Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 WT:DYKAPRIL

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

IAR? Question re planned event July 21 50th anniversary of the Moon Landing

Can an article never before featured on DYK and was recently promoted to FA qualify for DYK nomination? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the rationale for their exclusion is that FAs get their turn in the sun via TFA. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any rule that expressly forbids featured articles from being run on DYK, but practically speaking, it would likely be too late to nominate an article for DYK after it was promoted to FA quality. feminist (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@feminist, I believe what C&C is asking is whether something promoted direct to FA—i.e., skipping the intermediate GA stage—can still qualify under "newly promoted good article". I'd be inclined to say "no", but I don't believe there's ever been a formal policy written on the matter; it's not something likely to come up very often as few of the people writing at FA level have any interest in DYK. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is what I am talking about: Template:Did you know nominations/Roger B. Chaffee. I have it penciled inTFA is penciled in for February 15, 2020. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the Main Page history and early history, it appears that Chaffee has never appeared in bold anywhere on the Main Page before. It has appeared twice at OTD on 2017 January 27 and 2014 January 27 but was not in bold.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs The GA inclusion dates to Good Article RfC-July 2013. The push for this to happen, was because FA and DYK had their own main page section, but GA had been ignored in that regard. So, just getting something to pass FA, a formidable achievement in and of itself, is not a qualification for DYK. — Maile (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To qualify this a little more, the intent of this is for a special occasion. WP:S2019 is a planned event (discussed a little on DYK last year) to fill the front page with space related articles for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing (July 21 2019). At one point I was going to try to run Apollo 11, Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin all at TFA, but it seemed like giving them their own day at TFA was a better idea. My alternate plan is to have Armstrong run at TFA, Aldrin at TFP, Collins at DYK, and Apollo 11 at OTD. Unfortunately, I thought of this after Collins was promoted to GA (and A in MILHIST). He will be running through FAC shortly and should be promoted in time, so we are hoping for an exception for him so he will not be left off the main page when Aldrin and Armstrong are on it. THe other issue is shear number of DYKs; I have been working really hard to get eight Space Race firsts promoted to DYK before the anniversary, but we are trying to have a couple of backup contingency DYKs in case we do not finish in time. Chaffee is one of those. So the second thing I would ask for a concession on is for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if I do not finish the other articles in time. If the other articles are finished in time, we just never run Chaffee at DYK and that is fine with me. To summarize, the two things I am hoping for:
  • Concession for Collins to run at DYK on July 21, 2019
  • Provisional concession for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if we do not have the other articles ready
Sorry if that is a bit rambly, I was about to head out of the house. Let me know what you all think. Kees08 (Talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If that's the question, the answer is a clear "no", WP:IAR notwithstanding. feminist (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: Why? It's a clear IAR. It's an important anniversary. I'm all for it. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, brainfart. feminist (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the collaborative esprit de corps is best fostered by addressing other editors as "brainfart". EEng 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
EEng: My interpretation of Feminist's comment (accompanied by a relevant strike-through) is "Sorry, [I experienced a] brainfart." —David Levy 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
David Levy, it's me -- remember? Think. THINK. Review my user page if necessary. EEng 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your bon mot seems to have been perceived as bon not. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tough crowd. EEng 02:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It had me cracking up.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, brainfart.[FBDB] EEng 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed the above section heading a little for you. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08 why don't you all write this up as an RFC subsection here. Is this a basic request to IAR and make this the lead hook for July 21, 2019? Do you want other editors to aim for a full 8-hook Moon Landing set specifically on that date? Clarify what you want, then people can Support or Oppose, and otherwise offer comments. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I think a full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years, would be great, and fully justified. EEng 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: Would you be able to formulate the RfC? Rationale for Collins could also include that I got him to GA recently (ish), but thought he would be run at TFA so did not bother with DYK. EEng, the plan was for one day of hooks that had spaceflight firsts (first earthlings around the Moon, first payload to impact the Moon, etc (try to make it not all about America and diversify it, there is even a French article!)). If we could miraculously get even more DYKs ready in time, we could maybe do a couple a day during the eight-day mission. Kees08 (Talk) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin are all now FA, and can be run during the anniversary. I've renominated Michael Collins for FAC. What we need now is some intrepid reviewers to go up there and do their thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have never created an RfC unless you count the one or two move discussions have started. I would hate to inadvertently sabotage it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC Ignore All Rules for 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to IAR. SITH (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


NOTE: The lunar module landed on the moon July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first walked on the moon the next day, July 21 02:56:15 UTC.


Currently the DYK nominiation policy is: Within 7 days of nomination - newly created, or 5X expanded (2X for unsourced biographies), or achieves GA status

Proposed by Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08: Ignore all rules policy in effect to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the July 21, 1969 Moon walk.

Second idea from EEng: A full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years

New articles could be created. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of existing articles and their status:

  • Apollo 1 - GA June 6, 2016 - the first crewed mission of the Apollo program for the moon landing. All died in the January 27, 1967 launch rehearsal
Roger B. Chaffee - FA on March 9, 2019, currently a DYK nomination
Gus Grissom - GA on June 1 2017
Ed White (astronaut) - C-class article
  • Apollo 11 - FA January 13, 2019, numerous main page appearances in OTD
Neil Armstrong - FA - nominated for TFA by Hawkeye7
Buzz Aldrin - FA
Michael Collins (astronaut) -currently FAC Michael Collins (astronaut) needs reviewers

