Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"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
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and processes 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.

Gerda hooks

Right now the current DYK set on the main page, as well as Preps 6, 1, and 2 have hooks by @Gerda Arendt:. She also has a hook up for Prep 4 (though since it's been space out from the rest, this is not really an issue). Perhaps we can space out the Prep 1 and Prep 2 hooks? It seems weird to have multiple hooks back-to-back. Nothing against Gerda as she's done a great job in DYK, but perhaps it might be better to spread out her hooks? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If Gerda nominated one article each day, it would be logical to run them at the rate of one article per set. One of the articles you mention is a church and the other two opera singers. It would certainly be better to spread out the opera singers a bit more, and I will move one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry to be a problem. I write an article per day, and go for DYK, and when there's a singers' drive, it may a few singers in a row. Please spread similar topics out! Perhaps run one of "my" hooks each day, - we have a backlog ;) - Thank goodness the opera singer from February is now in prep ;) - Today, we have a singer whom I heard, at the strange place. Nice video of reheasal, if you have the time. Her name translates to master of the stable, the place to slaughterhouse, if you need something quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to penalize an editor for participating in an editathon. WP:Women in Red ran a Singers and Songwriters editathon in June, which was right up Gerda's alley, so it's natural that we have an abundance of singing hooks right now. It's better to say that we'll spread out the singing hooks, not the nominator credits. However, that will be a little difficult this month, since we do have so many singing hooks. I suggest running two singing hooks a set until we clear the backlog. As always, each nominator can appear in only one set. Yoninah (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Not an issue for me. DYK is about the hooks not the user. Even if they're all hooks about women, what's the issue? Up to half the hooks can be BLPs anyway, and so it's not like we're unbalancing DYK. Considering we ran 10 coffee hooks in about 15 days, and a wrestling hook almost every day for a month before, there's no issue with running similar articles on different days. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Like Yoninah implied, as long as each nominator appear only once per set, I don't see much issues. Alex Shih (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Why can't the same nominator have more than one hook in the same set? I've had two in the same set before (twice, I think). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Joseph2302 I must not have been checking those sets ;) Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe there is any rule about not having more than one hook per set crediting the same editor. It is the variety of hooks that matters not the variety of creators, and as Joseph2302 says, it happens occasionally and no harm is done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If there's not an actual rule against it, then why make up that rule? As long as the hooks are sufficiently different, should be fine. In my case, one was about a British building and the other about a Spanish Football administrator, so no reason why these two hooks shouldn't run at the same time. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's be quite clear. Yoninah wrote "As always, each nominator can appear in only one set." I think she meant creator, however there is NO rule that limits the number of times an article nominator or creator can appear in any one set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Wally Schirra

Hello, this nomination has been ongoing for more than a month now. The nominator has not responded to various pings and comments and has been mostly inactive since late May, only making two edits this month. However, given the subject matter and the fact that the issues are relatively easy to address, it would be a shame to reject the nomination. As such, I'm requesting another editor, preferably one with an interest in astronomy, to adopt the nomination. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Heads up: July 15 special date request

It has been discussed here at WT:DYK that having missed out on posting a significant number of hooks for the first day of the FIFA World Cup, a special effort has been made by SounderBruce and Kosack to mark July 15, the date of the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final, with a whole set of association football hooks. Right now we have 6 special occasion hooks for that date. If anyone would like to prepare additional hooks to fill out the set, it would be appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think it undesirable to have a full set of soccer hooks on that day. When we concentrate on one group of readers, we exclude the rest of the population. Not everyone is interested in football and the hooks concerned would get more individual attention if they were spread out over several days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how this is different from a regular holiday hook set. Given that one-seventh of the world watched the last World Cup final alone (and 3.2 billion for the tournament overall), I think it's safe to say that there will be substantial interest. SounderBruce 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
We can also add Template:Did you know nominations/Go England to that list assuming England get there, (which they should do!). It would be great if we could have an all-football related hook set for the day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: forgive my ignorance, but when are we going to know if England is in? The July 14 prep set is full, but things could be moved... Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Around 9pm BST tomorrow hopefully. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just nominated Adrian Alston for a DYK with a hook that has a World Cup connection. If it gets reviewed in time, could be another one for inclusion. Kosack (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have just approved Adrian Alston. It would make a good hook for 15 July. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Kosack (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 Telfair Hodgson - less than 6 hours to main page

@Zigzig20s:, @Narutolovehinata5: @Yoninah: This is due for the Main page in less than 6 hours. Lead hook DYK Telfair Hodgson.

