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.

Can graphical timelines qualify for DYK?

I was considering writing a appropriately long lead for the Graphical timeline of plesiosaurs to qualify for a DYK, but I wanted to check and make sure these sorts of articles aren't excluded outright by policy for some reason. Abyssal (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you can as tables and bullets don't count towards the count. It just says 1500 characters, it doesn't say in which manner they must be arranged only that they not be bullets or in tables. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. A 1500-word prose introduction would certainly help this article, and qualify for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture

Today's top DYK, on the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture, is insanely inappropriate. Who on earth decided it was a good idea to put idiotic local 'nicknames' calling one of the most prominent LGBT figure in British history—a man who was persecuted, imprisoned and ultimately died for his sexuality—a "fag" and a "queer" on Wikipedia's front page? I see it was nominated by The C of E, whose charmingly flag-plastered user page declares himself "politically incorrect" (you don't say), and given a cursory review by Royroydeb. If there is no more oversight than that then the DYK process is seriously broken. – Joe (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA and argumentum ad hominum here. As it has already been explained, context is key here and the context is clearly explained in the article that they are not slurs, they are tongue-in-cheek risque nicknames given to statues by Dubliners which they do for almost all the statues in Dublin. The Tart with the Cart, The Floozie in the Jacuzzi and the Prick with the Stick come to mind. I will also point out WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia run swear words on the front page all the time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
See WP:GRATUITOUS. The fact that some ignorant Dubliners don't consider them to be slurs does not change the fact that they are widely agreed to be slurs. As of this revision only two of the sources cited in the article actually mention the nicknames, and neither of them are reliable sources. The poor sourcing alone should actually have disqualified it as a DYK hook. Yet you not only chose to feature them prominently in the article, you decided they were the most interesting fact about this work of art and had them featured on the main page! That is not remotely encyclopaedic treatment.
And there's no personal attack here. Your user page makes quite clear the kind of person you are and I wouldn't have expected anything better. I do think, however, there should be a mechanism in the DYK process that stops editors with fringe views using it to vandalise the main page. – Joe (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
"Fringe views" What on earth are you on about? The reason why I chose to use those names was because they were the most hooky part of of article. A lot of people equally find those words harmless and context is clearly explained within the article. Furthermore, there is no "vandalism" when it has been checked by numerous people and no objections were made. Only when it gets on the main page, we suddenly get the IDONTLIKEIT comments triggered from those who clearly didn't check the context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'm sure some people find most slurs—homophobic or otherwise—harmless. The people using them, usually. But WP:OM directs us to consider the "typical Wikipedia reader", and there can be no dispute that the typical person in the English-speaking world considers fag and queer to be highly offensive slurs. "Context" doesn't make them magically not offensive – especially not when that context is "but they didn't mean it!" The only context that's relevant here is what I outlined above: our readers seeing an important figure in LGBT history, who was viciously persecuted for his homosexuality in his own time, today referred to as a "fag" and a "queer" on Wikipedia's main page. You're damn right IDONTLIKEIT. It's a disgrace. – Joe (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
You do realise that in the Commonwealth, a fag is a cigarette and likewise queer means strange and are used casually and often? So which interpretation of typical Wikipedia reader do you mean? The US-centric one or the Commonwealth centric one? Context does make a difference because if they make it clear that they are jokes without malice, then there is no intent of offence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm British. And you know as well as I do that that nickname is not calling Wilde a cigarette on a rock. – Joe (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's yet more evidence that DYK is irretrievably broken, and will almost certainly be a front and centre exhibit when it is inevitably removed (sooner rather then later, hopefully) from the Main Page. If I'd seen it this morning I would have pulled it on the spot. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Note I said Wikipedia not DYK, I seem to recall one of our main Featured Articles being "Fuck". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Not offensive, just a word (unless you're someone who can find mere words offensive). Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Fuck is just a word and I do use it - fuck this, fuck that, fuck it, but calling a subject a fuck would be different. Even then it wouldn't be considered a target for a group of people. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of any context, this wording is likely to come across to the reader as a gratuitous way to feature derogatory terms on the front page, or even as trivializing what could be reasonably misinterpreted as a much more hostile sentiment than is intended by the irreverent spirit of the nicknames. For DYKs involving such language, it would be helpful to take a bit more consideration of how the hook will read to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. A broader consultation, possibly by notifying relevant WikiProjects, might be useful in such cases.--Trystan (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with a hook like this, IMO, is not whether the article explains the intent behind the nicknames, it is how the hook may be seen by those who never look at the article. In isolation, the hook was potentially offensive to members of the LGBT community and to readers with strong views on equality and anti-discrimination. It could communicate to LGBT readers that homophobia is tolerated / accepted, and could encourage bigots into thinking such language is acceptable in general. At least, the hook needed to say the names were light-hearted / affectionate (supposing they were and the claim was solidly supported). Absent that, the hook being (arguably) policy compliant does not make it appropriate. EdChem (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Trystan states above that "this wording is likely to come across to the reader as a gratuitous way to feature derogatory terms on the front page", and it seems to me that there may be an element of that occurring here, particularly given The C of E's stated dislike of political correctness. On 12 May The C of E left a post on Ritchie's talk page, stating that controversial topics would never appear on DYK if hooks were decided by a vote. On 15 May, within that same thread, I asked a question about the word "poofs" appearing on Ritchie's talk page. On 17 May a link was made from that thread to a discussion at the LGBT WikiProject, where a heated discussion took place regarding use of such words, including the word "fag". On 19 May The C of E created this article and then this hook. The timing may be coincidental, but if not it suggests a lack of consideration in this instance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I assure you that there is no connection here between the controversial topics post and me creating the article. Half the stuff you mentioned here, I didn't even know about. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, thankyou for your assurance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What happened?

