Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)

"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA

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

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Grace period for DYK length criterion

There seems to be an unusually high number of nominations that are not quite meeting the 5x expansion length criterion at the moment. In the past we've usually given nominators a chance to add further text to the article to meet the length requirement rather than rejecting it outright. Since our backlog is currently shorter than it has been in the recent past, there's no need to lessen the number of accepted hooks right now. I suggest that we put these nominations on hold for another two weeks or so, to encourage the nominator or even another Wikipedian to expand them. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, there are only 125 hooks left, including approved hooks? That is well past time we went back to a 24-hour cycle IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we should not be lowering our standards. HalfGig talk 14:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • With regard to the number of hooks per day: First of all, only the "approved reserve" (hooks on Approved page + in prep + in Q) counts in this decision; noms waiting for approval are completely irrelevant. Second, the approved reserve has been very slowly dropping from a high of about 150 two months ago to 90 today. This drop is much more slow than it was when we first went to 2 sets/day. I suspect that if we switch now from 2x8/day to 2x7/day, that will very closely match the approval rate, and things will be in equilibrium for a good long time. If the approved reserve ever drops below 50, that's the time to go to 1 set/day; doing that now will just start us back onto the path of a huge backlog. EEng 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so you've got four updates in the slot, thanks for the reminder, I'm a bit rusty at this. Since somebody appears to be keeping an eye on this, I'm more relaxed about it, but if I see the number of total hooks drop below 100 I'll be back here pushing the alarm button. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
We no longer have the flexibility to drop from 8 to 7 hooks per set; we've been told we need to stay at 8 in order to keep the main page balanced. That will probably mean that we'll need to switch back and forth between one and two sets a day at intervals; it won't be such an onerous thing to do, nor should it happen frequently. Referring back to Antony-22's initial post, I don't see why we need to change what we typically do, which is to inform the nominator that the article is too short and needs to be expanded to whatever the number of characters is, and encourage them to do so. If they respond or start expanding it within the typical period (seven days), then we work with them until they get there or give up; if they're unresponsive, then we mark it for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, if we're stuck at 8/set, then let me reiterate the protocol I proposed long ago: when the approved reserve (Approved page + Preps + Qs) drops below 50, go to 1x8/day. When it rises above 150, return to 2x8/day. Other than that, leave it alone. With this approach I don't think we'll need to change the #sets/day more than three or four times per year, and maybe less. EEng 22:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
My recollection was that the switch to twice a day came at 100, and to thrice a day at 150; 150 seems absurdly high for a 2x threshold. I do think we do well enough with decisions that take more into account than just an "approved reserve", and now that we don't have an enormous number of unapproved hooks, we should probably also consider the total number of nominations submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that you mention it you may be right that what I'd proposed did somehow allow for 1x/day, 2x/day, and 3x/day (can't really remember) but there has to be more to it than you're describing because there has to be a dead range in which no change is made -- it can't be that we change back and forth every time we cross 100 in either direction. But I continue to assert that the appropriate burn rate depends only on the approved reserve -- unapproved noms can't have anything to do with it. If we have only 40 approved hooks ready to go, then we better be posting only 1 set/day, even if there's 1000 noms waiting for approval. EEng 16:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really, if you have 1000 unapproved nominations then you are going to need a lot more than one set every 24 hours to reduce the backlog. In the situation you describe, you can organize an approval drive to do that. But if you only have 100 nominations in total, you need to slow things down because that number can decline quickly and you can soon find yourself with nothing left to approve. I know this because I've been there on more than one occasion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
When your approval drive begins to bear fruit by bringing up the approved reserve, then you increase the burn rate, not before. EEng 09:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Under the present arrangement, it is not easy to tell how many hooks have been nominated on any particular day, and this makes planning difficult. For example, March 2nd currently has one, unapproved hook and no approved ones. How many in total were nominated on that day, and have since been approved and promoted (or rejected)? We need 16 a day for a steady state. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Without commenting on the current decision, can we set up a long-term sub-page which records when the number of sets changes? This would be useful for the stats if nothing else. Or does such a thing exist already? Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What is appropriate for the main page?