The term confederate is a general term that means many things to many people. As worded, it begs the question, "a confederate veteran of what?" It is misused here. If he was a veteran of the Confederate States of America, it does not necessarily mean the military - anybody who lived there was a veteran of the Confederacy - and the CSA had more than one branch of its military. Might I suggest a slight re-wording of the article, in accordance with the source. This man was not only a veteran of the Confederate States Army, but he was also a chaplain in service to the troops. The article makes it look like his religious studies came at a different time. So, perhaps a rewording to:

If you use it, you need to reword the article to make that clear. And because I will have had an involvement in that hook, somebody else needs to promote the set to Queue. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

He served both as a soldier and a chaplain. He served in the CSA, yes. How about:
The phrase "Confederate veteran" means a veteran of the CSA during the American Civil War, but our readers (who may be based in Africa or Asia) may not know this. Thank you for pointing that out.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but weren't there thousands of Confederate veterans? What is so remarkable about this one to make it a hook? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Because there's literally nothing interesting about him, I'd guess. With suitable apologies, I'll go a little bit further - is he even notable at all? The only three sources that are actually about him are obituaries in local newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Notch it up as another DYK which should simply be failed on the basic principle that is summarily ignored (i.e. "interesting to a broad audience"). As both editors and admins completely ignore this, indeed actively edit against it, it's time to call the spade a spade here and remove the criterion altogether. DYK passes hooks which are erroneous, banal, commonplace and of little interest to a wide audience. Honesty needs to be indoctrinated now, DYK is not about interesting our general audience, it's about a factory line of hooks from regulars who aren't bothered about interest. That's actually true. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't being a vice chancellor be a claim to notability though, according to WP:NPROF? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It's hooky because it is still considered controversial for universities to have ties to the Confederacy.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it? How does our general audience know that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Look at the controversy over campus buildings for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I asked about our "general audience", not a US-centric audience. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no explanation as to why this would be "interesting" anywhere in the hook. If one would have to be involved in the american culture war to understand the hook, it is not good enough for an international audience. This is about as 'bad' as the hook about the first opening of a church(of a particular denomination) in a borough of a city. How many tens of thousands of confederate veterans were there? This exact hook could be used for thousands of people and is incredibly generic. This should never have made it this far as it clearly is not in line with DYK's own rules, not that anyone cares about that. Need the qpq after all... Just scrap the rule if you don't care about following it. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Conflict edit] Yes of course!!!!!!! But it is highly subjective. For example today, I couldn't care less about Charles Bassey but I'm sure some people might.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
IP address: You only have one edit (this one). That is weird.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] To your point though, tens of thousands of Confederate veterans were not the vice chancellors of the University of the South. I suspect many people will care--we will see what the viewing statistics are.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, your noting that is a red herring. What the IP has said is perfectly valid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
So once again we're ignoring the basic principle of DYK to be interesting to a broad audience. This should be a FAIL. Pull it per the basic rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
TRM: You may not think it is interesting, but many people might. We will see if that's the case with the viewing statistics. I obviously find it fascinating.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it needs explaining here means that it fails the basic rules of DYK. Sure, you might get a bunch of hits from the yanks but that's hardly a "broad audience" per the requirements. Standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: That IP is part of a range that posts at Main Page/Errors adding their voice about one thing or another. See Here. Been going on for a while. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
May i ask what difference that makes? Yes i have commented on errors, yes i have commented in the "rfc" about the murder/crime etc thing above. But... what does it matter? Just curious really. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind. I see why you mentioned it. Not the first time i get called an SPA, won't be the last time either. Just happens when your IP changes every day and you live in Germany. Every day is a day without prior edits. You learn to live with being called a single purpose account lol. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In other words, an IP who is concerned with the general level of detritus offered by this project. Couldn't agree more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
TRM: That is highly subjective. I, too, could've made a fuss about Charles Bassey on this talkpage, as I find him absolutely boring. (The only sport I care about is polo.) The bottom line is that only viewing statistics can really tell us if the topic is interesting to a wide audience or not. I think Hodgson is. We will see if I'm correct.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
So you think a hook that says nothing more than that Telfair Hodgeson being a Confederate veteran is fascinating? This is not about the suject matter after all, but ONLY about the hook as written. The one with no explanation that could be used exactly like that for thousands of other confederate veterans. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Conflict edit] Yes, the historical ties of the University of the South to the Confederacy are fascinating. Hodgson is part of that history.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
To "not" a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That is not what i asked and what we are talking about. We are talking about a single person in isolation and a broadl interesting hook. The hook says nothing about the history of southern universities, bar of course him having been the vice chancellor of one of them. It does not talk at all about the ties either, unless of course you say being a veteran means "ties" by default. If so the entire country has military ties after wold war 2. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) It's not about your personal opinion. We already acknowledge that US-centric hooks will get hits. That's not a metric for DYK. We are talking about a "broad audience" (per the rules) and the US is not a "broad audience". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