The discussion at WP:ERRORS has been closed, so pinging editors who might like to join this one: Shocking Blue, Modest Genius, Pawnkingthree, Dank, Iridescent, SL93.

It's now off the main page but, aside from C of E, we still haven't heard from anyone involved in the DYK project on how this happened. @Cwmhiraeth: you appear to have had the final responsibility for putting in on the main page, what went wrong? – Joe (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been the perfect example of where stripping away context, to provide a "catchy hook", has turned what was essentially a rather trivial fact into something unintentionally offensive. I'm sure all those involved in constructing and promoting the DYK hook acted in perfectly good faith, but that they had full familiarity with the context that explained this seemingly trite and insulting factoid. I'd just like to add that some of my best friends are statues. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I promoted this approved hook to the prep area five days before it appeared on the main page. I thought it an amusing hook and not in the least derogatory. I note that you think it "insanely inappropriate" to have it on the main page, but I think you are in a small minority. Other people will have reviewed the prep area and an admin implicitly approved it my moving it to a queue. People working on the front page content have a chance to preview tomorrow's DYK the day before it appears. Nobody objected to it in advance of its appearance, and yesterday, when it was queried, nobody took the objections sufficiently seriously to pull or amend the hook as far as I know. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
p.s. it wasn't me who thought it was "insanely inappropriate", Cwmhiraeth. I just thought it looked a bit unsubtle and open to misinterpretation. But that's not really unusual for DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict and I was replying to Joe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Six editors, including three admins, objected to this at WP:ERRORS yesterday, in addition to this discussion and the one at Talk:Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture. So no, I don't think I'm in the minority in thinking it WP:GRATUITOUS. I also don't think you are qualified to be approving material for the main page if you can't see how referring to Oscar Wilde as a "fag" and a "queer" is "in the least derogatory". But apparently the buck now goes to Mifter as he "implicitly" approved it. Is anyone going to take responsibility for this colossal fuck up? – Joe (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree that it's patently false to suggest those objecting are in a small minority. Iridescent pinged Royroydeb yesterday who was the editor who conducted the original review but as far as I'm aware they didn't respond - so trying again. I'm amazed that throughout this multi-stage process no one though that adding this to the main page without any context or sufficient sourcing would cause a problem. As regards admins pulling the item Black Kite has already said that they would have done so if they'd seen it in time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I will note I was very careful to include a disclaimer explaining the context in the article. Some editors later removed it for some reason. Furthermore, if he felt it was that bad he could have removed it at any time yet chose not to. The Royal C (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the "disclaimer" in the article because you made it up. None of the sources you scrambled to add after it was pointed out that your original source was a crappy blog said anything of the sort. – Joe (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I also saw the hook in prep and didn't see a problem with it, though in retrospect, I should probably have anticipated that it would draw the ire of some users. I certainly wouldn't agree that the hook is indefensible however. To begin with, the hook refers to a sculpture of somebody, not to the person himself. Secondly, while some people may find these epithets offensive, the DYK hook is merely reporting the fact that Dubliners refer to the sculpture in this way, it isn't endorsing the terms. Thirdly, I am sure these epithets are used affectionately by Dubliners rather than maliciously - Wilde is, after all, surely a figure of great affection in Ireland. And let's not forget that the Irish voted overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage. So I'm not sure these objections really have a lot of substance - though again, they should probably have been anticipated.

