Wikipedia talk:Did you know

src: pbs.twimg.com

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

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Video Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Nominations by blocked sockpuppet

I've noticed several nominations by SirEdimon, a user indef-blocked for sockpuppetry (see Template:Did you know nominations/Sílvia Rebelo, Template:Did you know nominations/Matilde Fidalgo and Template:Did you know nominations/Andreia Norton). The articles seem fine, although the nominations are generally flawed (hook too long and no QPQ, and it's hard to verify the QPQ status for users with multiple accounts). Do we have a policy regarding nominations by blocked sockpuppets? Should we simply reject them or try to fix the issues for the sock? -Zanhe (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe, there were four nominations from SirEdimon in toto; you've not mentioned Template:Did you know nominations/Fátima Pinto. We had discussions here on the DYK talk page on this one and on Template:Did you know nominations/Andreia Norton; the Fátima Pinto one was recently archived, and the Andreia Norton one is still on this page but will be archived this evening or tomorrow sometime. Please see the general comments there. SirEdimon has only nominated for DYK from that particular account, and only has the four nominations made starting in April, so there is no QPQ requirement. There hasn't been any move to refuse the nominations en masse, and a shorter hook has been proposed for the one you reviewed. (We tend to be more strict when previously blocked return sockpuppeteers are concerned, but even then the nominations are occasionally rescued; this is SirEdimon's first time being caught and blocked.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the comment. I went ahead and approved the Andreia Norton nomination. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Does current events portal make nom invalid?

I have got a DYK nomination that has been featured before at a current events portal. It is the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan article. Two questions:

1. Was it the main link that was featured on the front page?
2. Does this make the DYK nomination invalid?

Thanks for any replies.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Well under section 1.d of WP:DYKRULES it does state that only ITN and OTD make a DYK ineligible so if it has appeared in a portal then it is eligible to appear on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, The C of E!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

src: rightrealist.com

Prep 1 - shipwrecks

• " ... that 25 shipwrecks and scuttlings have been recorded at Long Reef?" Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, Paul 012.

The article states "There is a record of 25 shipwrecks and scuttlings associated with Long Reef on the Australian National Shipwreck Database.[12]", ref 12 leads to a generic main page with no sight of verification of the claim. I stumbled around a bit, and finally found some results in a search on "Long reef", but no sign of the word "scuttlings" anywhere. I think, as a minimum, the article should explain how to find the results, how to go from 26 hits down to 25, and why the hook has the word scuttlings, yet the source to verify it doesn't mention the term at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The database seems to record the ships that have sunk, not just those that have been wrecked. If you click on an individual ship in the search results for the register, such as "Ferry pontoon", you will see that it was scuttled in 1980. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So the hook fails the DYK rules, the claim is not referenced by an inline citation. It's referenced by a database which you have to understand how to use, what results to discount and what how to determine that some were as a result of scuttling. This is a fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In any case, 25 "shipwrecks and scuttlings" is incorrect as many of these were accidental sinkings (scuttling is deliberate, and shipwrecks require an actual wrecking). "Shipwrecks and sinkings" would be more accurate, but agree it could also do with an easier-to-follow source. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Pull please, so we can resolve this before it gets protected by an enthusiastic admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like everyone but the page creator was alerted to this. Courtesy ping to User:Filikovalo. Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the url to point directly to the search page. I really don't understand Euryalus's point at all since the hook states "shipwrecks and scuttlings" both of which are listed in the database (and in other article sources). But I'm changing the hook to say "at least" because there are several scuttlings listed in the article that are not listed in the database. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Thanks for the ping. My point is it should simply read "shipwrecks and sinkings" or even just "sinkings." Scuttling and shipwrecking are specific forms of destruction of a ship. They are both subsets of sinkings, but it's also possible for a vessel to just go down of its own accord without being either scuttled or shipwrecked. For example, this historic one. The database does make the distinction between scuttling, shipwreck and sinking in each of the individual entries for vessels. There aren't 25 entries for scuttling or shipwreck In this case, so we would be better off using a more catch-all term like sinkings, which covers every cause for a vessel actually going down.

Not the end of the world either way, but (at least in my view) it would improve the accuracy of the hook. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So the hook isn't verified properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would pull it and come up with a hook that can be suitably verified per the DYK rules. Even linking to a search page does not verify the hook as it lists only 25 directly related shipwrecks, so this is really not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like that source (and I can see nothing wrong with it), there is also this one (cite 10 in the article) which lists 30 ships wrecked off Long Reef. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: That's a much clearer source, thanks - also indicates 29 vessels sunk off Long Reef. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

What I don't like is the endless defence of items which are about to be protected and end up on the main page when clearly there are recognised issues. We should not be discussing them in detail here, just pull the hook, re-open the nomination and look for a better solution. There is no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The hook is sourced and there is no reason to pull it. But if you still see a problem with it, explain what it is so we can fix it now. The hook won't appear for almost another 12 hours so there's no reason to pull it when we can resolve the matter here and now. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so only two things wrong at the moment (besides the dreadful note that's been added, but that's the least of our concerns), there is still no way of a casual reader verifying the claim based on the URL given in the citation. They need to type in "Long Reef" in the search engine link you've provided, and then discount the one that isn't relevant. And then, the second problem, as noted by Euryalus above, and by me, these aren't necessarily scuttlings. Worse still that "scuttling" doesn't even appear in any of these links. So yes, please do fix it, preferably by removing it so it can be discussed again at the nomination page. Basically, and you already know this I'm sure, this fails the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course they aren't necessarily scuttlings, they are both shipwrecks and scuttlings, which is what the hook says. As for the database source, it's perfectly valid as a source, hundreds of articles including former DYKs use databases as sources, and I think most readers are smart enough to figure out how to use one for themselves, but since you want to make an issue out of it, I'll add a note with instructions. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention "scuttlings" at all. Come on, get with the program here. This continual, incremental, interminable defence of poorly quality controlled DYK items is becoming disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. The cause of each sinking can be found in the individual ship links, as explained in the note I added. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the source provided with the hook does not mention it. You have to go digging into the source to find it. That's not what the rule says, and even if you don't care because you're the DYK admin, it's not the spirit of the rule either. This is borderline hopeless trying to deal with you here I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Here's an idea. Change the hook to something like "despite the fact that over 25 ships have sunk at Long Reef, no lighthouse was ever built" or something like that. Otherwise, pull it, the sourcing isn't transparent enough. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It took me about one minute flat to confirm the hook from the source. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia with facts sourced to databases, scores of them previously used to support DYK hooks, and AFAIK nobody has ever complained that they are not viable as sources or "too hard" to use, indeed, half of the hooks I fact check every day are harder to check than this one. But you can do what you like with this, I'm done wasting my time on it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not the average reader though are you? And this clearly didn't comply with the DYK rules. And in actuality, you should be able to verify the hook in less than a minute if the article and sourcing is compliant with the DYK rules. I had hoped this was obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I've pulled it, because in looking at the changes I recently made, I think Black Kite has a point in that the hook requires comparison between two different sources to confirm it. In any case, I think the whole paragraph could be better expressed. Gatoclass (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that was easy enough. Next! Interesting though that you thought Black Kite's "sourcing isn't transparent enough" was sufficient to pull, yet you ardently argued against my "leads to a generic main page with no sight of verification of the claim. I stumbled around a bit, and finally found some results in a search on "Long reef", but no sign of the word "scuttlings" anywhere.". Once again I think you should leave the reports I make to others because there's clearly a different standard being applied to different editors here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not at all! Your complaint, specifically, was that it was too hard to use a database to verify a hook. That is the argument I rejected, and I still reject it. Black Kite on the other hand, made a generic comment that the sourcing wasn't transparent enough, without saying exactly what he meant. I went back to make one more check of the article, just to be sure I hadn't missed something, and noticed that my changes relied on a comparison of two sources, thought maybe that's what Black Kite was referring to, and decided to pull the hook on that basis. Now if you'd said to me from the outset that it was too hard to make the comparison, I probably would have responded positively to that, but that's not the point you were making. Gatoclass (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so a specific complaint about the fact that it failed the DYK rules and was not what our readers expect to have go through to verify a hook was not acceptable to pull the hook while a generic comment about non-transparent sourcing was enough. Brilliant. You're too involved to deal with anything I post here, and I request that you leave any issues I raise here to others to handle because I wasted a LOT of time on this, thanks to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it didn't fail any DYK rules and I have just as much right to express an opinion about DYK issues as you or anybody else, your ongoing efforts to chill me out of participation at DYK notwithstanding. Gatoclass (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're incorrect on a couple of counts yet again. Linking to a generic database page (or worse, in the hook which was passed, a generic homepage) is not what is meant by WP:V and WP:RS and I'm pretty sure you know that and if you don't, you shouldn't be an admin nor should you be doing this work. Secondly, you continually to abjectly reject just about every single report I make, yet when another editor with whom you are not INVOLVED makes a generic comment which reflected my concerns you jumped to pull the hook. It's clear for all to see. All I'm suggesting you do, to avoid me wasting YET ANOTHER DAY on a single inadequate hook is to leave issues I raise to someone else who may not be so involved to handle. That way you can focus on other interests or hooks while I focus on avoiding yet more embarrassment from the DYK project hitting the main page, and we can both achieve what we're looking for in an more expedient and efficient manner. This clumsy example of atrocious sourcing which relies on readers to click the right buttons, fill in the right information, ignore some of the information then presented, and then click through to individual search results to find how to verify the hook is plain wrong, whether you believe it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Classic OR/SYNTH, no matter how many other articles mistakenly do it. EEng 20:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

BMT Franklin Avenue Line

There's an ongoing discussion at main-page errors of this hook in Queue 1, due to run very shortly. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

src: i.imgur.com

Nomination page: removed disturbing table

Our Main_Page has a link that says & links: #DYK Nominate an article. Clearly this is aimed at every reader! But when one arrives at that page, it opens with a table named "Count of DYK Hooks", showing many red-signaled rows and not explained at all (the word Verified, is that used elsewhere in the process? Really, I still don't understand this table). I get the impression that this infomation is aimed at other editors: those involved in the vetting process (i.e. you, reading this page).

I have boldly removed this table from the {{DYK nomination header}}, because the Reader should not be bothered with this. That page should lead to the nomination-steps asap. - DePiep (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the table isn't useful to individuals making new nominations, so just move it lower down if it bothers you so much. If you don't understand the difference between a verified hook and a non-verified hook then there's certainly a problem with the definition of the overall process. I suggest someone who cares writes a "how to" guide detailing every step of the DYK process (if one doesn't already exist), and that should include a recommendation that nominators follow their hooks and articles through this arcane maze to the main page and be prepared to deal with issues that arise every step of the way due to the abjectly poor quality control that is forever applied to the hooks nominated here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

re if it bothers you so much -- no, I reasoned, from Wikipedia view. - DePiep (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Who appointed you the representative of Wikipedia? You expressed a personal opinion, which has not yet gained consensus. -Zanhe (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I applied WP:BOLD. Now, what is your argument *against* this edit? - DePiep (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So I applied the R in WP:BRD. Now discuss and gain consensus. The table is a useful summary of all current nominations. -Zanhe (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Point is, it is up to YOU Zanhe to provide an argument (your first argument, so dearly missing). I already did *start* the talk beforehand, and you *denied* it [see below, your 23:19 edit]. - DePiep (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Starting a discussion ? consensus, especially when TRM already questioned your removal above. Now focus on the merit of your bold action and try to gain support from others. -Zanhe (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Before talking BRD, why did you undo my REFACT edit that placed your topical comment into this section? Why? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Didn't I already answer that question? Now focus on the merit of your proposal and stop wasting people's time on minor details. -Zanhe (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No you didn't answer. (At worst, you reverted your own WP:FORUM. But I think you just mis-posted and don't want to acknowledge). Please revert as asked. - DePiep (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Just move the table lower down and any problem you appear to have perceived in worrying editors will be gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• re Zanhe, The table is a useful summary of all current nominations: yes it is useful, but just not in top of the nomination page (see my OP). -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  I already said that, just move it down. Job done. Next question? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

src: i.imgur.com

I questioned MP talk "DYK next next"

At Talk:Main Page, the MP:ERROR page, I have asked about the new "DYK next next" section [1]. Being MP:ERROR, I don't know where it will end. - DePiep (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't know where it will end? Is that a philosophical question or does it have some meaning that I'm missing? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am seriously looking for the bottlenecks in the DYK process of energy loss. Looks like one neck has exposed. - DePiep (talk)

How so? You're not making yourself clear in any way at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Let's say "guidelines" not "rules"

I strongly propose to change this wording: "DYK rules" should be labeled "DYK guidelines". Elsewhere at Wikipedia we don't use the word 'rules', and it scares off (new) users. I don't think the essence of these guidelines changes by this. - DePiep (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. There are very few "new" users here, but not because of the nomenclature (after all, a new user is more likely to be familiar with the term "rule" than "guideline") but because of the arcane methods applied using Template space and preps, queues etc and some indeterminate time between nomination and main page feature. I think, if you're trying to encourage new users back to the process, changing the word "rule" to "guideline" is a fool's errand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DePiep. I notice a lot of new users grumbling about all the "rules" at DYK, and I've lately been accused of manipulating the rules to keep them off the main page. We really do have too many rules, but I'm not sure what we can do about the number. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah -- yeah, but that's more complicated. I now propose to simply change the word. I myself feel more invited by "guidelines" than by "rules". Also that is the WP atmosphere. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep no, I'm agreeing with you. People hate "rules". My last sentence was an extra comment. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

+. Got it. - DePiep (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The actual point is that you and others should already know that you can't simply self-declare Wikipedia "guidelines". You'd need an global RFC for that. And your comment is a red herring in any case because the OP is not about the "number" of rules, just about the word "rule". Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean the "DYK rules" are not even guidelines? You DYK people just made them up, using a non-wiki word "rule" to evade criticism? Just to intimidate newbies? Is DYK a private kingdom? - DePiep (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't see a newbie confused by such terminology, a newbie won't be saying, 'but you did not call it a guideline, I'm so confused' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Short, Alanscottwalker: it is not inviting, and not WP attitude. - DePiep (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is use to "rules" all the time, in inviting situations -- ever play checkers or chess, they have rules. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So let's use the Wikipedia word for this. Why not? - DePiep (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to make clear, there is no reason to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, why did you remove the DYK hook count from the Template:DYK nomination header without consensus? Are you trying to make DYK your own private kingdom? We were all newbies once, and we all figured out how to follow the rules/guidelines, whatever you call them. If someone finds it difficult to figure out the rules, it would be difficult to expect them to write quality articles suitable for the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You Zanhe did revert this WP:REFACTORING? How is this related to this section? What is wrong with DYK editors? - DePiep (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My message was a direct response to your "private kingdom" and guidelines/rules comment. It becomes out of context when you moved it to a previous thread (to which I responded separately). And I don't represent all DYK editors. If you have an issue with what I did, do not say something is wrong with "DYK editors". -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

re Zanhe: No it wasn't. Your 23:59 22:59 edit was explicitly about an other topic and section (namely: #Nomination page: removed disturbing table). Please acknowledge, and revert {{DYK nomination header}} (remove the table). After that, pls come back and talk with arguments etc. - DePiep (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless. Regardless of personal opinions on whether this is off-putting to new editors or not (and actually, DYK no longer cares about encouraging new editors, it's all about the regulars), we should not use the word "guideline" as there's a guideline for that. And the myriad rules most certainly are not Wikipedia guidelines at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop it, TRM. But you should be aware that there are many more newbies making nominations than ever before. Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"... than ever before ..."? [citation needed]. Prove that please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Yoninah here. I'd like to see the evidence please, or else you might need to retract that bold and potentially completely false statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, still waiting for the evidence to back up that audacious statement please. It's very important. If it's not actually true, feel free to strike out the claim, nothing more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) What is this, a court of law? It is my experience patrolling the WP:DYKNA page to promote hooks that we have more newcomers doing nominations than before. I'm sorry, I don't have time to prepare a chart analyzing the number of newcomer DYKs versus veteran DYKs for you, as I prefer to spend my time re-reviewing and promoting hooks. If it'll make you happy, I'll retract my statement. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not a court of law, it's a talk page. I've regularly spot-checked the people nominating DYKs and their average contribution to Wikipedia is around the 15k to 20k mark, i.e. they've made 15,000 to 20,000 edits. You assertion was wildly in opposition to my experience so I just wanted to see the evidence of your claim. If you don't have the evidence, don't have the time for providing the evidence or whatever, fine, but please don't make such bold statements if you're not able to back it up in any way, shape or form. It doesn't make me happy or sad, I'm just looking for the truth. It's an often brought up discussion that one of DYK's original purposes was to encourage new editors. It shamefully does not (in my opinion) and has not for some years. If you have something tangible to counter my evidence, it would be great to see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to compile some evidence when I have more time. Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What's the point of dwelling on this? Experienced editors can be DYK newbies too. People can make thousands of edits before starting their first article, and people can write many articles before making their first DYK nomination. I wrote dozens of articles (mostly short) before finding out about DYK, which encouraged me to write more substantial articles with better references. -Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Point is, if Yoninah's assertion is true, I'd like to see the evidence, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and since Yoninah has said that it'll take a while to get this info together, I intend to nudge this thread every week until we get an answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

src: i.imgur.com

DYKbox improvements

Hi. I made some improvements to {{DYKbox}} [2]. Unfortunately, they were reverted (but not discussed). About this box: it is way outdated and has a bad design. At least we should get the lists & links organised. (I note that, following the weird infobox setup, about each row has the same links LH and RH side ?!). - DePiep (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Apart from all distractions, I think this version is the best so far. For example, it nicely removes some link repetition, and puts together talkpage next to subject page. (See history for detailed edit descriptions). - DePiep (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

With four reverts today, DePiep is in violation of 3RR. This is not the first time he's been warned for this, but the previous one was long enough ago that maybe he's been forgotten. Still, if he keeps it up, he's been warned again, and is fair game for blocking. --David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is called WP:WIKILAWYERING. Still waiting for the first argument against my edit, from anyone. - DePiep (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, could you stop editing and moving other people's comments already? That's really annoying, if not against policy. -Zanhe (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And didn't I enter my argument a while ago [3]? Or do I have to shout: The table is a useful summary of all current nominations. Do not remove it! since you seem unable to hear? -Zanhe (talk)

This is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior from DePiep. It can also be grounds for blocking. I, also, made an explicit argument in favor of keeping the old form, which I know DePiep saw because the following edit summary from him responded to it. So the "still waiting for the first argument" is an actual lie, not just inability to read English. For convenience, I'll repeat it here, mildly rephrased: The box was better before, because the discussion link should not be made much less prominent and non-parallel to the other links, as the new version does. --David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Bull in a china shop

WP:BOLD notwithstanding, for better or worse the DYK processes are (a) sometimes the way they are for nonobvious reasons and (b) dependent on bots maybe no one completely understands anymor, and sometimes fragile. Aggressive modification of everything within sight by someone who apparently has never been through the nomination or reviewing process (search the strings did you know and dyk [4]) is a recipe for anguish. I'll be traveling for the next three weeks so I hope there's more than smoldering rubble left when I return. EEng 00:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this a reply? And if so, to what? - DePiep (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a reply to anything. It's a warning that there's a good chance you'll bring the whole house of cards down. I recommend that others read WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#User:DePiep. EEng 00:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Further signs that there's trouble on the horizon are here and here and, now, here. EEng 01:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And your argument is? - DePiep (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

... given at the opening of this subthread. But hey, knock yourself out. EEng 01:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Circular nonsense.

But hey, thanks for the PA, I almost forgot that one. Now instead of being afraid and so blocking any improvement (how can one live that way at Wikipedia btw?), please point out what actually does or will go wrong, applying sound thinking & sandboxing as I do? - DePiep (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are tampering with machinery you do not understand -- which indeed no one understands. It's unfortunate that no one understands it, but that's the case and it's part of the reason we continue to tolerate certain certain silly things, such as the nomination pages living in template space. It would be great if someone came along to refactor it all and clean it all up, but that requires someone who first demonstrates a thorough mastery of the entire machine. You have never, AFAICT, ever made a DYK nomination, or performed a DYK review, or participated here in any way. Maybe you're one of those people who thinks that complete ignorance of how anything works is the indicium of competence, but I am not one of those people. EEng 01:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

First, re your [5] revert: your es says something completely different that what you say here. It is simple: when someone reverts in BRD, go to the talkpage and discuss. The editor you are "helping" (subverting a 3RR block actually) did NOT put any argument whereever. Notrr did you.

Second: changing {{DYKbox}} does not break the grand system, the system that scares you soo much. When you don't understand it, does not mean it is broken. The fact that you refer to unrelated stuff like the nomination pages living in template space says even more of the same. You yourself cannot grasp any change, and so you deny any change at all. Now WHAT is the actual, rational, real problem with the edit you reverted? (Please forget that elephant bullshit you are throwing around). - DePiep (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

• It's not, as you say, unrelated stuff that the nomination pages live in template space; it exemplifies the complexity and fragility of the DYK structures you are tinkering with.
• When you don't understand it, does not mean it is broken - Sure, but what you don't understand you are likely to break.
• My edit summaries at DYKbox applied to that particular change of yours, which you are now editwarring against two other editors to force in; my comments in this thread apply to your bull-in-a-china shop changes all over DYK landscape in general. I'm saying something completely different because I'm talking about different things.

There are now three (at least) other editors reverting your changes to various DYK structures all over the map. Smarten up. EEng 03:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unrelated to edits in {{DYKbox}}. Yes it may be "complicated" and "fragile" (for you), but no edit I made in {{YKbox}} is breaking things. Because I know what I am doing. That only happens in your fearful mind, not in my well-thought edit.

In "When you don't understand it", the "you" is EEng. I do fully understand the box we are talking about.

Not one of those editors added a single argumednt to this discussion. Not one. (that includes you, "we don't really understand what you're trying to do: even you are still WIKILAWYERING about BRD etc etc).

You still have not made a single body argument against my edit. - DePiep (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

<sigh> I forgot to mention that your limited English may be interfering with your ability to understand policies and guidelines and what others are trying to tell you. EEng 03:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Another PA. -DePiep (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really, it's a genuine suggestion. I, for one, am struggling to understand the point you're trying to make in the various threads here because of your writing style. That's not a personal attack, it's a reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ in short: PA, PA, (minor PA) -DePiep (talk)

No, in short, you're not able to get your point across to a number of us which is leading to frustration and upset. It's nothing to do with personal attack, more to do with "we don't really understand what you're trying to do". Of course, if you see it differently, please feel free to open a thread at ANI where we can all discuss the various comments you've made and the various responses you've received to gain a wider appreciation of what's going on here. That may be a good idea, just to check that we're not the only ones here who are struggling to understand what you're talking about from to time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"we don't really understand what you're trying to do" is an euphemism. From the very start of this subsection (see its title), EEng is claiming that I broke something, but has failed to point out anything actually broken. And these are personal attacks: [6], [7], [8]. Again: the fact that someone does not understand an edit, does not prove it is a wrong edit. - DePiep (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I said (per your edit summary) you "don't know English" (sic), but what I did say is that certainly from my point of view, there's a huge problem here understanding your perspective, what you're trying to achieve and the language you're using to do it. None of that is a personal attack, even a (minor) one, it's just I don't understand your goals. If you think there's been real personal attacks, do something about it somewhere where people care, not here or via edit summaries, that's just going to achieve nothing beyond a lack of sympathy for any cause you might feel you have. In actuality, I think that you claiming that I've made personal attacks or "euphemisms" about you is, in itself, a personal attack, and look forward to you actually doing something pro-active about all of this. You can start with redacting the claim of a (minor) personal attack, and we'll go from there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

re The Rambling Man: then start another thread, and I'll be happy to converse with you (we are talking DYK improvements, right?). I will not continue this EEng filthy PA setup. - DePiep (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you're the one who seems to be trying to do something at DYK with the various threads you've started, it's down to you to summarise to the rest of us why you're doing it and what it will improve with the overall process. I'm not starting any threads here, in fact I think you've started plenty already, most of which have resulted in nothing other than conflict. As I said, if you genuinely believe that you've been "personally attacked", do something about it, don't just keep moaning about it here, nothing will be done about it here at all, and people will gradually just ignore what you have to say, that's human nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Starting a thread named ===Bull in a china shop=== and not pointing to any china broken: not worth continuing. On top of that, making multiple personal attacks: Bye Felicha. See you elsewhere, TRM. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Given your threads here and your recalcitrance in doing something pro-active, and in answer to you directly: I hope not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Prep 4

• ... that the largest cockroach farm (example pictured) in China produces six billion insects every year?

@Violetriga: @Narutolovehinata5:

The lead hook has a suitably gross image, but these do not appear to be cockroaches in China; they are called Madagascar hissing cockroaches, which are native to Madagascar. Can another image be found? Yoninah (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a free picture of multiple American cockroaches - here is one by itself which is in the article but I really would have preferred one conveying the idea of a farm. There are plenty available in the references used but none that appear to have an acceptable license. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think in the world of DYK errors, this barely registers. The image is used in the target article (tick) and the the hook says "example" (tick). Nothing more to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the American cockroach image should be used instead (which was the only picture presented when I reviewed the nomination), as it's more pertinent to the topic. -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think our readers will care two hoots which image is used, but I know for sure which image will draw in more readers, if that's of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view, this hook should run without an image because we do not have a suitable one of a cockroach farm. I doubt that the Madagascar hissing cockroach is ever farmed. There are around 4600 species of cockroach in the world and this one has several characteristics that make it quite unsuitable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cwmhiraeth. I don't understand why the hook was pulled instead of being moved out of the image slot, but I'll track down the template (wherever it disappeared to) and restore the hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Moved it back to WP:DYKN. And now the article's tagged for close paraphrasing. Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

src: pi.tedcdn.com

Prep 1 - Joe Mayo

... that footballer Joe Mayo was working as a trainee accountant when he was offered his first professional contract? Kosack, Yoninah, TheGridExe

So, without context, this sounds amazing. But back in the 1960s and 1970s, footballers weren't paid terribly well at all, and most of them had other jobs or came from other career paths, or even held both positions down simultaneously. Thus this hook is completely unremarkable, and without context, probably misleading. Perhaps the following suggestion could be considered:

... that footballer Joe Mayo, who made more than 150 appearances for Leyton Orient, won the twelfth series of Coach Trip?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Coach Trip hook was my original choice but my ALT1 hook about accountancy was eventually selected over it. Kosack (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That decision was a very poor one, suggest the original hook is used. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the proposed alt hook is that none of it is cited or sourced in the article. The "150 games" for Leyton Orient is mentioned only in the infobox instead of main body text, with no sourcing, and I found only one source in the article which mentions the fact which is of unknown reliability, while the others which you'd think would mention it, don't. Also, no sourcing for the claim that he "won" Coach Trip, even the Coach Trip article itself only refers to the winner for that year by his given name and that article is completely unsourced. I agree that the selected hook wasn't all that great and have given it a tweak for interest. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it needs to be pulled rather than sticky-plastered (once again). The proposed hook is junk and those who promoted it should acknowledge that they clearly weren't aware of the background of association footballers in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s which renders the hook utterly feeble. If, as Gatoclass claims, so much of the article is unverifiable, then it shouldn't be posted to the main page in any form. Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I guess it is acknowledged then. :/ Didn't know about the background association as I live in the US so I guess I learned something new. - TheGridExe (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday; here is an updated list with 40 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 23. Right now we have a total of 214 nominations, of which 57 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six remaining from March.

Over two months old:

• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon
• March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Endsleigh Gardens

Over one month old:

• March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Yaroslav Halan
• March 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Sister Jean
• March 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Fleurs de Marécage
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Zeke Upshaw
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Fallet Kevin
• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/U Don't Know Me (Basement Jaxx song)
• April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/2018-19 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

Other old nominations:

• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Bertil Almgren (four articles)
• April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Casualty specials
• April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Märchenerzählungen (Schumann)
• April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Schweiz am Sonntag
• April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Wendy Watson Nelson
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Sílvia Rebelo
• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Kronans Apotek
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ranbir Kapoor filmography
• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Erica Schwartz
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Dilara Özlem Sucuo?lu
• April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Dafydd Gibbon
• April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Schlafes Bruder
• April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Father Serra statues (Ventura, California)
• April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Opémiska Community Hall fire
• April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Goat Canyon (Tijuana River Valley)
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Orgelbau Mebold
• April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Christina Gerstberger
• April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/John G. Hawthorne
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Justus McKinstry
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Mafat Oza
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie E. Webster
• April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Boltonimecia
• April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Over and Over and Over
• April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Hercules' Dog Discovers Purple Dye
• April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Copella arnoldi
• April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Group Animal
• April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/D. H. Turner
• April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Harrison Report
• April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Balluta Buildings (two articles)
• April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility
• April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Da der Herr Christ zu Tische saß
• April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Appleton (two articles)
• April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Regional council of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hook listed in WP:DYKNA not really approved?

I see many of the hooks moved to WP:DYKNA still have unresolved discussion, e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/List of Mexican-American War monuments and memorials, Template:Did you know nominations/Trump (dog), Template:Did you know nominations/Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark, and Template:Did you know nominations/Hinners Organ Company. Often it's because it was given the tick at some point, but then someone else pointed out a problem and it remains unresolved. Is the bot supposed to know about this scenario? If not, should we manually move it to the non-approved list? HaEr48 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How many QPQs for a multi-article hook?

Is there consensus on whether a hook with multiple DYK articles (such as this one) requires multiple QPQs (because one per article) or a single QPQ (because one per hook)? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:DYKSG#H4, a QPQ review per article is required. So that nomination would require three reviews. Kosack (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That is clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominations on hold due to merger proposals: help requested

At the moment, we have two DYK nominations being held due to ongoing (or at least unclosed) merger discussions. They are:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Ancient Beringian: the discussion is at Talk:Ancient Beringian#Merge, and hasn't been posted to for nearly three months. I don't think the queries posted are ever going to be answered; it's time to move forward. (The relevant WikiProjects were pinged about the proposed merger back in February.)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Triangular corner flags in English football: the discussion is at Talk:Football pitch#Proposed merge with Triangular corner flags in English football. The nomination has a special occasion request for May 19, so it would be nice if the discussion, which was opened on April 18, could be concluded enough before the requested date that a DYK review can be conducted. (If it can't, then it can't, but no reason to delay if it can.)

If any passing admins or other experienced closers would be willing to take a look at either or both of these with an eye to seeing whether they're ready to be closed, it would greatly be appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Can someone please close the merger proposal on Triangular Corner Flags as we are 10 days away from the date it is to be used on and clearly there is consensus against any merge? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

QPQ Question

I submitted my first DYK last week. Since it was my first did I still need to do a QPQ? I thought not under the exception for #5 but am now doubting myself. If I did need to do a QPQ is it too late for me to do so for my nomination? I am happy to do some reviews but not having been through the process before was hoping to see one for my own efforts before embarking on looking at others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: everything's fine. Only after you have 5 DYK nominations appear on the main page should you start submitting a QPQ with each new nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 5 - George Speake

... that George Speake is currently reconstructing the more than 1,000 pieces of the Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire helmet?

This is my own hook so I don't want to change it myself, but upon reflection and further reading I think "reconstructing" should be changed to "analysing". It's unclear how much of the reconstruction Speake is doing himself, as opposed to interpreting the helmet as it is reconstructed, so analysing is a safer, and probably more accurate, word. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: well, that takes all the hookiness out of it. It would have to leave the quirky slot, and also probably be returned to the noms page for a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, how would you feel about the below suggestion instead? I've already added the needed language and citation to the article (it's an offline source). It could probably equally go in the quirky slot.

ALT1: ... that George Speake sees an "eyeless, open-jawed serpent" on the Staffordshire helmet? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's better. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. I'll replace it in Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The nomination template

I notice that in recent nomination templates on the nominations page, there has appeared an extra commented out bit at the bottom that looks like this:

}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--><!-- -->

The first commented out section is normal and serves a useful purpose, but the second one occupies two lines, which I can't illustrate here, and seems pointless. Can someone who knows what they are doing return the template to its previous form? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, it looks like the unnecessary added characters are courtesy of this edit by DePiep. I've reverted the edit; if some of what was changed is truly necessary, those parts of the edit can be restored, but not the extraneous characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. The essence of the edit was to move TemplateData into the /doc subpage. I have edited towards this again, but without adding the extraneous comment. - DePiep (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep: NO! Will you fucking get a goddam clue and stop screwing with things you don't understand? Jesus! See #Bull in a china shop? EEng 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

EEng You have not pointed out a single china cup being broken. You are a "I don't understand this so I oppose" editor, and on top of this this is your third WP:PA. I strongly advise you retract your barkings, and stop making new ones. Also, you might inform yourself on template documentation. - DePiep (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to do this to you, David Eppstein, but I'm on vacation: can you handle this? EEng 22:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean, start watching yet another template that DePiep is breaking, unbreak it as necessary, and continue telling him not to break things? Sure, I guess, but sooner or later we're going to have to treat this as a behavioral issue and not just as a do-what-we-need-to-keep-things-working issue. --David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually meant reaching through the internet and strangling him, but use your judgment. I'm on my way to a boat tour of Hong Kong. EEng 23:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

EEng Even with the smallest bandwidth & connection (less than you needed to post the above), you can <s>(strike)</s>, excuse, undo, selfcorrect. These are WP:PA's you now. The Wikipedia point is, sir, that you are responsible for your own edits. - DePiep (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

He is, however, essentially correct. Once reverted, you will need consensus for such a change, especially on such a heavily used template. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Black Kite. EEng did not add a single proof of anything broken. Already, EEng has demonstrated not to be able to reply in content & argument (see below btw). - DePiep (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you still arguing that you didn't break the template after you broke the template? As is clearly described at the top of this very section? WP:CIR indeed. Please stop editing templates and find something more constructive to do with your efforts here. --David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

These are PA's you now - Yes, no English problem here. EEng 22:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• @DePiep: At the moment, all you have done is to make edits without clear purpose to pages which are technically perfectly functional. Some of your edits have caused problems, as pointed out above (the extraneous spaces); but mostly they are just confusing as hell, because you have not made it clear what you are trying to do. Moreover, when this has been pointed out, all you've said is "show me the problem with my edits". This is not how consensus works. You are making changes to an established system; you need to justify those changes. I have no wish to start anything at ANI, but given the amount of time being spent on unproductive back-and-forth here, I may have no option. So let me ask you again; what, precisely, are you trying to achieve? Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 No template was broken. The edit mentioned here was easily improved upon, no harm was done at any moment. It was reverted without consideration or understanding. Then there are the PA's by EEng, interlaced with notes that s/he does not understand it so it must be wrong. FYI: it is perfectly reasonable to put WP:TemplateData in the documentation subpage, as I already noted. Basically it's just me being bold & others assuming GF. But given the personal attacks EEng has engaged in, s/he does not appear to be open for reaching consensus in any way or form. - DePiep (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  DePiep, you introduced some extraneous markup, a fact you admitted above. But that isn't the point. Your edits have caused a lot of editors to spend time arguing and/or reverting. Unless they have a clear purpose, they are therefore a net-negative, because they are wasting the community's time. I don't care what others may have said to you along the way, you still need to justify your changes on their own merits. What are you trying to achieve? Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not broken, no harm. For the rest: that going into the BF area, I think you should base that. - DePiep (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  It was reverted without consideration or understanding. That is simply not true. I reverted it because the edit had added unnecessary and confusing characters to every DYK nomination created since the edit was made, and the quickest way to fix the problem was to revert the edit that had caused it. The actual Tempate:NewDYKnomination page had no visual change that I could determine by reverting the change, so no harm was done to it while I was eliminating the inappropriate additions your edit had caused (and would have continued to make) to dozens of DYK nomination pages. You messed with something with unfortunate results; I fixed the mess by undoing your problematic edit. Harm was done, whether intentional or not; if you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then you shouldn't be editing at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  It is important to understand that, for this template, the actual source code produced by this template and not just its visual appearance is important. The reason is that this template expands to the source code that DYK reviewers (often unfamiliar with the process) are presented with when they begin to edit a new DYK nomination. DePiep appears to still be missing this point. --David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3 (live in < 1 hour)

See WP:ERRORS. Originally, the Jamiroquai hook was

• "... that the British funk/jazz band Jamiroquai holds the Guinness world record for fastest ever concert performed on aircraft, clocking at 1017 km/h per hour (632 mph)?".

This contained at least five errors, and currently stands at

• ... that the British jazz-funk band Jamiroquai hold the Guinness world record for "fastest concert", performed on an aircraft travelling at 1017 km/h (632 mph)?

I'm still not particularly happy about it, and I'm leaning towards pulling it. It is, however, past midnight here, and I don't really want to do it and run. What do others think? Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK, we've got a hook that I think solves the issues. That was ... not good. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6

• ... that Japanese musician Nagi Yanagi was encouraged by a junior high school classmate to become a voice actress, but declined because she believed her voice was "mediocre"?

I'm aware this is my own hook so I could have made the change myself, but checking the source again, while the word used (??) can mean mediocre, the word apparently usually means "ordinary". Should the word "mediocre" in the hook be changed to "ordinary"? Rereading the source again, it seems that that meaning was the intended one by Yanagi when she said that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I am more concerned that the interview transcript is being misrepresented, unless if I am missing something. I think both "mediocre" and "ordinary" is fine in the context that it was a reflection on how she personally felt that her voice, in comparison to her friend's voice (which was good and distinctive according to her) back then, was nothing special. In the quoted excerpt, it mentioned nothing about any "classmate" "encouraging" her to become voice actress; to my understanding it is her friend with the ?????????? that was aiming to become voice actress. Would you mind to elaborate/re-read the excerpt? Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Actually re-reading it again, I think you're right, so I guess the article needs to be rephased, and the hook should be swapped out for either ALT0 or ALT2 (your choice). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I am sorry but ALT0 cannot be used as well because it is also factually incorrect; the quoted excerpt (from the same interview) clearly states that it is Nagi Yanagi's neighbour that have intended to throw the electronic keyboard away, not her mother. Her mother, after hearing the neighbour that they wanted to throw the keyboard away, took the keyboard for no apparent reason (???????????????), which is what led Yanagi to the world of music (???????????). I will follow up at your talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Noted, though you're free to continue discussing here. If you have any additional hook proposals, feel free to make them here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record here also I have pulled the hook and returned the article to the nomination page. I am unable to propose a new hook right now, I'll see if I can do it some other time if no one else does so. Alex Shih (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential double DYK in Queue 4

... that Erjon Tola was the only athlete sent by Albania to the 2006 and 2010 Winter Olympics?

This is probably too late (live in 3 hours), but this could potentially be a double QPQ with Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics, which just passed GA four days ago. Passes earwig, and the citation verifying the hook is the same, so it would be pretty easy. Pinging author of both: @Courcelles:. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• They were nominated as a double hook, but, nope, someone said the articles were too similar to each other, so, so much for the double hook. Courcelles (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  What a load of bollocks. Sounds like making things up on the fly.... And badly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: it seems that the issue isn't that they were too similar per se, but rather that the article wasn't long enough if you remove the identical content: see WP:DYKSG A4: "New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count. If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." See discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Albania at the 2006 Winter Olympics Umimmak (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hook interest

I look through the archives regularly to find hooks to post at WP:DYKSTATS. Unfortunately, the only ones that consistently garner over 5,000 views are image hooks. A day ago we really hit rock-bottom with these hooks:

• ... that Erjon Tola was the only athlete sent by Albania to the 2006 and 2010 Winter Olympics? (296 views)
• ... that Michigan Wolverines point guard Zavier Simpson had his two highest-scoring games as a sophomore against top-five ranked opponents? (651 views)

IMO there is so much pressure being put on verifying the hook fact that hook interest has gone by the wayside. Both need to be stressed. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's all about people wanting to get crappy hooks onto the main page regardless of whether they're actually interesting. I'd say 75% of hooks in every set these days are just boring, crappy statements of the obvious, leaving the lead hook with the image, and the quirky hook. And with the rapid turnround, two sets per day, that halves your potential pageviews right there. Most of the DYK regulars objected to the idea that we mandated more scrutiny over an interesting hook. I wonder why? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The Olympics hook is quite interesting IMO (I was the reviewer). The problem is that most people are more intrigued by the sole athlete himself rather than the highlighted article (who wants to click on a link that simply says 2006?). Erjon Tola actually got a respectable 1,600 pageviews, more than 5x the DYK article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The numbers have been a little disappointing recently but let's not forget that they are only on the page for half the normal time, if they weren't, plenty of hooks would have got 5000-plus views and entered the stats leaderboard. The reality is that many articles are about obscure individuals and out-of-the-way topics that are never going to have broad appeal, and even excellent hooks can't fix that. More mainstream topics generally attract considerably more interest even when the hook isn't that special, but we don't get a lot of hooks on core topics because, I guess, they are much harder to research and work on. Gatoclass (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Gatoclass.These days most "core" topic already have solid article, and there's not much opportunity to create or expand articles. GA are way more difficult for core topics than obscure ones. So, it's just natural that hooks tend to be obscure. In my opinion, it's okay because the main purpose of DYK is to reward new contribution and not just to feature hooky facts. HaEr48 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Interest is subjective. As we have seen here, Zanhe found the Olympics hook interesting while Yoninah did not. We should not be pushing our personal preferences on what we think is interesting onto DYK because it is just as likely that others can disagree with what one views as interesting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Surfeit of people hooks

Our regular promoters are probably aware of this, but I noticed today that there are a lot of people hooks currently accumulating on the Approved page. Can everybody please ensure that every set has its maximum four people hooks? Otherwise we may be looking at having to run some unbalanced sets in coming days. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Eligibility question

Criterion 1d says that articles that were previously featured as DYKs are ineligible, but 1f says that good articles are eligible. What if an article was previously featured as has recently become a good article. Which of these two rules applies? Ergo Sum 05:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

An article that was previously featured is ineligible, period. Articles which haven't featured yet when they become GAs are eligible. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

1 set/day again?

Are we going to consider returning to 1 set /day? The number of approved hooks are dwindling (48 hooks as I write and many still has open questions after the tick), making it difficult to arrange diverse and balanced sets as there are not a lot to choose from. HaEr48 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes, particularly given the dramatic decline in quality we've seen over the past few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It is amazing how TRM can detect dramatic declines in quality that others have not noticed. Besides 51 approved hooks on the nomination page, there are currently six sets in Preps & Queues. I would advocate sticking with the present DYK cycle for a few more days yet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not that amazing, but thank you. I know how many errors there have been lately because I've posted them myself. Averaging around two errors per set. Very poor indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Considering you're able to see a lot of errors in the proposed hooks, I'd suggest you do some reviews and hook promotions yourself. It might help cut out the backlog more. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't have time, and I completely reject the QPQ system which simply encourages lacklustre quality. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Given you have the time though to make all the WP:ERRORS posts, doing reviews wouldn't be so difficult though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, until DYK recovers its origins and stops the unmitigated quest for rushing crap to the main page, I'm not giving the numerous regulars here the satisfaction of my excellent reviews. Mind you, if I did all the reviews, that would break the QPQ system entirely as no-one would be able to review another DYK so no-one's nominations would be passed, and I'd rack up a huge number of QPQ credits. There's a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing an increase in recent DYK issues at ERRORS. The inclusion of the "this insect feeds off other insects" gives an impression of desperately looking for material to fill space. I'd say yes please to going back to 1 per day. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia