. Page 83 of that book supports the hook, the problem is that no other reliable source does. E.g. the song never was "the number one song on the English musci charts", it peaked at #12. None of the many sources discussing the Beatles' recordings seems to support the claim that "Collectively the Beatles produced and played on" this song or the album; a suorce about "Hare Krishna in India" is probably less reliable for these kinds of things than the collective Beatle-ology of the past 50 years. Fram (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It is widely documented in numerous sources that the Beatles did not collectively record anything together after 20 August 1969, save for a single session with 3/4 of them on 3 January 1970.[1] @JG66: is our resident Harrison expert, so he'll be able to supply an authoritative source or three. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ian McDonald. Revolution in the Head - The Beatles Records and the Sixties. Pimlico / Random House. p. 322. ISBN 978-0712-666978.

@Fram:, @Ritchie333: Here are two sources, one a secondary source published by Princeton University Press and another a tertiary source published by Routledge:

1. Charles Brooks (1989), The Hare Krishnas in India, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-8120809390, pages 83–85, Quote: "Hare Krishna Mantra soon became the number one song on the English music charts, and had similar success in West Germany and Czechoslovakia".
2. Peter Clarke (2005), Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415267076, page 308 Quote: "There they captured the imagination of The Beatles, particularly George Harrison who helped them produce a chart topping record of the Hare Krishna mantra (1969) and ...".

I am also able to verify what @Fram states, the song reaching #12, staying on the charts for weeks, etc. The good faith question is whether the other authors are referring to the same music charts in 1969, and whether there was only one music chart? Given the controversy, I will update the article further (include the above dissenting viewpoints for NPOV with WP:RS), and leave the DYK decision to the consensus. The following seems supported by the multiple sources "... that a song based on Sanskrit language mantra verses in the Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad became a chart topping recording on the 1969 music charts in Europe?" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is only one "official" singles chart in the UK, and on that chart it reached #12. That does not make it "chart-topping", whatever some writers might say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think proposing a different text after the blatantly wrong one has "graced" the main page for 8 hours is necessary, this article won't go in the DYK section again (no "DYK decision" will happen, if it had been caught during the standard process before it hit the main page things would have been different). I would urge you to simply remove the Brooks source from the article (at least for anything related to the song and album), as it is obviously incorrect in most of what it says. Adding a quote with the incorrect information, like you just did here, goes against everything an encyclopedia should try to be. While Brooks may be well-informed about Krishna in India, he is clearly completely incorrectly informed about the Beatles and what happened with the song, and should just not be used for that kind of information. Fram (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
<edit conflict>When I created the Radha Krisna Temple album article, I noticed that a few sources inflate the single's commercial success somewhat – I recall reading that the song was a top-ten hit in the UK, and number 1 in Czechoslovakia and/or Yugoslavia. There were at least four national singles charts in the UK during the late '60s, so it is possible that one of them listed the HK Mantra higher than number 12 (it peaked at number 11 on Melody Maker's chart, for instance). What these sources could well be referring to is radio play in W Germany, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia – as in the UK, it was hugely popular on the radio.
But although Lennon was very interested in the Krishnas (he certainly didn't leave all things Indian behind post 1968; and heroin would be another [major] interest of his in 1969!), there's no way he participated in the recording. McCartney was in the control room at Abbey Road during the session, offering suggestions on microphone placement – and it does seem that some ISKCON-aligned sources overplay that detail, imo. The single was issued on Apple Records, so, combined with George Harrison's very public support, this could well be how the idea came about that "the Beatles produced" the track. JG66 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: Your comments and concern about the Brooks' book published by Princeton University Press is duly noted. Are you okay with the cited sources, on the Hare mantra song, published by Routledge and Cambridge University Press? @JG66/@Fram: Given your knowledge of the Beatles, the song and album, I welcome you to edit and improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I'd say the Peter Clarke/Routledge book is good. In the article, I think the Lennon picture should be replaced by one of Harrison, and the text should definitely list Harrison first. (The pic of him with Mukunda at The Radha Krsna Temple (album)#Album recording might be worth considering?) Harrison's ties to the mantra, the Upanishads and Gaudiya Vaishnavism were lifelong and a major part of his public image even before the Beatles' break-up. With Lennon, though, it was more of a passing interest as he battled heroin addiction. Hope that helps. JG66 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec)I changed the section of the article somewhat, and removed the John Lennon image as being largely irrelevant now. Fram (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This hook ran on the main page for over eight hours of its scheduled twelve. The nomination has not been reopened, and I believe that is the right decision: it has had plenty of time on the main page, and indeed more than hooks get when we're running three sets a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK that sounds like advertising

This DYK sounds like corporate spam:

"...that web-based jewelry retailer Bravelets donates ten dollars of each purchase to the charity of the customer's choice?"

I believe it should be removed. Duivelwaan (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Corsican protests

If anyone wants to come up with an interesting hook for 2015 Corsican protests...be my guest. I am reviewing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ErrantX's new stat tool

I see ErrantX has created a new tool. It seems to me that the PM time slot calculation should be D0 + D+1 - (D-1 + D+2) or else one of the two days' stats still gets inflated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Tony is right; but a lot of the stats have been calculated on the page elsewith. Changing it will potentially impact the ordering of a lot of the DYKSTATS, hence my suggestion it needs consensus. I think I might build the alternate calculation into the tool in the meantime to give both options. --Errant (chat!) 08:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think there were calculations before any adjustment, but that did not stop deciding to use an adjustment. We should make the adjustment correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

New pageview stats tool

After getting no response at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pageview_Stats_down_again, I started looking around. It seems that there is a new tool here, but I do not understand how to use it. Does this replace the old stats tool? If so, how do I use it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Page view stats has a temporary fix

"Temporary", being until WMF institutes a new and permanent one they will maintain. Until then, MusikAnimal has given us a fix. Details VP (technical) thread. MusikAnimal, you have made a lot of people on this DYK project happy today.— Maile (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. The real credit goes to the this wonderful person who works for the WMF. Not sure what their on-wiki username is. I just took their code and made it accept params so we could link to it. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Another thing I wanted to mention... I understand the DYK project does some record-keeping on the most viewed DYKs. Problem is the old stats.grok.se only reported desktop views (and probably not all of them either), where as the new pageviews API reports mobile and desktop. Since mobile accounts for 50%+ of enwiki's traffic, what you're seeing now is going to be dramatically higher than what the old tool would report. Thus you should not compare your new DYK statistics with old ones. I suppose the old record book will have to closed entirely and we can start a new one. But at least we know that moving forward we will have fully accurate data :) — MusikAnimal talk 07:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I did some quick tests and it appears the pageview API data goes back as far as August 1, 2015. I have adjusted the tool to prevent querying data earlier than that. Best — MusikAnimal talk 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Data from between Aug and early Oct. is patchy (from my testing). Earlier data is not planned to be loaded I don't think. Regarding the mobile hits; for DYK this has accounted for only a slight increase (I think it looked to be around 10%) in totals. It's at least representative; especially if we use the new stats going forward & note on the page. --Errant (chat!) 10:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@ErrantX: Thanks for the note on Aug/Sep, going to update my tool to block those months. It appears you and MelanieN are right about DYK stats... checking those articles I see marginal differences. Come to find out, DYK's aren't shown on m.wikipedia.org! So there ya go :) However raw data from day to day is drastic: For instance looking at Google on December 9, 2015 shows 17,937 hits, but through the pageview API we see 211,806. Maybe that's a bad example — MusikAnimal talk 19:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Web statistics tool for a collection of questions and possible new solutions. --.js[democracy needed] 14:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Can old TFA appear as DYK?

Kerala was recently promoted to GA status and I was thinking about nominating it for DYK. The criteria states that any article that has previously appeared in the INT and OTD sections is ineligible. However, it doesn't say anything about articles that have appeared in the TFA section. Kerala was a FA long back and featured in TFA section in 2006. The article was demoted and it just passed a GAR. So, is it eligible to appear as DYK? Regards, Yash! 06:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right; the rules do not cover this scenario. Since it was ten years ago, I see no problem with this. Indeed, I'm sure there are plenty of articles that were first featured on DYK? and later became TFA. Jolly Ω Janner 15:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
True. It's the other way around here so wasn't sure if I should nominate it for DYK or not. I will move forward with it then. Yash! 19:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of songs recorded by Madonna

Can I some some discussion here please. nomination is slightly over the 7 day rule but I think it should be allowed. Thank you.  — Calvin999 22:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How much over the limit are we talking about here? If it's hours and up to a day, I would allow it. Days to a week and that's clearly not new. I can understand frustrations, since by the time they are received on the Main Page, nominations are typically three weeks old. I would stress the importance of getting a nomination posted as soon as you can. Jolly Ω Janner 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The expansion started at 20:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)‎, and the nomination was made at 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC). That's 7 days and 18:21 in toto. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Back when it was a 5-day rule, we used to allow up to 8-day nominations. I think we should accept this. Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that as long as it passes all other DYK criteria on the review, we shouldn't quibble on a few hours (according to BlueMoonset's calculation above). It's a terrific work, and I assume you're taking it up to FLC. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I would advise User:Northamerica1000 to do a full review of the nomination if it's to be used as a QPQ for Queen Elizabeth cake. Jolly Ω Janner 01:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me the logic of having all the image slots for this coming Monday (Feb 8) dedicated to food? If these images were scheduled for Feb 9, Mardi Gras and Shrove Tuesday, then there would be an obvious connection between the image subject and the date they are scheduled to run (pancakes would be a better fit that fruit and soup, but you take what you can get). What is the connection that I am missing? --Allen3 talk 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Since posting my original comment, the block of food images has been broken up by Yoninah ([3] & [4]). This leads to a second question: is a thick rich bowl of soup an appropriate image for Ash Wednesday, a traditional day of fasting for many Christian denominations? --Allen3 talk 13:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the chowder to the PM slot for Shrove Tuesday. It means we have a gap of bio pics, but IMO we often overcompensate them for the lead hooks. Any other suggested improvements, Allen? Jolly Ω Janner 04:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I picked the strawberry pic. I wanted something red for Chinese New Year. At the time, I was thinking more about plants than food. Thanks, folks, for mixing things up. --PFHLai (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

International Women's Day hooks

Our sets for International Women's Day are going to look pretty boring with approved hooks like these:

  • ... that Christiane Floyd was the first professor of computer science in Germany?
  • ... that Edith Ellen Greenwood was the first female recipient of the Soldier's Medal?
  • ... that Mary F. Hoyt was the first woman to receive a position in the United States federal civil service?
  • ... that Ellen Fitz Pendleton was the first woman to serve on a panel to award the American Peace Prize?
I proposed on the template: ALT1 ... that Wellesley College president Ellen Fitz Pendleton supported academic freedom for pacifists during World War I and later opposed the 1935 loyal oath required of teachers in Massachusetts? — Maile (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You're great, Maile. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest to add Delores Ziegler, an American with a career in Europe, hook mentioning Dorabella, no first ;) - Also a teamwork. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is what you mean by boring, but the hooks focus too much on "first" to do something. What did these women accomplish after they chanced to step into history as the "first" of anything? — Maile (talk)
  • Also, 4 of the 5 hooks listed in the special holding area are by the same nominator. — Maile (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
We have a few weeks to assemble the March 8 sets. In the meantime, we should start some kind of page patrol to weed out and destroy these "I'm the first!" hooks. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Did You Know ... that Michelle Obama was the first descendant of slaves to serve as First Lady of the United States? Wouldn't it be a shame if that's if that's all someone knew about her? — Maile (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Just saying that there are tons of nominations about women on the page that don't mention "firsts". (And for the record, those that are included here are not from someone who is part of WP Women, which is alleged below somehow to have a single mind that being "first" is sufficiently notable for a hook, which is probably not a very accurate statement). Very few of the approved hooks for women have been moved to either black history month or women's history month. Deolinda Rodríguez de Almeida, Rosita Baltazar, Gwendoline Konie Rose Piper, Carmen Souza just to name a few. But there are indeed women who were "serial first"s whose accomplishments shouldn't be discounted, like Ruby M. Rouss. Even with her, though, there are hooks which don't mention her multiple firsts. Maybe just proposing alternatives if you don't like the hooks that are nominated would broaden the scope? SusunW (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Once approved, you can move a nom yourself to the special area, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's hooks

Note to prep builders: The WP:Women in Red project is busy churning out literally thousands of new articles about women. Many (not all!) are making their way to DYK. I think it's important to start using them in prep sets, and not running sets with less than 50% bios. I've also moved a number of approved black women hooks to the Special Occasion holding area for Black History Month (February) – these hooks should also be promoted, one or two per prep set, if we want to keep up with the deluge. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lame hooks

