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 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
The hook fact for Nako does not appear in the article. There it just says there are "images" on the walls; here it says " thangkas". I think "images" should be used, as the other term is obscure. ( talk) 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried correcting this but was reversed... Do you want the hook for Everything Starts With An 'E' to link to the REDIRECT or to the actual article name, Everything Starts with an 'E'? I appreciate and prefer the all-caps hook myself, but think the redirect should be avoided so that the page counts come in accurately. FWIW. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 16:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to congratulate and thank all those involved in building prep sets and moving them into the queue, on their recent performance. Things are going smoothly and it is more than a fortnight since the DYKUpdateBot last reported "DYK is almost overdue". Proceeding in this orderly manner gives sufficient time for hooks to be examined critically before making it to the front page.
At the time I write, there are five filled queues and four filled prep areas, making a total of 72 hooks. Besides this there are 106 approved hooks out of a total of 311 hooks on the nomination page. New nominations are being made at the rate of about 16 a day, the same rate as they finally exit the DYK system. I think it is time that this tremendous backlog of nominations got reduced slightly and propose that we move to nine hooks per set to slightly increase the througput of hooks. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It says in Wikipedia at the start of her article " Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (née Byron; 10 December 1815 – 27 November 1852)". By my reckoning that means that in about 25 days it will be exactly 200 years since the world's first computer programmer was born. Now some may see this as a day for articles about women, but she was also a computer programmer and also just a clever person. This is a significant anniversary. Any ideas? Victuallers ( talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just set up a special day and found that there is a date clash. I'm suggesting that the two subjects are not incompatible. We should be able to avoid hooks that contradict the aims of the other celebration. We may need to find a trusted 3rd party to do the choosing on the day before if we end up with more than two full sets. Victuallers ( talk) 13:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I started a review of the Celebrity Fifteen to One nomination, whose current hook involves one contestant having appeared on the show during the tenures of both its hosts. I'm having some issues with verifying the facts needed to support the hook. First, for one of the contestant's appearances, the only source cited is a video of the episode, and I can't get the video to play (this seems to be a problem on my end, not with the video itself); would it be acceptable for me to AGF that the credits show the contestant's name as if it were an offline source? Does the fact that the video is a primary source make a difference?
The other issue is that there isn't a source cited which states that this contestant is the only one who appeared on the show with both hosts. There are just sourced tables listing which contestants appeared in each series, and as aforementioned, for some of the series, the only source cited for which contestants appeared are videos of the episodes themselves. I'm not sure whether this means the hook's assertion qualifies as WP:SYN or WP:OR or not, and I would like to solicit opinions from others on these questions. Thanks in advance to all who respond. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there not a provision for a "Did you know" entry for a newly promoted Feature Article? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.98.89.221 ( talk) 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyone have thoughts on this hook? I'm a bit uncomfortable with presenting this on the main page, but as it isn't technically negative BLP information I'd like a second opinion or two. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The hook for Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, currently in Prep 1, needs to be replaced as the hook fact has been removed from the article. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Just looking at the source for that hook, [1] and comparing it with the article Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, I notice some huge differences. According to the article, the church was build just before 1880 ("action was initiated by choosing a suitable site for the purpose in 1876.") The source gives "As you walk out of the fort and up the slope on your left, you find St. Stephen’s Anglican Church- dating to the Dutch period and said to be over 300 years old. A church spokesperson said it is built on an artificial mound as they wanted God to be on a supreme position. During the British period it was taken over by the Church of England and subsequently given to the Church of Ceylon." This supports the suggested hook, but contradicts the rest of the article. On the other hand, the source given for the 1876-1880 construction date and most of the body of the article, [2], actually contradicts the suggested hook and lead text: "It would appear paradoxical that on this mound, which originally saved a military purpose, years later that church of St. Stephen was built for the glory of the prince of peace." (source) vs. " that the Saint Stephen’s Church, Negombo (pictured), in Negombo in Sri Lanka occupies a raised vantage ground created especially for the purpose of providing a commanding view?" (hook).
It looks as if there are two contradictory stories about the origin of the church, and the mound, the Dutch fort, and so on. The article should present both sources and stories side by side or decide in some way which is the correct source. But a "pick and choose" of a bit from one source and a bit from another, creating a new history which neither source actually supports (that the mound was created ca. 1880 to build the new church) and using that as the hook is not acceptable. Please reopen the nomination and rewrite the article. Fram ( talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The previous list is now over a week old and almost entirely exhausted, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first couple of days of November. As of the most recent update, 128 nominations are approved, leaving 216 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from September and the first few weeks of October.
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) 00:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Victuallers, Nvvchar, Edwardx, and SusunW: Now in Prep 4, from Template:Did you know nominations/Eulie Chowdhury:
It has been discussed at the nomination, and is sourced, but is it correct? She graduated in 1947 from the University of Sydney, Australia with a Bachelor in Architecture. Which is not in Asia, of course, so how she was more "qualified as an architect in Asia" than others is unclear, or when she got a separate "qualification as an architect in Asia". Perhaps what is meant is that she was the first qualified female architect to work in Asia? Or that she was the first qualified female architect who was also an Asian?
But even these claims seem dubious or at least disputable: in 1946 (according to our article on the school) Aida-Cruz Del Rosario graduated from the University of Santo Tomas College of Architecture and became the first female architect of the Philippines, which were then and now in Asia. According to [3] it was in 1947, still the same year that Chowdhury graduated (Chowdhury only started working in Asia in 1951 though).
So, perhaps she is the first Indian with any of these claims? Well, not if you believe Perin Jamsetjee Mistri, an Indian woman who preceded her by at least 10 years.
(Of course, all this excludes people like Lin Huiyin who were not "qualified" architects but were good enough to become Professor of Architecture anyway...)
In conclusion, the hook is sourced but not enough care has been taken to find a contradictory source, which in this case wasn't too hard. Just read List of women architects and you find still other earlier architects, like Dora Gad or Minnette de Silva. I think it should be removed from the prep and the nomination reopened (and the article changed as well of course). Fram ( talk) 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Removed from Prep 4, I'll now reopen the nomination. Fram ( talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the DYK section of the main page? It's currently completely unbalanced by the much-shorter-than-normal DYK section. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The redlink in the Credits section on Template:Did you know/Queue/6: the nom subpage should be Template:Did you know nominations/NewYork–Presbyterian/Queens. Requesting admin to fix the link. This is normal for page titles with a slash, and I have encountered this while doing the DYK review. sst✈ (discuss) 14:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We have now in Queue3, the next queue to hit the main page, the hook
This comes from Template:Did you know nominations/Zoka Zola. I don't claim that anything is wrong with the hook, I just don't understand it at all. Solar, geothermal and wind "methods" are mostly on the outside of a house, normally. Then how are the spaces "blended" (nothing to do with Blended Space I presume) with these "methods"? What does it mean to blend spaces of a house with solar and wind methods? I just have no idea what this means, it reads like modern art high-brow waffle but perhaps it has a perfectly normal meaning I'm just not aware of. Am I the only one not getting it? Fram ( talk) 14:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The hook graced the main page in its original version for some 8 hours. I have now removed that unintelligible text from the main page. IF we don't know what the hook actually means, we shouldn't present it to the world at large. Fram ( talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I got some suggestion on my nomination of Alcohol in Afghanistan, you can see it Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol in Afghanistan. Article has more than 2500 characters and if we ignore mirror sites then there is no copyright violation. Hooks are supported by sources. But it needs some copy-editing, I think things written about alcohol in US base in Afghanistan written under "NATO base" section needs some editing. If anyone is interested in fixing issues of the article can come forward to become co-author of the article. Thank you. -- Human3015 TALK 20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Unless I have miscalculated, looking at the queues it appears that on Thanksgiving we don't have any of the hooks set aside for it to run on that day. For example, We Plough the Fields and Scatter based on the current positioning in the prep area is going to run on the day after it. Can someone rearrange the queues please? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I nominated ten articles and did not read them carefully: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-179 and Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-157. Since each of the articles duplicate 1357 characters of prose (and there is less than 1500 characters of new prose per article) the nomination should rightfully be rejected (apart from one article). Since I have already done the ten QPQ reviews, am I allowed to use these reviews as QPQs in future DYK nominations? sst✈ discuss 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this: Template:Did you know nominations/Impossible Is Nothing (Iggy Azalea song) This is the first DYK nomination of Coolmarc, but he already has five DYK credits, due to other editors (including myself) nominating articles he promoted to GA status for DYK. DYK rules mean that in this situation Coolmarc has to supply a review. The five free nominations exemption is designed to allow editors to understand how a DYK review should be done, but Coolmarc does not have this opportunity, and may supply an inadequate review if required to do so. Should the rule be revised to instead say that the first five DYK nominations do not require a QPQ, instead of credits? sst✈ (discuss) 09:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This hook in Prep 4 just looks silly:
The second part of this hook in Prep 5 does not appear in the article:
After removing the very unclear Zoka Zola hook (see above), I now also removed the Turtle Park hoos for being incorrect, even though it only had about one more hour to go on the main page.
