Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 146

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140 ← Archive 144 Archive 145 Archive 146 Archive 147 Archive 148 → Archive 150

Prep 5

  • ... that the Thai Buddhist Dhammakaya Foundation built a large monument that contains a million Buddha images?

@Farang Rak Tham: @Gerda Arendt:

The article, actually titled Wat Phra Dhammakaya, is about a Buddhist temple complex (wat). The piped link in the hook, however, makes it look like this article is about a foundation. Other hooks proposed for the nomination made it clearer that the temple contains a monument with one million Buddha images, and I think one of them should be used instead. Yoninah (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The other hooks all had other problems. "Foundation" came in to avoid having "contains" twice, and the foundation built the complex. Any more elegant solution to avoid saying "* ... that the Thai Buddhist Wat Phra Dhammakaya contains a large monument that contains a million Buddha images?" welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine to say "... contains a large monument with a million Buddha images..." as in Yoninah's reply above. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The repetition of Buddh(a)/(ist) is jarring. Just "that Wat Phra Dhammakaya contains a large monument with a million images of Buddha?" is much more to the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the simplified version (that Wat Phra Dhammakaya contains a large monument with a million images of Buddha?"), but images of Buddha is really quite unusual; Buddha images on the other hand, is common usage. I confirmed this by a scan on this English language corpus, this one and this one. You could use another synonym though: Buddha statues or Buddha sculptures are both found in the corpi, but nothing with of Buddha.
With regard to the terms Dhammakaya Foundation, this foundation is part of the temple, as indicated in the section Wat Phra Dhammakaya#The foundation, but I am okay with both Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Dhammakaya Foundation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No, "images of Buddha" really is not quite unusual at all. In fact it gets about the same number of Google hits as "Buddha images". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Google does give hits for images of Buddha. But on Google Scholar, I found the hits are different in number though:

  1. Images of Buddha gives 1760 hits
  2. Images of the Buddha gives 2340 hits
  3. Buddha images gives 5050 hits.
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
On Google Search, the numbers are: for images of Buddha 23.900.000 hits, for images of the Buddha 23.700.000 hits, and for Buddha images 40.900.000 hits. It should also be noted, that images of Buddha can refer to pictures as well, whereas Buddha images is only used for sculptures, as can easily be established from the Google results and the language corpi as linked above.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
So, in actuality "images of Buddha" is not unusual at all, and can be used in this context. "Buddha images" is definitely not only used for sculptures, as a straightforward Google will demonstrate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
So is everyone agreeable to this:
ALT1: ... that Wat Phra Dhammakaya contains a large monument with a million images of Buddha? Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I prefer Buddha images for reasons stated above, as I think hooks should follow the most common usage. But I won't lose sleep over it. I'm glad the hook got through anyhow.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't let corpi pass. It's corpora. Corpi is the Queen's dogs or something. EEng 13:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Farang Rak Tham: Please clarify: are they "Buddha images" or "Buddha sculptures"? Or a little of both? Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, I would say you could use both words, but here is a close-up, so you can judge for yourself. They are not pictures, no.

...the Queen's dogs, huh? - lol EEng#s
"Corpi is the Queen's dogs or something" is an amazing construction in itself. Applause! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Going with "Buddha statues", thanks. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a day ago, with very few entries crossed off on it. Here is an updated list with 36 older nominations (through February 11) that need reviewing . Right now we have a total of 202 nominations, of which 89 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one from last year that continues to elude reviewers well into this year.

Over four months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - Howard Marks' autobiography

... that Howard Marks concluded a drug deal at the Warwick Castle in Maida Vale, London, with half a consignment of Thai grass hidden in a car parked outside? Edwardx, Widefox, Philafrenzy, Ritchie333

This is an interesting hook, although "half a consignment" isn't a "traditional" method of measurement, according to the source it was half of a 2000kg consignment, so maybe one ton would be more to the point (and actually, much more interesting). Then, thinking about it, 1000kg in a "car"? Really? The sourcing for this claim is from Marks' self-penned autobiography, so for us to stay safe, I would advocate "claimed to conclude" rather than "concluded", and would replace "half a consignment" with "a ton". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I will leave the quantities to others, but I assume you know Marks is dead? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
What exactly does that have to do with the veracity of the claim? I'm not suggesting BLP here, I'm suggesting his own stories in his own words ought not be considered as fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And please consider the logic, I've got a Mondeo and it can carry around 350kg, the estate version around 500kg. What kind of car can carry a load of one ton? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Just checking what your concerns are. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, you're just checking, or you going to check to see if you can address the issues? If anyone knows of a "car" in which you could "hide" a ton of anything, could you let me know please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Wait... a Mondeo?!? I thought you would get a brand new Tesla for the Falcon Heavy hook... Or has it just not arrived yet? lol 91.49.68.207 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It's "in the post" according to Elon. But I think he meant the post on Mars... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And you wouldn't get a ton of grass in a Tesla, not a chance... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course, the volume alone would make it impossible, or at least very improbable. But i doubt they cared much about the manufacturer recommended cargo capacity. Hardly impossible to overpack a car massively. Just that the frame may bend and so on. Something drug dealers, dealing in tons, probably would not care about. But that is obviously conjecture and not really important. On a side note, if you took the batteries out of a Tesla, it would perhaps be possible to load that sort of weight without damaging the frame... But obviously it is not very useful like that anymore, hahaha. 91.49.66.66 (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this is still very much outstanding and needs some new eyes as Philafrenzy has declined to comment on the substance of the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook and put it back into review. I personally thought "consignment" was some abstract quality, that was not specifically related to the 2,000kg mentioned further up, that sounds like something else. Not being part of an organised drug-dealing racket, I'm a bit naive about these things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I could be wrong, I read the source given and it seemed to state that the consignment was 2000kg, and that Marks claimed to bring "half" of it to the pub in his car. I'm just trying to apply a little reality to the situation... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm more considering the actual logistics. A ton of dope, especially grass (lightweight) would be physically huge, you'd never conceivably get it in a car, or even a van. Look at this, where a ton of dope even packed in tubes had to be transported in a giant tractor-trailer. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Today

The C of E wants this to go up on Easter (which this year happens to fall on April Fools Day), but Gatoclass has raised an objection, stating that the April Fools hook isn't funny enough; he is instead proposing that a more seriously-worded hook run on a different day. How should this be resolved? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so that people know what is being talked about here (and I'd much rather have the discussion here rather than at the nomination page where not enough people will see it), the supposed April Fools hooks are as follows:

... and the straight alt proposed is:

  • I would support a more serious hook to be run on a different day. The current hook is almost recycled from the Jesus Christ Is Risen Today hook back in April 2014 (... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?), which created a time sink for everyone involved. If anything, I would exercise more care (learn from past mistakes) and creativity (don't duplicate). Alex Shih (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said at the nomination page, I think a straight hook, such as ALT2 proposed above, could be run on April Fools day (probably in the slot normally reserved for a quirky because it would look totally incongruous in the middle of a bunch of joke hooks), because April 1 apparently happens to be the right date for this hook this year and there's no actual rule that says we can't run a straight hook or two on April Fools anyway. Alternatively, as Alex notes, it could just be run on a different day close to the day in question.

Apart from that, what concerns me about the original hook proposed is that firstly, it isn't the least bit funny or April Fools-ish, and secondly, it smacks of proselytism. It just has nothing to recommend it in my view, especially as an April Fools hook because it's neither misleading nor funny. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the originals as they are taking the articles and presenting them in way that can be taken either way. You can either take it as an April Fools hook that ties in with Easter (which is how most people will see it) or you can take it seriously. As for the storm in a teacup that happened last time, the feeling I got from that was that many people thought it was an April Fools hook being used on a non-April Fools Day. Not to mention there were no complaints about it until days after. This cannot run on any other day as I had specifically written it for Easter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Avoid the time sink, go with something like ALT2. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd go for a clear Easter hook, without refreshing the sad memory of the consequences of attempted quirkyness, but ALT2 wouldn't raise my interest.
In the context: how many more Easter-related hooks may we have on 1 April? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want quirky, use the factoid about the Llanfair tune variant of the hymn being written by "Robert Williams in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch" (but please disambiguate Robert Williams before Easter...) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Could always do ALT3 ... that Christ the Lord Is Risen Today in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that the "Llanfair" tune commonly used for the Christian hymn Christ the Lord Is Risen Today is named after Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Or we could merge both alt3 and the original together as a compromise and say ALT5 that it was discovered in the first Methodist chapel that Christ the Lord Is Risen Today? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT4 looks acceptable to me, it looks to be both accurate and a good fit for April Fools, given that it's hard to believe there's a place with a name like that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I disagree, it takes the focus off the hooked article plus its too descriptive and gives too much away to the point where it loses its AFD sting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's fine to keep the focus on the hooked article where possible, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of every other consideration, such as a professional and accurate presentation. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see any policy-based reason to strike original hook/ALT1. The nom stated his intent was to run it on Easter. Unless we're going to carve out some new policy to specifically deal with hooks we don't like, we should approve original/ALT1.– Lionel(talk) 10:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Lionel, please look up the sad history. It went to the talk page of the admin who had promoted it, questioning his integrity and ability to be an admini. Long live his memory. - How about a wording that the hymn was written by W., a co-founder of the Methodist church? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The C of E seems to be begging to be blocked for disruption if he thinks his hooks were in any way acceptable, after the previous attempt to have such proselytizing on the main page backfired quite badly. Perhaps some topic ban may help. In any case, I would expect someone so keen on pushing his faith to the front page of an encyclopedia to know that Easter is not the same as Ascension, which is the current image in that article. Or is that part of the April Fool's Joke, to make enwiki look even more ridiculous?

Furthermore, isn't it somewhat against the rules of DYK to first remove 961 bytes of text[1] ("coincidentally" on April 1 2017) to be able to get a 5-fold expansion one year later, by among others re-introducing the information about the LLanfair and Easter Hymns tunes? In reality, counting from before the C of E removed correct information, we get a 3-fold expansion, not a 5-fold one. Basically, this nomination should be failed and the C of E trouted for numerous infractions and refusal to get the point that DYK (and enwiki) is not the place to push his belief. Fram (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think The C of E is hoist on his own petard for this one. April Fools' Day has special rules regarding newness/expansion: April Fools DYKs are subject to the usual exclusions regarding prior Main Page appearance, but the normal rules for special occasions do not apply: the article need only have been created/expanded/brought to GA in the year immediately preceding the April 1 on which it will appear. This means that the expansion dates back to the previous April 1, which is also the date on which the article was cut back and then left unedited until earlier this year when it was expanded. So it is indeed an expansion of 1531 to 4938 prose characters, far from the 7655 characters needed to be five times its pre-revision size. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest the nomination is re-opened and formally failed then. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

How can there even be a consideration of rewarding such blatant gaming of rules with a spot on the main page? It would send an entirely wrong message and will be bound to be repeated. Removing content, waiting a few months and then re-adding some of the previously removed content while expanding the article... seriously?!? 91.49.68.207 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Just curious: how is a religious-themed hook on DYK considered proselytizing? Since we've had hooks on topics related to religion before. And as an aside, I'll now mark the nomination for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Let's see, how could claiming on the front page that "Did you know that Christ the Lord Is Risen Today?" be considered proselytizing? It is not really presenting a wel-sourced fact from the article, it is presenting the title as literal truth. No, that can't be proselytizing, that's standard behaviour. Certainly from someone who already got "Did you know that Jesus Christ is Risen Today?" on DYK 4 years ago and got a lot of well-deserved flak for that as well, someone who promotes church in his user name and fundamentalist religion on his user page quite blatantly. If you can't see how this is prosletyzing, then please saty away from DYK review as you are clearly not able to judge the appropriateness of hooks at all. Fram (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Narutolovehinata5, for closing this nomination. I don't think you were aware of the past history (with the editor, and this re-used hook). I hope this brings closure. Alex Shih (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages @Fram: and @Alex Shih:. I wasn't aware of the user's previous history, nor the fact that this had already had a previous failed nomination. I had reviewed the nomination in good faith, not being aware of its previous problems (I even used the tools, which all checked out). Had I been aware of the issues, I would have failed the nomination immediately. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have now closed the nomination as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

...and The C of E has re-opened it. This might need some more eyes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The C of E is proposing to expand the article to correctly meet the x5 requirement, so I think we can wait and see how he goes with that. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We can do it!

