This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 105 | ← | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 |
Removed from Queue 6 (lead hook, with picture). Template:Did you know nominations/Hackett Hall McKnight. @ Sionk, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:
The hook is incorrect, the building has not been described as one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century". What the source [2] actually says is that Belfast has "two of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and the MAC is one of them. So the correct conclusion is that the MAC is one "of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century" which can be found in Belfast, next to presumably other "most stunning new British buildings of the century" in other places. If the source had stated that Belfast had "the two most stunning new British buildings of the century", then the hook would have been correct. "Two of" clearly indicates though that there are more than these two in that implicit list... Fram ( talk) 08:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed a hook from queue 3. Template:Did you know nominations/Mother (video game) @ Czar, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:
According to the article, the source, and the proposed hooks, it was Itoi who made a pitch, and Miyamoto's reaction to that pitch made Itoi cry. Fram ( talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated to this hook, but in the same queue, we have
I have not removed it, as it is correct, but we can get any more boring? Cathedral history has only two options: either it existed before the diocese was created, and then it was usually a parish church, or the cathedral was only built after the diocese was created. Having a cathedral that first was a parish chruch is an utterly common occurrence. Just looking at the first ten Philippine cathedrals, the same can be said for Antipolo Cathedral, Baguio Cathedral, Balanga Cathedral, Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity, Caloocan Cathedral, Cathedral of St. William the Hermit, Cubao Cathedral and Imus Cathedral. Only Cebu Metropolitan Cathedral and Daet Cathedral were a cathedral from the very start (i.e. constructed after the diocese was established).
A hook should highlight something special, noteworthy, quirky, catching: not something commonplace as this. Fram ( talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Another hook from the same queue:
Again, not removed, not factually wrong, but what a strange way to put things! "Rubens produced thousands of paintings focusing on oil on canvas and fat women?" Tintype is her medium, her style, crime is her subject. Fram ( talk) 08:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been very hard lately to put together decent prep sets with as little as 15 approved hooks at a time. Even now as I write, there are only 25 approved hooks for 360 nominations, and if I start reviewing them to build a prep set, I'm sure I'll invalidate a few. I'm wondering if it's time to nullify the exemption from QPQs for non-self-nominations. Anyone who wants to get an article onto the main page should help reduce the backlog, not add to it. Yoninah ( talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
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.
Should we change the rules to require that non-self-nominators also submit a QPQ? Yoninah ( talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
After 15 days, we have 19 Supports and 2 Opposes. Yoninah ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are all Qs empty and hooks not being promoted from prep areas ? --Vigyani talk ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
See [3], but briefly the hook made no sense and I'm surprised this wasn't picked up earlier, in particular during the nomination.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 06:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
But that's identical wording to the one that was pulled for making no sense. You can't affix tiles to an outside wall with flour and water, not unless you want them to come unaffixed at the first rain shower. The article explains it better and says something different in doing so. A hook is meant to hook readers because it's interesting, not because it's so obviously wrong that readers have to visit the article to understand what it should say.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 12:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
User:JohnBlackburne is absolutely right of course. I realised my mistake soon after my edit, and was going to amend it, but he beat me to it! The correct hook incorporating the helpful suggested addition by User:Mandarax reads as follows:
A P Monblat ( talk) 13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Just for clarification: when I said it was "a step in the standard method", I was referring to the practice of using some kind of water-soluble adhesive. I have no idea if a flour paste is standard or not. For all I know, it may be highly unusual. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The approved hook for Daraga_Church different from the hook in the queue? Please see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Daraga_Church. Is it allowed to change the approved hook? -- Carlojoseph14 ( talk) 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
this seems unlikely to be correct. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The article nominated in Template:Did you know nominations/Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year includes a chart of "Winners and nominees" that is completely referenced, but following that is a chart of "Multiple wins and nominations" that is not referenced at all. The page creator explains that the numbers in the second chart summarize the numbers in the cited chart. It is my understanding, however, that all charts must be cited for DYK. Meanwhile, the article just passed the criteria for Featured lists, even with the uncited chart. What should I do about this? Could I pass the nomination as is? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Now in prep 6, we have
from Template:Did you know nominations/The Boat Race 1861. @ The Rambling Man and Bloom6132: it looks to me that the competitor in case is William Robertson (Australian politician), who hasn't been linked from the hook or the article. If this is indeed the same person, wouldn't it be better to change the hook to
The article will need to be adjusted as well of course. Fram ( talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional irony may be found here: Talk:Prawn_cocktail#Degrees_of_irony. EEng ( talk) 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Now in prep 2, from Template:Did you know nominations/Cubic Ninja. @ ViperSnake151, Diego Grez, and Hawkeye7:
Well, they are being offered at prices ranging between $24 and $500. Not only don't the two sources claim that anyone asks more than $500, but nowhere is it said that any game has actually been sold for more than $500 or even exactly $500. Anyone can ask whatever price they want, it is only noteworthy when something gets actually sold.
If $500 is the highest claimed asking price (according to our sources), then we shouldn't proclaim that they are selling for upwards of $500... Fram ( talk) 09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a good thing we're a few hours late on the next update, or this GA hook should have been pulled from the main page instead of from Prep 1. Template:Did you know nominations/Sinclair C5 @ Prioryman, Panyd, Hawkeye7, and BlueMoonset:
(note: this hook already was a replacement hook for another lead hook from that prep that has been pulled...)
"A world land speed record for electrics" is very vague of course, and understandably so. It will definitely not have been the world land speed record for electric vehicles, which stood at 174mph between 1974 and 2013 (the C5 did 150mph). [4] I can find no reliable sources confirming the lone regional newspaper article, nor any sources indicating which record exactly was broken. Considering that the article claims it was "the world land speed record for an electric vehicle", which was definitely not broken by a C5 going 150mph, I doubt that the source should be used at all for this article, and don't believe that we should run this hook.
As usual, when a hook claims a first, most, highest, fastest, ..., don't simply believe the source, but look for contradicting information please. Fram ( talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion started just fine, and then some people from the original discussion turn up and make basically the exact same mistake all over again. This is getting hard to believe (or accept). What Prioryman is proposing at the DYK template and here (and which I responded to at some length there) is typical WP:OR, and wrong to boot. Apparently he C5 did not break the world record for a three-wheeled electric, it didn't even match the speed set some 30 years before by such a vehicle [6] (record included in the list given above by Hawkeye7). If we don't get a good source that states exactly which record was broken, we shouldn't go with this hook at all. Trying to push it through anyway with some textbook examples of OR is really beyond the pale. I removed the same thing from the article as well. Fram ( talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Fram, I know I speak for others in saying I appreciate your efforts, and understand an occasional show of exasperation at so many illogical, half-baked "facts" getting waved into the preps. EEng ( talk) 13:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
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.