Template:Did you know nominations/Turtle Park, @ Tavix, Vesuvius Dogg, PFHLai, and Casliber:
Endemic: "being unique to a defined geographic location,", "organisms that are indigenous to a place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere." So, are these seven turtle species really endemic to Missouri, or just indigenous (or native, like the article says)? The species are the Common snapping turtle (lives from Canada to Florida, so not endemic), the Mississippi map turtle (not endemic as well), the Red-eared slider, and so on. None of them, as far as can be determined since not all species are named in the article, are endemic to Missouri. None. Why did no one catch this? If you don't understand what "endemic" means, don't use it. Fram ( talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Removing an erroneous hook from the main page that can't readily be rectified is acceptable. Removing a hook because there might be an error somewhere in the article is absurd and totally indefensible. If we applied that standard to every article link on the main page, the page would be devoid of such links. There is no guarantee of error-free content, that's why every article has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I started to read this article ( Xhamadan) and noticed some odd phrases and changes of tense, perhaps someone (the promoting admin or sanctioning reviewer?) could explain what is meant by "and is orned with 6-10 broids"? That aside, the article is really rough and needs serious copyediting before it should be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:
wording has been part of the
DYK nominations page since October 2011, after the test of a required review template that had reviewers checking off all such aspects was abandoned. The new wording didn't say "then indicate that you have reviewed all aspects of the article"; it's clear, given the actual wording coupled with the example that they expected the review be written out. And that expectation has been a part of DYK ever since.
DYK reviewing procedures aren't only in a single review document. Aspects can be found in many places—indeed, there have been many abortive attempts to get everything in one place, but until one succeeds and is approved, the various locations are all relevant: WP:DYKR, WP:DYK, T:TDYK, WP:DYKSG, the DYK nomination template editing window, and probably other locations I'm not remembering at the moment.
The rules do change over time, as consensus for such change is agreed to here on WT:DYK and in various RfCs that have been conducted. But there hasn't been any agreement here to change the practice of several years that reviews should specifically mention which aspects were checked, and many reviewers are careful to make sure that the reviews do mention each criterion checked and how the article/hook measure up to it.
The obvious question is whether the DYK community wishes to continue enforcing full reviews—whether volunteer or QPQ—or wishes to let the requirement lapse or be modified in some way. The usual way to do this is through discussion and consensus; of course, if any reviewer is allowed to continue refusing to follow the requirement and approve review after review, it will become quite difficult if not impossible to ask others to do what he will not, and the requirement withers. I frankly hope it doesn't wither, because the written out review is helpful to promoter and nominator alike, and it has over time improved the breadth of reviewing and the new reviewers to understand what they need to do as part of a QPQ or other review. But if it does become obsolete, it should be because the many DYK participants have decided it is no longer needed. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly.— Maile ( talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure retaining or abandoning it is the right question. I'm very much disturbed by Yoninah's comments which imply to me that DYK's need re-reviewing when being moved to prep. That sounds like a serious problem, and more to the point it sounds like a critical problem because they are not talking about the short form reviews but all reviews in general. Increasing the form of the review won't help with this issue. I think we should be discussing how to address bad reviews... ones that actually miss DYK criteria. Because then we can hopefully be more sure that whatever the review looks like it is of good quality. -- Errant ( chat!) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment I object to the construction of the proposal. First, I'm extremely concerned this proposal has not been made in good faith and has been advanced as part of a long-term editor dispute. This discussion should be closed until one that is (1) neutrally worded sans editorial commentary by the proposer, and, (2) contains a concise and actionable proposal, is advanced. Second, and most importantly, the proposal has, in addition to its inherent POV problems, been abusively constructed so as to require a consensus to maintain the status quo; as noted elsewhere the reviewing guide only requires a written review must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The way in which this proposal is constructed will green-light an amendment to the reviewing guide if a consensus fails. LavaBaron ( talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.
It's been a few weeks now, and the discussion and !voting seems to have come to a natural end. Have we come to a consensus? BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first eight days of November. As of the most recent update, 95 nominations have been approved, leaving 206 of 301 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from October.
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) 06:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Kiyoshiendo:@ Famous Hobo:@ SSTflyer: In Fallout Shelter in prep 3, the article and the hook says that the game was the most popular iOS app in UK & US on the day of it's release. The source cited in the article says that it was the "most-downloaded free app in all of the US and UK on its very first day of availability". either free should be added to the hook, or another source should be found. I'm surprised that this was not caught by the GA reviewer. Quasihuman ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have some of the older noms I have reviewed moved to prep if anyone is able to help. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is this worth noting if the "Belvedere International Singing competition" doesn't even have an article? The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Suggest this hook is pulled until some decent work is done on helping the hook prove its significance, i.e. getting an article up and running about this so-called "major competition" which doesn't even have a stub article. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Right now all queues and preps are filled up. This may indicate increasing activity on DYK. When all sets become clear, we can reduce to seven or six per set. Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Animal X is discovered at location Y, which has also been used to film unrelated movie Z. That's a "fact" that doesn't belong in the article about animal X or movie Z, only in the article about location Y. The movie had no influence on the animal (not even on the naming of so), the animal had no influence on the movie (it wasn't used in it for whatever reason), so why mention it? Oh right, because it makes for a good hook (and gets you safely beyond the 1500 character limit). DYK should be subordinate to our articles and general rules about what to include, not the other way around.
It's too late to prevent the example in case, which I found through other problems with the edits by one of the editors involved: Template:Did you know nominations/Habronyx minutus. @ Thine Antique Pen, Nvvchar, and PFHLai:. But perhaps we can do better in the future? Fram ( talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article". Here, the article does not mention the Hobbit movie at all. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ 4meter4, George Ho, and Yoninah: Template:Did you know nominations/Liao Changyong
I have just removed the above hook from the main page, as it simply wasn't true. He won the Toulouse competition (one of the three from the hook) in 1996, not 1997. No idea where the 1997 idea comes from, none of the sources seems to explicitly mention it, some are somewhat ambiguously worded though. [5] mentions only one competition, [6] mentions the three, but the way it is worded only places the last one in 1997. A source for the 1996 year? [7] (there are others as well, if you want them). Multiple sources discuss how he won three tournaments in 1996 and 1997 as well. Fram ( talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
And if you really are not convinced yet, let's go to the official site: [8] lists him under 1996, not 1997. Fram ( talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333:, you know what? The next queue to hit the main page contains at least one incorrect hook. Deal with it. Fram ( talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Fram, is it the last hook, the one which had a last gasp change, a contraction (argh!) and doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere in the article? The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Repeat, with emphasis: And of course there are others, like Vincent "Vinny" Lauwers, who won a Laureus Award (more or less the most prestigious sporting award in the world) in 2001 [11] for sailing around the world solo, non-stop and unassisted, as a disabled person (paraplegic). The intro from the linked article: "Vincent Lauwers (AUS), who, in 2000 was nominated for the ISAF World Sailor of the Year Awards in recognition of his successful solo, nonstop unassisted circumnavigation a world first, won the disability category at the '2001 Laureus World Sports Award'"
How hard is it, after an error is pointed out, links to evidence given, and the important fact stated, to get it at least right the second time round? No, instead here people believe that adding "non stop" to the Keith White hook will solve the problem, and at Template:Did you know nominations/Keith White (disabled yachtsman) multiple people believed the same. @ Fiddle Faddle and Yoninah:. I know I should only comment on hooks and process, and not on editors, but this episode is really stretching my patience and credulence to the limit. Please, everyone, get your act together. Fram ( talk) 07:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not happy with the Frederico Marques hook in Prep 5. He may have been the youngest tennis coach of any player in the ATP top 100 ranking when the source was published in January 2015. But the ATP rankings change all the time, and players hire and fire their coaches frequently, so I don't think we can assume the hook fact is still accurate, even if it was correct at the time. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Right after the template for Hank Sanicola, the template for 363 Copa De Oro Road has disappeared from the nomination page, and all the nominations following that, including hooks for December 16 and 25, are listed as links, not as full templates. Yoninah ( talk) 00:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The previous list will be archived soon, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first week of November. As of the most recent update, 135 nominations have been approved, leaving 200 of 335 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from October and the first week of November.
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) 05:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The article on Trent Zimmerman was deleted for lack of notability in February 2015. It is about to be undeleted as he was just elected as a member of the Australian House of Representatives and thus is now a notable politician. In being elected, he reportedly became the first openly gay man elected to the House of Reps, which strikes me as a good DYK hook fact. When his article is undeleted, it will need updating based on his election. Will it qualify as a new article for DYK (from the date of undeletion) or would it need a x5 expansion? I have no idea what is in the deleted article, not being an admin. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried to nominate the new article Wilson's Allen for DYK but the template only appears as a call and not as the actual template. What's wrong? White Arabian Filly ( Neigh) 21:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I began this by copying sections from various articles on distinct periods/media, detailed in the history. I have greatly expanded and rewritten it (it is now 50K raw bytes), adding well over 1500 bytes, but not to the extent of 5x the old material. Does this meet the criteria? Johnbod ( talk) 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The hook for Old Nupe Market is "while some sources claim that the Dutch built Old Nupe Market in Matara, Sri Lanka, a Dutch website claims that the British built it?". The Dutch website in question is a wiki so am unsure why would it be a RS.
I've pulled the hook from prep due to these issues, and requested a new hook that doesn't deal with whether it was built by the Dutch or British. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the seventeen hooks in the special occasion area for Ada Lovelace Day on December 10 (the bicentennial of her birth)—more than could fit in a single day, admittedly—have not been promoted to Queue 1 and Prep 2, the two sets that are scheduled to be run on that day. We'll need an admin to handle promoting hooks into and moving hooks out of Queue 1, and someone to do the same for Prep 2, which will eventually be promoted to Queue 2.
Please note that Prep 5 and Prep 6 should not be the destination of any of the hooks moved from Queue 1 and Prep 2, since December 12 is the Frank Sinatra centennial, and those preps, per consensus above, are reserved exclusively for the Sinatra hooks also in the special occasion area. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently discovered this tool, which has greater capability than the current tool listed in Template:DYK tools. Would there be support for adding the new tool to the toolbox, or even swapping in for the old one? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 07:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I had a DYK up just now but was vexed to find that the hook had been changed from:
to
There were two changes made: changing "great" to "steam" and changing "the first" to "a". The latter change was quite annoying because it significantly lessened the impact of the hook. This place was indeed the first Methodist chapel and so that's a much bigger deal than being just one of many.
It was tricky to trace through the DYK process to see where the hook was changed but it seems to have been these edits. I don't understand what the editor was thinking as the disputed fact was stated quite clearly in the article and supported by a good source. This was accepted by the reviewer but what's the point of having a formal review and approval process for hooks if some passerby can casually change the hook later without any consultation, review or approval? Is there some guideline for this already or should there be some additional safeguard? Surely the nominator and reviewer should be notified of any such changes rather than finding out when it's too late to do anything about them?
Andrew D. ( talk) 13:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Yoninah: (who seems to have made the change [21],) as this section was started about her actions (even though it has somewhat boomeranged). Fram ( talk) 14:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do I have a scroll bar on the left hand section on this page: Screenshot It only happens on that page. -- Ugly Ketchup ( talk) 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
fixedSidebar = "never";
She hid in "band lockers" (what are they?) because she was small? Or does this really mean "was able to hide in..."? Why? Because of online harassment (that would be odd)? Or does it mean something else? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I pulled it. Omnibus hooks with two or more unrelated facts are often a bit awkward, the last phrase isn't clear, the issue isn't really clarified in the article and the source for it looks a bit questionable. I could have just struck the phrase and used the rest for the hook but perhaps the nominator would like a chance to address the identified issues. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the Lovelace and Sinatra anniversaries should be listed at WP:OTD on the relevant days to help clarify why the DYK sets are devoted to associated topics. I'm not familiar with the workings of OTD, has somebody arranged for this to occur or can someone do so if it has not been done? Gatoclass ( talk) 06:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance but what does "uses one voice per part" mean, and why is it notable or significant or interesting? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's all biographies. Isn't it supposed to not be more than half biographical (N5)? Ashorocetus ( talk | contribs) 01:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I loaded prep 2 into queue 2 - hopefully that is where it is supposed to go. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, the sets work well. Featuring humans on Human Rights Day is a good idea. sst✈ (discuss) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this nomination was given the green light over two weeks ago, but still hasn't made the main page. I've never known this stage take more than a few days, and just wanted to make sure this nomination hadn't fallen by the wayside. Thanks, Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do not overlook the Garage rock article for inclusion in the DYK. It is an article that covers a whole musical genre--one that, in terms of acts who recorded, is probably the largest of all rock genres, however little known to many. It was a magical moment that transpired in rock's golden age in the 60s and is vital reading for anyone who loves the music of that era. I had nominated the hook line, "... that garage rock was the first form of music to be called "punk rock"?," which may come as a surprise to many, but it is true. The article is loaded with interesting and eye-opening facts--it probably could produce a whole host of hook lines. Yet, I get the feeling that it is being ignored. We have had several of the best music editors working on it for a long time. In the last several months I have worked incredibly hard to build a mammoth expansion onto the article, and it is now one of the largest music genre articles at Wikipedia--and just went GA. You cannot but feel hurt when you get the feeling that something this big is being greeted with indifference. But, quite frankly that is how I feel right now, and that just isn't right. I ask you to please not to deprive this majestic article of the widespread attention it richly deserves. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 02:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
On Dr. Blofeld's initiative, a sizable inventory of hooks (16 at last count) have been approved and slotted into the Special Occasion holding area for December 12, the centenary of Frank Sinatra's birth. The centerpiece of this list is the main article, Frank Sinatra, which attained GA status. Dr. Blofeld has suggested that the main hook and image, Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Sinatra, should run in the lead slot for all 24 hours. We would appreciate consensus from other DYK editors. Yoninah ( talk) 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I just built the Sinatra sets, and there are three hooks left over. One of them was Christmas themed, so I boldly moved it to the Christmas holding area. That leaves two left. I'd like to propose that, for these two Sinatra preps only, nine hooks are allowed per set. This would allow us to put one of the two remaining hooks in each of the two Sinatra sets. Before I do that, I wanted to get the all clear from the community though. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Pinging everyone from above: Yoninah, Dr. Blofeld, ErrantX, Montanabw, Vesuvius Dogg, Notecardforfree, Gatoclass, The C of E, 7&6=thirteen, SSTflyer, Gerda Arendt, Bencherlite, Eman235, and Seth Whales.
Caesars Palace, a big Sinatra associated venue passed GA. Any chance of squeezing Template:Did you know nominations/Caesars Palace into the queue for tomorrow? I'd drop one of my lesser ones in favour of this if needs be. BlueMoonset, Gatoclass and Nikkimaria?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE. Someone can add that one to the queue. Too much fun, and a Butte, Montana connection ... Evel Knievel's famous wipeout. Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The QPQ check tools don't properly check very old DYKs, so nominators with very old nominations may get a free pass on the QPQ requirement.
I say formalize this: Only DYK activity in the last 12 months will be "counted" toward QPQ. If your DYK "credits" minus your QPQ "review count" is at least 5, you have to do a QPQ. If it's less than 5 (or negative ) and you do a DYK nomination today, you don't have to do a QPQ.
If 12 months is too short I'm okay with making it 24 months.
If we do NOT make this change, then we need to update the instructions so reviewers are clearly instructed to check the nominator's ancient edits to Template:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know for evidence of making or reviewing DYK nominations. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Just go by the tool's maximum capability. If you want to update the text then just add a vague mention having to pass the tool-check. No need to write the tool's limitations into policy. BlueMoonset: Don't start with manual forensic analysis of edit histories. We are Wiki. A friendly, good enough, somewhat chaotic system is better than a high labor bureaucracy. Alsee ( talk) 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why there are three sets reserved for Sinatra hooks when there are only enough Sinatra hooks on the nom page to fill two sets. I hope this doesn't mean somebody is planning to submit another bunch of Sinatra hooks - two sets is more than enough IMO. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Just found an abandoned Sinatra hook and promoted it - temporarily - to prep 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Maxine Cheshire. It SHOULD become part of a Sinatra hooks set, but I'm not an admin and the hooks are already in a queue, so I can't do it. Also, I approved Caesar's Palace and it also need to go into a queue. If there are three other approved hooks sitting out there, what shall we do?? Montanabw (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The individual parts of the following hook are true, but I consider the hook as a whole to be misleading:
It's apparently true that some versions of the song are murder ballads, and it's true that the song "Cold Rain and Snow" was performed by the Dead, but the version they sang was not a murder ballad. (Nominated here, and currently in Prep 1.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Queue/4 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The fifth item in queue 4: "that the Tusheti National Park, called "12 best places you’ve never heard of" by BudgetTravel in 2011, has rich biodiversity with aesthetic terrain, hamlets, old defense towers, and folk culture?" should presumably read "that the Tusheti National Park, called one of the "12 best places you’ve never heard of" by BudgetTravel in 2011, has rich biodiversity with aesthetic terrain, hamlets, old defense towers, and folk culture?" Awien ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Awien ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, done Victuallers ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us up to the final week of November. As of the most recent update, 149 nominations have been approved, leaving 200 of 349 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those remaining from the first part of November.