The article Naomi Parker Fraley showing the iconic poster was requested for 3 Feb. That didn't work. How about postponing it to March, possibly even 8 March IWD? Now lead in prep 2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If we B & Q it? (sorry @Martinevans123:! Had to make that joke.) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This kind of blatant commercial linking will see you banned, C of E It's up there with Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. (well, not literally of course). Although all the stars go there, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm still concerned that the article doesn't even agree with the hook, that Parker was the "most likely" inspiration for the poster. Indeed, it's even pointed out that the artist rarely worked from photographs anyway. (Even further, I'm not 100% convinced that Parker is even notable, since it can't be confirmed that she was the poster girl, but that's not relevant to DYK). Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
There was some discussion on the talk page about this being made a redirect to We Can Do It. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook from prep 2 given the above concerns and, per Gerda Arendt's suggestion, placed it in the special occasions section for March 8, which should give plenty of time for the issues to be addressed or the article to be redirected or whatever. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I think there is some overthinking here. Lets imagine that we find definite proof that its not Naomi in the photo or poster. In that case, then she would be in exactly the same position as Geraldine_Doyle. Its certain that Geraldine is not the girl in the poster, but she has a Wiki article and she's in the Michigan Hall of Fame - for good reason! What matters here is not what one or another editor thinks, but does a reliable source say she is "most likely" and has she been the source of substantial interest by reliable sources? checkY Victuallers (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Robin Surgeoner

Ahh DYK, it's been a while. Before I submit Robin Surgeoner could someone tell me if it's acceptable to have missing medal information? Sources support his nine golds but recordkeeping in old Paralympic games was poor and data for one of his golds is missing. I think it might meet the DYK criteria other than that. violet/riga [talk] 16:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks OK to me, I suggest you go ahead and nominate it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

February Black History Month

There's still an open prep set (Prep 2) for the last day of the month, February 28, if anyone has any more articles to nominate. I just approved two more Black History Month hooks and moved them to the Special Occasions holding area for this month. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

New reviewer needed ASAP to approve Template:Did you know nominations/And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Queue 2 - forcing fumbles

... that Indianapolis Colts defensive back D. J. White forced a fumble every year he played for Georgia Tech? Daniel Case, Church

So I took a quick look at the article, it contained gems like " a month later to force a fumble against North Carolina a month later" which the reviewer must have read, because it turns out the "fact" has to be derived from four sentences in the article, with a knowledge of the nomenclature of the namings of the years, i.e. you have to read "as a true freshman for the Yellow Jackets, played in the last 10 games of the season and forced a fumble in conference play against North Carolina" (what's a "true freshman"?!) together with "A week later, he stopped a 75-yard run by forcing a fumble on a 75-yard run out of the back of the end zone for a touchback against Pitt" (which we have to assume happened the following year, is that his "junior" year? Who's Pitt? Whats a touchback? Why 75-yard run twice?), together with "and also registered one forced fumble", (is that the same forced fumble as before? Is this the same season?) together with "He went on a month later to force a fumble against North Carolina a month later." in his "final" year. This is pretty much inaccessible to anyone outside the in-universe world of collge football, and it'd be much more appropriate to have this factoid (which isn't even interesting because I think it means three in three years, so what?) cited in one place. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Struck out link to reviewer, the promoter was Cwmhiraeth, the reviewer was Daniel Case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And the source in the nom claims he made eight force fumbles across his four year time at college. So the hook isn't right either, it should be "one or more forced fumble" or "at least one forced fumble"... Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not commenting on most of this, but a true freshman is in the context of Redshirt (college sports), it's an American NCAA thing. Pitt is Pittsburg State University, an abbreviation which shouldn't be used in an encyclopedic context. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your help with some of the jargon. The primary issues remain unresolved at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Minor clarification: Pitt in this case is the University of Pittsburgh, as in the Pittsburgh Panthers.[2] U of P is in NCAA Division I, while PSU is in NCAA Division II. I know that doesn't fix the problems, but it helps accuracy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, since I was not consulted by TRM before he posted this rant casting aspersions on my reviewing abilities, and he does not seem to have found it worth his time to look at the nomination, I will point out that a) I raised exactly this issue there, as anyone can see, and b) as you can further see, it was resolved when I read further beyond the "college career" section and found it stated under "professional career" and sourced to his NFL draft scouting report, published on nfl.com.

If you're going to make sport of someone else's reviewing, at least take the time to do something more than a superficial review yourself. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The cited source says "Forced a fumble all four years at Ga Tech. " Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way, this is the place to discuss nominations, I don't need to "consult" anyone before coming here. The article is littered with inaccessible jargon including the "He went on a month later to force a fumble against North Carolina a month later", is that acceptable? Did you review that line of prose and think it was ok? And all that notwithstanding, he didn't force a fumble every year, he appeared to force at least one fumble every year. The review I made was superficial based on the fact I'm reviewing dozens such articles per day, and in a superficial review I found numerous issues. What more would like, a detailed review? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: the article says " impressed that he had forced a fumble every year he was at Georgia Tech.[7]", there is not one element of "impressed" in the source, merely a statement of fact: "Forced a fumble all four years at Ga Tech". Not "Impressed that he forced a fumble all four years at Ga Tech". So the sentence relating to the hook is actually incorrect as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: OK, you can take "impressed" out of the article; I think it's sort of implicit that if a draft scout takes note of that in his report on a player that he was impressed by the fact but I'll agree that if we are strict about this, we won't say it ourselves.

Had the fact been stated in the "college career" section (where tbh it should have been because I will admit there is the contradiction you noted), I might have removed the redundant adverbial phrase. But I generally don't get heavily involved in copyediting DYK noms I review because I don't think there's much of it you can do before you're effectively a contributor to the article yourself and shouldn't be reviewing it. Besides, the whole point of linking it from the Main Page is to expose it to the opportunity for others to improve it; I generally defer to those other editors.

"I don't need to 'consult' anyone before coming here." No, you don't. But I generally don't start discussions like this on project talk pages without going to the common courtesy of letting the editors whose work you will be discussing know that their work will be a topic of discussion. It's part of assuming good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully you can get over it. I used the conventional method (a ping) to alert you. AGF has nothing to do with this, and to attempt to claim that I didn't AGF (or even imply it) is contrary to your "position" on Wikipedia. Don't do it again. Generally (and I mean 100% of the time) hooks that are in queues which are subject to debate get discussed here. If you're unaware of that or uncomfortable with it, then I guess I'm sorry, you need to be prepared to have your reviews scrutinised, and in this case it's evident that there were problems that needed to be fixed. That you reacted in such a vitriolic fashion is a shame; meanwhile Church worked hard on fixing up the issues. An interesting difference in approaches which has not gone unnoticed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: "Hopefully you can get over it." I should have expected no less, but I made the request anyway. I consider that method of pinging someone, when you are being critical of their work, little better than the equally deplorable practice of subtweeting. It's acceptable if you don't necessarily expect the other person to respond, an absurd expectation when you have suggested the person thus pinged was less than adequately diligent in reviewing a DYK nom (and even more so when your critique seemed itself to be based on an insufficient review).

As for Church, I would first note that he himself asked you to "keep your tone uncombative". And secondly, by the time I was able to see what all the commotion was about, Church had already done a great deal of work on the article (something that was really more his task anyway as he had developed the article), so to imply that I was neglecting that is disingenuous.

I wasn't asking that you discuss the hook on my talk page, just that I get a more formal notification about it there to come to this discussion here. I don't know how you could have misread what I wrote to imply that, save willfully.

Look, TRM, you undeniably do a lot of good work on DYK; I appreciate very much the copyediting you've done on articles I've developed between DYK approval and the Main Page, and I have thanked you more than once for this. In this case six words—"I'm sorry you feel that way"—would have mooted this whole rather-beside-the-point aspect of this discussion. I certainly don't mind have my work scrutinized; I do mind the person doing it making it seem like they're holding it up as an object of ridicule. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Church had overlooked your instant hostility, for which he apologised. Any implication or so-called "ridicule" you may have felt from a simple ping to let you know the topic was being discussed is entirely down to you. Once Church had joined in, the discussion proceeded productively to a good end result. Once again, the difference in approaches has not gone unnoticed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
A heads up, Im at work right now so I won't have time to respond in depth for a bit. TRM if you want to pull this to allow issues to be addressed then I am not opposed. I just ask that you keep your tone uncombative. Regards--Church Talk 18:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It works both ways, I don't appreciate the tone here: he posted this rant casting aspersions on my reviewing abilities so please refer to everyone when you make such a request. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right, and I offer my apologies. Let's all remember that we all want what is best for the encyclopedia here and I can certainly admit that this particular article is not my best work. Just so I can make sure I understand your viewpoint The Rambling Man, You are concerned about the hook being incorrect based on the conflicting sources correct? In addition, you are also concerned that the article contains to much "insider" knowledge that wouldn't be known to people who don't follow the sport? --Church Talk 19:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to know if forcing a fumble is really that significant, so doing it at least once a year for four years, is that really of note? Secondly, yes the hook implies that it was "one" forced fumble a year, whereas the slightly more detailed source shows at least eight forced fumbles during the four years. Thirdly (and not directly related to DYK) yes, I found the jargon too hard to follow. I corrected one blatant issue with the English but there were other issues (I noted a couple of them in my initial post) that I simply didn't understand. I haven't had time to look at the article in detail, I was just reading through the sections to see where the hook was verified and found conflicting and inaccurate information, as noted above. P.S. I can't pull it, it's now protected, so if you need more time then we'll need an admin to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You've got a bit of time before this appears on the main page, but ping me if you still want this pulled. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Admittedly, forcing a fumble isn't the greatest thing that can happen in college football. However, forcing a fumble is impressive enough as a corner as that it does not happen that often. (Most corners) are known for their coverage ability and not so much for the ability to jar the ball lose. In terms of the source conflict, I'm not sure who exactly would be more reliable but I am perfectly fine with changing the hook to "one or more fumbles" just to cover our bases. I'll go through and see if I can at least elaborate and clarify some of them. I believe it's just simply a case of something that is almost second nature to me (as a former player, albeit not at a collegiate level), getting too technical. Thank you for taking the time you have already. --Church Talk 19:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. As I said, the jargon issue isn't directly part of DYK's purview but when I ever review DYKs I do it from the "whole hog" perspective, not just the checklist, so when looking at this one, I found myself thinking "Whaaaa?" too many times. And I do understand a little about American Football having been forced to watch Superbowl a few times and the much maligned World League of American Football (go London Monarchs...!) so yes, it's altogether possible that it's way beyond the average (non-college football) reader. Most importantly is getting the hook and the article to match, and getting the hook and article correct and correctly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Just pointing out that I did not review this article, as TRM has falsely claimed, I promoted it to Prep. I investigated what a "fumble" was, and I checked that D.J.White had forced a fumble in each of his years at Georgia Tech. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Just pointing out that he forced more than one fumble in at least two years, and therefore the hook was wrong. And the sentence with the citation said the author of the source was "impressed" and that was not in the source, so therefore the article was wrong. At the time of review and promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
So how do we need to correct this? Just elaborate the hook for "one or more?" Regards--Church Talk 19:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Well "at least one" would work perhaps, and the article needs to remove the "impressed" claim. Then we're just left with the "is it a big deal" issue, and the jargon. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I have remove impressed and am in the process of proofreading and elaborating the article as much as I can here on my lunch break. If an admin could please change the hook, I'd appreciate it. --Church Talk 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I gave the entire section a good copyedit, unfortunately I'm out of time on my lunch break. Hopefully I was able to fix the concerns regarding the article.--Church Talk 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
You're still relying on the source that says he made "a forced fumble" every season, whereas the other source clearly notes he made more than one in more than one season. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not following. Where is that being relied on? In the draft section that is mainly the opinion of a draft scout. --Church Talk 20:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I think what I'm trying to say is that he made more than one forced fumble at least twice in a season at Ga, so you should probably reflect that rather than just rely on the simplified source which says (incorrectly) that he "Forced a fumble all four years at Ga Tech" where it should really be "Forced at least one fumble all four years at Ga Tech". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I corrected what you meant. Cheers. --Church Talk 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