For those late to joining this discussion here is a link to the initial discussion at WP:ERRORS. Mifter (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the recent pull of Murder of Mark Kilroy from the main page on the basis that DYK is not a tabloid. But I believe this is a good place for discussion about what is appropriate for the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we do need to set some simple rules, at the moment we're making judgements based on prescient. We know that swear words and innuendo are fine as per NOTCENSORED. We know that pedophilia and anything that could provoke endangerment of life (Template:Did you know nominations/Jailbait and Template:Did you know nominations/Innocence of Muslims as examples) aren't. The one above I confess I deliberately avoided reviewing because I didn't want us promoting that sort of subject matter. At the moment what we have does strike a balance between free speech and censorship but is not made explicit under the rules. I had proposed something similar with regard to inapropriate anniversary requests before where I proposed adding this to the supplimental rules: "....nominations placed in a holding are should not be moved from there after being approved except for with the nominators consent or if there is consensus that it would not be appropriate to run on the proposed holding date." Maybe we could revive that one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I indicated on TRM's talkpage I was going to open a discussion on this since its clear the DYK process has failed significantly here. An article was substantially expanded and requested to specifically run on the anniversary of his death. This so far is a bit thoughtless given the subjects parents were alive as of 2009 and he likely still has close living relatives alive. What makes this extraordinarily tasteless is that it was requested to run with the hook "that Mark Kilroy was killed during spring break in Mexico by a cult that boiled his brains in a human sacrifice ritual?". As it stands the process for creating, reviewing and promoting a DYK was followed. However we ended up with a substantially offensive hook that shows zero consideration or empathy for those who have lost a family member in horrific circumstances. The process needs to be amended to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Either biographies of crime victims with living relatives need extra consideration (and by that I mean, outside of the tickbox-checking exercise reviewing a hook entails) or they need to be removed from date-sensitive times.
Oh and before the notcensored crowd get going, NOTCENSORED is about removing information from the encyclopedia, it is *not* about condoning deliberate offense of people who have lost their children on the anniversary of their death. I do not object to the article existing, I object to advertising it on the front page on the day the subject died by ghoulishly concentrating on the manner of his death. That is an abuse of NOTCENSORED if that was the justification for this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
yeah let's not be the National Enquirer please? There should be some sort of common sense filter - even if it was not the anniversary the hook wording is off putting.  MPJ-DK  16:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
When I review DYK hooks, I check for our rules and then some on the basis that the rules state articles can be declined for other reasons at the discretion of the reviewer. If an article technically fits the requirements but looks like an aesthetical disaster, I will require the nominator to fix that before approving, for instance. Articles in DYK shouldn't necessarily be the best of the best, but they should showcase a reasonably complete and solid article. We can't really expect our initial reviews to get better so long as we have the QPQ requirement, which pushes new content creators into reviewing articles. Perhaps we need to make a push for the admins promoting preps to queues to perform a more holistic review than they currently are. As far as subject matter goes, I think we should be particularly sensitive when it comes to BLP topics, but I'm really not all that worried about a hook about a murder that occurred nearly 30 years ago. The actual contents of this hook were too morbid for the front page, but I wouldn't oppose a hook with less shock value from this type of article. ~ Rob13Talk 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Articles on notable deaths/murders are not, in themselves a problem. The problem here was a)the hook being particularly grisly, b)the grisly hook running on the anniversary of his death on the front page of one of the most popular websites in the world when its likely he has close relatives who are still living. BLP doesnt apply as the subject is long dead. Were this death say 150 years ago, no one would bat an eye, but 1989 is not 'a long time' when it comes to people's emotional responses to a close death. Especially so in fairly horrific circumstances like these. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Rob I don't think this particular one happened because of QPQ. Reviewer Mifter has done a lot of reviews lately, and I don't think he has a shortage of QPQs under his belt. Wugapodes assuming you have not given up on 2017 reform proposals, would there be someplace on there to insert "DYK is not a tabloid" or something similar. There are no clear guidelines in place for reviewers or promoters on something like this. Ideas? — Maile (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, I hadn't looked to see who the reviewer was. I was speaking more broadly that our first pass reviews will never be terribly high standard because we require QPQs. This forces prep builders and the admins promoting things to the queues to pay a bit more attention. ~ Rob13Talk 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who did a final copyedit on the article before it went to the main page. I completely agree with Only in death's assessment above, that The problem here was a)the hook being particularly grisly, b)the grisly hook running on the anniversary of his death on the front page of one of the most popular websites in the world when its likely he has close relatives who are still living. I thought the "boiling his brains" part was hooky but I was not sufficiently sensitive to these other issues. I'd like to point out that we ran another murder hook in March that got over 19,000 hits: ... that Joey Fischer was murdered after he refused to take US$500 to date his ex-girlfriend? So it should be stated in the rules that murder hooks are fine, they just shouldn't be pumped up for shock value. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the part of WP:DYKRULES that says "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." applies to this article (on the grounds that anyone murdered in the last couple of decades probably has living relatives affected by it), so we have all this covered already. I certainly used this criteria on Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily, and I subsequently took the article to AfD, where it was deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Though on a technical point, the barrister in me is saying that technically that rule does say "living individuals" so it is understandable why someone would overlook that rule. I suppose a better way would be to say "negative aspects of living individuals or anything deemed grossly explicit in relation to the cause of death in non-living individuals". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thats a strech, the wording is explicitly about living individuals - even the BLP policy does not go that far. It would actually be an easier argument that BDP should extend to death anniversary dates for notable murders (rather than the 2 year outside limit usually applied) given the undoubted significance of the date to the living relations (the main reason BLP applies to the recently dead). It would be better to have something tailored more specifically for dead subjects with likely living relatives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the reviewer who initially passed this hook I wanted to add my thoughts on it, I also added a permalinked version of the discussion that took place at ERRORS to make this easier for anyone who stumbles upon this discussion to follow. In my experience with DYK we have run a number of hooks that I personally find objectionable/offensive to my personal taste, even some of the hooks right now on T:TDYK or the approved page are not ones that I myself would come up with, nominate for the Main Page, or even wish to see on the MP (I do occasionally review hooks I find distasteful in the spirit of trying to cut down our backlog by moving unreviewed hooks forward). Understanding that my taste is just that, and with the general principles that we don't adjust our content due to personal opinion I have largely divorced that from my review process (if I were to use my own morality as a yardstick I would have a hard time volunteering at DYK.) There is an element of judgment of course, but when I was reviewing the article I took extra pains to verify that the article was well sourced, well written, etc. and it appeared to meet those criteria with over 130 cites, many to various reputable news publications, a number of books, etc. Personally I found the whole ordeal (regarding what happened to the poor man) sickening however the article is clearly notable, is fairly well written, etc. In general I have always read NOTCENSORED to be that an individual's, or even a group's sense of morality, etc. should not control the content process (that is not a justification for this hook, but rather why I have endeavored to separate my own morality from the review process.) Such a brightline rule has the advantage of being easyish to follow and if we attempt to create some guidelines there is either going to be over-inclusiveness from a brightline, or an element of judgment. We need to weigh such considerations carefully. I do not consider the DYK process to be broken to have passed this, rather an example of people making a judgment call that it was not "too far past the line" to run. Our hook preps get between 30-50 views when they are being prepped for queue (the longer bars are on days when the prep is in active use) including the various regulars, passers by, etc. I apologize for the headache this has caused and my part in creating that headache, I made a judgment call what while I found the hook exceptionally grisly, not something I personally liked, and right up to the line of what was acceptable it still passed muster and I was incorrect. I agree that additional clarity would be worth investigating though I caution that we should be mindful of how such clarifications will work in the future as everyone has a different "yardstick" with which to measure morality and if we are to set a standard we need to decide whose to use (as an example one could say running certain religious, sexual, or other content would be gravely offensive to some groups, how do we decide what crosses that line into "deliberate offense"?) Mifter (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To ensure it is clear, I have no issue with this hook being pulled but am concerned about how we can find a workable standard going forward. Mifter (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to make it clear here, my use of 'deliberate offense' is that in this situation it is impossible to look at that hook and say 'This will not cause offense to his family on the occasion of his death'. 'Casual offense' would be if this was posted say, in November. It would still be tasteless, but at least it would not have that added manual effort required to push it into the 'Why the hell did we do this to someone?' area. I am not *personally offended* that there is a hook that talks about brains being boiled. I am quite angry that the people who are guranteed to be offended by this specific situation were not given consideration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the hook being pulled. It seems like there is consensus that the hook was too morbid for the Main Page and I'm perfectly fine accepting that. I don't take morality or hurting people's feelings into consideration when I'm thinking of a hook, but now that we are working on setting a standard for BDP I will keep this in mind. My fault here. The reason why I decided to post this on the Main Page today (death anniversary) was because I figured that the article (not necessarily the hook) would get more views too since chances are Kilroy's death would be aired in some Mexican news channel or in the U.S., somewhere. I want to apologize to anyone who was offended by the hook. I read and write about morbid topics every day (Mexican Drug War bios, attacks, events, journalists killed, etc.) and my "need to inform" went out of hand this time. What's done is done. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help in the DYK process. ComputerJA () 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a good comment ComputerJA, and one which we all appreciate. Let's work together on making sure we apply a little more editorial dignity to these kinds of things, and maybe get (yet another, but this time a valuable) rule into DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Although the "morbid" hook was pulled from the main page in short order, the article itself is well-written and well-researched. Based on the above discussion, I would like to propose reopening the nomination and submitting a toned down hook for a future queue:

ALT1: ... that Mark Kilroy was killed during spring break in Mexico for a human sacrifice ritual? Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: – Hi, I support this hook. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. ComputerJA () 18:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Review help

I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Lincoln's hearse and find the article fine but I have some concerns about the hook. I am hoping to get a second opinion. MB 03:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just suggested an alternate hook there that doesn't involve a quote (except for one word that hadn't been quoted previously). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

May I get an expedited review?