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) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
To avoid perplexing the reader, I suggest the hook for Una Ryans be "* ... that British-American biologist '''[[Una Ryan]]''' and Irish biochemist '''[[Una M. Ryan|Una Ryan]]''' each emigrated from their countries, study infectious disease, and were honored with the [[Order of the British Empire]] and [[Prime Minister's Prizes for Science]], respectively?" -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I managed to put in the wrong name in the template name. Should be Alex Moffat (trade unionist) Need to be fixed. Thanks. And my sincere apologies. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
A hook for the St. Nicholas Hotel is currently in Prep 5. Does anyone else think this should be saved for Christmas Eve? Currently, only one item is being held for that day. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
So what? Without a link to the Baron, or any context as to who or why this is of note, this hook is without any interest whatsoever. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no point in retaining the baron's name in the hook if they are not notable. You could go with a hook like "that iris perrieri was named after a baron who ran a specialty plant nursery?" But obviously somebody would have to verify the nursery statement. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Participants here are good at checking sources for reliability and do a lot of content review. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
EdChem ( talk) 08:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Like Montanabw (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
At Template:Did you know nominations/Rock relief the reviewer is insisting that a freedom of panorama image shot in Romania, from Commons, is changed. I'm sure we have had other such ones. Is this reasonable? Johnbod ( talk) 04:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
And while we're at it, I have one last anniversary-related hook for this year: Sodder children disappearance, for this Christmas Eve, the 70th anniversary of that event. We have a week to go, so it's not as much of a rush, but time is growing short. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Has anybody else noticed BattyBot wandering around old articles that passed DYK and moving the old hook to the top of the talk page? Apparently this is the way the MOS says it should be done, however a random sample of my own DYK nominations don't have this, and DYKUpdateBot doesn't seem to put the notice in the same place. Since the MOS describes what we already do, as opposed to what we should do, it sounds like the MOS (and possibly therefore one or both of the bots) should be changed. Thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, The placement is done by AWB itself. What should be the correct place? The current placement is defined at WP:TPL. I can modify the AWB code dependeding on the consensus and then run a bot to adjust everything. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333, Maile66, and GoingBatty: for my reply. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: please check Wikipedia:Talk_page_layout#Lead_.28bannerspace.29 points 9 and 10 and change accordingly. I have no strong feelings on anything. Just a remark, till now DYK template was considered of equal wight to the article history template and that's why is was put in that page as that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
rev 11757 updated AWB's code to match consensus. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333 and GoingBatty: et al. I can run my bot to put DYK in the correct place if there is consensus for that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Can an admin please fix the second hook in Queue 2? The required space between the ellipsis and "that" is missing, and needs to be inserted. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have moved Buddy Holly Center nominated by @ Michael Barera: to a Feb 3 holding area, to commemorate the date of the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper. Just thinking along the lines of what we've been doing recently. I wonder if anyone would like to try getting these articles through GAC to make them eligible for DYK:
Just a thought. — Maile ( talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I noticed that this coming Sunday would be the 35th anniversary of the Announcerless Game between the New York Jets and the Miami Dolphins. It was mentioned in a few related articles but there was no separate, standalone article on the only game in NFL history ever broadcast on television without any commentators. So I challenged myself to research and write one quickly, which I was able to do. It's not complete yet (as I write) but the bulk of it is there, enough to support the nomination I now have in the queue.
Now, can we get it in for Sunday in the North American time zones? It looks like there's some space in Prep 4 (which, assuming it feeds in to Queue 4, would be the best place for it) where it could go; if not, Prep 5 is empty.
Can someone do this? It shouldn't be too hard to verify and approve. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on here, and I appreciate another editor stepping in. User:Daniel Case requested a quick review of his nomination and I responded to it today with a review and an approval tick. User:George Ho has objected to the quick promotion, arguing that there are older hooks that need to be promoted first. I have never seen that kind of logic in prep-building, and Special Occasion hooks are always promoted before others. As it stands right now, Prep 4 is open and waiting for any editor to swap in a hook, and even after that prep goes to Queue 4, there will be time to swap in this hook as a special occasion request. Thanks to all for expediting this hook. Yoninah ( talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us up to the final day of November. As of the most recent update, 133 nominations have been approved, leaving 211 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one remaining from October and those from the first three weeks of November.
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) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey. Could someone please check this out? I think it's a good fit for Christmas Eve although more importantly I think that if it runs after Christmas it will stick out like a sore thumb. Would be super grateful. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This hook was just approved and needs to run in the lead slot in Prep 5. Since I just approved it, I cannot do the promoting. Could another editor please move the lead hook in Prep 5 to a later set (after Christmas) and put this one in its place? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
With 129 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 345 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.
The following are 24 nominations that were approved at least half a month ago; about a third of these are over three weeks old and have been waiting since late November. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 24 have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the hooks don't have to wait much longer than they already have.
I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.
Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Set builders and uploading admins, please be aware that every time any of you decide to omit the |image= parameter and instead use an unnamed parameter to specify an image file in a call to {{ main page image}} the omission will cause DYKUpdateBot to crash when it attempts to process the associated queue. The bot operator is aware of the problem and is looking to harden the bot against this issue. Due to the complexity of processing context-free grammars, it is unlikely that the bot will ever have the code to fully replicate the WikiMedia template processing code (such an effort would essentially require the addition of a compiler front-end to the bot). Problems in the {{ main page image}} calls in the current sets has been corrected. -- Allen3 talk 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I re-added Dispenser's Checklinks and Disambiguation links back into the DYK toolbox for the review template. Those tools seem to be working OK right now. — Maile ( talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems we only have thirteen nine Christmas hooks so far - and three of them are about Christmas beetles. Ideally we should have at least sixteen (on a variety of topics). If somebody could conjure up a few more at this late stage, that would be much appreciated.
Gatoclass (
talk)
14:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've got ... that the Christmas Tree in Trafalgar Square is shipped to London from Oslo every year and is around 75ft tall, provided somebody does the GA review ASAP. I see Gerda has already put out an APB. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC).
My free time is a bit in short supply, but I will try to buff Costus chartaceus, Blandfordia punicea and/or Blandfordia cunninghamii. Anyone is welcome to help. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I was going over Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/October just recently and I noticed that the "Berta Bobath" hook appears twice (once at 01:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC), and once at 00:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)). In checking to see if the DYK was actually run twice I found the hook in Queue 4 here on Oct 17, but I was unable to find any evidence of its having been queued for the Oct 22 post. For reference, here is the queue where all of the other items in that grouping appear. It looks to me like the "sexuality after spinal cord injury" DYK was somehow replaced with a duplicate for "Berta Bobath" when the hooks were all archived. Is that possible?
The only evidence I see that might go against this is that "Berta Bobath" received an unusual view-spike echo on the 22nd (see traffic stats). Then again "sexuality after spinal cord injury" also received an obvious spike on the 22st too (see traffic stats). So I don't know... Does anyone have any insights here? - Thibbs ( talk) 15:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be necessary to modify the bot if hooks were not recycled.
I've never heard of the practice before now; when did we decide it was an appropriate thing to do,
and how often is it done?
* ... that this represents a new DYK hook, linking to a recently improved '''[[Wikipedia]]''' article?
{{dyk rerun}} that this represents a reused DYK hook, preceded by an example '''[[template]]'''?
* ... that this represents another new DYK hook, linking to a recently improved '''[[Wikipedia]]''' article?
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 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
The hook fact for Nako does not appear in the article. There it just says there are "images" on the walls; here it says " thangkas". I think "images" should be used, as the other term is obscure. ( talk) 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried correcting this but was reversed... Do you want the hook for Everything Starts With An 'E' to link to the REDIRECT or to the actual article name, Everything Starts with an 'E'? I appreciate and prefer the all-caps hook myself, but think the redirect should be avoided so that the page counts come in accurately. FWIW. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 16:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to congratulate and thank all those involved in building prep sets and moving them into the queue, on their recent performance. Things are going smoothly and it is more than a fortnight since the DYKUpdateBot last reported "DYK is almost overdue". Proceeding in this orderly manner gives sufficient time for hooks to be examined critically before making it to the front page.
At the time I write, there are five filled queues and four filled prep areas, making a total of 72 hooks. Besides this there are 106 approved hooks out of a total of 311 hooks on the nomination page. New nominations are being made at the rate of about 16 a day, the same rate as they finally exit the DYK system. I think it is time that this tremendous backlog of nominations got reduced slightly and propose that we move to nine hooks per set to slightly increase the througput of hooks. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It says in Wikipedia at the start of her article " Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (née Byron; 10 December 1815 – 27 November 1852)". By my reckoning that means that in about 25 days it will be exactly 200 years since the world's first computer programmer was born. Now some may see this as a day for articles about women, but she was also a computer programmer and also just a clever person. This is a significant anniversary. Any ideas? Victuallers ( talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just set up a special day and found that there is a date clash. I'm suggesting that the two subjects are not incompatible. We should be able to avoid hooks that contradict the aims of the other celebration. We may need to find a trusted 3rd party to do the choosing on the day before if we end up with more than two full sets. Victuallers ( talk) 13:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I started a review of the Celebrity Fifteen to One nomination, whose current hook involves one contestant having appeared on the show during the tenures of both its hosts. I'm having some issues with verifying the facts needed to support the hook. First, for one of the contestant's appearances, the only source cited is a video of the episode, and I can't get the video to play (this seems to be a problem on my end, not with the video itself); would it be acceptable for me to AGF that the credits show the contestant's name as if it were an offline source? Does the fact that the video is a primary source make a difference?
The other issue is that there isn't a source cited which states that this contestant is the only one who appeared on the show with both hosts. There are just sourced tables listing which contestants appeared in each series, and as aforementioned, for some of the series, the only source cited for which contestants appeared are videos of the episodes themselves. I'm not sure whether this means the hook's assertion qualifies as WP:SYN or WP:OR or not, and I would like to solicit opinions from others on these questions. Thanks in advance to all who respond. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there not a provision for a "Did you know" entry for a newly promoted Feature Article? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.98.89.221 ( talk) 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyone have thoughts on this hook? I'm a bit uncomfortable with presenting this on the main page, but as it isn't technically negative BLP information I'd like a second opinion or two. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The hook for Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, currently in Prep 1, needs to be replaced as the hook fact has been removed from the article. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Just looking at the source for that hook, [1] and comparing it with the article Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, I notice some huge differences. According to the article, the church was build just before 1880 ("action was initiated by choosing a suitable site for the purpose in 1876.") The source gives "As you walk out of the fort and up the slope on your left, you find St. Stephen’s Anglican Church- dating to the Dutch period and said to be over 300 years old. A church spokesperson said it is built on an artificial mound as they wanted God to be on a supreme position. During the British period it was taken over by the Church of England and subsequently given to the Church of Ceylon." This supports the suggested hook, but contradicts the rest of the article. On the other hand, the source given for the 1876-1880 construction date and most of the body of the article, [2], actually contradicts the suggested hook and lead text: "It would appear paradoxical that on this mound, which originally saved a military purpose, years later that church of St. Stephen was built for the glory of the prince of peace." (source) vs. " that the Saint Stephen’s Church, Negombo (pictured), in Negombo in Sri Lanka occupies a raised vantage ground created especially for the purpose of providing a commanding view?" (hook).
It looks as if there are two contradictory stories about the origin of the church, and the mound, the Dutch fort, and so on. The article should present both sources and stories side by side or decide in some way which is the correct source. But a "pick and choose" of a bit from one source and a bit from another, creating a new history which neither source actually supports (that the mound was created ca. 1880 to build the new church) and using that as the hook is not acceptable. Please reopen the nomination and rewrite the article. Fram ( talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The previous list is now over a week old and almost entirely exhausted, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first couple of days of November. As of the most recent update, 128 nominations are approved, leaving 216 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from September and the first few weeks of October.
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) 00:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Victuallers, Nvvchar, Edwardx, and SusunW: Now in Prep 4, from Template:Did you know nominations/Eulie Chowdhury:
It has been discussed at the nomination, and is sourced, but is it correct? She graduated in 1947 from the University of Sydney, Australia with a Bachelor in Architecture. Which is not in Asia, of course, so how she was more "qualified as an architect in Asia" than others is unclear, or when she got a separate "qualification as an architect in Asia". Perhaps what is meant is that she was the first qualified female architect to work in Asia? Or that she was the first qualified female architect who was also an Asian?
But even these claims seem dubious or at least disputable: in 1946 (according to our article on the school) Aida-Cruz Del Rosario graduated from the University of Santo Tomas College of Architecture and became the first female architect of the Philippines, which were then and now in Asia. According to [3] it was in 1947, still the same year that Chowdhury graduated (Chowdhury only started working in Asia in 1951 though).
So, perhaps she is the first Indian with any of these claims? Well, not if you believe Perin Jamsetjee Mistri, an Indian woman who preceded her by at least 10 years.
(Of course, all this excludes people like Lin Huiyin who were not "qualified" architects but were good enough to become Professor of Architecture anyway...)
In conclusion, the hook is sourced but not enough care has been taken to find a contradictory source, which in this case wasn't too hard. Just read List of women architects and you find still other earlier architects, like Dora Gad or Minnette de Silva. I think it should be removed from the prep and the nomination reopened (and the article changed as well of course). Fram ( talk) 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Removed from Prep 4, I'll now reopen the nomination. Fram ( talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the DYK section of the main page? It's currently completely unbalanced by the much-shorter-than-normal DYK section. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The redlink in the Credits section on Template:Did you know/Queue/6: the nom subpage should be Template:Did you know nominations/NewYork–Presbyterian/Queens. Requesting admin to fix the link. This is normal for page titles with a slash, and I have encountered this while doing the DYK review. sst✈ (discuss) 14:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We have now in Queue3, the next queue to hit the main page, the hook
This comes from Template:Did you know nominations/Zoka Zola. I don't claim that anything is wrong with the hook, I just don't understand it at all. Solar, geothermal and wind "methods" are mostly on the outside of a house, normally. Then how are the spaces "blended" (nothing to do with Blended Space I presume) with these "methods"? What does it mean to blend spaces of a house with solar and wind methods? I just have no idea what this means, it reads like modern art high-brow waffle but perhaps it has a perfectly normal meaning I'm just not aware of. Am I the only one not getting it? Fram ( talk) 14:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The hook graced the main page in its original version for some 8 hours. I have now removed that unintelligible text from the main page. IF we don't know what the hook actually means, we shouldn't present it to the world at large. Fram ( talk) 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I got some suggestion on my nomination of Alcohol in Afghanistan, you can see it Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol in Afghanistan. Article has more than 2500 characters and if we ignore mirror sites then there is no copyright violation. Hooks are supported by sources. But it needs some copy-editing, I think things written about alcohol in US base in Afghanistan written under "NATO base" section needs some editing. If anyone is interested in fixing issues of the article can come forward to become co-author of the article. Thank you. -- Human3015 TALK 20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Unless I have miscalculated, looking at the queues it appears that on Thanksgiving we don't have any of the hooks set aside for it to run on that day. For example, We Plough the Fields and Scatter based on the current positioning in the prep area is going to run on the day after it. Can someone rearrange the queues please? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I nominated ten articles and did not read them carefully: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-179 and Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese submarine I-157. Since each of the articles duplicate 1357 characters of prose (and there is less than 1500 characters of new prose per article) the nomination should rightfully be rejected (apart from one article). Since I have already done the ten QPQ reviews, am I allowed to use these reviews as QPQs in future DYK nominations? sst✈ discuss 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this: Template:Did you know nominations/Impossible Is Nothing (Iggy Azalea song) This is the first DYK nomination of Coolmarc, but he already has five DYK credits, due to other editors (including myself) nominating articles he promoted to GA status for DYK. DYK rules mean that in this situation Coolmarc has to supply a review. The five free nominations exemption is designed to allow editors to understand how a DYK review should be done, but Coolmarc does not have this opportunity, and may supply an inadequate review if required to do so. Should the rule be revised to instead say that the first five DYK nominations do not require a QPQ, instead of credits? sst✈ (discuss) 09:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This hook in Prep 4 just looks silly:
The second part of this hook in Prep 5 does not appear in the article:
After removing the very unclear Zoka Zola hook (see above), I now also removed the Turtle Park hoos for being incorrect, even though it only had about one more hour to go on the main page.
