Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 168

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170→Archive 175

File:Philip Treacy, The Master Millner.jpg, the lead image of Philip Treacy, has been nominated for deletion as suspected license laundering. Please choose a different image or hook, or delay this hook until the deletion discussion is closed. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've returned the nomination to WP:DYKNA. Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Subpage parameter

I've noticed that new prep builders often leave off the subpage parameter in the credit lines for each hook they promote. It has been brought to my attention that they may be following the example at Template:Did you know/Clear, which does not include the subpage parameter. Could the subpage parameters be added to this page? Pinging Maile who does this sort of thing. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I think the primary issue here is that people typically copy the DYKmake templates directly from nomination template and replace whatever's on the prep page, so editing /Clear won't help all that much, and when it creates the template code, Module:NewDYKnomination only fills in the subpage parameter for the first DYKmake. Perhaps Wugapodes, who has made some edits to the module, would be able to adjust the code so that a subpage parameter is always included in every DYKmake template created. (I wouldn't dare try.) I should point out that subpage is only needed if the template page name does not match the article name, but it never hurts to include it even if not strictly needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
It probably can be done, but I'll need to look into the module a bit more to figure out exactly how. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Since it doesn't hurt, and there are no display issues caused by adding it to /Clear, I've just done so. If this causes problems, the edit can always be reverted. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. For now, I think it's a good thing to leave in place as we welcome new prep builders. Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone promote a prep set please?

I need to juggle around some hooks. Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done Queue 2, and it looks like Queue 1 has already been done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Long term solutions/2

So I'm not sure any of these are going to help anywhere near as much as we need something to, but here are the suggestions that have gained some traction.

  1. Nominators who fail to respond for 7 days are an automatic fail.
  2. Go to 7 queues and preps.
  3. Do a week of 2-a-days any time we hit X nominations.
  4. Do 2-a-days every weekend.

Probably #2, 3, 4 we could just go ahead and implement if we feel they're at least worth trying. #1 needs an RfC, I think.

—valereee (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Although I would support some variant of #1 being implemented, something does need to be clarified about it: does "fail to respond" refer only to the initial review, or any comments by reviewers or other editors? What about instances where the nominator couldn't reply because they were unavailable, or have indicated ahead of time that they might not be able to respond immediately to feedback? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I think we should totally accept, "Hey, wasn't expecting the review to start so soon, I'm headed out of town and will be back the 16th, can we start review then?" as being responsive. Agree that #1 is the one we need to develop and flesh out, as it is the one that actually changes DYK in some way and needs an RfC. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging admins who currently have hooks in queues/preps who may not be aware of the fact we're overwhelmed with nominations, looking at 4 more months of 2-a-days and then after that less than a month of 1-a-days before having to go back to 2-a-days, are facing a severe shortage of admin help, and are looking for solutions. Steve Smith Maury Markowitz David Eppstein Bagumba Al Ameer son Drmies Rlendog Dumelow Victuallers Kosack Titodutta Guerillero Girth Summit —valereee (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, hi - thanks for the ping, I'd be happy to help out if I can; trouble is, I've only ever been involved in the input side of DYK, not on a adminny back-end. Is there a handy guideline page for what you need assistance with that you could point me at? GirthSummit (blether) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, yep, it's at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions. The move itself is very simple and takes under two minutes. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: I would also be willing to help out. As for the question above, 2-a-days on weekends seem good to me. I'm unsure about responsiveness. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Guerillero, the typical non-responsive nominator is a student who nominated as part of requirements for a class. The class ends, they stop editing. A reviewer picks it up, the nominator never responds, the reviewer makes the necessary fixes and asks for a new review, and the dyk passes. I'm not sure how many of these noms we get, but this would at least alleviate all that work on behalf of someone who doesn't care and probably never even realizes the thing appeared on the MP. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: hmm. A 7-day cutoff after a talk page notice seems reasonable on its face --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't offer much in the way of solutions, but some points:

  1. I am failing to get about 50% of my pings - I got this one but did not get the last one from the actual nom.
  2. The reason I was pinged was a long-running nom I have. Since I nomed that article I have written perhaps a dozen new articles or major re-writes with an aggregate of about 100 kchars, several of which went through DYK already. Keeping track of all of this is non-trivial even when ping does work.
  3. I think I hit all of valereee's points immediately above this (at the time of posting) in spite of not being anything like that group. Some of us are just busy IRL and have problems keeping track of it all. So, everyone's busy all around, which I supposed should be expected given current world circumstances.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I like all of Valereee's suggestions above; I agree that (1) probably needs an RfC here, whereas the others could be implemented straightaway if we so choose. Here's another thought, though. Our fundamental bottleneck is the rate at which we are featuring articles, which does not match the rate of nominations. This, as has been pointed out before, is thanks to a shortfall in admin effort. It occurs to me, though, that we may have occasions on which we have enough admin-time available to go to more than 2 a day; we just can't do that regularly, because we don't usually have that. At the moment, there's no way to know in advance. What if we create a place for admins who are active at DYK to comment on their availability in the coming week? So, for instance, I might commit to promoting 4 queues in certain weeks, and 0 in others; but on those weeks where it looks like we have a larger than usual availability, we could go to 3 sets a day, for instance. Of course, this could backfire, if people cut back their own involvement after seeing others committing to doing promotions; but I thought I'd offer the idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93, I think it's a great idea. I'd also love to see us encourage admins who are expert at DYK review to move a prep to queue whenever they make a nom. It would do so much to alleviate the problem here. We could easily go to 2-a-days as our default if that was the norm. —valereee (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I think Vanamonde is probably right that it would actually discourage admins from putting their hand up when they saw others had already volunteered. I don't think it would work for me personally either, because I generally do promotions when I feel up to it, and that's not something I can predict ahead of time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any way to implement a review limit? Say, after 10 DYK noms are approved in a day, no more can go until it rolls around again? It wouldn't affect the nominations, but would just slow down everything after nominating (including QPQs, which in turn will naturally slow down approval). Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's possible I've misunderstood you, Kingsif, but surely that's backwards? Our problem isn't approved nominations per se, it's that at the moment input is greater than output. Changing our pipeline in between isn't going to make a fundamental difference, and your specific solution would just change the title of the page that has a transclusion problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I think you got it right. I know it's strange but, most of the other solutions are about upping the hooks on the MP, an issue that starts with more noms than can be handled with the current pipeline, right? I figure that since approving hooks is an easier (in general) process that promoting hooks to a set to the MP, that is where some action would be easier to implement. It might not reduce noms, but it sets an expectation for how long it will take for them to get promoted, and it could streamline everything else. Or am I being optimistic? Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We are currently running two sets a day, and that about balances the new nominations, so we will need to continue at this rate for the foreseeable future. I like option 3 "Do a week of 2-a-days any time we hit X nominations." I don't like Vanamonde's suggestion of three sets a day because it is unfair on the nominators whose articles get so little exposure on the main page. Personally, I think that the greatest problem is the 200 unreviewed nominations which are clogging up the system. This number slowly mounts up over time because of the five nomination grace we allow to new nominators. If we asked people to review two articles instead of one for a period, or if more people voluntarily did extra reviews, we could bring that number right down, and then Valereee would not be so shocked at the total number reaching 400! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I could do extra DYK reviews instead of WP:FLC reviews, but they just aren't as much fun. It feels like everywhere that is looking for peer reviews, from Featured Content to Good Articles to DYK, has a similar backlog --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This is unfortunately accurate. I don't know of a review process that is lacking both for reviews overall, and lacking in quality reviews among those that occur. I've participated substantively at GAN, FAC, and DYK, and it's certainly true in each of those places. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I kinda want to launch a reverse WikiCup where you only get points for high quality reviews --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Guerillero, but the problem is DYK is unique in that it has deadlines. We have to feed the beast 8 (or 16, or 24) reviewed items per day. If we don't, the main page becomes unbalanced. And if we don't keep up that pace, our systems breaks. We're burning the candle from both ends. If we don't find a way to either decrease nominations or increase admin help, this project will fail due to burnout of the existing admins. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: I'd participate...@Valereee: You're not wrong. We've tried a number of things, god knows, but fundamentally we need a level of prep-to-queue effort that is commensurate with the number of approvable nominations, and I don't know how to fix that. It isn't fair to ask any one of the regulars to put in more than they are. The non-admin regulars don't want to be admins. And other admins seem not to be terribly interested...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, what would you think about requiring admin nominators to do a move for every X noms? —valereee (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a mop and some time. Maybe another set of hands would help --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, it would be a huge help. We have posts regularly pinging dyk admin regulars, begging for someone to move a prep to queue because we have six full preps, zero full queues, and a few hours before the next queue is due on the MP. —valereee (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: I quite like the principle of the idea, but I wonder how comfortable folks are with making an admin-specific requirement; how about all editors with a certain number of noms need to either build a prep set or promote a queue (because theoretically the checking requirements are very similar; the copy-pasting is slightly more onerous for prep building, as are formatting checks, etc, but I don't think it's a huge difference) and that way the extra requirement is linked not to status but to experience. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, that totally would work for me. We really need prep setters too. I don't know what we'd do if either Cwmhiraeth or Yoninah decided they'd had enough. And I think it would be good if noms and reviewers understood how preps were built. —valereee (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: We should probably start a separate discussion for that, so it doesn't get lost in here; I'm busy for the next some hours, but could do that later, if you haven't already. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee and Vanamonde93: Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions has been transcluded above the prep areas for 4 years. Please feel free to improve it as you see fit. — Maile (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, sorry, already had a glass of wine...are you saying the darn thing looks so complicated the average nominator won't touch it with a ten foot pole?  :) —valereee (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: Certainly not, but then I'm not sipping modified grape stuff. I wrote that for myself years ago. It's clearly step-by-step. I was replying to your comment, "it would be good if noms and reviewers understood how preps were built." That, and Vanamonde's comment about a separate discussion for that. There were no real step-by-step instructions available before I wrote that. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: I am aware of those instructions, and they're extremely valuable; thank you! I think we crossed wires, though; my suggestion of a separate discussion was for the "make experienced editors fill preps/queues" part of our conversation. And when Valereee says she wants people to understand the process, I think she means more in the sense of "experienced contributors should be doing their bit to help the process along" (unless I misunderstood you, Valereee?) Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, Oh, I see, re your above comments. I misunderstood. I'll leave it at that, because any comment here about who does what, or who should, results in a lot of posting, but no concrete solution. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, oh, I'm sorry! Yes, the information is available, anyone looking for it can find it (I think I used either those instructrions or some other similar ones when I first started promoting to preps). —valereee (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Valereee, I saw you pinged me above, and I saw the link to the instructions. Given COVID, and homeschooling three kids, and finishing up the spring semester, and starting the summer semester, you can imagine I don't have a lot of time--I wonder how my activity level compares to other months, and I wouldn't be surprised if a whole bunch of other admins/boomers aren't having the same trouble. I'll be happy to help but I just don't have the time, I'm afraid... Drmies (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, the reason for the ping was more to let current admin/noms know that in general, we need help (and the need long predates COVID), and we're hoping that admins who are regular nominators will consider giving it as they're able. If you (understandably) can't give it now, that's fine. Maybe you'll be able to in six or eight or ten months when we'll definitely still need it. Best wishes with the homeschooling. —valereee (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the queues and be more proactive with promoting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • On 1-5, 2-5 are fine but on 1 (originally my suggestion I think?) , I think a week is too probably short. 10 days would be better I think. The nominator should always get a proper message on their talk page, which we have a template for. Another idea might be to ask the Wiki Cup, and similar competitions to drop awarding points for dyks (cries of horror), or insist on 2 reviews per dyk for any points. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We already do have templates for informing nominators of any DYK nomination issues. Perhaps that can be modified to also mention that a response not being given could result in the nomination being failed? Of course, this only applies to the original review as there are also cases where a nominator responds once but not afterwards despite issues still remaining and more comments being given. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I doubt they'd give points for admin-only things, & frankly I think the risks of inexperienced people doing these are too big. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd be interested to hear what the DYK-regular WikiCup judges, Cwmhiraeth and Vanamonde, would think about making the awarding of points for WikiCup DYK submissions contingent on doing an extra QPQ review. WikiCup has always put a strain on DYK, but as DYK seems less able to absorb it these days, would an additional requirement to help things along here be feasible? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, inexperienced people have to do it to become experienced, and building preps isn't admin-only. Building preps is something anyone can do. I don't see any greater risk to having people gain experience during WikiCup than during any other time of the year. We desperately need more people to develop experience at these tasks. —valereee (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: not necessarily opposed, but a little hesitant about us making different rules for people based on anything except their experience at DYK itself; hence my proposal from above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde, that's understandable. I looked at your proposal, and building a prep set with the proper degree of care and checking is a much larger task than promoting a prep set to queue. Perhaps we could offer a choice for those with major experience (say 50 or 100 DYKs): a second QPQ, promoting two (or three) approved noms to a prep set, or promoting a prep set to queue with checking. (Of course, only admins would be able to do the prep to queue promotion, but this gives the others a couple of choices. Some people just aren't going to be good at building prep sets, so having the second QPQ option gives them something they already know how to do). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I wouldn't be opposed to giving different weight to prep sets vs queues. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, does having more qpqs done help avoid the failure-to-transclude issue? —valereee (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
valereee, the two are completely unrelated. I consider failure-to-transclude a non-issue, to be honest. The final step in any DYK nomination is transcluding to the main page. If people forget, no one sees their nominations. DYKHousekeepingBot will post a reminder on their talk page about 48 hours later, reminding them that they still need to do the transclusion, and pointing them to info on how to do so (and what to do if they've decided not to nominate after all). If they still don't transclude, there is a report that I have run for me every month or two, and I'll query the three or four nominators on it who still haven't transcluded their nominations after all that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I thought failur-to-transclude was the reason we had to go to 2-a-days? —valereee (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
valereee, sorry, we're talking past each other. There are two forms of failure to transclude: one is when a nominator fails to transclude their nomination, which is a negligible problem. The other, which you were referring to (I think of it as a "page too full" or "too many templates" problem, which is why it didn't immediately click), is when a page like the Approved page gets so big that not all of the transcluded nominations can expand to their full size—there's too much text on the page to transclude more templates. That is indeed what's happening now. Oddly, having nominators do more QPQs will, in the short term, aggravate the transclusion problem, because a higher percent of nominations will be approved, so the Approved page will have more of the total nominations on it. But getting more reviews completed needs to happen: as I noted elsewhere, we have almost 200 unapproved nominations, which is a problem over the long term. If we get down to 240 nominations, but only 40 are approved, it becomes hard to build balanced sets even though our backlog is still pretty high. I've been mulling over an idea to reduce the number of unapproved nominations for a while now, and I think I'm just about ready to propose it... BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, oh, sorry, I see I wasn't reading closely enough! So what's the problem over the long term of having 200 unapproved noms? If too many on the approved page is the main issue, why not just stop or slow reviewing? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, how would you pull off stopping or slowing the reviews? Wouldn't that just cause a worse backlog, as people will continue to open nominations? How do you stop new nominations, or limit them to a given number per nominator per time period? And who would police the excess nominations by anyone? — Maile (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, I don't know, that's what I was asking. Is a backlog necessarily a bad thing? I know it keeps templates from expanding on the approved noms page, but ...well, why is that an emergency? I've always had the philosophy that if there aren't enough people willing to do a task, maybe that task isn't valued by enough people. If we worked and produced sets at the rate we happily could, and the backlog grew, maybe a few people producing the backlog would think, "Hm. Maybe I should learn how to promote to prep/move to queue so we can get this process moving a little faster." Why is it the responsiblity of a dozen people to try to do the work of two dozen when there are literally hundreds of people who could easily learn these jobs? —valereee (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You missed the point. How do you pull it off, any of it? Who is going to police it? — Maile (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, that's what my suggestion was: slow the reviews by imposing an arbitrary limit for approvals per day, then lock the page. Eventually it will also slow down opening of nominations because of QPQ issues. Hopefully editors would selectively review enough to get some varied preps. Don't know if it would work, but it's an idea. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, I kind of feel like how is easier than getting consensus. If we get consensus, ask people to not nom more than X per month or week or whatever. Let them police themselves. If someone loses track and does one more than allowed, no biggie. If they're just egregiously ignoring it, someone will rat them out. :) Or set up a bot that rejects or pulls the Xth nom within 30 days or whatever from the same username. —valereee (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
valereee, responding to your earlier question: the total backlog is bad because the greater it grows, the harder it is for DYK to meet its purpose, which is to feature recently created, expanded, or GAed articles. When you have a 400-nomination backlog, the average nomination has to wait over seven weeks at a one-set-per-day rate of eight hooks per prep, and half that if we go to two-sets-per-day. That's really a lot. Also, the mechanisms get creaky at the high numbers: nomination and approved pages are longer, some nomination templates only appear as links, and so on. Without reviews, the nominations stay high while the number of unapproved hooks continues to grow: 200 is exceptionally high. If the nominations weren't themselves so high, getting reviews done wouldn't overload the Approved page, so it's hard to push for reviews when it makes the bottom section of Approve unreadable. Yet the longer we wait for reviews to be done, the more disappointing it is for nominators who have to wait a month or more for a review. The idea of throttling back reviews is one I do not understand: in my experience, we want reviews done and distinct majority of the extant nominations to be approved. At the same time, I'm in favor of moves to make the review process more efficient, and requiring timely responses from nominators to reviews; with a lower backlog, it will take less time for reviews to commence, and thus it will be more likely that the nominator is still actively waiting for the review, rather than have gotten discouraged or entered a period of lower activity. So: lower backlog, and a larger proportion of that backlog approved and ready to go, are both desirable states. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I looked at this about a week ago and haven't had much opportunity to respond. But I don't think #1 would address the issue. It seemed like there were no unreviewed noms (maybe I missed one or two) that were more than about a month old. But there were a lot of noms where there had been some back and forth but now the issue has stalled. In some cases a new reviewer would be needed. But in others the back and forth ceased with the issue(s) unresolved. And I am not sure how to best address that. If the reviewer has stopped responding then it would be unfair to punish the nominator by removing the nom from queue. Maybe that is where admins involved in DYK (of which we need more) may be mediate any remaining disagreements. But there are probably some where the nominator has given up (or is just unable to make the necessary changes) and maybe we need a stronger process to remove those from the queue.Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed template changes

