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.

Prep 5

@MB: @SL93: @HaEr48:

The source (footnote 5) (and the article) does not say anything about the source of the nickname. The place is used for pilot training by the US military. Another hook could certainly be devised along those lines. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would just remove the part "by the US military". `SL93 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah and SL93: Lisa Speakman photographer says pilots gave it the nickname. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
But we should't rely on self-published source? I misread the footnote #5, I thought "where U.S. and foreign militaries train pilots and test jets in the gorge nicknamed Star Wars Canyon." supports the attribution to the pilots, but re-reading it again, it doesn't. I agree we can skip the "by the US military" unless we have better source. HaEr48 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@MB: @SL93: @Maile66: @Yoninah: How about

... that Death Valley's Rainbow Canyon is nicknamed Star Wars Canyon due to its supposed similarity with Luke Skywalker's home planet?

This fact is mentioned in the source. HaEr48 (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is weird - I have this page watch-listed and saw you posted. But the ping has not (as of yet) shown up on my notifications. Anyway, if you go with your suggested hook, somebody needs to put Luke Skywalker in the article and source its mention. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyone, I just got home and saw this. The article includes this statement: "The area is part of the R-2508 Complex administered by Edwards (the R-2508 Complex handbook actually refers to the canyon as Star Wars Canyon and the path through the canyon connecting Owens Valley in the west and Panamint Valley in the east as the Jedi Transition.)" with a ref. I don't see a problem with the original hook. Star Wars Canyon IS used by the military and it is even in a written document. MB (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@SL93: @Maile66: @Yoninah: MB 01:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the US military handbook refers to the canyon as Star Wars Canyon does not make the US military the originator of the nickname. Moreover, this reference to the US military handbook is not the inline cite for the sentence about the canyon's nickname. Yoninah (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed that part of the hook from prep 5 so at the very least it won't need to be pulled. SL93 (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is getting a little nit-pickey about the definition of nicknamed. A nickname is a substitute name for something. The canyon is nicknamed Star Wars Canyon by the military, i.e. the miltary calls it that. That is not an incorrect statement even if they were not the first ones to do so. MB 17:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Nothing claims that the military was the originator of the nickname. 'Nicknamed' can be a synonym for 'called'. (offline now until tonight). MB 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah, I think the current hook is just flat-sounding. No one has responded about my above response that using "nicknamed" should be OK. But if you can't accept that, what about one of these"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talkcontribs) 15:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah I wouldn't mind seeing either one of the above latest two hooks. As written, I think the sources cover it. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I have disambiguated the two new hooks for you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66: Hi, I just got back online. This one's fine:
  • Oh, I just noticed it's still in the prep area. I made the change. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple hooks for Queue 4 being discussed at WPERRORS

Heads up. Several hooks in Queue 4 are being discussed at WP:ERRORS without notifying the nominator, promoter, or anyone else. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note, there's not a single requirement for anyone at ERRORS to dig into DYK arcane logic and find who is responsible for what. So the "without notifying the nominator, promoter, or anyone else" shouldn't come as a surprise at all to anyone here, nor should the fact that errors have made it all the way the through the various DYK quality gates to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless it is still a simple courtesy which is seemingly lacking here on this site. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope, there's not one jot of an obligation for someone reporting an error to find out where it came from. That most come from DYK is another issue. But not notifying those involved, why would you think otherwise? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Its purely illogical to avoid contacting the users that are the most familiar with the items being discussed, and not something that should be happening, its like discussing a topic one doesnt understand, but actively avoiding any expert that does understand it.--Kevmin § 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, how does a regular viewer of Wikipedia know who to contact at DYK once an error has made through all those quality gates? Why should they bother finding out? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
We're talking about the editors over at ERRORS, not the IPs who post their corrections there. If something is so serious that editors need to deal with it, it would be nice to drop us a courtesy ping at WT:DYK to let us know when a hook is under discussion at ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Problems are likely to be fixed more quickly if the nominator/reviewer are made aware of the discussion. If the person who raised the error does not know who to ping, it is easy for an experienced DYKer to figure it out. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 16:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed here. There are no instructions at ERRORS to find out the originator of the errors in the DYK section. Why would anyone go to the trouble of trying to discover who to ping? Yes, ideally, someone should do the research, find out the nomination template buried somewhere on Wikipedia, locate the nominator, reviewer and promoter from there, and let them know, but in reality, when an error gets as far as the main page, it's tough luck, it'll be "fixed" or removed however is seen fit, and probably (and hopefully) as quickly as practicable. Wikipedia's main page is not a sandbox for DYK, if poor quality makes it all the way there, it deserves to be shelved as soon as possible, regardless of "courtesy pings". It would be nice if the review process at DYK meant such errors didn't get so quickly promoted and displayed on the main page, but it's not an ideal world, so we just have to live with it. Anyone working on the DYK project can watchlist the ERRORS page, and people actually cared that much about their hooks, they'd follow them all the way through to their conclusion (although I accept given DYK's arcane nature, that's practically impossible) so they'd actually know there was an issue. Please put the onus back onto the nominators rather than those who care about the quality of the main page to do something about this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