So in conclusion, pull this back to nominations to find a hook that's interesting to a "broad audience" and if necessary, fail it as having nothing of interest to a broad audience. Time to start making that rule work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

We are not an anti-American website. Of course our American readers are part of the broad audience. We can and do post non-US-related DYKs too.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You keep missing the point. The hook is not interesting to a broad audience. To the US fine. But that's not a broad audience. Make it more "accessible" and you have a point. Right now, you don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You are not listening either. How do you know that a reader from Singapore or Lima won't be interested? You don't know. There is no way for you to know. Maybe you are not interested in the topic, but I suspect they will be interested.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me add that as an American and as an editor interested in academic biography I find both the article and the hook quite boring. I think he is (borderline) notable, but that's not enough for DYK. There should be something interesting and attention-catching to say about the subject, and I don't see it here. In particular it is utterly unsurprising that a man of his time from Virginia should serve in the Confederate army. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
As I explained before, many people are interested in the historical ties of universities to the Confederacy. He is part of that history. That is very interesting to many people. We wouldn't care about him if he had just served in the CSA and done nothing else with his life. As vice chancellor (and philosophy/theology professor), he taught and shaped the minds of many young adults.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
But you do not make that connection in the hook. And for anyone not familiar with the topic, it just does not mean anything. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I'm sorry, that is self-evident. University administrators shape their institutions and thus the students who attend those institutions. If some readers don't know what the CSA is, they will be able to click on the Wikilink. But most people do know what it is, especially with the renewal of interest in recent years.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
And it is also self evident that that is seen as negative today? This is not about the broader topic, the deeper meaning and all that good stuff. It is only about the words in the hook itself. There were tens of thousands of veterans, some of which worked at universities after. What makes that combination notable is not in the hook. That he shaped the minds of young people, i guess sort of in the hook even very indirectly but then again, it says nothing about why that could be considered problematic. Going even further, it does not even say that it COULD be problematic. You need so much information not in the hook to understand what the 'interesting' part about this is supposed to be. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Every old-enough university in the south had administrators who served the Confederacy. It does nothing to set him or his institution apart from the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That history has been largely sanitized. But feel free suggest more DYKs about other Confederate veterans at Ole Miss, Bama, etc... That does not negate this DYK though.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The article does not make the case that his Confederate service in any way shaped his educational work, and your stubborn repetition of this point makes me think that this hook (besides being too boring for DYK) is also intended to violate WP:SYNTH. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • PULLLLLLLL before it's too late. This is becoming a nightmarish recurring joke now. The utter ignorance of "interesting to a broad audience" combined with actual article issues means we need to do far better here. I'll happily take this to errors if necessary but it'd be better for the project if I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, he was also the managing director of The Sewanee Review. Would this be an ALTBLURB that you'd prefer?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting we "fix" this issue here. Pull the nom back so we have more than a couple of hours to fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to fix? The article is referenced and looks good. Maybe you think The Sewanee Review is not interesting to a wider audience?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Returned to noms page for further work. I agree with David Eppstein that we could say this hook fact about most people from Virginia in that era. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Jerry's final thought: don't be afraid to fail a nomination because it's boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Very hurtful.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
No, very pragmatic. The continual "no-fail" approach of DYK reviews means we end up with a conveyer belt of hooks that are not interesting to a broad audience. It has been said many times before that if no genuine hooky hooks can be derived from an article then it should not be featured on the main page. I am not the originator of this thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