Support/Oppose/Comments

  • Support - We have an opportunity for a once-in-our-lifetime commemoration of the event. Today's Feature Article, whatever they select, will be only one article. POTD (Picture of the Day) has scheduled Buzz Aldrin's bootprint. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Maile66, TFA isn't necessary a single article; it's just that it's rarely appropriate for there to be a double or triple TFA as it means that there need to be two or more existing FAs on the the same topic, neither of which has already run. (Plus, when there are multiple articles on the same topic they're generally written by the same author, and most people aren't overjoyed at the prospect of monitoring multiple articles for the bombardment of stupid to which TFAs are generally subjected; it also has the potential to cause interminable arguments over the order in which the articles are mentioned.) See Nazi blockhouses in France, the Sedin twins, triangular constellations, the Northern and Southern Crowns, the 2008 US elections or pilots shot down on 7 September 1940 for other examples of multi-article TFAs. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure. feminist (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely, this sounds like a great idea.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all hooks related to the spaceflight on July 21, 2019. In terms of the 8-day mission, I could see up to 2 hooks in each set, but not more. Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A great idea - 2 hooks a set for the entire 8-day mission. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to support a) relaxing the nomination time limit, allowing an article (or multiple) that has passed GA but wasn't nominated at the time to be nominated for DYK, and b) the construction of a special occasion set. It's a little unclear whether the list of proposed articles above includes things that have previously been featured in bold on the main page; I would not support running those at DYK, because that's a dangerous precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sounds like a good plan, and will calm my nervousness about the fact that the POTD is set to be similar to the TFA. If DYK joins the party too then there's safety in numbers. Of course, the Americans will be celebrating this event on July 20, due to their inconsiderate decision to position themselves in the western hemisphere, in a negative timezone... But WP operates on UTC and the articles all quote figures thus so it seems a resasonable choice to do it on that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point, actually, on the time zone issue. I've added the UTC figures above, from what is listed in the Apollo 11 article. Moon Landing was July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC, followed 19 minutes later by Buzz Aldrin. Yoninah has mentioned above a 2-hook set each day for 8 days of the mission, which might even be a better idea taking into consideration that Wikipedia is global. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sympathetic to the proposal, but I have some concerns that this may lead to some kind of double standard: i.e. why do this only for Apollo 11 but not for other similar milestones? This would be a support if this proposal could leave open to the possibility of similar projects being done in the future instead of being a one-off. I also share Vanamonde's sentiment that the DYK stuff should probably be limited to GAs and not articles that don't meet the 5x expanded requirement. Another possibility of course could be a DYK drive for making more new space-related articles for that date, but I guess that's a topic for another time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Conditional support Sure let's relax the rules upon occasion. It should only be done so in the way that Vanamonde proposes and only for events that are of substantial global historical importance. We should not do it for some countries centennial/bicentennial for instance. If this rule had been in effect some of the WWI anniversaries might have thus qualified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support relaxed rules, but keep in mind hat there will probably only few pictured hooks, so if you want something pictured, consider an earlier request. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the current proposed July 21 DYK list is: Michael Collins (lead article), Sputnik 1, Luna 2, Félicette, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, and Alexei Leonov (Maspalomas Station will replace one of them, TBD). I plan to have them all at the GA level at a minimum. If we decide to do 2/day for the other days of the mission, we can select from existing spaceflight articles that are GA and above, if not enough new GAs are generated. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support being able to run occasional events like this, for exceptional historic events of indisputable global significance. I expect this topic will be well received by readers and draw positive attention. Alsee (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial support: This is big enough that I'm willing to bend the rules for July 21, though I agree with Vanamonde that articles that have previously been featured on the main page in a bold link should prevent them from running again at DYK. I do, however, oppose the idea that we should mine long-standing GAs if we decide to include hooks during the rest of the mission, as proposed by Kees08 just above: if we have the hooks available through regular processes, then we can include one or (at most) two on those days, but only those articles that are new, newly expanded, or new GAs between now and then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    To be clear, would you be opposed to Collins appearing in DYK on July 21 if he has not appeared in bold before (pretty sure he has not)? Kees08 (Talk) 01:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    The Collins talk page has no listing of previous DYK, ITN, or OTD appearances, so I have no reason to oppose there; if someone were to find one, I'd still allow it because it wasn't recorded at the time. The exception being allowed here is that the article was not nominated back in October when it became a GA, so it will be a very late GA nomination. (Get it nominated and approved before it loses GA status and its DYK qualification, which happens if the current FAC succeeds...) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There appears to be near unanimous support to invoke IAR (including myself) in this very special case. I don't see the need to rely on a technicality when the GA-basis would also require IAR to ignore the late nomination. I can nominate it today; I just did not want to preempt the conclusion of this RfC.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    Just to clarify the "very special case", the next time we would possibly apply such an exception will be in 2025 (the 80th anniversary of end of WWII).--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:, @Hawkeye7:, @Coffeeandcrumbs: I want to make sure I understand your meaning above, BlueMoonset. Are you saying that if we nominate Michael Collins now, based on its Oct 2018 GA review, you feel we could IAR for the special occasion? But if we don't nominate it now, and it passes FAC, then the GA qualification is nullified and it would not be eligible for IAR? But if we do nominate it now and get the review passed before FA, the FA rating won't affect it? If all you are talking about is to hurry up and nominate it here, and get it approved, then we should run up a nomination template for it. Hawkeye7 or Coffeeamdcrumbs, if you will open the nomination template, I will review it. Or I would be willing to nominate it myself. A DYK hook is never a set-in-granite situation, and we could make changes later on the hook. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sounds good. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this celebrates exciting milestones in the history of humankind. I like the discussion above about this being a "very special case." = paul2520 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like a good ideaa, and I would not object in principle to further items of this type. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Just as an update, here is a mock up of how far we have gotten on this project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/Main Page/July 21.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

I have just removed some vandalism from Prep 4. Would it not be better is such administrative areas were protected against casual vandalism? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So far we argued that it's reasonable to let everybody make small fixes. The area is highly watched, so vandalism likely to be noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought that requiring autoconfirmed status would be reasonable. There's no call for IPs to be wandering around mucking up templates. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree about either autoconfirmed or registration required protection for the templates. Certainly not admin only like the queues because we do need, as Gerda pointed out, to give every registered user the right to make minor alterations or corrections. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. "administrative" (mis-)led me to thinking more restriction to admins only. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Inherent in this proposal is an assumption that IPs are just going to be "wandering around mucking up templates" and not making helpful edits, which doesn't seem to be justified; certainly not to the extent that requires bypassing the usual protection procedures which work for almost all other pages. There's no need for protection after one isolated instance of vandalism. – Teratix 13:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 1: Billionaire Ted

  • ... that despite being parodied on World Wrestling Federation TV as bumbling hillbilly Billionaire Ted, Ted Turner reportedly found the sketches funny?