Other than that, having looked at the article, I would say it presents the epithets in a sensationalist and decontextualized manner, and the article should probably not have been featured in such a state. It probably made objections a virtual certainty, when a more mature treatment might have avoided offence. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The history of LGBT rights in Ireland is actually very troubled. Although it was one of the first western country to legalise gay marriage, it was also one of the last to decriminalise homosexuality (in 1993!) It's obviously a complex issue, but it would be extremely ignorant to suggest that Dublin is a bigotry-free utopia where homophobic undertones couldn't possibly exist. The statue has, in fact, been criticised for its stereotyped portrayal of a gay man. It's also been remarked that, despite Wilde being one of the country's greatest literary figures, he wasn't commemorated in Dublin until 97 years after his death. So no, I don't think he is universally given great affection in Ireland. Funnily enough The C of E—an editor who proudly displays his opposition to LGBT equality on his user page—didn't bother to include this peer-reviewed scholarly critique of the piece in the article, instead choosing to emphasise the hilarious derogatory nicknames he'd seen it given in tourist blogs.
It's entirely beside the point whether the people who came up with these nicknames think they are offensive, though. The fact is they are offensive to the vast majority of our readers and their prominent inclusion in the article and on the main page is unnecessary and WP:GRATUITOUS. It should never have happened. – Joe (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Joe, I think you've made some very valuable points here. That thoughtful piece by Sarah Smith in the Sculpture Journal certainly needs expanding in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

So now 1/4 of the article is about the statue's nicknames, when they couldn't be reliably sourced for the article's time on the main page? Is the article about the statue or the nicknames? Too many editors delight in emphasizing the most trivial aspects of a topic to get a rise. I'm sure it's scored its WikiCup points. Let's spend time adding info about the statue! -- (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the article I can see. There are only two sentences about the nicknames. But I'd be quite happy to remove the one in the lead. Please discuss further at the article Talk page, and by all means add info there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Really? Am I looking at the wrong article? It has two sections, History, and Nickname and Impact? Right now. And when I posted above. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Not since I changed it at 11:02 today here. Did you want me to change it back? I've relegated the nicknames to the very last sentence of the article. Not sure they can go any lower. Any further suggestions might be better placed at Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and when you posted the comment above there was still an entire section on the nickname. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Admin resposibility RFC wording