How about saying that he enlisted as a private, got promoted to the staff of general Wheeler(surely due to his brother, but still) and ended the war as an ordained priest? That seems rather diverse. Just an idea anyway. 91.248.247.25 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggested an ALTBLURB, but I am still very hurt to have been told that my articles are "boring" apparently. That is so subjective. For example today I am bored by Oscar Parkes, List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers, Lion's Choice and Constantine Dalassenos. Shall we pull them all? And four out of seven are US-centric and thus apparently not interesting to a "broad audience" (which excludes our American readers for reasons unknown). Shall we pull them too?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Zigzig20s contacted me for a second opinion, and I feel Telfair Hodgson is a well-written bio. Zigzig20s certainly could have made the article less "boring" by peppering it with "legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading..." and so forth, but then it wouldn't be nearly as encyclopedic. The hook is interesting too, and will get readers thinking. "Confederate" has become a dirty word of late; interesting that Hodgson reached such a distinguished position, and remained there so long. (Czesław Miłosz worked for a while as a janitor). Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: no one is talking about a boring article, just a "boring" hook. If a consensus of editors believes that a hook is not "hooky", let's drop the stick already and come up with a hook that is. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. After talking with TRM and Yoninah, I see this as an opportunity to clarify and improve the DYK requirements. The "wide audience" is really confusing.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

A comment was made on the nomination for the lead hook about the image needing to be lightened. Could someone take care of that? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Masayoshi Ōishi

Thanks for promoting the article. However, the hook that was promoted was inaccurate: He didn't sing "Yōkoso Japari Park e", he wrote it. I could correct it myself, but I'm hesitant since it's my own hook, so could the hook please be fixed? Thanks. Pinging Yoninah who promoted the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:47, 9 July 2018 (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 #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived nearly two hours ago; here is an updated list with 35 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 28. Right now we have a total of 165 nominations, of which 56 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the seven remaining from March and April.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about hook interest

I could help, but apparently I create "boring" articles for DYK, so I am not feeling too hot about DYKs now...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think its the hook rather than the article that may be lacking in interest. I shouldn't take too much notice if I were you, just try to find the most interesting fact that you can for the hook and nominate your article anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's also the responsibility of reviewers to uphold the rules of DYK, including the "interesting to a broad audience" caveat which appears to be summarily ignored by many here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Why aren't we pulling the four DYKs (see above) that I find boring today (not interesting to a "wide audience" as you would put it)? Why was I victimized two days ago?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. If you find DYKs boring you should mention it somewhere so something can be done about it. I don't know who's "victimizing" you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have an issue with an altblurb if it makes for a better main page. I thought you said the article was boring but apparently it was just the hook. That's fine. But I think we need clarity on the "wide audience", if it is supposed to exclude our US readers as you appeared to be suggesting two days ago, and if so why. I am not asking just for myself, but I think everyone at DYK should be clear on this. How do we define "wide audience" if not by expectations of viewing statistics? Or shall we drop this requirement as you seemed to be suggesting?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Amongst the many problems with QPQ is the fact that one guy nominates something he finds interesting, and these days someone else who is keen on getting their own hook reviewed and passed to the main page does the perfunctory check of the objective criteria and passes the nomination. I.e. the "interest" is checked literally by one person and one person only before it then makes it as far as the main page. This is hardly a barometer of a "broad audience", so sometimes when a hook gets close or onto the main page, it's got more eyes on it and a consensus can form to suggest the hook is actually not interesting to a "broad audience" (of the readers of English language Wikipedia). That's what happens. If, as has been suggested in the past, we actually voted for the best hooks each set then this particular byproduct of the wonky QPQ process would be less likely to result in poor hooks getting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Piposh

I can't find anything about the Piposh or its nomination on this page, but the nomination was removed from Prep 5 in this edit by EEng early yesterday. I can't see any evidence that it was moved to another prep, and the nomination page remains closed as approved by Yoninah and there isn't anything here on the DYK talk page indicating that it was removed because it had problems.