Seriously, the hooks in the current main page group are appalling: the BMW one has "BMW ... bike ... BMW ... BMW bike" in one sentence. The mayfly hook has "long wings ... longest wings .... lacewing". This is garbage for the main page of an encyclopedia. I'm trying to make sure the quality of the articles we feature isn't appalling, but these kind of hooks really need work before they're accepted and promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could entice you to cruise by the Queues every now and then. You know...before this kind of stuff gets to the main page. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I cruise by every article itself, but not the queues. I don't have time to think that hard, that's what the promoting editor and promoting admin should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Mayfly? Makarkinia isnt a mayfly, first off. Its a neuropteran, and if I had just put Neuropteran, the complaint would have been that I should have used the "vernacular" name becuse no one knows what a neuropteran is. IF you feel the need to bitch about things, then actually look at the preps and make suggestions there. How exactly would you have worded a hook on the longest wings of any species in the Lacewing order?--20:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin (talk • contribs)
  • For a start, I'd have refrained from using "long wings ... longest wings...." which is simply crap. Perhaps "The blah lacewing has the longest wings of all ... at x". Simple enough without the childlike repetition. Perhaps we need to start re-visiting each and every hook a third time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • And yet you did not do that, but decided to vent here instead. Yes there was ONE long more then may have been needed, but bitching after the fact and insinuating that everyone else in the DYK process is incompetent is NOT appropriate, and its rude.--Kevmin § 20:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I'll be paying extra special attention to these incompetent hooks and those who promote them to the main page. It's about time this process started taking things seriously again. We had a surge in a quality a while ago when a few more people were carefully watching this process, seems like we need more eyes on it once again. By the way, if you can be bothered, you'd read my response above. I check the articles for quality control, but hooks should have gone through at least two other people before getting to the main page. I shouldn't have to perform a third check, but now it seems I should. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why appalling? Lame? I like hooks about "the first", "the ___-est", "the most ___". --PFHLai (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about the repetition in each hook I mention. It's really poor writing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds cute to me, though. --PFHLai (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
What does? The repetition? It sounds like piss-poor English to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not poetry, but passable. Get the point across alright. Please improve them as you see fit. --PFHLai (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Far from poetry, far from reasonable English on the homepage of the most visited encyclopaedia in history. Please read my previous comments that you seem to have missed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If we're playing Just a Minute then notice that the FA blurb at the time repeated the words "storm" and "hurricane" five times each. But we needn't worry too much about FA and DYK as they are rotated every day and so any dull entries are resolved automatically. But ITN has been stuck with the same lead item for several days now. This almost exactly repeats Claud Cockburn's notorious "Small earthquake in Peru, not many dead" which was the winner of a competition to find the most boring headline. Perhaps ITN has dried up and that's why TRM has come over here to spread joy and comfort. Andrew D. (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I've been working here for years. But you probably didn't notice that. The point remains, regardless of other problems, that we shouldn't be promoting such weak hooks. I would have thought you would have been in agreement considering this is an encyclopedia. But thanks for the veiled personal attack, duly noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

More DYK that sounds like advertising

Do we really have to put Samantha Bee (Queue 1) on MainPage the day of her show's debut? Are we reminding people to watch? I'd rather have this on MainPage soon after the debut. --PFHLai (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being posted on the day of the show's debut. Jolly Ω Janner 19:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope Wikipedia's MainPage doesn't look like free 'front-page' advertising space tomorrow. --PFHLai (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. This is blatant advertising. Parthian Scribe 23:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not saying "go watch this show, it's awesome", it's simply saying that there is such a show (and the hook is pretty interesting too). Keep it in. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My problem is the timing. --PFHLai (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first twenty days of 2016. As of the most recent update, 88 nominations have been approved, leaving 221 of 309 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the first six from January that are left over from last week's list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

I have changed the approved and promoted hook for Amritabindu Upanishad in Prep 3 by substituting "six-limbed" in the hook on the place of "five-limbed". Please could somebody else check that this is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The source says "Of the eight members of the Yoga system our Upanisad, like Maitr. 6,18, mentions only five to which, as there, tarka, is added as the sixth." This seems like it has six parts, it's just emphasizing that the sixth one is unique. The hook is fine as-is. Jolly Ω Janner 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS pending an image dealbreaker?

@Jolly Janner: Hi. I noticed you removed the image for the Pocket FM hook because "in its current state, this picture is completely unsuitable for use on Main Page". I presume that's because it's currently tagged as OTRS pending? Is that an automatic deal-breaker for DYK (and, I presume, other areas of the main page)? The permission was sent in two weeks ago, in advance of the nomination. The time it takes varies, of course, but it's not the case that it's simply uploaded with no context. In fact I could forward the permission email to you, if necessary. I guess it's not a huge deal -- I just think that image is better suited for DYK than the replacement image (and, selfishly, it's just the first time I've had a nom with an image that was suited for DYK :) ). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Images need to have the sourcing clearly identified. This image doesn't as of yet and also has no file description. It gave me the overall feeling that it was incomplete. I'm not sure if there is a way to fast-track images needing OTRS approval, because they are candidates for the Main Page. Other than that, it would be a suitable image. Jolly Ω Janner 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The OTRS approval is indeed required. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, bummer. Ok, thanks for clarifying. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Can the DYK hook wait? I see no reason to rush it onto MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I've no problem waiting if you think there's a chance of the OTRS being filled out over the next few days. This article was created on 20 January and I'm currently promoting hooks from 16 January, so it could wait a few days (maybe a week at most) before it enters the backlog. In general nominations should be ready at their time of nomination. Jolly Ω Janner 03:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jolly Janner and PFHLai: Waiting is fine with me, though it's now been moved from prep to a queue -- I don't know if that matters. I sent a follow-up email to OTRS for good measure. Thanks — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jolly Janner: The permission just went through. I'll add a better description to the file later (I'm on my phone right now). Can we reinstate the picture? Delaying it to do so would be fine with me. Sorry if this is a pain, and thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The hook is presently in Queue 1 and can only be removed by an administrator. I personally think the hook and image are a great combination, which is why I originally promoted it to the image slot. Calling on an administrator to move this back to Prep 6 or Prep 1, and I'll take it from there. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Both Preps 6 & 1 are occupied. I've moved the Pocket FM hook & pic to Prep 3 for now. --PFHLai (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/2

An admin is needed to fix the Credits section of the current Queue 2. One of the DYK articles has its title moved during the nomination, and the credits have not been updated. Please change: * {{DYKmake|First first-class cricket match in Australia|Xender Lourdes|subpage=First first-class cricket match in Australia}} to * {{DYKmake|Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851|Xender Lourdes|subpage=First first-class cricket match in Australia}} Thanks, sst✈(conjugate) 16:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4

that the British plant pathologist Mary Glynne was the first woman to climb Mount Spencer in New Zealand?

If "Mount Spencer" in New Zealand is so un-notable that we don't even have an article about it, why is the fact that a female plant pathologist climbing it first is considered of interest to anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because wiki has articles on every notable land from on the planet already, and thus her accomplishment is not notable.</sarcasm> You are in a seriously bitch/whiny mood today. Please get off your horse. --Kevmin § 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Rather than focus on your hate for me, can you answer the original question please. What makes climbing a non-notable mountain notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, Mary Dilys Glynne had two suggested hooks. Rosiestep recommended the nomination be set aside for March Women's History Month. We could always pull the hook and put it in a special holding area for March, but both Roseistep and the nominator Worm That Turned like the original hook. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone answer the question please? What is notable about climbing a mountain that is considered non-notable such that we don't even have an article about it on Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
And that is why I pinged both Rosiestep and Worm That Turned. Over at WP Women, the first woman to do anything is considered significant enough for a hook. But the nominator and reviewer are the only two who can really answer your question. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well perhaps that's where WP Women need to broaden their horizons. If Mount Spencer is a mere hillock and Ms Glynne hopped upon it by chance, this isn't a hook worth anything. It should be pulled until we see the actual significance of the article-less Mount Spencer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Pulling it from Prep 4 may not be a bad idea. This will give people time to come up with a better hook. --PFHLai (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Pull it if you wish. But WP Women needs to "broaden their horizons"? What? This isn't just about WP Women; let's add WP Geography into the convo. Is there a rule that landforms must have their own article or not be mentioned in a hook? It appears that Mount Spencer exists.[5][6][7][8][9] I had considered writing the article about it at the time I reviewed the nom, but then I figured, meh, someone else will probably come along and do so, someone who has access to sources which I can't access. As for whether the hook appears in February or March, either is fine; but I recommended March because of WHM. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I just pulled it and put it in special holding for Women's History Month where both you and Worm That Turned wanted it in the first place. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Maile66, thank you! I liked ALT1, too, except that the source said she was in her 60s (not specifically that she 68). --Rosiestep (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I was answering Maile66's point, only WP Women was mentioned as being part of the DYK nomination process, there was no mention of WP Geography looking to see this at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Looking forward to reading about Mount Spencer soon. Viva la DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to create Mount Spencer (New Zealand) whenever convenient. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, I'm not really around at the minute, so can't help much. I believe Mount Spencer is notable - but hasn't had an article yet - much of the New Zealand mountain range doesn't, possibly because Wikipedia is populated by the geographic North. Not that that's the point. Happy that the article is held until Women's History Month, I don't really mind either way. WormTT(talk) 13:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I read this yesterday and composed multiple answers, none of which could be posted. The very fact that less that 16% of the biographies on WP are about women belies the accuracy of the statement "so un-notable that we don't even have an article about it". Perhaps the facts that editathons have been held since last June on leadership, architecture, science, religion, music and black women's history shows a concerted effort by WP Women to broaden the scope of WP in general? Perhaps the first PERSON to do anything is significant enough for a hook, but that doesn't change the fact that there must be sufficient RS to create an article for WP. The biases shown in this conversation alone show how very far WP has to go to be an inclusive environment. DYK periodically becomes an extremely hostile environment and that really needs to stop. Maybe just maybe, instead of insulting each other, in phrases such as "this isn't a hook worth anything" or the assumption that all people have a singular mind, proposing alternatives would be more in the spirit of what the encyclopedia intends? SusunW (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
From my perspective, it was obvious that to benefit our readers we create an article about Mount Spencer so that claiming someone to be the first to climb it has some context, that it was, in fact, a notable achievement. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Or we can go by reliable sources, which in this case seem to have found the event notable, whether or not the article for the mountain has been created or not. sarcasm alert I guess that editors must be burdened to create an article about both the woman and the mountain in order for it to run on DYK. end alert. I also didn't know that the hook had to involve something that required a wikilink, but merely be something interesting that was mentioned in reliable sources. When there have been problems of actually serious issues with DYK noms that have been spotted, this is getting into the inane.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the Rambling Man that readers encountering a blurb about someone climbing a particular hill or mountain are likely to be perplexed by our lack of an article about it. And now that Mount Spencer (New Zealand) redirects to Southern Alps, they stand to be even more confused by the absence of a single "Mount Spencer" mention contained therein.
Irrespective of whether pulling the hook was necessary, wouldn't running it after an actual Mount Spencer (New Zealand) article has been written (assuming that it's sufficiently notable) be preferable? —David Levy 00:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Preferable? Yes. Required? No. Pulling the hook because the mountain has no article was overreaction. People who write biographies are not usually experts on geography, and requiring them to write about something they're unfamiliar with is counterproductive. -Zanhe (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It was neither inane nor counterproductive. I read the hook and thought "so what?" I don't know anything about Mount Spencer, nor whether climbing it is difficult or easy or anything. Moreover, running the hook with a redirect to the Southern Alps (where Spencer is not even mentioned) would be counterproductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree about the redirect. I don't know anything about Mount Spencer, but that doesn't mean that the hook is therefore uninteresting for all readers. If the article went through the review process correctly, then it means that the hook is cited, which means that at least one reliable source found the event notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Re. Queue 3, "that when the No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF opened in 1940..." -- per the convention for describing Royal Australian Air Force units, there is no need for "the" in front of the training school's name. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2 Hindustani music overload

" that Kaushiki Chakraborty (pictured) sings khayals and thumris, which in Hindustani music are considered semi-classical or light classical?"
" that Subhra Guha, a vocal musician in the Indian Hindustani classical music trained under the Agra gharana, has a singing repertoire in khayals, thumri and dadra?"