Thanks to Gerda Arendt and Mandarax, I finally got around to consolidating some templates. Since this will change the look of the wiki code (but not how you promote to prep), I wanted to give everyone here a heads up about what changes will be made and give a chance for objections or problems before implementation. The changes are:

  • Module:NewDYKnomination is modified to pass arguments on to DYKsubpage instead of a bunch of different templates
  • Three new parameters have been added to {{DYKsubpage}} which accept these new arguments |nompage=, |linkargs=, and |heading=
  • The templates {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK header}}, and {{DYK nompage links}} are no longer needed as their functionality has been incorporated into {{DYKsubpage}}.
  • The {{DYK tools}} box is removed from closed nomination pages (this is a new feature and not a necessity for the above to work)

The main benefit is that this halves the number of templates each nomination uses and it makes maintenance easier. When a problem comes up, instead of having to check a dozen different templates, we only need to check two or three; when a fix is found, the chances that we forget to update a niche template are also reduced. Promotion still works the same so instructions will not require an update. The main difference prep builders will notice is that the wikitext of nominations will be rather different. Unless someone has major concerns, I plan to implement this in about a week. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, this sounds good. Thank you. The fewer templates that need to be expanded (and the less text they expand into), the better. How does the linkargs parameter work? This, presumably, is the name(s) of the article(s) involved, usually one, but for multi-article nominations there could be several, so what's the syntax/separator? This is also the parameter most likely to be adjusted (in the event of an article move or a new article added to the nomination), so it's important that this is well documented. Also, since we had a recent discussion about it on this talk page, I was wondering whether your updated code will now make sure that every DYKmake has a subpage parameter at the end, rather than just the first DYKmake. If not, then could you make the necessary adjustment? Much appreciated.
Before you go live with this, please check with SD0001, who created the DYK-helper script that a number of people use to create their DYK nomination templates and transcludes them on the Nominations page. It's best to be sure that there won't be any issues between the two before going live with the changes. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Red cells in table?

In Template talk:Did you know, what does it mean when cells in the Count of DYK Hooks table are red? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It means they're more than a week old. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
More to the point, RoySmith, the white cells show the dates that are within the seven-day "newness" period for nominating articles at DYK. The light red area is for dates after that period has expired, and it's officially too late to nominate articles for which the initial creation/start of expansion/move to mainspace/promotion as a GA occurred on a date "in the red". Nominations are sometimes made after that date, but can be rejected as insufficiently new; we're more likely to allow some days of leniency for first-time nominators. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Pages moved, should the DYK nom be moved as well?

Beaune Altarpiece was moved from Last Judgment (van der Weyden) but the dyk nomination is still at Template:Did you know nominations/Last Judgment (van der Weyden) leaving a red link at the talk. Should the DYK nom be moved or a redirect created to this page? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, generally the DYK nom shouldn't be moved; it breaks something, IIRC. —valereee (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, Tks for responding, I just fixed the link on the talk. Regards, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: Violinist

Helmutt Stern in 2011
Helmutt Stern in 2011
  • ... that violinist Hellmut Stern, whose family escaped Nazi Germany to China and Israel, worked for 23 years to achieve his dream of a Berlin Philharmonic tour of Israel?
I moved this out of the image slot because the hook (which is very hooky) talks about him bringing the Philharmonic to Israel, but in the picture he's pointing to China. While the image itself is very colorful, I find this confusing. The nominator disagrees with me. What do others think? Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that this was a private discussion among you and me (or else would have come here to start with). I see no need to absorb discussion time. No image, fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I just removed 'and Israel' from hook (family went to what is now China in 1938 and didn't go to Israel until 1948, so they didn't escape Nazi Germany to China and Israel but just to China, I think? Now that 'to China and Israel' is just 'to China,' could the picture go back in, maybe captioned as Stern pointing to the area of China the family escaped to? Also wondering if we need to say 'to Harbin in what is now China' or something? —valereee (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, valereee, I like your ideas! I'm moving the hook to the image slot in Prep 2 and revising the hook and image caption. Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Queue 3 fix

In the fourth hook of Queue 3, [[Vitex thyrsiflora|the liana]] should be bold (this edit correctly removed italics, but also incorrectly removed the bold). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done —valereee (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: A red bird

Male vermilion flycatcher
Male vermilion flycatcher
@CaptainEek:@Morgan695:
This is a pretty humdrum hook for an image slot. Can you suggest anything hookier? Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I found a few possible alts. File:Vermilion Flycatcher, Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary, Belize.jpg, File:Vermilion Flycatcher (33673211760).jpg, File:Vermilion Flycatcher (33807751141).jpg, File:Vermillion Flycatcher (male) Slaughter Ranch San Bernadino NWR AZ 2015-06-06at12-38-364 (19128798636).jpg. What about the current image seems to be lacking? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
See also the Relevant commons category CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The hook is lacking, not the image. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
As an editor who just read the page, how about:
  • alt1 ... that though the vermilion flycatcher (pictured) is a popular bird, it is not usually kept, as captivity can lead to discoloration?
  • alt2 ... that the vermilion flycatcher (pictured) was first described by Charles Darwin in 1839 and identified in 1840, but had its taxonomy changed in 2016?
Or variations upon these facts, which I find interesting? Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 sounds good, but neither "popular" nor "favorite" (the wording used in the article body) are mentioned in the source, so if that can't be verified it might have to be deleted from the hook and only the mention of the "not being kept in captivity" part remains. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
something along the lines of ALT3: ... that the vermilion flycatcher's genus name Pyrocephalus literally means "fire head"? (this actually isn't in the article, but would be trivial to add). Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Kingsif and Black Kite. ALT1 and ALT3 are both very good. @CaptainEek: which do you prefer? Could you add the necessary citations so we can run one of these alts? Yoninah (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The reference to the Pyrocephalus name was already there, as it turns out, I've just expanded it (fire headed or flame headed) and put an extra cite in. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I quite like ALT3, thanks for the work there @Black Kite: CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Glad this worked out so well. ALT3 is verified and cited inline. I'll substitute it in prep. Thanks, Black Kite and CaptainEek. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2: Tatiana Calderón

I have two issues with this hook. For 1, it was the thickness of her neck that grew by 9 cm (3.5 in). That is not clear from the wording. When we say a human body part "grew", we usually mean the length or height. Second, her goal was not to grow her neck. It was to strengthen it. Can we rewrite this hook like:

This should also be clarified in the article. I found it misleading but I am willing to admit I was being stupid if no one else finds it misleading. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is a better way of expressing it. I'll change it in the article. Yoninah (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs and Yoninah: You might want to read the source before changing. I can see why it's worded that way. Nominator @MWright96: was following DYK protocol to the letter. This is what the source says: The interviewer asks, "Is it true your neck has grown nine centimeters?" To which Calderón explains that women's bodies don't have as much mass as men's and that she trained at expanding her mass, "For the F1 car I need to strengthen the neck, so yes is true it grow 9cms" — Maile (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, but it grew in thickness, not in length. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, true. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thickness to me implies diameter, but neck measurements are typically in circumference, as are most similar body measurements like waist and chest. If the nine centimeters is a circumferential measurement, then that comes to a little over an inch in extra (diameter) thickness, which is impressive, but the context needs to be clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I looked at this when I promoted the hook. I think it is the circumference as she said she needed to change all her shirts. The safest thing is to use the words she used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
But you don't "grow" a neck, unless you're a mad scientist. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not fond of possessives in bold links right before "(pictured)", but perhaps this will inspire another wording:
I suppose it could be "that the neck of Tatiana Calderón" to avoid the possessive, if that's preferable. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I changed it to:
That's not what the source says, it says quite specifically: ... in F1 the neck suffers a lot more due to the G-forces ... As women, we have 30% less muscle mass so I have to train a lot to be able to drive the car, mainly the upper body ... For the F1 car I need to strengthen the neck, so yes is true it grow 9cms… now I have to change all my shirts (laughs). Your suggested alt implies that the increase in neck girth was just an incidental byproduct of her training, which it wasn't - she trained specifically to increase neck strength, which meant increasing muscle mass, so I think my alt is more accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, I have substituted your hook as it's more concise, but just changed it slightly from "while training" to "in training" to emphasize that this was the goal and not just an incidental effect of other training. Gatoclass (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I was just saying a fat neck would not do at all. The desire was a strong neck which also happens to be wider. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe we have to ping Girth Summit because of discussions at their RfA.—valereee (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, yikes! Girth takes on yet another meaning! FWIW, I read that as meaning an increase in circumference too - the standard way in which necks are measured when it comes to shirt sizes. Cheers all GirthSummit (blether) 22:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