Template:Did you know nominations/Turtle Park, @ Tavix, Vesuvius Dogg, PFHLai, and Casliber:
Endemic: "being unique to a defined geographic location,", "organisms that are indigenous to a place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere." So, are these seven turtle species really endemic to Missouri, or just indigenous (or native, like the article says)? The species are the Common snapping turtle (lives from Canada to Florida, so not endemic), the Mississippi map turtle (not endemic as well), the Red-eared slider, and so on. None of them, as far as can be determined since not all species are named in the article, are endemic to Missouri. None. Why did no one catch this? If you don't understand what "endemic" means, don't use it. Fram ( talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Removing an erroneous hook from the main page that can't readily be rectified is acceptable. Removing a hook because there might be an error somewhere in the article is absurd and totally indefensible. If we applied that standard to every article link on the main page, the page would be devoid of such links. There is no guarantee of error-free content, that's why every article has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I started to read this article ( Xhamadan) and noticed some odd phrases and changes of tense, perhaps someone (the promoting admin or sanctioning reviewer?) could explain what is meant by "and is orned with 6-10 broids"? That aside, the article is really rough and needs serious copyediting before it should be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:
wording has been part of the
DYK nominations page since October 2011, after the test of a required review template that had reviewers checking off all such aspects was abandoned. The new wording didn't say "then indicate that you have reviewed all aspects of the article"; it's clear, given the actual wording coupled with the example that they expected the review be written out. And that expectation has been a part of DYK ever since.
DYK reviewing procedures aren't only in a single review document. Aspects can be found in many places—indeed, there have been many abortive attempts to get everything in one place, but until one succeeds and is approved, the various locations are all relevant: WP:DYKR, WP:DYK, T:TDYK, WP:DYKSG, the DYK nomination template editing window, and probably other locations I'm not remembering at the moment.
The rules do change over time, as consensus for such change is agreed to here on WT:DYK and in various RfCs that have been conducted. But there hasn't been any agreement here to change the practice of several years that reviews should specifically mention which aspects were checked, and many reviewers are careful to make sure that the reviews do mention each criterion checked and how the article/hook measure up to it.
The obvious question is whether the DYK community wishes to continue enforcing full reviews—whether volunteer or QPQ—or wishes to let the requirement lapse or be modified in some way. The usual way to do this is through discussion and consensus; of course, if any reviewer is allowed to continue refusing to follow the requirement and approve review after review, it will become quite difficult if not impossible to ask others to do what he will not, and the requirement withers. I frankly hope it doesn't wither, because the written out review is helpful to promoter and nominator alike, and it has over time improved the breadth of reviewing and the new reviewers to understand what they need to do as part of a QPQ or other review. But if it does become obsolete, it should be because the many DYK participants have decided it is no longer needed. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
N14: It is the promoter's responsibility to make sure all review issues have been resolved, that the hook is verified by sourcing within the article. The promoter acts as a secondary verification that the nomination was reviewed properly.— Maile ( talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure retaining or abandoning it is the right question. I'm very much disturbed by Yoninah's comments which imply to me that DYK's need re-reviewing when being moved to prep. That sounds like a serious problem, and more to the point it sounds like a critical problem because they are not talking about the short form reviews but all reviews in general. Increasing the form of the review won't help with this issue. I think we should be discussing how to address bad reviews... ones that actually miss DYK criteria. Because then we can hopefully be more sure that whatever the review looks like it is of good quality. -- Errant ( chat!) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment I object to the construction of the proposal. First, I'm extremely concerned this proposal has not been made in good faith and has been advanced as part of a long-term editor dispute. This discussion should be closed until one that is (1) neutrally worded sans editorial commentary by the proposer, and, (2) contains a concise and actionable proposal, is advanced. Second, and most importantly, the proposal has, in addition to its inherent POV problems, been abusively constructed so as to require a consensus to maintain the status quo; as noted elsewhere the reviewing guide only requires a written review must begin with "one of the five DYK review icons" and contain a "thorough explanation of any problems or concerns you have." The way in which this proposal is constructed will green-light an amendment to the reviewing guide if a consensus fails. LavaBaron ( talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.
It's been a few weeks now, and the discussion and !voting seems to have come to a natural end. Have we come to a consensus? BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first eight days of November. As of the most recent update, 95 nominations have been approved, leaving 206 of 301 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from October.
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) 06:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Kiyoshiendo:@ Famous Hobo:@ SSTflyer: In Fallout Shelter in prep 3, the article and the hook says that the game was the most popular iOS app in UK & US on the day of it's release. The source cited in the article says that it was the "most-downloaded free app in all of the US and UK on its very first day of availability". either free should be added to the hook, or another source should be found. I'm surprised that this was not caught by the GA reviewer. Quasihuman ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have some of the older noms I have reviewed moved to prep if anyone is able to help. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is this worth noting if the "Belvedere International Singing competition" doesn't even have an article? The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Suggest this hook is pulled until some decent work is done on helping the hook prove its significance, i.e. getting an article up and running about this so-called "major competition" which doesn't even have a stub article. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Right now all queues and preps are filled up. This may indicate increasing activity on DYK. When all sets become clear, we can reduce to seven or six per set. Thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Animal X is discovered at location Y, which has also been used to film unrelated movie Z. That's a "fact" that doesn't belong in the article about animal X or movie Z, only in the article about location Y. The movie had no influence on the animal (not even on the naming of so), the animal had no influence on the movie (it wasn't used in it for whatever reason), so why mention it? Oh right, because it makes for a good hook (and gets you safely beyond the 1500 character limit). DYK should be subordinate to our articles and general rules about what to include, not the other way around.
It's too late to prevent the example in case, which I found through other problems with the edits by one of the editors involved: Template:Did you know nominations/Habronyx minutus. @ Thine Antique Pen, Nvvchar, and PFHLai:. But perhaps we can do better in the future? Fram ( talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article". Here, the article does not mention the Hobbit movie at all. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ 4meter4, George Ho, and Yoninah: Template:Did you know nominations/Liao Changyong
I have just removed the above hook from the main page, as it simply wasn't true. He won the Toulouse competition (one of the three from the hook) in 1996, not 1997. No idea where the 1997 idea comes from, none of the sources seems to explicitly mention it, some are somewhat ambiguously worded though. [5] mentions only one competition, [6] mentions the three, but the way it is worded only places the last one in 1997. A source for the 1996 year? [7] (there are others as well, if you want them). Multiple sources discuss how he won three tournaments in 1996 and 1997 as well. Fram ( talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
And if you really are not convinced yet, let's go to the official site: [8] lists him under 1996, not 1997. Fram ( talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333:, you know what? The next queue to hit the main page contains at least one incorrect hook. Deal with it. Fram ( talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Fram, is it the last hook, the one which had a last gasp change, a contraction (argh!) and doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere in the article? The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Repeat, with emphasis: And of course there are others, like Vincent "Vinny" Lauwers, who won a Laureus Award (more or less the most prestigious sporting award in the world) in 2001 [11] for sailing around the world solo, non-stop and unassisted, as a disabled person (paraplegic). The intro from the linked article: "Vincent Lauwers (AUS), who, in 2000 was nominated for the ISAF World Sailor of the Year Awards in recognition of his successful solo, nonstop unassisted circumnavigation a world first, won the disability category at the '2001 Laureus World Sports Award'"
How hard is it, after an error is pointed out, links to evidence given, and the important fact stated, to get it at least right the second time round? No, instead here people believe that adding "non stop" to the Keith White hook will solve the problem, and at Template:Did you know nominations/Keith White (disabled yachtsman) multiple people believed the same. @ Fiddle Faddle and Yoninah:. I know I should only comment on hooks and process, and not on editors, but this episode is really stretching my patience and credulence to the limit. Please, everyone, get your act together. Fram ( talk) 07:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not happy with the Frederico Marques hook in Prep 5. He may have been the youngest tennis coach of any player in the ATP top 100 ranking when the source was published in January 2015. But the ATP rankings change all the time, and players hire and fire their coaches frequently, so I don't think we can assume the hook fact is still accurate, even if it was correct at the time. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Right after the template for Hank Sanicola, the template for 363 Copa De Oro Road has disappeared from the nomination page, and all the nominations following that, including hooks for December 16 and 25, are listed as links, not as full templates. Yoninah ( talk) 00:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The previous list will be archived soon, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the first week of November. As of the most recent update, 135 nominations have been approved, leaving 200 of 335 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from October and the first week of November.