I've just restored it to another prep set (Prep 3); if it should be removed and the nomination reopened, someone who knows why should do that instead and remove it from Prep 3. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • What I was trying to do was followup this [1] with this [2], but somehow I must have grabbed the wrong version so that it came out this [3]. Sorry! I've fixed it now, I think. That makes its presence in Prep 3 a duplicate, so I've removed it from there. Someone better double check me though. EEng 06:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That part looks okay, but the Michael IV the Paphlagonian nomination that had ended up back in Prep 5 (it had been moved to Prep 1, and then deleted as a duplicate when it showed up again in Prep 5) got orphaned; I've just put it in Prep 4. I think we're all set now, with Piposh and Michael each appearing exactly once in the prep sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry again for any confusion. EEng 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Special occasion hook approved for Prep 2

Template:Did you know nominations/Trent Alexander-Arnold has been approved for Prep 2 (July 15) and is waiting for promotion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

But what are we going to do about the last slot in Prep 2? Does anyone want to quickly write something about France or Croatia? Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's what we have on the awaiting-approval and approved pages:
Template:Did you know nominations/Adrian Alston (I think this is best because it's about a World Cup event)
Template:Did you know nominations/Such is Life: The Troubled Times of Ben Cousins
Template:Did you know nominations/Trézéguet (Egyptian footballer) (but we already have a "nickname" hook in Prep 2)
Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The Alston hook would indeed work best. The second one, however, is about Australian rules football, which is a few mutations removed from the World Cup's game. I might whip up something for Croatia that could run in the event of their win. SounderBruce 04:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll promote Alston. Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We did it! An all-football line-up for the World Cup final! Thanks to Kosack and SounderBruce for all their effort. Now, if only we could build respectable prep sets for other special occasions! Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Eid al-Adha is next month so it would be really nice if we could get at least some Islam-related hooks for then. Maybe the people at WP:ISLAM can help us over here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 12 July 2018 (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 #5 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) 22:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 image

Is anyone going to do something about lightening the image? If not, I think we should move a different image into the lead slot. Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Lightened it two times, and cropped it a bit. This is about as good as it's going to get, because you can't see all the detail when reduced that much. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. But do you think it's too light now? With the crop, would the version on 00:28, 12 July 2018 show up well? Yoninah (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Re-ping @Maile66:
It's a matter of preference, I guess. I looked at the one you mentioned when it showed in Prep 1. To my eyes, it was not much different than the original version. That's why I lightened it one more time. The building actually has a lot of detail that you don't see with any darker image. I'm getting ready to sign off for today, so maybe someone else could weigh in on this. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
On my Macbook Pro the green of the hill is clearly distinguishable from the grey of the building, even at thumbnail sizes, and some detail of both the hillside and the building is visible. I think it's light enough. Any lighter risks washing out the clouds and the steam from the stack. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah just guessing here on why you might see it as too light. Would it be because you see the sky and and smokestacks as so much lighter, with the sun at the top making it so much lighter in that area? Here's my assessment, because it's not an image that is easy to balance. As is, the top is much lighter, but at the bottom the building is light enough you can actually see some detail. On the darker image you mention, the top is less light, but the building is so dark it's just a block of dark color when reduced for DYK. I don't have the technical capability to make any other kind of adjustments. But if editors here think it's too light now, we could crop and upload the older darker version. I just think it would take eyes other than my own to decide which would be best on the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Maile66, there really isn't much you can do with a picture shot straight into the sun. I see other editors agree with your choice. The lighter version shows up the green grass against the gray buildings, so I think we should stick with that. Thanks again for your help, Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Bots are down; main page hasn't been updated

Both DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot are currently down. The former being down means that the main page wasn't updated at 00:00. Per the bot owner, Shubinator, at User talk:Shubinator#DYKHousekeepingBot down, he's just now looking into why the bots aren't able to write (they can read just fine).