78.26 Could you please change the hook per the above discussion?--Church Talk 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

On it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I have modified the hook. @Church: @The Rambling Man:, does it meet with each of your approvals? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Good with me 78.26 Thanks!--Church Talk 21:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
78.26 maybe I haven't cleared my cache, but I'm seeing "... forced least one fumble fumble ..." which should be "... forced at least one fumble ..." (add at, remove one fumble). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man nope, not your cache, that's all me. Fixed, and thank you! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No wuckers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man- Is there any other issues you'd like me to attempt to address? --Church Talk 22:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we're all good. Thanks to you, Church, and User:78.26 for your help in fixing up the issues raised. Good job. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nov20

There are no DYK noms for Nov20, but it is still listed on the "Count of DYK Hooks." I've deleted the header on the nom page and purged the cache, but that didn't resolve it. Help? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 04:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Takes a while for the bot to update that stuff. Wait 24 hours. Looks like it's updated every 30 minutes. EEng 04:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: Thanks! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible image copyright issue

I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold

The image used in Queue 1 includes a US postage stamp. According to Commons:Stamps/Public domain#United States, these are "Copyrighted by the United States Postal Service after 1 January 1978 .... Written permission is needed". I believe this applies even though the painting depicted on the stamp is public domain. I suggest replacing it with the image of the painting, which I think is a much better picture anyways. The (pictured) and caption should, of course, be adjusted accordingly.

Also, according to MOS:US, "U.S." should be replaced with "US".

This will hit the Main Page in about four hours. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur. You can list this at WP:ERRORS for a faster and more objective response, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not so good on copyright, and my instinct says this is probably OK, but to be on the safe side, I'll swap it out for File:Susanna Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe.jpg. --Jayron32 20:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: As the person who submitted the DYK, I would have preferred that it be removed from the Queue and held over either until the stamp copyright issue was resolved or a decision made to use the image of the painting rather than the DYK be used without an image. I feel robbed. David notMD (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It was never my intention for this to be bumped from the image slot. Quite the contrary. The iconic painting should have been featured. Beyond the importance of the painting, it's very desirable to have a wide variety of DYK images, and this is certainly unlike the usual things pictured. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You had written as much when you started this discussion, and I appreciate your comment after the fact. I would still like to see a response from Jayron32, who apparently could not imagine my dismay at my lost image from my first attempt at a pictured DYK. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If there wasn't such a mind-numblingly inane obsession over pageviews, we could switch the hooks round right now, along with the images, to get at least half a day on the main page for this candidate. Jayron32 could consider doing that rather than just simply saying "OK" to your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've transcluded the image at WP:CMP. We can make the switch as soon as the bot protects it at commons. Vanamonde (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy with the half-day (and not obsessed about page views). Thanks to all who contributed to the salvage. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Vanamonde93 for working that out. That seems like a really good idea. --Jayron32 13:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And, even though I am not obsessed with page views (really), it was nice to see that this one, even with the image included less than 12 hours, got close to 10,000 views. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Expedited review request

I recently nominated Disappearance of Gary Mathias; my hope is to have it on the Main Page for February 24-25 (Queue 5 would be ideal), the 40th anniversary. Can someone do this? Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
De-lighted
Fixing link to nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: does that mean you're reviewing this? Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Yoninah, he's reviewed it. There are also issues with the submitted QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I was waiting for the "thanks, that'd be great" but it never arrived. Nevertheless, given the timeliness of the review, I waded in. Keep up everyone! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Now approved and in special occasion section; can someone please promote to Prep 5 as requested before the prep is promoted to queue and we need an admin to do it? (I'm a little too involved to do it myself.) One of the current hooks there will need to be moved to another prep to make room. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wahey, fuck the cynicism and the arcane methods, we did what we needed to do. And hey, it might just have worked for the benefit of everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Busing

I have just promoted this hook to Prep2. From the British point of view, the use of the word "busing" here is very unsatisfactory. In the UK we might talk of "bussing" or "school transport", but the link to desegregation busing shows there is more to it than just that. Can anyone think of a better way to phrase this hook to suit US readers and the rest of us? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd say pull this, unless a way of avoiding the desegregation busing link can be found. That article is horribly substandard and shouldn't be linked from the main page, with whole unsourced sections. More important, it doesn't mention New York at all and thus is completely irrelevant to the hook. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    What if we just said "struggled with school integration from the 1960s to the 1980s?" (I also changed "between" to "to" since "between" implies fixed moments in time as the endpoints, and "1960s" is not a moment but a span). Does that work? --Jayron32 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, Jayron32, Cwmhiraeth, can I ask what part of the article (and, for that matter, what source) talks about desegregation struggles extending into the 1980s? The words "desegregation" and "busing" each appear once, in the same sentence, one that talks about the late 1960s and early 1970s. The only things mentioned about the 1980s are that the white percentage of the population went from 90% to 75%, and that the school board was far whiter than the school student body, which in 1983 was 75% black. I don't see that the hook fact of 1960s to 1980s is supported by the article. If I've missed something, I apologize. If not, however, it would probably be best if the hook were pulled and a new hook or hooks considered in the context of a reopened review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, the article discusses specific desegregation attempts through 1994, ones you missed in your reading include " In 1978, a NYCDOE integration plan was tentatively approved by the state. Black students from Brownsville could enroll in Canarsie schools as long as they did not make up a majority of the student population there" and "This disproportionate representation continued through 1994, when the mostly-white members of District 18 opposed a plan to split off several schools into a nearby district in order to increase the proportion of black votes in both districts." --Jayron32 05:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, I see the 1978 one as applicable, so we get into the late 1970s (was the plan in the source ultimately put into effect?), but the "disproportionate representation" in the second is referring to the school board of District 18 and their holding on to power, is it not? It's a stretch to equate this to school desegregation without more specific evidence. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Blame the Russians!

... that a white supremacist organization claimed the racial integration of schools in the United States was a plot created by the government of Russia to "mongrelize" White Americans? Yoninah, Coffee, Casliber

The article says that the organisation's spokesperson said "plan that was founded in Moscow in 1924 to mongrelize the white race in America". This is not the same as saying "the government of Russia", and being absolutely precise, there's a mild difference between "plan" and "plot". I realise this hook has been written to somewhat "sensationalise" the claim, but it's wandered too far from the original source in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Moscow implies the government of Russia, just as saying "the Kremlin" does. However, I'm fine with changing it to "Moscow" if that's found necessary. Plan vs. plot I'm neutral on however; they are synonyms and it is indeed (in full context) what the spokesman said just a more descriptive word. But I'm not hard set on anything. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
ok I tweaked it per this discussion to align it closer to the source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK Process issues straw poll

The previous discussion about process issues was archived, largely, it would appear, because, disappointingly, nobody seemed interested in seriously discussing the many proposals presented therein. The discussion was also complicated by a lack of clarity on what exactly we were trying to address.

So, let's try this again, with a little more structure. This is restricted to proposals trying to address a single issue; errors in the hooks reaching queues or the main page.

This is a straw poll, so the results are non-binding, and the proposals are intentionally general, so we know which ideas to pursue further, and where to spend effort hashing out tricky details. I've taken these proposals from the previous discussion, and tried to simplify them to their basic ideas. Feel free to add additional proposals. Vanamonde (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Penalize incomplete inadequate reviews

Should we disallow QPQ credit for reviews later found to have missed a basic issue with the article/hook? (By "basic criteria" I mean whether the article is compliant with core policies, whether the hook is in the article, and whether it is cited there.)

  • Yes. This seems to me to be fairly basic, and enforceable. If you didn't do a review properly, you don't get to count it as a review. Vanamonde (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • YES if they haven't checked this properly, it's not a proper QPQ review. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think this question is sufficiently clear, but I do think a QPQ credit should not be given where the reviewer has approved a hook that contains a clear factual error, or where the hook statement is unsourced or improperly sourced in the article. I do think there are more considerations to this question however, rather than simply having a black-and-white "yes" or "no" option. Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but WP:AGF. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

More reviews from experienced reviewers

Based on EEng's suggestion; should experienced reviewers/nominators be required to perform more than 1 QPQ after a certain point?

  • No. We've had this discussion a couple of times previously, my view now as it was then is that forcing experienced reviewers to do an additional QPQ review for every nomination they make will do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of reviewing which is the principal goal - in fact, it is likely to have the opposite effect of leading to even more sloppy reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Completely illogical. It stands to reason that experienced reviewers will do at least a somewhat better job than less experienced ones. Someone has to do extra reviews [added later:] needed to address the constant backlog that is the inevitable result of giving the first five noms for free, and it might as well be people who have done 10+ themselves. EEng 06:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is due to the total number of nominations and has nothing to do with the number of approved nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
There are two backlogs. One is the, since each editor's first five noms don't require that editor to do a review, there's a permanent pool of noms languishing unreviewed. The other is that, depending on the burn rate, there are sometimes a lot of approved noms waiting to be run. I'm talking about the first one. EEng 15:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The "permanent pool of noms languishing unreviewed" is immaterial. It would only be of concern if we lacked a sufficient pool of approved nominations, and I can't even remember the last time that happened. Right now, for example, we have 105 approved nominations on the nominations page, and another 40 loaded into prep. Given that we only feature 8 per day, that's more than 2 1/2 weeks' supply. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Your memory is short. Right now there are about 50 noms that haven't been touched -- no reviewer has volunteered -- since they were created. Every new nom with a QPQ adds one to that list, and subtracts one from that list, so the number remains constant -- except when a "no-QPQ-required" new editor drifts in and starts making their "first-5-free" noms, which increments the size of this permanent unreviewed pool to 51, then 52, and it goes up and up until (independently) DYK has one of its periodic crises of running out of approved noms and there are emergency pleas for quick reviews, and this backlog is driven back down. It makes no sense. Reviews should be begin reasonably promptly as a matter of course, and a sensible way to do that is to have nominators with 10+ credits do two reviews for each new nom if there's a backlog of noms awaiting review (which will be only some fraction of the time). But I tire of speaking sense to a crowd that denies there are problems in the first place. EEng 04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Well maybe it is, because I can't remember the last time we had a "reviewing drive" to increase the number of reviews. If they are still occurring, they must be a pretty rare event, and if so, can be readily managed by a few volunteers putting up their hands to help. Gatoclass (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
... on an emergency basis so errors go up. My proposal is simply that experienced reviewers do these needed extra reviews on a routine basis when there's a backlog instead of having to call all hands on deck. It's amazing the resistance to even minor, logical, incremental adjustments to procedure, apparently just for the sake of never changing anything. Please, now you contribute one last non sequitur objection. I'll check back in another year or two when the community's completely had it with the DYK mess and its intransigence to any change at all. EEng 07:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. When volunteers take over reviewing, quality if anything probably goes up - not that we often need to do this anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
More fuzzy thinking. We're talking about the same people: your "volunteers" -- those who hang around on this page -- are the selfsame experienced nominators who under this proposal would be required to do 2 QPQs for each nom (only when there's more than a handful of unreviewed noms waiting -- when there's not, then it's 1-for-1 like usual). Just under this proposal, it happens normally and naturally and promptly, instead of waiting until the system is clogged up. EEng 13:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No I don't think we have enough articles for this to be workable. However, we do need more reviews than are catered for by QPQ. Each editor's first five noms is one reason; but other, which is more significant, is articles requiring second reviews. A possible solution is to require an extra QPQ in this case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "not enough articles" (by which I guess you mean nominations). This would be a requirement only to the extent there's a backlog of nominations needing review. When there isn't, then only one QPQ is required per nom by an experienced nominator. As soon as the backlog grows a bit again, then the next few noms by experienced reviewers require two QPQs again, until the backlog's gone again. Repeat. It's simple and effective, and puts the burden of extra reviews on those best able to handle it -- experienced nominators/reviewers. EEng 07:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, albeit reluctantly. A DYK isn't that onerous when you get down to it, and I'd be quite happy to do more than one per DYK (and indeed have done). I'm reluctant only because I suspect that a) folks who nominate frequently aren't going to like this, and b) any form of this as a rule, combined with the suggestion above, is going to be rather bureaucratic; and if we've to choose between the two, I'd much rather just disallow poor reviews. Vanamonde (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde, firstly, the fact that you might be happy to do extra QPQ reviews doesn't mean that everybody would be happy to do so, and forcing that on people who are already reluctant to review is only likely to result in a decline in reviewing standards. Secondly, if you would "much rather disallow poor reviews" why didn't you include that as an option in the poll? It makes no sense at all to be !voting for your second preference because you didn't include your first. Gatoclass (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Re: extra burden: fair point, and hence my reluctance, but at the moment I'm still thinking that a reviewer's reluctance will be more than balanced out by experience (I'm assuming we mean substantially experienced, not just a 5-DYK editor). Re: poor reviews; that's the point of the first question above, though...I admit "incomplete" may have been unclear, but folks voting have clearly understood the thrust of the proposal. Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde - sorry, my mistake, that option has attracted so little interest, I guess I completely forgot it was there. I'm also having trouble with Firefox which is slowing down over time to unusable levels since their "speed update", I just restarted again to try and restore some speed. With regard to your comments about double reviews, I might have something to say about it later, but right now I'm taking a break as I'm tired of fighting my browser. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: No worries. I'm baffled about the lack of attention too; it seems the most obvious fix, particularly given the frequent complaints about reviews; but let's deal with that later. Try Chrome; I switched away from Firefox following very similar trouble. Vanamonde (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes as a simple and appropriate way to clear the backlog of noms waiting for reviews, and makes an appropriate symmetry to the no-review requirement for new nominators. EEng 13:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick fails for experienced nominators

If a nomination from an experienced DYK contributor fails basic requirements (whether the article is compliant with core policies, whether the hook is in the article, and whether it is cited there), should it be failed immediately, rather than dragged out until it passes? Alternatively, should it be failed after two reviews (to prevent abuse by a single reviewer with a grudge?)

  • Yes. Experienced nominators should know better than to submit articles with core policy issues. If there's any hesitation about this because of the possibility of the first reviewer abusing their position, I'm okay with allowing for a second opinion. Also, to be clear, I have no issues with discussions about finding the best possible hook; I see this as being distinct from, say, a hook that is unreferenced in the article. Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, this is too harsh. I recently nominated a multi-article hook where all the articles were new except for one. By the time I nominated it, I had forgotten that one article was an expansion, and this particular article was a few hundred characters short. When this was pointed out I expanded it further. It would be unfair to disallow this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, because per Cwmhiraeth, it's easy for even the most experienced nominators to miss some minor issue in putting together a nomination. Quick failing for some criteria might be justified, but again, that would require a more detailed discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth and Gatoclass: I've modified this proposal to clarify what I mean by "basic requirements". Vanamonde (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I'm not sure I'd support quick fail of nominations for anything, because anybody can make a mistake when putting together a nomination. Are there, perhaps, examples you have in mind Vanamonde, of nominations that should have been quick failed? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by core policies, if you mean things like BLP or NPOV, they are often judgement calls rather than black-and-white issues and I would think that quick failing on those grounds could lead to controversy. Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

GAs only

Should DYK nominations be restricted to articles that have passed GAN?

  • Oppose Certainly not. I thought a proposal like this might eventually come up the moment they allowed GAs in. GAs make up a very small percentage of the nominations that come through and indeed there is no guarantee that their proposed hooks meet the criteria as GAs can still have sourcing issues or have incorrect facts buried within walls of text. Besides, this is not what DYK is all about. It's about getting new material an audience where it can be further improved with others. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    Then it should be renamed to reflect its true purpose. Something like Crocks in need of help perhaps? Eric Corbett 09:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Definitely not, for several reasons. I see DYK as a way of showcasing interesting facts from a variety of topics. Most topics on Wikipedia, including those that I do most of my work on, cannot be brought to GA-level anytime soon, simply because of a lack of coverage in accessible English sources. Indeed much of the work I see here tends to be near as complete as it can be, and I see no reason to exclude it. Furthermore, the GA process has just as many flaws as the DYK process, if not more. It just receives less scrutiny because it's not putting items on the main page. GANs are dependent on a single reviewer, and the status of the article is rarely questioned even when the review hasn't covered certain criteria. Finally, there's only a handful of GAs passed every day; we'd have to reduce our throughput by an order of magnitude even if every GA were nominated, which it won't be. Vanamonde (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Most topics ... cannot be brought to GA-level anytime soon -- Most of our 6 millions articles can't be 5X expanded either, or be brand new, and so will never qualify under the current rules. The rules have always been arranged to make sure almost no articles qualify, 'cause otherwise we'd be overwhelmed. It's just arbitrary.
  • I see DYK as a way of showcasing interesting facts from a variety of topics -- GAs have plenty of interesting facts.
  • the GA process has just as many flaws as the DYK process -- Under current rules, a GA has to also pass DYK's check. We could keep it that way.
EEng 06:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose DYK is for new articles, that's its purpose. I'm not even sure why GA are allowed on DYK, and turning it into just GAs would be crazy, and you wouldn't get enough hooks anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • DYK is for new articles, that's its purpose -- Circular reasoning: you're just saying that DYK should be for new articles (i.e. not just GAs) because DYK is for new articles. Why should new articles be DYK's purpose?
  • you wouldn't get enough hooks -- Enough for what? What would be wrong with running 5 non-embarrassing articles each day, instead of 16 skeletons with frequent errors?
EEng 06:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, definitely not. The main point of DYK is to encourage article creation and expansion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, that's just circular reasoning: DYK is about article creation and expansion because DYK is about article creation and expansion. Why? Why can't it be about bringing articles to a reasonably complete state and so on i.e. GA? EEng 06:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, not the idea of the section. Perhaps mark Good articles as such on the Main page (by the green symbol), to tell readers in advance what to expect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
not the idea of the section -- more circular reasoning. EEng 06:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I've only recently been doing DYKs, and that for articles I improved to GA, but I see the 5X criteria as much more central to how DYK is an incentive to improving Wikipedia. If any change in criteria, perhaps increasing minimum length, so that DYK obsessed editors are less inclined to create short articles. Speaking of which, could the minimum length requirement be automated, so that when a DYK is submitted the submitter would get an immediate prompt if too short? David notMD (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Increasing the minimum length is a great idea. EEng 06:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, DYK is supposed to be primarily about new content, not old articles somebody has given a few tweaks to. Confining DYKs to GAs would mean less diversity of topics as GAs tend to be top-heavy in certain topics, and it would also in all likelihood mean a lot fewer nominations being featured as fewer GAs get passed on a daily basis. Restricting DYKs to GAs could also cause a sharp decline in the (already questionable) standard of GAs as you could just end up with DYKers rubber-stamping each other's GA nominations in order to get them featured at DYK. There are just so many things wrong with this idea, these are just the first few that come to mind. Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • DYK is supposed to be primarily about new content -- circular reasoning again: it's supposed to be about new content because it's supposed to be about new content, QED.
  • you could just end up with DYKers rubber-stamping each other's GA nominations -- Because that sure doesn't happen now.
EEng 06:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
EEng, you don't have to keep repeating yourself. It's about new content to encourage people to continue to create new content and as a reward for doing so, as well as reminding readers that Wikipedia is a dynamic and ever-growing body of knowledge, amongst other things. And I think it highly unlikely that DYK contributors are rubber-stamping each other's GAs now, because they don't need to take an article to GAN to get it featured in the DYK slot, but that would obviously change if they did have to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • you don't have to keep repeating yourself -- I appreciate your cutting me this slack, but as long as people keep repeating the same circular arguments ("DYK is supposed to be this way because that's the way DYK is") I'll go the extra mile by pointing out that that's what they're doing.
  • And I think it highly unlikely that DYK contributors are rubber-stamping each other's GAs ... but that would obviously change if they did have to do so -- so you agree the DYK process has a tendency to be a rubber stamp?
EEng 05:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said in an earlier thread, I think most reviewers try to do their jobs conscientiously, but a few may not, or may simply not be aware of the kinds of issues they need to be on the lookout for. And as I've said on numerous previous occasions, I strongly support the idea of greater accountability of reviewers to address the problems we encounter, particularly with regard to hook accuracy. But I do think that if there's a tendency for some people to review sloppily, that tendency could only be exacerbated by expecting them to do even more work to earn a QPQ. Accountability is the solution IMO, not piling more work on the shoulders of those who are already struggling to meet existing requirements. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Higher standards are a bad idea because it would be too hard for some people. Great reasoning! Maybe some people shouldn't have an expectation of having their can't-meet-moderate-standards content featured on the main page. EEng 07:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Straw man much? What I said is that higher standards My point is that "higher standards", as you put it, would be best achieved by greater accountability, not by simply piling extra requirements on those already struggling to meet the existing requirements and expecting them to somehow do better. Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Misquoting yourself, much? You said nothing about higher standards. EEng 13:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. What do you think I was referring to when I said we need greater accountability to address the problems we encounter, particularly with regard to hook accuracy if not higher standards? When people start playing semantics it's generally a good indicator that they have run out of valid arguments. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not higher standards, that's struggling to meet even the standards we already have, because we continue the mythology that short, brand new articles can be featured on main page without frequent embarrassment. When someone keeps saying one thing and then later saying they meant something else, it's generally a good indicator of fuzzy thinking. EEng 15:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps my expression wasn't as clear as it might have been, but I think my position is clear enough, your non-sequiturs notwithstanding. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No but I don't think the above arguments are valid. However DYK was started when the wiki was fairly small, so that "old" articles might be familiar to "the regulars". I would support removing/relaxing the newness requirements. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC).
Absolutely. The stupid newness requirement is the dumbest thing by far about DYK, and the root source of its quality problems. "I know! Let's feature on the main page rough drafts only one person has looked at!" Brilliant. EEng 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Rich, we did already relax the "newness" requirement. In case anyone forgot, GAs are already eligible for being featured in the DYK slot along with new articles. This proposal would not merely relax the "newness" requirement, it would eliminate it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. And reversing it I am against. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC).
  • No - Amongst many reasons... the Main Page has featured content but also needs to showcase new articles that could draw in new editors. violet/riga [talk] 15:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes there’s no reason why DYK should continue being for mostly “new” articles. We are not desperately short of articles, and while I appreciate significant changes would be needed to enable this to happen, I think the ultimate goal should be on quality, and spreading out the reviews over two different processes seems like madness to me. Aiken D 15:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    I tend to agree, this imaginary DYK thing about encouraging new editors to create content is bollocks. Rewarding someone for creating a dull stub or for making temporary content forks for credits in one place or another is hardly the same as rewarding someone for taking an article (or even creating one) and bringing it to good article status which is far more onerous and demanding. Those people, who aren't just in it for the quick win, should be the ones being rewarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
You would not eliminate the need for two reviews by having only GAs, because you would still have to have most of the DYK checks including the hook statement checks. As for GAN reviews, they are only as "onerous and demanding" as the user doing the review, and I know from personal experience that many GAN reviews are appallingly slapdash, which is why many of them have to be improved before they can even be featured at DYK. And they would probably get more slapdash still if DYK participants were forced to migrate there to get their articles on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I've got around 170 good articles (and conducted about an equal number of reviews), I can tell you that your experience is very odd and you should have rejected the reviews. Ironically, until lately there's been no reward for GAs besides WikiCup. Whereas toss together a junk stub with no grammar checks, no spelling checks, no real reference checks, no real fair use image checks, and you can be featured, in an equally slapdash review process which is fundamentally worse because of QPQ! The reward for getting a half decent article (a GA) onto the main page is clearly a good one and should be encouraged way more than these tedious junk stubs or pretend content forks which we see every WikiCup. My experience of reviewing GAs nominated at DYK is that they are literally a shoo-in. That's exactly how every single nomination should be but sadly it's not how it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
There is another reward for new GAs apart from Wikicup. It's called DYK, remember? New GAs can already be featured here, so you can't claim they are not getting the same "encouragement". Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get it, but DYK is shamed and a running joke, so it would be much better to flip the requirements, i.e. GAs are the de facto articles we run, and new articles need to meet much higher standards than they currently do (and be properly reviewed, which they're currently not by any means). Placing boring detritus on the main page is something that should have stopped about five years ago, this myth that DYK is about encouraging new editors to contribute is total bunkum, and the lackadaisical approach to reviewing DYKs has rendered it not fit for purpose for a decent encyclopedia. I don't see Britannica operating a similar free-for-all joke. The sooner we extinguish this "every nomination eventually passes" paradigm and the sooner we start getting shot of reviewers or promoters who simply aren't doing the job properly, the better a chance DYK has of surviving. GAs are an essential part of that, and even if we only featured half a dozen GAs per day, that would be better than some of the honestly tedious rubbish that currently runs at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The "not fit for purpose" claim has mostly been bandied about over hook inaccuracies, how exactly do you imagine that confining DYK to GAs only would address that? Of course, it wouldn't, because you'd still have the same issues cropping up and most probably you would still need to retain QPQs. With regard to quality, most DYK articles are well presented and of reasonably good quality, to the point where I don't think imposing GA standards would lead to a great improvement, except perhaps that nominations would get a bit longer on average, and that's not necessarily an advantage as articles of different lengths add variety. Not everybody wants to wade into a long article every time they click on a link. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we wouldn't (and in practice, we don't) have the same issues with GAs here. They are infinitely better prepared for the main page than most of the dross stubs and content forks. "Not everybody wants to wade into a long article"? Seriously, you're using that as an actual argument here? I think this has hit the buffers now...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet we have roughly the same number of hook issues, proportionally speaking, as we do with non-GAs, which is the main criticism raised about DYKs. As for "hitting the buffers", not at all, I've scarcely scratched the surface here, but since we've been debating this on and off for years and have yet to reach agreement, there doesn't seem much point in repeating myself. Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we don't have anywhere near as many problems with GAs which are currently running alongside the usual dross as we do with the usual dross. As for "Not everybody wants to wade into a long article", about as close to clutching at straws as I've ever seen in this discussion, why then do TFAs draw ten times the audience of a "decent" DYK? Interesting, and per someone's suggestion below, we could simply ditch DYK for "TGA" Today's Good Article, and we'd almost certainly see more pageviews of a decent quality single article than all the dross articles in a typical set added together. That would be doing our readers a good service in other words. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought for one delirious hour that I'd actually managed to get the last word in a discussion with you for once. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. As for "why TFAs draw ten times the audience", my impression from looking at past statistics is that the DYK section collectively is often not far behind TFA in page hits and sometimes actually comes out ahead, which IMO is quite an achievement given that the TFA is visible on mobile devices and DYK isn't. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, not at all, but I do have a life outside Wikipedia. The point I was making was that FAs are long articles and draw 10 times the audience of the average start class DYK, so this curious "not everybody wants to wade into a long article" thing seems to make little or no sense under logical analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I mean, each DYK is competing with 7 other DYKs and takes up far less space, and is also below the far longer blurb for the TFA; that seems more a reason for that difference, and also I doubt that the average reader knows that the FA is longer than an DYK so it really is meaningless data IMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's meaningless, but what you said just backs up the suggestion that people are looking for short articles to read is somewhat silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
No I have argued that the DYK requirement for full referencing and not a work in progress approximate B-class criteria B1 and B2. That leaves grammar, structure and supporting materials to reach B-class, and these are normally easily met. So DYK articles should be capable of passing GA; but this is me thinking in terms of MilHist articles. The GA backlog for other articles is excruciatingly long, and flooding GA with DYK articles would not help. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The GA backlog for other articles is excruciatingly long -- imagine if all the effort here at DYK were redirected to GA reviews instead. EEng 07:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No. This was a bad idea the first time EEng proposed it, and it remains a bad idea after multiple times at bat. Fortunately, most people see that. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, they keep repeating the same circular arguments anyway (with one or two exceptions above). EEng 07:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No: But this reminds me of the idea that the landscape of English Wikipedia has moved past the stage of content creation, and we are now in the stage of continuously improving existing content. I suspect that if the trend of intensive focusing on the quality of DYK article continues, we may find ourselves adopting a variation of this proposal in the near future. Alex Shih (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • English Wikipedia has moved past the stage of content creation Alex, I'm surprised to see that comment from you of all people. You've worked on topics related to the history of China and Hong Kong, IIRC. You should know that the depth of coverage we have with respect to literally anything in the English-speaking world since the 20th century is far greater than that of any topic outside that category. How have we moved past content creation? Vanamonde (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, I wasn't necessarily endorsing the idea, just presenting a different perspective on what I thought the rationale behind this proposal could be, despite of it being a rather bad proposal. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, of course content creation will never stop, but I do feel these days more emphasis should be put on improving what we already have (I often find myself going back to articles I created 10 years ago, and updating them with the current standards accordingly). Alex Shih (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Obviously not. I've seen many articles that have passed GAN, but failed at DYK (which shows that the GA review was unacceptable, though that's another matter). Does not solve any problem regarding core content policies. feminist (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No - DYK exists for a reason: to showcase newly-created or newly-improved articles and allow them to see a wider audience; at the same time, it encourages article improvement by both new and experienced reviewers. And besides, GANs are no means perfect: some GAs even end up being delisted or rewritten after failing at DYK. If you want to want DYK to only features GAs, then might as well rename it "Today's Good Article": even then, considering GA approval rates remain low, we'd be resorting to repeating hooks (which is already allowed at TFA, albeit after five years). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • More circular "DYK should be the way it is because that's the way DYK is" reasoning.
  • The proposal is to still have the DYK review, like now.
  • If all the DYK effort were redirected to improving articles to GA status, there's be a lot of additional GAs. Not as many additional GAs as there are now DYKs, but there'd be nothing wrong with running 1/3 as many articles of much better quality.
EEng 15:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but at most, there would still be very few articles being promoted per day. I see some sense in the idea, but it would be wildly impractical. GA promotion is still gonna be slow, and considering reaching GA status can be daunting, it can be very unfriendly for newcomers (unlike the new article or 5x expansion nominations, which are easier for newer editors). Like most of our current GAs were promoted long before GAs were allowed to go up for DYK (remember that new GAs weren't even DYK eligible until about four years ago). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I know this is just a straw poll, but considering this particular proposal has only been supported by two users so far (one of whom is the proposer), this feels the most snowy among the questions. You asked "should DYKs be limited to GAs?", and from the way things are going, the result looks like a resounding "No". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • @Cwmhiraeth and Gatoclass: Fair enough; indeed, when I made this suggestion, I did not mean to suggest failing under the circumstances Cwm mentions. I mean basic article requirements, not basic DYK requirements. Essentially, is it policy-compliant? If we're okay about approving quick-fails for a subset of the criteria, let's look at what those should be. Vanamonde (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This was very unclear. As this is DYK, naturally it's going to be viewed here in that context, and policy compliance is one of the specified DYK criteria. Although it's annoying to people who have already answered (and it would really help if before you posted something like this you did a draft somewhere and invited comments to avoid this sort of thing happening), I'd like to suggest you reword this one, if not split it into two: failing to identify issues with the DYK criteria, and failing to identify issues with the non-DYK-specific Wikipedia policies. But it seems that there is something further here: whether people should get credit if they identify a serious basic issue like the article is too short, and (sensibly) don't do a complete review because they'd just have to redo the review once the extra material was added. If the nominator never expands the article to minimum length, should the reviewer not receive QPQ credit for the review? If the reviewer does do a full review initially, then they should get credit; if they point out the basic flaw but no more, then only when the nomination closes should a QPQ be considered, though I'm on the fence about that one: I don't think we should generally encourage piecemeal reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I for one haven't the stamina to create a draft for a straw poll which itself is a precursor to a draft of an RFC that will be discussed before the RFC. It's a non-binding poll. People can add things mid-way. Also, I did explain what I meant by "basic" requirements; a few rows higher up, in the first question. I am personally unenthusiastic about quick fails for a nomination that fails to meet DYK's technical requirements that are not related to core policy (expansion, QPQ, etc). So I'm not going to create a separate question for that. I'll just copy over what I mean by "basic", and leave it at that.