3 empty queues, 6 full prep sets

Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done Q4. Will do the admin checks on that set, and do another later if nobody else has stepped in by then.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Q6 May 15b

Template:Did you know nominations/Geneviève Poitrine

Chienlit Victuallers

This isn't an error, but I'm feeling like the last clause just reads clumsily but can't put my finger on why. Can anyone suggest a tweak? —valereee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If we're translating properly to English, wouldn't it be Mrs Chest? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Joseph2302, I wondered about that, too. I think that again it wouldn't be an error -- it's not uncommon for an English speaker to use Madame or Monsieur to address a French speaker. So maybe it's a word that doesn't require translation? The fact it's in quotes, though...dithering, here. :) —valereee (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the French word "poitrine" also translates to "breast". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) valereee, according to my Webster's Collegiate, "madame" is used for married women "not of English-speaking nationality". I don't think it needs to be translated to "Mrs". You might want to use "which translates as 'Madame Chest'?", but it isn't ideal either. I suppose "which can be translated as" could be used, since another translation for "poitrine" is "bosom" (according to the article). And Cwmhiraeth (while I was typing my own response) points out that "breast" is another translation; if it was used in a hook, it would need to be specifically mentioned as a translation in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, oh, that's fascinating that Webster's makes that note. It makes me wonder about the origins of that. Was it being polite, or was it a subtle pointing-out of foreignness? Hm, I feel like either bosom or breast would be better, as in English chest has alternate unrelated meanings. —valereee (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
a lot of discussion here, the original author lost interest. Chest, bosom and breast all have alternate meanings ... the original point was about the final clause not being quite right and now the concern is that the word "chest" when applied to a wet nurse may need to be disambiguated to more precise word. Would be good to move on I think Victuallers (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

introduced error

This is probably a big enough change that it should have been brought up here and the nom/reviewer pinged. I agree that the hook was crying out for that piece of information (an officer of which army?) but the nom undoubtedly could have answered that question easily, and the information needed to be included also at the article. The error stayed on the MP for ten hours. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6

I have moved Prep 6 to Queue 6, my first such move. However, it was not ideal, because the Téléfoot hook was originally reviewed by me. I could solve this problem by swapping that particular hook with another hook in prep, or I could ask somebody else to do a third party check on the hook. Neither courses of action is ideal, and I will have to work out how best to arrange my participation in DYK. If I stop promoting hooks to prep, will there be enough people willing to take up the slack? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I think you'll find it difficult to avoid moving queues that don't contain a hook you've already touched at some point. Even I often end up moving a queue that contains a hook I nominated or reviewed. It's hard to avoid, and there's at least one person (the prep builder) who is reviewing it in between. You shouldn't move a prep you built or make changes to your own hooks in queue, of course. Re: promoting...I think we'll just have to see how that goes. We have had several people step up to build preps recently, with any luck a few of them will enjoy it and stick around. :) —valereee (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, we've grown rather dependent on your prep-building, especially when we need to fill two per day to keep going. As odd as it may seem, given our need for admins, until we have more regular prep builders, we may need you to continue doing that rather than promoting preps to queues in general, if you're still willing. Perhaps you might be able to team up with another admin to check your own noms in a prep while you're checking the rest before doing a prep to queue promotion? It isn't ideal, but it's the rare prep that either wasn't built by you or has a nom by you, given your all-around activity here at DYK. Editing hooks in queue (except your own) is something that will be useful, if not all that frequent. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That seems sensible; I will go on filling preps while the need is there, but I will be flexible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Favor

Sorry to jump the line, but would anyone mind doing a fast review on Pamela Chelgren-Koterba? I'm trying to get it approved to run on May 22. THANKS!!! Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done The nomination has been reviewed, but the template seems to have disappeared from either WP:DYKN or WP:DYKNA. I added it to the special occasions section for May 22. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

2 (soon to be 3) empty queues

Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Cwmhiraeth:. Thanks for filling the queues. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Prep 1 " ... that one in six people in the world with diabetes is from India?" is word-for-word how it is in more than one source. To avoid any questions of copyvio, I'm switching the hook to ALT2 ":... that every sixth diabetic in the world is an Indian?" — Maile (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile, I think we can go with WP:LIMITED on the original hook wording. Your alt is a little contorted, and it could also refer to American Indians. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah Good point! I just adjusted the alt hook to end in "is from India", but left the beginning of the sentence as is. At least it's a little helpful is not being a copyvio. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile: thank you. But if you've reviewed as many sports hooks as I have, you know that there's only so many ways you can report something. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, at least I ran it past here when I did it. That statistic, however, is rather alarming for the people it affects. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: @Yoninah: I have another concern about the hook mentioned - it seems unremarkable. The population of India is 1.35 billion, while the world population is 7.8 billion, meaning 1 in 5.7777 people in the world is Indian. So if anything, the 1 in 6 figure means that India has a slightly lower than average diabetes rate. What is the hook telling us? I'd be tempted to pull it and ask the nom for another hook, but maybe I'm missing something. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, that's a good point. I was also wondering about the statistic in light of the article fact that China has a higher diabetes rate. I think the hook was worded to be just that, a "hook" to grab readers' attention. If you would like to return it to the noms page and ask for a different hook, that's fine with me. You could substitute it with another hook from the prep sets and I'll fill the hole. Yoninah (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

First time promoting

I moved Prep 3 to Queue 3. Can another admin check my work? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, thanks for doing the promotion. I haven't checked the queue side of things, but after you were done with the promotion you didn't do the final two-part step, the prep reset, correctly:
  1. To reset the prep page itself, the easiest thing to do is to replace the old contents of the prep with the entire contents of Template:Did you know/Clear, which I have just done. You omitted the hooks and credits section code entirely, rather than resetting it to the boilerplate.
  2. You also need to update the next-prep counter (which I've also done), which can be done at the update count link in the first line under the Prep areas header. Update the number to the prep following the one you just promoted, which is either an increment by 1 or a reset back to 1, depending.
When you're done, the next prep should be at the top of Prep areas section, and the prep you just promoted at the bottom of it, with a full set of empty hooks showing. If this isn't clear, let me know and I'll try again. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: NYC subway stations multi-hook

Nikkimaria has returned this nomination to WP:DYKN because some of the bolded links may not meet the minimum 1500-character count. Could this be taken care of quickly, and if some of the bolded links need to be unbolded, then to unbold them, so we can return this to prep? Pinging Kew Gardens 613, Epicgenius, DannyS712. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Nikkimaria: Thanks for telling me. I totally forgot about the 1,500 characters of original text. I think the text breakdowns are as follows:
Out of the articles listed above, I only counted the 25th Street article as not meeting the criteria. Unless there is something I missed? epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I just expanded the 25th Street article, which should now have 1,550 bytes of unique content. Technically, if each page is allocated one paragraph of the shared "history" sections, this should be more than enough unique content for all of the pages. epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The 45th and 53rd articles are largely identical until just before the Exits subsection, with the only bit of original History content in 53rd being largely identical to the Prospect Avenue article. The "Prior to the station's 1970 renovation" para in Station layout is also shared at least in part across several of the articles. In terms of allocation, what text are you counting in which article? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually it'd probably be best to have this conversation at the nom page. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Q6 May18b

Template:Did you know nominations/The Pink Swastika

  • ... that The Pink Swastika claims that homosexuals were "the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities"?

Buidhe Maleschreiber

Not an error, but we've had discussion before about using 'claims' in hooks, generally because it throws immediate doubt on the statement. Should we change this to argues? Or is the statement offensive enough that we leave it at claims? —valereee (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

que asco. Leave it at 'claims' (my true opinion would be to add an 'erroneously' too) Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The article would support erroneously, so I think it should be added for clarification. buidhe 19:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, cautiously adding erroneously...please if there are objections, we do have time to fix. —valereee (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You can't use "erroneously" because you are putting somebody's opinion in wikipedia's voice. Also, the claims are not "erroneous", according to the cited reviewers, they are falsehoods. I had a feeling this hook was going to cause issues, and as I can't see a straightforward fix at this point, it may need to be pulled for further discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
We should probably pull it, then. I'm leery of having the quote itself in the hook; just posting it gives a falsehood extra credence no matter how it's hedged with qualifiers. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that it depends on the content of the claim. This particular claim is extremely WP:FRINGE, there is no need to maintain some sort of formal neutrality about something so blatantly fringe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with BlueMoonset here that the quote needs to go, apart from its fringe issue, it's too long to allow the addition of adequate context. Perhaps we could go with something like:

I would support this hook. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this hook is better --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Substituted, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 May 2020

Could this line:

be changed to this:

The ships were reordered from the original chronological ordering to the current ordering to place MV Coelleira (which the supporting image refers to) first, however my suggestion retains this while also putting the ships in the correct reverse-chronological order.

Thanks! — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 00:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done Completed by Cwmhiraeth. Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with a hook

Here: Template:Did you know nominations/Modern Art Foundry

Can someone either a) vouch for the Alt1a hook, or b) help craft another? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I responded on the template. Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS Terror

Copied from the Errors page:

  • "... that the crew of HMS Terror had to abandon ship in 1917 because the captain refused to sail the ship backwards?" - The article does not say this. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    What do you feel the article says differently? @From Hill To Shore and Yoninah: courtesy ping — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    There isn't a causal link between not going backwards and developing a leak. "The ship sailed first to Dover on 21 October but on the next leg of the journey to Portsmouth two days later, in heavy seas, a major leak developed off Hastings." The inquiry absolved him of any blame which doesn't suggest the admiralty thought he could do it any differently. Woody (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    I have removed the hook from the next queue and replaced it with another hook. It is now in Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, this seems a legitimate error. The hook implies that the decision not to reverse into Dock directly led to the leak and evacuation. But the article goes on to say that an inquiry concluded the captain was not to blame. So the causality is not proven, and shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest reopening the nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    Nope, no error here. The sources are clear that the leak was a direct result of the captain ingnoring the advice of the salvage expert and putting pressure on the temporary patch over the bow. The sources are also clear that the captain was a bit lucky with the inquiry; its scope was very narrow and only looked at the decisions taken in the lead up to the abandonment, not the root causes (in other words, was it right for him to order his men off a ship that looked like it was sinking but actually stayed afloat?). It is a non-sequitur to claim that the inquiry approved his decision to put pressure on the bow by ignoring the salvage expert's advice. I'll have a go at rephrasing the article to try and alleviate your concerns (I'll just have to get a little closer to paraphrasing the source rather than use my own words). From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill, MSGJ, Woody, Cwmhiraeth, and Amakuru: I've brought in a third source to expand the section and clarify the sequence of events.[1] Is this sufficient or do you have any residual concerns? The use of the third source has allowed me to avoid any close paraphrasing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding and clarifying the article. Could we rephrase the hook
Yes, I'm happy with that. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The alt hook and the expanded article alleviate my concerns. Woody (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I've copied this discussion to the nomination page and renumbered the new hook to ALT2 to avoid confusion with previous hooks. Can someone please update the hook currently in preparation area 5? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternative image for Queue 4

Hi all. I'm of two minds about the image of Eric Thorne in Queue 4. The pose tells a story, but the person himself is hard to see and the image suffers (IMO) from the large signature at the bottom. To that end, I prepared a crop.