Since objections have been raised to my wording of the options above, I am beginning this discussion here to deal with said problems. Here are my proposed options. Have at them. Vanamonde (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Option 1 The current guideline is reaffirmed. Administrators are required to check every aspect of the article mentioned in the current version of the guideline, including WP:V, WP:BLP, image licensing, copyright, and hookiness.
  • Option 2 Admins are only required to check those criteria for which violations are generally considered more serious: copyright, BLP, and image licensing, and whether the hook is in the article and cited. Admins would be signing off on these criteria, but responsibility for all the others would be with the reviewer and the promoter.
  • Option 3 Admins are only responsible for certain technicalities of the hook set (assumed to be the case in 1 and 2). These are formatting, number of hooks, and balance between topics for the hooks. Responsibility for all the others would be with the reviewer and the promoter. This is the option that current practice seems closest to for a lot of folks.
Thank you Vanamonde. I will not have time to look into this tonight, so I will have to come back to this tomorrow. My apologies for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think identifying what the current situation is, formally and in practice, would be a good start. I also think a comment that admins should look to see if the hook and article are main page worthy and appropriate (in general) would be good. I also think some consideration of the responsibilities of prep builders would be good. For example, promoting a hook when the nomination has a tick is not ok without reading the nomination. In the above Oscar Wilde case, the review is pretty thin so promoting was questionable, as was endorsing it as main page appropriate, IMO. EdChem (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If you start altering the responsibilities of admins when moving a prep set into the queue, you will need to reconsider the obligations of the prep set builder. If you make their duties too onerous, as in options 2 and 3, you may not get anyone willing to take on the task. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
So? Someone has to take responsibility. It is either admins, reviewers or set builders. If neither of those want to diligently check and control quality, then that is a choice in itself. And if not enough people are found to do a certain task then... i guess that is tough luck. Volunteering is a thankless task and if a certain aspect of a project does not encourage enough interest, in the beaurocratic side of things or otherwise, it is too bad but how it is. Someone HAS to take the responsibility in the end. (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Plus, looking at the flurry of complaints coming this way, the work has to please everyone apparently. It's a tough volunteering task. I really respect Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and others who do it regularly. HaEr48 (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I think the onus should be on the reviewer to do a thorough review. For that to be become mandatory, though, we need more editors (which incudes but does not necessarily mean only prep builders) to contradict ticks on the grounds of an inadequate review. If a prep builder sees a ticked review which is inadequate (misses criteria) or neglects important considerations (interestingness, appropriateness), don't promote. I've seen reviews with ticks with no QPQ check, no mention of copyvio check, or controversy / issues raised but not resolved. It's not the prep builders job to fix these problems, but also not appropriate to promote to the queue despite them. (These comments are made generally, not thinking of any particular nomination nor reflecting on you particularly as a prep builder.) We also need a better mechanism for disallowing QPQ credits. Better standards are needed if the problem rate is to be reduced. EdChem (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem and Cwmhiraeth: While I appreciate the importance of the questions you folks have raised, particularly the issue of inadequate reviews, I think that's a separate issue. I started this to resolve one particular problem; that current admin practice is at odds with the guideline, and is highly variable. Given that the folks that this applies to are admins, it is possibly the best place to begin to fix the larger malaise. So could we address that question, and then build from there? Would you be okay with an RFC worded as above, or would you like to change it? Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, I did not ask for any change, though I would have made a response including how I interpret the options. If it were me, I would have constructed an Option 1 as what policy currently requires and Option 3 as what is currently done in practice as a minimum, recognising that actual admins act at 3 or with increasing rigour towards an option 1 ideal which I see as unrealistic. I would then present 2 as a compromise which removes the onus to do all of 1, but recognises that (for example) not noting a BLP issue in a hook is not ever acceptable.
Having said that, I think it is part of a larger problem that includes better reviews in the first instance, a greater willingness to refuse to promote inadequate / incomplete reviews, promoters having specific responsibility for making sure that the review is adequate and the hook policy compliant (and not just sourced). Promoters need to be supported in asking for further review or issues to be addressed by the option of denying QPQ credits. There is too much that is problematic which gets into the queues because the reviews missed important aspects and then these are not caught before promotion. The promoters do a lot, I know, and redoing the review is not their role, but if I am correct that the adequacy of first instance reviews is a significant part of the problem then promoters, as the next step, need to be sending more back. EdChem (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Sure, but the responsibilities of prep builders and admins must complement each other so that there is not excessive duplication in some checks while other checks get overlooked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with nominator who choose to argue against the reviewer rather than improve the article