In the same set? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fix it then? Jolly Ω Janner 20:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not involved other than to check the quality of the articles going to the main page. If some admin decided we needed two Hindustani music items in one single set, perhaps there's a reason for it that I'm not aware of, like it may be Hindustani Music Week. Please try to be productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
And seriously, queue 4 has an article which claims ".... to learn flute. They learned to play flute when their father who was working in Afghanistan suggested to them to learn to play the flute." Do we really need this sub-basic level of English prose on the main page of Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk)
(e/c) Queue 2 is protected, so I cannot edit it. I can only go as far as requesting sysops to edit it on my behalf, hence why I asked you to fix it. How about swapping it with George Alexander Gibson from queue 3 (don't forget to swap the credits too). Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 20:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I removed the crap from Queue 4, that needs replacing by something. Queue 2 still has the Hindustani music overdose. It would be better for the posting admin to see this and fix it him/herself and to think harder in future about avoiding doing this again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement in DYK guidelines for articles to have well-written English. If you want to improve the level of English then please go ahead, as that is normally how matters of poor English are resolved. As you have not stated any other reasons for its removal, I would advise a sysop to revert your edits. Jolly Ω Janner 20:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
That it is not written in English should be a good starting point. Honestly, people like you are the reason that DYK is heading south and in the mire that it's in. There's no "requirement" for an article to be written in grammatically correct English? Do me a favour. Please go ahead an advise an admin to revert my edits, that would be just fine. Promote a bunch of crap to the main page, one whose title was even incorrect (despite being "reviewed" and "promoted"). Hopeless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay - have swapped a hook each way between Q2 and Q4, to give us more time to slot one into Q4. Will look for one for Q4 nowdone Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Grammy Awards night)

After promoting a few Grammy-related hooks, I was wondering if we should populate this set with other music-oriented hooks? We have quite a few from the Women in Music editathon which WP:Women in Red ran recently. Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jolly Ω Janner 19:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jolly Janner:. There's an album-oriented hook on the nomination page that I also think would go well here, Template:Did you know nominations/Laid Back (album) but I'm waiting for the reviewer to answer my question on it. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I could promote this nomination, but thought I'd have a stab at rewording the original blurb first. If nothing good comes out of it over the next 24 hours, I'll probably go with one of the alternative blurbs. Jolly Ω Janner 06:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS fix in Queue 4

In the second hook of Queue 4, the quotation marks around "Sometime" should not be bold, per WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Additional markup. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

D. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is down to six unreviewed entries, so I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 111 nominations have been approved, leaving 189 of 300 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the first six from January 19 and 20 that are left over from said previous list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Electioneering question

With regards to Template:Did you know nominations/Korbin Forrister, nominated by ZappaOMati who has requested the associated hook be run on either February 19 or 21. Wikipedia:Did you know#Content states that "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." The U.S. primary season is underway with Super Tuesday two weeks from today. The proposed hook prominently mentions one current U.S. presidential candidate but the bolded link is to a non-candidate. Does the prominent mention violate DYK's existing electioneering rule or does the rule only apply to hooks where the bolded link is to a candidate? --Allen3 talk 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would normally say it's okay, but this hook almost sounds like an endorsement (I'm sure this wasn't its intention). The timing is unfortunate, since the US elections will go on for months. I can't decide what to do. If there are any other better hooks, that would be a fantastic solution. Jolly Ω Janner 19:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Allen3 There is a link in the hook directly to the Wikipedia article on Donald Trump's presidential campaign. The Republican primary in South Carolina is February 20. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Maile66, the existence of the link is why I was using the term "prominent mention". DYK has traditionally used the existence of a bolded link to determine whether an article has been "featured" for purposes of eligibility for future nominations. Applying the same standard in interpreting the electioneering rule would suggest the nominated hook is acceptable under the letter of the law while violating the spirit of the same rule. --Allen3 talk 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think running that hook on February 20 is appropriate. I do think there are other facts in the article that would make good alternate hooks and avoid the situation. That said, I also think that particular fact is particularly interesting and "hooky", although I was disappointed that the article provided no further detail in elaboration of that fact than the hook did. I notice that no one has pinged ZappaOMati, who might want to weigh in on this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The suggested days are the day before and day after the South Carolina primary. However, I wonder if it's possible to have a hook that doesn't link to a Wikipedia article on a candidate's campaign, the weekend of one of the primaries the candidate is competing in. — Maile (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 Allen3 Hmmmm, I wasn't expecting this to happen; guess it was just poor timing on my part since the NextEra Energy Resources 250 and the Daytona 500 just happened to sandwich the SC primary.. Reading through the article, I can't really think of any other hooks outside of the Trump truck that'd be interesting, though. Zappa24Mati 20:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The rules seem to me to prohibit running the hook at the present time, and indeed until primary season is over (or Trump is out of the race, should that happen before the primaries conclude): Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided means that including Trump's presidential campaign, much less linking to it, is clearly to be avoided. "Feature" does not only mean bold link; Trump is the pivotal point in the hook. This means, unfortunately, that the hook could not run until June 8, the day after the final set of Republican primaries. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I could wait until then (in fact, the 2016 edition of Eldora race that he ran the truck in is on July 20), but I was really banking on using this for the WikiCup. I guess some alternative hooks could be:
"... that NASCAR driver Korbin Forrister spun out three times in the 2014 Mudsummer Classic?" The only problem with this is that getting oneself involved in a lot of incidents isn't that uncommon.
"... that in 2012, Korbin Forrister finished only one of nine ARCA Racing Series events?" The problem with this is that his team was considered a start and park, so race retirements are the norm for them. Zappa24Mati 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@ZappaOMati: How about something like:

Those stuck out to me when I was reading it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Racing stock cars as a kid is actually pretty common like Joey Logano and Todd Gilliland. For the baseball one, there are some drivers that did both like Austin Dillon. Though if I had to choose between the two, I'd personally go for the baseball one. Zappa24Mati 21:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have just struck the Trump-related hook on the nomination template; once we have new non-Trump ALT hooks that seem feasible, they should be added to that template so they can be reviewed there. February 19 and 21 are not that far away... BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Test page

If I create a new nom and then immediately delete that page, any damage done? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

edit request: "has been"

in Queue 3, I'm pretty sure ...that for over 40 years, the one constant at the Maine Children's Home for Little Wanderers is Sharon H. Abrams? would be better as ...has been Sharon Abrams. Could some attentive admin please fix this before it goes out? FourViolas (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Earwig's copyvio detector is down

Been trying to use this and keep getting error messages. Anybody have a clue as to when it will be back? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. It's back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

T:DYK not updated

The bot hasn't updated Template:Did you know. It's ten minutes overdue, which is very unusual. I'd suggest manually updating with Template:Did you know/Queue/6. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 00:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I will start a manual update. --Allen3 talk 00:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Manual update completed. Outage appears to be related to some maintenance on the servers. A message has been sent to the bot operator asking him to check on the bot's status. --Allen3 talk 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Very swift response. Jolly Ω Janner 01:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming anniversary review request

Since no one has attended to it, I would like to see if we can get my nomination for Murder of Robert Wykel reviewed in time for my requested run date of Feb. 23 (next Thursday, in North America), the 20th anniversary of the last day Wykel was seen. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I am in the process of reviewing this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This is now ready to go. I reckon adding it to Prep 1 would put it on the main page for February 23. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

Honestly, this is one of the most unhooky hooks I've ever seen. I would never click on it:

It would be better to replace the second "Mes Aynak" with "the 5,000-year-old archeological site", but that would need to be sourced in the article. I recommend sending this one back to the nominations area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been pulled. Ready for comments at the nomination page. Jolly Ω Janner 18:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Jolly Janner: I have responded at Template:Did you know nominations/Saving Mes Aynak. North America1000 06:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture for deletion

What's the protocol for lead hook images that are nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons? Should we look for alternatives right now or wait to see if it's deleted. This is in regards to File:Liang Siyong.jpg. Jolly Ω Janner 02:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how likely the file is going to be deleted. The image in question is public domain in China and almost certainly public domain in the US (taken in the 1920s, not restored by URAA). Besides, WMF no longer deletes files simply because of URAA. See Commons:Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. -Zanhe (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Should we wait for the file description page to be updated? It doesn't mention its licensure in the US, let alone the rationale for such. Jolly Ω Janner 04:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It's public domain in the US per PD-1996. I've added the copyright tag to the image. In any case, the Commons now accepts works whose copyright has expired in their home countries, regardless of their US status. -Zanhe (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the file description page. Jolly Ω Janner 05:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jolly Janner: It would be helpful if you could withdraw the nomination for deletion, otherwise it may be still open when the image hits the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I still have reservations about the file. I do not know how to withdraw nominations on Commons. Input from other users would be appreciated as this is scheduled to appear in a few days. Jolly Ω Janner 19:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jolly Janner: I find no specific instructions on Commons to withdraw a nomination. Perhaps you can post a statement on the nomination template that you wish to have it withdrawn, and state why. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Fossil eggs

A series of repetitive hooks naming "a kind of fossil egg" is appearing quite frequently in the queue. If they are appearing in such rapid succession, I think this wording needs to be changed. Also, while I fixed the link (it's egg fossil, not fossil egg) in Prep 5, the link is incorrect in Queue 1 and Prep 1. Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited the Prep 1 hook. The link in Queue 1 needs to be fixed by an administrator, please. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I've piped it in Queue 1. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Chestnut cake in Queue 2

The lead article in Queue 2 is chestnut cake, but the hook and image are about water chestnut cake. Despite the similar names, they are different things, and water chestnut cake has its own article. I believe the hook should be pulled. See also discussion on Talk:Chestnut cake. -Zanhe (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Its character count would be about 1,400 if the water chestnut cake is split. I'd also advise pulling it and waiting to see if it can be expanded. If it's expanded between now and being pulled then may be a simple case of selecting a different image. Jolly Ω Janner 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree it should be pulled. The two things are not in the least the same and the cuisines are disjoint. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Help in slightly modifying the hook of an article promoted to the prep area

Hi all. I needed help with the Template:Did you know nominations/Rahul Thakkar which has been promoted to the Prep area. The current hook reads:

I wanted to slightly modify it as per the article to:

I don't know where to post requests for Hook updations after the DYK nomination has been promoted. Please help. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This is indeed the right place to post for help. Do you have a source the shows he is Indian-American? The inline citations are a bit jumbled in the article for me to easily access this fact. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 05:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh thank you Jolly for the reply. There are quite a few sources available for Indian American, one being this source that was listed in the article (currently at #1). The headline of the article says, "Indian American Technologist Rahul Thakkar Wins Oscar for Technical Achievement". Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have changed his nationality. I wasn't sure about the term "software inventor", as the source didn't use that term. It went with "technologist", but I found this too ambiguous, so I've gone with "software developer", as it talks about him developing software several times. I hope this is okay. Jolly Ω Janner 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, including hooks through the end of January. As of the most recent update, 85 nominations have been approved, leaving 179 of 264 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the first seven from that are left over from the previous list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/State road D915 (Turkey)

Can someone please check the status of my nomination Template:Did you know nominations/State road D915 (Turkey), which disappeared from Template talk:Did you know without any notice. It is not listed even in the Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. Thanks. CeeGee 06:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@CeeGee: It has been restored. Never properly reviewed, it should not have been closed out as it was. It now has the turn-around tick asking for a review. — Maile (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed hook from mainpage: Worsley hook had dubious claim

  • ... that Henry Worsley attempted to complete the first solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic, but died with only 30 miles to go?

Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Worsley (explorer) @Edwardx, Maury Markowitz, and Jolly Janner:

The hook was adequately sourced, but probably wrong. Børge Ousland made the first solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic already in 1996-1997, as reported in our article and in books like this and this and as reported in e.g. this BBC source about the death of Worsley. According to this news article, there has been at least one other person (also a Norwegian) to achieve the same feat. It is also recognised as such bu Guinness World Records[10]. Fram (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim that he was 30 miles from his goal was reported in reliable sources such as the BBC. The claim that his "ultimate goal" was further away does not appear to be based on reliable sources - it may be correct, but seems to be synthesis based on a blog. The wording of the hook was misleading in using the words "solo and unaided" - in particular, the word "and". It was intended as the first "solo unaided" attempt - as I understand it, the successful Ousland crossing was the first solo crossing, but was not unaided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article does include a (sourced) explanation as to the difference between Worsley's crossing and Ousland's—Ousland used a kite to haul supplies, which Worsley did not, hence unaided. GRAPPLE X 10:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the sources I provided call Ouslands attempts "unaided" as well, so the difference made in the article is contradicted by at least some reliable sources. Guinness 2004 states "The fastest and first ever unaided solo crossing of the Antarctic continent was achieved by Borge Ousland (Norway), who completed the 1,671-mile (2,690-km) trek on January 18, 1997"[11] This source also gives it as "unaided" and adds a second person to do the same, Rune Gjeldnes[12]. BBC in 1999: "Another Norwegian, Boerge Ousland, completed a 64-day trek across Antarctica on 18 January 1997, becoming the first person to cross the continent alone and unaided. "[13] Associated Press still makes the same claim[14]. I understand the difference between the Worsley crossing and the Ousland (and later others) crossing, but the hook claim is at least clearly debatable. Fram (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
So we have a statement which is reliably sourced, but refuted by other reliable sources not present, so it's entirely understandable how it was passed. It seems a simple wording change would have sufficed; "... that Henry Worsley attempted to complete a solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic, but died with only 30 miles to go" would have been irrefutable with either set of sources. GRAPPLE X 10:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking daily views