@Dr.K.: @The C of E: This hook is quite confusing. To someone who doesn't know what Billionaire Ted is, "the sketches" makes no sense, and are bumbling hillbillies not supposed to find things funny? I think it probably needs a rephrase. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Personally, I get the joke. But I have no objection to a rephrase by The C of E. When that happens, I can approve the modified hook. Thank you. Dr. K. 13:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we not simply just remove "bumbling hillbilly"? ... that despite being parodied on World Wrestling Federation TV as Billionaire Ted, Ted Turner reportedly found the sketches funny?
This gets across it was a parody of Ted, but that he enjoyed the character? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. If everyone else agrees, I'm good with that. Dr. K. 13:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The nomination has ALT1, which I personally prefer. It's almost a given that when the above hook hits the main page, if not before, someone will object to the Ted-Ted repetition, "...Billionaire Ted, Ted Turner..." — Maile (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1:... that World Wrestling Federation parody Billionaire Ted caused the USA Network to demand it be stopped due to it being perceived as going from humorous to malicious? Source: ESPN
I think I prefer Lee's wording, if only because it shows the contrast better while Amakuru's is more straight to the point, which probably doesn't work as good in a humor-based hook like this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I object, I prefer the original as passed because otherwise this takes the sting out that was present in the original. Or put the ALT in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
<sigh> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the sting", but anyway... since there's only 15 minutes left and not quite a consensus on what to put, I've replaced it for now. (With a different wrestling-related hook). Please agree something on the nomination page and then it can be re-promoted. Thanks all  — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I said I was happy to use the ALT. The reason I stated it took the sting out was by the removal of the bumbling hillbilly line because I believe that would have been the main thing used to hook people in. I see no policy based reason for it to be changed when it was already cleared in the nominations page and waited for a month before being promoted. So please @Amakuru: can we put it back in the next queue as soon as possible? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, the hooky part about the hook is that Ted Turner found a parody of his funny, and not the hillbilly line. The hook works well without it, and in fact I don't even think readers would care about it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Fine, just put either back in the next prep @Narutolovehinata5:. I'm getting tired of all this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As Amakuru was the one who pulled from prep, I'd like to hear their comments first before re-promoting; in any case I'm not sure if they can promote their own suggested hook, even if it was just a minor change. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4: National Teacher of the Year

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.

@Barkeep49: @Cwmhiraeth: @Valereee:
This hook is pretty bland. The page has a lot more interesting things in it, like:
ALT2: ... that Rodney Robinson, the 2019 National Teacher of the Year who works in a juvenile detention center, has had to seek therapy to help process the trauma his students have experienced? Yoninah (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm too fresh off working on 1963 Freedom Ballot lol...I thought a teacher who makes sure his students are registered to vote was pretty interesting (besides being fabulous). Totally open to the other, though! --valereee (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought the juxtaposition of juvenile delinquents and registering to vote was hooky enough but am open to the idea it isn't. ALT 2 is a tad misleading as he sought therapy from his previous job (according to sources). This would be more factually accurate ALT 2A: "... that Rodney Robinson, the 2019 National Teacher of the Year had to seek therapy to help process the trauma his students have experienced?". I'm fine with that but my strong preference remains a hook that includes where he works because I think that's a really essential part of his story. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: are you saying that you didn't quote the source correctly? That it refers to his job at Armstrong High School? Yoninah (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah The source I attached it to is unclear about which students had been shot - the therapy is recent however. A previous source indicated it was a problem with students at his last school - I would not want to perpetuate an inference about his current students that is unfair. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: so remove that sentence from the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, The sentence in the article is correct. Your reformulation for DYK was not which is why I offered a tweak to bring it in line with the sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. Then I'll withdraw my objection to the hook currently in prep. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (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.

prep 4 cont

I'm still fretting over this one. Piotrus The C of E Yoninah

... that Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others held that British Christian bakers can refuse to make a cake supporting gay marriage if they profoundly disagree with the message on it?

They aren't disagreeing with the message on it, they're disagreeing with the message they're being asked to put on it. It's an awkwardness I don't know how to fix without completely recasting the sentence. The hook is already 183 characters, so we can't add 'they'd been asked to put' to the hook, even if that didn't sound clunky too. --valereee (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

What about "disagree with the suggested message?" or similar word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, maybe 'disagree with the specified message' or 'requested message'? --valereee (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand your problem, valereee. The hook says they disagree with the message on the cake. It's implied that they're being asked to write this message. Yoninah (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please see source below. This seems to be the ruling itself.
"Lee (Respondent) v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland) and two references by the AG for NI of devolution issues to the Supreme Court pursuant to paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the NI Act 1998" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 2019-05-06.
"Profoundly" is only mentioned once in the entirety of its 29 pages. The ruling's 29 pages pretty much focus on the argument that the bakers were not discriminating against the lifestyle, but were against putting the message on the cake. That is stated in many places in the ruling, but I don't see that the ruling uses "profoundly" in its conclusion. We should reconsider whether the hook, infobox and article section of the judgement should include "profoundly". "Profoundly" is a very subjective term, and I don't see how it can be quantified as a ruling terminology. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, my concern is that the cake isn't in existence yet, so they can't disagree with the message on it. The message isn't on it yet. They can only disagree with the message they're being asked to put on it. It's just awkward, for me. --valereee (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The other problem with this hook is that although in the particular case Asher was refusing to do it because of his Christian beliefs, the ruling actually says that anyone, of any religious belief, cannot be compelled to promote any message (religion-related or not) that they disagree with. So whilst the hook is technically correct, it's misleading in that it suggests the ruling is only relevant to gay marriage or Christians. It isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Black Kite, that was discussed at the review here, the nom wanted to keep it focussed on Christians. --valereee (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed and was unsurprised. That doesn't make it any less misleading. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The ALT1a suggested by Yoninah actually solves the problem: ... that a 2018 UK Supreme Court decision held that British Christian bakers cannot be forced to decorate a cake to read "Support Gay Marriage" if they profoundly disagree with the message?
Not sure why nom didn't like that one. --valereee (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It's still misleading. It suggests the ruling is only relevant to Christians and gay marriage, when it would equally apply to, say, a Muslim who didn't want to decorate a cake with an anti-immigration message. Or indeed a Manchester United fan who didn't want to make a cake saying that Liverpool were the best team ever. You really need something like ... that a 2018 UK Supreme Court decision held that British bakers cannot be forced to decorate a cake with a message that they profoundly disagree with? Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It certainly seems to apply to any baker/any message and perhaps to any creator of an item that carries a message. I'm not sure that makes it actually misleading? --valereee (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it is - if I hadn't heard of the case, I would have assumed from the hook that the court had made a ruling solely on Christians and gay marriage cakes - wouldn't you? Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hm...I think it certainly would have made me wonder whether the ruling was broader than simply Christians/gay marriage. I'm not sure it would have made me feel mislead. But I take your point. --valereee (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've moved the hook to a later prep while the wording issues are being sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