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) 05:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The article on Trent Zimmerman was deleted for lack of notability in February 2015. It is about to be undeleted as he was just elected as a member of the Australian House of Representatives and thus is now a notable politician. In being elected, he reportedly became the first openly gay man elected to the House of Reps, which strikes me as a good DYK hook fact. When his article is undeleted, it will need updating based on his election. Will it qualify as a new article for DYK (from the date of undeletion) or would it need a x5 expansion? I have no idea what is in the deleted article, not being an admin. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried to nominate the new article Wilson's Allen for DYK but the template only appears as a call and not as the actual template. What's wrong? White Arabian Filly ( Neigh) 21:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I began this by copying sections from various articles on distinct periods/media, detailed in the history. I have greatly expanded and rewritten it (it is now 50K raw bytes), adding well over 1500 bytes, but not to the extent of 5x the old material. Does this meet the criteria? Johnbod ( talk) 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The hook for Old Nupe Market is "while some sources claim that the Dutch built Old Nupe Market in Matara, Sri Lanka, a Dutch website claims that the British built it?". The Dutch website in question is a wiki so am unsure why would it be a RS.
I've pulled the hook from prep due to these issues, and requested a new hook that doesn't deal with whether it was built by the Dutch or British. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the seventeen hooks in the special occasion area for Ada Lovelace Day on December 10 (the bicentennial of her birth)—more than could fit in a single day, admittedly—have not been promoted to Queue 1 and Prep 2, the two sets that are scheduled to be run on that day. We'll need an admin to handle promoting hooks into and moving hooks out of Queue 1, and someone to do the same for Prep 2, which will eventually be promoted to Queue 2.
Please note that Prep 5 and Prep 6 should not be the destination of any of the hooks moved from Queue 1 and Prep 2, since December 12 is the Frank Sinatra centennial, and those preps, per consensus above, are reserved exclusively for the Sinatra hooks also in the special occasion area. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently discovered this tool, which has greater capability than the current tool listed in Template:DYK tools. Would there be support for adding the new tool to the toolbox, or even swapping in for the old one? Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 07:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I had a DYK up just now but was vexed to find that the hook had been changed from:
to
There were two changes made: changing "great" to "steam" and changing "the first" to "a". The latter change was quite annoying because it significantly lessened the impact of the hook. This place was indeed the first Methodist chapel and so that's a much bigger deal than being just one of many.
It was tricky to trace through the DYK process to see where the hook was changed but it seems to have been these edits. I don't understand what the editor was thinking as the disputed fact was stated quite clearly in the article and supported by a good source. This was accepted by the reviewer but what's the point of having a formal review and approval process for hooks if some passerby can casually change the hook later without any consultation, review or approval? Is there some guideline for this already or should there be some additional safeguard? Surely the nominator and reviewer should be notified of any such changes rather than finding out when it's too late to do anything about them?
Andrew D. ( talk) 13:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Yoninah: (who seems to have made the change [21],) as this section was started about her actions (even though it has somewhat boomeranged). Fram ( talk) 14:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do I have a scroll bar on the left hand section on this page: Screenshot It only happens on that page. -- Ugly Ketchup ( talk) 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
fixedSidebar = "never";
She hid in "band lockers" (what are they?) because she was small? Or does this really mean "was able to hide in..."? Why? Because of online harassment (that would be odd)? Or does it mean something else? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I pulled it. Omnibus hooks with two or more unrelated facts are often a bit awkward, the last phrase isn't clear, the issue isn't really clarified in the article and the source for it looks a bit questionable. I could have just struck the phrase and used the rest for the hook but perhaps the nominator would like a chance to address the identified issues. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the Lovelace and Sinatra anniversaries should be listed at WP:OTD on the relevant days to help clarify why the DYK sets are devoted to associated topics. I'm not familiar with the workings of OTD, has somebody arranged for this to occur or can someone do so if it has not been done? Gatoclass ( talk) 06:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance but what does "uses one voice per part" mean, and why is it notable or significant or interesting? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's all biographies. Isn't it supposed to not be more than half biographical (N5)? Ashorocetus ( talk | contribs) 01:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I loaded prep 2 into queue 2 - hopefully that is where it is supposed to go. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, the sets work well. Featuring humans on Human Rights Day is a good idea. sst✈ (discuss) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this nomination was given the green light over two weeks ago, but still hasn't made the main page. I've never known this stage take more than a few days, and just wanted to make sure this nomination hadn't fallen by the wayside. Thanks, Mattythewhite ( talk) 15:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do not overlook the Garage rock article for inclusion in the DYK. It is an article that covers a whole musical genre--one that, in terms of acts who recorded, is probably the largest of all rock genres, however little known to many. It was a magical moment that transpired in rock's golden age in the 60s and is vital reading for anyone who loves the music of that era. I had nominated the hook line, "... that garage rock was the first form of music to be called "punk rock"?," which may come as a surprise to many, but it is true. The article is loaded with interesting and eye-opening facts--it probably could produce a whole host of hook lines. Yet, I get the feeling that it is being ignored. We have had several of the best music editors working on it for a long time. In the last several months I have worked incredibly hard to build a mammoth expansion onto the article, and it is now one of the largest music genre articles at Wikipedia--and just went GA. You cannot but feel hurt when you get the feeling that something this big is being greeted with indifference. But, quite frankly that is how I feel right now, and that just isn't right. I ask you to please not to deprive this majestic article of the widespread attention it richly deserves. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 02:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
On Dr. Blofeld's initiative, a sizable inventory of hooks (16 at last count) have been approved and slotted into the Special Occasion holding area for December 12, the centenary of Frank Sinatra's birth. The centerpiece of this list is the main article, Frank Sinatra, which attained GA status. Dr. Blofeld has suggested that the main hook and image, Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Sinatra, should run in the lead slot for all 24 hours. We would appreciate consensus from other DYK editors. Yoninah ( talk) 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I just built the Sinatra sets, and there are three hooks left over. One of them was Christmas themed, so I boldly moved it to the Christmas holding area. That leaves two left. I'd like to propose that, for these two Sinatra preps only, nine hooks are allowed per set. This would allow us to put one of the two remaining hooks in each of the two Sinatra sets. Before I do that, I wanted to get the all clear from the community though. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Pinging everyone from above: Yoninah, Dr. Blofeld, ErrantX, Montanabw, Vesuvius Dogg, Notecardforfree, Gatoclass, The C of E, 7&6=thirteen, SSTflyer, Gerda Arendt, Bencherlite, Eman235, and Seth Whales.
Caesars Palace, a big Sinatra associated venue passed GA. Any chance of squeezing Template:Did you know nominations/Caesars Palace into the queue for tomorrow? I'd drop one of my lesser ones in favour of this if needs be. BlueMoonset, Gatoclass and Nikkimaria?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE. Someone can add that one to the queue. Too much fun, and a Butte, Montana connection ... Evel Knievel's famous wipeout. Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The QPQ check tools don't properly check very old DYKs, so nominators with very old nominations may get a free pass on the QPQ requirement.
I say formalize this: Only DYK activity in the last 12 months will be "counted" toward QPQ. If your DYK "credits" minus your QPQ "review count" is at least 5, you have to do a QPQ. If it's less than 5 (or negative ) and you do a DYK nomination today, you don't have to do a QPQ.
If 12 months is too short I'm okay with making it 24 months.