The bar graph showing the daily views isn't working when checking the totals.  — Calvin999 21:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Maybe worth posting at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics? Jolly Ω Janner 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Go to Talk:List of songs recorded by Little Mix and click "check views" for the DYK, it doesn't work, or for any DYK actually. Jolly Janner  — Calvin999 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Try manually typing the name of the article in the field populated by "cat" and "dog." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
It's using stats.grok.se, which has been defunct for three weeks. Wikipedia has now switched to https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews, but the DYK talk page templates haven't been updated. I think we would need to create a new template, as the old ones go by stats.grok.se and the newer ones (since January 21) should go by wmflabs. I have pinged User:Shubinator. Jolly Ω Janner 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
My mistake; I thought you were referring to the page views counter at https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews, rather than the one on the DYK talk page templates. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: One more favor please? Template:DYK talk is a protected template, and is configured to stats.grok. Could you please fix it so it links to the Pageviews Analysis? Thanks, if you are able to do this for us. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66:, I'm pretty sure Pageviews Analysis doesn't go all that far back in time, so all our older DYKs will have a link on their talk page which doesn't show their views at the time they were on the Main Page. I don't think it's quite as simple as switching the link. Although I think somewhere before 2009, the page view numbers were stated in the template itself. Pageviews Analysis isn't working for me right now, so I can't determine how far they go back. Jolly Ω Janner 23:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, this previous discussion here on the talk page, might offer a little insight, but I'm not sure. Maybe stats.grok has been disabled, but I really don't know that for sure. When I try to use stats.grok I get "internal server error" . — Maile (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI Pageview Analysis isn't working for anybody right now, I think. It was fine a few minutes ago. Now it just has that little spinning thing in the middle of the page, and nothing happens. Maybe this is what happens when it's loading the stats for the previous 24 hours. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. Two things (1) the WMF-provided pageviews API indeed does not go back further than October 2015. There is talk that they will backfill historical data. Until then, you're unfortunately on your own I guess we need to make a new {{DYK talk}} to use on new DYKs until WMF backfills this data. stats.grok.se still works sometimes, I think. (2) I f-ed up royally earlier. I deployed a major reworking of the tool in an effort to make it more maintainable. I think it was simple careless error that caused it to fail in Firefox, but it should have still worked in Chrome. Anyway all should be well now, and moving forward I'm going to have better automated testing — MusikAnimal talk 03:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued work on the pageviews API. I have fairly limited experience with templates, but there may be a possibility to use an if function to set anything post-21 January to use WMFlabs without the need for a completely new template. If, not having two different templates isn't a big deal, since a bot is responsible for adding it to talk pages. Jolly Ω Janner 03:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, that makes incredibly more sense :) I'm certain we could use either some parser functions or Lua magic to show which tool has data for the given range. Note they use different URL parameters, see toollabs:pageviews/url_structure for the new tool. You could provide the exact day the article was a DYK, but you'll probably want to go with say, 15 days prior to 15 days after, for better historical comparison. I'm only but so good at templating, so going to defer that bit of work to a template editor who is more qualified — MusikAnimal talk 04:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Thank you for your response, and for your continued efforts on this issue. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Either we will have to keep the old DYKstats list over most viewed articles, and then start a new one for the new stats tool. As it obviously doesnt go back far enough it is easier to start a completely new one in my opinion. Also, the issue of the DYK template that is put at the talk pages of the DYK articles, and the stats tool that is linked to it needs to be discussed. I think the new stats tool need to be linked instead of the old one, from now on atleast.BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's just a matter of using some parser functions to make the template produce the right link – based on the date that was passed in. I lied and said I'm unqualified to do this... it's just not particularly fun =P I can take a stab at it in the template sandbox — MusikAnimal talk 21:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather wait til the end of February to do an evaluation of discrepancy between the new tool and stats.grok. As of now, I haven't noticed too much difference in February's list of hooks over 5,000 views. I'm leaning towards favouring a mixture of stats.grok and pageviews API for the all-time leaderboard. If there's any hint of Wikipedia using DYK on its mobile version in the future then I'd definitely support a completely new one. Jolly Ω Janner 21:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue is stats.grok.se doesn't work at all anymore, and the new pageviews API doesn't have data older than October 2015. There's talk WMF will backfill the data, but until then we have to rely on both tools. Even if stats.grok.se is revived, you'll most certainly want to use the new API moving forward as I'm told it's very close to 100% accurate. For DYKs it's true that there's a marginal difference, since as you know these are not featured on the mobile version of the site — MusikAnimal talk 21:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I've got it all coded up at {{DYK talk/sandbox}}. For the new tool it will show the target day plus and minus 10 days – as a ~20-day window gives the optimal appearance, and still gives you plenty of comparison. That being said, 11 October is the threshold day where DYKs will use the new tool, as it does not have data older than 1 October. See the test cases for examples, comparing the links at the top of the Sandbox section and the bottom of the section. Barring objections I'll merge this into the core template — MusikAnimal talk 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! While I'm at it, I also noticed we don't use commas to separate thousand intervals. Would be nice to see this used, but it looks ready to go, as this was already a problem. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done Also added the numerical localization [15]. People might complain about that, we'll see. It goes by the wiki's default locale, which for enwiki means commas, but some people might get confused if they're used to periods. Best — MusikAnimal talk 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: would it be possible for you to also update Template:UpdatedDYK and Template:UpdatedDYKNom? These templates are subst-ed onto user talk pages (usually by DYKUpdateBot), so the old tool can be removed entirely. sst✈(conjugate) 13:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The stats tool is still down. BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@SSTflyer: Updated those two templates. I think I did it right... let me know if you have any issues. Best — MusikAnimal talk 17:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Tweak needed for current Queue

In queue 4 (the next to hit the main page), we have

  • ... that Liang Siyong (pictured) was one of the first archaeologists in China?

Template:Did you know nominations/Liang Siyong @Kingoflettuce, Yoninah, and Allen3:

Liang Siyong was one of the first generation of Chinese archaeologists, but the first archaeologists in China were actually foreigners (Europeans) working in the decades preceding Liang. Wouldn't it be less ambiguous and more correct to state

  • ... that Liang Siyong (pictured) was one of the first Chinese archaeologists?

this (used as source for the hook in the article) explains what I mean in more detail. Fram (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The original hook is specific to China. Your suggestion is specific to ethnicity, which changes the meaning. Chinese were not limited to China. How about:

  • ... that Liang Siyong (pictured) is thought to to have conducted "one of China's first scientific excavations" at Qiqihar?

— Maile (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed per initial suggestion. If a more radical overhaul is needed, suggest the hook is pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Maile66, of course my suggestion changed the meaning, otherwise (if it was purely cosmetic) I would just have done it, or not bothered to raise it here. The original had an ambiguous meaning (first archaeologists working in China, or first ones born in China?), my change removed that ambiguity and was closer to what the source said. Fram (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Black History Mth

Hi. Perhaps you are planning a date for related articles and I should have mentioned it in the nom, but FYI Template:Did you know nominations/Black Metropolis is approved. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know. Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to prep builders

Black History Month will be ending on February 29, corresponding to Preps 6 and 1. There are still a few approved nominations waiting in the Special Occasion area. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Yoninah. I had originally anticipated a last minute rush of black history articles at the end of the month, so aimed to clear the ones in holding at least several days before the end of the month. Jolly Ω Janner 04:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Electioneering question 2

Are these hooks okay for use on MainPage?

There is no such thing as bad publicity, eh? --PFHLai (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the 30-day rule, neither can safely be run until after the primaries are over at the beginning of June. Should we start a special occasion section for embargoed hooks that involve presidential candidates? Of course, if a candidate either drops out or all the others running against them in their respective party primaries drop out, the embargo against running could be lifted at that point. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Completely agree with BlueMoonset, so I have created a special holding area for 8 June; I believe this is the day after voting finishes. I have commented on the nomination subpages and moved Hookers for Hillary to the appropriate holding. Jolly Ω Janner 22:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, Hookers for Hillary won't be so hooky if she loses in the primary... Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
We could always make an article of a similar type for Bernie Sanders. Don't know if such a thing exists. Jolly Ω Janner 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Bookies for Bernie?? Anyway, thank you, Blue and Jolly. --PFHLai (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Article that was at DYK under a different title has been renominated for DYK

See here, there is a "double application" pending. I was thinking that on the basis of WP:DYK a given article can only run once for DYK.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And to summarise: it was rejected because of the prior listing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio article removed from Queue 2

I have removed a hook from Queue 2 as the bolded article contained a serious copyright violation.

Template:Did you know nominations/Kashmir Walnut Wood Carving. @Nvvchar, Cwmhiraeth, and Allen3:

I wa squite shocked to note that the copyvio was introduced (in an even worse form, minimal tweaks afterwards minimally reduced the problem) by Nvvchar, one of the most prolific DYK contributors. The copyvio was there from the very first version of the page, so I have simply speedy deleted it. The copyvio was sourced to the original version of the text, so hopefully this was not a malicious copyvio but just an extremely careless one.

Article (first version) (copyvio in bold):

"Kashmir Walnut Wood Carving, the traditional craft of Persia (Iran), was introduced in Kashmir by Persian (Iran) craftsmen who had practiced this art since the days of Armanian kings, as mentioned in the book Development, Technology and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilizations. Those craftsmen, it is said, had to leave immigrate from Persia (Iran) because of the shortage of wood of shishu tree (Dalbergia sissoo) in the forest of that country and Baluchistan. The reason for the shortage shishu trees was due to extensive use during that period for manufacture of charcoal. In Kashmir those immigrant craftsmen perfected the craft of wood carving in wood of walnut as a substitute for shishu wood. In 1817, after the collapse of Mughal rule, some families of wood carvers moved out of the valley to settle elsewhere, where they could earn a livelihood and pursue their family craft peacefully."

Article (version nominated by Nvvchar, copyvio not indicated but nearly identical to above)): "Kashmir Walnut Wood Carving, the traditional craft of Persia (Iran), was introduced in Kashmir by Persian (Iran) craftsmen who had practiced this art since the days of Armenian kings, as mentioned in the book Development, Technology and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilizations. These craftsmen, it is said, had to immigrate from Persia (Iran) because of the shortage of wood of shishu tree (Dalbergia sissoo) in the forest of that country and Baluchistan. The reason for this shortage of shishu trees was due to its extensive use, during that period, for manufacture of charcoal. In Kashmir these immigrant craftsmen perfected the craft of wood carving in wood of walnut tree as a substitute for shishu wood. In 1817, after the collapse of Mughal rule, some families of wood carvers moved out of the valley to settle elsewhere, where they could earn a livelihood and pursue their family craft peacefully."

Source[16](copied parts in bold):

"It is said that the art of wood-carving was introduced in Kashmir by the Persian craftsmen, who had been in this art since the days of the Armanian kings according to The Traditional Crafts of Persians - Their Development, Technology and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilisations. Those craftsmen, it is said, had to leave their homes in Persia (Iran) for Kashmir because of the shortage of shisham wood in the forests of that country and Baluchistan. The reason: the shisham trees were cut in those countries at that age to manufacture charcoal. In Kashmir those immigrant craftsmen perfected the craft of wood-carving in walnut wood as a substitute for' shisham wood. In 1817, after the collapse of Mughal rule in Kashmir, some families of wood-carvers moved out of the valley to settle elsewhere, where they could earn livelihood and pursue their family-craft peacefully.

I hope that this is a one-off, I'll check some other Nvvchar articles to get an idea if this is common or not. Fram (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Did the Earwig tool catch it or not?? Montanabw(talk) 01:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how it could, Montanabw; so far as I know, Earwig is not capable of looking inside books available from Google books. However, since this is the paragraph that contains the hook facts, it would have been checked directly since this was not an AGF approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I must admit to being at some fault here. When I first reviewed the article I found no copyvios in the checks I made. I did not skimp this stage, if you look at my contributions for 22 February you will see that there was a 40 minute gap preceding my completion of the DYK template. When Nvvchar proposed another hook I looked at the source for the new hook and saw that there were some similarities between the text and the article. This put me in a dilemma, and I should have revisited the copyvio question. But Nvvchar is a respected editor who I have interacted with in the past and I took the decision to approve the new hook, but not without some misgivings. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
rolleyes:

This is what you call "serious copyright violation"? Much of the bolded text is not duplicated at all. Much of the rest simply refer to the same things - locations, various proper names, and a book. There's a single statement, the last, that is the same, and that does not meet the definition of "serious" in my books. And then it's finished off with the flourish of casting aspersions on the editor. Nice. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Much of the bolded text is not duplicated at all"? Examples? I can see, in the bolded parts a "forest" vs. "forests", "Armanian kings" vs. "the Armanian kings", two times a bolded "wood" vs a "wood" I forgot to bold, "wood-carving" vs. "wood carving", "wood-carvers" vs. "wood carvers", "livelihood" vs. "a livelihood" and "family-craft" vs. "family craft". Please correct me if I miss something, and please retract your statement if you were wrong here. Fram (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If that is all there was to the copying, one sentence and a clause, then this is easily fixed by editing rather than removing the whole article. If any one wants this back, I am willing to perform this fix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
"One sentence and a clause"? 90% of a paragraph was directly copied, with the remainder only minimally changed (only the "charcoal" sentence was actually rewritten). The next few sentences contain some further too close paraphrasing and copying (I stopped after the above analysis as that seemed to be sufficient, but apparently not for everyone). Please don't undelete copyright violations. Fram (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
My concern here is neither a problem with the article itself, nor our clearly different definitions of "serious copyvio". My concern is that your post above impugns the name of a fellow editor, in a very public space. And it does so in spite of that very post clearly stating that you have no actual evidence a problem exists. And if that were not enough, it's on the DYK page, which hardly seems like the right place for it! Let's keep the discussion on the articles and edits, shall we, and leave the speculation about editor's motives to our inner voices? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
So you come here claiming "much of the bolded text is not duplicated at all", and when it has been pointed out that that is not true (as was rather obvious if you had really checked), you ignore this: you now claim that I have "no actual evidence a problem exists", even though I provided said evidence in the very same post. I find a copyvio in a DYK that was set to hit the main page, where was I supposed to discuss it? With "my inner voice"? No, thank you. I have seen enough prolific respected editors who turn out to have many copyvio's when one is finally found; here we have an editor with many DYKs, so checking if the problem existed elsewhere is what should be done by diligent admins, not falsely attacking (twice now) the one that found the problem. My checks have not revealed further copyvio's, but extremely sloppy editing leading to DYKs with many serious factual errors (see his talk page for examples if you want). So sloppy editing, which I said in my first post was what I hoped was the cause of this copyvio, seems indeed to be the reason. But your preference to keep quiet about problematic editing when it is done by a long-time editor is noted, just like your apparent lack of care about copyright violations or what is and isn't duplication. It seems to be less of a problem to falsely accuse someone (a "fellow editor") twice here, on this "very public space" (really? WT:DYK is a "very public space"?), than to deal with the actual problems in articles that hit the mainspace (now that is a very public space). It's nice to know your priorities. Fram (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Stats working now?