With a simple ping, Maile alerted the nominator, reviewer, and prep promoter to a complaint at ERRORS and I immediately weighed in. A ping is no "trouble" and immediately gets the involved DYK editors on the case. Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
For most people who go to ERRORS, a ping is a lot of trouble since they have no idea where and how to find the nominator, reviewer, and promotor. And many of them don't like to be "shamed" (simply being named in an error report is often enough to raise accusations that people are being shamed, bullied, ...), so doing the right thing is hardly possible here anyway. See e.g. some sections below this, where Maile66 states "No moaning, please, no whining, no complaining about the imperfections of other people.", just two sentences after they have complained about " I guess it's too much to hope for that any admin who would yank a hook from the top queue within hours of it being on the main page, would move another hook up to fill the gap. A simple courtesy." Basically, when people try to get errors of the main page (or prevent them from appearing on the main page), they need to jump through all sorts of hoops to please the regulars here. Well, no. People who are willing to do the additional stuff are of course welcome to do so, but the main thing is getting rid of the errors, not pleasing editors or doing courtesies. And certainly not state that we shouldn't moan about the imprefections of other people unless they are admins doing something some DYK regulars don't like.
Simply take the example given by Yoninah here as a reason why we should ping the reviewer and so on. "I have no problem with "Nazi". Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)" Fine, but you having a problem or no problem with this is totally irrelevant, your opinion as the reviewer isn't worth more than that of anyone else, so the added value of pinging you and not another editor is nill. It's fine that you weigh in, but nothing would be lost in this case (and in most cases) by not pinging the people previously involved. WP:OWN and all that... Fram (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Fram, Fram, Fram ... you have been around as an admin since the earliest days of DYK. Therefore, you know well that yanking a hook from a queue next in line for the main page, without replacing it with another approved hook, creates a state of scrambling around to find another admin who happens to be around to take care of it. Not good. Also, you are mis-representing Yoninah's comments at WP:ERRORS. Yoninah was responding to a ping, and commented therein to the original poster's question about whether or not National Socialist could be changed to Nazi. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Make sure no blatant errors make it into the queues, and you won't need to "find another admin". But if you prefer, I'll simply remove the hook completely instead of leaving a line to indicate where the replacement hook should come. That way, if not a single admin willing to add a hook can be found, then we'll at least not have an empty "that ..." line on the main page. I am not going to add another hook when I remove one, I have zero interest in doing that. I don't care whether DYK has zero, one or 25 hooks on the main page at one time, as long as they are correct (and BLP compliant and a bit thoughtful and neutral and so on). Childish replies like your "Fram, Fram, Fram..." may make yourself very happy, but are not going to change anything. I'll not even bother to try to comprehend how you claim I am "misrepresenting" Yoninah's comments at errors. Did I change what they said there, did I attribute statements to them they never made? Or are you just trying to find fault with my statement, but can't find anything coherent or relevant in it to criticise and thus use the vague "misrepresent" without any indication of what I actually misrepresented? Stop wasting my time with incoherent ramblings which are a lot more disruptive than someone removing a blatantly incorrect hook from the main page. Next time, when you feel the need to reply here, first think again on what Wikipedia is really about. Fram (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead (picture) hook pulled from next queue

Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican Federal Highway 40D @Raymie, Gerda Arendt, and Yoninah:

As always with first, largest, tallest, ... hooks, don't just check that the source makes that claim, but also check that no other sources contradict it, or that the record has been beaten since. In this case, the Baluarte Bridge is not the tallest cable-stayed bridge in the world: it is 403m above the ground, but the 2016 Duge Bridge is 565m above the ground. Checking our own List of highest bridges would have been sufficient... The Yachi River Bridge as well is higher and of the same type. I have pulled the hook, the nom will need to be reopened. Fram (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. You could simply have changed the hook to "Baluarte Bridge, then the world's tallest cable-stayed bridge", no? Or to just "Baluarte Bridge". Readers who remember the DYK of that bridge (like me) will remember that it was the tallest then without adding it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I will not change hooks to something I haven't checked, nor to a mention of a bridge without any indication of why that one is mentioned. Hook is factually wrong => take it back to prep and find a correct one instead. No rushed changes to get it into the queue at all costs. Fram (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm dearly sorry for that. Yeah, it makes sense that China's infrastructure development is moving even faster than Mexico's. Raymie (tc) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Sigh ... I guess it's too much to hope for that any admin who would yank a hook from the top queue within hours of it being on the main page, would move another hook up to fill the gap. A simple courtesy. I moved Sagunto Castle up from prep 5 to fill the top slot. And, yes, I checked the source to make sure the hook is verified. No moaning, please, no whining, no complaining about the imperfections of other people. It's done. @Raymie, Gerda Arendt, and Yoninah: your hook can be re-added to some prep. Sorry it went down this way. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Where can I find the corrected hook? Prep 5 is short one hook because Sagunto Castle was moved up, I think it makes sense if the corrected hook go there. HaEr48 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I re-posted the template on the Approved page. The new ALT is waiting for approval from an uninvolved editor. Yoninah (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Raymie: Mexican Federal Highway 40D nomination was in limbo, at neither the Approved page nor the one waiting for approval. I just added it to the Approved page. Let's hope it stays there this time. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Raymie: Well ... Wugbot just removed it and sent it into limbo again. Apparently, Wugbot sees this nomination as "closed" and thinks it doesn't belong anywhere. Looking at the template, Yoninah, whoever reopened it should have done a "revert" on the close, instead of however somebody did it. I looked at it in the edit screen, and it had all the coding for the closing on it, so that's why Wugbot keeps deleting it. I pasted over that with what was there immediately before you promoted it. Hopefully, it will now stay on the Approved page. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Why would you want to have an unapproved hook on the Approved page? This is making things more confusing, not less. Fram (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Do we have specific mechanisms in place to verify:

"Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible."

Some such as Air India have featured more than once. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Any main page appearance is listed on the article's talk page. In this case, the last main page appearance was 7 months after it was on the main page for DYK. But the first time was almost 4 years before it was submitted to DYK, and that should have been caught. If you are asking if there is a bot or anything automated to catch this in a review, I don't think so. It's up to the reviewers and promoters to check. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is the wealth of intricate DYK rules that a reviewer and a promoter (and a promoting admin) really should be checking. It's too much for most, so this kind of thing creeps through. But now it's been seen, it should be pulled and rejected, otherwise I see no purpose in that rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I just checked what I think this inquiry is all about. Air India is a non-bolded link in DYK 2017 electronics ban. I don't think anything applies if a previous DYK just happens to be a non-bold link in a subsequent DYK. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Add (yet) another rule that says "auxiliary links that have been featured in such a manner are acceptable". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you just imagine if DYK disallowed any non-bolded link that had previously been on the main page? Including FA, FL, OTD, ITN and DYK. That would exclude linking hundreds (thousands?) of famous people, landmarks, geography, structures, historical events, artwork, flora and fauna. — Maile (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes I can imagine that, definitely. It equates to the paradigm where nothing is linked beyond the target article. That's not very hard to comprehend at all. The real challenge would be working out which links had been targeted on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Maile66, I think the issue is that Air India appeared in the On this Day section in October 2012 and so was DYK-ineligible when it appeared in March 2016. I thought DYKcheck looked for previous ITN appearances, but I had not noticed the rule covered bolded links at OTD too. The non-bolded link in the hook from Template:Did you know nominations/2017 electronics ban is non-problematic, IMO. EdChem (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
DYKcheck does indeed look for previous ITN and OTD appearances by checking the article's talk page; it should certainly have found the OTD template there had it been used. Unfortunately, a good many reviewers do not use DYKcheck, and clearly they don't necessarily know they should check the talk page for prior main-page appearances. I suppose it's inevitable that the occasional duplicate is going to slip through. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, FYI, I just ran DYKcheck on the Air India article and it noted the prior DYK but not the prior OTD appearances. So, I tried DYKcheck on Battle of Clontarf, which has been in OTD numerous times and was not warned of the OTD appearances. Are you sure DYKcheck looks for OTD blurb appearances? EdChem (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
EdChem, I thought DYKcheck did, but I could be mistaken. Pinging Shubinator, to see whether OTD is included in DYKcheck's examination, and if not, how difficult it would be to add. (I'm not entirely sure it bothers to do any additional check for ITN once a prior DYK is discovered, but that wouldn't affect Battle of Clontarf.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
DYKcheck looks for previous appearances on DYK or ITN, but not OTD. Certainly looks possible to add OTD, I'll put it on my mental backlog. Shubinator (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Christ the Lord Is Risen Again