    I'm personally not in favor of a quick identification of a serious issue receiving QPQ credit; whenever I've identified such an issue, I've never claimed it as a QPQ. But I see this as an issue separate from that of review quality. Users who identify a serious issue with a nomination and then move on are not contributing to a drop in review quality, whether they count it as a QPQ or not. Vanamonde (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Actually I am against the idea of quick failing anything (with the exception of nominations way off the mark I suppose). If we accept the basic premise that DYK is here to encourage article creators and expanders, then non-compliance with DYK rules or Wikipedia policy should be met with help and guidance, which is what usually happens here, and definitely not with criticism and ridicule. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    How many DYK proposers are new editors? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, here are some stats. I started on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know and looked at the first 20 nominations since February 1. Feel free to continue adding to this list if you would like a bigger sample. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
edit counts for DYK nominators
  1. Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture – Created/self-nominated by Usernameunique, 11,804 edits
  2. Wang Bingzhang (general) – Created/self-nominated by Zanhe, 77,610 edits
  3. 1838 Georgetown slave sale - Created by Antony-22 15,255 edits and Fuzheado 22,741 edits, nominated by Antony-22 15,255 edits
  4. Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart - Created by BD2412 more than 350,000 edits and Moscow Mule 783 edits, nominated by BD2412, more than 350,000 edits
  5. Pythagoras - Improved to GA/self-nominated by Katolophyromai, 10,918 edits
  6. Saudi Arabia and weapons of mass destruction - Created/expanded/self-nominated by Ali Ahwazi, 531 edits
  7. Rodriguinho Marinho - Created/expanded/self-nominated by Royroydeb, 18.824 edits
  8. Marcel Cordes – Created and self-nominated by Gerda Arendt, 165,711 edits
  9. Chandra Khonnokyoong - Improved to Good Article status by Farang Rak Tham, 5,656 edits and Thanissaro, 924 edits, nominated by Farang Rak Tham, 5,656 edits
  10. Transforming Infrastructure Performance - Moved to mainspace and self-nominated by Dumelow, 22,962 edits
  11. Scherzo (Stravinsky) - Created by Ron Oliver, 2,467 edits, nominated by Gerda Arendt, 165,711 edits
  12. Infrastructure Cost Review - Moved to mainspace and self-nominated by Dumelow, 22,962 edits
  13. Stanley Gelbier - Created by Whispyhistory, 2,501 edits and Philafrenzy (talk), 162,400, nominated by Whispyhistory, 2,501 edits
  14. Charles LiMandri – Created and self-nominated by Lionelt, 22,030 edits
  15. The Infinity Gauntlet - 5x expanded and self-nominated by Argento Surfer, 19,654 edits
  16. Sainte-Anne Hospital Center - Created and self-nominated by Robert K S, 15,822 edits
  17. Museum of Geometric and MADI Art - Moved to mainspace and self-nominated by Michael Barera, 15,512 edits
  18. EastEnders in Paris - Moved to mainspace by Kelvin 101, 14,255 edits and nominated by Soaper1234, 10,808 edits
  19. Devante Mays - 5x expanded and self-nominated by Church, 9,228 edits
  20. Ian Stephens (editor) – Created and self-nominated by SlimVirgin, 158,769 edits
Well that speaks for itself, although nothing different from what I analysed a few years ago when the average nominator was around the 30,000 edit mark. So please, everyone, stop claiming this about encouraging new editors. It's not at all, it's about churning out credits for old and savvy editors, with the odd newbie sprinkled in. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
We all were beginners once. My first article was deleted, then I got help to revive it by Cmadler who nominated it for DYK (without telling me), and I liked the system. I am prouder of nominating for others than for myself, and wouldn't mind someone to write me the 200 medal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm probably plowing a lonely furrow once again, but here goes...the process isn't about new users, it's about new content. Newly created or expanded articles are likely to be from topics that need to be represented better. Therefore, DYK should continue to provide an incentive to create and expand articles. If new users take advantage of it, then that's great; but even if it's experienced users working on poorly covered topics (wildlife, pre-20th century history, literally anything outside the anglosphere) that's a good thing, and we should encourage it. Examples from my own work include Betty Tebbs, Carlos Enrique Díaz de León, Erol Önderoğlu, Strike Vilakazi, Muzoon Almellehan, and many more. Waiting to bring articles such as these to GAN is impractical; and if folks find them tedious, then I'm sorry that they are unable to be engaged in things outside their sphere of interest. @Hawkeye7 and EEng: this is relevant to what you both were saying above, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Arsenal home games

... that Arsenal reached the 2018 EFL Cup Final against Manchester City today after playing four out of the five previous matches at home? The C of E, SounderBruce

SO WHAT? Manchester City played three out of the four at home. This is NOT INTERESTING TO A BROAD AUDIENCE. Suggest this is quickly pulled in favour of some alternative which is actually interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Coincidentally, the two team's respective women's teams will contest the WSL League Cup Final two weeks after the match.[7]" MORE INTERESTING. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"Arsenal reached the final without leaving London as four of their five games were at home,[18] with the away leg of the semi final being played in London.[18] " MORE INTERESTING. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"It will be the first League Cup final contested under the "Carabao Cup" name following the sponsorship of Carabao Energy Drink." MORE INTERESTING. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree that one of the first two suggested by TRM would be more interesting. Last one I like less as it's about sponsorships and advertising. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
If you check the nomination page, you'll notice that the proposed hook was "... that Arsenal reached the 2018 EFL Cup Final against Manchester City today without leaving London" but the reviewer insisted that it could not be used while I was sure it could. If we could use that, it would be better in my view. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The "not leaving London" one is definitely the best IMO. Suggest something like "... that Arsenal reached the 2018 EFL Cup Final without playing a game outside London, after four home games and one away game, which was at Chelsea? The claim at the nomination page that this is synthesis despite sources saying all of the games were played in London is ridiculous IMO. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I am happy for my originally proposed hook to go in the prep if you're happy for it to? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The C of E, I don't think your original hook is quite precise enough. I suggest we go with a meld of your original hook and Black Kite's:

I have substituted the following hook:

I changed the location of "today" because I assume the hook is meant to be referring to tomorrow's cup final rather than that Arsenal only reached the final "today" (since it apparently did that a month ago). I haven't fact checked the hook myself on this occasion, I'm assuming it is correct based on the preceding discussions. Somebody still has to load this set into the queue though, I probably won't be able to find time to do it myself. Gatoclass (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I think that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I should note that I rejected the original hook because it was not properly sourced within the article and I could not find a source that said that Arsenal played most of their cup matches in London. SounderBruce 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It wasn't "most", it was "all"... I guess it's difficult if people don't realise that Chelsea (or Stamford Bridge) is in London, otherwise the fact that they had played all other matches at home (plus the Chelsea two-legged affair) is clearly an all-London run of games. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3 – Tomasz Mackiewicz

... that during his seventh attempt to summit 8,126 m (26,660 ft) high Nanga Parbat, Polish mountain climber Tomasz Mackiewicz went missing on January 27, 2018? Yoninah, Yoninah, Usernameunique

Presumably this should say "summit the 8,126 m...." plus it would be better the other way round, i.e. "Polish mountain climber Tomasz Mackiewicz went missing on January 27, 2018, while climbing Nanga Parbat...", yet even then the article says he disappeared at the summit, not during an "attempt to summit", so either he made it or he didn't, either way the article and the hook disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hook has been moved from Prep 5 to Prep 3 to make a space available for a special occasion hook for tomorrow. This also gives more time for an acceptable hook to be agreed upon. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
"Summit" is a verb now? What's wrong with just "climb"? Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, professional climbers are more interested in reaching the top than just climbing the mountain. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
TRM, he was left behind by his climbing partner at 7400 m; the summit is 8126 m. What do you think of this alt based on your recommendation?
  • ALT1: ... that Polish mountain climber Tomasz Mackiewicz went missing on January 27, 2018, during his seventh attempt to reach the summit of the 8,126 m (26,660 ft) high Nanga Parbat in Pakistan? Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Better, you need to treat the height adjectively, so "... the 8,126-metre (26,660 ft) high ..." but otherwise fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks, I changed it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom

Please, this is about to hit the main page, yet it's a pure copy/paste from another article, i.e. Alliance Defending Freedom. There's no attribution given, the reviewer (Church) and the promoter (Cwmhiraeth) need to understand this sort of thing is completely unacceptable (again). Did anyone check if this page was an orphan? Did anyone bother checking the only article that it was related to, from which the entire list was created? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Criterion 1.a. "For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article." Chris857 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
In other words, this should be be pulled, and the reviewer and promoter notified that this is yet another example of a badly managed DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man I apologize, but given my current medical condition I won't be able to help fix any problems this time around. Although I will note as I understood the criteria there was nothing regarding it being a violation for being based on on another page. I have reread the criteria and offer my apologies for my mistake. --Church Talk 00:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
As pointed out by TRM in his inimical fashion, this article is not eligible for DYK as it does not meet the newness criterion, having being wholly copied from another article (without the necessary attribution). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
As missed by the promoter in their "inimical fashion"... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
You're quick off the mark, I meant "inimitable fashion". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Point remains, you missed these kinds of simple issues, again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps everyone could try to be more imical and itable. EEng 15:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
TRM has invented a whole array of hoops through which he thinks a prep builder should jump. The actual instructions for prep builders are here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
And you have created some kind of record by building preps which inevitably contain fundamental errors. This one was absolutely trivial to detect, yet it got close to the main page (yet again). Prep building is not an excuse to just send detritus or errors to the main page. If you don't think that applies, please stop doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what the great problem would be if it did hit the main page since it is DYK pedantry and not an actual problem.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Well then, let's get rid of most of the arcane shit that surrounds this corrupted process! Or maybe move DYK to a Main Page sandbox in toto so we can publish everything that gets nominated to a safe zone that doesn't continually embarrass the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Mostly that its the reviewer's job to check that, and that only "serious" errors really need checking by the prep builder Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Lol, serious errors like lack of attribution? Wow. 23:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. it is DYK pedantry well actually, no, correct attribution is a sitewide requirement, not unique to DYK. Please don't confuse the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Saori Ōnishi

Hi. So my DYK nomination was reviewed, and now it's in the Approved section. I had requested for a special occasion hook on March 20: will this be okay, or should the hook not be put up on that date? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Once it's approved, you can move it yourself to the Special Occasion holding area. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I have moved it to the Special Occasion holding area for March 20th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, people should not move their own special occasion requests, because not all requests are appropriate. Someone other than the nominator should decide whether it is a reasonable request—we've had a few that weren't and the request was declined—and if it is then it should be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
It probably doesn't matter, people who are creating sets are doing little more than just moving hooks in and doing nothing much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Neither to the point nor helpful in this thread. But you knew that. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Accurate and worth reiterating. Anyone should feel free to add things to preps because there's no additional quality control going on in that process. But you knew that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, TRM, we're not talking about prep building. @BlueMoonset: the reason I said that is because even the reviewers aren't moving approved nominations to the special occasions area. When I scroll through the noms page during prep building, I always find date requests that are simply stagnating for want of someone to move them to the special occasions area. Yoninah (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, do you need to be an admin to move things to the "special occasions area"? I thought it was a "prep" area. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you don't need an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't even started reviewing Prep 1 and it's already become Queue 1!! I guess that's what ERRORS is for!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, Prep 1 was filled early on February 22, and it was promoted to Queue 1 over three days later. I guess you were busy doing other things. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I'll just post all issues to ERRORS as I said, since DYK has become a much lower priority for me after the threats from an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Some outstanding issues about the current hooks on the main page, ranging from factual problems to smaller grammatical questions, at WP:ERRORS. Some additional opinions and if necessary action would be welcome. Fram (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 image – sometimes forever isn't as long as expected

The image in Prep 4 was probably okay for Commons when it was uploaded (although the license is incomplete and should include licensing pertaining to the statue rather than just the photo of it). According to the article, the statue was originally to be at Harrod's "forever". Thus, it was acceptable per UK freedom of panorama rules which require a sculpture to be "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". But the article reports a recent announcement that the statue will be "returned to the Al-Fayed family". It appears that the image would no longer be acceptable, but maybe someone more knowledgeable about such things can look into the situation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Great spot. Problem is that you can't really revoke these kinds of licences, once it's out there, it's out there, and running around trying to un-licence all the previously licensed images would simply never happen. Like upgrading the classification of documentation once it's been released, just can't be implemented. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Per my knowledge of law, even private contract-based copyright licenses are nigh impossible to revoke retroactively—let alone public law-based, such as Commons:Template:FoP-UK. If it was legal/under a public license during the time, nothing will change it after the fact (bar a very peculiar new act/law that would have retroactive effect—which is unheard of). Thus, the picture is totally ok. Manelolo (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Once it's out there, it's out there. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
It's more complicated. I don't think this ever had a valid license. If it had included something like the template I linked to above, it would've been fine. (Would a license that wasn't explicitly stated still be valid?) I wouldn't add the template now, because it's no longer applicable. I don't want to be too nitpicky, but copyright issues are serious matters. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I think a retrospective licence would be fine. It was, after all, on public display, for quite some time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, right now it says " which states that it is not an infringement to take photographs of buildings, or of sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public. " - the photo was clearly "taken" when the item was located in a public place. This is a lot of worry about nothing I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with TRM. The FoP-UK template is not really a license anyways, it's an info bulletin. If law clearly states that copyright is waivered in situation X (such as FoP-UK), then the pic doesn't need any license or permission whatsoever concerning the object. (FREEDOM of panorama i.e. no licenses needed.) Disclaimer: Public law degree. Manelolo (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the original poster is overthinking the term "permanently". It doesn't necessarily mean forever, it means with no prior scheduled date of removal. If I erect a statue it is considered permanent unless I say at the outset that "this will be taken down on [insert date here]." My deciding 1 year, or 5 years, or 20 years, etc later to take it down doesn't change that. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