Might it be possible to ask for an expedited review and promotion of Hasyim Muzadi. The subject recently died (March 16), and I expanded the article >5x. I feel it's better to be featured sooner while his death is still fresh in the news. Just asking, otherwise waiting is fine too. HaEr48 (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You got it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda Arendt and Yoninah for reviewing it. Could it get an early promotion too (if the promoter think it already looks good)? HaEr48 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, if there's anything you can add to the article, go for it--you're closer to it than I am. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Yoninah's gotten it. I'm not really familiar with the current group of ulamas. Also, I should note that this was nominated at ITN as well.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Violinist plays violin concerto (prep 1)

Template:Did you know nominations/Liza Ferschtman @Gerda Arendt, Meneerke bloem, BU Rob 13, and Cwmhiraeth:

So, we have a classical violinist who played a random classical violin concerto at a random moment. Why is that bit of information so noteworthy as to be included in a DYK? It wasn't a premiere, an exceptional performance, something unexpected, something especially noteworthy (it is sourced to a primary source, not even a review of it)... Just one of dozens of concertos she has played over the years. Basically, it is "DYK that Ferschtman did her job?" Fram (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, It is not a random concerto, but a new step in her career, a great work of the 20th century, which - admittedly - deserved a better article, - promise to improve there. - We should raise curiosity, and Beethoven has been mentioned often. - We could have stopped after the National prize, but I like to add music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
ps: calling Drmies who also added --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
If the article does absolutely nothing to descirbe this as a "new step in her career", and no sources indicate that this is a new step in her career, then ye, this is a purely random bit of information. It is absolutely unclear why this single performance is highlighted in the article, never mind in the DYK. Raising curiosity is very fine if that curiosity is then answered in the article. All it does here is leave the reader scratching his head wondering why this performance, of all her performances, is worthy of main page (or even in-article) mentioning. The aim of DYK is not to frustrate and alienate readers. Fram (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Worse; she already played that concerto in 2013 for a Hans van Manen ballet[1], so this isn't a "new step in her career" at all... Fram (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) The reviewer didn't scratch the head. I find just mentioning a prize boring, so added the piece that sounds most interesting and that I am determined to improve. As we can not mention more than three performances in one hook, I guess the readers will understand that we have to make a choice. My understanding is that we have to present one interesting fact. - If I say she played it for the first time, you will come and find a source about her playing it in 2015, so I came to avoid "firsts" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
After ec: the hook doesn't say "first" or "new step", intentionally so. We can add that source and say 2013, + for ballet, which might make it more interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Um, no, it doesn't it make it any more interesting at all, it still is an utterly random performance, one of many in her career. You were making things up as you went along ("It is not a random concerto, but a new step in her career") which really is very disappointing. Either drop the performance or pull the hook, I don't care which, but don't continue this charade please. Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Pull the hook, we were still working on expansion, - see my talk. Other voices welcome, though: Can the hook fact be one of many facts (called "random" above)? That's what I always did, beginning with my first, which mentioned one of a composer's pieces, without having to justify the choice. Related question: may the article writer suggest the choice? - I am sorry that I tried to justify, instead of saying: do I have to? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I do have to agree with Fram here. When I promoted the hook I did think "what does this 2017 performance have to do with the prize eleven years earlier?", but I am wary of amending Gerda's hooks after past experience, so I left the last part of the hook in place whereas I would otherwise have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Article writer may suggest the choice, others may react. Normally, when you choose which fact should be used in the hook, you have a reason for doing this, one which should be obvious to most readers (something unusual, something new, a highlight of a career, something quirky, ...). With this choice, there was and is no reason at all to choose this fact and not one of her many other concerts, records, ... It's not clear why this performance gets a separate sentence in her article (while others don't), it's even less clear why it would appear on the main page. A DYK hook is supposed to be interesting, and the second part of your hook simply fails that rule completely. Graham Waterhouse, which you mention as comparable, had a hook about a piece he composed for bagpipes and string orchestra, which is (AFAIK) an unusual combination. A violinist playing a violin concerto though is not, by any stretch of the word, an unusual combination. Fram (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The unusual fact is that she won the National Prize. The other (extra) is just to add some MUSIC. What would your suggestion be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Drop the music. * ... that classical violinst Liza Ferschtman won the Nederlandse Muziekprijs in 2006? Fram (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
What do others think? I miss the memory of an angel ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Fram's proposed hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Decreasing interest in DYKs, where I said yesterday that I still supply to DYK. If I may say no more about a fascinating musician than that she received a price, I may reconsider. Listening to music makes me write articles, not reading prize-winner lists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Gerda's hooks often seem to need some sharpening or allure. The most recent example was
... that Max Reger recorded some of his 52 Chorale Preludes, Op. 67, on the Welte Philharmonic organ?
A lot of hard work went into that article but the hook did not do it justice as there were only 279 readers, which is remarkably low. That was a shame as the article has some excellent sound files created by Mathsci which merit a wider audience. For this latest case, I suggest the following. Andrew D. (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Ferschtman in concert
Ferschtman in concert
ALT2: ... that Liza Ferschtman (pictured) used seven different violins for her virtuoso performance of the Rosary Sonatas?
Now we lost the prize, and "virtuoso" sounds like a POV term, not in the article. On the picture, she plays with orchestra, while the sonatas are chamber music. The hope for that picture reduced the choice of mentionable works. - What would you have said about the preludes? We have many chorale preludes, but few recordings with Reger playing (also not pictured, unfortunately). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Using seven violins in a performance certainly piqued my interest more than an award. Since the article describes the performance as a "rare tour de force" per the translation supplied by Drmies, we can easily replace "virtuoso" with "tour de force" (I prefer it without "rare" for better flow, but if others think it would be better with "rare", that's also fine):
Tour de force is a noun not an adjective and so ALT2a is ungrammatical. 'Virtuoso' can be used as an adjective and seems reasonably close in meaning. The actual phrase used by the reviewer was "een zeldzaam huzarenstukje" which literally means a 'rarely seen Hussar piece' and so we have to use some poetic licence when translating the idiom. Andrew D. (talk)