Because DYK articles run in the main page and often get complaints when aren't up to standard, I try to ensure that nomination meet the core policies/guidelines—this is what the reviewing guide says. In the nomination for Riwŏn, I pointed out that some facts in the article lack references, and that the lead contains only one sentence (that's not referenced), and asked the nominator to address these. In my opinion, this request is not unreasonable. However, the nominator chose to argue against the request and then hinted towards getting another reviewer. What's the point of the reviewer if you can "fire" the reviewer and try to find one who's willing to approve? How to deal with such a case? HaEr48 (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"If you don't understand," "If you feel incapable," .... This is why people just pass articles (see discussions above), if you mention a problem, you're subject to high nastiness. You raised legitimate concerns about writing a basic article, and the writer attacked you and made up stuff, you didn't demand English, you didn't even call him on uncited copying from other Wikipedia articles. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the lead needs to be longer, as this is a pretty stubby article. I do however think that the lead should mention that this locality is, specifically, a "town", which it doesn't at present. That would be sufficient to establish notability. Other than that, the two "citation needed" tags look reasonable to me, and should be addressed before the article is promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I more or less agree with Gatoclass. I have left a comment at the nomination, I hope that helps. Vanamonde (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

@Tachs: @Forceradical: @SL93:

Personally, I find this hard to call "hooky". It uses the word "model" 3 times, and the most interesting/unusual thing is the mention of the Abelian sandpile model, which will probably siphon off all the clicks. Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

--[email protected] (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not too sure that the article would siphon off all the clicks. I mean, we could always assume, but no one actually knows until it reaches the main page. SL93 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If the article hasn't been adjusted to deal with ALT2 in the next several hours, it would probably best to pull the nomination from the prep to allow plenty of time for the necessary changes to be made; right now the hook there is problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done Returned from prep for further work. Yoninah (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Many of these Indian physicist articles way understate the prestige of the scientists and, although well intended, appear to be written by someone with a minimal grasp of the scientific concepts. Maybe some project people could help out. Whoever is writing them is including good sources, and covering the main concepts, but they're clumsily written in the science and math. For all the effort and good topics, I wish someone knowledgeable could help. I have cleaned up the few in my area of mathematics, but I only have a working grasp of the higher level engineering mathematics I use, not broad background in math. These articles are a real gift. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5D (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting DYK updates back on track

I was bold and updated my first prep to a queue tonight (let me know if I did anything wrong). I noticed when I was updating it though, that the queue was already a bit behind its regular schedule. Is there a way to get the bot back fully to its regularly planned schedule (presumably with the update that would come from queue 2)? IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The bot automatically moves the sets 15 minutes toward midnight UTC with each update, so they will eventually get there. No need for special adjustments. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived; here is an updated list of 39 old nominations. Right now we have a total of 263 nominations, of which 132 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these ones that have been waiting a while, especially the one from April.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - "smaller head"

"... that the fossil ant Cephalotes dieteri has a smaller head then its sister species?" Kevmin, SL93, Cwmhiraeth.

Sorry, this has plumbed the very depths of DYK: this is of absolutely zero interest. What would be really interesting would be if it had an identically sized head. But the fact that the size is different is undeniably dull and trivial. The article trivialises it further by saying it's not just "smaller" but "slightly smaller"... Why not talk about Dominican amber or something that might actually formulate something of note? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There were two hooks in the nomination and I just chose the more interesting of the two to recommend. I think that if both it and its sister species had an identically sized head, that would be less interesting just because they are sister species. I think that what is even more boring than both hooks that were in this nomination is what was recently on the main page - "that the ant Cephalotes alveolatus (pictured) is distinguished by its clubbed hairs?". Distinguished compared to what? Maybe I'm wrong about that one because it did get over 6,000 clicks somehow (maybe just because of the good picture). SL93 (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess people would be interested in the term "clubbed hairs". This hook relating to relative head size is not interesting at all. And no, sister species would still be unlikely to have "identical" sized heads, so that would actually be more interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Are these ants distinguish3d by head size at the species level? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "... that the fossil ant Cephalotes dieteri was described from two specimens found in an unidentified Dominican amber mine?" I'd click on that one... Vanamonde (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    Much much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It's better, and not trivial like everything else. SL93 (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't think many people would even care about head size in the first place, but I still reviewed it because maybe I'm not just understanding how great the species aspects are. I'm fine with this hook not being promoted. For my reviews from now on, I will just stay away from species articles or just make a comment that I think it sucks (but in nice way). SL93 (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you do with yet another of these boring animal and fossil hooks, please don't put "... that the fossil ant Cephalotes dieteri has a smaller head THEN its sister species?" on the main page. Then <> Than ...