What are the rules on similar and overlapping topics, such as Christ the Lord Is Risen Again! and Christ ist erstanden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no rules on "similar and overlapping topics" at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I looked at it, and it may not even be overlapping: Mr. Weisse wrote a hymn (no article) "Christus ist erstanden", derived from the much older "Christ ist erstanden", Winkworth translated "Christus ist erstanden", described in the "Christ ist erstanden" article as "paraphrased". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Put it this way, the new article on the old German hymn (currently in the queue) is quite similar in some respects to an old article (DYK in 2015) on the newer English version of a German hymn - perhaps the old German hymn, but possibly a more recent German version of the old German hymn. But it is a free translation in any event. All three appear to be based on a very old hymn in Latin. Glad we got that straightened out. He is risen indeed. Alleluia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That English hymn ran on Easter 2 years ago! What's the point in bringing it up now? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the point is that it's similar to the article in question, I think that's clear from the discussion thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


I think given the OP question, there's a statement of fact that possibly needs to be reinforced at the rules, and it may be that it's there already, and that it just needs cementing, but it's something like:

Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible."

could become:

Articles that have not been previously bold-linked to on the main page, are eligible."
Articles that have been previously bold-linked to on the main page, are ineligible."

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an issue with this which we should clarify. Recent deaths in the ITN section are non-bolded and DYK-eligible, but OTD birth and death anniversaries are bolded... does that make them ineligible? I would have thought OTD blurb bold links would be excluded, but I don't see why anniversaries are given recent deaths are not? EdChem (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The OTD bolded birth and death anniversaries are a recent innovation, and the DYK rules have not yet been adjusted to accommodate them. Shall we agree that, as merely names and dates, they should not count as a prior appearance for DYK purposes? (It helps that their appearance in the birth/death section does not result in a post to the article's talk page, so DYKcheck will not think that such an appearance has been made.) I think whatever formulation we use should be more specific, and specify DYK at least, and probably all three sections involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"Articles that have been previously featured (bold link) at DYK, or in a blurb in the main page sections In the news or On this day, are ineligible."
By specifying blurbs, both the recent deaths at ITN and the recently-bolded birth / death anniversaries at OTD are excluded. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - most electronics

... that Air India saw its bookings to America double after the United States banned most electronics from the passenger cabin for flights departing certain Middle Eastern airports?

The ban on certain electronics affects items larger than mobile phones, so it's odd to say "most electronics" as "most electronics" on flight would be ... mobile phones. Plus the target article is badly named and an orphan. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The article concerned is 2017 electronics ban. I have deorphaned it and reworded the hook to
  • ... that Air India saw its bookings to America double after the US banned electronic equipment larger than a mobile phone from the passenger cabin for flights departing certain Middle Eastern airports? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 4 - camerawork

... that the camerawork of Swedish film The King of Ping Pong was compared to that of Roy Andersson?

I read this and thought, "so what"? Sadly, although Andersson may be an acclaimed Swedish director, he's not commonly known, this hook will be lost on a lot of people. Grand Jury prize (in its category) at Sundance might be of much broader interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the current hook is sufficient. Also, I removed the lead too short tag on the article. The article is short per the type of coverage it received so there really isn't a need for a long lead. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree on both counts, and since you're the main contributor, I suggest you let others discuss this. I'm not asking for a "long lead", just one that, per WP:LEAD, "... serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ..." i.e. not one which is just a single statement of fact about this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I can discuss it if I want to. On the contrary, as the main contributor of both the article and the hook, I have the right to discuss it. I can't expand the lead if you don't give me more of an idea of what you want. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought that was evident from the instructions in the {{lead too short}} template, i.e. cover all major points in the lead, such as actors, awards, criticism etc. When I said others should be allowed to discuss this, I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't, just that others should be free to wade in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Um, I never said people couldn't. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, me neither. Anyway, hopefully you have enough information now to work out how to fix this up, the hook is inconsequential and the lead is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The lead has been expanded and the tag removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Bravo, it doesn't address the "hook" issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Northamerica1000 as the reviewer. SL93 (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think TRM has a valid point, the hookiness of the hook depends on know who Andersson was. There is an easy fix, however... add something to the article (with citation) that establishes Andersson as an acclaimed Swedish Director or multi-award winning or whatever... then use that descriptor to change the hook to something like "... that the camerawork in the Swedish film The King of Ping Pong was compared to that of acclaimed Director Roy Andersson?" Failing that sort of change, TRM's idea of using the Sundance Grand Jury prize is worth considering. Also, SL93, removing a tag about a lead that is too short without expanding the lead and when (at a single sentence) it is manifestly not an adequate summary of the article is not good editing. The problem has been addressed now, so there is no longer an issue, but it is worth you recognising that your actions here were less than ideal. EdChem (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I reacted that way because I think that tagging a DYK article without notifying the nominator is a bad move. Not only can tagged articles not be put on the main page, but what if no one notices the tag before the queue is promoted - like recently with one of The Rambling Man's citation needed tags. SL93 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
SL93, any article I nominate at DYK is included on my watchlist. I check changes made to it. TRM has added cn tags and noted other issues in my articles, and I usually respond by addressing the issue, even if I am unconvinced it is needed. Only if I think it is wrong for some significant reason do I dispute it. TRM's manner can be blunt (or worse at times), but he is usually right – as he was in this case – and addressing the issues he notes usually leads to better encyclopaedic content. DYK is meant to bring attention to articles and that means improvements being made as well as deficiencies being noted, both prior to and during its main-page appearance. Reverting valid taggings is not helpful, and it does not matter who places the tag if it is valid. Please, try to look at tags and ask yourself if they point to an issue that should be addressed and put aside who placed them. EdChem (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, you're lucky that an editor who kind of knows the ropes is reviewing these things post-promotion. At least I have kind-of clue as to what constitutes reliable sourcing, suitable leads, BLP infringements etc. That way the chances of enduring the embarrassment of posting such poor articles to the main page is substantially reduced. SL93, you claim that "Not only can tagged articles not be put on the main page...", can you point to that directive as others have been questioning the reason behind posting such tagged articles on the main page. My bluntness (EdChem) can sometimes be summed up by the fact that I have very little time to work on Wikipedia, and I'm trying to keep the main page free of junk, so if I don't jump through all the hoops expected by some here at this particular project (I review ITN, OTD, TFL... too) then sorry about that, but as Fram would agree, it's not up to someone who's making a complaint against an error to follow some kind of arcane procedure to ensure the "nominator" and the "promoter" knows, and all that other project-related bureaucracy. That's a problem for each project to cope with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
We will clearly have to disagree about when to notify or not to notify editors. SL93 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well as I said, you're lucky in this case that I notify people when these erroneous issues are in prep or queue. If they're at ERRORS, then DYK has fouled up two or three times. There's no reason to go looking for the creator, why would anyone do that? This is an encyclopedia for our readers not our editors, and it would serve us all well to remember that from time to time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
My view is if you go to the article creator, who can likely fix the problem, then the creator can fix it and our readers will not have to deal with it. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Prep 4 will soon be put into a queue and I think this hook should be dealt with already. I agree with TRM's alt proposal as being much more interesting to a broad audience, and suggest substituting it for the hook:

ALT1: ... that the Swedish film The King of Ping Pong won the Grand Jury Prize for world cinema at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival? Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @SL93:. Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I said it was fine. Someone might want to change it before its loaded into a queue. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - linguistic order

... that the linguistic research of Elena Georgieva showed that Bulgarian word order may change based on the emphasis a speaker wants to convey?

Isn't this true of most languages? Word order changes to emphasise different things all the time: "I love that dog", "that's the dog I love", etc etc etc. Is this special somehow? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging SusunW, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, HaEr48. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
What happens in other languages isn't the subject of Georgieva's work. We don't determine whether her work was special, sources do, and specifically, one of them states: "The impact of her work on the field of Bulgarian syntax was considerable… Slovored was and is a high-water mark in the field for a number of reasons…it was the first work on Bulgarian syntax to view Bulgarian sentential word order as the culminating result of a number of different factors." Dyer p 14 "Georgieva’s contention is that Bulgarian sentential word order has multiple faces…and of the creation of an emphatic or stylistic atmosphere in language communication…” Dyer p 15. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the point I'm trying to emphasise is that this isn't unique, or even interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:: Please check Word order, the example examples you cite aren't changing word order. They're all still SVO. That (S) - is (V) - the dog I love (O). Saying "The dog love I" to mean "I love the dog" would be OVS, but English doesn't allow this. In English sometimes there are sentences with non-SVO order, e.g. "I thee wed", but it's not normal. A language having variable word order is certainly not unique, but given that this is the English Wikipedia and English has generally strict word order, I think this is an interesting fact for English speakers. HaEr48 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine, but it means the hook is somewhat inaccessible to most of our readers. Please revise it to make it "interesting to a broad audience" per the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess where we differ here is that you are assuming since you find it uninteresting that others will agree. Your opinion, and I am not trying to be disrespectful, doesn't necessarily represent that of a broad audience either. And thank you HaEr48 you said pretty much what I was writing when we had our edit conflict. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I guess pageviews will let us know. This is not interesting to a broad audience by any means, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but I wondered if there was something more hooky to publish. You're sticking to your guns, fair play, let's see how it plays out. My guess is sub-2k hits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe The Rambling Man should write an essay about his personal opinions of what is hooky and we could all go by his almighty word... I can be pretty blunt to. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Topic-prominent language might help? It is fairly unusual in European languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Per above, perhaps a re-word here to ensure a few more hits than my normal talkpage daily visitors? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 2 - "mechanical issues"

... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?

Well three of those four are listed as "Off Course" in the results. Sato, for instance, is quoted as "suddenly slowed on course and brought his car to a halt on an access lane" and nothing else, nothing about a "mechanical issue", he could have had an epiphany and decided to pull over. Likewise, "Hunter-Reay suddenly slowed and stopped on course" but no indication why, he went "Off Course" per the results but stopped "on course" per the article. What a muddle! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Bcschneider53, Orygun, Cwmhiraeth. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, "off course" is a peculiar way of saying that they stopped at some point during the race. The source [1] does however say "With an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – halting their collective charge this year, the entire squad finished in perfect order from P17-P20", so the hook is sourced. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I looked past that at the rest of the article which gave different indicators, as noted. Meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings from Merida, Mexico! I'm traveling all day today, currently waiting to board a flight to Mexico City before returning to the States. It appears this issue has been resolved, but is there anything else you need me to do? Or is the hook ready to go? Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some DYK suggestions

Found via User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult:

  • ... that Naohiro Hoshikawa was forced to retire after suffering a career-ending brain injury? (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have suggested to the IP editor that if she or he made an account, he or she could make nominations.  :) EdChem (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Alternately he/she may have more luck taking the suggestions to the WP:Pro Wrestling project who has more of a vested interest in getting pro wrestling related DYKs on the front page.  MPJ-DK  12:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the IP posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling is a good idea, MPJ-DK. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I was following the instructions on WP:DYK ("if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose"). Thanks for the offer but I'm not really interested in joining Wikipedia. I'm just making a reader's suggestion. (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I am sure, we can feature at least 1 of these on the main page. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Good point, IP. I have acted on your suggestion and created Template:Did you know nominations/King Kaluha. EdChem (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Continuous errors in DYK articles' coordinates.

I have to continuously correct the coordinates in DYK articles, such as this one today. Is there any way that a check of the coordinates be added to the Reviewing guide? Abductive (reasoning) 21:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Personally I would have no idea how to even do that? Any suggestios for a good way to double check this?  MPJ-DK  22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    I do sometimes compare coordinates to Wikimapia and Google Earth to see if they make sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I just realized you can click onthe coordinates and chose to see them through various sites, I chose the streetview of Google and boom righte there where it's supposed to be - that is awesome, and easy to do too.  MPJ-DK  22:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've learned a lot of things by reading instruction pages on Wikipedia, but I've never found a page that explains how to do coordinates. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think co-ordinates are a very minor part of articles and don't impact on DYK much. Often I find that if you put the invisible co-ordinates needed tag on an article, someone better versed in it is able to come in and correct it. But it doesn't affect anything in the article that is related to DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
So in your mind, being off by a literal mile (as in my example diff) is no problem on the Front Page? Yep, you must be right, and I must be wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Abductive: Requiring this from each reviewer is asking too much, and can lead to edit wars . And it comes down to "Whose coordinates are correct?" My example on recent DYK Big Chief Restaurant:
  • Version One: 38.581111, -90.659722 from the coordinates listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Louis County, Missouri. That took me to GeoHack. I used the decimal coordinates that show in the upper right hand corner of that page.
  • Version Two: 38.581040, -90.660459 Changed by an editor while it was on the main page Big Chief Restaurant. This is the second time in a few days someone changed the coordinates on a DYK of mine.
  • Version Three - 38.5824105,-90.6635067 Google maps for the street address and zip code as listed on the restaurant website
  • Version Four - 38.5802, -90.66063 Bing maps for the street address
So which of these 4 versions are correct? In fact, both Google and Bing give conflicting results within themselves depending on how detailed you input the address. I appreciate that you are diligent about coordinates. But I don't think we should make this a requirement on reviews. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well ... then it's Google, Bing and the National Park Service who are violating our MOS, and not ours to control. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, their coordinates are often decimal conversions of dms coords. And they can be rounded. But this is not my main point. My example shows the coords were off by 1.6 kilometers. They need to be checked. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 5