@Anachronist:@Manelolo:

I took a look at the article and notice that it is basically a series of 3 observations strung together. The article barely passes 1500 characters, and most of that is the introduction to the quotes. The main sources for the subject are a 2008 paper and a response to that paper. I'm wondering if this is WP:SYNTH or syllogism rather than an encyclopedic subject? Yoninah (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
A valid observation. IMHO it's not WP:SYNTH. It's a subcategory of Winner and loser effects and (Actually, had 'Winner effect' in mind, but this 'Winner and loser effects' is something totally different.) the different effects of the Nobel peace prize specifically are documented outside of the article's sources even by a quick search (The Winner Effect: How Power Affects Your Brain, pp. 141-143; How your life changes when you win a Nobel prize; Too big to fault? Effects of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on Norwegian exports to China and foreign policy). One ponders if it needs its own article per WP:GNG or if it could be within Winner and loser effects.
That being said, the article would benefit from more work. I passed it to encourage article building and since it met the technicalities. I'll let others weigh in now. Manelolo (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Manelolo: if you felt the article didn't meet GNG or could be merged, and additionally that "the article would benefit from more work", you shouldn't have passed it. As much as we try to encourage new editors, we don't encourage substandard work on the main page. I'm returning it to the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I followed WP:DYKRULES to the letter. An 'I feel' criteria is a disaster in waiting IMHO. But I'll take my coat now and do something more beneficial. Manelolo (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I posted this reply on the original nom template page, but it looks like a new discussion was started here. So...

The Nobel Prize effect has nothing to do with winner and loser effects; I have no idea why that was even suggested. That article is about a biological phenomenon, and doesn't even mention human social interactions. The Nobel Prize effect is a social phenomenon that has had reliable source coverage. It wouldn't be appropriate to merge the two subjects. In my view, there are sufficient sources about the Nobel Prize effect to warrant a stand-alone article, which is why I wrote it (I had come across the term repeatedly while browsing one day, so I decided to dig further and write an article about it). Initially the information I was seeing (many trivial mentions which I didn't bother to cite) weren't about the Peace Prize, but then I came across those sources about the Peace Prize and because they went into such depth, I felt it would violate WP:UNDUE to leave them out.

I also point out that all DYK articles "could benefit from more work." That's kind of the point, isn't it? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion on the nomination template... Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Holly Beth Vincent

I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Holly Beth Vincent and the nominator is claiming eligibility via 2-fold BLP expansion. The old version has some sources but it's tagged with {{BLP refimprove}}, not {{BLP unsourced}}. Would articles with refimprove tags count toward 2-fold expansion, or does it have to be completely unsourced? epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

epicgenius, the article has to be completely unsourced. Not merely without inline citations, but no references of any kind. So DYK nominations that claim the two-fold BLP expansion are almost invariably ineligible for this, since completely unreferenced BLPs are supposed to be deleted on Wikipedia, though one very occasionally slips through the cracks. This nomination had six inline source citations before it was expanded, so it needs to be a five-fold expansion. This was expanded from 5704 prose characters to 13037 prose characters, or a nearly 2.3× expansion. It needs to expand to 28520 prose characters, which seems highly improbable; the only feasible route is to try for Good Article status. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the clarification. Now it looks like I have to break some bad news... epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove the 2x BLP criterion

It almost seems as though we should dump that particular criterion. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Vanamonde93, as we have almost no unsourced BLPs anymore, it's a meaningless crieterion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this criterion is terribly outdated and makes minimal sense nowadays; let's develop a consensus here and remove it. Alex Shih (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Alex Shih and support removal of the 2xBLP. Yoninah (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that this is a criterion that has outlived its purpose, and no longer needs to be offered. Count me as another who is in favor of its removal. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll make it six people who want to remove this criterion. Should this be an RFC? epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think RfC is necessary. Many of the DYK rules, if I am not mistaken, were added only after a short discussion here. This feels fairly uncontroversial to me, so I think anyone who has yet to comment here can feel free to remove the criterion, attributing a permanent link citing this section. Alex Shih (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes lets get rid of that criterion. It will be a slight simplification, we seldom get that around here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I am also in favour of removing it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the BLP exception should have been eliminated years ago. It was proposed in 2010 as a temporary rule during a BLP sourcing drive when over 20,000 BLPs contained absolutely no sources of any kind. I haven't seen a valid submission in many years, but there have been lots of invalid ones. It is worse than a useless rule, because virtually all of the rare attempts to use it are incorrect. People who apparently misunderstand what "unsourced" means end up disappointed and frustrated when their DYKs are rejected, and everyone's time is wasted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I am going to be the dissenting voice here and say we should keep it. I know it has been used incorrectly but there are still a lot of unsourced orphan BLPs out there that this particular rule is designed to encourage work on. Often I find there are unsourced paragraphs which make it impossible due to lack of available sources to 5x expand and the 2xBLP rule still allows for and encourages people to work on them where otherwise there is little or no incentive to improve them. They may be as rare as a drop goal in American football, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid method of "scoring". Personally this should be discussed in a separate section of this talk page (NOT as a RFC) because a lot of people could miss it under this heading. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean by referring to unsourced paragraphs, The C of E; the entire article has to be completely unsourced. It just doesn't happen here at DYK. If you find them "often", and there are "a lot" of them, then what was the last one you saw that qualified? As we've noted, any old ones should have long since been deleted per BLP rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The "completely unsourced" rule is bollocks, a complete disincentive to improve shoddy BLPs. Most of the time these days, if we ever see a "completely unsourced" BLP, it's up for deletion. This needs attention. Finding and improving a shitty BLP should be applauded and lauded, and right now, if it has one citation in three thousand unreferenced claims, DYK deems it unacceptable. Nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not unacceptable, and you know it. It just needs to follow the same rules as any other expanded article, which means five times the original size. We get plenty of BLPs in the normal way of things, both new and 5x expanded. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
From what I've seen of the rare attempts to use this generous exception, the real incentive that it provides is the easiest way to quickly throw together a DYK with the most minimal effort possible. A shoddy unreferenced BLP is turned into a shoddy referenced BLP. I've seen all of the references and most of the content removed from several BLPs, with claims of 2x expansions from those newly unsourced, newly shortened BLPs. The rule is abused, misused, and most of all, simply unused. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone show me five examples of completely unreferenced BLPs being taken to DYK in the last three months (i.e. 5 hooks out of a possible 90–180) and I'll re-consider. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Alright, show me TWO! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since the discussion began, and there's a clear consensus. Can someone who hasn't commented here please declare the result? Hmmmmm, so many of the "regulars" have commented.... How about Gatoclass? Maile66? Anybody? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

    • I'm uninvolved, and I happen to be on my computer right now. I declare the consensus is to remove the 2x unsourced BLP expansion criteria from DYK rules. It is so ordered, it shall be done. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I lack the energy to do this myself, but let me suggest you add a placeholder comment, where that provision used to be, saying something like "The former rule providing for X was rescinded in [link|this discussion]." Otherwise as sure as day follows night every few months someone will post a query here on this very page asking, "What happened to that rule I remember about unsourced BLPs?" EEng 05:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed in my Watchlist that the code has already been removed from the DYK nomination template creation that allowed for the 2x BLP expansion. That was quick. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2 - "ouster"

... that the recognition of Marițica Bibescu (pictured) as Princess-consort of Wallachia involved "complicated maneuvers", including the ouster of an Ecumenical Patriarch? Smmurphy, Dahn

Is this supposed to say "ousting"? If not, I can't really parse this, as I can't recognise an "ouster" as a "complicated maneuver"... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The Rambling Man. Merriam Webster says "ouster" and "ousting" are synonymous, in that they both mean "expulsion" (though it is a secondary meaning for "ouster"). I won't object to any stylistic change -- to "ousting" or "expulsion" or what you think is best. I'm not sure what you mean about it not being recognizable as a "complicated maneuver" -- it is in any case a maneuver, and how complicated it is really depends on the context. Dahn (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ouster" is correct in this context. Yoninah (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never heard of this other than in the context that the "ouster" is the person doing the "ousting". I suggest it's changed to "ousting". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I was going on prevelance in the English language, not what Wiktionary says (which is not a reliable souce in any case). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As this appears to be an issue of British vs. American usage, perhaps we would be better off going with "ousting" as the presumably more universally recognized form. Gatoclass (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done Changed to "ousting". Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Innocent victims

Lead hook in Prep 4:

I see some colours when I look at that image, not recognizing a thing. Somewhere in hook and/or caption (if we really think that's an image we should show on the Main page) we need that it is a memorial statue, because it could be a book title, a poster. You - at least I - don't see what it is. In the hook, I think we also need "the title IV because the phrase alone doesn't allude to specific people. More precisely, it would be "the word 'innocent' in the title of a memorial statue ..." - clumsy, I know. - What we don't need is both "her lover" and his name, - it's probably rather well known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging authors Edwardx and Philafrenzy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be on WP:ERRORS, but would it help to add the words "the statue", thus: "... that the statue Innocent Victims (pictured) alludes to ..." etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.215 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
ERRORS is for DYK today and tomorrow, prep 4 is for one day later than that. - A statue alludes to no specific murder allegation, only the title does, vaguely. You can be an innocent victim of many things, doesn't have to be murder, a conspiracy theory is enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with it. Innocent Victims is it's name, we didn't name it. It's self evident that it is an artistic work and that is reflected in the italicization of the title and in the accompanying picture. Statue is hardly an appropriate word but we could add "the sculpture" I suppose. As for "lover", we need to explain the connection of the two figures as not everyone will be familiar with the story. It's over 20 years ago. What other word could we use? Her "boyfriend" seems a little juvenile, they weren't married, or officially engaged. Certainly we need to name them both, it was commissioned by his father so it is at least as much a statue of a lost son as of Diana. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Also struggling to see any real problem, or how the hook phrasing could be improved. We might perhaps trim "her lover", but he was only famous through his association with her, and without that, we would not even be able to justify an article about him. Perhaps "the claim" could link to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories, yet I do not see how that would significantly address the concern expressed. The statue's name, "Innocent Victims" seems to me rather blunt and obvious in its allusion, and presumably chosen for that very reason. It is not subtle. Edwardx (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm the only one who sees nothing on the image, and therefore question if we should show it. Minimum change I'd hope for is a clause (sculpture pictured). You know that italics are there for a title of a piece of art, but are you sure our Main page readers know that? - I'd drop "her lover", - we don't have to say so brutally that without that connection, he would be nobody. Plainly their names looks more decent to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no strong view on whether or not to include "her lover". If we were to use the phrasing (sculpture pictured) our readers might reasonably infer that Innocent Victims refers to more than just a sculpture/statue, perhaps also a book or film. Edwardx (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda about the image. To me it just looks like an orange blur. I was going to move it out of the image slot when Mandarax raised the issue of copyright in an earlier post, but when that issue was resolved with no further comment, I left it. I think the hook should be moved to a later prep and a different image moved into the lead slot. Regarding the hook, it should start "the statue Innocent Victims..." Yoninah (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Start over, assuming no image:

  • Innocent Victims could also allude to them dying in a car accident that was in no way their fault. And how would this new hook satisfy the requirement to be "interesting to a broad audience"? Edwardx (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a matter of fact that the reference made is to their supposed murder as Edwardx indicates and not to some other form of tragedy. There is no need to evade the subject, nor is there anything wrong with the original hook or the picture. It is slightly yellow because it is a bronze but it displays well at thumbnail size and is far from a blur. I think the objections are principally on the grounds of "good taste" but that is entirely subjective and has no place here. The original approved hook and image should stand. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jackie Wallace

We have an agreed-upon hook, so this can go back to the nomination page now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Before I move this hook to prep, are people happy with the hook, or do you think it raises BLP issues? Homelessness and addictions seem to have been a major part of his later life. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My concern about this hook is that it could be seem as misleading to suggest that Jackie Wallace became homeless shortly after/because of having appeared in two Super Bowls, which really isn't the case. Personally I would add some additional lines, for instance ALT1 ... that Jackie Wallace, a former NFL player who appeared in two Super Bowls, was found living on the streets after his playing career? Pinging Muboshgu and Epicgenius for thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems like the alternate hook would be a decent alternative. It doesn't really violate WP:BLP since it merely states facts that are already discussed in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
My thought process here is that the best hooks are the shortest hooks, the ones that give away less detail. So, I didn't spell it out to "became homeless after his playing career", but perhaps in this case I should have. Does that ALT 1 say too much? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, in terms of length, ALT1 isn't a problem. But more to the point, neither hook violates BLP policy because all parts of each hook are sourced. epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
What about this?