  • Original
    Original
  • Crop
    Crop

@Moonraker, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah: Should we swap out the original for the crop? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I kind of like the whole figure, even if he's seen at a distance. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me, The Squirrel Conspiracy. Either of them is good for me. Moonraker (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The original is good. --evrik (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the original one too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Also prefer the original full-length photo. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Land of Guyana, of Rivers and Plains

Could I please trouble someone to review the hooks of Template:Did you know nominations/Dear Land of Guyana, of Rivers and Plains? I'd like to get this on the Main Page next Tuesday (May 26) to coincide with Guyana's Independence Day. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed and placed in special occasions area. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pamela Chelgren-Koterba

the nominator has requested a special occasion date of May 22, but has not responded to my request for a better hook for two days. Does anyone else have any ideas? Otherwise the designated set will be promoted very soon without it. Yoninah (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I would move ahead with the included hook. The NOAA Corps is a uniformed service. I think her first would appeal to a wide group of readers --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. All right. But I would appreciate other nominators finding things to say about their women subjects other than that they are the "first". Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of April. We currently have a total of 398 nominations, of which 184 have been approved, a gap of 214. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones unreviewed from March and early April.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, RLO1729, and CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I was getting ready to promote Prep 1 and I came across a ho hum hook about Agatha Christie. Can we find something more interesting about her to feature instead of her book sales? Perhaps something about her disappearance? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

... that public reaction to Agatha Christie's ten-day disappearance in 1926 included speculation the incident was an attempt to frame her husband for murder? —valereee (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Guerillero —valereee (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I like that! Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: Sounds good. I moved it to Queue 1 with a copyedit. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, nice hook. It seems billion has lost its impact these days.  ~ RLO1729💬 22:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, that may have sounded like a back-handed criticism, not intended. I do like that the new hook mentions murder for a murder-mystery writer.  ~ RLO1729💬 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
And a disappearance for a mystery! Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Valereee, Guerillero, and Tbytheriver: I suggest that "ten-day disappearance" be changed to "eleven-day disappearance". The article indicates the search lasted ten days, but the time actually missing was always reported as eleven days. Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@RLO1729:  Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1:Mexican hydrangea

@Surtsicna:@Juxlos:@The Squirrel Conspiracy:
Please add a cite to the mention of "Mexican hydrangea" in the lead to verify the common name. I don't find it in any of the online refs. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Done, Yoninah. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Q1 May 22a

Template:Did you know nominations/LES-1

Neopeius

The article section says 2012, but the article lead and original hook said 2013 (promoter corrected hook to 2012); this was just passed for GA, so I wanted to make sure these changes are actually correct. —valereee (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Eep! Let me check today and get back to you. --Neopeius (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- clearly a mistake, my apologies. Thank you for fixing. Valereee --Neopeius (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ugh, moreover, one of the cites was entirely duplicative. That's what happens when one revamps an article rather than starting from scratch. Apologies again. --Neopeius (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Neopeius, no worries at all, that's why we have so many levels of review here! Cwmhiraeth saw it first and changed the hook, which is what made me question the lead. Teamwork yay! :D —valereee (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility question

In 2017, a merge discussion led to the merger of the original article at WNAO-TV into WRDC. This was a poor decision—the merge discussion was closed despite even support and opposition to the merger—and is tantamount to saying John and Mark are the same person because they lived in the same house 10 years apart. (The two stations had nothing to do with each other besides being on the same channel in the same area.)

I recreated a new article at WNAO-TV, which on its own as a redirect conversion would be DYK-eligible (6500 characters). However, DYKcheck considers it too short as not a 5x expansion of the previous article that was here before being merged, none of which was used in the creation of the current page (which also contains considerably more citations). Should I proceed with a nomination of this article? Raymie (t • c) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Raymie, right now it would be a blessing if you didn't nominate it. We're up against it with nominations. Unless there's something truly interesting about this station around which you can build a hook, fewer DYK noms right now is helpful. —valereee (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Perfectly fine. I definitely have the tools to work on some other articles right now and am fine with a break from DYKs. Raymie (t • c) 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

New wiki-ad for WP:DYK:

Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:Did you know
Wikipedia adsfile info – #272

«ias!|,,.|usbk» 02:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bare in mind, you can actually make an article significantly smaller and have it at DYK. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: but are we encouraging slapdash articles? We've had an inventory of 400 nominations for some time now, with less than half of them reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, of course not! I'm just saying that you could - in theory take a load of excessive data from an article, take it to GAN and then DYK. It's a good advert, it just isn't completely true! :P Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I authored the Monster Truck Madness article, which was promoted to GA status and appeared on DYK. I made this wiki-advert because I thought it's good. A significantly smaller DYK is easily possible. «ias!|,,.|usbk» 00:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6: Exolaunch

  • ... that Exolaunch managed the launch rideshare of a CubeSat only 2.5 cm (0.98 in) tall?

It's not really clear to me what this hook is saying. For one thing I don't know what a "rideshare" is in this context. Out Ridesharing disambiguation page does not seem to have any topics relating to space travel. The artcile itself also doesn't introduce this term, simply starting with "Exolaunch’s largest rideshare mission to date took place in July 2019...." Is there a way that this can be clarified? @Seddon: @The Squirrel Conspiracy: as nominator and reviewer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ridesharing refers to including one or more satellites as secondary payloads for a rocket launch, or sometimes referring to multiple satellites being launched from a single rocket (in the case of dedicated cubesat launches). For example, imagine an Atlas V, Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 launching a communications satellite as its main payload, while also including a smaller satellite (usually a cubesat or even a smallsat) as an additional payload. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks. I've added a bit more context to the article. Turns out there's also the Secondary payload article covering this, so I've added that to the dab page and also linked it from the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I screwed something up, is it fixable?

When I nominated an article I recently created for DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Landis's Battery, I made an error in the heading and capitalized it "Landis's BAttery". Is this something that can be fixed? The article subject also plumbs the depths of obscurity, so I guess it may not even be run here, though. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I think I fixed the problem. --evrik (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: do you know if the above move was a safe thing to do? I recall in the past that we've been warned not to rename nom pages, as it can confuse the bots. Ordinarily this doesn't matter as it's not a reader-facing title, although it can be jarring to the eye!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Without looking: the title of any DYK template really doesn't matter AT ALL, and should never be changed. After a page move, some things need to be changed IN the template (look for nompage), and Mandarax is my expert for such things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4: Basilica

In regard to the Basilica of Sant'Alessandro hook, @Yoninah: It seems the hook used was the one I meant to strikethrough (done now). Can you replace it with the ALT1 hook? Ergo Sum 18:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6: Canada Lynx

  • ... that the Canada lynx (example pictured) might be the "earliest recorded example of an exotic cat on the loose in the UK"?

@Sainsf: I'm not happy with this hook, and would prefer to use one of the other approved hooks, but they also have their problems. I would like to propose

  • ALT0 ... that populations of the Canada lynx (pictured) in Alaska and central Canada undergo cyclic rises and falls nearly every decade?
  • ALT1 ... that the cyclic rises and falls in populations of the Canada lynx (pictured) in Alaska and central Canada form a classic example of prey-predator equations?
    Thanks, noted. It's good to have some feedback on this before it goes for FAC, sadly I can't think of a better link for "prey-predator cycle" in the lead. Sainsf (t · c) 08:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1:Hitler's Berghof

@Mztourist:@Gog the Mild:@97198:
Our article on Berghof (residence) says it was the 3rd Infantry Regiment that captured the premises. The hook fact is being sourced to a New York Times article; if it is true, then the Berghof (residence) article needs to be updated. Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I can't see any mention of the 3rd Infantry Regiment in the Berghof (residence) article, which says that the Berghof was captured by the US 3rd division. The 7th Infantry Regiment was part of the 3rd division. The article on the 3rd Division states "Elements of the 7th Infantry Regiment serving under the 3rd Infantry Division captured Hitler's retreat at Berchtesgaden" so I don't see the problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I meant 3rd Infantry Division, not 3rd Infantry Regiment. I see the mention of the 7th Infantry Regiment being part of the 3rd Infantry Division in both the 3rd Infantry Division and John A. Heintges pages. I added a link to Berghof (residence) to the 3rd Infantry Division page. All's well now. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6:Air-conditioning system

  • ... that after a disgruntled worker dumped parts of 140 Broadway's air-conditioning system into a tank, its 10,000 workers went without air conditioning for weeks until scuba divers retrieved the components?
@Epicgenius:@Mujinga:@The Squirrel Conspiracy:
This may or may not belong in the quirky slot, but it is over 200 char and should be shortened. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
could take out "its"? Mujinga (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"Air conditioning" is repeated a few times. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the "that" count? I have it as 198 characters without the "that". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: See Rule C8. Yes, "that" counts. And we really should aim for shorter, punchier hooks. Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Could take out the second "air conditioning" and replace it with "cooling" Mujinga (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that idea. Still waiting for Epicgenius to weigh in here. Yoninah (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, oops, I did not get the ping. I think we can simplify it, i.e. its 10,000 workers lost air conditioning for weeks or something. However, cooling is not necessarily AC, so dunno if Mujinga's suggestion will work. epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: OK. But saying "air conditioning" twice adds a lot of characters. What do you think about adding more to the article from the source, and writing the hook this way:
ALT1: ... that after a disgruntled worker dumped parts of 140 Broadway's air-conditioning system into a tank, 10,000 workers were "uncomfortably warm" for weeks until scuba divers retrieved the parts? Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, that sounds good. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and thanks for adding it to the article. I'll go ahead and substitute the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month

I request that a special holding area be created for those DYKNs who pass nomination where the article falls within the scope of Pacific Islands Americans or Asian Americans. That way they can be placed on the main page during that month.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 10:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - For the month of May. This is a good idea. I would also like to suggest that it encompass in general the Asia Pacific area, as DYK and Wikipedia have always had contributors/admins in that area. — Maile (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
It might also be a good idea to get the above-linked Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in basic DYK shape. A lot of it is unsourced, and much of what is intended as sourcing are Bare URLs. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I started a header for May in the special occasions holding area. Please let me know which articles should be moved there. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I just added a notice about this at WT:KOREA. The Korean community in America is a sizeable population, and I don't recall DYK ever getting nominations from that project. But this would be a good time to start. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Preps are full, three empty queues

I shouldn't do anything about promoting Prep 3, the next one up, because the lead hook is mine. Also, @Cwmhiraeth: promoted multiple hooks to Prep 3, so they also shouldn't promote it to Queue. Anybody else available? — Maile (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I promoted Prep 4 to Queue 4, so at least there's an empty prep that can be used. — Maile (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile, it can't be used safely; we've had preps promoted out of order in the past and had a royal mess to clean up. Please do not promote to queues out of order in future; it's better to wait. I've put a note into Prep 3 asking that it not be used until it's properly at the bottom of the list. Pinging the usual admin suspects, in the hopes that one of you can promote Prep 3 now, and get us back on track: Gatoclass, Amakuru, Cas Liber, valereee, Wugapodes, Vanamonde, Kees08, and Lee Vilenski. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I can work on promoting Prep 3, but I'm multitasking so I'll be slow. Don't anybody yell if nothing happens for an hour. I'll get it done. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Point well taken. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, I've been moving preps > queues that have a hook of mine in them. I've been figuring there are at least two editors between me as nom and me as mover. This doesn't feel like it should be a problem. I wouldn't futz with a hook of mine that had been promoted to prep, even if I disagreed with something about the hook as finalized by the promoter/other editors, I'd ask about it at talk, but otherwise I don't see a coi. —valereee (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep/Queue 3; Howard Bane

@Dumelow: (and @Gog the Mild and Cwmhiraeth:, as reviewer/promoter) The hook proposed says ".. that CIA officer Howard Bane proposed that the Special Operations Group storm the Chinese embassy in Ghana and kill all its occupants during the 1966 coup?" The source, however, says the CIA station proposed the attempt, and later notes that Bane was station chief. It's not an unreasonable jump to make, but it is a jump, and I would be much happier if we had a source stating the hook in as many words. I'm going to promote this shortly, in the hope that it can be fixed without being pulled, but if you need more time I'm happy to return it to to the nominations page. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde I think the context makes it clear that Bane was involved with the proposal. He was even "enraged" that it didn't go ahead. I don't think such a proposal would have got to Washingyon without going through the station chief. If it's an absolute no go we could amend the hook to "Bane supported a proposal to ..." which is weaker but explicitly clear in the source - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The CIA station had also proposed to headquarters in Washington that a small squad of paramilitary experts, members of the agency's Special Operations Group, be on hand at the moment of the coup, with their faces blacked, storm the Chinese Embassy, kill everyone inside, steal their secret records, and blow up the building to cover the fact.

"This proposal was squashed," Stockwell wrote, "but inside CIA headquarters the Accra station was given full, if unofficial credit for the eventual coup, in which eight Soviet advisers were killed." (The Soviet Union categorically denied that any of its advisers had been killed.)

Other intelligence sources who were in Ghana at the time of the coup have taken issue with Stockwell's view that the CIA deserved full credit for Nkrumah's downfall. But they considered the Agency's role to have been pivotal, and at least some officials in Washington apparently agreed, for the CIA station chief in Accra, Howard T. Bane, was quickly promoted to a senior position in the agency.

"When he was successful," one of the New York Times sources said of Bane, "every one in the African division knew it. If it had failed, he would have been transferred and no CIA involvement revealed."

Bane, nevertheless, was enraged by the CIA's high-level decision not to permit the raid on the Chinese Embassy, at the time the Peking government's only embassy in Africa.