@Prioryman: @Gerda Arendt:

Sigurd Slembe was a real person. Though he was illegitimate, is it encyclopedic to call him "a worthless bastard"? The phrasing also seems to indicate a value judgment. Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it is acceptable to use "bastard" as we are using it in the correct context (Indeed when Flag of Guernsey ran, we called William The Conquerer a bastard in the hook for that is what he was. The question is; is the word "worthless" encyclopedic? Is it in the context of a quote or an accusation by the writer of the plays? Personally it should either be in quote marks or remove the word worthless but I see no legitimate reason why we should remove bastard from the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
'Slembe' in context can mean multiple things, bastard, worthless, bad etc. The article in question Sigurd Slembe (trilogy) makes this clear - as far as the intention of the naming of the plays are concerned. 'Slembi' in old Norse means something else again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and the name has been translated multiple ways - "Sigurd the Worthless", "Sigurd the Bad", "Sigurd the Bastard" etc. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I suspect, given the wordplay, this ought to be the "quirky" hook, just to avoid people making a fuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm moving it to the quirky slot in the next set. Yoninah (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing infoboxes
This discussion is closed
A snowflake
A visual representation of the weather forecast pertaining to this topic
Chances of requirement being added Next to no chance
Utility of discussion continuing Next to no chance
Name of user closing discussion Bencherlite
Time of closing of discussion 20:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noted that many DyK articles are missing infoboxes. Is there a way that a check could be made prior to approving a DyK for an appropriate infobox? Perhaps a brief mention of this could be written into the instructions for the DyK writers or for the reviewers. Abductive (reasoning) 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Why? I mean I get the use of info boxes, but the lack of one does not seem like a hinderance for it being on the main page. Do we need yet another check point when there are enough issues making sure we hit all the current quality checks?  MPJ-DK  16:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Infobox's are not required on any article and many articles have editor consensus *not* to have one. As far as I am aware having an infobox is not a criteria for being a FA, GA etc either (but I could be wrong on that) so it would be beyond laughable for DYK to require one. (Its also considered bad form to include an infobox on an article where the primary creator has decided not to use one) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Signpost 2013-10-02 Arbitration report on Infoboxes. They are an individual choice, not a requirement on any review process. — Maile (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition to Maile's point, it's a fact that most articles here are relatively short, which often means that there is not enough detail of the sort that makes an infobox worthwhile. Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's the weirdest request I've heard of here in a long time, and especially from such an experience editor. NO INFOBOXES ARE REQUIRED. Close this discussion as soon as possible please, it will not generate anything other than heat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A modest proposal

Should DYK nominations be moved from the template namespace to the Wikipedia namespace? KMF (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole project needs an overhaul to make it more intuitive and easier to follow a nomination from proposal to main page. But sadly it's far from modest, and sadly there's no appetite to do it; the regulars understand how it works, and that's just fine for them, the newcomers are completely discouraged by the arcane machinations of DYK and that's why the project has so few genuinely new editors contributing, the majority are seasoned editors who know the ropes, and those who are gaining points for WikiCup. It doesn't serve Wikipedia well, in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is too complicated. I have made three DYK noms, and only on my third (and current) one am I beginning to understand all the plethora of pages. What is really needed is a concrete proposal on how the process could be simplified. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason why they were put into the templates were because prior to this, stuffing them all onto one page cluttered it and made it hard to track nominations. Plus I can't recall if there was a nomination template at the time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that newbies are put off by the plethora of templates because all they have to do is fill in the initial nomination template and then follow the progress of their nomination via their watchlist. I think they may have more difficulty with finding where to nominate in the first place (part way down the large page), and then in filling up a cluttered, off-putting and difficult to understand form. What did @PaleCloudedWhite: think of the nomination process? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, the template system is a rather elegant method of keeping track of the whole process. I remember doing my first DYK nomination: there were some tricky parts, but the nomination system itself was not one of them. The C of E is quite correct: our time would be well spent letting new article creators know that nominating here is a possibility. What we also need to do is overhaul our system of rules and regulations. Having a page of detailed rules is not an issue, because they are there precisely to address issues of detail that do not crop up often; but there is no reason to have more than one very basic and one detailed page of rules. Or even a single page. We have four, I think, at present. Vanamonde (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think nominating is difficult, thanks to the templates. Perhaps we should tell users who find it difficult where to ask for help, such as somewhere on this page. I'd be willing to help with first nominations, - someone did the first for me, fondly remembered. - I suggest to keep nominations open until archived after appearing, and to hold all related discussions within, not hook questions here only, for more transparency. Here, we could just link to a list of problem noms, as BlueMoonset does for the old ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the instructions, if not the actual process, need some clarification. My first nom occurred without too much hassle if I remember rightly, but then I slightly mucked-up my second one - despite trying to follow the instructions to the letter - and my recent one was OK but it was only part way through that I realised that filling in the template makes changes appear wherever in the process the nom is. A minor example of how easy it is to misunderstand the whole process: I recently added a couple of comments to Cwmhiraeth's nom for Aulacaspis yasumatsui, and I think Cwmhiraeth thought I was reviewing it, whereas I thought it had already been reviewed, by an editor called "Jerry London (wrestler)", because underneath Cwm's nom is a line that states "reviewed: Jerry London (wrestler)".... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the point in KMF's original question has been missed. As I read it, KMF is wondering whether we should move from "Template:Did you know nominations/Name of article" to "Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Name of article" - along the lines of "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Name of article". I don't think KMF is asking to do away with the template submission system - as the TFAR method shows, you can easily have a template-based nomination system in WP space. I think that all of these nominations are in template space because of a historical accident whereby everything is regarded as a subpage of Template:Did you know. It doesn't make a practical difference which namespace we use, I don't think, and making the change would require a lot of updating of processes for no net benefit. BencherliteTalk 08:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then I suppose the real question is whether such a move would make the process more intuitive for newbies; and I for one cannot think of why this would be the case. Of course what we really would have to do is to ask newbies, but that's a bit of a catch 22, isn't it; the only ones interested enough to participate in such discussions tend to be more experienced editors. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Blog and an internet forum as a reliable source