My latest DYKs still link to the old stats page, I assume this would only be updated for newer articles?

If so, is there any reason we can't backfix old links? I still click on the link on older articles periodically, a redirect would make like much easier.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:, would you be able to provide example articles? Jolly Ω Janner 05:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jolly Janner:: Sure, go to my talk page, scroll to the bottom, and click on the "check views" button for either of the last two DYK's that have gone up. As you can see, those links still point to the old page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz:, it was changed on 22 February, so looks like you missed out by just a few hours. Should work for future ones. Alternatively, you could probably re substitute the template if you know what the parameters would have been. Jolly Ω Janner 19:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot malfunction?

@Shubinator: DYKUpdateBot has moved the hooks from Queue1 to the main page at 12:00[17], but hasn't emptied Queue1 which it normally then does. Fram (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Can an administrator please manually remove the hooks from Queue 1 and reset the next queue to 2? Otherwise the bot will process Queue 1 again in a few hours. -Zanhe (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that the next-queue reset involves incrementing Template:Did you know/Queue/Next from 1 to 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I've blanked Queue 1 & incremented Next to 2. I've not had to do this manually since the bot was introduced, so forgive me if I've screwed something up. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks good. Thanks, Espresso Addict. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nominated article has been moved

I'm sure this must have happened before but I can't find any guideline so I'm posting the question here. An article I created and nominated, List of German Jewish military personnel of World War I, has now been moved by another user (with my support) to German Jewish military personnel of World War I. What do I do with the nomination? Leave it at Template:Did you know nominations/List of German Jewish military personnel of World War I or move it to Template:Did you know nominations/German Jewish military personnel of World War I. Calistemon (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Calistemon Don't move the nomination template. It's fine as is. It connects to the correct article, so everything works as it should. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, will do. Calistemon (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Counting number of DYK nominations

Can someone point me to the tool for checking how many QPQ nominstions a user has done? I need to check if a user is exempt from doing a QPQ or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Another way is to look at the contributions, select template space, and new page creations. This has a high concentration of DYK pages for me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment about hook in prep3

I left this comment on the prep3 talk page. I don't really want to belabor the issue but it was recommended I bring it up here instead, so copy/pasting.

Not sure what protocol is for this, but I'd just like to register a weak objection to the Syrnet hook, which, to me, seems a bit off (and perhaps a little grammatically awkward). It's possible that my initial response to Amberrock's first comments at the nomination was unclear. "Moderate" opposition is sourced, but largely to primary sources so I get the objection and have no problem leaving that out. I just don't think "committed to oppose" is the most accurate frame. I'll leave it at that. Certainly not egregious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

April Fools Day

With the annual japery of April Fools Day almost a month away, I thought I'd ring a few alarm bells on here DYK. First of all we only have 4 in the AFD holding area at the moment when we'd need 16 to fill the hooks. I'm bringing this to attention as DYK has always been good with the AFD hooks year on year and we can't let the side down! I have one on hacking currently in the noms and have a few I can write that might fit the bill but I don't know if I can do it all alone. Just giving the project a heads up to think about it for next month. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I still have Template:Did you know nominations/Chuffer Dandridge queued up, which while not directly confirming to the usual April Fools' tomfoolery is about a very silly and made up bad joke (albeit one broadcast to about 8 million people frequently over about ten years), particularly the rant about being owed a white fiver. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
PS I added a link to Template:DYKbox in the hope it might raise awareness. Jolly Ω Janner 09:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

More on prep sets

Lately prep sets are running with a very small number of bios, sometimes as low as 2 bios to 6 non-bios. We have a large amount of hooks about women thanks to the Women in Red campaigns, and I think prep builders should be willing to run a few hooks about women in a set in order to increase the bios ratio. Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think one issue has been prioritizing the older articles over all else. Hopefully that has been addressed. Montanabw(talk) 03:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the post Yoninah. I will anticipate extra bio hooks. Looks like we have 10 for women's history month at the moment. And Montana, the prioritisation of old hooks has not been addressed; I still work chronologically. Jolly Ω Janner 05:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
In order to balance sets, some older hooks may need to wait a set or two while newer ones are incorporated as needed to get a good ratio of bios, or non-U.S. hooks, etc. It's all part of getting the right balance. The various instructions that talk about balanced sets make no mention of nomination age. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly my point! Chronological promotion is a useful thing, but not the exclusive criteria. Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI, there are often several empty prep areas, so I will try to vary the hooks as I work chronologically by placing them in one of the empty prep areas rather than the same one. I don't know if this makes sense, but thought I'd clarify. Jolly Ω Janner 03:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
When I do prep sets, I try to do several older approved hooks, but usually throw in some newer ones, particularly for the "quirky" slot (the last one, which should be funny or weird -- quirky -- when possible. The image also might not run chronologically, mix people with things, with landscapes, with paintings, etc... Montanabw(talk) 01:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jolly Janner: when you preload prep sets with one or two "old" hooks, you don't give the prep builder the option of varying and balancing his/her own prep set. I have the same gripe against editors who preload all the images for the next three or four sets. The editors who build prep sets are generally experienced and know what they're doing, and will slowly but surely use up chronologically older hooks even as they post some new ones. Building prep sets takes so much time (checking hook facts, sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc., in each article) that at least we can leave the builders some room for creativity by letting them decide what should appear. Yoninah (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
No one owns prep sets, so the preps can be edited multiple times by multiple people to improve balance. Jolly Ω Janner 19:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Khmer language hook in next Queue

"that the Khmer language, the official language of Cambodia, was the language of the Khmer Empire and has a 1400-year written history?" is cumbersome and inelegant, with "language" used three times. Why not instead, "that Khmer, the language of Cambodia and the Khmer Empire, has a 1400-year written history?" Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed "Dirigible" hook from main page

Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Myers @Doug Coldwell, DaltonCastle, and Yoninah:

This fact is sourced in the article to source 26 (which doesn't mention the "dirigible" aspect) and source 28, which also doesn't mention the dirigible aspect. Piloting a balloon doesn't mean that it is a dirigible. The first woman to pilot a dirigible was Aida de Acosta in 1903. Myers was (probably) the first American woman to pilot a balloon, and she may, later in life, have been inolved in dirigible experiments, but the two events didn't happen at the same time. Fram (talk) 08:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles like this one from the Smithsonian show her to be a ballooning pioneer, but have no indication whatsoever that she flew dirigibles at the time (which would have been very, very early for dirigibles in any case). this one also only discussed a ballon flight that day, not a dirigible. This long pdf from the Smithsonian also makes it clear that she flew a standard balloon, not a dirigible one. this work on Dirigibles claims that her husband only developed his skycycle (a pedal-powered balloon) in 1881, and has no information on Mary flying it. Fram (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics gives here as "July 4, 1880 - Mary H. Myers becomes the first American woman to pilot her own balloon."[18]. I guess they would have mentioned it if it had been a dirigible, which would have been een more remarkable, 23 years before the "official" first woman-piloted dirigible. this page reprints a newspaper report from 6 July 1880 about the very flight discussed here, and nothing indicates that this was a dirigible and not a normal balloon flight. I guess that if there are sources stating that she flew a dirigible, they have been confused by the use of "piloted" or by her husband's later experiments with dirigibles. Fram (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Reference #27 = U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Washington, D.C.). 2015. Retrieved February 14, 2014. "Mary Myers - 1880; Mary Myers was the first American woman to solo in a dirigible."--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Which wasn't used to reference the statement before, and which seems highly dubious considering that most other reliable sources don't make the claim, an eyewitness newspaper account from the time doesn't discuss a dirigible either, and another woman 23 years later is usually credited with this "first". And even as it stands now, you have created some WP:OR through WP:SYN: you have one source stating that she was the first to fly a dirigible, in 1880 (but without a date!), and you have other sources stating that she was the first to fly a balloon, on 4 July 1880: and you have combined these two to conclude that that has to have been one and the same flight (while we have evidence that she has made other flights that same year, e.g. one where she ended up in a tree). Fram (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • (oh, and how do you get a "retrieved 14 February 2014" on an article you created on 15 February 2016?). Fram (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    Typo? or I actually retrieved it in my off-line draft. One day makes a difference?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yup = typo! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
San Diego Air & Space Museum -Women of Aviation collection. -> Mary "Carlotta the Lady Aeronaut" Meyers Mary Meyers' husband, Carl Meyers, was a scientist working to develop a balloon that would carry a person, but was flexible enough to fold and store. His wife helped by stitching the balloons, but one day she decided to test the balloon herself, and to fly it. On the Fourth of July, 1880, Mary (who changed her name to Carlotta because Mary was too boring,) made her first flight. She flew over Little Falls New York where over 15,000 people were waiting to see a woman flying a balloon. This is also confirmed in The Atlanta Constitution (p. 5) October 11, 1887.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
And? Where in this quote does it say anything about a dirigible? I'm not contesting that she flew a balloon on 4 July 1880, that that was her first flight, and that that was probably the first time an American woman (or a woman in America) flew solo. But don't you just thing that the Air & Space Museum would mention it if this was also the first dirigible balloon flight by a woman? Seems like quite a significant milestone, usually only given to a flight 23 years later... Fram (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
second part of article --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Ref 27 wasn't used to source the hook, and the Louisiana Democrat can't be used for that either. First of, patents are self-published sources, not evidence that something was really achieved. It also seems to say that the system to somewhat direct the glide of the balloon by shifting the centre of gravity was used by her some 150 times, and that she also added a system to steer the balloon with a cloth-sail propellor. I can't find no evidence that this was also used (before or after), never mind that this was used on that Independence Day flight the hook was about. Basically, you are still trying to patch a single statement out of a number of disparate sources which all provide some piece of the hook, but without any evidence that these pieces really belong together. Fram (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Excuse me for butting into this, but whether she did or didn't fly a dirigible, isn't the original (and main) point that the claim was not directly supported by inline citations (until earlier on today)? That's why it was pulled, right? (Please note the instructions: 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. ) Other discussions relating to the content of the article and other claims would be better served at the article talkpage rather than here, where it'll all just get archived. The hook has been removed, it won't be replaced, so it's time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see my mistake = I will watch it closer to be sure this is done next time. Thanks for pointing out.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't sourced by anything in the article, and still isn't. The discussion we have is not about the contents of the article, but about whether the hook is true or not. That the source supposedly supporting the hook was not placed with the hook sentence was making things only worse, but that source does not support the hook either. She madea flight on 4 July 1880, and according to one source (but not the others) she flew a dirigible in 1880. That together doesn't the hook make... Fram (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, ok, fine. Please continue this discussion at the article talkpage, it no longer serves a purpose at this talkpage as the hook has been pulled and the reason for the pull has been acknowledged. Nothing more to discuss from a DYK perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

From a DYK perspective, I think this and other questionable "firsts" which User:Fram keeps pointing out are not going away, and in fact will probably increase in volume, due to the output in hooks for Women's History Month. Too many WP:Women in Red page creators are touting their women subjects as the "first" in their fields. We discussed this previously at WT:DYK, but I think hook reviewers should be extra-vigilant when they see a hook that claims that someone is the "first", and actively suggest that something else be said about the subject. Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, all hooks should be scrutinised for correct and adequate sourcing, not just the women's history ones. Everyone needs to work harder to ensure we're sticking by the rules and not promoting bad hooks or inappropriately sourced hooks to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Primus inter pares

Yes, firsts are tricky because the sources often don't get them right. And there's a new hazard when writing about women in this way. According to WP:WAW, such hooks will fail the Finkbeiner test and so we should

Avoid language that places being a woman ahead of the subject's achievements. Opening the lead with "A was the first woman to do X" or "A was the first female X" immediately defines her in terms of men who have done the same thing, and can inadvertently imply: "She may not have been a very good X, but at least she was the first woman."

That's getting quite complicated so I'm writing about goats now... :) Andrew D. (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is nearly exhausted, so I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, including hooks through the first eleven days of February. As of the most recent update, 64 nominations have been approved, leaving 172 of 236 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the first four from January that are left over from the previous list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 1 - Hetty Reckless

... that Hetty Reckless was born in 1776, escaped from Salem, and boasted of seeing George Washington?