About this nom: I didn't know such a rule existed. I could've sworn I've seen other DYKs where that's been let slide. Anyway, what if I rewrote the entire article from scratch without copying anything from the Catawissa Tunnel article. Would that work? -- Jakob ( talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
An administrator needs to work on promoting the hooks in prep areas 5 & 6. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In Queue 2: " ... that the new development of philosophical thought among Muslim philosophers was due to a treasury of knowledge left behind by the Shi'a Imams?" Is the word "treasury" NPOV enough for Wikipedia, or should we omit "a treasury of"? In other words, would we approve "... a treasury of knowledge left behind by rabbinical commentators", or "... by early Christian saints", or "... by Joseph Smith", or "... by L. Ron Hubbard"? "treasury" at dictionary.com: "5. a collection or supply of excellent or highly prized writings, works of art, etc.: 'a treasury of American poetry.'" Art LaPella ( talk) 07:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that DYKUpdateBot did not update as it should have about 2 hours ago.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 22 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the remaining 19 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 71 nominations are approved, barely enough to fill the empty queue and prep slots, leaving 306 of 377 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Subject says it/ wangi ( talk) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Many new or recently expanded articles which appear on DYK subsequently become good articles. Is it possible to nominate them for DYK again once they obtain good article status? — Psychonaut ( talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Articles that have been featured on the Main Page's In the news section or that have previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in DYK are not eligible. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.)Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide — Maile ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
EEng and I are having a disagreement over the formatting of the Local Update Times table on the DYK queues page: I believe we only need the six columns during the five winter months that British Summer Time is not in force and London time and UTC coincide, so I removed the extra UTC column for these months in late October when Summer Time ended. EEng thinks doing so is a "bad idea" because it depends on someone remembering to restore the extra column at the end of March, so he reverted to the version that, for the next four months, will have two columns with identical times, London and UTC. I called it "silly" in my edit summary to revert his first reversion (he then reverted again) and will go further: it's ludicrous to have two columns with identical times, especially when they have historically been combined during such periods.
Ideally, what would happen is that someone who's good with coding could revise the Local Update Times template so it would automatically produce six or seven columns depending on whether London's on GMT/UTC (six) or BST (seven); while I've made straightforward modifications to that template, doing an elegant and efficient version of this is not in my wheelhouse. (There is an expression already in the template that calculates whether London time is equivalent to UTC; I'm sure that could be reused for this purpose.) I'd very much appreciate it if someone could add that code, and render this disagreement moot.
In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy to pledge to personally switch back to seven columns in late March if the coding hasn't been yet done to handle the process automatically, so we don't have to look at two adjacent columns with identical times all winter.
While I was away earlier, after the first reversions, EEng and
Bloom6132 got into an edit war over this—Bloom6132 seems to have agreed with my reasoning—and EEng is on a 24-hour block due to a
WP:3RR violation. In his last edit summary, he wrote, Separate UTC&London cols were agreed to long ago
, which is a stretch: the relevant discussion is
here, where TonyTheTiger requested a UTC column on July 29, 2014, at a time of year that there was no UTC column, and EEng decided to provide it; they were the only two who "agreed". The notion that the combined London/UTC column is not currently adequate to the task seems bizarre to me, as is the supposed requirement that the columns be separate all year long. What do the rest of you think?
BlueMoonset (
talk)
05:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Fashizmi, now in Prep 3: @ Soman, Antidiskriminator, and 97198:
I have found no evidence that the hook is incorrect (nor any definite evidence I could understand that it is right), but it is sourced in the article to this. I don't see how a 1938 publication can predict that the Italians would invade Albania in 1939, shut down all existing daily newspapers, and create a new one called "Fashizmi". Fram ( talk) 09:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@ BabbaQ: So how you are going to change your ways when it comes to contributing and nominating articles for DYK? I believe that you should try expanding your articles a bit, if there is a limit of 1500 characters, how about you try 2000 or more? Sometimes the subject is contentious or common that it will require more than 1500 characters. The article is more preferable when you write in the context and together with references that could be accessed. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if the blame in this case rests mainly with BabbaQ, or the others involved in proposing the hook, reviewing and promoting it, but Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Hutton, now in Prep 5, should not be run with this hook (or the article and sources need a through check). @ BabbaQ, Yoninah, 97198, and Fuebaey:
Seems quite correct, as evidenced by this. However; Barbara Hutton was born in 1912, which puts her 18th birthday in 1930. But the article claims that she "received the vessel in 1939", which is supported by this. I can find further sources for both statements (18th birthday or 1939), but they obviously can't both be true. This author also found it very hard to find the truth of the matter. Fram ( talk) 10:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Quick question: all of the information about nominating for DYK refers to "articles". Are articles which are classified as "lists" eligible for DYK? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Acdixon:, @ Cwmhiraeth:, @ G S Palmer: If we're going to put negative facts about a BLP on the main page, lets make sure we get it right. According to the article, Farmer was charged with 42 violations. Later in the article it says that he admitted to 35 of the charges in a plea bargain, which presumably means that he was not found guilty on 7 of the 42 charges. WP:BLPCRIME says that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law", thus he does not have 42 ethics violations, he has 35. 137.43.188.220 ( talk) 13:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
HalfGig talk 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
HalfGig talk 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 25 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 56 nominations are approved, barely enough to fill the empty queue and prep slots, leaving 287 of 343 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a number of changes to Computer Engineer Barbie in response to comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Computer Engineer Barbie. As this means I'm probably now too involved to sign off the article, could another editor please complete the review? Prioryman ( talk) 09:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I must be misunderstanding, but do we really want to delete the message that warns us that we need to take action to keep our project going? This project supplies a DYK publication for the main page and the incredibly clever and useful DYKbot does an enormous amount of the grunt work. (Yes I remember when we did it all by hand). This change here seems to indicate that there is an edit quarrel going on. We do need this message. I responded to it last time and filled the queue slot from a prep. OK! Some bots are annoying but this one is valuable. Please do not delete valuable messages that others (me at least) find useful. Victuallers ( talk) 14:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
These bot messages are useless. There's already a template to inform members that a DYK update is "needed" although we've ditched this stupidity at WP:ITN as it's not (and never should be) about how quickly you can update the main page, it's about how much high quality content you can provide. The bot message is a hangover from an era where quantity superseded quality. Whatever has already been discussed, I agree with EEng's removal of such scare notices, designed to accelerate poor quality content to the main page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the bot-notice issue, provided that the issue that the bot highlights is resolved. Whether the notice is deleted or archived after the queue is updated, I don't think really matters. As for the time period for hooks to run, I'm all for letting them run longer if it means higher quality in what goes on the main page.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 01:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed that from 6 December, all the templates on and after that date are coming up as links instead of showing the full nominations. Is there a scripting error on here? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 13:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice for those who have been awaiting a bot to place notices on talk pages when an article is nominated by anyone other than the article creator. For those who unaware of this request, it approved by a vote on this talk page January 2014, formally requested on the bot requests page by Matty.007 on Feb 24, 2014, and begun by Ceradon who dropped it and has not been active since April 1, 2014. It was then picked up by APerson on June 6, 2014. Progress of that is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 2. Because of inactivity, the bot request has now expired. Should anyone else like to have a stab at this, good luck. Matty.007 is not among us these days. I've bowed out of DYK for all practical purposes. — Maile ( talk) 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not instead put a nominator notice/banner on the Talk page of the article, like a GA review does -- presumably all interested parties will see it via their watchlist, and it's probably a good idea to have it on the Talk page anyway. (It doesn't need to be one of those permanent-history banners like for failed GA noms and so on -- just for the duration of the nom, and then if it does go to main page of course there's a permanent "featured on Main Page/DYK" banner.) And this way, you don't need any kind of opt-out -- the watchlist is the opt in/out. EEng ( talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious if there is any limit on the number of nominations a single self nominator can have active at one time (so long as quid pro quo is done for each). Based on my search of the DYK talk archives, the answer appears to be no, but I would like to make sure. Out of respect for the system, I have refrained from having more than two of my nominations live at any one time. However, my last couple of nominations have been waiting for review for quite some time (since November 14 and 19, respectively), which makes me wonder if I could nominate a few more DYKs that are about ready to move to the mainspace as long as I fulfill my QPQ requirements. In the interim, I'm more than happy to keep reviewing more DYK nominations to help reduce the backlog. Thanks! Michael Barera ( talk) 04:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Numerous hooks have been promoted without any ratings on the talk page. This should be a routine part of every review. Yoninah ( talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed a hook from Prep 1 for not being supported by the source. Template:Did you know nominations/Afternoon. @ Tezero, Oceanh, Fuebaey, and BlueMoonset:
For starters, the source doesn't claim they are most common, but that they are typical. But this is a semantics discussion; worse is that the source is not about "accidents in the agriculture industry", but only "access path accidents" "associated with the use of tractors", so a subset (of about 30%) of a subset (tractor use only) of all "accidents in the agriculture industry". Fram ( talk) 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Gravity (film), and ran into the question of whether the Cast section requires citations. WP:DYKSG says the Plot section does not require citations, but does not say anything about the Cast, although the Cast, like the Plot, can be verified by watching the movie. Anyone has experience with this before? - Zanhe ( talk) 06:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The Titanium in zircon geothermometer hook was promoted to the prep sets (not by me) while being tagged as an orphan. The article is too scientific for me to figure out where to link it. Can anyone help? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Now what? Will there be cake? Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong opinion on this but I thought I'd ask here for more info. There's currently three open nominations by IP 72.74:
Going through the archives here there are:
BlueMoonset has suggested that the IP start doing QPQs, assuming that this is the same user and that the IP is dynamic. On the flip side, it could just be a group of people in the same area writing about wrestling (akin to those academic wasp submissions). Given that we have a backlog, I wouldn't say no to more reviewers. What does everyone else think? Fuebaey ( talk) 18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I corrected one hook in Queue3. Template:Did you know nominations/Efter badet (Stockholm) @ Innotata, Valenciano, Cwmhiraeth, and Graeme Bartlett:
Original hook: * ... that local politicians have proposed removing a sculpture in Stockholm called After the Bath because one of the people it depicts is Mao Zedong?