I'm having trouble with Template:Did you know nominations/MBT-80. The nominator is saying that a blog and an internet forum are considered reliable sources for the topic. Certain blogs can be reliable sources, but I don't see anything that would amount to the WordPress blog being a reliable source. I'm doubtful of the internet forum being a reliable source because it seems like anyone can register and even misinterpret the sources that they post. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:SPS, the only way that blog posts can be considered notable is if they are written by "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Queue 1 (due to go live in 7 hours) - copied from WP:ERRORS

  • "... that Pangeran Adipati Anom expected a fake engagement at the Battle of Gegodog, but instead his army suffered a decisive defeat?" - very confusing. "Pangeran Adipati Anom" is linked to Amangkurat II of Mataram, which does not mention "Pangeran Adipati Anom" at all, neither does it mention the Battle of Gegodog. Who is Pangeran Adipati Anom? What, if anything, is his or her relationship with Amangkurat II of Mataram? What has the Battle of Gegodog to do with either? DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree - this is completely confusing. Not to mention that Amangkurat II of Mataram is mostly unsourced and shouldn't be linked from the Main Page. Can someone explain the hook here, because I suspect the only other option is to pull it. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the present hook. Perhaps it could be changed to the ALT hook, but really, HaEr48 is the editor who understands this historical article about Java. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly surprised that this hook causes confusion, as in the article Battle of Gegodog it is explicitly stated "then known as Pangeran Adipati Anom, future Amangkurat II". Thats why I passed the article. But if it does cause confusion, then we can de-link "Pangeran Adipati Anom" and go with ALT. Applodion (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Right. He was only Amangkurat II after being king, before that he was crown prince and known as Pangeran Adipati Anom (this is also a title and not his real name). This battle happened when he was crown prince. Kind of like in Battle of Vitoria, the British commander was referred to as the Marquess of Wellington and not the Duke - because he was not Duke yet. HaEr48 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
OK - I've gone with ALT because Trunajaya rebellion is also a much better article to link. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructions for removing a hook from prep or queue

In regards to more than one thread above, I looked for the appropriate instructions for removing a hook from prep or queue, and what to do with the nomination template. These instructions, which are the consensus from numerous discussions since December 2016, are on the Approved page. How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue . — Maile (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"These instructions, which are the consensus from numerous discussions since December 2016"? Um, no, these are the same instructions which have been on T:DYKN for years and years (compare with e.g. December 2014 or December 2012). While the "approved" situation was discussed at length, this specific aspect has not been the subject of "numerous discussions since December 2016", or it wouldn't still be this version which is seriously outdated and isn't strictly followed by anyone anymore. Fram (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I largely follow the procedure mentioned, but take a short cut by clicking "undo" for the action in the template's history that archived the nomination, adding a new icon and comment in the process. This returns the hook to where it was previously, on the Approved nominations page, and effectively replaces bullet points 4, 5 and 6 in the instructions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
When was the last time you (or anyone else for that matter) "Add a link to the nomination subpage at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed to help in tracking removals."? That page is marked "inactive", for crying out loud, but is still required in the instructions which were arrived at after numerous discussions since December 2016. I'll continue to remove problems from main page or queue if I happen to look at them (which I rarely do any longer, nonsense like this very discussion makees it abundantly clear that too many people at DYK are beyond hope) and explain this here, without taking any further steps which I'll gladly leave to the bureaucracy of this page. Fram (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
(e.g. there is no next queue, but in the first prep is a hook for Template:Did you know nominations/NDR Chor; the Chor was created in May 1946, it's sevntieth year was 2015/2016, this is their 71th year; they have celebrated their 70th birthday in May 2016, which means they are now in their 71st year, not their 70th as the hook claims; this is the kind of carelessness that fills DYK constantly). Fram (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
And the next hook in that prep claims that in Canada a person "charged with an offence in a provincial court normally has to be tried within 18 months?", but the article makes it clear that this is 18 months without preliminarie inquiry, and 30 months with one: it doesn't make it clear at all which of these two (if any) is "normal", so it may just as well be that the Supreme Court ruled that people normally have to be tried within 30 months instead of the claimed 18 months. Fram (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I qualified my reply by using the word "largely". I think what you are saying is that when you pull hooks, you don't follow the instructions, but leave the "bureaucracy of this page" to clear up after you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
No-one is obligated to adhere to some arcane ruleset when preventing errors getting to the mainpage. How many times must this be stated? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
No one needs to "clear up", if people want to give pulled hooks a second (third, fourth...) chance by putting them in noms again and restarting the process, that's their choice. Nothing is broken by pulling hooks from queues or main page and doing nothing else. Thanks for making me laugh with your attempt at an excuse for your mistaken statement above, "largely", which you followed by describing a shortcut for some points, but simply "forgot" to mention that you don't do the last point at all. Typical... Fram (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Fram, knock it off with the rudeness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes Fram, rudeness is so much worse than dishonesty. Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello C of E, I left you a message about your spin-off articles on your talkpage, I was wondering if you could please respond? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The C of E, I've made a number of requests now, and seeing as the ivy article, and the Fucking article are both being re-merged, could you please point me to any of the other spin-offs you created for DYK? Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Still in the same queue, Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker: what do you mean, "the left side"? The article says "A "Save the Stacker" fund was set up in Cornell, where as of 2009, it was estimated that it would take a minimum of $350,000 to clean off the rust and refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle" which is a good example of WP:SYNTH; there is a catwalk on the stacker which was used for routine maintenance when the thig still worked (prior to 1971), which is sourced to the NRHP text: and there is a group now (well, a few years ago)[2]: "working on raising $350,000 to sandblast and resurface the rusty stacker." There is no evidence there of them using that catwalk to sandblast it, and not scaffolding, a crane, ... Apart from that, it is hardly surprising that when you have a 175 foot building or structure at a 45° angle, that people working on it will need to climb up and down the structure. Fram (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
And a fourth one from that very same prep, "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?" This was discussed before, but somehow still isn't changed. The article also has the hook claim, but the source[3] makes it clear that the retirements were due to mechanical and electrical problems: "an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – ".
That's four dubious or problematic hooks in the next set of 8 hooks. I'm really not going to bother with a list of outdated and dubious rules to sort this out if this kind of thing is set to hit the main page. Fram (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Next queue short by four hooks

As mentioned above, at least four hooks in Prep 2, which is set to become Queue2, which is the next queue to be on the main page, were seriously dubious or simply wrong. To prevent these of appearing on the main page in their current state and without further discussion, I have removed them from the prep. Fram (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