I like the angle about the seven violins - that's definitely unusual and yes, I think it would get considerably more hits than is usual for this topic area. I don't think it matters that the image is of Ferschtman with an orchestra - the hook doesn't say it's a picture of her playing the Rosary Sonatas. I would recommend going with Andrew's suggested alt, assuming it can be verified. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I checked the source given; Google translate offers "Ferschtman with seven different instruments on stage" (in a context that wouldn't include the harpsichord in the seven, just the violins) and "full implementation of Heinrich Biber[']s Rosary Sonatas", and the phrase "zeldzaam huzarenstukje", which Drmies translated as "rare tour de force". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I can't see anything in the article that would translate to "rare tour de force". Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I still find the orchestra image for a chamber music hook misleading. I don't like "tour de force" because of the "force" it suggests. We came a long way from her angelic playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "tour de force" (and even "virtuoso") seems not appropriate for the pieces: "the music's raison d'être: to evoke an intimate, private atmosphere suitable for prayer and meditation", quoted from the article, which I think is one for insiders. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt, both "tour de force" (assuming she played them well) and "virtuoso" definitely apply to these pieces; the Rosary Sonatas article makes that abundantly clear; in addition to using "virtuosic" in the lead, the body of the article notes that they include very rapid passages, demanding double stops and an extended range, reaching positions on the violin that musicians had not yet been able to play. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd scratch my head but I got some sunburn last week in Florida. Huzarenstukje does translate as "tour de force", and the advantage over "virtuoso" is that huzarenstukje and "tour de force" are both nouns. "Rare tour de force" is simply "zeldzaam huzarenstukje"--"Een zeldzaam huzarenstukje, alleen al gezien de lengte van de cyclus..." As for Andrew Davidson's comment that "tour de force" can't be used adjectivally--well, to begin, "tour de force" in "her 'tour de force' performance" isn't a noun, it's a noun phrase, and second, if we couldn't have nouns or noun phrases used adjectivally, we couldn't be banging our heads into a brick wall, could we. So that proposed hook of BlueMoonset's isn't ungrammatical, and it's exciting (not to mention verified). I'm all for it. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I've taken your word for it Drmies and substituted the hook. Thank you everybody for your input. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally I think sax and violins have no place on Wikipedia's main page. EEng 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Author bases non-notable book on non-notable obscure sources

In light of the discussions over dull hooks, in particular the debate in the preceding section, I ask the community to reconsider this hook, in queue 1 right now:

... that Susanna Elm's book Virgins of God draws on little-known sources such as the Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem?