But my preference would be not to run this, not even with the alternative hook. The article indeed says "Cephalotes dieteri was described from two fossil ants" and so on, but the first line of the lead says "known from a single Middle Miocene fossil ", so what is it? The article (just like the previous one that ran on DYK) continues with "In the study of Cephalotes by de Andrade and Baroni Urbani C. dieteri was grouped into the coffeae clade comprised of seven extinct species and four extant species." but the image below it only shows 6 extinct species. I note also for this species: "while the rear borders of the hind gasteral tergites have rare club-tipped hairs.": I thought the last one we featured was "distinguished by its clubbed hairs", but now it turns out that this one has clubbed hairs as well?

Considering all this, including the fact that the previous such hook was either wrong or at least misleading, and that the current one (and the one proposed here) have enough problems as well, I would just pull the plug on this one. Good effort, but no DYK this time. Fram (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the single fossil / two fossils discrepancy, but then assumed that "single fossil" refers to a single piece of material that contains two insect specimens. Though this is my interpretation and sentences shouldn't be open to interpretation; it needs clarifying if possible. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The material is the matrix, not the fossil, the fossil is the evidence of life. Single piece of material with two fossils, maybe. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
How about
  • ALT3 ... that the fossil ant Cephalotes dieteri was found in amber produced by an extinct tree?
  • ALT4 ... that the fossil ant Cephalotes dieteri was found in amber produced by an extinct tree that used to grow in the Dominican RepublicHispaniola? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I like anachronisms, but this one is perhaps going a bit too far. If this desperately needs to run, and you want to go with this hook, then at least use Hispaniola, not the Dominican Republic... Fram (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Reading ALTs 3 and 4 literally, I'd find them fascinating, but I suspect we are talking about problematic writing. If the tree was indeed extinct when it produced the amber, that would be amazing, but I think "... found in amber produced by a tree which is now extinct" is intended. Then, since amber is fossilised tree resin, "amber produced by a tree" is redundant. I think perhaps:
or something like that? EdChem (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, the pointless "interesting" criteria is used as a way to make openly disparaging remarks about nominations. There is nothing wrong with the hooks that I proposed, and "interesting" is NOT one of the criteria used ANYWHERE else in the encyclopedia. I oppose the changes based on editors not being personally interested in a subject and conflating that lack of interest as a valid reason to make a beurocratic mess on this project every change that can be taken.--Kevmin § 03:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, this hook is the first in about 60 or 70 that has been truly dull, I've reviewed them all. That so many other editors have agreed and proposed alts must tell you something about the original hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Quite apart from the hook, I have rephrased the lead paragraph of the article so that it mentions two specimens not one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It tells me that the arbitrary "interesting" requirement is only applied to things people do not like. The rule is not in line with the five pillars and not in line with any core principle of the encyclopedia.--Kevmin § 00:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of the DYK section of the main page was to draw attention to things that might interest readers. If that means DYK is not inline with "five pillars" or "core principle" then perhaps we should take it off the main page. I suppose another alternative is to propose the removal of the "interesting to a broad audience" rule of DYK to which nominations must comply. Either way, it's clear that this hook fails that, as evidenced by the subsequent discussion, so it should be fixed to comply with the rules until such a time those rules are amended or removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
NO, that is NOT what I said, and you are aware of that. I said that the "interesting" is not part of any section of Wiki Core or Five pillars. So your assertion that DYK is not in line with them is false. "Interesting" needs to be removed.--Kevmin § 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Do something about it or comply with the rules and stop being surprised when such hooks are picked out as being unacceptably weak for a broad audience. In other news, per Fram, these articles seem to be patchy in terms of accuracy, so we should get our reviewers to cross-check them with all the other "fossil ant" DYKs since there appears be conflicts between them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI the hook in question has been moved to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