So to get this discussion moving: should we change the hook wording to Black Kite's suggestion, or go with ALT1a? @Piotrus, The C of E, Yoninah, Valereee, Maile66, and Lee Vilenski: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite's suggestion is good, but strike "profoundly". Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Definitely strike "profoundly", since it's not part of the wording of the court's conclusion. If the UK Supreme Court made "profoundly" part of its ruling, that would leave a legal loophole to any subsequent case where a business objected to the message, but did not prove to the satisfaction of the court that they "profoundly" objected. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I like Yoninah's ALT1a, fine without the profoundly in that one --valereee (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
As a compromise, and also to reflect the wording used in the article, I've changed the hook wording to Black Kite's suggestion. If The C of E or any other editor has any objections, please state so on this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No, no, no. That one completely takes away all the hookyness by removing the references to Christians and gay marriage. I have amended it to remove the "profoundly" in it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Does the ruling specifically say that they can only use this to be for gay marriage? If not, ALT1 seems super biased to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: The relevant quote in the article says this: They held that no-one could be forced to promote a belief or opinion which they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, then we really shouldn't be bringing a particular religion, or else into this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Convenience link to nom and to prep
I do understand where C of E is coming from in that the juxtaposition of gay marriage/Christian makes the hook more interesting. The ruling really is about no one being forced to produce a message with which they disagree. Christians/gay marriage is why this specific case got to the courts. This one feels wordy, but maybe as a place to start:

ALT2: … that in a case concerning Christian bakers asked to decorate a cake in support of gay marriage, British courts ruled that no one could be forced to produce a message with which they disagree?

--valereee (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes - that's good. (I'd replace "produce" with "promote" though, as that's the wording in the article). Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite, oh, good one! Done! --valereee (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphan articles

In the past, there have been some nominations that were put on hold as the subject articles were orphans (i.e. had no incoming links). However, as far as I can tell, there's nothing in either the main rules nor the supplementary guidelines on actually requiring articles to not be orphans before they can qualify (please correct me if I'm wrong). Can we have some clarification on this matter so that, if there is indeed consensus to have this rule, it can be added to WP:DYKSG? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

When this was discussed before, it was argued that articles with an orphan tag, or a lead-too-short tag, should be excluded from DYK, as no "dispute" tags are allowed. The best solution is not to exclude it from DYK but to simply de-orphan it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, Cwmhiraeth Indeed, practice at DYK is to de-orphan the article, or just remove the tag. That's mostly just automatically kicked out by a bot if the new article is not linked to others. An orphan tag is not a "dispute tag" and has no validity for putting an article on hold. Dispute tags are mentioned are in the Supplementary Rules D5 "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags." The link shows all dispute tags, and an orphan tag is not one of them. There is no validation to hold up a nomination because of an orphan tag. Per WP:ORPHAN, the whole issue of orphans is merely a process for building the encyclopedia, not indication of an error. Maile (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about multi-article nominations

When creating a DYK nom with multiple articles is it (ideally) necessary to transclude the nomination page on the talk pages of all involved articles? Or should it be done only for the first article in the nomination? SD0001 (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

SD0001 - It's not manditory to do regardless in my opinion as the instructions just say "consider adding". If you want to add to both, go ahead. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Increase number of hooks?

Yoninah recently posed the question on my talk page of whether or not we should increase the number of hooks in each Prep set, due to hooks getting shorter and taking less space. Ergo, admins having to recycle old hooks to balance the main page. Looking over the hooks of 2019, I believe Yoninah is dead-on about the situation.

Main page balance is dependent upon contents of all the sections there, and that is impossible to predict. I recycled an old hook for today's main page balance. For tomorrow's main page, I have recycled two old hooks for balance. We currently have 352 nominations, 152 of which have been approved. 15 of the approved nominations are scheduled for special days.