Corrected hook: * ... that a local politician proposed removing a sculpture in Stockholm called After the Bath because one of the people it depicts is Mao Zedong?
The article and source only mention one politician who made that proposal, so having the plural in the hook seemed incorrect. For once, I thought it better to change the hook immediately instead of pulling it, but if there is disagreement about this action or the new hook, I'll just pull it as "contested" instead and we can discuss it further on the DYK template. Fram ( talk) 13:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and speaking of singular vs. plural, in the same queue we have
Horae is not a goddess, it is a group of (usually) three goddesses. The error is made in the sources, but do we really have to repeat such errors? Fram ( talk) 13:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 07:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Problems in Prep5. @ Victuallers, Rosiestep, FunkyCanute, Yoninah, Graeme Bartlett, Wittylama, Cwmhiraeth, N2e, and Michael Barera: Fram ( talk) 11:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Source [15] states "While in prison he was visited by his sister, Lady Lothian, and by his wife, who, with Sophia Lindsay, had been placed in confinement on the first news of his landing." As far as I can tell from that source, her second husband was imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle, and she was at first confined (location not given) and later visited him in Edinburgh Castle. This should be pulled unless a good source for her imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle is provided. Fram ( talk) 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Minor problem, but wouldn't it be more correct (factually and grammatically) to change this to:
No. Attempts will be made in the near future to make this come true; but at the moment, rockets can not land on such a drone ship. It has never been done, and even the creators / supporters only give it a 50% chance to work at the moment. It may turn out to be one of these brilliant plans which never work in reality, or it may become standard procedure in 5 years time, but we shouldn't claim that it is now possible when it isn't yet. Fram ( talk) 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
All three hit the main page like this, even though the issues were raised here while they were still in prep, not yet in queue. I have accordingly removed the first one completely, replaced the second one with my proposal above, and further tweaked the third one (after a first change in the right direction by User:Floquenbeam). This rather defeats the prupose of bringing the issues here when they are still in prep areas, of course... Fram ( talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Mackenzie one has been readded to the main page, now that it is adequately sourced in the article (although I think it should be page 126, not 124, for the Edinburgh Castle fact). And Fuebaey's wild guess as to where I raised this was obviously correct :-) Fram ( talk) 18:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 2 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 21 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 72 nominations are approved, leaving 255 of 327 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.
Over six weeks:
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor made a comment about this nomination, after which it descended into interpersonal bickering, which I've now collapsed. Could somebody neutral please have a look at the nomination? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to nominate the new GA History of Briarcliff Manor for DYK, but I can't seem to think of an applicable hook. Most 'History of' articles would seem to be substantially harder to find hooks for than their overview article counterparts, and though there are some ways to make it work, I can't seem to think of any applicable to this article. Any ideas? Thanks.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi DYK folks. Template:Did you know nominations/Netsmart Technologies was promoted on 16 November 2014. However it looks like it never ran – I did not get a notification on my talk page of it appearing nor is there any record of it on the article talk page. I looked at the queues and in the DYK archives and I don't see it. Can someone take a look and see what happened? Thanks ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think, but I may be mistaken that @ Hawkeye7: promoted 6 hooks to prep1, but forgot to actually add 5 of them to prep1. The hooks are
I just found Duplication Detector not working. User Dcoetzee who created it is banned from Wikimedia. Don't know anything else about it. — Maile ( talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just now been able to use the Duplication Detector at the regular tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ address. Since Dcoetzee has been banned since October 3, at least on English Wikipedia, the tool has clearly not been withdrawn, and seems to be getting some support to keep running... BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The final hook in Queue 2 ( Glenwood Generating Station) has an error introduced by a change made after the review was closed. The rejection of the power plant was made before the town supervisor's comments, not after; this is clear from the source but not from the part quoted in the article itself.
In addition to this, the wording has been changed in a way that make it less clear, in my opinion. In general, such large changes to hooks should not be made in the prep areas. Either the approved hook should be restored or the review should be reopened. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This hook is due to go to the Main Page in about 2 hours, so it should be taken care of soon either way. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, you need do change "it" to something else (like "the action" or "its action") and do something about the fact that there's more than one supervisor. EEng ( talk) 03:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
... that in the event of a severe flood, the gray-tailed vole will abandon its complex network of tunnels and head for high ground? (12/12/14)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In Queue 4, I changed
to
It's bad enough that we repeat such blatant promo talk on our front page, but at least we can make it clear that it is promotional talk and not some well-established fact. I seriously doubt that literally every bookshop (in the UK, one presumes) did this, as many specialized bookshops won't even stock this item... E.g. this one doesn't seem to have this book, which doesn't come as a surprise. Fram ( talk) 13:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Daniel Anthonisz was approved on 11 December. The nominator had requested that it should be featured on 17 December and the reviewer also approved the hook but it was not moved to prep. Now it should be moved to Prep 6 so that the it appears on the Main Page on 17. Thanks.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 10:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Now in Prep 3, Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Helmand Province incident, a GA. @ It Is Me Here, MelanieN, and Cwmhiraeth:
The approved hook was actually
but Cwmhiraeth changed it when promoting it to prep 3, matching the hook to the article which makes the same claim (murder), while the Daily Telegraph (one of the two sources, the other the rather less reliable Daily Mail) narrows it down to the first convicted for a battlefield murder.