About both ants having clubbed hairs in the prior hook, are the clubbed hairs somehow different from each other since one can be distinguished from the other because of it? It's not just about interesting, but also factually accurate. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4

I cannot seem to find the second hook from Prep 4 in either article (D. J. Wilson and 2017–18 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team) from the hook. It seems to be hinted at, but can somebody with more knowledge of U.S. college basketball fix this? Otherwise, I'll be forced to swap it out before promoting to the queue. Vanamonde (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, Cwmhiraeth, and 97198: Vanamonde (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking out of ignorance, I gather that players who join the NBA draft are no longer eligible to play for their college; the fact that he has joined the draft is cited. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth is correct. By entering the draft, he basically left college to play in the professional basketball league. Both articles cite the fact that Wilson played for Michigan and that he is leaving this year to enter the professional draft – the hook simply provides context. 97198 (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth and 97198: Maybe, but I'd need to see it in the article, with a cite, before promoting it...Vanamonde (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2: reclamation

Another hook from the same prep 2

  • ... that the Ore Dock Brewing Company's flagship beer is named for the recycled material that was used in constructing the brewery?

Template:Did you know nominations/Ore Dock Brewing Company @The ed17, Bloom6132, and Cwmhiraeth:

It isn't clear why the name of that beer isn't given in the hook, but anyway, the source doesn't seem to support it. The reviewer explicitly noted that the original hook was verified, but Alt1 (which was chosen by the promotor) was accepted AGF. For me, the book used as a source is available online[1], and it says: "They added to the ambience by recycling timbers and metal from the garage into decorations and furniture for the pub. This inspired them to name their most popular beer Reclamation IPA". So not "construction of the brewery", but "decorations and furniture for the pub"... Fram (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: you seem to be splitting hairs here, but please feel free to alter the hook. No need for a big discussion here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The brewery and the pub are the same place; it's a brewpub. It's not necessary to explain exactly what was recycled and how; this is a hook, not the full article. Nor is the exact name of the beer required as some other busybody might then complain that we were advertising. Andrew D. (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Or worse: VERIFIABLE MATERIAL!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Constructing the brewery" sounds like making a building not furniture. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Added another ref. This hook is accurate as it stands. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Queue 5 Dendroctonus valens

Queue 5 Dendroctonus valens

Has anyone read this article? It's very confusing. Here's a sentence about its host range, "Pitch tubes are found at the entrance to the tunnel system; these are formed of a mixture of resin and frass, and vary in colour according to the species of the host tree.[clarification needed]" Does it grow in lava tubes?

What about this section, "An area of 500,000 hectares (1,200,000 acres) planted with P. tabulaeformis since 1900 has been affected by the beetles, with six million trees being decimated. Older forests have been attacked while younger forests in general have not?" Is this what the source says? A 100 year old forest is a young forest. A newly planted forest. Why are we talking about it in the article if some other forest, an older forest, is the one that has been attacked?

I don't get it. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have clarified the sentence about "pitch tubes". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So now, is it an old forest or a young one? I am tagging it, too. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have rewritten that sentence, and it is cited later in the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Batman and Harley Quinn