I'm not sure why basing a non-notable book on a little-known and non-notable source is avoid interest to a broad audience. Perhaps I'm missing the point? Jwslubbock, Haylesley, Andrew Davidson, Cwmhiraeth, Mifter. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The book Virgins of God is notable as there are at least 8 reviews of it. I could easily start a separate article about it but the point currently is to get people to read the newly-created article about its author. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The point is that it's "just a book" (one which may have had eight reviews - much like What Shat That? (pocket edition)) and it being based on something obscure is probably of very little interest to a broad audience. This article seems one of those which is striking for its lack of interesting hooks, and this hook is just forcing it a bit too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The reviews indicate that the book is quite significant in its field. Anyway, my own preference was for a shorter hook. Mary Mark Ockerbloom was involved in arriving at the current version and so should be pinged too. Andrew D. (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Cutting to the chase, the fact of the matter is that the hook is not of interest in any sense to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure we've ever gotten around to putting it in writing, there has long been a convention at DYK that hooks should not contain proper names that are unlinked, partly on the basis that if something is notable enough to be mentioned by name, it should have its own article, and if it isn't notable enough for its own article, it shouldn't be mentioned by name. This hook has two unlinked proper names, in which case I agree it is unsuitable as a hook. Either a couple of new articles on the appropriate subjects should be created, or the hook should be pulled IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly worth considering, indoctrinating that, as it's certainly part of my thought process when reading these hooks. There was one about an athlete who happened to represent his country in two sports in the early 20th century at an international sports event, but the individual wasn't notable enough for (or no-one could be bothered to create) an article. It left the hook somewhat bereft of impact, and it's usually as a result of the target article really having nothing of substantial interest from which to develop a hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not a rule. Today we have Andy Goulding in a hook and that's a red link. Yesterday, we had "... that Hans Larwin painted Soldat und Tod in 1917 when he was the official war painter..." That's a very similar case of mentioning an artist's work by name when we don't have a separate page for it. Per WP:CREEP, we should not go inventing rules which are not our actual practice. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We didn't say it was a rule. But it's definitely something that should be given due consideration for the benefit of our readers, who would look at a hook like this one and unless they had heard of Elm, would be highly unlikely to give it moment's consideration because the rest of the hook is not interesting or informative. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, redlinks violate supplementary rule C1 and should never appear in a hook. I can't see a hook with "Andy Goulding" in it anywhere so don't know what you are referring to but regardless, redlinks are not permitted. With regard to unlinked proper names, I didn't say it was a written rule, I said it was a longstanding convention, and the fact that unlinked proper names are starting to creep back into hooks leads me to think that it's time the convention was formalized. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The hook which mentions Goulding is the bottom one in the current set, "... that Free Radio presenter Andy Goulding thought that "Scared of the Dark" by Steps ..." Andrew D. (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well if Andy Goulding isn't notable enough for his own article, the hook should just say "... that a free radio presenter ...". If he is notable, then the nominator should have added a stub about him IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, that hook should have been pulled, who actually cares what a non-notable radio DJ tweets? Either this is an encyclopedia or it isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Got no opinion on the matter, but I suggest that we not use "notable" as a criterium since WP:N has nothing to do with whether people are interested in a certain subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's what was meant by "notable" really. The hook distilled hook says "...Author drew sources for work 1 on little-known work 2?". I'm just trying to understand why that would be considered interesting to a broad audience. If it was "Author drew sources for Booker Prize-winning work 1 on little-known work 2?" then I'd see some possible interest. Admittedly though, it would be far better if it was "Author drew sources for work 1 on little-known work 2?" so our readers were able to judge for themselves the relevance of the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The point is that if it isn't notable enough for its own article, then it's definitely not of sufficient interest to be referred to by name. All that can achieve is to irritate the reader, something that DYK should do its utmost to avoid. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, we don't have any evidence that notability is a proxy for "interesting to a broad audience". There are lots of things that people find interesting that are not notable and vice versa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well no, that's true. "interesting to a broad audience" is a purely subjective rule so perhaps it should be removed because, as in this case, when a hook which is obviously (to me and others) not of interest to a broad audience is defended by others, then there's clearly a problem with the rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The hook is fine -- Virgins of God (virginity and god (or the the gods) have gotten much interest over the millennia), Virgins going to Jerusalem (why the heck are they doing that?) --- this Elms character sounds quite interesting. Also, the "convention" suggested above is 'not interesting' and not a rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." is a rule, and that's what was quoted initially here, e.g. "very little interest to a broad audience". I think the "interesting to a broad audience" is not being observed here, so it's breaking a fundamental rule of DYK. Alternatively, remove the rule entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I've explained why your argument and your objection is poor, there is no reason for you to repeat the same poor argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a DYK rule - interesting to a broad audience - which this hook is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You have already said that, stop repeating, it is boring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Alan, please see my reply to Jo-Jo above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I saw that. That is why I changed to call it a 'convention' as you have. I am still not seeing it as worthwhile to say you can't talk about proper people, places or things just because no one has written an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem, as I said, is that it's irritating to the reader to introduce them to a topic and then not give them the means to further explore it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
But there is a way to further explore: here, it's Susanna Elm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I think Gatoclass was talking about the topics that were introduced in the hook besides the author, namely the book and one of the works it was drawn from, neither of which have articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
For Virgins of God, yes, but not for Letter to the Virgins ... readers are left wondering what the latter was about. In any case, in my experience there is usually zero additional information about the unlinked proper name in the nominated article, which again creates frustration for the user. See also Masem's comment and my response below. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
From the article: "The book Virgins of God was a development of her doctoral thesis about female asceticism in early Christianity.[6] Enthusiatic religious women sought virtue by engaging in spiritual marriage or becoming anchoresses. Elm recounted how the religious hierarchy restrained such practises, condemning some of them as heresy. Doug Lee, writing in The Classical Review, praised the work as a "stimulating exposition which negotiates the complexities of the source material and subject matter with skill and assurance. of the many strengths of the study is E's exploitation of little-known sources such as an anonymous treatise On Virginity (pp. 34–9 331–6) and Athanasius' Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem (pp. 331–6)."[6]
Since, at least, the Vestal Virgins, virginity and god have been of lasting interest to many people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are putting in a proper noun that is not notable (no standalone article or section in a different article), that's not necessarily bad, but the hook absolutely needs to give context for that proper noun to say why is it important in the hook as to help the reader understand the importance; because of word count, that could affect the phrasing of the hook. For example, take a painter "A" who has a principle work "B" he is known for but that the painting is not notable outside of talking about "A". Then an appropriate hook could be "...that A painted his most famous work B in just two weeks?" (or something like that)- the reader now knows how B relates to A without even clicking through. Taking that to the case above, we need to put Virgins of God (beyond being Elm's book) in context as well as what Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem is, otherwise, as pointed out by others, there's no inclination for the reader to understand why they are important. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with that. Without an indication of why "B" is notable, the reader is left wondering why it warranted a mention, but without the means to satisfy his curiosity. It's true that this problem is resolved if the notability of B is clarified in the hook, but as you point out Masem this can make for a clunky hook, and in any case, if B is notable, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to add a decent stub anyway. So IMO there is no excuse for featuring hooks with unlinked proper names. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I would oppose that, it is just senseless to argue we have to have an article on every proper noun, and it's very contrary to DYK practice that every question in the readers mind has to be answered by a hook (it's quite contrary to form, in fact). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That's possibly one explanation as to why some DYKs are getting fewer than 300 hits in their 12-hour slots then. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I didn't say we should have an article on "every proper noun", what I said is that I think every proper noun that appears in a DYK hook should be linked. Now perhaps a case can be made for an occasional exception, but in my experience hooks with unlinked proper nouns are hooks to which sufficient thought hasn't been given so I think it's a convention worth retaining. Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That is a new argument, but really, you think those people did not think about that hook because Virgin of God is not blue, etc? I don't see how that follows. I think they did think about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Then someone should pull this back to noms since there's clearly concern over this continued approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'm with TRM on this one, though part of the problem cold be alleviated by adding "Athanasius little-known Letter to the Virgins Who Went to Jerusalem" or something like that. Adding publication dates (1994 and 4th century) will help indicate also that this matters. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, 783 hits from the main page seems to say it all here. Honestly, if all the effort and debate that goes into some of these DYKs results in 783 hits, the project needs to redirect its efforts, or reconsider the priorities. You were warned but I guess folks like Alanscottwalker who found it interesting are few and far between. What an incredible waste of effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Compulsion to fiddle