None of the above. We're not supposed to focus on negative aspects of life, so this is just a bit too shitty to post. Can we come up with something more uplifting please? Addendum: wow, the guy's whereabouts are currently unknown following another relapse and you people want to make a DYK about it? What? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There's something distasteful about the thought that this poor guy's out on the street somewhere and a DYK about it is being splashed on WP's main page. EEng 22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Fail the nom, get something better. We are better than this. To even consider this as a nomination is sickening. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It would be different if he'd recently given an interview or something i.e. participated in telling his own story. But just feels exploitative, though I know that's not the intention. EEng 22:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Have you not read this? He's fully taking part in this story. In no way is this exploiting the man. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I hadn't read it. The article said In July 2017, Wallace disappeared again, having relapsed and returned to the streets. Since then, his exact whereabouts are unknown and I was going by that. EEng 01:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That article was actually very interesting. How about this? epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • ... that Jackie Wallace, who appeared in two Super Bowls, has not been seen since July 2017?
  • ... that Jackie Wallace, who appeared in two Super Bowls, was found on the streets of New Orleans in 1990 after not having been seen in a decade?
  • ... that Jackie Wallace, who appeared in two Super Bowls, got sober after a photojournalist found him on the streets of New Orleans in 1990?

Thanks, epicgenius. I'm thinking your first suggested alt would be a safe but still interesting option. The second might be a pass, I'm not keen on the third. Another issue we might want to look at here however is whether the coverage of Wallace's later life in the article is somewhat WP:UNDUE, given that that section is as long as the section covering the career for which he is notable. Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

​Well, given that his post-career life is about 7 times longer than his NFL career, I think that's fair. But the homelessness aspect is interesting to me. The only thing that might be problematic is a lack of info in "Early life". epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Given that his career was some time ago, and he wasn't exactly one of the best players in the league, I believe the weight is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this ought to be on DYK at all. This is not a criticism of the article, which is indeed interesting, but it's in poor taste to feature the misfortunes of the man on the main page. I've already complained about the original hook here, which just shows how disoriented I am in this part of Wikipedia. It obviously wasn't the right place, and nobody answered me. Anyway.. not sure non-regulars are welcome on this page either, but now I've found it, I don't really think any of the suggested modifications make a difference. Having Jackie Wallace on the main page still amounts to rubbernecking at misfortune. Of course I don't think that was the intention! But IMO it's the effect. And while I appreciate Epicgenius's attempt at a more uplifting hook, "... that Jackie Wallace, who appeared in two Super Bowls, got sober after a photojournalist found him on the streets of New Orleans in 1990?", it's quite misleading as to the narrative arc of the article. As, frankly, any kind of "uplifting" hook would be. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC).

Sorry if this is getting away from the main issue, but it looks to me as if Wallace only appeared in one Super Bowl. The articles says "He spent his rookie season on the Vikings' practice squad, including Super Bowl VIII." That means he did not play (appear) in VIII. He did play in IX. His final chance to "appear" according to the article was "His final game in the NFL was Super Bowl XIV as a member of the Rams. After the game, he berated his coach in the Rose Bowl locker room for not using him in the game." So that says he didn't play, but stayed on the sidelines the whole game. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course non-regulars are welcome here Bishonen! We generally don't get nearly enough feedback on this page (and please, feel free to get involved in any of the other current discussions here).
With regard to this article, I am concerned as I said that the focus on his post-NFL difficulties in the article is UNDUE, at least for a DYK nomination. But admittedly, it is kind of hard to ignore the issue. I did try to improve things a bit by linking his homelessness to the concussion issue, but it still doesn't seem like enough somehow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a fail. Find something about his career or drop the stick. We don't celebrate homelessness. DYK is plumbing the depths of pathetic here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't ignore reality either. The Main Page isn't supposed to be some fantasy world where everybody is A-OK. This isn't a BLP violation, there should be no problem with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's an editorial from The Times-Picayune over the weekend about the viral success of their article that formed the basis of this five-fold expansion. It makes it pretty clear that the Wiki article has due weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Then create a hook about the viral success, not simply based on the "Super Bowl vs homelessness" thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: @Muboshgu: How about:
ALT1: that an article published by the The Times-Picayune on former NFL player Jackie Wallace was retweeted 131,000 times, liked 279,000 times, and generated 4,600 comments?
ALT2: that an article published by the The Times-Picayune on former NFL player Jackie Wallace led Sports Illustrated writer Richard Deitsch to declare "BREAKING: Journalism not dead"?
ALT2a: that an article published by the The Times-Picayune on former NFL player Jackie Wallace led Sports Illustrated writer Richard Deitsch to declare that "journalism is not dead"?
Source: [3]
Of course, these hooks are dependent on the information being added to the article, which shouldn't be hard to do. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: ALT2a (new) looks good to me, though I'm just the original reviewer, so I'm not sure if I have any say in this anymore... epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
yes new alt 2a is ok, don’t forget to put Sports Illustrated in italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
ALT2a is the best of these IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
This is weak tea. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh well, consensus rules, and consensus says we don't main page homelessness in some foul quest for pageviews. What a shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see the issue of homelessness is too difficult to address head on. How dare we show reality on the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Nice try! Better luck next time, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there any reason you enjoy gloating over a failure of WP:NOTCENSORED? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Try things like "good taste" or "not glorifying the destitute"? I dunno, there are probably a few other reasons. Of course, NOTCENSOR away to your heart's content, but I'm glad to see some COMMONSENSE from our community. Cue violins! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Muboshgu, if you're not keen on ALT2a, how about something like:

  • ALT3: ... that Jackie Wallace was cut from the Los Angeles Rams after telling the coach to "kiss his ass" for failing to field him in the 1980 Super Bowl? Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I like that better than Alt 2a, but isn't that going to be subject to the same criticism that how dare we suggest putting anything that isn't sunshine and rainbows on the front page? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, time to stop taking your opinion into account with comments like that. I think this is more interesting and less exploitative, so go for it, but link the 1980 Super Bowl properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Does this hook not imply causation? Most readers won't take it to literally say one event happened at a later point than the other. We don't know why the coach cut him; the source also only implies that was the reasoning. Maybe it's okay since the hook says "after" and not "due to", though. Umimmak (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Not sure, but I think this hook might be a slight BLP violation due to the emphasis on the "kick his ass" comment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

To address the issue of "implied causation" raised by Umimmak, I suggest the following change:

Narutolovehinata5, I don't see how "kiss his ass" would constitute a BLP violation. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Or for a safer but still interesting option:

  • ALT5: ... that Jackie Wallace led the NFL in punt returns and punt return yards in 1978? Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay it's been a few days since there was discussion here: @Muboshgu: do you like any of Gatoclass' hooks? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Narutolovehinata5: Didn't see the last bit. Thanks for the ping. If it's between ALTs 4 and 5, I prefer 4, but without it saying "1980 Super Bowl" because nobody calls it that, everyone uses the Roman numerals. And "game selection" is odd wording.
  • That said, my preference is still my original proposed hook, as I don't think it's an "undue focus" on a negative part of his life, it's an appropriate focus on his life, as evidenced by the articles written about that NOLA.com piece. I'm not looking to die on this hill though. Let's just end this. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 5

I cleared a slot for a special occasion hook for March 2 (nighttime in NY). Since I approved the nomination, someone else needs to promote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1

@Nikkimaria: we just ran a hook about Wat Phra Dhammakaya on February 26; this nomination is for History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Could you clarify that there is not extensive copying of texts between the two articles? I can't seem to work my way with Dup Detector. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Plus the hook is somewhat obfuscating the fact this is about the history of the same temple we ran a few days ago, so that needs working out too. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    The article history suggests (but doesn't quite explicitly state) that this article was split from the main one in April 2017, and the majority of the text dates from that split. However, the article was nominated as a GA, not an expansion, so while the attribution does need to be cleared up it needs less original text than it otherwise might. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    Should be returned to noms while the hook issue and the attribution issue are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no attribution issue if it's a recent GA. I don't think the hook issue is very important, but I guess you could go with something like:

There's no attribution issue if it's a recent GA? How are those statements linked? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I understood Nikkimaria to be referring to the DYK expansion rules when she mentioned attribution. I'm just pointing out that if it's a GA, the expansion rules don't apply. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I returned this to the noms area because it's too soon to run it after the parent article, and also added Gatoclass' alt. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Gatoclass, sorry, what? You said if it's a GA, there's no "attribution" issue, not "expansion" issue, what are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I assumed that when Nikkimaria talked about "attribution", she meant how much text could be attributed to the original Wat Phra Dhammakaya article and how much was new. Now maybe she meant something else, but that's how it read to me in the context of the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, really?? Okay. The original question was along the lines of "Could you clarify that there is not extensive copying of texts between the two articles?" right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Right. Isn't that what I just said? Gatoclass (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: You've misunderstood what I said - the GA/expansion issue is separate from attribution. Because it was nominated as a GA rather than an expansion you're correct that it doesn't need a huge amount of original prose in order to qualify. However, attribution is a copyright issue independent of prose size; in this particular case WP:PATT does not seem to have been met, and that needs sorting. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/CISBOT

Might need second opinions on this. While the article meets most of the DYK requirements, I have some issues with the writing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - gin advert

The Kyrö Distillery Company hook is a great advert for the company, particularly when the typeface which is the subject of the hook is basically imperceptible while the big ol' bottle of gin is resplendent. Be prepared for complaints at ERRORS if this isn't "fixed". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: How about this pic? Manelolo (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Better! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Nice! Switched within the article, most likely I'm not allowed to change it on the prep. Manelolo (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why not. There's no problem with improving the quality of prep sets, I'd go for it. Anyone who complains is clearly not thinking of our readers... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. Just cropped the pic a bit, might take a while before WP purges/updates the thumbnail from Commons. Manelolo (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 - Der Gemischte Chor Zürich

Gerda Arendt, BabbaQ

This article contains two sections without references. This should not have been passed or promoted to a prep set. Suggest it's pulled until both sections are adequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
You shouldn't be sorry Gerda, it was the reviewer and the person putting it into the prep who should be sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_146&oldid=1090630678"