"that in Batman and Harley Quinn, Kevin Conroy reprises his role as Batman?" How is this hook interesting? It would only be interesting if he didn't. Edwardx (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with either hook, but I posted the original hook because people would be interested in him voicing Batman. SL93 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What I'm getting at is that interesting shouldn't have to be used in the traditional sense in this case. Unless you're saying that a hook with Batman, Harley Quinn, and Kevin Conroy won't get main page clicks. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not interesting, but there's a general trend to remove this "interesting to a broad audience" requirement and replace it with ... nothing. So every DYK has its day, regardless of how dull it is, cf. the "insects with heads of not the same size" nom going through right now. As many have said, we should have the ability to say "no, this article literally has nothing of interest to a broad audience, fail" but it never happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that a broad audience won't view this article while on the main page? SL93 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok. I'm just getting a bit confused because I don't think that the interesting requirement should be replaced with nothing. I'm just saying that the general audience and popularity should be taken into more account in other ways on a case by case basis. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm saying that during the review process, very little attention is given to whether or not a hook is actually interesting. Some reviewers make a point of it, some just QPQ it because they need WikiCup points etc, some reviewers even openly state that "broad interest" is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's principles. All that being said, we still have a rule that says hooks should be interesting to a broad audience. This hook is not really interesting, even to a niche audience. The hook about the insects with marginally different head sizes is probably not interesting to a scientific audience. What I'm saying is either stick with the existing rule and consider a broad audience, or remove that rule altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • We will seriously just have to disagree. You lost me at Batman characters being for a niche audience, as if that niche audience is so small. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm as much casual Batman fan as the next man, but this is lost. Never mind, that's the problem with a subjective rule. At least it's not a insect head size comparison hook. Just out of interest, why is it actually notably interesting that Conroy "reprises his role"? Or is simply that he did and business as usual? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that it is notably interesting just because of the fact that he is back again at the role as someone in his 60's. No source says that this is his last role as Batman, but due to his age, it very well could be. Then again, I have been a huge Batman fan ever since I was in diapers. If this hook really is a problem (which I think it isn't mostly because this will for sure get views, not like that ant article), the hook about Melissa Rauch voicing Harley Quinn for the first time can be used or even Bruce Timm's return to writing an animated DC Comics property since 2006. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Aha, well then there's the hook, and there's the bit that's missing "since the 1960s" would add enormously to the hook and allow people like me to understand why it's interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I never said that. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"since the 1960s" SL93 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2

I changed the last hook in the set from:

  • ... that the Thunderbolt was damaged by lightning and then destroyed by a hurricane two years later?


  • ... that the Thunderbolt roller coaster was damaged by lightning and then destroyed by a hurricane?

I did so because I thought the hook was too vague and could easily prompt readers to pass over it altogether. But the page creator believes that not identifying what the Thunderbird is gives it more "hook appeal". What do other editors think? Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK fail - it was supposed to be the quirky hook so it didn't matter if it made literally no sense whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
To this ESL person, "thunderbolt" is a thunderbolt whereas "Thunderbolt" is a name of an object. For me the change simply makes it less attention-catching, whether it's interesting is determined by the other parts of the hook. So I think this change was not a good one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, IMO the hook is not hooky in the first place ... Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I do think removing the "two years later" is a good removal as it made the phrasing tighter. Barring that removal however, the first version did a better job of "teasing the reader" (example 4 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Review the hook). The exceptional coincidence of lightning damaging something named "The Thunderbolt" is quite interesting. I'm not really too stressed either way, I just thought the first one worked better. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The original was fine, it was in the quirky slot. Reducing its quirkiness, might as well slot it anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all. OK, I'll revert my change (but leave out the "two years later"). Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Queue 6

Queue 6

This article says it is open to debate and unknown whether the cooking method is supported by science.

""Whether the science behind this checks out or not is up for debate ...[1]""

But the hook says:

"that some people are avid proponents of beer can chicken (pictured), while others contend that the dish is overrated and not backed by science?"

Who says it is not backed by science? The article does not say anyone does. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:9F (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is strongly implied by the phrasing in the Houston Press article. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I would say that if we're relying on the Houston Press to determine the scientific nature of a claim, we're all doomed. The hook needs revising as, as far as I know, Houston Press is not Nature or New Scientist or any other scientifically notable publication. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if I trusted them on anything science-related, it would be the science of beer can chicken, but I see your point. I think it's fine to cut the science bit. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It could just be something as simple as "... chicken is sometimes cooked with beer cans?" and leave it at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1: Ahmed bin Abdullah Balala BLP concerns

I was thinking about moving prep 1 to the queue, but I had some concerns about BLP issues in Ahmed bin Abdullah Balala. I am not familiar with the reliability of many South Asian news sources. Is The News Minute a reliable source for negative BLP information? IronGargoyle (talk) 21:09, 24 June 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