This is the only hook ever offered for this nomination. However, reading the article, this woman was pretty incredible. Not the least of which is that she was a runaway slave who opened a women's shelter "It was the only shelter for African American women in Philadelphia. The first two years alone, they housed over 200 women for periods of up to six months, providing shelter and education. The organization served the dual purpose of providing employment for the women who ran the shelter." That seems a whole lot more interesting to me than in the last sentence of the article, in her old age she bragged of having once seen George Washington.

How about:

ALT1 ... that runaway slave Hetty Reckless operated a shelter for African American women that housed over 200 for periods of up to six months?

The article mentions a lot of other accomplishments about this remarkable woman. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Pinging Andrew Davidson — Maile (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I prefer the original to ALT1. I don't see why the matter is being reopened as the article has passed two reviews already. But if we must prolong this then we should consider the following ALT. Andrew D. (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ...... that Hetty Reckless was the slave of a Colonel renowned for eating tomatoes until his new wife knocked out her teeth with a broomstick.

Well, it's the last set for Black History Month, and the first one right before Women's History Month. Also, forgot to ping @SusunW and Ckoerner: who are also listed on the template. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  • My involvement was to expand it so it could be included in DYK, but it was always Andrew Davidson's nomination. Whatever will get her nomination posted, I am in favor of. But totally agree it's just as good for Women's History Month. SusunW (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Right now, the original hook is in queue 1 and so will proceed unless it gets pulled. If that gets it into Black History Month then that's good because that's what I started it for. If we'd like it to appear in Women's History Month too then I suggest that we try confirming it as a GA which will provide a fresh formal reason to include it. The article has already been new and 5x expanded so we'd be nicely on the way to a WP:FOUR award. In the spirit of A/B testing, the rerun can try a different hook to see which does best.
The purpose of the hook is to get readers to click through and so that's how we measure success at DYK. The original hook tries to do this by its mention of 1776 and George Washington, which may attract American patriots. The mention of Salem is for readers who have heard of Salem witches and may wonder how George Washington got mixed up with them. That's a bit of misdirection but we're allowed to tease like that in hooks.
ALT1 seems worthy but dull. The only part that excites interest for me is "runaway slave" but it then trails off with some statistics. And I don't like the usage "African American" which is too anachronistic for my taste.
ALT2 tries to be both melodramatic and mysterious. The hook introduces a wild variety of facts and the only way the reader can find out more is to click on the article in question because that's the only link. This would be a reasonable candidate for the "and finally" slot in a set and that seems the best we can aim for currently as, unfortunately, we don't have a picture hook yet. If we have a rerun we should make another effort to work a picture into this as the picture hook gets top billing and generally does best.
Andrew D. (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
We could do that. Neither of the alternatives have inline citations at the end of the sentence to back up their claims. So maybe more time is needed. I thought we could just check it here and then change it, but it looks like more time may be needed to fix the referencing. Also, there are five goals to DYK and only measuring the success of our project by the number of page views is not adequate. This may mean that sometimes a "dull" hook is preferred over a quirky hook. Jolly Ω Janner 09:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The five goals are presumably those listed at WP:DYK – to showcase, highlight, present, acknowledge and encourage. It's not clear how these justify changing the approved hook to a dull one. My thinking comes from the more detailed rules which state, '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.' Anyway, my suggestion remains to try running this again when it's a GA, as this will provide an extensive opportunity for second thoughts. Note that a GA drive has just started. Andrew D. (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Wait just a minute? Are you saying you are nominating it for GA or that you aren't. I worked my butt off to expand this 5x and am not remotely willing to abandon the DYK process. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
No, my thinking is to nominate the article for GA after the current DYK. As and when it passes GA status, it can then be nominated for DYK again, so far I know, and so we get two bites at the cherry. In the long term, we might hope for FA status and have it up on the main page yet again. That's the general idea of the WP:FOUR award – to take an article through the ascending quality thresholds. Apologies for any confusion as SusunW's efforts are much appreciated and I'm keen that we not delay in exhibiting them. Andrew D. (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It's my understanding that once an article appears on DYK, it cannot reappear upon achieving GA status. I think WP:FOUR refers to the fact that an article progresses through each stage in order – new article, DYK, GA, FA. Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use ALT2. It says the most interesting thing about her is a fact about someone else. I'd vote for ALT1 as both interesting and reflecting her stature.184.147.122.76 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah is right, you cannot post an article twice on DYK. We have an approved hook that it's in the queue and since no effort has been made to include referencing for either alternatives, that is likely what will happen at this point. Jolly Ω Janner 19:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It's rule 1. e) at Wikipedia:Did you know. Based on the number of people involved in this project, a second nomination will almost certainly be flagged up. Whether other users are willing to let it sly... who knows? I would advise you don't rely on it slipping through, though. Jolly Ω Janner 08:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Hetty Reckless is up now on the main page so let's enjoy the moment. The other hook ideas can be used in other related articles. I have gone on to create Colonel Johnson so his tomatoes will get their moment in the sun too and Hetty Reckless will get some further attention as a result. I'll make a GA nomination too to see how that process works out. I gather that it's less bureaucratic than DYK but we shall see ... Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, Hetty Reckless got 8480 hits which seems to be a good result as the picture hook got 3652. I reckon a fair amount of that is simply due to the attractive quality of her name, which is what got me started in the first place. Perhaps an even better hook would have been just "Hetty Reckless!" Andrew D. (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's a combination of three things. People seem to go crazy for George Washington and the escape from Salem sounds like a prison-outbreak, which is normally more gripping than slaves escaping (sadly!). Either way, that's an impressive number of hits for a non-image hook and I will keep it in my memory and add it to the stats page in a couple of days. Nice work! Jolly Ω Janner 07:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of women's history

Did you know that two female cyclists — Femke Van den Driessche who rode a 'unicorn' and Evelyn Stevens who set a one hour record — made bicycling history within the same month? The former article was new within the month. Probably outside the 7 day cutoff. The latter has not been 5X expanded. Too bad. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Er ... the first one right now looks like a WP:BLP1E target. In other words, without more about her, rather than just that one incident, it could well be deleted. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
We will have to disagree. The event was so significant in the sport that it transcends her individually. WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
That's all right, but then the article shouldn't be named after her, since it's about the event, not her biography. --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
It is there. WP:Before and Wikipedia:Deletion policy address your canard. It is notable. That it might be renamed is no excuse to delete it. Don't like it is no pretense either. And she actually did have some success before this day that will live in infamy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm really not attacking you. Honest. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. We can disagree. I Just think the subject is plenty notable.
Having spent time at many WP:PRODs, I figure it is better to lay our cards out on the table so we don't go through a lot of wasted effort.
But if you have an irrepressible urge, all I can do is lead you to water, but I can't make you drink. You may be assured, however, I will make my points (and there will be more, as I will expand the article), if and when the occasion arises. And when it does we will ride that horse to its inevitable conclusion.
We can cooperate. We can reason together. You and I have been building an encyclopedia side-by-side for many years. I trust that will continue. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In its present format and sourcing the coverage is overwhelming. I think I have completed a 5X expansion of the whole article, but given how the numbers are figured probably not. IMO, it would have to go the WP:GA route, which is always slow. But I did nominate it for a GA. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Carl Edgar Myers in prep 1

"Carl Edgar Myers was the first person to claim the title of aeronautical engineer" This is quite an exceptional claim and as such requires exceptional sources to back it up. Instead it is backed up to a blog post by "Albert Robbins". I have no idea who Albert Robbins is or why his blog post is considered a reliable source. I'd suggest pulling this as no alternative hook were presented. Also pinging the nominator, User:Doug Coldwell, in case I missed something obvious. Jolly Ω Janner 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a blog post simply isn't good enough. If it's correct that Myers was the first to call himself an aeronautical engineer, it should be easy to find another, better source. If such sources don't exist, it's probably an indication that the claim is unreliable. BencherliteTalk 11:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Edgar Myers reopened, article pulled from prep1. BencherliteTalk 11:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Before moving this to Prep I looked at the cited source. It isn't just a blog post by any old individual, but a comment by the administrator of the Naval Airship Association by way of introduction to information on one of Myers' patents. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What makes him a reliable source on Carl Myers? What's wrong with finding a better source for a claim such as this? BencherliteTalk 12:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
A different hook would probably be better, because this source awards the title to Leornardo da Vinci. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope. That source calls Leonardo da Vinci the first aeronautical engineer, but the hook was about the first person to call himself an aeronautical engineer. I agree that the source for that claim is not really sufficiently reliable. Fram (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I struck out the original hook and am offering ALT1 for consideration. It has 5 references.-Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate DYK entry

Plum cake is presently on Main page. However, per WP:WIADYK #1e, it is actually not qualified because it has previously been on Main page as a DYK entry (see Template:Did you know nominations/Plum cake). Feel free to pull it at will, as I mistakenly missed this aspect of the rules when creating the new nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Plum cake 1. Sorry for the error, North America1000 00:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fussed either way. If we are going to pull it, there should be a replacement hook, as there's nothing wrong with it. Jolly Ω Janner 01:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the reviewer certainly shouldn't have approved it. That's one of the criteria to check for, and if DYKcheck had been used, the issue would have been flagged. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't edit the nom?

I just posted this, but it seems you cannot edit it by clicking on the buttons in the nom list. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Have you purged? Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
No, there's something wrong with it. It opens to a blank edit window instead of the nomination itself. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz I know what's wrong with it, but I don't know how to fix it. It's the slash in the article's title. Clicking "Review or comment" takes you to "Template:Did you know nominations/APQ-7". It does not recognize "AN". Oddly enough, clicking on "Article history" works. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
How strange. It doesn't work for me now. The {{DYKmake}} works now that I've fixed the link to the subpage, so the issue is probably only in finding it on the nominations page. No idea on how to fix it. Jolly Ω Janner 23:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The DYK nompage links template also needed a similar adjustment to its nompage parameter. Edits from the T:TDYK page should work now. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dubious claim in queue 5

How many bricks did we have, again?
  • ... that the Chappel Viaduct (pictured) is reputed to be the second-largest brick-built structure in England?

Template:Did you know nominations/Chappel Viaduct @HJ Mitchell, Philafrenzy, and Cwmhiraeth:

It is sourced (to the BBC, no problem there), and "reputed to be" is added to indicate that it is not certain, so the hook is not wrong (and I haven't removed it).

However, there are too many other claimants for this distinction to really say that the hook is right, in my opinion, and it would be better to go with something that is undoubtedly true instead of some well-sourced but dubious claim.

Hockley Viaduct claims to be the largest brick built structure in the country[19]. Then there are Battersea Power Station, and Stockport Viaduct[20], which is said to have 11 million bricks (compared to the 7 million of Chappel). British Library at St. Pancras also has 10 million bricks.

Of course, these all are mere dwarves compared to Stanley Dock Tobacco Warehouse, with its 27 million bricks! Fram (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of the word "largest" is. I can see two sources that say the Hockley Viaduct is the largest of its kind in the country (I guess they both cribbed off each other); quite what "country" means I'm not sure but I assume it's discounting buildings. While Battersea Power Station was logged as being the largest brick structure upon opening in 1929 (according to this), which does imply there might have been something larger built since (the Euston Road BL is obviously newer, and the record has been held by other things including the Royal Hospital Haslar in 1762). Meanwhile, this source says St Pancras railway station is third biggest in the world, ahead of Battersea.
Meanwhile, ALT1 in the nomination "ALT1:that the Chappel Viaduct (pictured) is the longest bridge in East Anglia?" would have been a suitable alternative, but that seems to have been tripped up at the review as not being verifiable. I'll have a rummage around and see what I can find; in the meantime it might be worthwhile pulling the hook to suggest alts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Alt 1 was approved AGF as an offline source but now has an online source. Trouble is it is not very interesting. What about something about coins laid in the foundations of the viaduct being stolen within hours? Or seven million bricks being used. That is in itself quite interesting even if it is not the largest amount in one construction. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally I like the vanishing coins story from reference [2]. I have the book to which it is sourced (albeit the first edition, not the second), and can confirm that everything in the third paragraph of the "Construction" section is covered in the book (also, it mentions that the suspect was apprehended when he tried to pay with a "newly minted sovereign" at a nearby pub!). How about something like this...
  • ... that newly minted coins placed inside one of the piers of Chappel Viaduct went missing within hours?
(Incidentally the slightly earlier (1845–46) London Road viaduct in Brighton had 10 million bricks.) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Paying for a pint with a sovereign is a better story if you can put it in the article from your book and format a hook? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added that. My slight concern would be that the anecdote might not be in the second edition of the book ... I think we'd need HJ Mitchell's input on that. Anyway, here's a suggestion (166 characters):
  • The second edition does indeed mention it ("a bricklayer was apprehended after tendering a newly minted half-sovereign at a bar"). No objections if we prefer that hook. As for the "second-largest", I searched but couldn't find a competing claim—while I'm sure there is one (hence "reputed"), everything I found was about various structures claiming to be the largest, rather than the second largest. If I'd found a directly competing claim I might not have put it in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have for now removed the hook from the queue, queue5 will need a new leading hook. I'll reopen the DYK template discussion. Fram (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruth M. Gardiner

I attempted to fix a rather obvious factual error in Ruth M. Gardiner , based on the cited source: diff. The article is queued up for a lead article on Woman's History Day, so you might want to take another look. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Error in Prep 4

  • ... that Christiane Floyd was the first professor of computer science in Germany?