NDR Chor

Template:Did you know nominations/NDR Chor @Gerda Arendt, HaEr48, and Cwmhiraeth:

It was in its 71st year, not it's 70th year. Simply changing the fact makes for an utterly unremarkable hook (why is it in any way important that it was in its 71st year?) Fram (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the year part could just be omitted entirely with the rest of the hook being used. SL93 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • ... that the 70-year-old NDR Chor... would work. It was in its 71st year, so it was 70 years old. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps something like ... that the NDR Chor performed at the opening concert of the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, Germany, singing in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony? BencherliteTalk 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have returned this to Prep 2 with the "in its 70th year" omitted. If anyone wants to change the hook, they are welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw this coming ;) - It occurred to me that the celebration of a birthday is the completion of that year. It's their 70th-anniversary season, - they celebrate the whole 2016/17 season. I find "70th-anniversary season" a clumsy term, so didn't want to change. The opening of the long-awaited hall was quite an event, even without that. I plan to mention other events from their career with their conductors. Another option might be:
... that the NDR Chor, founded after World War II, performed in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for the opening of the Elbphilharmonie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

R v Jordan (2016)

  • ... that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a person charged with an offence in a provincial court normally has to be tried within 18 months?

Template:Did you know nominations/R v Jordan (2016) @Valmi, Maile66, and Cwmhiraeth:

No, they normally have to be tried within 18 months or within 30 months, depending on whether a preliminary enquiry is done or not. Nothing in the article or source indicates that 18 months is the normal situation and 30 months the abnormal one. Fram (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Also, majority of article sourced to a primary source. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Returned to the nominations page for further consideration of the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cornell Pulpwood Stacker

Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker @Maile66, NearEMPTiness, and Cwmhiraeth:

What do you mean, "the left side"? The article says "A "Save the Stacker" fund was set up in Cornell, where as of 2009, it was estimated that it would take a minimum of $350,000 to clean off the rust and refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle" which is a good example of WP:SYNTH; there is a catwalk on the stacker which was used for routine maintenance when the thig still worked (prior to 1971), which is sourced to the NRHP text: and there is a group now (well, a few years ago)[4]: "working on raising $350,000 to sandblast and resurface the rusty stacker." There is no evidence there of them using that catwalk to sandblast it, and not scaffolding, a crane, ... Apart from that, it is hardly surprising that when you have a 175 foot building or structure at a 45° angle, that people working on it will need to climb up and down the structure. Fram (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Returned to the nominations page for further consideration of the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach

Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach @Bschneider53, Orygun, and Cwmhiraeth:

This was discussed before, but somehow still isn't changed. The article also has the hook claim, but the source[5] makes it clear that the retirements were due to mechanical and electrical problems: "an assortment of engine failures – of the mechanical or electrical variety – ". Fram (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Apologies, typo in the previous ping. Fram (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Shall we go with "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical and electrical issues?" Or I suppose we could drop the phrase altogether and say that they simply retired from the race... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My only issue is that the source says or rather than and. Also, the article has still not been edited to reflect the hook. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have dealt with both of those too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, SL93, and Fram: Thank you for your concerns. It looks good to me. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't the simplest solution to change one word in the hook, "mechanical", to "engine"?

Or "engine problems"? Or "engine failures"? I also raised a question at WT:NAME about the use of corporate sponsor names (Toyota, in this case) in article names, and whether this is promotional. Perhaps I chose to raise it at the wrong page as it has had no response, but it seemed appropriate. I still wonder why the page is not titled 2017 Grand Prix of Long Beach... EdChem (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What went wrong?