Pinging BlueMoonset, Amakuru, David Levy, Casliber, Vanamonde93, Gatoclass, Mandarax, Cwmhiraeth, Narutolovehinata5, Valereee, The C of E. Not intending to leave anyone out, but pinging who has been doing the latest promotions, etc. All commenters welcome. - please feel free to share thoughts on this issue. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Maile66, I was actually wondering about that -- why is DYK always short and never long? I have never had a set come out too long, but I have worried many times whether a set was going to end up awkwardly short and ended up skipping over short hooks because of it. --valereee (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the suggestion. Nine hooks will about stabilise the backlog and ten hooks would begin to reduce it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. More often than not DYK is ending up lower than OTD. I think the latter has started favouring loner hooks perhaps. Although oddly I had to put in one more OTD today because the DYK was clearly below it. Probably after the aforementioned addition of a new hook. Having nine regularly is fine though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal. If we have to recycle, we should be promoting more. There's a large-ish backlog, which really shouldn't be there if we had more hooks. Makes total sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support increasing number of hooks as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As a starting point while we await comment from others, would someone do the honors to promote/move a 9th hook into Prep 4? We can deal with the other preps after more input here. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
My question here is why increase the number of hooks instead of doing two sets per day, as we did in the past whenever there was a large backlog. Personally I would prefer the one or two more hooks as opposed to the two sets since the latter requires more effort and more vetting, it's more of a question of why this wasn't done earlier. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The backlog is not the issue. The main page visual balance is the issue. There should not be several lines of blank space beneath any section with the section next to it being much longer, like there is right now under DYK and OTD. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, a blurb is frequently removed from ITN (and more rarely from OTD) to balance the page. Nominators are getting better at writing shorter hooks at DYK. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, could you adjust the coding so that each prep set has nine slots? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, Queue 4 next in line. We promoted this with 9 hooks. And, yet, I had to add a 10th, recycled from May 31, 2018. Looking through 2018, short hooks were already becoming an issue then. So, at the very least, 9-hook sets might be the norm in the foreseeable future. — Maile (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maile, I noticed that too. But I wonder how interesting are 9- and 10-hook sets filling the main page? Perhaps we really should go to twice-a-day 8-hook sets for a while. Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
What would that do? Wasn't 9 hooks your idea? This is about balancing the main page, not dealing with a backlog. One set or multiple sets per day is not the balancing factor. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it was your idea :) And I agree with it, but now that we're running a 10-hook set, I think it looks like a wall of text. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
How quickly we humans forget. It was you. A definite example for keeping these things at WT:DYK. :) — Maile (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile I remember that note. It was in response to your adding more hooks to balance the set. I wasn't suggested anything, just asking if this was the new direction. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, ,either direction, as far as I'm concerned, the number of hooks per set should be up to the DYK regulars. If they think we should stay at 9 for a while, fine. If they think we should go back to 8, that's fine also. Whatever. — Maile (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. It appears that consensus is for 9 hooks. Instead of increasing that to ten, maybe the administrator could find a few longer hooks to swap into the set from later prep sets, keeping to the bio/non-bio alternating format. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Clarification? Are you suggesting that when it comes time to promote to Queue, the admin should have the flexibility to shuffle hooks from within the Preps? Because I think some already do that, to a small degree. The thing is, nobody is really going to be able to assess the main page preview until its in the lead Queue. Again, we face the uncertainty of the other sections making last-minute changes to theirs.— Maile (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, alternate hooks could be pulled from the prep sets, since we non-administrators are able to refill those sets, as opposed to queues which only administrators can fiddle with. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nine hooks is too many IMO, per Yoninah's "wall of text" comment. It's acceptable to do it occasionally when the set is too short but I don't think it should become the norm. Also, if we routinely run nine hooks, won't that encourage the other projects to start running longer sets as well? There was a discussion at some point about adjusting the column widths from day to day to keep the page balanced - that would be a better longterm solution I think. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all good points. I just wish we would settle this once and for all, with nobody changing their mind. So we can quit diddling with the template. And somebody else besides me make the final adjustments of whatever is needed. I'm not making anymore adjustments on request. Gatoclass if you want to take it back to 8 hooks, please feel free to do so. Quite frankly, I really don't care if DYK looks shorter or longer than any other section on the main page. I doubt the casual reader even notices. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Short sets don't bother me a great deal either Maile, unless they are very short, in which case the addition of an extra hook doesn't hurt. But to run nine hooks routinely is not a good solution IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass this might be a good place to say we should decide once and for all how many hooks we have on the main page. Period. No changing back and forth when someone thinks otherwise. Are other MP sections altering their content based on what everybody else does? I don't think so. This back and forth on the number of hooks has been happening because some GF individuals like the aesthetics of everything looking neat and tidy. We can't control if the other sections run long or short, and we should not be concerned about bringing up the rear to make it all fit into a neat package on the main page. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, I'm in favour of retaining a degree of flexibility about these things, so I'd be reluctant to set any particular number in stone. But I agree we shouldn't fuss too much about a line or two of whitespace. You are not under any obligation to please any "GF individuals" who think otherwise, after all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Very well. I personally will not be again changing the number of hooks in a set; I leave it up to others. Yoninah you might be interested to know that Template:Did you know/Clear is what sets the number of hooks, and is not a protected template. You can edit it. — Maile (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
So what are we doing? The current set on the main page has 9 hooks and is still short. I'm all for going back to 8 hooks, which is much easier to assemble than 9, and keeping an eye out for balancing the set with fewer short hooks. @Gatoclass: could I reset the number of hooks to 8? Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I BOLDly returned the prep sets to 8 hooks, and made all the filled prep sets 8 hooks too (reversing a ton of work I did to balance the 9-hook sets last week). Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thumbs up Great! — Maile (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4 and 5

I think prep 4 and 5 are finished so we should promote queue 4 and 5 14.232.160.139 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Wax

The nominator, according to their talk page, has seven DYK credits, while the QPQ tool says they only have three. It appears that their last DYK credit was in 2012 and they are unfamiliar with the QPQ rule (it appears to not have been in place during their first DYK nominations). Considering the circumstances, can we do an WP:IAR here and treat the editor as a new nominator for the purposes of WP:DYK, thus exempting them from QPQ? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No objection --valereee (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 6 and 1

Should we promote Prep 6 and Prep 1? 14.232.160.139 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Preps are promoted on a regular schedule, there is usually no need to leave a message here requesting to do so, unless there are no preps that are currently up on queue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Preps are not promoted so quickly to queue so that editors can continue to modify them. Just now, for example, I noticed that Prep 6 had 7 non-biography hooks in a 9-hook set, and went about shuffling and adding more bio hooks. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

prep 1

mediation of crowd control

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 and Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

... that in 2016 the Indian Army advocated mediation of crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir with pepper guns, sonic cannons, and chili grenades?

I don't know what "mediation of crowd control" means. The article and source say the government advocated replacing the use of guns with the use of less-lethal weapons. I don't think "mediation" is the word we're looking for. --valereee (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I thought to change it in prep, and will do so now, to:
ALT1: ... that in 2016 the Indian Army advised replacing pellet guns with non-lethal pepper guns, sonic cannons, and chili grenades for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir? Yoninah (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Way better, I think. It does necessarily put the article last. --valereee (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I also re-piped the link, because "crowd control" is not the purpose of these weapons:
  • ALT2: ... that in 2016 the Indian Army advised replacing pellet guns with non-lethal pepper guns, sonic cannons, and chili grenades to manage violent riots in Jammu and Kashmir?
  • IMO the page name is also misleading and should be changed. Yoninah (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    I find the page name extremely confusing. I just assumed I wasn't familiar enough with the politics, but it does seem kind of strange. Maybe it's a translation issue? Like, that's a direct literal translation from Hindi or Urdu and it just doesn't feel idiomatic in English? --valereee (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • valereee I am the nom here from WikiProject India and have been struggling on the talk page to find common ground for all parties associated with this controversial article. I have gone through the discussion above and I strongly support ALT1. The title has been debated on the talk page.here is a quick summary. ALT2 may be unacceptable to some editors because they don't prefer being called rioters. The term they use for themselves is protestors. The neutral media uses the term violent clashes / violent protests. And a large number of sources on the topic does use "crowd control" which is a catch all term used by law enforcement agencies world wide that includes (in the context of Kashmir) Violent protests, peaceful protests, riots, violent clashes, etc. I personally am ok with ALT2 but i am sure this will lead to folks being unhappy when this goes to the main page. So ALT1 seems like a common ground. --DBigXray 17:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    DBigXray, thanks so much! Do you think 'violent protests' instead of 'violent rioters' would work? --valereee (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • valereee, using "violent Protestors" will be clinging to a particular POV. The ALT2 states "violent riots" and not rioters, so this is not that offensive. These incidents are basically violent clashes also called violent riots. So if you insist then I would probably suggest using ALT2 here. ALT1 will still be my first preference, but I leave the final decision to you guys. cheers. --DBigXray 08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    DBigXray, not sure if you noticed but I actually said violent protests, not violent protestors -- that is, calling the incidents violent rather than calling the people violent -- wasn't sure if that makes any damn difference in this kind of POV issue. Trying to thread the needle, here. --valereee (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry my bad. I corrected my comment above. The people involved call it "protest" (without using the word violent, although they throw stones to kill), The government calls it "violent attack" on the scurity forces. I guess, we are good calling it "violent riots" as a middle path, which is what it is as per the actual definition of the word.--DBigXray 10:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke

Another language issue, same set, image hook Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke:

... *ALT3 ... that Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke saved the memory and the paintings of her first husband, August Macke, who portrayed her more than 200 times (example pictured)?