"They didn't have the guts to do it," he subsequently told an associate."
— William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
@Vanamonde93: I checked it against another source - it is a pretty strong claim - Faligot and Kauffer The Chinese Secret Service. I can't offhand find a link directly to it, but it is quoted in full in this footnote. It is also briefly mentioned here and on page 253 of Kwame Nkrumah: The Political Kingdom in the Third World by David Rooney. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dumelow and Gog the Mild: those sources look quite adequate, thanks. I'll leave it to you to add one of them to the relevant paragraph. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Good find on that book Gog, I'd also forgotten it was mentioned in Prados. Vanamonde, I've added both to the sentence of the article that supports the hook, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Transfer to DYKNA

One of the hooks I've created, Template:Did you know nominations/1st Missouri Infantry (Confederate) was approved on 24 May and was approved for the June 22 Special Occasions holding area. However, it's never transferred over to the approved nominations section. Is there something I need to do manually with this? Hog Farm (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm:  Done Thanks for posting here. I manually moved it for you. The bot somehow missed it. — Maile (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion hook request

Is it okay if the Poppin'Party/Roselia hook mentioned above is moved to the special occasions area for June 1? The reason for that date is mentioned earlier here as well as in the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3: Pluto

The original bolded link read:
The bolding was expanded to include almost the whole hook by Ravenpuff, who noted that this is to avoid ambiguity. It's not clear to me what's ambiguous. With a shorter bolded link, Pluto could be linked if that helps. Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm splitting too many hairs here, but linking both tropical and arctic might have the effect of indicating that the linked article is about the specific tropical–arctic climate type in particular. Linking more of the hook "avoid[s] ambiguity" by clearly implying to readers that the article has something to do about Pluto. I don't really mind either way, to be honest; these are just my thoughts about which method linking is slightly better. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
So how about:
That would be acceptable to me, although I'd slightly modify it to the following:
  • ALT2: ... that up to 75 percent of the surface of Pluto is both tropical and arctic?
This avoids any disagreement about whether we should call Pluto a planet and is in line with MOS:PERCENT. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: Great, thanks. I'll make the change in prep. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6:Detroit-style pizza

  • ... that Detroit-style pizza (example pictured) is traditionally baked in pans used as automotive drip trays?
@Valereee:@Bolter21:@The Squirrel Conspiracy:
Surely they're not still baked in automotive drip trays? Should traditionally be changed to originally? Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The picture in the prep set is from 2018, from a restaurant that is still using the drip pans. I'm not sure it's an issue. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? But the hook wording in pans used as automotive drip trays is very strange. Perhaps it should read in pans designed for use as automotive drip trays. Waiting for Valereee's feedback. Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, the originator and many Detroit-style pizza restaurants in the greater Detroit area are indeed still using the automotive drip trays, which apparently don't wear out. The company that made the trays stopped making them about ten years ago, just before Detroit-style pizza started to become nationally known, so the new startups around the country are using pans created to replicate the original automotive trays. I used "traditionally is baked" rather than "is baked" or " originally was baked" specifically because of this. :) ETA: I've added to the article that many of the pans are still in use. —valereee (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised to learn that Detroit-style pizzas weren't nationally well-known in the US until relatively recently. I remember eating one in 2005 during a layover when I was visiting the US, and I remember it tasting really good. Then again, the layover was at Detroit Airport. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
ETA: I believe the original hook wording 'traditionally is baked' is grammatically correct? No objection to changing hook to 'pans designed for use as automotive drip trays. I don't know that any of the pans had actually been previously used for that. —valereee (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: the hook wording should be is traditionally baked. The current hook wording, in pans used as automotive drip trays, means that the trays are used both for pizza and for motor oil. The phrasing in pans designed for use as automotive drip trays means that motor oil trays are being used as pizza pans. Yoninah (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, yes, I agreed with you -- I was fine with changing to 'pans designed for use as automotive drip trays', wasn't that what you were suggesting we change to? Still not sure I agree about 'is traditionally baked', I feel like 'traditionally is baked' is the correct construction, but I wasn't really listening in 9th grade. We need a grammar expert here. —valereee (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: this is running in another day and the wording really needs to be taken care of. I would like to suggest shortening it even more to:
... that Detroit-style pizza (example pictured) is traditionally baked in automotive drip trays?
Per your comment in a previous post, will you please change this in Queue 6? Or perhaps Amakuru or Maile or Cwmhiraeth could help here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, yes, I'll change it, I think it's okay for me to do it since it's been discussed here. —valereee (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done —valereee (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2:French show

@Joseph2302:
Why is the question mark separated from the title of the show? Yoninah (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah because French grammar uses a (non-breaking) space before questions marks, see [2]. So the programme title is Qui veut gagner des millions ? rather than Qui veut gagner des millions? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4

  • ... that the Old Jail Art Center was saved from demolition when a local author bought it for $25 to use as his writing studio?
This is misleading. The author bought the old jail for his own use, but it only became an art center forty years later.
... that a former jail, which now serves as an art center, was saved from demolition when a local author bought it for $25?
Would this work? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth: the piped link removes all identification of the subject. I suggest writing it this way:
ALT2: ... that the building of the Old Jail Art Center was saved from demolition when a local author bought it for $25 to use as his writing studio? Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a non-sequitor. I wondered about changing "even though" to "and", or alternatively "still does not" to "did not". Any thoughts? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
"Did not" works, and is accurate; "and did not" could appear to be stating, in our voice, that the latter was a direct consequence of the former. Suggest ...that residents of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, blocked access to a local goldmine over fears of COVID-19, even though Nunavut had no confirmed cases. ——Serial #
Thank you, that seems good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture licence query

At Template:Did you know nominations/Prometheus (Orozco). Anyone? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I also assumed that "published" = presented to the public, so yeah, when it was first unveiled I suppose. But that presumably wasn't outside of the US  :) @Nikkimaria:, If I can call upon you from FARland—thoughts? ——Serial # 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes the Commons file. I don't see what Mexico has to do with a mural painted in the US. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The Commons license is clearly flawed, since this was a work of art created indoors on private property in the United States in 1930. Since this was "published" in 1930, doesn't this come under the "year of publication plus 95 years" rule for works published in the U.S. prior to 1978, and therefore still be under copyright through 2025? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Private property doesn't matter; the place is publicly accessible, so it counts as published when it was first installed in a place accessible to the public (the rules changed in 1978 so that pubic display no longer counts as publication, but that change is not retroactive). What's important is: 1) there is no copyright notice at the location of the mural (see c:Template:PD-US-no notice); 2) the photo is truly available under the FAL, since the areas outside the border are 3D. The 360 panorama appears to show that the first is true, but unfortunately we can't verify the second as the link is broken. This can be fixed by either blackening out the 3D parts of File:Prometheus (1930) de José Clemente Orozco en Pomona College.jpg or by extracting and re-projecting the mural from File:Frary Dining Hall 360-degree view.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation, King of Hearts; is this version OK? ——Serial # 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but please upload it over the original at Commons so all projects will benefit from it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Pentecost

This year, the feast is on 31 May, and I prepared a little list, Template:Did you know nominations/List of hymns for Pentecost, which needs a review first. - Addition of hymns welcome, I was surprised that we have more German than English so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I reviewed it and reserved a slot for it in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not to be a grinch, but nominating four days in advance of promotion is really pushing things when the minimum is supposed to be a week in advance. I'm not going to push in this case, but going forward I think it's important to insist on a reasonable lead time. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I had discussed the plan with Yoninah on 20 May, and sorry, was late due to real life, and also the task proved more complex than expected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Poppin'Party and Template:Did you know nominations/Roselia (band)

Hello, if it's okay with anyone here, I'm kindly asking for a second opinion on the suitability of the ALT2 proposed for both of these nominations (a double hook that mentions both subjects): specifically, if they would interest a broad audience. Ideally, this second opinion should come from an editor who is unfamiliar with the BanG Dream! franchise. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, zero familiarity with the franchise. Yes, some interest in ALT2; it's of some interest to this American non-musician that voice actresses can play the instruments their characters play, as I assume that's likely unusual. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee and Narutolovehinata5: I agree --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone. I've now approved both noms after some other edits were made to both articles. As mentioned above, the approved hook is for both articles. I have one last question: June 1 will be the second anniversary of the final concert of Yurika Endō, Roselia's former bassist who had retired from the entertainment industry. Would it be okay for the hook to go up on that date? And if that date is not found to be suitable, would the hook going up on June 24 (Endō's birthday) be a suitable alternative, or should the hook just run as a regular non-special occasion one? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Promoted for June 1. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

3 empty queues are waiting to be filled

Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Guerillero:@Cwmhiraeth:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have done one of the three. Will do another later if nobody else does and I have time to do checks.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll do one now. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I did Queue 4 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to all three of you! Yoninah (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
We're back to 3 empty queues again. Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Guerillero:@Cwmhiraeth:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Make that 2 empty queues. I took care of one. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a short while ago, so here is an updated list with the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 8. We currently have a total of 383 nominations, of which 164 have been approved, a gap of 219. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones unreviewed from early April.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center second thoughts

See also: Special:Diff/959286109 § Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center second thoughts

Greetings DYKers. I won't be offended if you reject this request; but I feel I have to try. I wrote at Template:Did you know nominations/Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center that "ALT2 is my preferred hook". That's just because I underestimated both the Philippine government's callousness towards detainees, and the COVID-19 pandemic, and I thought that the main hook would become stale by the time it was reviewed. However, as the article is now promoted, I'd like to ask you to please consider using a slight variation on the main hook rather than hook ALT2. It's just as relevant today as when I wrote it. On May 14, they once again reiterated that only two pregnant women had been bailed up to then, as part of a fluff piece in the Manila Bulletin. I know that this is a highly unusual request, but I wrote this article primarily for humanitarian reasons, and as amusing as the jailbreaks are, I feel that the main hook was most relevant. I urge you to consider using this slightly updated variation on the main hook instead:

... that months into the Philippines' coronavirus quarantine, the Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center remained 285% overcrowded, with only two pregnant women having been bailed? Ramirez, Jun (2020-05-14). "159 employees/inmates at BI detention center test negative for COVID". Manila Bulletin. Retrieved 2020-05-28. Ambray said that due to the limited number of test kits, only 84 of the more than 400 foreign detainees were tested. [...] "Our legal division has identified deportation cases that can already be expedited, as well as those who are eligible for bail. So far seven have been deported, while two pregnant women were granted bail," she stated.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Hook ALT2 is currently in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. I know, I know, I'm very wrong to ask this and to have second thoughts. I did request ALT2, and then even though I thought of this yesterday, felt like I couldn't ask for it to be changed. By the time I got the courage to ask, Yoninah informed me I was almost too late. By the time I met DYK standards for this alternate hook, (entirely due to my own incompetence,) I was too late, and now only an admin can do it. Thank you for your time, attention and consideration. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 01:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have swapped the hook as you requested, but I have changed the 285% into "grossly", because the figures were a bit stale. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
🥳 🥳 🥳 🥳 Thank you!! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 06:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Pride Month special occasion request

I have reviewed and approved Template:Did you know nominations/Gay fascism, with a special occasion request for Pride Month in June. Any objections to a third party moving this to the special occasion holding area? Flibirigit (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Since June is more than six weeks from the date this was nominated, I am asking that WP:IAR be used to have it during Pride Month. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
As the nom was only approved today, it seems fine to leave it in approved area for 1-2 weeks until June, in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Special Occasion section. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for promoting this. I realize that the hook you used was approved, but looking at it again I think that the hook is misleading and might lead a reader to think that it was a generally accepted interpretation rather than a myth. Would it be possible to use ALT4 instead? Thanks! buidhe 22:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I actually find the article very controversial and also a little one-sided, as all the analysis is cited to American scholars. I thought ALT3 was the least offensive of the hooks, and that ALT4 was too generic: it was only some gays that chose the pink triangle and it was in the 1970s. Would you like me to return it to the noms page so you can work on it further? Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I've added some more reception by British and German scholars to address concerns about balance. "Some" could be removed from ALT4 since it's not in the source. buidhe 02:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done OK. I added "in the 1970s" per the source. Yoninah (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Q6 May 30b

Template:Did you know nominations/Carceri Nuove (Rome)

  • ... that in the Carceri Nuove jail in Rome, seventeen dungeons were named after saints?