If he's able to solve the problem quickly, the bots will be working again. If not, then a manual update (which requires an admin) will probably be required. I'd like to suggest that any admin coordinate with Shubinator so we don't end up with the bot and an admin doing an update at the same time. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I've root-caused the issue and manually executed DYKHousekeepingBot. I'll also manually spin DYKUpdateBot in a few minutes, so no need for another admin to step in. For the curious, I'll update my talk page with the root cause after everything's pushed out, which may take an hour or two. Thanks BlueMoonset! Shubinator (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone set the next update time to 0:00 utc? Otherwise it would take two weeks to be on time again. 91.97.249.18 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Shubinator told me about another parameter that we can set to increase the amount of time we drift back toward 00:00 from 15 minutes up to whatever we want. For example, we could have drifts of two or three hours (or more) if we wanted when doing one set every 24 hours, and change it to one or two hours (or 90 minutes) when doing one set every 12 hours. I had thought that 15 minutes was a fixed number, but it turns out to be one that can be adjusted. Thoughts on how long we should drift? (I think it's better if we don't have to rely on manual resets by admins.) Note that drifting goes two ways: we're either going backward to get back to 00:00 if we're less than halfway to the next changeover, or forward if we're over halfway there. Should the number be different depending on which way we're drifting? (It can be.) What do people think? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Well it should be at least an hour, but beyond that, I'm not sure. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Why not set it up so it always updates at 0:00 then? It just looks odd to always see DYK lag behind the rest of the main page. Does it really make that big a difference if someone loses a couple of hours main page exposure? Plus, if it does not update when it is supposed to, the time on the main page for the previous days hooks is longer... So, for any regular contributor it should just even out over time with time lost and gained through hickups. Just my thought on the matter anyway. 91.97.249.18 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree, just set the update the 00:00 UTC so that it updates with the rest of the main page. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The update cycles fluctuate, depending on backlog. Not all cycles on DYK main page are 24 hours. If there is a backlog of approved nominations, they run multiple sets within 24 hours. It's meant to be flexible, not set indefinitely. And the clock issue aside, the problem is the bot that does all the work - moves the new set to the main page, archives the outgoing set, and puts notices on all articles and nominator's talk pages. The clock is a minor issue, and is triggered by the bot. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that but at the moment we are running a 24 hour cycle, so it should update at midnight. When we go back to a 12 hour cycle, make the updates at midday and midnight. It is frustrating to see DYK lag behind the rest of the main page. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It still goes back to the bot, that resets the clock when an update is late. If there is no set in Queue, which is manually done by an admin, there is nothing for the bot to put on the main page. Sometimes there's an argument going on over here, that something in the lead queue needs to be fixed before it can go on the main page. There are lots of reasons why DYK gets on the main page late. Therefore, it doesn't matter how the clock is set .. if there is nothing yet in the Queue to go on the main page. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ianblair23, If an update is late by five and a half hours and we're doing two updates a day, it hardly seems fair for one set to run only six and a half hours in order to immediately get back to noon and midnight. There's a problem if people are so very frustrated by DYK being temporarily out of synch with the main page that they're willing to penalize people who've worked very hard on their articles and see their time cut to the bone. We can surely be more equitable than that, and move in a steady, graduated fashion back to midnight updates. (The whole point of this thread was to find a quicker way to get back to midnight without having to whack many hours off of the set that was promoted late.) I would be opposed to rewriting the bot to ignore how long a set has been on the main page and update at those set times as you propose. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This happened back in June, resetting the time back to midnight was discussed and performed. I simply suggest we do it again rather than taking weeks to eventually drift back in sync. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a problem if people ignore DYK being constantly out of sync with the rest of the main page. So, DYK is not for the reader after all but the contributors who are being "penalized" by having "their" articles and "their" time cut? And that by human error of DYK admins most of the time, no?(no offense of course, just seems that that is the most common source of issues regarding update time) I know you cut the time not long ago by over 12 hours, as Ian noted. I brought that up back then. So... why not set it to a comfortable margin of going back 8 hours a day back to 0:00 if delayed the previous day, anything longer than that and there really were serious issues. Why the hesitance to at least try to ALYWAYS be on time with the rest of the main page? So someone loses some time on the main page, and? At the same time someone gained time with old hooks still on the main page? Isn't that unfair also? 91.248.67.152 (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it now goes without saying that DYK is for the user and not the readers. Fix the synchronisation issues, and stop dithering about with drifting timings etc. It's embarrassing and completely out of tempo with all other sections of the main page with regular updates (i.e. EVERY SINGLE SECTION except ITN). There is literally no defence for not just resetting the clock every time this kind of thing happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, i don't want to criticize or belittle anyones work on articles or DYK sets and the like, blame anyone for hickups or take anything away from people and so on. I just believe that no one is due anything relating to the main page. If things go wrong, then it is plain bad luck if ones time gets cut shorter or good luck if ones time got extended. It may suck but that is just how it is. And as i said before, any regular will also be on the side of hooks which were on the main page for too long. In my opinion, being in sync with the rest of the main page just looks cleaner and more professional. So if that can easily be achieved, which it can it seems, why not do it? 91.248.67.152 (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and one last thing. "If an update is late by five and a half hours and we're doing two updates a day..." Given how error prone 2 sets a day are, not checking DYK for error reports or even if it has gone live for such an amount of time by any admin seems a tad irresponsible. Also "it doesn't matter how the clock is set .. if there is nothing yet in the Queue to go on the main page." seems rather obvious. We should just assume that the bare minimum to keep DYK running has been done. 91.248.67.152 (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
In the past, when the bot was down, a set could run on the main page for more than 12 hours. Why don't we do that with the next set, and then start up again at 00:00? Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like everyone agrees a 2-hour drift would be better than the current 15-minute drift, so I've gone ahead and adjusted User:DYKUpdateBot/ResyncDrift to 2 hours. Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Roland Mouret