Why has "1515-18" been changed to the far less helpful and longer "early 16th century" in the caption at Queue 1? Even "Titian, 1515-18" is shorter (and much better). Personally I don't see the need to always use the article title in the caption. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"1515-18" is a bit ambiguous, it could mean either "ca. 1515-18" or "painting completed from 1515 to 1518". Why is the "sacra" uncapitalized? Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Silly - how would we know anyway? "ca. 1515-18" is not the proper form. The date range is just a scholarly guess based on style, as such dates almost always are (see Prado link below). Ask the person who added "sacra" about that. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I posted an error report. The caption didn't describe the image. Plus the hyphen/date range violations needed fixing in either case. The article title is not always used in the caption, that seems to be the case about 50% of the time looking back over the template history. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Making things worse, as so often. There is an interesting section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Decreasing_interest_in_DYKs with comments from several former DYK editors. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the relevance of that discussion to this, nor am I seeing how writing a caption which describes an image (which is the principal function of a caption, per MOS:CAPTION) could be considered "making things worse". That caption may work in an article about such artwork, where it is easier to contextualise, but certainly not for a short sentence on the main page in which Titian himself isn't even mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I did, however, see this comment: "I also stopped doing DYKs in fairly short order because the QPQs ended up being so tedious and time-consuming, and also because so few of the nominated articles were ever in my areas of interest." which is really hitting the nail on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no doubt that those that keep working on reviews and DYKs are a special kind of crazy, putting in the effort on a voluntary basis.  MPJ-DK  21:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That's an odd perspective. We're all volunteers, and people who review GANs, FLCs, FACs, FTCs, OTDs, ITNs etc are all putting in the effort on a voluntary basis. The only difference between all of those folks and this project is the QPQ/credit thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
And I am an odd kind of guy, so that is hardly surprising. I am unsure of the actual point you are trying to make though - I don't want to put words in your mouth (or keyboard) here so let me see if I understand you correctly here. You are stating that there are no people who express a similar frustration with the processes around GAN of FACs? There are no Wikipedians who avoid ITN because they are turned off by the process? All those areas are have thousands of volunteers who are all happy, shiny people since they are not subjected to the "horror" of QPQ? I'm trying to see what tune you are trying to play on this QPQ drum you are banging, but I am having a hard time understanding what it is you are even trying to achieve with these comments?  MPJ-DK  22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
For anyone who is under the impression that FAC is some kind of bed of happy-clappy roses, take a good long read of this (currently active) thread. (Where DYK does fall down in comparison to FAC is the relative lack of eyes—it's a lot harder for errors to slip through when there are half-a-dozen reviewers nitpicking their way through every article top-to-bottom—but that's inevitable as long as the "every nomination deserves to pass" mentality remains. GA and FAC—and even ITN—have the luxury of showing inappropriate candidates the door, but at DYK there's an all-must-have-prizes presumption which means boring or inadequately-referenced stuff has a tendency to get shoehorned through; while DYK noms do get failed, it tends to be an exception rather than a rule.) ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec)I didn't bang any drum, nor am I trying to see what tune I can get from it (nice analogy, just wasted here). Factually: none of the other sections of the main page exhibit so many errors as DYK. I don't see frustrations around GAs or FAs or FLs or ITNs that feature on the main page, they are usually of very high quality so they have no problem with being featured. Or they have the balls to fail/reject inappropriate candidates. That almost never happens at DYK. You were the one who claimed that DYKs "are a special kind of crazy, putting in the effort on a voluntary basis". We all do that, in every aspect of Wikipedia. DYK, however, is the one element of the main page which continues to fail, despite years of being encouraged to improve. Everyone must pass. Credits are important. Draw your own conclusions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I do enjoy the freedom to draw my own conclusions. And you're saying the people at DYK are not "Special"? I thought that'd be one thing we could agree on, but hey that was my fault for making assumptions. I will now get off the detour I tooks us on, I apologize to the original topic. Please continue discussing whatever this was originally about.  MPJ-DK  22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like somebody has just trimmed it back to "sacra conversazione" now, which looks okay to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What I see is "sacra conversazione" in hook and caption. While it may be correct for the hook which refers to the term in general, the caption is an image title which should be Sacra conversazione, and should add "by Titian", to clarify that this specific painting is an example, one of many on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not going to work because the painting isn't called Sacra conversazione. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, it can be, which is rather the point. Sacra conversazione is used as a title of convenience for paintings, to avoid a long and sometimes uncertain list. But then you don't actually read the articles of course. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed I did read the article, like all of your DYK-nominated articles, and I even go as so far to correct them when errors creep into their leads, such as incorrectly listing sizes in mm rather than cm. But no, I refer once again to MOS:CAPTION. It would be misleading to say "Sacra conversazione by Titian", perhaps not to experts like you, but certainly to our broad and varied audience. I'm thinking of the readers, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be completely accurate to say "Sacra conversazione by Titian", and no doubt many sources do so. That is exactly the way the term is used. That is especially the case as it turns out that the identity of both the saints is in fact the subject of disputes. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well now that's agreed, perhaps place a report at ERRORS where it can be actioned. The result is certainly far better than the initial offering and hopefully satisfies everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

QPQ - What would happen?

I'm wondering what sort of changes we'd see around here if the QPQ criteria was dropped? Improvements? More problems? It was brought up that the QPQ criteria is not required for any other front page content which made me wonder what would happen if we struck it? We would not have QPQs reluctantly done because a nominator has to do it, leading to the potential of a less than appropriate review. On the other hand would hooks sit unreviewed for a longer period of time? Would it lead to more submissions? Any thoughts on if such a move would be a positive move for DYK's quality?  MPJ-DK  04:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

With current QPQ requirement: "Congratulations! Your DYK has been approved!"
After QPQ requirement eliminated: "We regret to inform you that your DYK was still awaiting review when the sun became a red giant, the oceans boiled away, and the earth was reduced to a lifeless cinder."
No other front page content is like DYK: we have at least an order of magnitude more individual items being dealt with. What would happen is that the number of unreviewed nominations would skyrocket, and people who don't like reviewing would simply stop doing it. Not that most of them are incapable of reviewing, just that they don't like to and would rather spend their time doing something else. Funny thing, though: back when we tightened the QPQ requirements so all nominations, not merely self-nominations, came under the QPQ requirements and people could no longer get someone else to nominate their articles or trade nominations with others, the people who had been the most passionate about not changing the requirement and were going to stop submitting to DYK somehow managed to do proper QPQ reviews when they had articles they wanted to submit. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with BlueMoonset. While I enjoy reviewing many nominations, some are on topics which are of no interest to me and I probably wouldn't review absent the QPQ requirement. Since the only unreviewed nominations are, sometimes, things like Renaissance church frescos in Belgium or Subgenera of Indonesian flower species, removing the QPQ would definitely drop my reviewing ratio well below the current 1:1. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago. Here is an updated list of the 20 non-current nominations (those through March 10). Right now we're at 138 nominations, of which 51 have been approved. Thanks to everyone for their hard work in demolishing the backlog. The oldest four hooks are from January, and two of those are from New Years Day: it would be great if all four could be tackled in the coming week.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep sets

It would be helpful if some prep sets could be built so that there is sufficient time for thorough inspection of hooks before the sets get moved to the queue and on to the main page. Over the past three days, I have felt constrained to build six sets, and I really don't want to do more than one set per day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • If that's the case, we should probably look at going back to one set per 24 hours. Asking people to cover that many hooks per day, however thorough they are, increases the chance of errors sneaking through. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think Cwmhiraeth is politely asking for other people to pitch in. Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah are the primary set builders by default because not many others are. And neither of them are supposed to promote their own nominations to prep. Admins are not supposed to move sets to queue if they built the prep, so that becomes a choice of whether to build the prep or wait and promote it to queue. But not everybody here is an admin, and we used to have more people building sets in prep. Or maybe that's my selective memory. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the problem, I think. I'm an admin, but I'm not around a huge amount - during the week, I may not log in at all in 24 hours. Perhaps it might be worth posting somewhere (WP:AN?} for more people to pitch in? Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's my position also. This has been a weekend where there don't seem to be a lot of editors or admins hovering around DYK, so I either fill preps, or I make myself available to promote to queue. And I think the experienced editors who know how to promote are using their time at other projects. The herd seems to be thinning out. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • By an amazing coincidence the approved reserve just now dropped below 50, so it's time to go back to 1x8/day. But I urge the community to move QA upstream to the Approved page, instead of waiting for Prep. EEng 02:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done - I have reset the timer to a 24-hour cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Queue 3 (Dries Mertens)

".. that in 2016, association footballer Dries Mertens became the first player to score seven goals in two matches in Serie A since Antonio Valentín Angelillo (1958)?"