As the hook (and the article) now stand, it is hard to see why e.g. the case of Leslie Grantham doesn't count. In 1966, he was a lance corporal in the British Army, and served in Germany, where he murdered a taxi driver. He was convicted and spent more than ten years in prison for it. [16] The hook and the article probably need to be changed to make the correct claim. Something like
Fram ( talk) 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest changing the hook currently in Prep 6 to this ALT because the picture is being exhibited from November 2014 to March 2015. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Prep 6, Template:Did you know nominations/Andries Jan Pieters. @ Crispulop, Cwmhiraeth, and Fuebaey:
To me, this strongly suggests that if the Dutch hadn't executed him, the Germans would have done it. However, this is highly unlikely. If the Dutch hadn't arrested him, or if the war had continued for a bit longer, then perhaps the Germans would have executed him for desertion. But as the hooks stands now, the juxtaposition doesn't make sense. Note that Capital punishment in Germany states that it was abolished in 1949 in West Germany, while Pieters was only executed in 1952, making the hook even more unlikely. Can this be reworded or pulled please? Fram ( talk) 11:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought, when we allowed GA's to be in the DYK section, that they might have a positive influence on the quality of DYK. However, there seem to be a lot of problems both with our GA process, and with the GA hooks. The difference with other hooks certainly isn't really noticeable.
I have now removed a hook from the main page for being, well, nonsense. We claimed
This is not sourced in the article. (Sentence "The park encompasses Bibbins Pond, and the acreage to its north, but the park's name may derive from a beaver pond that was once present." has no source). This lack of source is logical, considering that the Park was created in 1955 around the Beaver Brook, a brook that had that name already in the mid-19th century [18] and still does. It starts in Beaver Brook Pond. Now where could they possibly have found the name for their park? Now, it could well be that Beaver Brook and Beaver Brook Pond were originally named thus because there was a beaver pond. But the park is not named "Beaver Brook State Park" because there was perhaps once a beaver pond, but because the center of the park is the Beaver Brook (pond and stream). Fram ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ ChrisGualtieri, Bloom6132, Colipon, 97198, and Mike V: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaver Brook State Park. Fram ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Colipon: and @ Fram: Leary actually notes this connection, but I seemed to have jumped that over when editing for context and flow. It was just a missing book citation, but it is an attributed albeit speculative comment based on the name by the author. Feel free to re-add it to the list or do as you please. Sorry for the confusion, normally I cite every thing in-line, but this was until I edited it. Though normally I don't like speculative comments even based on conventional wisdom. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a hook from Queue2, as it was from a GA with copyvio additions during the GA process. I'll delete the article (the revisions from the start of the GA push that is) after this post. Template:Did you know nominations/Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu. @ Ochiwar, 3family6, Georgejdorner, 97198, and Mike V: I pinged you all as one of the steps in the article-to-DYK process, but the copyvio was not easy to spot, so I'm not blaming you (or the system) for how this slipped through. Ochiwar, this doesn't apply to you of course, as the one that seemingly has introduced all these copyvio's in your push for GA status. I hope this is the only article with such problems.
Examples of problematic copying (there may be more, these were sufficient to delete the article revisions): Fram ( talk) 13:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Source | Target | Link to target text |
---|---|---|
The appliqué as well as the geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found in Afikpo dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Igboland. | The appliqué, concentric, spiral, and geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found at[...] dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Afikpo. | [19] |
The elegant design and refined details are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze casting of the same period. | Its elegant design and refined detailing are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze-casting of this period. | [20] |
The occupant may have held the position of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but only limited political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century. | The occupant may have held a position as a forerunner of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but not political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century. | [21] |
[...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads, relief sculptures of crickets and flies and covered by a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu. | [...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads. The rest of the shell surface has a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu. Scattered across this are relief sculptures of crickets and flies. | [22] |
Sorry I was not aware that this type of close paraphrasing constitutes copyright violation since I always attributed the source with in-line citations. Having looked at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in detail again, I understand the problem. It says: Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. So although I did credit the source per inline citation I should have also attributed in the text by saying "John Smith said...". By the way the third of the four examples you quote is most certainly copied from Wikipedia and not the other way round. If you look closely you will find that it is an almost verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article as it was in December 2013. For the other three cited cases I agree that I was close paraphrasing but did not realize it as a problem as explained above. But surely, I had added over 20,000 bytes and images to the article most of which was not in violation. Is there anyway I can get at the deleted content to clean it up and summarize close paraphrasing to my own choice of words or in-text attribute the source and salvage the article? It would be a great shame to see all the hours I had put into the article go to waste. I will also go through my other articles for corrections were they may apply. Ochiwar ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for not catching these violations. I did try to look for close paraphrasing, but did not notice just how similar these passages were.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is now completely deleted, as indeed one of the copyvios predated Ochiwars additions, and the original version of the page, where this was a remnant from, was a blatant copyvio of [24]. Fram ( talk) 07:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the first that I've ever encountered Earwig's tool, but boy, is that a handy thing. So much less clunky then dup detector.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
So, now that the article was re-created, could it be nominated again, since the old history was deleted?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum was closed as unsuccessful, and archived shortly thereafter. However, the reviewer left a note urging the nominator to resubmit it if they could promote it to GA, which they did. They then renominated it here, which I told them is not the right way to go. The question is, how is the nomination supposed to be reopened? Do they need to create a new nom page ( Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2?) or do they have to copy-paste a blank DYK nom template into the old one? Is an article even eligible for re-nomination after being rejected once? Thanks, G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 4 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 19 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 83 nominations are approved, leaving 215 of 298 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.
Over six weeks:
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
should read
since clearly there is no "energy source" within the complex, merely a plant which converts one form of energy (diesel, natural gas, or something) into another form (electricity). EEng ( talk) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Good spot, clarified. Harrias talk 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Queue/1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Item 1, Boticelli needs to be corrected to Botticelli.
Awien ( talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I moved the "bullets fired at the White House" hook to Prep 6 because it didn't sound so Christmasy. I think a church hook would work well here, but none have been approved. Could someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/San Luis Obispo de Tolosa Parish Church, an article that I improved, and approve one of the alts? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 11:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This: Template:Did you know nominations/Madonna of the Book (Botticelli) was requested for Dec 24 or 25. I approved ALT4. Can someone promote it to an appropriate queue? It'd be great leading hook for that timeframe. Thank you. HalfGig talk 04:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
For some reason the template has misfunctioned here; I can't see why. Also it is a late Xmas submission. Now listed at 21 December. I'd be grateful if someone could sort this out. Johnbod ( talk) 13:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a note that preps 3 and 4 look like being the prime queues for Christmas Day hooks, and preps 1 and 2 will run on Christmas Day in eastern Asia and Oceania. Prep 1 is the next to be filled. That said, it doesn't look like we have many Christmas Day hooks in the holding area: we should prioritise any Christmas related hooks without review. Harrias talk 07:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What about this one:
Template:Did you know nominations/Sony Pictures Entertainment hack? --
George Ho (
talk)
22:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He's well-"Prepped" for the witness stand. Yum! EEng ( talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC) DYK neophytes may look here [25] for a hint.