Alessandro57 Evrik

The third para in the history section doesn't have a citation, can someone add one? —valereee (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Took two, hope you don't mind. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 14:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Psiĥedelisto overachiever :) —valereee (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Y'all work fast. --evrik (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Unplugged Collection, Volume One

Evrik Chris troutman

The album does serve as a testament to the diverse performances made on the show.[1] Elton John and Paul Simon gives outstanding performances while Neil Young rescores, "Like a Hurricane", using harmonica and pump organ. "Why" by Annie Lennox may be the performance of her career and Rod Stewart "sings the shit" out of "Gasoline Alley" (the title track of his eponymous 1972 album, co-written with Ronnie Wood).[1][2] McCartney's "We Can Work It Out" is a warm and rare moment where a performance mistake is left in the recording.[3]

I'm concerned about this para in the article, which while it does support the hook, doesn't attribute any of these superlatives. Who says it serves as a testamant, that Lennox's contribution may be the performance of her career, that Stewart "sings the shit" out of his, that McCartney's is warm and rare? We don't say. I'm not familiar with how we cover music; is this kosher? —valereee (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Evrik wrote in their own words what the sources connote. Does a source call McCartney's performance "warm?" No. But if you read the source, it says that it was rare for a do-over take and describes the moment as "humanizing." I don't think Evrik was wrong to summarize in this fashion. The same is true for the Lennox song, where the source says it was her best work and Evrik says "perfmance of her career." It's the same idea just not using the exact same phrasing. Otherwise, all we'd have is quotes and dry recitations. The hook contains the literal quote which is all you need to be concerned with unless you really think some phrasing is a policy violation. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it absolutely needs to be rewritten because at the moment it is saying those things in Wikipedia's voice. It needs to say (as does the DYK hook) that James Hunter, writing in Spin, said "Rod Stewart sings the shit out of (Gasoline Alley)"..., and so on. Suitable hook would be "According to Spin's James Hunter, Rod Stewart "sings the shit" out of his song Gasoline Alley on The Unplugged Collection, Volume One" or something like that. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've done some work at the article and for now changed the hook to
...but that's less than ideal. It would be better as Black Kite suggested, but that puts the target article at the end of the hook which is also not ideal. If anyone can think of something better, please do whatever to fix. Hoping Evrik will be in to give some input. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Alt2: "... that on MTV's The Unplugged Collection, Volume One, Neil Young rescored "Like a Hurricane" using harmonica and pump organ? --evrik (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, either BK's or your new hook work for me; you pick. :) —valereee (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Hunter, James (February 1995). "The Unplugged Collection, Volume One". Spin: 75–6. [The collection's goals] are to "prove that these songs happened".
  2. ^ Lifton, Dave (2015-06-15). "45 Years Ago: Rod Stewart Nearly Captures Magic with 'Gasoline Alley'". UCR.
  3. ^ Wilker, Deborah (1994-12-29). "Uneven 'Unplugged' Compilation Lacks Unity". Sun-Sentinel.

The Lincoln Project (prep 4)

I have concerns about the hook for The Lincoln Project, currently in prep 4. It currently reads "... that four prominent Republicans have endorsed a Democrat for president in 2020?"

First, I'm not sure any of them qualify as "prominent", and second, that's not a terribly interesting hook. I suggest instead something like "... that the husband of an advisor to Donald Trump co-founded The Lincoln Project, which aims to prevent his reelection?"

Pinging @Yoninah and RoySmith:. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: All of the founders were deeply involved in the GOP pre-2016 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The Squirrel Conspiracy, The following all use the word "prominent" to describe the founders:
so I think we're good doing the same. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Even with 'prominent' cleared up, I still find the new suggestion more interesting. If nothing else, it's more specific, which in this case engages me. Kingsif (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: Black Cap Mountain

@Evrik, Raymie, and Yoninah: I'm not entirely sure what this hook is trying to say. Does it mean that the mountain is visible from both Bangor and the sea, or that both the mountain and the sea are visible from Bangor? Either way, I think that we could reword this so that the intended meaning is clearer. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Are there any suitable alternative hook facts? Taking a quick look at the article, there doesn't seem to be anything else hooky that could be used. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If The Boy Scouts of America own 2/3 of the mountain, that's quite hooky, but the actual "2/3" isn't sourced, just the area they own. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I have changed this hook to ALT1 and moved it to Prep 6 pending any further decision. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Image in Queue 6 nominated for deletion on Commons

Hi all. We need to pull the image hook in Queue 6, as there's no freedom of panorama for sculpture in Russia, so the image is a copyright violation.

If we don't want to pull the whole set back into prep, the following image hooks are good to go and would work as possible replacements:

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Thank you. I have moved the hook to a non-image slot in Prep 2 and replaced it in the image slot with the Sun bear hook you linked to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3:Fresco

  • ... that Airmail, a fresco featuring a barefoot and bare-chested flying mailman, was commissioned to commemorate one of the first American airmail facilities?
@The C of E:@Cunard:@The Squirrel Conspiracy:
The sentence in the article which contains the hook fact—The fresco features a giant barefoot and bare-chested male mailman flying over a town scene whilst holding a winged letter. An airplane is seen in the skies behind him.—is sourced to a page that doesn't contain any of this information. It appears to be the page creator's own interpretation of the fresco, in which case the hook is also unverified. Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It's self-evident when you look at the picture. I don't see how incontrovertable you can get. Plus the source clearly says "a shirtless man floating above rooftops, passing a letter to a bird with an airplane in the background." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree - it's unfortunate that source mentions a bird, when clearly it is the common motif of a "winged letter", as you say. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see you added another cite. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Going back to this (now in Queue 3), I would like to ask why it was edited to remove barefoot? I would prefer that word stay in because I think it makes the article hookier and especially since it's not in the image hook, it becomes more intriguing to people when the mailman is "barefoot and shirtless". So can we restore it back to what it was please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Queue 2 final hook

Since the bold link is to an article about a steamship, it should also be in italics here as in the article: City of Seattle. Thanks. (Link to Queue 2 to make fixing more convenient.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Presumably as the quirky hook, the lack of italics was intentional, as it was trying to "trick" us a bit into thinking it referred to the actual city of Seattle rather than a boat... I am usually a supporter of sticking to the MOS and not misleading readers too much though, so probably for the best!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Kids on the Slope

I amended my nomination at for Kids on the Slope at Template:Did you know nominations/Kids on the Slope to include a second article (Yuki Kodama); I'd appreciate a second set of eyes to make sure I re-formatted the back-end of the template correctly. Thanks! Morgan695 (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything was fine, except it needed an additional credit, which I've taken care of. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Uncredited

I have just passed 50 DYK's nominated. But checking the query tool it only credits me with 49. The one missing is Battle of Auberoche. From Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Auberoche I am clearly the nominator and it passed. I received a notification that it would run on 19 November 2018 from Vanamonde93, but it doesn't seem to have.

I assume that this means that it is still eligible to be run, and would be grateful if someone would put it back into the "approved" category so that it can be selected and run. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it did run on 20 November 2018. Not sure why the bot didn't update, but it does just search you talk for it being updated with the recognition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it's because the update was done by the user and not DYKUpdateBot, which is why the count is wrong. Not sure if there was a topic on it though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Occasionally the bot breaks and people do it manually, which means the DYK stats aren't entirely correct- I seem to remember mine is out by 1 or 2. But nothing that can be (easily) done about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks both. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Queue 3 hook tinkered to death

The point of the Q3 lead hook has been pretty much destroyed by secret tinkering, as so often happens. Instead of the approved hook (relevant bits bolded) "... that after 250 years of production, the Rouen faience industry (example pictured) was brought low in the 1790s by competition from English creamware?" it has been changed to the pathetically uninteresting, and rather badly written "... that after 250 years of production, the Rouen faience industry (example pictured) suffered in the 1790s due to competition from English creamware?". The industry was virtually destroyed, as the French sources complain at vast length, and the English ones mention. If "brought low" is not liked, use "almost destroyed", "greatly reduced", "largely driven out of business" or similar, and use "by" or "from" rather than "due to". Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "was greatly reduced ... by". Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I promoted it with the original languange, but Ravenpuff changed it as non-standard language. For the record, I don't see any issue with the original language. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'm registering a "tinkering complaint" here. There is a certain charm and, yes "hookiness", in some colloquialsm. I realize that the editor who tinkered the charm out of the original hook was probably walking the straight and narrow in the phrasing we're supposed to use. I would much rather see "brought low". So what if some readers might not know what that means. Isn't the whole idea to get a reader to click on the hook? Bah! Humbug! on not using "brought low". — Maile (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I had a similar question about a hook (not in the quirky) in Q6, * ... that William Birchall may have impressed one of the local militia, but the rest were most unimpressed? I wondered about keeping "but the rest were most unimpressed" but found it picturesque and decided to leave it, although what it means is that the rest of the militia attacked the gaol and meeting house and tore down Birchall's flag. :) I do kind of wonder if someone will flag it at errors as non-encyclopedic or misleading, though. —valereee (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking of unnecessary tinkering in queue 3, I would like to ask why the hook on Airmail (fresco) was edited to remove barefoot from it? I would prefer that word stay in because I think it makes the article hookier and especially since it's not in the image hook, it becomes more intriguing to people when the mailman is "barefoot and shirtless". So can we restore it back to what it was please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Airmail
Airmail
Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I saw the image. It would be a terrific lead image. And I'm pretty sure I see those bare tootsies. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree that it is a good lead image --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E, Maile66, Mandarax, The Squirrel Conspiracy, and Amakuru: I moved it to Prep 2 and moved Court of Minstrels to the queue --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Guerillero! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Maile66: and @Guerillero:. I certainly agree @Mandarax:. I found it very striking when I first saw it and I did think that if this didn't have an article, I would write it. I am glad that this is in an image slot too because I think it is nice that we can have a fairly unknown yet powerful piece of art be brought to the masses at DYK with it being front and centre. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the switch, Guerillero.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(←) Context on Guerillero's talk page for why I didn't use the image originally. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing section heading

The instructions say to "Consider adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the article's talk page (without a section heading‍—‌the template adds a section heading automatically)." However, when I did that at Talk:Shooting of Jamarion Robinson, no section heading was added automatically. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. I notice that when users add this line themselves, there is no section header and the template just floats around. But when User:WugBot adds it, it's nice and neat in its own labeled section. Maile, can this line be removed from the instructions? Yoninah (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably, but I've never seen this. Please give me a link to the page where it is. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: See under WP:DYKN#To nominate an article. Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, I removed it. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 Mongol conquest of Eastern Xia

I started to promote Prep 1 to queue, but it's questionable if Mongol conquest of Eastern Xia was actually reviewed. Starzoner signed off on it with, "This looks good. Sources are great and article is recent." The Squirrel Conspiracy then justifiably states the review is incomplete. Followed by a "Review not started " note below that. Nominator @3family6: makes an adjustment to the hook. Buidhe signs off with nothing more than, "Meets requirements." How is any of the a review? — Maile (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Maile66, Look at the wikitext. I'm not sure why it isn't displaying correctly but full review was performed. buidhe 11:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the promoter wiped out the review with a single edit 1, that I don't understand. But thank you for that diff. — Maile (talk)
@BlueMoonset and Gatoclass: I'm going to go ahead and take care of the promotion on this prep set. But for the archived record on the individual template, do either of you know how to undo the erroneous edit so the review checklist is visible?
Maile, I have no idea why substituting the DYKsubpage template caused the DYK checklist template contents to be replaced by an Invoke command. It could be that someone was fooling around with code they shouldn't have been. However, when I tried in the editor to redo the closure, the preview showed it working properly, so perhaps if The Squirrel Conspiracy would try to reclose it from a pre-close edit using subst in the usual way, it would close properly, and the date could be restored to the original closing time in a subsequent edit. Or I can do it if that would be helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66 and BlueMoonset: That was supremely weird. I've restored the review, re-promoted, and then restored the old date. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you accidentally did a {{subst:DYK checklist instead of {{subst:DYKsubpage. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Shhhh. I have no idea what happened. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4: Green corridors

This hook is awfully similar to the one running in Queue 5:
I would have switched the hook for Organ donation in India for an alt, but there is none. Pinging nominator @Shanze1:. Yoninah (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, Well, I thought so too after switching the Tamil Nadu article hook. But I didn't know that running similar hooks are problematic. Ok, so what can be done? I can think of another hook for the one in prep 4 but it's kind of a statistic. Here it is:
  • ... that despite performing the second largest number of organ transplantations in the world, India's organ donation rate still remains at only 0.65 per million?
source:[1] Shanze1 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shanze1: well, with our 2 sets a day schedule, these hooks will be running two days apart. I'm returning the second hook to WP:DYKN so we can work out a better alt hook and run it at a later date. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking running similar hooks isn't problematic provided that a fairly large amount of time has passed between them running. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense. Thanks. Shanze1 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dr. Harsh Vardhan presides over the 10th Indian Organ Donation Day". pib.gov.in. Retrieved 2020-05-31.

Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Ulster

The nominator has disagreements with reviewers over the interpretation of the 5x expansion requirements as well as section A4 of WP:DYKSG. The nominator argues that 5x was met as the current version of the article is a 5x expansion of the version of the article he originally saw. However, there were earlier versions of the article that were longer than the version he saw, but these were eventually cut down. The nominator argues that the rules are vague in cases such as these, and that similar cases were approved before. Second opinions are requested here on the clarification and interpretation of the rules involved. Pinging the nomination participants: @The C of E, Buidhe, and Bloom6132:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The "previously existing article" is the article that existed just prior to the expansion, which in this case was 589 characters long. It doesn't matter if the article was larger than that at an earlier time, unless it's the nominator themselves or somebody collaborating with them that reduced the size of the article prior to the expansion. In this case, the article was reduced in size in December 2018 by Ssolbergj, who AFAIK has no relationship with the nominator, so the expansion looks legitimate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree. See this discussion, in which it is revealed that The C of E drastically trimmed an article (removing 54% of the prose), then returned later to "expand" it. If we allow this sort of thing, there's nothing to stop anyone from using a different account to slash an article, then coming back after a sufficient period of time to miraculously expand it. I'm not suggesting that that's what happened this time, but as a general rule, there's no way to determine who's making edits. (Even checkuser data is only available for three months.) The only trimmings which should be allowed in determining the basis for expansion are removals of copyvios or vandalism. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree. This has never been how we deal with this; as of the reasons above. If it was that the user was asking for an exemption, that might be different, but we want a 5x expansion against any prior version (unless that version was copyvio or deleted etc.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
This seems like a rather blatant attempt to get around Rule A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. "Previously existing" means anytime, not the day before you started your expansion. On June 3, 2013, the byte count reached a high of 6,918 bytes. Currently it is only about a 2x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I stand by everything I wrote on the nom page. I was quite confident that Buidhe and myself were interpreting the DYK rules re. 5× expansion correctly. Thanks to Mandarax, Lee Vilenski, and Yoninah for confirming our reading of it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to say I have just seen this discussion having been away. I do not believe that people are bringing up something from 2 years ago to try and make a point today. Especially when what happened then, did not happen in this occassion. My interpretation of the rule is simple. That previously existing means the version that existed prior to expansion, not from one 2 years ago. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
While the circumstances of that previous nomination of yours may not specifically apply to your current one, that nom is very relevant to the general discussion of the rule, as it illustrates the type of blatant abuse that can result from your desired interpretation of the rule. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Your track record at DYK speaks for itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
My record is not relevant to this discussion. The question is how to interpret the rule and it seems that people have jumped on something from 2 years ago which does not have parallels with this issue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It is of utmost relevance to this discussion. Your past actions at DYK give us a good indicator of your present-day M.O. is. It not only entails exemption-asking, but also rule-bending and rule-violations to the extreme. Let's examine some of them, shall we:
  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Bat'leth – suggesting WP:IAR be used, when claiming that you were "out of ideas, short of writing a load of waffle or invoking WP:IAR."
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Hallelujah Chorus – attempting to rush a nom through that did not adhere to WP:DYKSG#A5.
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Mungu ibariki Afrika – Orlady noted how she and Victuallers "both made extensive revisions to the article, including a number of significant corrections to factual information".
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Trenton, Georgia – hook that initially made it into the prep area "was struck by the reviewers and then reinstated by the nominator" (i.e. you).
Notice how I'm not even mentioning your numerous DYK noms that seemed intent on stoking racial tensions unnecessarily. Chalk this present-day nom into the Hall of Shame. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Delving into things from 4-8 years ago? Really? Are you going to start looking at my blocks from 12 years ago to use as a stick too? That is even more irrelevant given it is even further in the past. To me by doing, it suggests this is less about interpretation and more about opinions on me as an editor. And that is not right. Especially when I am trying to get this sorted and it seems it is creeping into WP:UNCIVIL territory. I am trying to keep this on topic about how the rule is to be interpreted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Considering some of your actions over the years, including the recent incident regarding prep editing and numerous hooks that have had at best questionable neutrality and at worst bordered on offensive, I don't think you can really blame editors for being skeptical about your intentions even if in cases where they're being done in good faith. Although I admit this is probably going to be somewhat offtopic to this discussion, I would suggest that you be very careful with the subject and hooks that you propose for DYK, as over the years they've come into scrutiny over how they may (unintentionally or intentionally) be an expression your own political and religious beliefs. While this doesn't necessarily mean you should avoid political or religious hook in the future, while we understand that you're transparent with your real-life views, it would probably be a good idea to try and make sure that these don't cloud your judgement as a Wikipedia editor. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Though I don't see how that can be in this case because this is about a flag that is actually used by those who hold different (and indeed opposing) political views to me. But again, that is not relevant to this discussion. I have yet to see a reason why we should not read the rule as written in the literal intention of the version before the expander's intervention. Most of the above seem to be more about having a go at me personally, rather than the issue of the understanding of rule. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I was simply explaining why there are editors here who have those sentiments, not discussing their merits. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E: Again, this has nothing to do with you personally (and please don't misinterpret it as such). It has everything to do with your actions at DYK (hence, your blocks that are not related to DYK are irrelevant). And it is relevant to the interpretation of Rule A5. You have, on a protracted basis, asked for exemption from enumerated rules of DYK (or have gone ahead and bent them yourself). Quite a few editors (many of whom have seen your work at DYK over the years) perceive this DYK nom to be just the latest installment of behaviour that is problematic at best and borders on unscrupulous. To repeat what Yoninah said below, "We all work very hard on our articles to meet the criteria for a main-page appearance. Why shouldn't he?" —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, those incidents where you allege that are from years ago, and not relevant to the issue today. I don't see how it can be problematic because I have not tampered with it before expansion nor had I even seen the history before I started the expansion. I am not trying to game the system, I am trying to improve the project by featuring a historic flag from the island of Ireland. That is always my goal when I make my nominations. The rule as it is written in its literal interpretation means the version existing before the expansion, I cannot see how it can be interpreted any other way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
At least seven editors here (Buidhe, Mandarax, Lee Vilenski, Yoninah, Serial Number 54129, David Eppstein, and myself) disagree with your interpretation of the rule. On the nom page, you cited ignorance of a previous revision as an excuse. By declaring how you "cannot see how [the rule] can be interpreted any other way", you seem to be in ignorance of consensus here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Because one is not expected to go delving into the history of pages and have to prima facie make the expansion based upon what the current version is. Especially when given it turns out that the historic revision you are relying on for your case has been dead for over 18 months. There is no requirement for people to do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"There is no requirement for people to do that." Once again, you are disregarding consensus. That's how decisions are made here – they are not made based off your personal interpretation of a rule. It's not far-fetched to assume you would choose to interpret in a way that would bring about the most generous and beneficial outcome for yourself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Based on this discussion, should the rule be clarified and the relevant pages be edited to make this interpretation clear? And for the nomination itself, based on The C of E's claim that they were unaware of the previous versions, should an IAR exemption be allowed or should the nomination be failed? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

- just to clarify my earlier comments - that's how the rules are/have been applied, or at least my understanding of them. I think what we need to do is investigate what the consensus is for this rule, if it should be all-time or just the stable version of it. I don't particularly worry either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Narutolovehinata5 the rule has been clear and applied for a very long time; it only seems like The C of E keeps asking for an exemption. I don't see the need to amend the wording of the rule, and I would not IAR. We all work very hard on our articles to meet the criteria for a main-page appearance. Why shouldn't he? Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps just an additional sentence or two that states that "previous version" refers to the entire article history and not just the version prior to expansion? The wording is vague enough that his interpretation can plausibly be applied even if in practice it's not followed. Reading that rule it seemed like "no matter how bad it was" was referring to the current state of the article and didn't explicitly mention also applying to even prior versions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
No, his interpretation is not plausible or reasonable (and I, too, would not IAR). If the intent of the writer of Rule A4 was to refer to the "current state" of the article, the rule would have read, "no matter how bad it is". The fact that it is in past tense means the rule is intended to encompass prior versions of the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Relatively new editors (like me) don't have the longer-term experiential knowledge of how the rule is applied or necessarily pick up on nuanced uses of was/is etc. When I read the rule quoted above, my face-value interpretation of "previously existing" was that it simply meant the article as was currently available immediately before an editor began improving it. I wouldn't have trawled through an article's history to explore its various relative sizes, especially if the DYK check tool supported the 5x expansion based on the most recent changes (which I think it does?). One approach would be to clarify the wording (and possibly the DYK tool), another would be to assume general good intent and encourage editors to expand articles as they currently exist (and deal with any suspected subterfuge on a case by case basis).  ~ RLO1729💬 23:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@RLO1729: Well, The C of E isn't a new editor like you. He's a seasoned DYK regular with 431 DYK credits to his name (4 times the number that I have). So he knows the rules (or at least he should know them by now). —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I do not constantly ask for "exemptions" for I rarely do expansion DYKs. I've only been doing some recently to help out with the destubathons. When I do expansions, I take things at face value using the cut and paste character count, I don't go diving into the history because it isn't relevant. What is relevant is the article in the state I found it before making the expansion based upon what is present at that time. That is why my understanding of the rule is of the article as it is at the point of the expander's intervention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The rule says "previously existing article", not "longest previously existing article". And the "previously existing article" is the version of the article as it existed immediately before the expansion began. I've been doing this a long time - since before this supplementary rule was added, in fact - and the rule has always been interpreted that way. It's absurd to suggest that reviewers should have to hunt through the page history looking for the longest-ever version of the page. And how about pages that were converted into redirects? Again, we've always accepted such nominations, except where the nominator themselves or an associate is the one who shortened the article. Mandarax's example is one where the expansion was disallowed because it was the nominator himself who had previously shortened it, which is consistent with the rule as it's always been interpreted. Gatoclass (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Gatoclass on this, and it's how it was explained to me by my DYK mentor Orlady eight years ago: if the article has been a size (and pretty much untouched) for a significant period of time, then that is the "previously existing article" as far as DYK expansion rules are concerned. In this case, as the article has been that size for 16 or 17 months, I don't see a problem with that size being the baseline number from which the expansion is made. (DYKcheck was not designed to handle this situation, if the article had been longer years earlier, which is why it is sometimes necessary to check the current size vs. the size immediately before the expansion began, something I've done numerous times.) While it's true that this nominator has played fast and loose with the rules in this regard, previously cutting an article in the hopes that it would be reviewed as starting its expansion from this lower base number (and it being disallowed), the December 2018 size is a legitimate starting point since they had never edited the article prior to May 15 of this year. (I don't see any evidence that they reused material from the pre-2019 versions of the article, which is another thing to check, since it wouldn't be original material as required in an expansion.) I've accepted expansions on this basis over the years, and would be disappointed if the rules changed now. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @BlueMoonset: and @Gatoclass:. I'm glad i'm not the only one with that understanding. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You may be not the only one with that understanding, but you collectively are in the minority. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Are editors supposed to review the entire history of an article and find the longest version before expanding it with DYK in mind? That seems ridiculous. "Hmm, this smallish article on a interesting topic looks like a good candidate for DYK, I will spend my time expanding this article rather than another". "Sorry but your expansion is ineligible, this article was twice as large several years ago so you need to expand it 10x". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The longer previous version is, even after the recent edits, still only halfway down the default 50-version view of the article history. The edits cutting it back are the most recent significant changes to the article before its re-expansion. It is not something one has to put any effort into finding. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