If we do NOT make this change, then we need to update the instructions so reviewers are clearly instructed to check the nominator's ancient edits to Template:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know for evidence of making or reviewing DYK nominations. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Just go by the tool's maximum capability. If you want to update the text then just add a vague mention having to pass the tool-check. No need to write the tool's limitations into policy. BlueMoonset: Don't start with manual forensic analysis of edit histories. We are Wiki. A friendly, good enough, somewhat chaotic system is better than a high labor bureaucracy. Alsee ( talk) 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why there are three sets reserved for Sinatra hooks when there are only enough Sinatra hooks on the nom page to fill two sets. I hope this doesn't mean somebody is planning to submit another bunch of Sinatra hooks - two sets is more than enough IMO. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Just found an abandoned Sinatra hook and promoted it - temporarily - to prep 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Maxine Cheshire. It SHOULD become part of a Sinatra hooks set, but I'm not an admin and the hooks are already in a queue, so I can't do it. Also, I approved Caesar's Palace and it also need to go into a queue. If there are three other approved hooks sitting out there, what shall we do?? Montanabw (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The individual parts of the following hook are true, but I consider the hook as a whole to be misleading:
It's apparently true that some versions of the song are murder ballads, and it's true that the song "Cold Rain and Snow" was performed by the Dead, but the version they sang was not a murder ballad. (Nominated here, and currently in Prep 1.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Did you know/Queue/4 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The fifth item in queue 4: "that the Tusheti National Park, called "12 best places you’ve never heard of" by BudgetTravel in 2011, has rich biodiversity with aesthetic terrain, hamlets, old defense towers, and folk culture?" should presumably read "that the Tusheti National Park, called one of the "12 best places you’ve never heard of" by BudgetTravel in 2011, has rich biodiversity with aesthetic terrain, hamlets, old defense towers, and folk culture?" Awien ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Awien ( talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, done Victuallers ( talk) 19:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us up to the final week of November. As of the most recent update, 149 nominations have been approved, leaving 200 of 349 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those remaining from the first part of November.
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) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
To avoid perplexing the reader, I suggest the hook for Una Ryans be "* ... that British-American biologist '''[[Una Ryan]]''' and Irish biochemist '''[[Una M. Ryan|Una Ryan]]''' each emigrated from their countries, study infectious disease, and were honored with the [[Order of the British Empire]] and [[Prime Minister's Prizes for Science]], respectively?" -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I managed to put in the wrong name in the template name. Should be Alex Moffat (trade unionist) Need to be fixed. Thanks. And my sincere apologies. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
A hook for the St. Nicholas Hotel is currently in Prep 5. Does anyone else think this should be saved for Christmas Eve? Currently, only one item is being held for that day. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
So what? Without a link to the Baron, or any context as to who or why this is of note, this hook is without any interest whatsoever. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no point in retaining the baron's name in the hook if they are not notable. You could go with a hook like "that iris perrieri was named after a baron who ran a specialty plant nursery?" But obviously somebody would have to verify the nursery statement. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Participants here are good at checking sources for reliability and do a lot of content review. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
EdChem ( talk) 08:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Like Montanabw (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
At Template:Did you know nominations/Rock relief the reviewer is insisting that a freedom of panorama image shot in Romania, from Commons, is changed. I'm sure we have had other such ones. Is this reasonable? Johnbod ( talk) 04:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
And while we're at it, I have one last anniversary-related hook for this year: Sodder children disappearance, for this Christmas Eve, the 70th anniversary of that event. We have a week to go, so it's not as much of a rush, but time is growing short. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Has anybody else noticed BattyBot wandering around old articles that passed DYK and moving the old hook to the top of the talk page? Apparently this is the way the MOS says it should be done, however a random sample of my own DYK nominations don't have this, and DYKUpdateBot doesn't seem to put the notice in the same place. Since the MOS describes what we already do, as opposed to what we should do, it sounds like the MOS (and possibly therefore one or both of the bots) should be changed. Thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, The placement is done by AWB itself. What should be the correct place? The current placement is defined at WP:TPL. I can modify the AWB code dependeding on the consensus and then run a bot to adjust everything. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333, Maile66, and GoingBatty: for my reply. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: please check Wikipedia:Talk_page_layout#Lead_.28bannerspace.29 points 9 and 10 and change accordingly. I have no strong feelings on anything. Just a remark, till now DYK template was considered of equal wight to the article history template and that's why is was put in that page as that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
rev 11757 updated AWB's code to match consensus. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333 and GoingBatty: et al. I can run my bot to put DYK in the correct place if there is consensus for that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Can an admin please fix the second hook in Queue 2? The required space between the ellipsis and "that" is missing, and needs to be inserted. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have moved Buddy Holly Center nominated by @ Michael Barera: to a Feb 3 holding area, to commemorate the date of the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper. Just thinking along the lines of what we've been doing recently. I wonder if anyone would like to try getting these articles through GAC to make them eligible for DYK:
Just a thought. — Maile ( talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I noticed that this coming Sunday would be the 35th anniversary of the Announcerless Game between the New York Jets and the Miami Dolphins. It was mentioned in a few related articles but there was no separate, standalone article on the only game in NFL history ever broadcast on television without any commentators. So I challenged myself to research and write one quickly, which I was able to do. It's not complete yet (as I write) but the bulk of it is there, enough to support the nomination I now have in the queue.
Now, can we get it in for Sunday in the North American time zones? It looks like there's some space in Prep 4 (which, assuming it feeds in to Queue 4, would be the best place for it) where it could go; if not, Prep 5 is empty.
Can someone do this? It shouldn't be too hard to verify and approve. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on here, and I appreciate another editor stepping in. User:Daniel Case requested a quick review of his nomination and I responded to it today with a review and an approval tick. User:George Ho has objected to the quick promotion, arguing that there are older hooks that need to be promoted first. I have never seen that kind of logic in prep-building, and Special Occasion hooks are always promoted before others. As it stands right now, Prep 4 is open and waiting for any editor to swap in a hook, and even after that prep goes to Queue 4, there will be time to swap in this hook as a special occasion request. Thanks to all for expediting this hook. Yoninah ( talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us up to the final day of November. As of the most recent update, 133 nominations have been approved, leaving 211 of 344 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one remaining from October and those from the first three weeks of November.
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) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey. Could someone please check this out? I think it's a good fit for Christmas Eve although more importantly I think that if it runs after Christmas it will stick out like a sore thumb. Would be super grateful. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 09:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This hook was just approved and needs to run in the lead slot in Prep 5. Since I just approved it, I cannot do the promoting. Could another editor please move the lead hook in Prep 5 to a later set (after Christmas) and put this one in its place? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
With 129 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 345 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.
The following are 24 nominations that were approved at least half a month ago; about a third of these are over three weeks old and have been waiting since late November. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 24 have been sitting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the hooks don't have to wait much longer than they already have.
I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.
Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Set builders and uploading admins, please be aware that every time any of you decide to omit the |image= parameter and instead use an unnamed parameter to specify an image file in a call to {{ main page image}} the omission will cause DYKUpdateBot to crash when it attempts to process the associated queue. The bot operator is aware of the problem and is looking to harden the bot against this issue. Due to the complexity of processing context-free grammars, it is unlikely that the bot will ever have the code to fully replicate the WikiMedia template processing code (such an effort would essentially require the addition of a compiler front-end to the bot). Problems in the {{ main page image}} calls in the current sets has been corrected. -- Allen3 talk 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I re-added Dispenser's Checklinks and Disambiguation links back into the DYK toolbox for the review template. Those tools seem to be working OK right now. — Maile ( talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems we only have thirteen nine Christmas hooks so far - and three of them are about Christmas beetles. Ideally we should have at least sixteen (on a variety of topics). If somebody could conjure up a few more at this late stage, that would be much appreciated.
Gatoclass (
talk)
14:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've got ... that the Christmas Tree in Trafalgar Square is shipped to London from Oslo every year and is around 75ft tall, provided somebody does the GA review ASAP. I see Gerda has already put out an APB. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC).
My free time is a bit in short supply, but I will try to buff Costus chartaceus, Blandfordia punicea and/or Blandfordia cunninghamii. Anyone is welcome to help. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I was going over Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/October just recently and I noticed that the "Berta Bobath" hook appears twice (once at 01:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC), and once at 00:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)). In checking to see if the DYK was actually run twice I found the hook in Queue 4 here on Oct 17, but I was unable to find any evidence of its having been queued for the Oct 22 post. For reference, here is the queue where all of the other items in that grouping appear. It looks to me like the "sexuality after spinal cord injury" DYK was somehow replaced with a duplicate for "Berta Bobath" when the hooks were all archived. Is that possible?
The only evidence I see that might go against this is that "Berta Bobath" received an unusual view-spike echo on the 22nd (see traffic stats). Then again "sexuality after spinal cord injury" also received an obvious spike on the 22st too (see traffic stats). So I don't know... Does anyone have any insights here? - Thibbs ( talk) 15:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be necessary to modify the bot if hooks were not recycled.
I've never heard of the practice before now; when did we decide it was an appropriate thing to do,
and how often is it done?
* ... that this represents a new DYK hook, linking to a recently improved '''[[Wikipedia]]''' article?
{{dyk rerun}} that this represents a reused DYK hook, preceded by an example '''[[template]]'''?
* ... that this represents another new DYK hook, linking to a recently improved '''[[Wikipedia]]''' article?