Template:Did you know nominations/Christiane Floyd @Canley, George Ho, and Jolly Janner:

Source states "Sie war die erste Informatik-Professorin Deutschlands."[21]. The DYK discussion settled on the translation "She was the first computer science professor in Germany", but in reality what the source claims is " "She was the first female computer science professor in Germany". Considering that she became professor in 1978, and that by 1970 there were Computer Science departments at the universities of Stuttgart, Magdeburg, and probably others, it is to be expected that there had been earlier (male) professors. An example would be Rul Gunzenhauser, professor in Computer Science at Stuttgart University since 1973[22]. Others would include Volker Claus, professor in Computer Science since 1972 in Dortmund.

I removed the hook as it was incorrect. I haven't checked the source claim that she was the first female professor of computer science in Germany. Fram (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be getting an awful lot of "Did you know ... that 'x' was the first 'y'" hooks coming through at the moment (as mentioned above). I wonder if it's worth just going through the entire nomination set now, whether unreviewed, in prep or in queue, and taking a close look at all of them. However, in this case I think pulling the hook was overkill, you could have just put "female" on it. It's verifiable to Die Zeit (I translate "Sie war die erste Informatik-Professorin Deutschlands" as "She was the first German female IT professor" - for those who don't know, the suffix "-in" in German usually denotes a female something) and you haven't listed any sources that contradict it, and I can't find anything obvious via a quick Google or looking at the enries in Women in computing either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault about the suffix. I'll try and find some verification: Die Zeit as you mention, some IS4IS Summit in Gothenburg: "the first female professor in informatics in German speaking countries", Heinz Nixdorf MuseumsForum: "In 1978, Christiane Floyd was the first woman in Germany to be appointed as a computer science professor – at TU Berlin.". So should be fine to add female to the hook. --Canley (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
A. I never change the hook in a prep, queue or main page if it changes the meaning: there is just as much chance that I am wrong or that the new hook is wrong. We have a three-person review (nom, reviewer, promotor) to get correct hooks, no one should impose another hook instead on their own. B. I thought there was seriouos resistance (at the "Writing about Women" project?) against having "was the first woman to X" hooks and leads, as that kind of statement still may be read as women being second-rate people, even though such is not the intention and being the first woman to do X is a remarkable achievement because it is another step in the struggle against women being treated as second-rate citizens. Either reason is good enough for me not to change a hook (and certainly this hook) on my own. Fram (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

International Women's Day prep sets

If there any any nominations still needing review for International Women's Day, please let me know! There are still two slots left for the day. If they're aren't filled up soon, I will probably just use hooks for women's history month. Jolly Ω Janner 05:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Jolly Janner Doris Stevens would be a great one since she helped get the first international agreement concerning women passed, but it still needs to be reviewed. SusunW (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Direct link: Template:Did you know nominations/Doris Stevens. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I started the review. Just a question about hook phrasing, and it's good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Renominating an article

A little while back I nominated the Baleen whale article for DYK, but it failed because it didn't meet the 5x expansion requirement. It has recently been promoted (actually an hour ago) to GA status so I'm trying to renominate it but when I try to make the nomination page it redirects me to the old one. How do I start a new one?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for a new page. Just use the old one at Template:Did you know nominations/Baleen whale, which I've re-opened. I will also list it on the nominations page. Jolly Ω Janner 06:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77:, my sincere apologies. The best way forward looks like we should keep it closed and start a new one. Just type Baleen Whales 2 into the nomination page box and follow the procedure as normal. If you want help, let me know. Jolly Ω Janner 08:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would be easier for me to create a new file from scratch. Give me a few minutes... BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. The new nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Baleen whale 2, is in the same place under March 6 on the nominations page. Since both the original and ALT1 hooks were identical, I deleted the ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4: International Women's Day hooks

Prep 4, which has just been moved up to the Queue, does not reflect International Women's Day at all, with 4 out of 8 hooks pertaining to United States women. The Patricia E. Ryan hook was added at the last minute, although she was not an International Women's Day candidate. Meanwhile, Prep 5 has 6 non-US bios to 2 US bios, a much better balance. Could Prep 4 be moved back to the Preps section so we can balance it better? Yoninah (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A few more suitable (non-US) hooks for International Women's Day have been approved, and I've added them to the Special Occasions requests area. Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I support the concept of giving more time to edit the prep set, but that will leave us with about 30 hours in which to finalise it and move it back to the queue, so I can understand why admins are hesitant. Maybe temporarily clear prep 4, so it can be moved back. Jolly Ω Janner 17:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
We have 2 approved hooks ready to swap with 2 of the US bios. We just need the prep set back. Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could suggest the exact changes you want to make and ping an admin to do the work. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Casliber:, @PFHLai:, @Allen3:: Could you please remove Patricia E. Ryan from Queue 4 and replace with this hook from Template:Did you know nominations/Joceline Clemencia:

I confirm that everything is in order and it is ready to be promoted. Thank you.

Regarding the 2nd hook that I would like to swap, I have a question about the hook sourcing and am awaiting an answer. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, doing first swap now done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Harnoncourt

Now in Prep 2: * ... that Delores Ziegler, who teaches voice at the University of Maryland, appeared as Dorabella in Mozart's Così fan tutte for her debut at La Scala, and in the Ponnelle/Harnoncourt film? - When I worded that I didn't know Harnoncourt would die. It might be a good idea to have it sooner, as a tribute, - which would also avoid to have two opera singers close together (Hallin now in Prep 3). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hallin is back in Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Electioneering rule?

Should this hook also be held off until after the U.S. primary season? It was just approved:

  • ... that Ren Zhiqiang, a property tycoon and outspoken critic of the government, has been called "China's Donald Trump"?

Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

IMO no, but I would like to hear the opinions of others. Jolly Ω Janner 20:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this a joke? It has no relevance at all to the current election frenzy in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Any mention of Donald Trump elicits election frenzy in the US... Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
And thus it should generate a lot of hits. This is the perfect time to run this!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Typically as a reviewer we certify that the hook is 'decently neutral' or something like that. Is this hook kosher? Or do we just descend into Trumpian hyperbole on the main page? Are we to become Fox News or MSNBC in a battle for ratings? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I knew, the rule was 30 days pre-election moratorium for political figure hooks however because the hook is more about this Ren person than Trump, I would have said that rule doesn't apply because it isn't about Trump primarily and Ren isn't in an election in the next 30 days. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@The C of E: It seems the current situation is not to run US politics DYKs until after 8 June, when the primaries are over. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That said, this nomination has nothing to do with US politics, so should be allowed to run. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Consensus seems pretty evenly divided. @BlueMoonset: what is your opinion? Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. As The C of E pointed out, the hook isn't about Trump, but merely mentions him. There is no neutrality issue with the hook. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, no one has stated any opposition to this hook, so I think it is fine to use. While users have raised questions, all the answers seem to be that it is okay to proceed. What are your thoughts? Jolly Ω Janner 08:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
User:7&6=thirteen did express reservations, but the overall consensus seems to be to go ahead. I guess we could promote it now. Yoninah (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done Promoted to Prep 4. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Norrie May-Welby nomination rejection

Hi,

I nominated Norrie May-Welby for a DYK. This nomination was rejected by User:Yoninah, based on User:Maile66's assertion that 'this nomination that already appeared on DYK 26 March 2010.

The Norrie May-Welby article did indeed appear on 26 March 2010, but not the nominated fact.

The 2010 fact read: « ... that in March 2010, Australia became the first country in the world to officially recognise a 'non-specified' gender, when Norrie May-Welby was found to be neither a man nor a woman? »

My nominated fact read: «  that norrie mAy-welby’s chosen onomastic majusculation represents a redistribution of capital? »

I don't see any rule against the same article appearing twice, so I'm going to renominate my fact and link to this topic in the comments.

198.161.143.149 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on the parade, but there actually is a rule against it, and I don't recall IAR ever being invoked for it. See criterion 1e of the basic DYK rules. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Corrected hook on Main Page

I've corrected a hook on the main page, please check and re-correct if necessary. Template:Did you know nominations/María Currea Manrique, @SusunW, LavaBaron, and Jolly Janner:

to

The Order is not a national one, but one created by the Bogota City Council only (and for women in Bogota only as well): and the official name of the Order is not "María Currea Manrique" but "María Currea de Aya". This is both clear from the hook source used in the article[23].

I know that this goes against my self-expressed rule not to change the meaning of hooks in prep, queue or main page, but I didn't think that being too rigid about this would be helpful in this case. Fram (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fram. I am grateful for the assistance. I am always in favor of helping and opposed to being doggedly rigid. The council and her name are minor elements which don't change the overall gist, as you noted. Blasted married names, and even in a Spanish country with which one normally retains their own name for life ... ;) SusunW (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through February 21. As of the most recent update, 95 nominations have been approved, leaving 159 of 254 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two from January and the next eight from the first part of February that are left over from the previous list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Queues empty, preps full

Hey all, the queues are ALL empty and the prep sets are all full! Can someone move a few of the preps into the queues so we non-admins can fill more prep sets for you? There's a backlog of approved hooks that need to be moved in, some have languished for a month... thanks. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, Amberrock did that over an hour ago. I think you need to refresh your browser (or purge the page using the handy link), since there are six queues filled and only part of one prep filled at the moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent! I'll go fill some preps then! Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Second hook in Queue5, so passed all human checks and was on its way to the mainpage...

Template:Did you know nominations/Naoum Mokarzel @Elie plus, Al Ameer son, and Cwmhiraeth:

  • ... that Al-Hoda, established by Naoum Mokarzel in 1989, is the longest-running Arabic newspaper in the United States?

The hook was there from the time of the nomination, and has passed review like this. However, considering that Mokarzel died in 1932, he would be hard-pressed to establish anything in 1989 (and if it had been established then, it wouldn't be the longest-running etc.). Sure enough, it shouldn't be 1989 but 1898. A typo, yes, but an important one when the age of the newspaper is the essence of the hook, and one that shouldn't have been missed by all reviewers.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, it was the longest-running, it no longer runs (sources give the final date as 1968[24], 1976[25][26] or 1992[27], but no sources seem to indicate that it still exists).

This book claims that Al-Hoda "only" ran for 60 years, as long as Al-Bayan, casting some doubt on the claim that it was the longest-running one. The longest-running now is the Arab-American News (since 1984). Fram (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, changed it. None of the dates make it as short as 60 years, but it does look like it no longer exists. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Fram and Casliber ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 11:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...

Section above was first hook in queue 4, this is the second hook in queue 4... Template:Did you know nominations/The Future of Palestine @Oncenawhile, The C of E, and Amberrock:

Source: " perhaps the first time in any official record that enlisting Jewish support as a war measure was suggested. "[28]

Changing an uncertain, possible source into a definite, doubtless hook doesn't seem to be correct. Fram (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Very fair, and thanks for the amendment. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 3

Please could an admin change the hook for my article now in Queue 3 by removing the phrase "as a fodder crop" from the hook:

  • ... that shrubby seablight can be grown as a fodder crop using seawater for irrigation?

This request is the result of an intervention by an IP on the article's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, this one strikes me as a possible April Fools hook. "Shrubby seablight" is a pretty comical name to start with. The hook could be something like:

  • ... that you can look through a window made of shrubby seablight, then wash your hands with it before sitting down to eat it?

Cwmhiraeth, would you have any objection to pulling this one for April Fools? Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to pull it now and proceed as you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! I have pulled the hook and will add it to the April Fools page shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

  • Hook #3. "$31 billion USD" should be "US$31 billion" or simply "$31 billion". And the figure is rather dubious. The Wired source reads, "suggesting that the value of jade production in the country could be as high at $31 billion", and nowhere that it is ALL going to "the ruling elite". The next para in the article gives "$122.8 billion" over a ten year period. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Changed to "US$31 billion". But I don't like this hook. I thought DYKs should use only facts. I don't think allegations should be considered as facts. --PFHLai (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that concern and suggest that the hook is pulled and the nom re-opened to find some other, less controversial factoid from that article. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If the hook is pulled, then please be sure to replace it immediately with a valid hook (Queue 4 has several, none of which are special occasion hooks), since Queue 5 is scheduled to be promoted to the main page at 12:00 UTC, or under five hours from now. PFHLai, The Rambling Man, there aren't a lot of admins hereabouts, so it looks like it's up to one of you to remove-and-replace. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook and replaced it with one from Queue 6; I should be online for a few hours, let me know if I've inadvertently picked a special occasion one, or you need me to do anything else. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes please specify it's USD. Not everyone on Wikipedia is American, just saying. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6 is broken

There is less than 20 hours to fix things up before the bot brings the hook set onto MainPage. Need a new pic quickly. How should this be fixed? Suggestions, anyone, please? --PFHLai (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend Template:Did you know nominations/Antarctic Sound. It's in the backlog and I've done an additional check on the hook, which is backed by a sound resource. As for the pics, I can vouch that any of the images used in the article are free for use. If you don't like the idea of using two water-going vessels in a row, the landscape photo File:Antarctic Sound-2016-Joinville Island-Ice Shelf.jpg is awesome. Jolly Ω Janner 05:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Another thing to do would be to take the lead hook from the latest available set, which is currently Queue 4. (None of the hooks there are special occasion hooks, unlike Prep 5, which has two special occasion hooks.) While you're at it, you could move one of the later Queue 4 hooks to fill the empty hook in Queue 3. It's never a great idea to leave empty slots in queues, but if it must be done, better in the most distant queue from the main page than one that's soon to be promoted there. Maybe, by the time you see this, there will be a decent selection of non-special occasion hooks in preps to promote to one or both of these spots. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio sources

Queue 6, Template:Did you know nominations/Koenig Specials @Donnie Park, Cwmhiraeth, and Miyagawa:

No problem with the hook, but two of the three sources for the hook seem to be copyright violating sites, the kind we should never link to. Both the magazine article shown on thepaddocks.be as the one on tuninghistory.com seem not to be published or owned by those sites and normally are still copyrighted. The same goes for some of the other sources, like Tuningarchive.ru (a Top Gear article), a few other articles from tuninghistory.com, from porschecarshistory.com, ferrarichat.com, some dropbox site.