How could Roland Mouret be a DYK in 2008 if the article looks so bad now?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see in the edit history that the article was rubbished a while back. Might require a bold edit. But this isn't the right place to ask about this--feel free to remove this topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Kayrat Ryskulbekov

I am unable to promote this nomination to a prep set because I can't access the template on the approved nominations page because of complications from the template having been moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I've fixed the template; you should be able to access it now from the Approved page, or directly at Template:Did you know nominations/Kayrat Ryskulbekov. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you. There is another template problem with regard to June 29 on the approved nominations page. There is some stray text on the page under Women Disobey but which appeared under the Cass A. Cline hook before I promoted that one. Meanwhile, I have promoted the next hook on the page, Six-String Soldiers, but am unable to archive it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, the problem seems to have been with Six-String Soldiers; the DYK checklist template used by the reviewer did not include the required closing braces that every template needs, so the main DYK template could not be substituted: there weren't enough closing braces remaining for the outer template. I added in the missing braces and that allowed the template to close; I made sure that the next edit fixed the "promoted by" credit to be you rather than me (and the time of promotion corrected). Everything else looks okay to me, but if you see something off in the other nearby nominations, by all means let me know and I'll look again. (Usually, that stray text starting with the opening braces, which shows up at the bottom of the previous nomination's space, means that the nomination following is missing a pair of closing braces somewhere.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5

I'm aware that this hook got some discussion before it got to this wording, but isn't this hook somewhat... BLP-ish? Specifically WP:BLPCRIME? Pinging nominator Jytdog, reviewer Bri, and promoter Cwmhiraeth. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the whole article is about the activities of the company and its founders. I think the hook is OK because it is a fact that his name is on the "most wanted list". It is not an assumption that he is guilty of a crime for which he has not been convicted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
i think it is OK; happy to discuss alternatives. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I moved the hook to Prep 6 (it was the 5th U.S.-based hook in the set). I wrote out Food and Drug Administration and also linked to FDA Most Wanted Fugitives list. The one on the list was convicted in a South African court, so perhaps it's okay to use the wording in this hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Strange