No need to mock! I think that hook is very " punchy". Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 105 | ← | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 |
Removed from Queue 6 (lead hook, with picture). Template:Did you know nominations/Hackett Hall McKnight. @ Sionk, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:
The hook is incorrect, the building has not been described as one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century". What the source [2] actually says is that Belfast has "two of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and the MAC is one of them. So the correct conclusion is that the MAC is one "of the most stunning new British buildings of the century", and one of the two "most stunning new British buildings of the century" which can be found in Belfast, next to presumably other "most stunning new British buildings of the century" in other places. If the source had stated that Belfast had "the two most stunning new British buildings of the century", then the hook would have been correct. "Two of" clearly indicates though that there are more than these two in that implicit list... Fram ( talk) 08:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed a hook from queue 3. Template:Did you know nominations/Mother (video game) @ Czar, Maury Markowitz, Yoninah, and Casliber:
According to the article, the source, and the proposed hooks, it was Itoi who made a pitch, and Miyamoto's reaction to that pitch made Itoi cry. Fram ( talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated to this hook, but in the same queue, we have
I have not removed it, as it is correct, but we can get any more boring? Cathedral history has only two options: either it existed before the diocese was created, and then it was usually a parish church, or the cathedral was only built after the diocese was created. Having a cathedral that first was a parish chruch is an utterly common occurrence. Just looking at the first ten Philippine cathedrals, the same can be said for Antipolo Cathedral, Baguio Cathedral, Balanga Cathedral, Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity, Caloocan Cathedral, Cathedral of St. William the Hermit, Cubao Cathedral and Imus Cathedral. Only Cebu Metropolitan Cathedral and Daet Cathedral were a cathedral from the very start (i.e. constructed after the diocese was established).
A hook should highlight something special, noteworthy, quirky, catching: not something commonplace as this. Fram ( talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Another hook from the same queue:
Again, not removed, not factually wrong, but what a strange way to put things! "Rubens produced thousands of paintings focusing on oil on canvas and fat women?" Tintype is her medium, her style, crime is her subject. Fram ( talk) 08:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been very hard lately to put together decent prep sets with as little as 15 approved hooks at a time. Even now as I write, there are only 25 approved hooks for 360 nominations, and if I start reviewing them to build a prep set, I'm sure I'll invalidate a few. I'm wondering if it's time to nullify the exemption from QPQs for non-self-nominations. Anyone who wants to get an article onto the main page should help reduce the backlog, not add to it. Yoninah ( talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
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.
Should we change the rules to require that non-self-nominators also submit a QPQ? Yoninah ( talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
After 15 days, we have 19 Supports and 2 Opposes. Yoninah ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are all Qs empty and hooks not being promoted from prep areas ? --Vigyani talk ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
See [3], but briefly the hook made no sense and I'm surprised this wasn't picked up earlier, in particular during the nomination.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 06:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
But that's identical wording to the one that was pulled for making no sense. You can't affix tiles to an outside wall with flour and water, not unless you want them to come unaffixed at the first rain shower. The article explains it better and says something different in doing so. A hook is meant to hook readers because it's interesting, not because it's so obviously wrong that readers have to visit the article to understand what it should say.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 12:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
User:JohnBlackburne is absolutely right of course. I realised my mistake soon after my edit, and was going to amend it, but he beat me to it! The correct hook incorporating the helpful suggested addition by User:Mandarax reads as follows:
A P Monblat ( talk) 13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Just for clarification: when I said it was "a step in the standard method", I was referring to the practice of using some kind of water-soluble adhesive. I have no idea if a flour paste is standard or not. For all I know, it may be highly unusual. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The approved hook for Daraga_Church different from the hook in the queue? Please see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Daraga_Church. Is it allowed to change the approved hook? -- Carlojoseph14 ( talk) 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
this seems unlikely to be correct. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The article nominated in Template:Did you know nominations/Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year includes a chart of "Winners and nominees" that is completely referenced, but following that is a chart of "Multiple wins and nominations" that is not referenced at all. The page creator explains that the numbers in the second chart summarize the numbers in the cited chart. It is my understanding, however, that all charts must be cited for DYK. Meanwhile, the article just passed the criteria for Featured lists, even with the uncited chart. What should I do about this? Could I pass the nomination as is? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Now in prep 6, we have
from Template:Did you know nominations/The Boat Race 1861. @ The Rambling Man and Bloom6132: it looks to me that the competitor in case is William Robertson (Australian politician), who hasn't been linked from the hook or the article. If this is indeed the same person, wouldn't it be better to change the hook to
The article will need to be adjusted as well of course. Fram ( talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional irony may be found here: Talk:Prawn_cocktail#Degrees_of_irony. EEng ( talk) 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Now in prep 2, from Template:Did you know nominations/Cubic Ninja. @ ViperSnake151, Diego Grez, and Hawkeye7:
Well, they are being offered at prices ranging between $24 and $500. Not only don't the two sources claim that anyone asks more than $500, but nowhere is it said that any game has actually been sold for more than $500 or even exactly $500. Anyone can ask whatever price they want, it is only noteworthy when something gets actually sold.
If $500 is the highest claimed asking price (according to our sources), then we shouldn't proclaim that they are selling for upwards of $500... Fram ( talk) 09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a good thing we're a few hours late on the next update, or this GA hook should have been pulled from the main page instead of from Prep 1. Template:Did you know nominations/Sinclair C5 @ Prioryman, Panyd, Hawkeye7, and BlueMoonset:
(note: this hook already was a replacement hook for another lead hook from that prep that has been pulled...)
"A world land speed record for electrics" is very vague of course, and understandably so. It will definitely not have been the world land speed record for electric vehicles, which stood at 174mph between 1974 and 2013 (the C5 did 150mph). [4] I can find no reliable sources confirming the lone regional newspaper article, nor any sources indicating which record exactly was broken. Considering that the article claims it was "the world land speed record for an electric vehicle", which was definitely not broken by a C5 going 150mph, I doubt that the source should be used at all for this article, and don't believe that we should run this hook.
As usual, when a hook claims a first, most, highest, fastest, ..., don't simply believe the source, but look for contradicting information please. Fram ( talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion started just fine, and then some people from the original discussion turn up and make basically the exact same mistake all over again. This is getting hard to believe (or accept). What Prioryman is proposing at the DYK template and here (and which I responded to at some length there) is typical WP:OR, and wrong to boot. Apparently he C5 did not break the world record for a three-wheeled electric, it didn't even match the speed set some 30 years before by such a vehicle [6] (record included in the list given above by Hawkeye7). If we don't get a good source that states exactly which record was broken, we shouldn't go with this hook at all. Trying to push it through anyway with some textbook examples of OR is really beyond the pale. I removed the same thing from the article as well. Fram ( talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Fram, I know I speak for others in saying I appreciate your efforts, and understand an occasional show of exasperation at so many illogical, half-baked "facts" getting waved into the preps. EEng ( talk) 13:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
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.