"saved the memory and the paintings" is strange. The source cited for the hook, which is in German, uses the word memory only twice, and neither in this context. It uses the word memoirs, but only to describe a book. I'm again wondering if it's a translation issue. Pinging nom Gerda Arendt for help. --valereee (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The overly long passage I tried to summarize is "She began in 1915 to write about their love and marriage, episodes of family life, and travels and meetings with artists, mainly to allow their sons to know their father, or as she put it, to preserve an image of their father ("ein Bild ihres Vaters zu bewahren")." If that's too hard to summarize - probably "preserved" would be better than "saved" for the episodes from life - we can cut it. That hook will "sell" per the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Valereee
*ALT4 ... that after the death of her husband August Macke, writer Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke chronicled their life together, and preserved his paintings that included 200 of her (example pictured), as a legacy for their children? — Maile (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, yes, I see why that was a challenge. That's a lot to fit into a one-sentence 200-characters hook already, and then we add to it that she was painted by him 200 times. Could we divide this into two different hooks? One about the paitings, which would ideally then be an image hook, and one about a mother preserving the legacy of their dead father for her children, which wouldn't necessarily be an image hook? --valereee (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I wrote ALT4. It would be easy to divide the hook and come up with two separate hooks. But I know Gerda Arendt may have a different vision for this, so I'll let her come up with the ALTs. — Maile (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I more or less suggested to focus on the image topic, saying the hook will sell by the image, which I think is a must, - for how he saw her. It's also tough to combine the two things, because the writing began in World War 1, and the saving from bombing in World War II. I would not call her a writer, - it wasn't professional writing, just born from the urgency to give her children an image of their father.
ALT5: that during World War II, Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke saved the paintings of her first husband, August Macke, who portrayed her more than 200 times (example pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, that works for me. I tried to make the article consistent with this and the source. I don't see in the source that she "moved" the paintings, although obviously she must have moved them to safety or she couldn't have saved them. Do you happen to know of a source that specifies that? --valereee (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The sentence in German is "Elisabeth lagerte das Werk Mackes aus ihrem Berliner Haus aus und rettete es so vor der Zerstörung." (moved them from the Berlin house) - Sigh, no source, - there will be one, but we don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, oh, no, that actually is exactly what I was looking for! It says she moved them. Was she saving them from something, or just saving them as in keeping them rather than leaving them behind or selling them or whatever? Saving can mean so many things in English! :D --valereee (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I found something, pp 116–118, will add to the article. She moved the paintings from the Berlin house that was afterwards bombed. If that can be worded better fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, that's great! Thank you for the extra work. I think then ALT5 . --valereee (talk) valereee (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm replacing the hook in prep with ALT5, substituting "safeguarded" for "saved" so it makes sense:
ALT5a: ... that during World War II, Elisabeth Erdmann-Macke safeguarded the paintings of her first husband, August Macke, who portrayed her more than 200 times (example pictured)? Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech question re DYKUpdateBot/Errors

DYKUpdateBot/Errors kicked off this error three minutes before it should have moved the hooks to the main page:

Could not tag Siege of Calais (1346–1347) by ArticleHistory; please tag article manually

Ten minutes later the bot posted that all errors had been cleared, and moved the hooks to the main page. In checking Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347), the bot did not add the usual DYK template of the nomination appearing on the main page. I added it manually.

Can someone please advise what the bot saw as an error, so that we can avoid/correct the issue in advance next time? — Maile (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4:Crab in Macau

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 and Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nanhaipotamon

... that researchers discovered a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhaipotamon, in Macau, one of the most densely-populated regions on Earth?

Not clear from hook how Macau being densely populated has any relation to discovery of a new species? I see it mentioned also in the article and abstract of the source, but no indication why it's relevant. It feels like random information. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think it means that the crabs were mostly populated in Macau, but finding something where it most lives seems quite normal to me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The point is that in a densely populated area you do not expect to find a species which has not previously been described and is therefore new to science. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you think there's a way to pull that in? Like, "...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhalpotamon, in one of the world's most densely populated areas?" or something like that? --valereee (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, much of the appeal of the hook was that it was discovered in Macau, so while sometimes vagueness adds to the hookiness of hooks, this doesn't appear to be such a case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We might be able to shoehorn Macau in...
ALT2 ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhaipotamon, in one of the world's most densely-populated areas, Macau?
ALT3 ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab in one of the world's most densely-populated areas, Macau?
--valereee (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's go with:
ALT3a: ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab in Macau, one of the world's most densely-populated areas? Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Why are we saying "surprised"? It's not in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Good point. There's no evidence that anyone was surprised about it. Also, given the article is about a genus, having a link referring to a "species" seems a bit WP:EASTEREGG maybe. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The hook is now in Prep 5. If nothing is done about it in the next 24 hours, I'll return it to the noms page for further work. Pinging nominator @Bubbleleg96:. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, Amakuru, Lee Vilenski, Cwmhiraeth, and Narutolovehinata5: This most likely will have to be reconciled without the nominator/article creator. This article has been their only contribution since one edit in 2018, and several edits in Nov-Dec 2017. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, Amakuru, Lee Vilenski, Cwmhiraeth, Narutolovehinata5, and Maile66: Macau is a tourist destination and very small and densly-populated place. So even in places where you would never expect it, researchers still discover new species, and, apparently, at the same time not many people seem to care for their close-by environment. That is the whole point of the hook and the article. I am not entirely sure how to change it without removing its appeal... Bubbleleg96 06:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering the issues with the new proposals, how about:

Seems to better reflect the article, and I personally think the mention of Macau itself is hooky enough even without the mention of densest places, though I suppose others may disagree. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

So none of these sources make any references to it being somehow unexpected to find new species in places like Macau? Is it SYNTHy for us to develop a hook around that? We're putting the two points into one sentence, so implying there's a connection and that it's relevant information. No one else is connecting the new species vs. the dense population? Maybe it's just that all these sources are scientific publications and it's just understood? I agree it's fascinating, but shouldn't someone be pointing it out? --valereee (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
ETA: the source that supports the hook hereis a paper about the freshwater crabs in Macau. The introduction starts with a short paragraph describing Macau, mentioning it's a gambling capital and densely populated. The next paragraph starts with The freshwater crabs of Macau have not been scientifically documented to the best of our knowledge. So it's probably not unexpected that a new species has been found, even in a densely populated area. --valereee (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Its not unusual to find new species in densely populated areas. It just takes someone with the required knowledge to identify them making an effort to look for them. Although its normally insects (you would be surprised what you can find even in the average city yard/garden), its unsurprising that a city on the banks of a huge estuary has found crabs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2019 (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 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Is nothing safe from DYK?