Catriona took the time to review Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener, and I also made some comments. The next day, the template was deleted by the nominator, User:Serial Number 54129, who has not responded to my question on his talk page, and now any record of the nomination has been wiped clean. Is this acceptable behavior? Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah Stranger than you think. Technically, to preserve the reviewer's count, it should have been rejected by request of the nominator, and coded "no" instead of "yes" on the template. Instead, they tagged it with CSD, and RHaworth deleted it according to that tag. I just undeleted it, which worked that far. But when I tried to reject it through the normal DYK "no" on the template, it wouldn't work. A little further searching showed that after originally creating the nomination template, Serial Number 54129 then moved the template to a new name. When that move happened, much of the template coding that responds to a reject was lost. But even replacing that, something else went awry when that moved happened, and it won't close correctly. Now I've put it back in deleted status, until someone here can figure out how to do a DYK reject on the moved template. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I restored Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener, the CSD deleted version of the template. The original template was Template:Did you know nominations/John/Eleanor Rykener. Hopefully, someone here can figure out how to make it close correctly. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. But what is going on? Does Serial Number 54129 want to withdraw this, or proceed with the DYK? Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess I caused the trouble, because the former template name didn't work, because of the second slash. I wanted to comment, and was asked if I wanted to create Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Rykener. If someone can fix that mistake, we can go along with the first name, but otherwise it has to be a different name. See the talk of SN, who I am sure wants to proceed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt it's not you. These are all actions triggered by Serial Number 54129. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, on the blue-link template, please look at Page/History, then click on the version created 10.09 13 July 2018. You will see the "Withdrawn as out of process.. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" CSD tag. What that means, only the nominator can say — Maile (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: What Gerda Arendt means is that she originally drew to my attention the fact that Template:Did you know nominations/John/Eleanor Rykener was an executable failure due to the use of a slash in the title as well as in the template. Since the template "thinks" that /John/ is part of the template and not the article title, attempting to open the page just took one to Eleanor Rykener which, of course, does not, and did not exist. Thus I had to create a redirect for John-Eleanor—i.e. without the slash—and use the slashless redirect title as the title for the DYK template, and make the page link correctly. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 the bottom line is ... do you still want this as DYK? If so, we will just leave the resurrected template linked above, and Yoninah (or someone) can promote it accordingly. — Maile (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

  • ... that when Michael Hofstetter conducted Verdi's Il trovatore with period instruments, a reviewer wrote that his phrasing and dynamics "propel the opera with real excitement"?
  • ... that one critic felt that the shipping simulation game Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan lacked "pizazz"?

@Gerda Arendt: @Nomader:

Aside from the fact that we have two hooks in this set which quote reviews, I don't think these are effective hooks. Reviews only express the opinion of one reviewer; they certainly don't give the whole picture. Could we write something different for each of these articles? Yoninah (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, responsible for the first, we could of course stop after period instruments, because that's unusual. However, they are often considered boring, so I thought it was a noteworthy contrast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Michael Hofstetter conducted Verdi's Il trovatore with period instruments?
Boring no? Here's another review of the same, here another of a different opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that's boring. It could even say "with period instruments such as X and Y." Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
X and Y would be nothing about him, + it's not about specific instruments, but violins, percussion etc. from Verdi's period, played in the style of that period. Do we have to link period instruments? (another article with a tag, sadly) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As an uninvolved editor, I think the original hook is interesting and catchy as it is. With that said, I think an alternate hook that could be proposed here is that he was nominated multiple times for "Conductor of the Year", though right now the article isn't clear as to which body gives said award. With that said, Gerda Arendt there's a small typo in the article: I see "Wagners" instead of "Wagner's" in the body. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The "nominated" thing can be said about many, - I'd not go for it even if he been awarded the honour. It's by Opernwelt. The period Verdi is rather rare. I'll fix the mistake. You could have done that, no? ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - another issue

  • ... that the 63rd Street Line, a three-station subway line in New York City, was initially described as a "tunnel to nowhere" because it had no connections to other subway lines in the borough of Queens?

This hook is currently in Prep 1, but there is an ongoing move request for the 63rd Street Lines page. Can the hook be temporarily removed from Prep 1 until the move request is closed? Pinging @Cwmhiraeth: who moved the hook there. (Note: I nominated this hook.) epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=850536571"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:DYK
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