About this nom: I didn't know such a rule existed. I could've sworn I've seen other DYKs where that's been let slide. Anyway, what if I rewrote the entire article from scratch without copying anything from the Catawissa Tunnel article. Would that work? -- Jakob ( talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
An administrator needs to work on promoting the hooks in prep areas 5 & 6. G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In Queue 2: " ... that the new development of philosophical thought among Muslim philosophers was due to a treasury of knowledge left behind by the Shi'a Imams?" Is the word "treasury" NPOV enough for Wikipedia, or should we omit "a treasury of"? In other words, would we approve "... a treasury of knowledge left behind by rabbinical commentators", or "... by early Christian saints", or "... by Joseph Smith", or "... by L. Ron Hubbard"? "treasury" at dictionary.com: "5. a collection or supply of excellent or highly prized writings, works of art, etc.: 'a treasury of American poetry.'" Art LaPella ( talk) 07:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that DYKUpdateBot did not update as it should have about 2 hours ago.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 22 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the remaining 19 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 71 nominations are approved, barely enough to fill the empty queue and prep slots, leaving 306 of 377 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Subject says it/ wangi ( talk) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Many new or recently expanded articles which appear on DYK subsequently become good articles. Is it possible to nominate them for DYK again once they obtain good article status? — Psychonaut ( talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Articles that have been featured on the Main Page's In the news section or that have previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in DYK are not eligible. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.)Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide — Maile ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
EEng and I are having a disagreement over the formatting of the Local Update Times table on the DYK queues page: I believe we only need the six columns during the five winter months that British Summer Time is not in force and London time and UTC coincide, so I removed the extra UTC column for these months in late October when Summer Time ended. EEng thinks doing so is a "bad idea" because it depends on someone remembering to restore the extra column at the end of March, so he reverted to the version that, for the next four months, will have two columns with identical times, London and UTC. I called it "silly" in my edit summary to revert his first reversion (he then reverted again) and will go further: it's ludicrous to have two columns with identical times, especially when they have historically been combined during such periods.
Ideally, what would happen is that someone who's good with coding could revise the Local Update Times template so it would automatically produce six or seven columns depending on whether London's on GMT/UTC (six) or BST (seven); while I've made straightforward modifications to that template, doing an elegant and efficient version of this is not in my wheelhouse. (There is an expression already in the template that calculates whether London time is equivalent to UTC; I'm sure that could be reused for this purpose.) I'd very much appreciate it if someone could add that code, and render this disagreement moot.
In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy to pledge to personally switch back to seven columns in late March if the coding hasn't been yet done to handle the process automatically, so we don't have to look at two adjacent columns with identical times all winter.
While I was away earlier, after the first reversions, EEng and
Bloom6132 got into an edit war over this—Bloom6132 seems to have agreed with my reasoning—and EEng is on a 24-hour block due to a
WP:3RR violation. In his last edit summary, he wrote, Separate UTC&London cols were agreed to long ago
, which is a stretch: the relevant discussion is
here, where TonyTheTiger requested a UTC column on July 29, 2014, at a time of year that there was no UTC column, and EEng decided to provide it; they were the only two who "agreed". The notion that the combined London/UTC column is not currently adequate to the task seems bizarre to me, as is the supposed requirement that the columns be separate all year long. What do the rest of you think?
BlueMoonset (
talk)
05:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Fashizmi, now in Prep 3: @ Soman, Antidiskriminator, and 97198:
I have found no evidence that the hook is incorrect (nor any definite evidence I could understand that it is right), but it is sourced in the article to this. I don't see how a 1938 publication can predict that the Italians would invade Albania in 1939, shut down all existing daily newspapers, and create a new one called "Fashizmi". Fram ( talk) 09:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@ BabbaQ: So how you are going to change your ways when it comes to contributing and nominating articles for DYK? I believe that you should try expanding your articles a bit, if there is a limit of 1500 characters, how about you try 2000 or more? Sometimes the subject is contentious or common that it will require more than 1500 characters. The article is more preferable when you write in the context and together with references that could be accessed. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if the blame in this case rests mainly with BabbaQ, or the others involved in proposing the hook, reviewing and promoting it, but Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Hutton, now in Prep 5, should not be run with this hook (or the article and sources need a through check). @ BabbaQ, Yoninah, 97198, and Fuebaey:
Seems quite correct, as evidenced by this. However; Barbara Hutton was born in 1912, which puts her 18th birthday in 1930. But the article claims that she "received the vessel in 1939", which is supported by this. I can find further sources for both statements (18th birthday or 1939), but they obviously can't both be true. This author also found it very hard to find the truth of the matter. Fram ( talk) 10:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Quick question: all of the information about nominating for DYK refers to "articles". Are articles which are classified as "lists" eligible for DYK? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Acdixon:, @ Cwmhiraeth:, @ G S Palmer: If we're going to put negative facts about a BLP on the main page, lets make sure we get it right. According to the article, Farmer was charged with 42 violations. Later in the article it says that he admitted to 35 of the charges in a plea bargain, which presumably means that he was not found guilty on 7 of the 42 charges. WP:BLPCRIME says that "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law", thus he does not have 42 ethics violations, he has 35. 137.43.188.220 ( talk) 13:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Please check that Template:Did you know nominations/South African Defence Review 2012 has been done correctly, it does not seem to have transcluded into the queue. This is the first nomination I have done so there may be procedural/format errors. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
HalfGig talk 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
HalfGig talk 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 25 that have been waiting over a month at the moment, and the remaining 14 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 56 nominations are approved, barely enough to fill the empty queue and prep slots, leaving 287 of 343 nominations as unapproved. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just made a number of changes to Computer Engineer Barbie in response to comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Computer Engineer Barbie. As this means I'm probably now too involved to sign off the article, could another editor please complete the review? Prioryman ( talk) 09:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I must be misunderstanding, but do we really want to delete the message that warns us that we need to take action to keep our project going? This project supplies a DYK publication for the main page and the incredibly clever and useful DYKbot does an enormous amount of the grunt work. (Yes I remember when we did it all by hand). This change here seems to indicate that there is an edit quarrel going on. We do need this message. I responded to it last time and filled the queue slot from a prep. OK! Some bots are annoying but this one is valuable. Please do not delete valuable messages that others (me at least) find useful. Victuallers ( talk) 14:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
These bot messages are useless. There's already a template to inform members that a DYK update is "needed" although we've ditched this stupidity at WP:ITN as it's not (and never should be) about how quickly you can update the main page, it's about how much high quality content you can provide. The bot message is a hangover from an era where quantity superseded quality. Whatever has already been discussed, I agree with EEng's removal of such scare notices, designed to accelerate poor quality content to the main page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the bot-notice issue, provided that the issue that the bot highlights is resolved. Whether the notice is deleted or archived after the queue is updated, I don't think really matters. As for the time period for hooks to run, I'm all for letting them run longer if it means higher quality in what goes on the main page.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 01:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed that from 6 December, all the templates on and after that date are coming up as links instead of showing the full nominations. Is there a scripting error on here? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 13:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice for those who have been awaiting a bot to place notices on talk pages when an article is nominated by anyone other than the article creator. For those who unaware of this request, it approved by a vote on this talk page January 2014, formally requested on the bot requests page by Matty.007 on Feb 24, 2014, and begun by Ceradon who dropped it and has not been active since April 1, 2014. It was then picked up by APerson on June 6, 2014. Progress of that is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 2. Because of inactivity, the bot request has now expired. Should anyone else like to have a stab at this, good luck. Matty.007 is not among us these days. I've bowed out of DYK for all practical purposes. — Maile ( talk) 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not instead put a nominator notice/banner on the Talk page of the article, like a GA review does -- presumably all interested parties will see it via their watchlist, and it's probably a good idea to have it on the Talk page anyway. (It doesn't need to be one of those permanent-history banners like for failed GA noms and so on -- just for the duration of the nom, and then if it does go to main page of course there's a permanent "featured on Main Page/DYK" banner.) And this way, you don't need any kind of opt-out -- the watchlist is the opt in/out. EEng ( talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious if there is any limit on the number of nominations a single self nominator can have active at one time (so long as quid pro quo is done for each). Based on my search of the DYK talk archives, the answer appears to be no, but I would like to make sure. Out of respect for the system, I have refrained from having more than two of my nominations live at any one time. However, my last couple of nominations have been waiting for review for quite some time (since November 14 and 19, respectively), which makes me wonder if I could nominate a few more DYKs that are about ready to move to the mainspace as long as I fulfill my QPQ requirements. In the interim, I'm more than happy to keep reviewing more DYK nominations to help reduce the backlog. Thanks! Michael Barera ( talk) 04:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Numerous hooks have been promoted without any ratings on the talk page. This should be a routine part of every review. Yoninah ( talk) 23:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed a hook from Prep 1 for not being supported by the source. Template:Did you know nominations/Afternoon. @ Tezero, Oceanh, Fuebaey, and BlueMoonset:
For starters, the source doesn't claim they are most common, but that they are typical. But this is a semantics discussion; worse is that the source is not about "accidents in the agriculture industry", but only "access path accidents" "associated with the use of tractors", so a subset (of about 30%) of a subset (tractor use only) of all "accidents in the agriculture industry". Fram ( talk) 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Gravity (film), and ran into the question of whether the Cast section requires citations. WP:DYKSG says the Plot section does not require citations, but does not say anything about the Cast, although the Cast, like the Plot, can be verified by watching the movie. Anyone has experience with this before? - Zanhe ( talk) 06:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The Titanium in zircon geothermometer hook was promoted to the prep sets (not by me) while being tagged as an orphan. The article is too scientific for me to figure out where to link it. Can anyone help? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Now what? Will there be cake? Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong opinion on this but I thought I'd ask here for more info. There's currently three open nominations by IP 72.74:
Going through the archives here there are:
BlueMoonset has suggested that the IP start doing QPQs, assuming that this is the same user and that the IP is dynamic. On the flip side, it could just be a group of people in the same area writing about wrestling (akin to those academic wasp submissions). Given that we have a backlog, I wouldn't say no to more reviewers. What does everyone else think? Fuebaey ( talk) 18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 23:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I corrected one hook in Queue3. Template:Did you know nominations/Efter badet (Stockholm) @ Innotata, Valenciano, Cwmhiraeth, and Graeme Bartlett:
Original hook: * ... that local politicians have proposed removing a sculpture in Stockholm called After the Bath because one of the people it depicts is Mao Zedong?
Corrected hook: * ... that a local politician proposed removing a sculpture in Stockholm called After the Bath because one of the people it depicts is Mao Zedong?
The article and source only mention one politician who made that proposal, so having the plural in the hook seemed incorrect. For once, I thought it better to change the hook immediately instead of pulling it, but if there is disagreement about this action or the new hook, I'll just pull it as "contested" instead and we can discuss it further on the DYK template. Fram ( talk) 13:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and speaking of singular vs. plural, in the same queue we have
Horae is not a goddess, it is a group of (usually) three goddesses. The error is made in the sources, but do we really have to repeat such errors? Fram ( talk) 13:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 07:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Problems in Prep5. @ Victuallers, Rosiestep, FunkyCanute, Yoninah, Graeme Bartlett, Wittylama, Cwmhiraeth, N2e, and Michael Barera: Fram ( talk) 11:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Source [15] states "While in prison he was visited by his sister, Lady Lothian, and by his wife, who, with Sophia Lindsay, had been placed in confinement on the first news of his landing." As far as I can tell from that source, her second husband was imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle, and she was at first confined (location not given) and later visited him in Edinburgh Castle. This should be pulled unless a good source for her imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle is provided. Fram ( talk) 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Minor problem, but wouldn't it be more correct (factually and grammatically) to change this to:
No. Attempts will be made in the near future to make this come true; but at the moment, rockets can not land on such a drone ship. It has never been done, and even the creators / supporters only give it a 50% chance to work at the moment. It may turn out to be one of these brilliant plans which never work in reality, or it may become standard procedure in 5 years time, but we shouldn't claim that it is now possible when it isn't yet. Fram ( talk) 11:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
All three hit the main page like this, even though the issues were raised here while they were still in prep, not yet in queue. I have accordingly removed the first one completely, replaced the second one with my proposal above, and further tweaked the third one (after a first change in the right direction by User:Floquenbeam). This rather defeats the prupose of bringing the issues here when they are still in prep areas, of course... Fram ( talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Mackenzie one has been readded to the main page, now that it is adequately sourced in the article (although I think it should be page 126, not 124, for the Edinburgh Castle fact). And Fuebaey's wild guess as to where I raised this was obviously correct :-) Fram ( talk) 18:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 2 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 21 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 72 nominations are approved, leaving 255 of 327 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.
Over six weeks:
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor made a comment about this nomination, after which it descended into interpersonal bickering, which I've now collapsed. Could somebody neutral please have a look at the nomination? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to nominate the new GA History of Briarcliff Manor for DYK, but I can't seem to think of an applicable hook. Most 'History of' articles would seem to be substantially harder to find hooks for than their overview article counterparts, and though there are some ways to make it work, I can't seem to think of any applicable to this article. Any ideas? Thanks.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi DYK folks. Template:Did you know nominations/Netsmart Technologies was promoted on 16 November 2014. However it looks like it never ran – I did not get a notification on my talk page of it appearing nor is there any record of it on the article talk page. I looked at the queues and in the DYK archives and I don't see it. Can someone take a look and see what happened? Thanks ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think, but I may be mistaken that @ Hawkeye7: promoted 6 hooks to prep1, but forgot to actually add 5 of them to prep1. The hooks are
I just found Duplication Detector not working. User Dcoetzee who created it is banned from Wikimedia. Don't know anything else about it. — Maile ( talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just now been able to use the Duplication Detector at the regular tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ address. Since Dcoetzee has been banned since October 3, at least on English Wikipedia, the tool has clearly not been withdrawn, and seems to be getting some support to keep running... BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The final hook in Queue 2 ( Glenwood Generating Station) has an error introduced by a change made after the review was closed. The rejection of the power plant was made before the town supervisor's comments, not after; this is clear from the source but not from the part quoted in the article itself.
In addition to this, the wording has been changed in a way that make it less clear, in my opinion. In general, such large changes to hooks should not be made in the prep areas. Either the approved hook should be restored or the review should be reopened. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This hook is due to go to the Main Page in about 2 hours, so it should be taken care of soon either way. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, you need do change "it" to something else (like "the action" or "its action") and do something about the fact that there's more than one supervisor. EEng ( talk) 03:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
... that in the event of a severe flood, the gray-tailed vole will abandon its complex network of tunnels and head for high ground? (12/12/14)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In Queue 4, I changed
to
It's bad enough that we repeat such blatant promo talk on our front page, but at least we can make it clear that it is promotional talk and not some well-established fact. I seriously doubt that literally every bookshop (in the UK, one presumes) did this, as many specialized bookshops won't even stock this item... E.g. this one doesn't seem to have this book, which doesn't come as a surprise. Fram ( talk) 13:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Daniel Anthonisz was approved on 11 December. The nominator had requested that it should be featured on 17 December and the reviewer also approved the hook but it was not moved to prep. Now it should be moved to Prep 6 so that the it appears on the Main Page on 17. Thanks.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 10:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Now in Prep 3, Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Helmand Province incident, a GA. @ It Is Me Here, MelanieN, and Cwmhiraeth:
The approved hook was actually
but Cwmhiraeth changed it when promoting it to prep 3, matching the hook to the article which makes the same claim (murder), while the Daily Telegraph (one of the two sources, the other the rather less reliable Daily Mail) narrows it down to the first convicted for a battlefield murder.