  • This is really unclear. It sounds like he scored seven goals in one match, and then seven goals in another match. Thing is, I'm not sure how to re-word it without it becomingtoo long. "...became the first player to score a total of seven goals across two consecutive matches..."? Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    I agree, my rewording is sub-optimal, but "seven goals in two matches" is common, certainly in British English. Please feel free to restore the original wording which, in British English, was clunky and awkward but which should alleviate your concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Marysville, Washington

@The Rambling Man: The unreferenced section in Marysville, Washington (formerly of prep area 3) has been fixed and the tag removed. Is there a better way of "containing" approved-but-left behind hooks in the queuing area? And perhaps a notification system for nominators so that we can actually address the issue in time? SounderBruce 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

See my several pleas elsewhere on this page that QA efforts take place on the nom page while it's still open and "contained" on the Approved page. The way the nominator, reviewer, and all earlier participants will (presumably) see mention of QA concerns on their watchlist without even having to be pinged. EEng 04:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
SounderBruce thanks for sorting that out. It should have been picked up during review/promotion, so it's a shame it had to be addressed so late in the day. No harm, no foul. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6 - rugby field goals

... that one used to be able to score a field goal in rugby but this was abolished in 1905?

That's awkward and archaic wording; isn't it just clearer and simpler to say "... that field goals in rugby were abolished in 1905? The C of E, Yoninah, Mifter. It would also be mildly interesting to include that it was valued the same as a try for the short duration it was allowed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, it should be clear that it was abolished in the union code only in 1905, according to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the majority would get that it is referring to union (the greater code!) since it is common shorthand for union. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I disagree, it should be made explicit, especially since it was not abolished in the other code. Also, I'm not sure about the "banned" category, it's not noted as banned in the article, simply a discontinued method of scoring. If someone kicks the ball from open play through the posts, it's not an offence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So, for the avoidance of doubt, the banned cat should be deleted, and the hook should run as:

that field goals in rugby union were abolished in 1905?

Or better:

that field goals in rugby union, which were worth the same number of points as a try, were abolished in 1905? More interesting and more accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
These proposed hooks seem good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Fixed in prep. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
My view is that the hook is intended to appeal to the gridiron fans in the States, as well as rugby fans, by ending it without mentioning a try as many may not know what a try is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I linked the term! Win-win, appealing to both non-rugby readers and those who may be surprised to see that it was considered on a par with a try! Very nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - List of Australia Test cricket records

Current hook is:

... that Arthur Mailey's best Test bowling figures of 9/121 has been the Australian record for 96 years?

Under the current regime, unlinking is the fashion, so we have "Test bowling figures of 9/121" to amaze and bemuse our readers. So that's Test cricket (cricket isn't mentioned in the hook), "bowling figures" (bowling average is our usual guide to the uncertain) and "9/121", anyone thinking "what is that?". I know precisely what it means, but is it of use to the main page? I don't think so. I'll ping Ianblair23, Magiciandude and Yoninah here.

If this is the best factoid we can derive from the entire list of Australian Test records, I despair. It's not even the longest-standing record for Australian Test cricket. Perhaps the 562-run win against the Poms would be more interesting, or Allan Border's continual representing between 1979 and 1994. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

TRM, I'm ready to hand over the baton to you for promoting sports hooks. This is all Greek to me. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's probably entirely inappropriate given my status, I'd suggest we wait for Ian or others to chime in here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man I was waiting for this discussion to occur. It is oldest individual record except for J. J. Ferris' bowling average and strike rate which unlikely ever to be beaten. But in every innings it possible to take nine wickets which is why I selected Mailey's record. Happy to reword as follows "... that Arthur Mailey's best Test bowling figures of 9 wickets for 121 runs has been the Australian record for 96 years?" Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, that works (clearly) for me. It does rely on DYKers allowing numerous wikilinks, some of which are to "not brilliant" articles, but it's probably the best we can do in short order. I hope you understand my initial concern (even though it didn't concern me personally at all, just those reading who haven't had the benefit of a good upbringing (with wicket maidens, stumpings and silly mid-offs...) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man No worries TRM. The difficultly is finding the right balance with links. I understand the argument that the article we want to display may be lost with too many links but on other hand we need to think about our readers. I will update the hook accordingly. Cheers– Ianblair23 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Ianblair23, since you're the page creator, I'll have to adjust it in prep.
Yes check.svg Done Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yoninah and TRM. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrative controls

I reviewed the DYK nomination of this article, and when I went to check if a QPQ was required I found that the user had only contributed on the day the article was created - to the article, the DYK nomination, and a template used in the article (with one other edit to a related article). I find this suspicious, perhaps a sock. That is all I know. Should I AGF and approve (it seems to otherwise be qualified), or do something else? MB 02:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there is cause for concern. The other editor of this article is John P. Sadowski who is a Wikipedian in residence at NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), aiming to improve Wikipedia coverage of occupational safety and health issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The article was created by a visiting student who was in the office for a week. I was asked to give him an assignment so I had him write this article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture hook

The G3DP glass printing process

Are we happy in using this video in the picture image slot now in Prep 3? To me it resembles an advertisement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It does look a bit like an advert for generic glass or MIT but nothing I would be too concerned about as it's not promoting any particular brand of glass in my view. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Neri Oxman by Noah Kalina.jpg
  • The article in question is Neri Oxman which contains many striking images, not least the lead image of the professor herself (right). Myself, I'd have gone for the funky chair (left) but we should respect the choice of the main author, Sj, who chose to focus upon the 3D glass printer. The video seems reasonable for that hook. Andrew D. (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Glass printing seemed a memorable hook, from art and engineering angles, though I agree there are more striking images. I also wish that video were more technical and less literally glowing, but it stays focused on the process, and demonstrates it in a way that would be hard with images alone. – SJ + 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable wrestler retires - prep 3

* ... that professional wrestler Lou Klein announced his retirement the same day he won the Detroit version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship? MPJ-DK, The C of E, Cwmhiraeth.