Template:Trains portal/Did you know uses SNCF BB 13000, which is a couple of years old. I thought that once articles had been around for a while, they were safe from this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Safe from what? You have linked a portal template: Template:Trains portal/Did you know. Are you concerned someone might try to nominate an old article to DYK? @Slambo:, who is an admin, created that Portal. Maybe they can explain. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned when any article gets nominated for the DYK treatment. I'm particularly concerned that it still has this bizarrely secretive process, where the last thing that anyone familiar with the article knows is when it's tagged as "Today a randomly picked and almost always misunderstood factoid has been plucked from this article, whatever its insignificance, and plastered somewhere prominent". At least it's not on anywhere anyone reads. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little inexperienced with portals,but isn't this completely separate to the official DYK process? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Those are Portal:Trains DYKs, which have absolutely nothing to do with Main Page DYKs. I'd say that most people here were probably completely unaware of them until now (I certainly was). See their rules at Portal:Trains/Did you know. You should probably take your concerns to Portal talk:Trains. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What a bizarre thread this is. In my experience "DYK" style templates are used all over the Wiki, particularly in places like WikiProjects and Portals, as a means of showcasing a selection of articles. I even had one transcluded on my own user page many years ago. As noted above, such entities are unconnected with the main page DYK process, and are not km any way governed by its rules of recently expanded or recently promoted good articles. Furthermore, I'm not sure why any of this matters. If you spot something inaccurate in an article or portal then fix it. Otherwise, just let people present the information on that topic in any way they choose.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    If you spot something inaccurate in an article or portal then fix it.
How does one "fix" a DYK which has already gone live? How does one know that a DYK is inappropriate beforehand, when their selection is kept secret from those who worked on, or who are watching, the articles concerned? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nothing about DYK is kept secret. Every single nomination is listed at Template talk:Did you know, which is directly linked from the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Nominations, or potential nominations, are not notified on the articles, or to those involved in their authoring. Despite this having been repeatedly put forward over several years. You might also note that SNCF BB 13000 is not linked from Template talk:Did you know. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Please read how things work over at WP:DYK. Note that the majority of DYK nominations are put forward by the article authors or contributors themselves, so while it happens, it's relatively uncommon for article authors to know that their article has been nominated for DYK, because usually they themselves are the ones that launch the proceedings. In fact, as a courtesy, if the weren't the nominator, they tend to be pinged or notified otherwise of discussions. As for "fixing" DYKs, there are two venues: this page and WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:OWN comes to mind about your frustration. Nobody on Wikipedia is required to notify anybody about anything they choose to edit or nominate. DYK can't make rules requiring something that would suggest ownership. Other than that: (1) Under your user Preferences/Notifications/Notify me about these events/Page link. Check it, and that should take care of any links for something you created. Any DYK nominations have the article linked in the nomination. Your issue is not with DYK but with what you perceive as a lack of system to notify you or interested parties on the article itself. That's something that needs to be developed by programmers. You may discuss that at WP:VPT. — Maile (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not OWN, it's the WP:COMPETENCE of those at DYK. For years it has been suggested, seriously, that DYK should be closed because of the poor quality of the hooks it produces. A factor in doing that is the deliberate exclusion of editors involved with, and thus at least somewhat knowledgeable about, the topic at hand. Automated processes to give better notifications are certainly possible for DYK (we do this for AfD and have done for years), but equally a manual process would suffice (with a bit more typing effort) and is what we do at ANI. Why does DYK now simply have a policy that candidate articles are templated on their talk: page? That would be trivially easy and could be set up in moments. Why is the DYK clique so opposed to this.
I already have all the potential link warnings etc. for this article turned on. Thus I was notified yesterday that it was already live on a DYK box (fortunately just for a portal). There were no other preparatory links made (at least none which I saw, or can see now) until the "live" link. Now if this is because portal DYKs simply don't follow the "new article" filter rule that the main DYK does, then why couldn't you have simply said that from the outset? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, so your argument seems to be that DYK needs to go away because those working at DYK are incompetent. Do you think the problem is that only incompetent people are attracted to working at DYK, or that somehow working at DYK turns competent people into incompetent people? Because I'd argue that in fact it's a challenging job that gets very high levels of scrutiny. --valereee (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is it too hard for people working on DYK (any DYK location) to tag the pages being considered for use? One simple template, that's all it would take. Much like ANI.
As it is, the hooks generated are poor and frequently their paraphrasing leads to inaccuracy (the claimed links between the South Devon Railway and the Talyllyn would raise a few eyebrows amongst older steam preservationists in the UK). For the BB 13000 it seems to have randomly picked one of the least important and uninteresting points about it, just because it was the last para in the article. Why not instead use something important about these locos, from the last para of electrification or the first of Design?
DYK seems to go out of its way to exclude the involvement of those writing the articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, the point about posting a notification to the article talk page is a good one; I believe I've actually done that on every DYK I've nom'd, and I'd support that as being required. But you're still missing 99% of the point we've been making to you: The project you are referring to is NOT part of this project and is completely unconnected to it. --14:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SNCF BB 13000 is not linked from Template talk:Did you know because it's never been nominated for DYK. Slambo is the person who added it to Template:Trains portal/Did you know, but that page has absolutely nothing to do with DYK. That page seems to be entirely maintained by that single editor for the past 14 years! -Zanhe (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This conversation is so silly. We're talking about Template:Trains portal/Did you know, which, despite the name, is completely different to this. It doesn't effect this, and has no bearing. The rules are different, and seems like a one-person creation that isn't related. We should ignore. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley,Did you know ... that Did You Know ... is a phrase that is used everywhere, and has been for centuries? A random search on Google news brings up 68,800,000 results of the term, and that's just current stuff. Newspapers.com brings up 99,003,222 matches. The DYK in question here has nothing to do with our project. Clarification below from the editor of Portal Trains. So please stop arguing about our project over something that had nothing to do with this project. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I am the main editor on Portal:Trains. This portal's purpose is to highlight articles that are within the scope of WP:Trains and to give an overview of material about trains. As noted above, the portal has no connection to the Main Page processes other than to use them as a procedural model. I choose the items that are listed in the portal's DYK section and I have done so daily since the portal's inception in May 2005. I have also tried to encourage other editors to suggest candidates for portal content since May 2005. The DYK suggestion page, specifically, is at Portal:Trains/Did you know candidates, which is reached directly from the Candidates link within the DYK box on the portal. When nobody suggests articles to show in this section, which is the case that I see almost every day, including today, I have to pick something. My current process is to look at Category:C-Class rail transport articles; I am currently looking at articles whose titles begin with S. The article mentioned at the beginning of this discussion happened to be the next in the list that I saw on the morning that it was included that was sufficiently complete, had an interesting fact, had an appropriate photograph, was reasonably verifiable and had not appeared in the DYK section in the last 10 years.
If there is an article or image that you want to see highlighted on Portal:Trains, please click on the associated candidates link and let me know. I am happy to include other editors' suggestions as they are given.
Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The text of the specific DYK item in concern for this discussion was copied almost exactly from the last paragraph of the article's Design section. So if there is something that should not be included in DYK because it is false, it should be corrected on the article where it is mentioned so it is not included in the first place. I have been corrected on the accuracy of items in the DYK before, and every time it is the article from which the DYK item is derived that requires an update. If needed, I have and will update the DYK item as it shows on the portal, and I copy that correction to the portal's DYK archive.
If you have a better way to select and curate the portal's DYK content, I would be happy to discuss it; a better place for that discussion would be the portal's DYK candidates talk page.
Slambo (Speak) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hello all, I just wanted to ask a quick question about a requirement for DYK articles. My article I've recently nominated - Bank of England £100,000,000 note (Template:Did you know nominations/Bank of England £100,000,000 note) - was first created by me on 28 April 2019‎ and so therefore is not considered new in terms of creation as it is clearly older than 7 days. However in terms of the minimum 5x expansion, does the expansion have to be in terms of total number of characters (including spaces, infoboxes, notes and refs, links, symbols like [ { etc...) or is it only in terms of actual content like pure, hearty writing. I'm asking this because, before expansion, the article (a stub) contained simply a 1 sentence lede for all the content and a barely filled out infobox, however it was around 2400+ characters big due to things like random external links and a massive unfilled infobox and, therefore, in terms of characters I've only expanded it by, say, 3x (if it was in terms of content it would be expanded by around 15x-20x). TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheBestEditorInEngland: For the 5x requirement, you only need to make sure that the prose content (i.e. just text, not tables/infoboxes/references/etc.) was 5x longer than what was in the article when you started expanding it. There's the DYK check tool which can make checking this a lot easier; I recommend you use it even when writing articles since it helps you keep track of length and other requirements. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
... and, according to DYKcheck, 5x expansion began on 10 June. You nominated it on 11 June, so your timing was perfectly acceptable. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, highly recommend DYKcheck, as it's how most of us review the articles in the first place. BTW, the idea of a 100 million pound note even existing is exactly the sort of thing DYK is designed for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for clearing that up for me! TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for July 1 (Canada Day)