The complete "bibliography" section, 18 links, all are copyvios.

When checking sources, please keep an eye open for these kind of problems. And of course, when writing articles, don't use these sites! Fram (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So, how does one recognise that a source is a copyright-violating source? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
A Russian site showing complete articles from English magazines is often a good giveaway (tuningarchive.ru). A source like "unknown (1985). "Mit Turbo und Kompressor". unknown magazine scan (in German). Retrieved 2 February 2016." is a giveaway as well. In general, if the websitename has no indication of either the publisher or the magazine title in its name, then it warrants a closer look. If it has "forum" or "blog" in it, same deal. When you open a link to a site like Porschecarshistory, it should be obvious as well (the chance that porschecarshistory.com would have the copyright to articles about Koenig from sources like Auto Bild (from Springer) and Road & Track (from Hachette) is highly unlikely, even without opening the site.
And when in doubt, always assume that it is copyright violating, certainly when, like here, it shows scans from relatively recent magazines or newspapers. Fram (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the article creator has delinked all those sources now. Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I thought it was best to link them in order to pass notability guidelines (though this one passes easily) since I had two articles failing AfC in January, despite sources, with editors dismissing it as a random website, which almost caused me to consider quitting Wikipedia. I only kept them on temporarily to assist with DYK. So with these websites, I don't have any other choices, especially topics widely ignored by Wikipedians and the mainstream media (such as radio-controlled racing, what I am specializing in this year plus try find Wikipedians who specialise on such topic and I assure you there's none)

These are my reason for these websites

  1. I cannot afford magazines
    1. No point on buying magazines considering the sole purpose is to use as source in Wikipedia especially in hobbies I no longer pursue.
  2. I do not have the space already for an already clutter house
  3. old magazines are hard to get

So what choices are there for Wikipedians, especially I am dealing with a nightmare topic, no wonder why some topics struggle to attract Wikipedians. Therefore, this leaves us with a bias on the usual sports, videogames, movies, feminism and so on. Frankly, I either have no choice or to retire for good like I almost did in December/January.

Other than that, I have now castrated the links to make it look like if it was sourced from magazines, not from copyvio scanned magazines as I thought about removing them once it pass DYK. Donnie Park (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Why should we never link to them? Can you give us a link to the actual policy? It seems to run counter to our mission. It is not a copyright violation, and it is not WP:COPYVIO. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Found it: WP:ELNEVER. Fram is overstating the case though. It applies only if there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Fram has provided plenty of reasons to believe they are violating copyright though... The policy is clear and very firm on this. However, I do not think there's anything wrong in using these sites as sources to write the article. Contributors just shouldn't provide the URL. Jolly Ω Janner 06:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, you have just given me a new oppose reason if you would try to run for RfA again. Really? Your statements are hard to believe, but you seem to be serious. "It is not WP:COPYVIO"? Perhaps read e.g. the lead of that page until the end next time before commenting. Last line, a paragraph on its own: "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to." (which is a link to WP:ELNEVER, which you found in your second attempt at least). But you then state that I overstate my case, because... well, it's not clear why you believe that. Perhaps you could have discussed some of the sources I mentioned, and indicated which ones you didn't believe were carrying copyvios? Which sites do you believe have permission to reprint full articles (text + illustrations) from auto or motorsport magazines? Perhaps you should reread and learn Wikipedia:Copyrights, a "policy with legal considerations (i.e. the most important kind of policies we have), which has a full section "Linking to copyrighted works", starting "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." and going on in the same vein.
So, if possible, just try to explain how I am overstating my case and which sources you don't consider to be problematic, or shut up and learn about our copyright policies, which all admins, former admins, and admin wannabes (and preferably all people trying to review or promote DYKs) should know much better than you seem to do. Fram (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Donnie Park:: sources don't have to be available online, you are free to give a source without an URL. We have no way to know where you found and read that source, if you didn't get the original (buying, or from a library) but got it from some illegal copy, that's your business alone. The only thing you are not allowed to do is linking to websites which are probably copyright violators (like the ones you used here). You can still write the exact same article, only without giving the problematic URLs. Fram (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Thao La

Is it not customary to allow a nominator to write an alternate hook if the original is deemed unsatisfactory? If the nomination is arbitrarily closed in haste, has not the DYK process been short circuited? I invite inspection of the above as the example that sparks these questions.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And one additional question? Doesn't a nominator have the right to withdraw a nomination? As I have attempted to do with the above.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your alternative hook? One of the purposes of DYK is to highlight newly created articles, so this is why things can be promoted quickly. Jolly Ω Janner 06:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
At this point, the hook's in Queue 3, so nothing can be done without an admin's assistance. Note that once a nomination has been closed (promoted or rejected), as the instructions say on the closed template, any subsequent requests needs to made here, not on said template. In answer to your question, if yours had been the only hook, then when it was deemed unacceptable, a new hook would have been looked for, whether from you or someone else. As there was already an ALT hook suggested, the reviewer could look to that one, with no requirement that you be asked to supply another one. In fact, you did supply one, though it was just a reposting of the original hook found wanting by the first reviewer, and then by the second. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
JollyJanner: I returned to the nomination after a two day break, and it had gone from having my hook approved to being promoted with a third party hook. When did I have an opportunity to supply an ALT1 hook? And why ask for my ALT1 hook now, after the fact?
BlueMoonset: Your re-explaining what we both know happened does nothing toward answering my above questions. In your haste to promote a bland hook, you could just as easily promoted an inaccurate one. If allowed, I could have supplied an ALT1 hook. And I repeat, I wish my nomination withdrawn. Running a boring DYK hook does not do WP any good.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Problems with the hook were first raised over two weeks ago. I took that to mean you wouldn't propose another hook and I presume others did too. As for the speed, it doesn't matter how long it takes. We had someone propose it, another review it and finally Montana promote it. As for the original hook, we had someone propose it, another review it, but it stalled on the final step, as it had entered the backlog without anyone promoting it. Indeed, I had intended to promote the nomination, but found the hook not interesting enough. I'm asking for your alternative now, because we can still do last minute changes if needed or if there is something seriously wrong with current hook being used, we can withdraw it. It would be a lot easier if you told us your alternative, as we only have a couple of days. Jolly Ω Janner 19:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Georgejdorner, I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm the one who was in haste to promote the hook you dislike; it seems you don't know what happened after all, since I was not involved. (I'm not an admin, so I can't withdraw the hook myself as I can't edit queues.) Perhaps next time, when a reviewer tells you that a hook is not acceptable, you will propose an alternative hook then and there rather than persist with the unacceptable one. Paging Cas Liber or Chris Woodrich: if you're willing, can you please remove this hook from Queue 3, since Georgejdorner is so set on having it withdrawn, and reclose the nominating template accordingly. You could replace it with another of his nominations, Campaign 74B, currently in Prep 6. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we please not withdraw the hook? I find it interesting and I'm sure the numerous editors in the nomination subpage agree. George's opinion should not be used to override consensus. Jolly Ω Janner 07:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that some people can get really attached to their nominations on DYK. While it's all fine and dandy to be invested in the process, I would like to remind people there is still a policy called WP:OWN. Actually going as far as to remove an approved hook from the queue because the original nominator is determined to get his own un-approved hook onto DYK seems to be exactly the sort of thing that this policy was designed to protect against.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I began this discussion with a rhetorical question meant to remind other editors that customarily the nominator of a DYK is allowed to supply ALT1s when the ALT0 hook is rejected—a system that has served WP well. I end it falsely accused of subverting the DYK system via ownership.
I have created over 1,400 articles in WP. The only ones on my watchlist are the DYK noms and a few redirects. I am not tracking articles beyond the DYK process. Where's the ownership in that?
I plumped for a better ALT1 and am now accused of trying to force my ALT0 on the community by withdrawing the nomination. However, I have not pushed for adoption of ALT0. And I have self-edited my work in the past by withdrawing weak or faulty nominations. I will request withdrawal again in case of any future poor nominations I may make, if corrections are warranted. I am dedicated to producing the best articles/nominations I can. If that involves improving WP by quashing the nomination of an article I created, so be it.
I hope that I have made my points clearly. Now, to make it starkly evident that Operation Thao La belongs to the WP community, and not to me, I am severing all connection with the nomination and article as of this moment.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As the person who promoted the article, I have to say the original hook was "in-universe" jargon and made no sense at all. (And, FWIW, I'm a boomer and studied this era quite extensively at one point in my life, so it's not like I am unfamiliar with the topic). The hook I promoted was more intriguing and in my view invited the reader to click the link. We have to sometimes step back from our own work and our own words. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list only has five unreviewed nominations, so even though it's only five days old, I'm posting a new list of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks through March 1. As of the most recent update, 72 nominations have been approved, leaving 164 of 236 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five from the first half of February that are left over from the previous list.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Anniversary request

@Cwmhiraeth: and @Yoninah: Finis Alonzo Crutchfield, Jr. was requested to be shown on 17 March, which aligns with Prep 4 and Prep 5. P5 would be ideal, as it is a US hook. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 07:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Added to Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi,

I'd like to suggest Chip Fairway as a DYK article. I was told at the help desk to make the request here.

Possible hooks:

  1. Did you know that Chip Fairway left the sporting world so that he could spend more time with his family?
  2. Did you know that Chip Fairway retired to become the local barber in his home town?

Thanks. 72.74.201.153 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done, please keep an eye on the nomination in case any problems should arise. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

February 2 nominations

Hi. If there are any reviewers who can afford to invest a little time, might I suggest looking at the two oldest ones on the list, dating back to February 2. Both of them - Sintax the Terrific and Karl Čermak - need a second opinion, and have been waiting for one for nearly two weeks. So if anyone has some time to spare... I'm sure it'd be appreciated. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

I have nominated three Lady Gaga articles at the DYK and I expect all of them to appear on 28 March on her 30th birthday--Teeth (song), Til It Happens to You and List of Lady Gaga live performances. Can someone move the nominations to the "Special occasion holding area" section once all of them are reviewed? -- Frankie talk 21:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Is three Lady Gaga hooks on her birthday perhaps not a bit of an overkill? I'd be fine with a Lady Gaga hook on 28 March, but three might be a bit.. too much.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how that is an overkill. On Frank Sinatra's 100th birthday, 16 hooks appeared on the DYK section. -- Frankie talk 11:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I think comparing Frank Sinatra to Lady Gaga is a stretch too far. One or two hooks over two sets would be fine for Gaga. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It will be no big deal if three out of sixteen hooks are related to Lady Gaga. The DYK lists some random facts anyway so what if on one day three hooks are related to one person? Anyway, I am not gonna fight for it. You are an admin so suit yourself. -- Frankie talk 12:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
A maximum of two hooks per queue, in the two DYK queues of March 28 - I can live with that. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, if that's what it is. I have struck one of them. -- Frankie talk 12:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Frankie: there are two hooks per queue and two queues per day, so that's four in total. All of these are fine to be displayed. Also, remember that our guideline on trying to vary a selection of hooks can get hazey when there are anniversaries. As a result it becomes somewhat subjective. I would prefer to have all the three hooks on the same queue and during the PM (most visible in the US and probably Europe). Either way, it's still quite a while yet and I'm sure editors will raise the issue once the prep sets are being constructed. Jolly Ω Janner 08:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I say one hook per queue beginning UTC of her birthday (which is the evening prior in the USA) running for three sets. Keeps her name in lights all day, but no overkill. Montanabw(talk) 20:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jolly Janner and Montanabtw. I am completely agree with the latter. What do you say @The Rambling Man and Amberrock:? -- Frankie talk 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Montanabw's plan. Moderation is the key word here. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Prep 3

This prep has only one bio (the lead image). Could someone please add some more bios from the Special Occasions holding area for Women's History Month? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_121&oldid=1136061582"