As the hook (and the article) now stand, it is hard to see why e.g. the case of Leslie Grantham doesn't count. In 1966, he was a lance corporal in the British Army, and served in Germany, where he murdered a taxi driver. He was convicted and spent more than ten years in prison for it. [16] The hook and the article probably need to be changed to make the correct claim. Something like
Fram ( talk) 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest changing the hook currently in Prep 6 to this ALT because the picture is being exhibited from November 2014 to March 2015. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
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:
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot ( talk) 10:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Prep 6, Template:Did you know nominations/Andries Jan Pieters. @ Crispulop, Cwmhiraeth, and Fuebaey:
To me, this strongly suggests that if the Dutch hadn't executed him, the Germans would have done it. However, this is highly unlikely. If the Dutch hadn't arrested him, or if the war had continued for a bit longer, then perhaps the Germans would have executed him for desertion. But as the hooks stands now, the juxtaposition doesn't make sense. Note that Capital punishment in Germany states that it was abolished in 1949 in West Germany, while Pieters was only executed in 1952, making the hook even more unlikely. Can this be reworded or pulled please? Fram ( talk) 11:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought, when we allowed GA's to be in the DYK section, that they might have a positive influence on the quality of DYK. However, there seem to be a lot of problems both with our GA process, and with the GA hooks. The difference with other hooks certainly isn't really noticeable.
I have now removed a hook from the main page for being, well, nonsense. We claimed
This is not sourced in the article. (Sentence "The park encompasses Bibbins Pond, and the acreage to its north, but the park's name may derive from a beaver pond that was once present." has no source). This lack of source is logical, considering that the Park was created in 1955 around the Beaver Brook, a brook that had that name already in the mid-19th century [18] and still does. It starts in Beaver Brook Pond. Now where could they possibly have found the name for their park? Now, it could well be that Beaver Brook and Beaver Brook Pond were originally named thus because there was a beaver pond. But the park is not named "Beaver Brook State Park" because there was perhaps once a beaver pond, but because the center of the park is the Beaver Brook (pond and stream). Fram ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ ChrisGualtieri, Bloom6132, Colipon, 97198, and Mike V: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaver Brook State Park. Fram ( talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Colipon: and @ Fram: Leary actually notes this connection, but I seemed to have jumped that over when editing for context and flow. It was just a missing book citation, but it is an attributed albeit speculative comment based on the name by the author. Feel free to re-add it to the list or do as you please. Sorry for the confusion, normally I cite every thing in-line, but this was until I edited it. Though normally I don't like speculative comments even based on conventional wisdom. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a hook from Queue2, as it was from a GA with copyvio additions during the GA process. I'll delete the article (the revisions from the start of the GA push that is) after this post. Template:Did you know nominations/Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu. @ Ochiwar, 3family6, Georgejdorner, 97198, and Mike V: I pinged you all as one of the steps in the article-to-DYK process, but the copyvio was not easy to spot, so I'm not blaming you (or the system) for how this slipped through. Ochiwar, this doesn't apply to you of course, as the one that seemingly has introduced all these copyvio's in your push for GA status. I hope this is the only article with such problems.
Examples of problematic copying (there may be more, these were sufficient to delete the article revisions): Fram ( talk) 13:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Source | Target | Link to target text |
---|---|---|
The appliqué as well as the geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found in Afikpo dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Igboland. | The appliqué, concentric, spiral, and geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found at[...] dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Afikpo. | [19] |
The elegant design and refined details are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze casting of the same period. | Its elegant design and refined detailing are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze-casting of this period. | [20] |
The occupant may have held the position of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but only limited political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century. | The occupant may have held a position as a forerunner of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but not political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century. | [21] |
[...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads, relief sculptures of crickets and flies and covered by a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu. | [...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads. The rest of the shell surface has a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu. Scattered across this are relief sculptures of crickets and flies. | [22] |
Sorry I was not aware that this type of close paraphrasing constitutes copyright violation since I always attributed the source with in-line citations. Having looked at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in detail again, I understand the problem. It says: Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. So although I did credit the source per inline citation I should have also attributed in the text by saying "John Smith said...". By the way the third of the four examples you quote is most certainly copied from Wikipedia and not the other way round. If you look closely you will find that it is an almost verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article as it was in December 2013. For the other three cited cases I agree that I was close paraphrasing but did not realize it as a problem as explained above. But surely, I had added over 20,000 bytes and images to the article most of which was not in violation. Is there anyway I can get at the deleted content to clean it up and summarize close paraphrasing to my own choice of words or in-text attribute the source and salvage the article? It would be a great shame to see all the hours I had put into the article go to waste. I will also go through my other articles for corrections were they may apply. Ochiwar ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for not catching these violations. I did try to look for close paraphrasing, but did not notice just how similar these passages were.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is now completely deleted, as indeed one of the copyvios predated Ochiwars additions, and the original version of the page, where this was a remnant from, was a blatant copyvio of [24]. Fram ( talk) 07:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the first that I've ever encountered Earwig's tool, but boy, is that a handy thing. So much less clunky then dup detector.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
So, now that the article was re-created, could it be nominated again, since the old history was deleted?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum was closed as unsuccessful, and archived shortly thereafter. However, the reviewer left a note urging the nominator to resubmit it if they could promote it to GA, which they did. They then renominated it here, which I told them is not the right way to go. The question is, how is the nomination supposed to be reopened? Do they need to create a new nom page ( Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2?) or do they have to copy-paste a blank DYK nom template into the old one? Is an article even eligible for re-nomination after being rejected once? Thanks, G S Palmer ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 4 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 19 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.
At the moment, 83 nominations are approved, leaving 215 of 298 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.
Over six weeks:
Over one month:
Also needing review:
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) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
should read
since clearly there is no "energy source" within the complex, merely a plant which converts one form of energy (diesel, natural gas, or something) into another form (electricity). EEng ( talk) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Good spot, clarified. Harrias talk 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Queue/1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Item 1, Boticelli needs to be corrected to Botticelli.
Awien ( talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I moved the "bullets fired at the White House" hook to Prep 6 because it didn't sound so Christmasy. I think a church hook would work well here, but none have been approved. Could someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/San Luis Obispo de Tolosa Parish Church, an article that I improved, and approve one of the alts? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 11:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This: Template:Did you know nominations/Madonna of the Book (Botticelli) was requested for Dec 24 or 25. I approved ALT4. Can someone promote it to an appropriate queue? It'd be great leading hook for that timeframe. Thank you. HalfGig talk 04:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
For some reason the template has misfunctioned here; I can't see why. Also it is a late Xmas submission. Now listed at 21 December. I'd be grateful if someone could sort this out. Johnbod ( talk) 13:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a note that preps 3 and 4 look like being the prime queues for Christmas Day hooks, and preps 1 and 2 will run on Christmas Day in eastern Asia and Oceania. Prep 1 is the next to be filled. That said, it doesn't look like we have many Christmas Day hooks in the holding area: we should prioritise any Christmas related hooks without review. Harrias talk 07:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What about this one:
Template:Did you know nominations/Sony Pictures Entertainment hack? --
George Ho (
talk)
22:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He's well-"Prepped" for the witness stand. Yum! EEng ( talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC) DYK neophytes may look here [25] for a hint.
No need to mock! I think that hook is very " punchy". Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)