I've nominated a time-sensitive six-article DYK hook and wanted to alert volunteers before there's even more of a time crunch. The last GA passed June 16, and the articles and hook are ready for DYK review at Template:Did you know nominations/1st Canadian Comedy Awards. It's meant to be a fun Canadian thing for Canada Day. I believe that the expansions are long enough, but if some do not qualify I'd still like it to run (with any failed articles non-bolded). Three of the articles (including two GAs) are fairly long. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg I've reviewed the two food articles; maybe someone else could take a look at the remaining ones? --valereee (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

New script for making DYK nominations

Those who regularly create DYK nominations may want to use this new script - User:SD0001/DYK-helper, featuring a live character counter to make sure your hooks stay within the 200-char limit. It also displays the prose size, and automatically transcludes the nomination to T:DYKT and article talk pages. Any cool new feature suggestions or bug reports or other feedback is most welcome. SD0001 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

SD0001, way cool! Is it possible for others besides the nom to use portions of the script? That is, if I start reviewing an article and discover the nom hasn't been transcluded to the article talk, will that be obvious to me and will this (or can this be tweaked to) allow me to just push a button and make that happen? Sorry for my ignorance of how scripts run. --valereee (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not possible as of now. Though it'll be easy to tweak the script to do that, or maybe to integrate that functionality with any existing DYK reviewing scripts. Will look into it. SD0001 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SD0001, Valereee - Unless we see a special request on this talk page, the nomination would have to be transcluded for reviewers to even know it's there. So at this point, I guess it falls on the nominator to make sure it transcluded to the correct page. If not, they could add it manually, or ask someone here to transclude it for them. Since a lot of nominators are new to the process, I'm also guessing we also retain the current method for those who won't have the script loaded. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Has there been historical objection to asking noms to add the transclusion to the article talk page, as the OP in the above convo says? No matter how wrongheaded he is about the trains thing, it does seem like having folks who've got an article on their watchlist see it's been nom'd at DYK would be productive to ensuring hooks and articles are in the best possible shape, and their scrutiny of hooks would almost have to be helpful. But maybe I'm missing something there. --valereee (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee I wasn't talking about the trains thing. That's not for this thread. I was responding to your comment above about whether or not we would be able to see if the new script above transcluded the nomination to T:DYKT.— Maile (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: valeree is clearly talking about transcluding of nomination to article talk pages, not to T:DYKT. SD0001 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SD0001 she said "T:DYKT and article talk pages" in her comment. Right now, each nominator has to manually transclude their nomination to T:DYKT. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, Going by the quoted text, you're probably mistaking what I wrote in the original post with what she said. While I understand transclusion to T:DYKT is compulsory, transclusion to article talk page as well is recommended at Template:T:TDYK/editintro. The script automates all these steps, so that the nominator doesn't have to do them manually. The script is only there to make life easier, it doesn't replace any existing process, or indeed cause any visible changes to the DYK process. SD0001 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a fantastic adition. Well done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

July 12 and 31 birthday requests

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Isao Kataoka for a July 12 birthday anniversary, and Template:Did you know nominations/Kent Angus for a July 31 birthday. I hope this is sufficient notice, and thank you for considering the nominations. Flibirigit (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=902283257"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know
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