While I loathe to hand out exceptions, the shorter version sat for more than a year in the shorter state. I think we should rely on the shorter version as the starter. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well then, I hope those editors whose expansion was rejected based on an earlier, longer version, will come out of the woodwork and complain. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: How often does that happen? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Not often. But it does happen. I have conferred with BlueMoonset on those noms, and in each case we told the nominator, as it says in Rule A4: This may be a bad surprise, but... Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, Guerillero, these must have been occasions when the nomination was for an expansion where the prior version was recently cut down, because if the cut had been more than a year prior, I can't imagine that I would have said it didn't qualify. Please, if I did, let me know: I thought I'd been going by Orlady's guidance all these years, which was much along the lines of Guerillero, only not as long as a year. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I think the year-long stable version is what changes my position --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarify the rules to avoid this kind of drama. DYKcheck operates based on the largest previous version, avoiding guesswork. In some cases it makes sense to hand out IAR exceptions, but not this one in my opinion since the nominator is very experienced at DYK. buidhe 02:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, the documentation for DYKcheck does not back you up. As it says at User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Expansion, reviewers should always check expansion manually if DYKcheck says the article hasn't been expanded 5x, because the software assumes that the article has more or less been always increasing in size. That, to me, indicates that the understanding was that expansions were not 5x the largest the article had ever been, but 5x the article as it was before expansion began (with the usual caveats about cutting down an article shortly before expanding it). Making assumptions about tools is not only dangerous, but it can misrepresent the original intention. Pinging Shubinator, creator of DYKcheck, because the tool was designed with the consensus existing at the time in mind, but like all tools it has limitations. Perhaps he remembers just what that consensus had been. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Well, regardless of the consensus at that point I think now there is definitely consensus to include previous versions. MANdARAX's point about using multiple accounts to game the system is particularly convincing. buidhe 04:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Buidhe: If someone is socking to game the system, then they have bigger problems than a denied DYK. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, there is not a definite consensus to my eyes, for all that it's been declared a couple of times, and it seems to be in part based on the assumption that editors are going to sock and wait for a year in order to slip articles through DYK. If The C of E does try, given the level of scrutiny of his actions here at DYK, it seems like a sure path to a block and banning from DYK, so I wouldn't advise it. Are others really so desperate that they'd attempt it? It seems very unlikely to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the 5x expansion requirement being gamed happens very often and if it does it would most likely be disqualified anyway. In most cases, expanded articles get rejected not because of gaming but because they weren't even close to reaching 5x expansion of any version. There could also be cases in which the editor who did a 5x expansion for an article that had been cut done did so in good faith and may not have even been aware that the article was cut down in the first place. What about those cases? Should they just be disallowed, or could they be permitted on a case-by-case basis? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, exactly, the number of times somebody has tried to game this rule is vanishingly small, why would we want to further burden reviewers, set builders and set promoters with more onerous checks for such a negligible issue? Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, we should be able to assume that previous reductions in article size were done in good faith. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this :) Yes, consensus at the time the tool was created was that 5x expansion starts at the state the editor found the article in, not the largest it had ever been. Agree with Gatoclass that if there is clear evidence of gaming the system, that's not ok, but in the absence of clear evidence, the starting point for a 5x expansion is the state the editor found it in. Shubinator (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Like Buidhe said, we need to clarify the rules. The wording in Rule A4 should be crystal-clear so no nominator or reviewer can misinterpret what a "previously existing article" is. Yoninah (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Buidhe: I am willing to work with you to come up with a clearer piece of text or a clear question for an RFC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Disallow, still. The only competent rationale for interpreting rules is 'what's the purpose.' The purpose of this rule is to restrict qualifications for nominations. Interpreting the rule to disallow this nomination (and those like it) serves the rationale for having the rule in the first place. That DYK is overrun with too many nominations, shows that such interpretation is practical as well as good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The purpose behind 5x is so that expanding stubs is encouraged along with creating articles from scratch. (GAs came rather later.) I'm very troubled by how many sketchy or flat-out wrong explanations of where the rules came from or why they should be interpreted to disallow in this case have been adduced in the course of this discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct BlueMoonset, the rule exists to encourage users to improve existing content, not to find ways to render such improvements as difficult as possible. If we took this rule to mean longest previously existing article, it would effectively force users to always expand from the trashiest version that just happened to exist sometime in the history, which has since been trimmed down by other good faith users. For the article which triggered this debate, for example, one would be forced to count the expansion from this 1650-byte addition to the article made in 2013, one third of which was immediately removed by the user who added it, and the rest of which was also removed scarcely more than an hour later by another user, the whole having been part of the article for a mere one-and-a-half hours, seven years ago. Rather than penalizing expanders for poor or sloppy editing choices made by others years ago, we should do the sensible thing and assume that reductions made to the article by other users prior to the start of the expansion were appropriate and done in good faith. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Still, disallow. Nothing about disallowing discourages or makes it more difficult for people in expanding existing content, unless you accept that the only purpose of writing or expanding content on Wikipedia is some claimed right to a DYK (and that would be a ridiculous purpose). People are motivated to write content without demanding a DYK. They do it, regardless of DYK. The demand for DYK is obviously overtaxed, making the process so prolix it has impaired function in serving any purpose. It also makes little sense that a 5x expansion requirement is somehow only about encouraging rather than limiting what can be demanded of DYK process. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to tighten the criteria to make it harder for people to nominate articles for DYK, fine. But there must be about 1,000 better and more efficient ways to achieve that than expecting reviewers and promoters to scour article histories looking for the biggest legitimate previous version of said articles. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Not interested in changing rules. You have one interpretation, most people have another. I agree with most people that the better interpretation is to disallow. Make it harder for people to make nominations? In a working sense, it obviously is not hard, at all, to make nominations. That's not to say, that more selectivity in the making nominations, so that other people are not overtaxed, would be helpful. If anything, the minority, here, is causing this nomination to overtax the system because it was rejected by the reviewer using the majority interpretation (which is clearly a good faith interpretation.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You keep claiming that "most users" agree with your view, but by my count it's actually an 8-6 majority in favour of calculating the simple way, ie from the previously existing version. But even if I've miscounted, it's pretty clear that there isn't a clear consensus in favour of your interpretation. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
OK. If the count is as divided as you say, I withdraw 'most people' etc. (which is certainly not something I kept saying, I think I only said it in the single comment, which you just replied to). But as you are claiming no consensus on this nomination, than the sensible thing to do is to not add to the Main Page. Just move on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: There's actually no "majority" in favour of calculating the "simple way" that Gatoclass mentions above. I noted above how there were at least seven editors here who favour the interpretation taken by Buidhe and myself (i.e. that "previously existing" means anytime before expansion). I didn't count you since you hadn't written here yet, so you're number 8. The count is, at the very least, tied. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I also lean more towards the simple calculation due to practicality and AGF reasons, so that makes it 9. But with how divided this discussion has been and the existence of differing interpretations, perhaps some RfC is needed to clarify the rules. I'll see in a moment if I can think up of something. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I know that Guerillero is already preparing a potential RfC on this issue, so it would probably be best if you let that one go ahead when it's ready. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Noted. I was writing one up when I had to leave for a sudden affair (but before the above message was posted). I'll leave a message on their talk page and see what can be done from there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If we were to adopt the interpretation that this rule meant longest previously existing article, which it clearly doesn't say, that would mean that not only do reviewers, set builders and promoters have to search for the longest previously existing article in the history, they would also have to search the history since the longest version to ensure that any reductions in size were not due to vandalism or copyvio. It is burdensome enough to do set verification without having to comb through the history of every article like this. In fact, this is precisely why the rule was written as it is, namely that "we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article." Counting the expansion from the longest previously existing article will force reviewers and promoters to check every version of the article in which content was removed for possible vandalism or copyvio, which is just the kind of thing the rule was designed to avoid. Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The rule is, it does not matter how bad previous edits to the article were (good or bad faith is also irrelevant) - copy vios are the exception, and copy vios already have to be checked to bring it within the rule ("no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't matter how bad the previous version was because reviewers don't have time to make such assessments. That's why they shouldn't have to hunt through a stack of earlier versions trying to find the largest, most recent legitimate version. That's never been the expectation, in spite of the fact that some users in recent times have evidently presumed otherwise.
And yes, WP:AGF is relevant, because it's a behavioural guideline that's always in force. Operating on the assumption that previous deletions of content were likely made in bad faith flies in the face of that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
No. Not relevant. No one is called on to assess the good or bad faith of the writers, because it does not matter how good or bad the prior versions were. Your claimed difficulties don't stand up, the reviewer was able to spot the issue on the first effort. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
No one is called on to assess the good or bad faith of the writers. Yes, that's right, but it's what you are doing by default. You are by default making the presumption that all reductions in article size from the largest point the article reached are probably illegitimate. If the article has been reduced in size, then in 9 cases out of 10 it's probably been done for legitimate reasons - or at least defensible ones. We don't have to operate from the assumption that every user who removed some content is likely either a knave or a fool.
Other than that, I'm about to log off, so will probably be unable to contribute further to this discussion until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
False. By rule and by default, you are not assuming or presuming anything about the editors. Whether they made good or bad edits does not matter (again with a separate focus on copy vios, but even then nothing is to be assumed or presumed, either the edit is a copy vio or it's not, regardless of good or bad faith) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You are not actively assuming anything, I know, but that is the effect of your preferred approach. You are, in effect, invalidating all the edits which reduced the article's size since it reached its largest point. That is arguably not in conformity with AGF, but even if you disagree, it just isn't a sensible approach anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Rather to my surprise, I find myself disagreeing with Yoninah et al. When expanding an article, I have always understood the rule to refer to the state I found the article in. So if I cut the article down, that does not reduce the expansion I have to do (with common sense exceptions for copyvio, vandalism, etc) but if has been stable for a while, I see no reason to dig deep in the article's history. Of course, this does not answer the question of what the requirements would be if the article was unstable before the expansion began. I quite understand the general lack of patience with The C of E, but there does seem to be genuine disagreement as to the interpretation of the rule here, that needs clarification. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Per Gatoclass and Blue Moon set and others, the fivefold rule should apply to the version immediately preceding the expansion, not some arbitrary version from the past, except where there's a suspicion of gaming the system by deliberately reducing the size with a view to later expansion. Certainly that's the interpretation that follows the spirit of the 5x expansion rule, and I'm somewhat baffled why anybody would think otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, we obviously disagree. But I am only replying, here (having explained my position, above to disallow) to point out that only your position is trying to rely on an arbitrary past version, because the position contrary to yours encompasses all versions without any arbitrariness, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m hardly a DYK regular but my understanding has always been that you can expand x5 from the state in which you found the article. In this case, it has been at that size for quite some time and so the expansion is legitimate. If the rule had been, “must be five times larger than any previous version of the article” it would have said that. P-K3 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, and the others of similar opinion. When expanding an article, I have always assumed I would need to expand it 5x from the present state in which I found it. It wouldn't have occurred to me to look back for the longest possible previous version. If I had to guess, I'd say hundreds if not thousands of articles have been expanded and appeared as a DYK with this interpretation in mind. Ruby2010 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (copying at the bottom in case my reply in the middle gets lost) Consensus at the time DYKcheck was created was that 5x expansion starts at the state the editor found the article in, not the largest it had ever been. Agree with Gatoclass that if there is clear evidence of gaming the system, that's not ok, but in the absence of clear evidence, the starting point for a 5x expansion is the state the editor found it in. Shubinator (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for feedback - new prep builder

Hi. Following up on Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 167#First time prep creator, I took another crack at building a prep set: Prep 1 at Special:Permalink/960176721. Would anyone be willing to give me feedback on it? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does look good. DannyS712, I moved the person image to a later set because we had one running in the set before. I also shuffled things around so the two U.S.-based topics weren't next to one another. Otherwise, you did great. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Five Go Down to the Sea?

Hi all, sorry to be a pain, but this article, currently in queue 4, now has a free image donated by one of the band (aided by User: The Squirrel Conspiracy). As the page has 2406 words and 39 references, I wonder is it possible at this late stage that it could be the lead dyk hook, ie with the pic included. No worries if not. Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 1: Undeclared Wars with Israel

  • ... that Jeffrey Herf found that East Germany delivered 750,000 Kalashnikov rifles to countries and militants as part of what he calls Undeclared Wars with Israel?

@Buidhe, Chetsford, and The Squirrel Conspiracy: I don't have any problem with the wording here, but I believe that we're conflating the title of Herf's book (title case, in italics) with the "wars" themselves (sentence case, no italics). The latter is what's being referred to in the hook, so I would suggest the following:

  • ALT1: ... that Jeffrey Herf found that East Germany delivered 750,000 Kalashnikov rifles to countries and militants as part of what he calls "undeclared wars with Israel"?

This indicates that the hook is referring to the so-called "undeclared wars", instead of the book about them. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ravenpuff, I have no objection. buidhe 20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No objection here either. Placing the edit protected template. Admins, this is for Template:Did you know/Queue/1. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's a book title, so I think it should stay capitalised to indicate this, but we could change the hook to
  • ALT 2 ... that Jeffrey Herf found that East Germany delivered 750,000 Kalashnikov rifles to countries and militants as part of what his book calls Undeclared Wars with Israel? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    The issue raised by the OP still exists there though. The title of the book does not refer to a series of wars, it refers to a book. I'd be happy with the proposed ALT1 myself. Otherwise the wording is going to become awkward, or we'll lose the direct link between the "undeclared wars" and the rifle selling. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the hook In Queue 1 to ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

With the backlog going on can we finally get rid of that rule that says you don't have to review another DYK if it's within your first five nominations? Therapyisgood (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose We want to get people's foot in the door nominating content for DYK. The more people we have nominating, the more diverse the content will be. As someone that's been building queues lately, I would say that the diversity of nominators and topics is the biggest issue in DYK at the moment. It feels like 2/3rds of all the content there is Amercia-centered, and half of that is New York, which makes building geographically and subject matter-ly balanced sets is trickier. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, gawd, no - My first review, and I thought I did DYK a favor, was one sentence, something along the lines of, "This looks good." Perhaps the reason it allows 5 nominations before a QPQ is required, is so that the new participant will experience how a review is supposed to be done. As an admin and a promoter, I don't want to see the possibilities of GF newbies trying to figure that one out. We have too many rules to know, and it's unlikely a new editor is going to grasp that right off. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK is confusing enough already for newbies without needing to do a QPQ as well. Also, new editors are a small proportion of DYK nominations anyway, so would be ineffective as solving the bigger backlog issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Therapyisgood, the backlog isn't really because of lack of reviews but because of too many nominations. We want new reviewers to have experienced several reviews (and hopefully thorough ones) before they try to conduct one. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: Ping Yuen

@Mliu92, HaeB, Narutolovehinata5, and Yoninah: The current hook undesirably includes adjacent sets of brackets. To resolve this, I think that we could just omit the literal translation, since it's just extra information that isn't directly relevant to the main fact being presented here. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - that is a good suggestion. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I have made the alteration in Prep 1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More empty queues waiting to be filled

Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Guerillero:@Cwmhiraeth:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Trade QPQ

Anyone need a QPQ? I have three that are languishing:

Ping me and I'll review yours. --evrik (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth I owe you one. --evrik (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_168&oldid=1085471801"