We are so often told that "human error" is inevitable, but in this one set we've seen a 50% error rate, that's not acceptable, especially since it was just about to hit the main page. I'm trying hard to get to each DYK and review it and its sources, after it's been reviewed, accepted, promoted and then moved to a queue (i.e. the four "quality" checkpoints at DYK) but it's clear that I alone cannot conduct this task flawlessly. I'm sorry for that. If Fram can, in moments, detect four errors in a set then we still have a major issue. Rather than sweep it under the carpet as "we all make mistakes", it's time to confront it full-on. Why are so many errors getting onto or so close to being posted to the Main Page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A part of the issue might be the QPQ process. It does look like some reviewers just want to do a half-assed QPQ to get their own article on the main page. When I see mostly checkmarks or a quick review that doesn't seem to cover all points, I doubt that a thorough review was completed. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
An interesting and perceptive response. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's an idea, which may not fix everything, but can't hurt. Part of every review is checking to see whether the nominator has completed a QPQ. Surely we can extend this just a little, and say that every reviewer needs to check whether the nominator has completed a thorough QPQ; as in, have they explicitly checked each criterion? So for instance, if I did a review for article X, and submitted it as a QPQ for article Y, but neglected to do a copyvio check for article X, the reviewer for Y could then legitimately fail my nomination. This isn't exactly a radical idea, I'm just suggesting making explicit what seems to be implied by the review process. Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I already do what Vanamonde93 is suggesting. I have refused to accept a QPQ where there was no copyvio check until one was done, and in another case I said the QPQ was inadequate and the editor volunteered to do another. The next steps of disallowing QPQs and even restricting nominations from editors whose QPQ reviews are regularly poor are worth discussing. We also have to recognise, however, that not all errors are equally serious. EdChem (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, not all errors are equally serious. Take the hook "... that all four Andretti Autosport entries at the 2017 Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach retired from the race due to mechanical issues?" What that hook is illustrating is that the cars did not exit the race because of collisions or driver errors, but because they ceased to function correctly, they had problems. That some of these problems may have been electrical is only a subset of mechanical, they failed as machines. Big fuss about nothing in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, Cwmhiraeth, that was the exact hook I was thinking of. As someone who watches motorsport, I am well aware that "mechanical failures" can mean specifically a problem with mechanics or a more general "catch all" term for failure to finish that was not due to a collision, a black flag, driver error leading to a crash, etc. Both the concerns raised by TRM and Fram are understandable confusions from (I suspect) non-motorsports watchers, and yes tweaking the hooks led to improvements, but they were minor issues, and it is my view that when treat all errors as equally serious they undermine their own argument. Just in this thread, to me the R v Jordan (2016) and Cornell Pulpwood Stacker cases are the errors that are seriously problematic and that should not have made it as far as preps / queues, and I note that Cwmhiraeth has correctly returned those two to the nomination pages and Fram has correctly added problem tags overruling the ticks. On the topic TRM has raised here, are these more serious cases ones where Vanamonde's point applies?
Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/R v Jordan (2016), the original review by Edwardx noted a problem with 18 months only applying to "most cases" and Maile66 then gave a tick for a hook where "applicable to most cases" became "normally has to be" – two phrases which are similar in meaning but not the same, and as Fram noted, the connotation of "normal" is problematic here. This was a first-time DYK nomination (as Edwardx noted) from an editor whose last 50 edits go back to July 2015, and who last made more than 100 edits in a year in 2006. Had the ALT1 used "usually" or "typically" instead of "normally", the tweak by Valmi would have been much less problematic. According to this reference (added by Valmi on the same day ALT1 was proposed): "There is a presumptive ceiling of 18 months on the length of a criminal case in provincial courts, from the charge to the end of trial" and "[t]here is a presumptive ceiling of 30 months on criminal cases in superior courts, or cases tried in provincial courts after a preliminary inquiry." Also according to the reference, this presumptive ceiling can be exceeded in certain circumstances, and a delay can be found to be unconscionable even under the ceiling. I think the article does not yet fully cover these points and this needs addressing before a new hook is formed. I note that both Edwardx {Template:Did you know nominations/Grosvenor Gardens House already promoted) and Maile66 (already has a tick at Template:Did you know nominations/McLoughlin Promenade) have claimed QPQ credits for reviews of R v Jordan.
Cornell Pulpwood Stacker
Cornell Pulpwood Stacker
Looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Cornell Pulpwood Stacker, the review by NearEMPTiness used the template checklist and raised no problems. "Left side" is always going to be unclear because it depends on perspective, especially if the hook was not promoted with the associated image (as it was not, when Cwmhiraeth built the prep). The article itself also uses "left side" in a statement followed by this NHRP ref, page 8 which substantiates the dimensions and the 45 degree angle but also uses a much clearer east / west description: "It is a steel cantilever truss structure that stands 175 feet above the ground at an angle of approximately forty-five degrees. ... The front (east) lower section of the stacker rests on two concrete piers where it is held in place by steel pins. This served as a fulcrum which enabled the engineers to raise the stacker to its operating position by pouring concrete into the counterweight mold at the rear (west) section of the frame." Note also that the front / east / lower section at 45 degrees is actually on the right side of the image. The other ref on this sentence requires a subscription for access. Unless it is in that reference, I don't see where the assertion that "workers must climb at a 45-degree angle" is in the references. The article says "a catwalk along one side is provided for maintenance workers to climb up and down the equipment" and the picture proposed for the hook and reproduced here shows that the catwalk is not located on the eastern-side 45 degree section but the western (rear) structure that is inclined at a lower angle. Later on is the statement that "A "Save the Stacker" fund ... refinish the old equipment,[11] a process that would require workers to climb up the left side of the 175-foot (53 m) stacker at its 45-degree angle.[4][2]" Ref 4 is the NHRP, 2 is the subscription required, and ref 11 includes: "Winter, spring, summer, 30 below zero, ice, heat of summer, [workers would] still have to walk to the top to make sure things were working properly", likely referring to walking along to catwalk to check the equipment at the apex of the stacker. I don't see anything about climbing the front structure. Now, refinishing would require accessing that structure, but, as Fram notes, that could be by scaffolds and not require climbing the structure at all. I think Cwmhiraeth has been careless in promoting into a prep a hook with "left side" (that is unclear and especially unclear when the image is not included) in it. NearEMPTiness has 12 DYK credits, and appears to me to have not reviewed the sources sufficiently to recognise the SYNTH issue that I think exists here.
Answering TRM, both of these cases trace to issues in the article, in my opinion. Without a thorough review of the hook fact at promotion, the Jordan error was difficult to catch, but the stacker should have been caught at that point based on not the "left" thing being clear without an image, if nothing else, let alone the idea of a restoration of a 100-year old structure having workers in the US climb up the structure on a 45 degree incline without a catwalk structure, which would make me wonder about safety and be doubtful. EdChem (talk) 01:51, 29 April 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 #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

GA nom

Can I have a little clarification - what's the date to enter a hook that's been promoted to GA today, but was expanded in January? In otherwords, of course, one that has pent months in the GAN queue. I can't put it in the January column- there isn't one, out of time I guess- but to put it in as today seems misleading. houghts? Cheers, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the date to use for a GA is indeed when it was listed as a GA, even if that's today. What matters at DYK is the moment of listing, not when the expansion or correction work was done. You have seven days from the date of listing to nominate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent news BlueMoonset, and I thank ye. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived very early today, so here is an updated list of the 32 non-current nominations (those through April 20). Right now we have a total of 191 nominations, of which 75 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from February and two from mid-March that still needs a reviewer's attention.

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) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Credit removal required

The sixth {{DYKmake}} in Queue 5, for Onesimus Ustonson, needs to be removed. (The hook was removed while it was in Prep 5, but only one of the two credits was removed.) MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for catching that. Mifter (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Edward Elliott

I need some help with this nomination. The hook isn't in the article, but the reviewer said, "It is unusual for the exact hook to be in the article due to the restrictions on hooks". I find this to be not true, but I'm checking here just because the nominator has a bunch of Good Articles and DYKs. This is more of a good faith effort for help rather than outright denying the hook. SL93 (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided general advice on the nomination page, though not on the specific hook. The hook's fact(s) must be in the article, with sourcing support, but I don't see that as requiring a word-for-word occurrence of the hook in the article, though there are certainly cases I've seen when the hook is not an accurate reflection of the article, which is obviously not acceptable. EdChem (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I now see that the hook is an image caption. I've never seen that before so I wasn't expecting it. I do read image captions when I review DYK articles, but it didn't register with me that one of them was the hook. SL93 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Prep 1 lead hook: Persis Foster Eames Albee

@Doug Coldwell: User:7&6=thirteen @Gerda Arendt: @Cwmhiraeth:

I did some editing on the article, and wondered why the first paragraphs under Career were so chatty about David McConnell's sales efforts. Now I see that text is line-by-line paraphrased from [6]. Compare:

Source: McConnell continuously sought new and different ways to engage his customers, and one method was to give out free samples of rose scented perfume with his book orders. When he realized that the fragrances were more popular than the books, he decided that selling perfume could be a profitable business opportunity. In June 1886, he founded The California Perfume Company and began selling perfumes along with books.
Article: McConnell innovated new ways to sell his books. One technique he came up with was to give free samples of home-made rose scented perfume with book orders. He soon realized the ladies were more interested in the perfumes than the books, so decided to sell perfumes with the books. He started The California Perfume Company in June 1886 and began selling perfumes and books.
The previous paragraph also has line-by-line paraphrasing. I haven't gone through the whole article, but I think this should be cleaned up before it hits the main page. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 29 April 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