This is another hook along the lines of the couple we've discussed above, the subject of this hook is not even notable enough for an article, yet we think our readers would be interested in the fact he won this championship and subsequently retired? A more interesting and pertinent fact is that this "world" championship featured only teams from the non-notable "NWA Detroit". The target article has a far more interesting claim:

"Because individual NWA members, referred to as NWA territories, were allowed to create their own version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship at least 22 different versions existed between 1949 and 1991". A DYK could be:

... the Detroit version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship was one of at least 22 NWA World Tag Team Championships that existed between 1949 and 1991?

At least that targets the real target article and doesn't rely on non-notable wrestler's career options. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Let's see if MPJ-DK has a view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
New suggested hook is much better IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the revised hook is far more interesting. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That one is fine.  MPJ-DK  11:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have substituted the revised hook in Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


I thought that Template:Did you know nominations/Piano Concerto No. 6 (Mozart) would make a nice match for the TFA on 24 March, - now that it's approved and we are on one set per day, that seems not likely to happen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The featured article in question is Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) which is the TFA on 24 March, the day the work was completed. If your DYK hook runs on the same day I fear it may get few hits because classical music enthusiasts may not want to read both and may prefer the featured article. Just my view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought less of views for our little article, but of offering to the interest public an image of Mozart that they may not know, unlike the sugary one that is in our article on him and on the sweets. No problem to do so later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable person law partner joins court after notable person leaves - prep 4

... that the law partner of North Carolina Supreme Court justice Armistead Burwell joined the court after Burwell had left it?

This is like several above, where the target article is bereft of anything of real interest so the hook has to be constructed and focused around something else. I read the article, and thought that a more interesting hook could be:

... that despite being severely wounded in the American Civil War in 1864, Armistead Burwell became licensed to practice law five years later?


... that Armistead Burwell became licensed to practice law five years after he was severely wounded in the American Civil War?

These alt hooks place the focus on the actions of the target article rather than something peripheral to it, and any case, I think either would be more interesting. But YMMV, just worth thinking about in my opinion. Pinging MB, Cwmhiraeth, Dr Aaij. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and think the second hook you suggest is the better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that is better. MB 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Then we need an admin to replace it since it's subsequently been moved to a queue. Maile66, Mifter, Coffee, Black Kite.....? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and MB: Fixed Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dr Aaij: (I messed up your ping). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We've had some conversation over this; The Rambling Man, you can see my prediction at the nomination page, and I thank you for your efforts. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh, if I'm being pinged also because of the hook verification, the newly proposed hook is verified--here the "severely wounded" in 1864 and here passing the bar in 1869. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Fantastic! Dr Aaij, I'll make sure to link to this from the nomination page. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Singer releases album soon after mass exposure at presidential inauguration - prep 5

* ... that only two months after she performed the national anthem at the 2017 United States presidential inauguration, Jackie Evancho is set to release a new album, Two Hearts?

This is no way remarkable, or really particularly interesting. It's in Evancho's best interest to work the publicity from her appearance at the inauguration, the timing is obvious. It's even less interesting and less remarkable once you read that "Evancho began recording music for the album in 2015..." I read the article and found some alternatives that are perhaps more interesting.

Maybe one of those would be more broadly interesting? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not that last one! She sings covers of pre-existing songs, Enya and the others have not written a song for her or for the album. Fram (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The article lists them as writing credits, right? It doesn't say they were written for the song or for her explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It could be rephrased :
Better? I liked it because I thought the contrasting writers, including Stilgoe (who I'd forgotten even existed), Swift and Boberg, made for a genuinely hooky hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I was going to make the same point as Fram, but you've solved it already - the second of those two hooks you've added is the best, I think. And I'd forgotten about Richard Stilgoe as well, I think the last time I saw him he was in the dictionary corner on Countdown. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Re:Stilgoe, my thoughts exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgot courtesy pings to Ssilvers, Pgallert, Hawkeye7, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with this kind of informal hook chat is that people may agree on a new hook but the discussion does not appear on the nomination template and nobody actually substitutes the hook in the prep area. Of the hooks above, the only one that conforms to precise DYK rules, and for which I can check the source, is TRM's second hook. I am prepared to replace the present hook by that one, but any other actions will need to be taken by someone else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Well the other action you could take would be to return this to the noms and re-open the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
But interestingly, your point about the latter hooks not being referenced in the article is enlightening too, so the information with the track listings is actually unverifiable and should be tagged as such... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TRM – the hook is uninteresting. And I saw it on the nominations page while building preps and simply skipped over it. I think the hook should be pulled from prep for further work. Yoninah (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I think TRM's 2nd hook ("includes covers of songs written by..") is fairly interesting purely for the bizarre range of songwriters (You'll be doing well to find another sentence with Taylor Swift and Richard Stilgoe in it!). I'm not particularly bothered if it's pulled, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TRM's 2nd hook, but it needs to be sourced in the article. Returning to the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)



Template:Did you know nominations/Beethoven Orchester Bonn @Gerda Arendt, Vivvt, and Cwmhiraeth:

The line "In 1907, Richard Strauss conducted his works in Bonn with the orchestra" is sourced to source 4, which is somewhat confusingly a triple source. The problem is that as far as I can tell, not one of the three pages actually mentions Strauss or 1907 at all...[2][3][4]. So I'm a bit amazed how three people verified that this source actually supports the hook! Fram (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Its with source 1 in German. I have added the inline source. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK article

Is {{DYK article}} still in use anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not. EEng 03:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1950 Fairfield-Suisun Boeing B-29 crash

A few days ago I created a new article on the 1950 Fairfield-Suisun Boeing B-29 crash, and overhauled a related article about Brigadier General Robert F. Travis (who was killed in the crash). I sent the air crash article to DYK, and it was reviewed and approved by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and has been moved to the approved list. However, yesterday, Travis was promoted to GA.

I therefore updated Template:Did you know nominations/1950 Fairfield-Suisun Boeing B-29 crash to add the Travis article, making it a double-barrel hook; added a second QPQ; and added an image of Travis.

I didn't move it from the approved pile - I wasn't sure what the procedure for this is. I have marked it as requiring another review.

If someone could take the appropriate action, that would be great.

The air crash made front-page news back in 1950, due to the deaths of so many people, including the general, and again in 1994, when it was revealed that an atomic bomb was involved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Yeah, it was a cool article, which taught me something. Nice bit of history, although my comfort zone is 500 years earlier :) Not sure I can help here. In fact I cant, as I was a reveiwer virgin until then. So what's up? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 21:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I undertook the second review. Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Did you know"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA