Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:06, 7 June 2013 editPrioryman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers27,963 edits →Queues empty and no preps built: - pointer to some approved hooks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:10, 24 January 2025 edit undoSL93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors79,481 edits fix 
Line 1: Line 1:
]<!-- ]<!--
--> -->
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>''']'''</small></div></br>
{{ombox {{ombox
|style=color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all; |style=color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all;
|text=<div style="font-size:150%;">'''Error reports'''</div>Please '''do not''' post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to ]. If you post an error report on one of the ] here, please include a '''link''' to the queue in question. Thank you. |text=<div style="font-size:150%;">'''Error reports'''</div>Please '''do not''' post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to ]. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the ] here, please include a '''link''' to the queue in question. Thank you.
}} }}
{{DYK-Refresh}}
{{DYKbox|style=font-size:88%; width:23em; table-layout:fixed;}} {{DYKbox|style=font-size:88%; width:23em; table-layout:fixed;}}
{{shortcut|WT:DYK}} {{shortcut|WT:DYK}}
{{archives|• ] {{archives|• ]<br/>• ]<br/>• ]<br/>• Removed hooks: ]
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em; |style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
|auto = yes |auto = yes
|editbox= no |editbox= no
|search = yes |search = yes
|prefix = Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive |searchprefix = Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive
|index = /Archive index |index = /Archive index
|bot=MiszaBot II |bot=lowercase sigmabot III
|age=7 |age=5
|collapsible=yes

<!-- |1=<p style="text-align:center;">]</p> --> <!-- |1=<p style="text-align:center;">]</p> -->
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 600K
|counter = 93 |counter = 204
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(5d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#> |mask=/Archive <#>
Line 34: Line 33:
}} }}


This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.<!-- for nominations: see ... -->
{{DYK-Refresh}}

This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at ].

== RfC: Should a DYK for ] be published? ==

{{rfc|prop|rfcid=59BD8F2}}
Should a DYK (] entry appear for the article ]? (And if so, what should be the "hook")?

The proposed DYK is . The form of the hook as of this writing is
*{{xt|"(Did you know)... that ''']''', a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Misplaced Pages?"}}.
There is also an earlier discussion about the matter . ] (]) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

<small>(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.) ] (]) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC) </small>

===Survey===
* I oppose a DYK for this. The article is back at AFD and is obviously a bone of contention. ] (]) 09:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
*<small>(N.B.: my original !vote was so bollixed up that I've completely rewritten it. FWIW The original is ]) -- ] (]).</small><br>'''No''', I oppose this DYK, after thinking it over. It's an interesting situation, and I don't have a problem with the article existing, but here we are talking about featuring it on the main page, and in that regard:
**The article is about a website, and an effect of the DYK appearing on the main page will be to drive eyes to the website. Given that the article creator and most of the main authors are associated with that website, that doesn't sit too well with me, and wouldn't for ''any'' website.
**It wouldn't for any website, but let's face this honestly: this is not we are talking about here. While no fair-minded person, I think, could maintain that Wikipediocracy is monolithic or they don't do useful work (as well as being a wretched hive of scum and villainy), the plain fact is that that those eyes will be driven to a website that is dedicated, in part at least, to the destruction of the Misplaced Pages and to the immiseration of its individual editors personally. The Misplaced Pages's rules are not a suicide pact, and anyway the policy ] forbids us from deliberately abetting damage to the Misplaced Pages, which is a likely result of enlarging the Wikipediocracy community. ''Let them do their own advertising.''
**The purpose of DYK is to encourage the creation of new articles. To facilitate this, we deliberately allow DYK hooks to be less interesting than they could be (if we used a larger pool of articles to draw the hooks from). This degrades the potential reader experience, and must lower the number of clicks into the Misplaced Pages, lowering our readership capture. We accept this loss in order to maintain the benefit: providing an incentive for article creation. (All this is fine.) Does this DYK fit into that paradigm? No, it doesn't, per the two points above. The article creator and many of the other article editors are not good-faith actors in the DYK process. They are not going to feel pride in their DYK and be motivated to make further constructive contributions. This DYK is a perversion of what DYK was created for and is supposed to be about, and I don't see why we should have to stand for that, notwithstanding that they may have met the technical requirements for a successful DYK (if they have, which FWIW seems debatable).
**Also, the very fact that it ''is'' controversial is, in an of itself, a good reason not to run it, I think. The appearance of the DYK would make many productive editors unhappy. That is not a useful function for DYK to perform, even if one concedes that the editors being made unhappy are wrongheaded, overly sensitive, or even cretinous. DYK is suppose to be happy time. We have plenty of DYKs that ''won't'' make a bunch of editors unhappy, so let's stick with them. ] (]) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) <small>(Originally 13:57, 24 May 2013 and 16:53, 25 May 2013)</small>
:::"DYK is suppose to be happy time?" I must have missed that particular guideline! -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
**I responded to this in the discussion sections below. ] (]) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per ]. Also, it is an opportunity to show to others that Misplaced Pages is a place strictly adhering to neutral point of view & where even articles of it's critics get a fair chance to get popular. - ]] 03:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
**Precisely! We want to show that we can treat articles related to Misplaced Pages, either those which shed a positive light on the project or negative one, with neutrality. That, I think, should be the mark of a professional.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - it's a chance for us to take our criticism seriously, which gives us credibility on ]. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font:1.25em,Geneva; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af; font-color:teal">TheOneSean <sup>&#91; ] &#124; ] &#124; ] &#93;</sup></span> 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per the above support votes. It may further Wikipediocracy's interests to have this DYK, but it equally furthers Misplaced Pages's: to be seen not to be sweeping criticism under the carpet is the best advertisement Misplaced Pages could have in a case like this. (I say that both as a Wikipedian, and as a Wikipediocracy member and moderator.) ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 05:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should bend over backwards to prove how open-minded and neutral it is. I also dislike the free advertising for a random website. DYK should be restricted to non-promotional purposes, in my opinion. ] (]) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

===Threaded discussion===
I separated this into two subsections, for clarity -- ] (]) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
====Threaded discussion on the meta-issue of whether this RfC is even in order====
*What? You closed an open DYK nomination to start an RfC on whether a new article should have a DYK? Is there any reason why a new article would not be eligible for a DYK? ] (]) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
*I have reverted that close, this is absolutely unnecessary to hold a side discussion; you don't get to ''ban'' topics from DYK on "I don't like it grounds". The Alt2 hook discussion was going on with no contention at all, and even agreement among the interested parties and independent ones. Let that discussion flow, please. ] (]) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
**A community RfC is not a "side discussion". If an RfC is opened, the purely local discussion involving those (relatively few) editors aware of the discussion becomes the side discussion. ] (]) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Procedural note''': Although this community RfC probably trumps purely local discussions, editors at the local discussion () are fighting to keep that local discussion active, and for it to be the controlling discussion. Since this is a time-sensitive operation (the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after ''N'' days pass, which is before this RfC expires), I suppose this is a political move intended to trump consensus and push the nomination through, rendering this RfC moot. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the DYK, but I do have a strong opinion on moves like that: I don't like them. Therefore I'm going to that other discussion and voting "Oppose" purely as a procedural move to block this sort of anti-community thinking and acting. I urge all editors, regardless of their opinion of the merits of the DYK nomination itself, to do so also. (Yes, I did write this but forgot to sign - ] (]) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC))
::Herostratus, the history looks like you wrote the above "Procedural note". Yes? Because the way this thread runs, it looks like The Devil's Advocate wrote it. Anyway, I'm wondering if there is a mis-cue in "the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after ''N'' days pass"? How does a DYK automatically appear on the main page if it isn't promoted to a prep area and approved and moved up to a Queue by an Admin? Maybe I missed something in the DYK process, but I'm not aware that any DYK nom automatically appears on the main page. ] (]) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Sorry, yes I did write it. Right, a DYK doesn't automatically appear on the main page without going through the procedures you describe. I wrote that as shorthand, meaning that it will appear if it passes those steps. ] (]) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
*This is blatant abuse of an RfC for the sake of stone-walling and should be summarily closed.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
*It is an abuse of RfC and a waste of time. In the past DYKs have been stopped from appearing on the main page because of concerns about whether e.g. ]'s hospitalization from giving blow jobs or death ''n''th boob-job surgery deserved to be on the main page, on the nomination page (not even here). IMHO, this DYK would serve as an informal apology and resolution to do better with abusive editors (aided by abusive administrators), particularly on BLPs. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
**@ ]: Oh, OK, sure. Well, first of all, this has been a slightly contentious nomination so far, and it seems to have aroused some strong feelings. I think that that alone is sufficient, probably. When something is contentious, it's probably a good idea to thrash it out. A case could be made -- I think this is where you're coming from -- is that if a DYK fulfills the DYK team's internal requirements of a DYK nomination, then that nomination must be accepted; it's a purely mechanical process. I'm not sure I'd agree, and I'm not sure that others would either. That's what we're here to find out, partly. A counter-case could be made that the community has a right to oversee DYKs appearing -- we are talking about the Misplaced Pages main page after all -- and discuss any one that they want to. That may be wrong, but in my opinion its not crazy or idiotic.

::(BTW and FWIW, it ''has'' been established (de facto, as a political reality) that this ''doesn't'' apply to the daily featured articles; the Featured Article team publishes what it wants to (which may be a good thing, not sure). Whether this should apply to DYK I'm not sure. I don't think it should, but lack of such a standard could lead to a lot of unwarranted meddling in DYK I suppose (but much doubt). Anyway, that's a matter of whether the DYK team wants to establish that as the prevailing state of affairs and has the support to do so. Probably the best way to determine this would be to ] this RfC.) ] (]) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Kiefer... an "informal apology"? Or in short, basically you want this posted to prove a ]? I am sorry, but that is simply asinine. If this is to be posted, it should be only on its own merits as a qualifying article. If the desire to put this on the main page is based on internal political considerations, then it most certainly should not be posted - any more than we should post any positive-themed naval gazing. Regardless, as I have indicated in the DYK nom, I oppose the posting of this article at this time because it lacks evidence of notability (and yes, I have read the AFD which was snowed under by superficial 'it passes GNG because I say so' comments), lacks non-trivial independent coverage and is nothing more than a ] operating primarily as a duplication of the ] article rather than something dedicated to Wikipediocracy itself. But that latter part should be expected given there is no significant, independent coverage to be found. ]] 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:*:Can't we require that "editors" pass a quiz on ] before they are allowed to miscite it? (Everything I write has a point, pilgrims, so please stop telling me that I am being pointy....) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
*So... next time I see a DYK nom that I simply don't like, I can start an RfC on it? <span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:*Well, yes, sort of. Subject to the general ] guidelines, which discourage idiosyncratic RfC's (which are generally disallowed by nature, that is they will garner no support and fail or be ] closed anyway). Should you not be able to? We're generally pretty lax about these things -- it's a wiki after all. Anyway, I didn't open the RfC so much because I didn't like the DYK (I may vote to pass it through, not sure yet) but because there was already argument and discussion on the matter. ] (]) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

'''Summarily close''' this RFC. The article was taken to AFD, where it was snow kept as containing sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I noticed the speedy keep and size of the article, which was largely created in two waves by ] and ]. I figured that Marek probably would not nominate it since he had not written as much of the articleas Alf had, and Alf was too quiet and nervous to nominate it, so I nominated it for them. Don't use an RFC to make the DYK fail the technical requirements for DYK articles simply because you ]. ] (]) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

*I don't see a summary close as being in order. I think the correct next step, if you don't agree that the RfC is in order, would be to file a ] on it. ] (]) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:*Now that would be amusing. An MFD on an RfC on a DYK about an article that has survived AfD. This place does my nut sometimes. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
::*Apparently we would have to nominate ''the entire talk page'' for deletion in order to close this shit down too. Nah, we can't just say "this is pointless" and close it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:::*I don't think that that's true, at all. The "M" stands for "miscellany" and includes everything not covered by another specific XfD, including sections of pages, I would think. If it doesn't include sections of pages, we can make it so now -- this is a wiki after all -- unless there's a specific rule saying that doesn't. It'd probably be the appropriate thing to do in this case. There are now two entirely different things being contended here:
::::*Whether ''this particular'' DYK should or should not appear on the main page.
::::*Whether an RfC may be requested on ''any'' DYK.
::::Some people are seeming to say "no" to the second question, so rather than interleaving and confusing the two issues it'd be better to separate them I think. This could take the form of a separate RfC, but that ''would'' be confusing and it'd actually be much better to run an MfD on this RfC (if the MfD succeeds, we can probably assume that no RfC's on DYKs should be made in future). There's no hurry, so we can work through these things one at a time. ] (]) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:*As I said , the problem I have with this is that it was a drastic big step in the dispute resolution process that didn't seem to be necessary. RfCs should be called to help settle prolonged and intractable debates, which that DYK discussion really wasn't, once it went got past the initial ''ERMAHGERD TEH WIKIPEDIOCRACY'' commentary. ] (]) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
::*I don't agree that it's not contentious (beyond the knee-jerk opposition you describe), based partly on my reading of the thread higher up on this page. But if you're right, the RfC will be accepted with flying colors and only a bit of time will be lost, so why not see it through? ] (]) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:::*Ok, I'm getting confused as to where to post stuff now. looks at WO's involvement in exposing the Qworty incident. And they are coming from a completely different angle. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:::*I'd rather just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, just like everyone else is; at this point, all the discussion is on the merits of the RfC's existence, not with the question you posed. ] (]) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Close this''': This is an out of process RfC on a non-issue which is sorting itself out as we speak. Although my own views on Wikipediocracy are fairly public knowledge, I must stress that we do not prevent articles from running just because the subject is related to Misplaced Pages or because we don't like it. This goes for the Wikipediocracy article and, ironically enough considering the forum's reaction, the ] article. Both are/were neutral articles which can/could stand on their own legs and thus get/got the same chances as every other article.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
**Again, if it's a non-issue, what's the problem? Everyone will vote "Yes" and the DYK will go through. Go up to the Survey section and add your Yes to the cavalcade of unanimity there and Bob's your uncle. You could also read my argument there: it doesn't matter if the article was about ], DYK exists for a specific purpose, and this nomination doesn't fit it. That doesn't have to matter to you, but it matters to me, and notwithstanding that you think that that's not a fit subject to ''even be discussed'' (individual DYK nominations are not a good venue for discussing larger issues like this) I respectfully submit that it might matter to other editors. Or maybe not. I'd rather know, since I prefer data to no data. ] (]) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Close''', by Crisco, --] (]) 10:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Close''' - Crisco is right about this. ] (]) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there've been a number of editors contending that this is out of process and should be summarily closed. Any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. I don't think it'd be a good idea to summarily close this one, since it's not clear that it ''is'' disallowed I don't think. But I'm sensitive to the contention that RfC's on DYK's are out of line (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I suppose I could be wrong), so here's what I suggest:
*Let ''this'' one go through. It's too late to stop it now without drama, and it's only one RfC -- the Misplaced Pages will survive.
*Go to the thread I've opened here: ] and (if enough people go there and support the proposition), add the suggested text to the page. This will prevent this situation arising in future.
Does this seem like a reasonable way to address this question of legitimacy? ] (]) 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

] wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"'''Support''' giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial.}}

Well, "being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria" is exactly the problem. (That's why we're having an RfC, and so why I'm writing in this section, to expound on why this RfC is a necessary and good to have.)

The established DYK criteria is essentially or wholely technical: is the article the right age, is the hook the right length, does the article have enough refs, and so forth. That's all well and good as far as it goes. My understanding is that considering matters such as (say) "Will publishing this damage the Misplaced Pages" or "Will publishing this maybe cause some editors to feel bad" or "Will publishing this maybe cause a firestorm of angry debate on various Misplaced Pages fora" or "Will publishing this maybe end up in the news" or whatever is not really something that DYK is set up to well consider.

You DYK folks do sterling work which we all sincerely appreciate, but maybe you are getting a little too close to your own work? Llook at the larger picture. DYK exists for a ''reason''. The larger Misplaced Pages community is interested in and feels a stake in what appears on the main page. One may think that's silly but it is what it is.

No one likes having a boss, but most of us have them. The DYK folks have one: the larger community. If the Misplaced Pages had a paid professional Editor-In-Chief to answer these questions, she'd surely insist that potentially problematic main page material pass her desk. The main page is important! We don't have an Editor-In-Chief because (for good or ill) we have community decision-making instead, so the larger community serves this function.

Geez, if I were you, I would ''want'' the larger community to help me out with these questions. This is a hard question! You have enough to do without have to handle stuff like that without help. That's what an RfC is ''for'': to help. ] (]) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

====Threaded discussion on the merits of the question asked in the RfC====
* '''Comment''' The main question of the RFC asks ''Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?''. Now, the question immediately indicates that there are some reasons for which the article/hook should not go on the main page? But, what are the reasons— that has not been clarified. Guesses— a) all/mostly unreliable refs; if so, please add tags and templates in the article b) fails notability; please add tag and take to AFD if needed c) CoI/written like advertisement/neutrality disputed; add templates if applicable and discuss at talk. These tags and/or AFD (if applicable) will help (read "stop") both the review and the reviewer ("immediately"). --] (]) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Or is the opposition to Wikipediocracy appearing on the DYK section of the main page actually due to its exposure of serious COI concerns with GibraltarpediA, which was blatantly spammed across the main page for months? Hmmm...one has to wonder, given the stuff regularly posted.... ] (]) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

<small><nowiki>] concerns the meta-issue and is in the above subsection -- ] (]) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC) <nowiki>]</nowiki></small>
::As to the merits of whether or not the DYK should appear, here are some of the points made at earlier discussions:
::*Whether the article is stable is perhaps open to question (it appears that it is being or recently has been actively edited).
::*Whether the entity is notable is perhaps open to question.
::*Most of the creators and editors of the article are associated with the entity. This could possibly bring conflict of interest questions into play.
::And here's a point I'll add for my own part:
::*While there aren't any specific rules or guidelines I can point to regarding this matter, the whole issue of ''intent'' here could have some bearing, if one is inclined to consider such matters. Whether we're being trolled here, whether that matters, what we should do about that (if anything), to what extent we as normal human beings with normal human emotions should have to put up with stuff like this, and how any of this actually improves or is intended to improve the Misplaced Pages, are all questions that might arise in the minds of some. (I do note that ] features prominently on his user page the motto "Make articles, not drama", which, given that he made this nomination, is I suppose intended to enrage, or maybe sarcasm is the intent. Whatever it is, I don't much care for that sort of thing. Again, that may not be germane, but we ''are'' supposed to here to try to get along and to improve the Misplaced Pages, and how much shrift we are willing to give to folks who aren't is a reasonable question I think. The Misplaced Pages is not a suicide pact.) As a counter-argument, "We're bigger than that" is a valid point, which is why I haven't made up my mind yet. ] (]) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Added later: I talked to the nominator, and he ''wasn't'' trolling, and I was wrong to say so, and I apologized to him. Rather, he really was surprised at the notion that anyone would want to discuss the appearance of this DYK on the main page, beyond issues such as whether the hook is the right length and so forth. This in turn was extremely surprising to me, but I guess that's just a failure of imagination on my part. ] (]) 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

] wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"'''Support''' giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial."}}
*OK. We just disagree on this I guess. Of course I'm not advocating a flat ban on featuring controversial topics on the main page. Each case is different. But, yes, if a topic is controversial -- is likely to cause a non-trivial number of editors to feel sad or angry when they see it appear (surprise!) featured on the main page, for instance, or have other bad effects -- that is certainly a factor that tends to militate against doing so, yes. Why would it not be. (Of course, we are not discussing whether the article itself should exist; if we were, "No, the topic is controversial" ''would'' be pretty weak tea. This is different.) ] (]) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

===Primary sources and DYK===
My question is, how exactly do primary sources factor into DYK nominations? Because there are a fair amount of primary sources in use in the article that are referencing a fair amount of content that doesn't otherwise have a secondary source. What are the normal DYK rules about this? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:They are reliable for certain details and most of the sources being used are reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are being used conservatively for a small number of details, a quote and two sentences about contributors, where their use falls well within policy. Even without those sections the article would still be over the 1500 character limit.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:*I should think that standard ] procedure should be followed: non-controversial, non-self serving, actually about the subject itself. As of my writing there is no rule against using SPSes to source a hook fact&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

== A new proposal for "stale" old articles ==

In my opinion, one of the project priorities should be to get articles on really notable topics which have been unedited in years and are severely lacking up to a decent status. But at present we lack a mechanism to do so. I wondered if anybody would be interested in introducing a new scheme for DYK in which "stale old articles", e.g those which have not been ''significantly'' expanded beyond 1kb in the last two years, have lower expansion requirements for DYK. I'd propose something rather like a x2 expansion like for BLPs or a 3 kb requirement for stubs which are under 1kb of prose which would give editors an incentive to focus on improving what we have. I'd also propose that a number of people get together and decide say a bank of 1000 or so articles which all parties can agree on as "core" which are very important but badly in need of expansion and do a similar thing. We badly need to attract people to expand them, I;ve proposed an monthly award system but given the foundation's stance on such things DYK seems the only way to try to get more editors expanding them, What do you think?♦ ] 21:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:Do you mean ], or something like it? And, BTW, what happened with TAFI going on the main page beneath DYK? It was there one day, and now it's not. ] (]) 21:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I now see under the section "Failure" on that page, that being on the main page didn't help the project, and they yanked it. ] (]) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, because in my experience people rarely fall for that. I'm simply talking about lowering the requirement for articles which haven't been expanded over 1kb within the last 2 years and reduce x5 to x2 expansion for them to encourage more editors to expand "stale" articles.♦ ] 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:Bring it up to GA, and then make it a DYK. {{Smiley}} Sorry if I seem to be pushing ] too much, I'm waiting for the Main Page RfC to close.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span> 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
As you can see by the lack of response and decision making over such things, not many at DYK really care about improving quality of[REDACTED] or DYK.... ♦ ] 22:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
:Be bold, add it as an option, and wait for someone willing to revert and discuss it. Idealistic I may be, naïve even, but it's worth a try, and I've seen it work before.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span> 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' I thought about this for quite a while, and went back and forth a little, but I don't think there is a need to change the rules for this sort of article. If the article is below 1,000 characters, then a 5x expansion shouldn't be an unreasonable proposition. My worry is that if we allow a significantly smaller expansion, (particularly a 2x) then we will see lots of "padded" articles appearing at DYK. It works for unreferenced BLPs, because not only is information being added, but references are as well, which in most cases requires a complete rewrite of the article. I would be more likely to support a 2 or 3x expansion rule for similarly stale articles between 1,000 and 2,000 characters, but I don't know if we are getting beyond "DYK-style" articles there. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

== QPQ proposal ==

There has been much discussion recently about a lack of reviews for DYK noms and whilst reviewing and promoting hooks I have noticed that there are frequently nominations made by someone otherwise not involved in the article. I propose that there be a minor change to our rules so that the person who nominated an article must give a QPQ if they have more than 5 credits. Otherwise we risk being overwhelmed by articles which haven't had another article reviewed and so increasing the backlog. Reviewing an article isn't that hard, so this would only be a minor inconvenience to those who could otherwise pick up hundreds of DYK credits for little or no effort.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span> 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

:'''Oppose'''. Nominating other people's work for DYK is an important contribution to the DYK process that should not be discouraged. It recruits new contributors to get involved in DYK (I'm one of many frequent participants who first got involved after someone else nominated an article of mine) and it tends to add to the diversity of the subject matter here. Moreover, it's often a lot of work to nominate someone else's work -- a lot harder than reviewing a nomination. It requires screening new articles for basic eligibility, looking for possible hooks, and reading the cited sources to make sure they support the hook and haven't been plagiarized. It's usually necessary to do some editing to an article before nominating it. Then, after the nomination, the nominator needs to address the issues that come up during review -- and it's harder to do that with somebody else's work than for one's own work. QPQ was intended to elicit participation from people who would otherwise only use DYK to showcase their work; don't make it an extra hoop for people who are already going far beyond that. --] (]) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


== Back to 24 hours? ==
::Orlady, I agree that nominating is important, and that sometimes it is a great deal of work (assuming the nominator is doing those things you list, which is not always the case), but what about those situations where the article's creator (or at least one of them) has more than five DYK creator credits already? In that case, either could give the QPQ, but I think it's worth considering the possibility that someone is expected to, if a particular author or authors have been tapped for DYK that many times. ] (]) 15:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:::That was going to be the alternative to my proposal, because I saw that if my original proposal was rejected, it leaves open a loophole for gaming, where two users, or even a larger group of users, could have most of the group expand an article, and one other nominate without a QPQ, and take in turns with each other's articles.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span> 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
::::Instead of creating a new rule that could prove to be problematic for good-faith nominators (such as a contributor who regularly nominates the work of someone whose English is good enough to translate articles, but isn't good enough to write effective hooks or evaluate other people's hooks -- and whose articles likely require some cleanup before they can be nominated), I suggest case-by-case "handling" for people who are gaming the system. If somebody seems to be gaming DYK, the DYK regulars can tell them something like this: "Look, you aren't violating the formal DYK guidelines, but we think you are gaming DYK -- and creating work for the regular volunteers without shouldering a share of the workload. Because you aren't being fair to the rest of us, we're not going to review or promote your recent nominations until you do some QPQ reviews." --] (]) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


{{DYK admins}} As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. ] ] 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Older unreviewed nominations ==


:I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. &spades;]&spades; ] 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The following are older and unreviewed; the rest may have issues, have been approved, or needs another review. I won't list others that need another review<s>; perhaps someone will</s><U>in this section, but I'll do so in another section</u>. --] (]) 20:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'm working on ] right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. ] ] 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in ] after various yankings. ] ] 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{dykadmins}} just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. ] ] 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I filled one of the holes in queue 3. ] ] 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ] (]) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::As a reminder, ] says {{tq|The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval}}. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. ] ] 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
===5 January===
We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode ] ] 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


===8 January===
Approved or not, I will strike out nominations that are already reviewed. --] (]) 21:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
{{dykadmins}} We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. ] ] 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I see you and {{yo|Hilst}} have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ] (]) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


===11 January===
* May 17: ]
{{dykadmins}} we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. ] ] 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* <s>May 1: ] (four-article hook)
:I'll take the next one.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 9: ]
::{{yo|RoySmith}} I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 7: ]
:::I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). ] ] 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 9: ]
::::I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 15: ]
:::::Doing now.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 16: ]
::::::And the last one's all yours.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* —: ]
:::::::I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. ] ] 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* —: ]
::::::::Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ] (]) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 17: ]
:::::::::Someone needs to update ] as it's protected.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* —: ] (two-article hook; only ] needs a review)
::::::::::OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
* May 19: ]
::::::::::My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. ] ] 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* —: ]
We are now back to a significant backlog. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 20: ]
:@] We need more {{dykadmins}} to keep the queues filled, and then we could go back to 12 hour sets. If you're willing to help out in that department, I'd be happy to nominate you for ]. Or, if you prefer, I could just give you ]. ] ] 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* —: ]
::{{u|RoySmith}} I thought that I needed to meet "The editor should have made at least 150 total edits to the Template and Module namespaces." for TPE. We also don't have that many prep builders so I wouldn't want to stop helping fill preps just so that I could promote them to queues. ] (]) 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 21: ]
::I see now that template namespace also refers to DYK nominations. I should have figured. ] (]) 02:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* May 22: ]</s>
:::Just for the record, I've granted ] to {{u|SL93}}. It'll be good to have more hands working the queues! ] ] 15:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I hit something of a wall last week after attempting two in a day, but I plan on resuming in the next couple of days.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I do have one question about moving a prep to queue. For example, I promoted two hooks that are in prep 2. Could I still promote those two hooks to a queue and leave a note on the DYK talk page for someone else to check over it? I wouldn't want to promote prep 7 or prep 1 because I filled those preps by myself, but I'm curious about if only a small amount of the hooks were promoted by me. ] (]) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I used to do both preps and queues, and often found myself in this kind of dilemma, so I decided to mostly work one side of the street. But, yeah, when I promote a set to a queue where I've had hands on one or two of the hooks, I'll post a request here for somebody else to look at those. ] (]) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{u|RoySmith}} I listed ] under the section Prep 2 to have someone look over the article because I promoted it to prep. I wonder if using the @DYK admins template would be acceptable in such a case. ] (]) 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't usually bother with the {{t|dykadmins}}, but it can't hurt. ] ] 02:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{like}}. Welcome aboard! —] (]) 08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
===18 January===
If someone can queue Prep 2, we can go to 12-hour backlog mode tomorrow. ] (]) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Queued, currently finishing checks. —] (]) 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== {{prep|4}} Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat ==
::12-hour mode should be activated between midnight and 12:00 noon UTC tomorrow. If nobody has done it by then, I'll flip the switch after I wake up tomorrow. —] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The instructions say {{tq|For a variety of technical reasons, you should only make a change shortly after midnight UTC}}. I've always assumed that means "sometime before noon", but I'be never been quite sure if there's not more to it than that. ] ] 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I am not sure when the bot does its runs to update ], whether that depends on update frequency and how long it takes for the bot to notice a change in updates per day, but I don't really think anything will break if we change the time between updates in the late UTC morning. I wouldn't flip the switch at 11:55, but 8:30 should be pretty safe. —] (]) 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The ] was a few minutes after midnight. I must have caught it in mid-update and confused something because as soon as I saved it, I got the "Oh no, all queues are empty!" warning box (which tankfully turned into something more encouraging shortly after). ] ] 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


A friendly reminder that the lead hook of ] is a special occasion hook that is supposed to run on 26 January. It will have to moved soon: if we don't continue twice a day on 22 January, then it will have to go into ]. If we do continue, then it would need to end up in ] if we don't again continue on 25 January, or ] if we continue twice a day on 25 January as well. The key, of course, is to get it out of Queue 3. Thanks. ] (]) 21:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The current hook reads; ''... that Singaporean politician ''']''' is cited as "Singapore's first ] minister"?'' Why is it "is cited as" and why not simply "is Singapore's first"? §§]§§ {]/]} 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:{{u|BlueMoonset}} I took care of it. However, the new first hook in Queue 3 will need to be reviewed by someone else because I promoted it to prep. {{Template:DYK admins}} ] (]) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Changed to "... '''Jumat''' was "Singapore's..." ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
::{{done}}. The ] hook and article look OK to me. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== 10 hook sets? ==
== Texas gubernatorial election, 1998 ==


We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. ] ] 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Since George Ho has reverted my adding ] to the "unreviewed" with a note "unreviewed ONLY", then I will say it here. I did not review that nomination, but George might see that otherwise. What I did, was state that the hook itself was factually incorrect. The editor responded with what he "could say", but never offered a new hook. What he had suggested was a word-for-word lift from a source in the article. I ran Earwig just to see what it would bring up, and then ticked it for a new reviewer. I did not review the article. Personally, I feel the editor may be manipulating things to push a political myth without looking like they're having a POV. Given how much that rankles me, it would be better if the article was actually reviewed by someone else. I am not going to review it. It can stay out there until the longhorns mosey along home, but the article remains unreviewed. ] (]) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ] (]) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{Doing}} I'm reviewing it now.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span> 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you. ] (]) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC) :I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. ] (]) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. ] (]) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. ] (]) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —] (]) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Older nominations that are constantly stable and is ready for re-review ==


==='']''===
I don't list nominations that have not been "stable", even if they are right now. The ones that do not count as "stable" are nominations whose:
Pinging {{u|Prince of Erebor}} The fifth reference on ''Last Song for You'' seems unreliable. Google Translate reveals that it is a WordPress blog. I'm planning on promoting prep 2 when it is ready, and I'm just doing some early checking. ] (]) 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* one of hooks may be hugely inaccurate or misleading or outdated cited by a source, reliable or not
:Hey ], I believe you are referring to ''Film Pilgrimage'', which should be considered a reliable source because Gary Wong Kwun-ho (王冠豪) is an established film historian and writer with a long career researching on film location scouting and his books are widely cited in this field. (He is also a notable figure that warrants an article, and I have had him on my to-write list for a long time.) So I believe he qualifies as a ] according to ]. (Film articles on zhwiki have also cited ''Film Pilgrimage'' for the same rationale.) Also, the article is an exclusive interview with the director and lead actress, discussing the filming locations (which falls within Wong's expertise and does not contain exceptional claims). So I see no issue with citing Wong's piece in this case. —''']<small>（]）</small>''' 04:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* articles may have major issues that would be resolved too long or impossible to resolve (inadequate expansion doesn't count as "major", even if not minor)
::That’s great. Thank you. ] (]) 12:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* articles are/were nominated for deletion and then resulted as something other than "''speedy keep''" or "keep" without close rationale
* amount of reviews is too many


===]===
For example, ] is/was nominated as AFD, so I don't find its DYK nomination stable enough to be listed here. Also, I do not include ones that were promoted by one editor and then unpromoted by someone else, especially when they appeared on the main page for a short time, like ]. If the nomination is listed for too long and is not constantly stable, perhaps the best to address the nomination would be separately addressing it rather than merely listing it. You can list whatever you feel necessary, but I'll remove ones that are not constantly stable. If I accidentally inserted one that is either constantly unstable or not constantly stable, then feel free to remove it (and then address it separately). --] (]) 16:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Pinging {{u|4meter4}} The Unruh, Delbert (2018). Forgotten Designers Costume Designers of American Broadway Revues and Musicals From 1900–1930 reference was published by Page Publishing. It is a self-publishing company. The source can work if Delbert Unruh received significant coverage over his work. ] (]) 22:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::@{{u|SL93}} You have not actually looked at the article and what sources are physically cited in the article for the hook. Unruh isn't cited in the article for the source. Hischak is for the quote which is from ]. But Hischak oddly excluded Swanstrom from the lyrics credits. That's why I provided two different sources verifying Swanstrom as a co-lyricist of this work when I proposed the hook. One was Unruh, but the same content is also found in Bloom which is the source actually cited for the hook content in the article. Bloom is published by ]. There isn't a verifiability issue here.] (]) 00:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|4meter4}} I never said that the Unruh source was used for the hook. I brought it up just in case because no unreliable sources should be used in articles. If the self-published source doesn't help anything, I fail to see why you want it there. Checking preps is not just about checking hooks. ] (]) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|SL93}} Here is Delbert Unruh's obituary . He was a full professor of theatre at the University of Kansas where he taught for forty years. He was a ] and was honored by the United States Institute of Theatre Technology and by the ] for his work as a theatre scholar and educator. He's clearly a subject matter expert. Given the source is only used to support a single non-controversial sentence in the article I don't think this should be issue. The ] has the same content, but I think Unruh is a better source to cite given who he is over a database without an attributed author. Best.] (]) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{u|4meter4}} That is all that I needed, and you did not need to assume bad faith on my part. You should also know better. Well, it certainly isn't an issue now. ] (]) 00:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your objection because I had mention Unruh as a supporting source of the hook in my nomination. I didn't realize initially that you were objecting to its inclusion in the article overall. I didn't mean to make you feel attacked or slighted in my comments. Best.] (]) 01:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's fine. I guess I will be clearer next time. ] (]) 01:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:This has been resolved. ] (]) 01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


===]===
I only list ones that need re-review. Even unapproved active ones don't need a re-review too soon. --] (]) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I promoted this to prep. Can someone check over it? ] (]) 02:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Are NZ Short Walks and The End is Naenae reliable? Pinging {{u|Petersmeter}} and {{u|Schwede66}}. ] (]) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've had a look, {{u|SL93}}, and are happy to share my thoughts:
::* NZ Short Walks – that's obviously a blog and I couldn't figure out who the blogger is. Seems a well-informed person but without knowing more about who is doing the blogging, the default position has to be that this isn't a reliable source.
::* The End is Naenae – this is a blog by Dr {{Cite Q|Q131787008}} (I've made a Wikidata entry for her). She's a reasonably senior civil servant, and the area she's blogging about falls squarely within her professional expertise. I suggest that ] is appropriate guidance and this content, if presented as McMartin's opinion, is acceptable to be used. And I've just spotted that by ]; that's a rather well regarded magazine and gives the whole affair a lot of credence. The full story is behind a paywall and if anyone has access to it, that would obviously be preferable to use as a source.
::That's at least my 2c. ''']]''' 05:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::NZ Short Walks is by Joanne Rolston. She is the author of The Kingdom (]) but appreciate that is fiction. I believe she is working on a book on NZ history - but not yet published. I can't find much about her background/qualification etc. So accept that we have to default to not a reliable source. ] (]) 11:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have removed NZ Short Walks from the article. ] (]) 22:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== 2/day ==
* <s>April 30: ] (green-checked)</s>
* May 3: ] (red-tagged)
* —: ]
* <s>May 4: ] (blue-checked)</s>
* —: ]
* —: ]
* May 6: <s>] (green-checked)</s>
* —: ] (questioned)
* <s>—: ] (green-checked)
* May 9: ] (green-checked)</s>
* <s>May 10: ]</s>
* —: <s>] (blue-slashed)</s>
* <s>May 12: ] (green-checked)
* —: ]
* —: ]</s>
* <s>May 13: ] (green-checked)
* May 14: ] (blue checked)</s>
* —: <s>]</s>
* —: ]
* <s>May 16: ]</s>
* May 17: ]
* May 18: ]


I have just activated 2/day, 12-hour set backlog mode. Hope a few people can pitch in and help promote hooks to prep and preps to queue so we can do this without burning out anyone. —] (]) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== Queues empty, preps full ==
:There are only five queues filled after the midnight promotion was made, so it's time to go back to 1/day, 24-hour set backlog mode. Pinging {{DYK admins}} so that this can be done in the next few hours. Many thanks. ] (]) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, is the current rule that we only do 12-hour sets for three days at a time? I must have missed that change, but I'll trust BlueMoonset to be on top of it. {{Done}} :) ] (] • she/her) 08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It doesn’t seem like a good idea with 135 approved nominations. It also looks like we will have to go back to two sets a day again soon. ] (]) 08:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::IIRC the three day cut off was put in place to ensure the rate was reduced before admins (and now template editors?) burnt out. Being able to trigger it a second time quickly is I believe part of the intended design, dependent on there being filled preps and queues that show that volunteers have not yet burnt out. ] (]) 08:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That makes sense. Thanks for the information. ] (]) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I pushed for the 3-day rule exactly to prevent burnout. Previously, our only criteria for mode change was how many noms were stacked up in the approved pile. So we'd start doing 12-hour sets and quickly run the queues empty with nobody willing to put in the work to keep it going. Now at least we find out if we've got the work capacity to handle it without getting to the crisis stage of zero queues filled.
::::::Informally, I think flitting back and forth between modes is a bad idea because it complicates the job of people trying to schedule special occasion hooks. I'd rather see us stay in 12-hour mode for a bunch of consecutive cycles, but not at the cost of running the queues down to zero. ] ] 17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I've done one, though I notice that PSHAW hung when I clicked the button - pinging {{yo|Theleekycauldron}}. The next one has one of mine in it; will do the other eight if no-one else does in the next three hours.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{DYK admins}} We now have seven filled queues, which means we head back to 2-a-day. An admin needs to update ] - or better yet, unprotect it so I can have at it. The two date requests, for 26 and 28 January, are in queue 2 (at least 26 January morning) and prep 6.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I do not think we should unprotect the bot controls like the Time Between Updates. The change to that page should happen after midnight UTC (otherwise the bot will update DYK immediately). I can do it in the morning if nobody has got to it by then. —] (]) 22:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with Kusma; unprotecting the bot controls would be unwise. I expect to be around shortly after 0000 UTC; I'll take care of it. ] ] 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, one could change it from full to template protection. ] (]) 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::That seems inadvisable when template protection users seem ready to change the file at the wrong time. Leave it for the admins. ] (]) 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's not just that. If an admin screws up editing that page, they can fix whatever mess the bot will make. Template editors can't. —] (]) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:PSHAW also hung when I tried to do a set yesterday... regarding flitting back and forth, I think that's far better than just ploughing on regardless. I would oppose removing the 3-day cut-off. Remember that burnout might not only lead to unfilled queues, it might lead to a reduction in the thoroughness of the admin checks and we want to give people a breather. It seems like the process for moving special occasion hooks around is not so onerous? Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 08:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
Plus we had two requests for 2June and we only have one in preps and the remaining would make a good lead pic. Admins, pitch in! ] ] 20:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks, but that was only one. More need moved.] ] 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


=== ] (]) ===
== Admin help needed to officially merge/close noms ==
@]: The hook fact lacks an end-of sentence citation. —] (]) 07:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


:@], do you mean in the article? '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{resolved}}
::@], yes. Thank you for adding it. —] (]) 10:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Now that ] has passed as a multiple hook, I would like to close ] and ] in a way that the QPQs are properly transferred and all hooks are still documented as being new. Who knows the proper "paperwork" to merge noms into a multiple nomination?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:::@] no worries. I didn't worry about it when I was promoting the hook because it was at the end of the paragraph anyway. Can't hurt to have it at the end of each sentence though. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I closed those two, but there's no magical process for transferring QPQs. --] (]) 22:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::::@], it is actually a requirement per ]. —] (]) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well no one is challenging my QPQs at ]. Everthing seems fine. Thanks for closing those out.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 23:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


=== ] (]) ===
== ] scheduling ==
@{{U|Le Loy}}/{{U|Ле Лой}}, @{{U|Geni}}: The lead should be expanded a bit to make the article properly ]. —] (]) 08:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], done, please take a look. I got so sick of this institution it took me a while to return to the article. ] (]) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::@]: much better, thanks! —] (]) 11:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
We have merged 12 new articles into a total of 6 hooks to avoid hook congestion. Now there are 5 approved hooks and a pending hook, meaning that it is likely that there will be 6 hooks for this ] date request. I have requested that the four hooks that feature works be scheduled in the 4 primary positions (3rd queue on the 9th through the 3rd queue on the 10th). There are two other hooks that are likely to draw far fewer viewers. They would benefit from being on the main page at their newsiness peak during the 9th and 10th. Could we allow 1 or 2 of the 4 targeted queues to have two Tony Award hooks?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:I was asked to comment on this, as I commented in the previous discussion. But my opinion is still the same: the Tony Award is not something that we want to bend our rules for, having one per set for two straight days is more than enough. ] (]) 10:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::As was I, and my opinion is also unchanged. I agree with Mentoz86: no more than one per set. ] (]) 05:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


===]===
== Do we accept x4 expansions? ==
{{u|Olmagon}} {{u|AmateurHi$torian}} {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} - How does anyone know that only two people are known to have seen the frog alive? The article even says this about the first discoverer - "He collected three individuals, which would later be studied and recognized as a new species by British biologist Arthur Loveridge in 1935." That would be two people already if those specimens were alive, and that is without mentioning the next discoverer of live specimens named Ronalda Keith. ] (]) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Olmagon}} I guess the collected species are presumed to be dead, but is there a source which says that? If there is none, maybe ALT1 can be used instead. -] (]) 12:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|SL93}}, collected specimens are dead. The source clearly says that they were preserved in ] after their collection in the field. ] (]) 12:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|AirshipJungleman29}} Collected specimens are not always dead. As for the source, I only have access to an abstract that didn't answer my question. ] (]) 13:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::See ]. If they are not dead and preserved, they are not yet considered specimens. ] (]) 13:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Not true. Searching "living specimen" and "living specimen meaning" shows otherwise. along with and are just three of many examples. Although it doesn't matter now. ] (]) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source right after mentioning Arthur Loveridge makes it clear that they were preserved. The View Article link originally didn't show up on my screen. I just had to refresh. I'm sorry. ] (]) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I suppose it's always possible that someone saw this frog alive but never reported it or didn't realize it was this species, that's why I specified "known", but I suppose you seem to have solved the issue already without me anyways. ] (]) 21:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


===]===
I've expanded ] by 4 folds (if you count from 1 June), but it can be 5 folds if we count from 26 May. I don't think I'll be able to expand it further (unless I rely heavily on primary sources). Do you think this has a snow chance in hell? <b>]</b> ] 19:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
{{u|AmateurHi$torian}} {{u|MartinPoulter}} {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} - A direct citation is needed after the hook fact. ] (]) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm inclined to say that this article should be treated as eligible for DYK. If you compare the current version with , the expansion that began on 26 May still falls slightly below the 5x threshold. However, considering the amount of new content that has been added and the dramatic improvement in quality, I'd be inclined to say it's "about 5x", and the fact that the expansion started not 5 days ago, but 8 days ago, doesn't bother me -- that's still very recent. --] (]) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:{{re|SL93}} Added -] (]) 12:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::I would agree with Orlady. It's very close and, overall, the article is very well done so I think a little ] can be invoked here. ]]/] 23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
:::On an article of that size, there's nothing wrong with a little IAR. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
::::I agree. This seems like a good reason to use a bit of IAR. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::Allow it. ] ] 02:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Wow, that's very generous, thanks guys! <small>P.S. I'm in love with IAR :)</small> <b>]</b> ] 09:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
*This ×5 rule has been a terrible failure and should be dumped forthwith. ] ] 09:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
**], ], '']''...&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 09:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
**Maybe we should expansion over a certain number of characters as well? Or a 10-day period of expansion, although I think that one was shot down relatively recently.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span> 09:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
**The 5x rule was initially meant for existing stubs, so such a limit would go against the initial spirit of the rule.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


===]===
**I don't have a problem with the 5x expansion rule. It's a good rule that allows expanded stubs to be at a good length. It's just that in this current case, it is so close to 5x and is of such a length that it makes sense to allow it through. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
{{u|Mccunicano}} A citation is needed after "Southbound exit." ] (]) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{reply to|SL93}} That's what the Google Maps reference is for at the top of the junction list, but the information also exists within the page linked to the junctions that are to be closed, it's redundant to attach it for a junction that is not impacted by the closures. ''']]''' 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Mccunicano}} I wrongly assumed that everything in the notes was meant to be sourced to the 6th reference, and I didn't think Google Maps was the best option when another source is available. I came to that conclusion after searching recent discussions about if Google Maps was completely reliable, and I came across ] a few minutes ago which revealed to me that it can be used to such a purpose as this. You can remove the citation. ] (]) 00:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
== DYK approved but has not appeared? ==


===]===
DYK discussion was approved by ] with edit. It was then moved to prep 4 by ] with . Though shortly, Harrias undid the edit and promoted the hook with edit on June 1. On June 2, I received the notification from ] that the hook was added to the DYK, however it doesn't include the fact that was approved at the nomination. According to "Pages that link to "List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos" the hook is not in any prep or queue area. Is there something specific that happened here or am I confused? — ]] 02:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
{{u|Jolielover}} {{u|Pbritti}} {{u|Hilst}} Caffey family murders has ] issues per Earwig such as "to be tried as an adult" and "All four defendants were initially charged with three counts of capital murder". ] (]) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Jolielover}} Will you be taking care of this? ] (]) 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi there, some false positives due to quotations & things such as names of shows the case was featured on. I have paraphrased the rest, hope it works, thanks. ]] 02:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you. ] (]) 02:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


===]===
:There is to Prep4 with the summary "swap for timing" where the coronation appeared at the loss of the Qvam and Santos hooks. However, the "give credit" template for Santos was not removed (which is probably why it was added to your talk page). ] (]) 02:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This is my nomination so someone else needs to look over it. {{Template:DYK admins}} ] (]) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Will take shortly.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ec}} Hi {{ping|SL93}} I've taken a look at this and looks good to me. The only thing is, I thought the Career section seemed to be missing coverage from between 1987 and 2012, but then I noticed that was contained in the Filmography section. I've taken the liberty of folding those two into one as that seems to offer a better chronology. It's still a bit on the short side and could do with expansion on more of his career, but fine for a DYK IMHO. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 15:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


===Two football hooks===
::Sorry for the confusion. I've placed the hook in prep area 3 with . Thanks for the heads up! ]]<sub><font color="FF9999" face="Tunga">]</font></sub> 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Queue 6 has two football hooks from the same editor because of moves that happened to accommodate a special occasion hook. Only admins can edit Queue 6 at this point. Just seeing if an admin wants to switch one out for a non-sports hook, or decide that it isn't an issue. {{Template:DYK admins}}. ] (]) 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you both for sorting it out! — ]] 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


== ] ==
== DYK is almost overdue ==


=== ] ===
<!-- 2013-06-05T08:00:00Z -->
{{yo|Epicgenius}} The newspaper.com link for the restored organ clipping is incorrect. It links to a . The ProQuest link is fine, though. – 🌻 ] (] &#124; ])
In less than two hours ] will need to be updated, however the ''']''' 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:
:@], thanks for pointing it out. I found and fixed it. &ndash; ] (]) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
# Check the ''']'''; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the ''']''' and add them and the credits as required.
# Once completed edit ''']''' and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
# Add <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>|~~~}}</nowiki> 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, ] (]) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


=== ] ===
== Second opinion sought ==
{{yo|Viriditas|Jonathan Deamer|AirshipJungleman29}} Do we need to include the fact that it "features model Suzanne Valadon and the stylistic influence of Vincent van Gogh"? I don't see what those tidbits add to the hook. – 🌻 ] (] &#124; ]) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:The model can be cut; I find it interesting that a painting inspired by van Gogh could be found suitable for a nightclub. ] (]) 15:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::The suggestion of @] sounds good! ] (]) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Works for me. ] (]) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{Done}} – 🌻 ] (] &#124; ]) 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Older nominations needing DYK reviewers ==
I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I declined ], suggesting that the author may like to seek a second opinion. Quite reasonably, that is now the case. Could someone else please have a look at the article and see what they think? --] (]) 06:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 8. We have a total of 271 nominations, of which 156 have been approved, a gap of 115 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
== DYK for Sale — ''Cheap!'' ==


'''More than one month old'''
{{hat | Primary discussion at ] - please make comments as it serves no useful purpose to have competing discussions on this concern }}
*<s>November 19: ]</s>
Cross-posting from Jimbo-Talk, since this is actually the appropriate venue for the discussion. This article was brought to attention on Wikipediocracy.com by Wikipedian Jayen466:
*December 1: ]
'''Other nominations'''
*December 24: ]
*December 31: ]
*January 2: ]
*<s>January 2: ]</s>
*January 2: ]
*January 2: ]
*January 3: ]
*January 3: ]
*January 3: ]
*January 4: ]
*<s>January 4: ]</s>
*<s>January 5: ]</s>
*January 5: ]
*<s>January 5: ]</s>
*January 6: ] (two articles)
*January 6: ]
*January 6: ]
*<s>January 6: ]</s>
*January 6: ]
*January 6: ]
*<s>January 7: ]</s>
*<s>January 7: ] (three articles)</s>
*<s>January 8: ]</s>
*<s>January 8: ]</s>
*January 8: ]
*<s>January 8: ]</s>
*January 8: ]
*<s>January 8: ]</s>
*January 8: ]


Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! ] (]) 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
<blockquote>
<br />
<br />


== Edit top section ==
. . .
“I reached a market I never thought I could,” wrote Ms. Oseña-Paez in an entry on her blog entitled My Misplaced Pages. “You could only imagine what kind of readership you’ll get once you appear on the Misplaced Pages main page. It was overwhelming.” In six hours, Daphne’s entry racked up over 17,000 views, giving her a new kind of international exposure she has never had before. Her entry was the 4th most viewed “Did You Know?” section article in the month of June, viewed more than 955 other articles that also were featured in the same section.<br />
<br />


I tried to correct a grammatical error but this page doesn't seem to edit like others: "go to article's talk page" should be "go to the article's talk page". ] (]) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
To date, Tony Ahn has been successful at every attempt to place a client on the Misplaced Pages main page. “We don’t charge extra for this, nor do we guarantee placement. I write high-quality articles that naturally lend themselves to main page placement. Getting my clients on the Misplaced Pages main page is just an added bonus both for me and my clients.”
:I corrected it at ].--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
. . .
</blockquote>


== DYK's use of the T: pseudo-namespace ==
It is time to get serious about shutting down the abuse of DYK, which has been brewing for a long time... ] (]) 15:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


There is currently a proposal (]) to fully deprecate the T: pseudo-namespace. A significant chunk of the remaining T: pages (]) are related to DYK, including the main ] redirect and redirects to all the preps and queues. Some of these are directly referred to in our ], and in places such as the ]. I've !voted to exclude DYK from the proposed sunsetting, but perhaps we should also think of switching to using TM: shortcuts as standard. ] (]) 16:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Carrite conveniently omits that ] appeared on DYK on 17 June 2011, '''two years ago'''. This is stale and then some. But there's something that puzzles me about it - looking at the "what links here" page, I can't see any link to a DYK review which one would normally expect. Who reviewed this and when? ] (]) 16:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
:*{{facepalm}} Okay, seriously. Even the URL says that this post was in June 2011.
::@]: at the time we didn't have the subpage system (it was implemented early August 2011, I believe), so any review of this article will be in the history of ] (and thus a good waste of several hours to find). That was one of the reasons we implemented this system.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 16:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
::*Addendum: Apparently is the review, found by 78.149.172.10 at Jimbo's talk page.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


== What I can't promote ==
:::Notwithstanding the old-ness of this issue, paid editing is not a DYK-specific problem, so I don't know why anyone would look for a DYK-specific solution. Note that the editor, ], is paid to write PR articles. Seems clearly problematic from the perspective of ] and ] to me, although he has counterarguments (]) (and from a quick glance at his contribs it looks like he also does constructive things that aren't PRing). The solution is to deal with the editor, not to attack DYK again. <b class="IPA">]</b>&nbsp;(]) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
::::I quite agree, but this is something that's come from Wikipediocracy, so the attack is quite predictable. Might I suggest that we close this discussion and focus on it on Jimbo's user talk page where it was first posted rather than duplicating it unnecessarily? ] (]) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}


The nominations that I have participated in and that are not being promoted is getting longer. Here is a list of the oldest ones needing promotion.
== The Hall of Lame ==
:]
:]
:]
:] ] (]) 02:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Always happens when one person takes on most of the promoting load—I should know. Thanks for directly identifying them, I'll take care of them. Ping me if you need the same sort of help in the future. ] (]) 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I will be sure to. ] (]) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sticking to either prep building or queue promotion (but not both) avoids this kind of conflict. It's not a rule, just something that I've found which makes my life simpler. ] ] 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I will stick to queue promotions for the most part now. Hopefully, we get more prep builders once we enter a crisis mode of empty preps. ] (]) 14:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Eye-rolling hook in Q5 ==
It's back again. Today's winner is:


"''* ... that the discontinuation of ''']''' in the summer of 1939 was unrelated to the ]?''"
"Did you know ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 38 Squadron was equipped with DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft for 45 years?"


If you read the article, you learn that the journal folded due to financial shortcomings and published its last issue on ''June 30'' of that year ... about ''two months'' before the Germans invaded. At a time when no one was expecting that to occur, at least not imminently. Hell, if you read the hook and know basic history, your first thought would not be "Well, I'd like to read the article and find out why" but "Who''ever'' would have thought it ''was''?" Just because the war in Europe started on September 1 of that year does not mean ''every event in Poland'' that year, especially those prior to that date (save, of course, the ]) must automatically have ''something'' to do with it.<p>Put it this way: it would be like a hook saying that the cancellation of an American TV show that happened to occur in spring 2001 was "unrelated to 9/11".<p>I could understand, perhaps, if the sources showed that it was a common perception that the journal ''had'' been shut down due to the invasion. But they do not appear to. We do appear to have one source offhandedly saying this, but purely on its own. That's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have made it into the article because of ]-y ness like this.
Well no, I didn't know that. Wow.


Pinging {{ping|AirshipJungleman29}} (reviewer) and {{ping|Generalissima}} (creator, who in fairness ''did'' say during ] that they were open to alternate hook ideas. ] (]) 05:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Runner up: "... that Michelle Nunn, CEO of Points of Light, the largest organization in the U.S. devoted to volunteer service, is considering running for the U.S. Senate, where her father once served?"


:I'm pretty sure there was a much higher volume of Yiddish literature curtailed in Poland after the Nazi invasion than there were American TV shows cancelled after 9/11 <small> also, the invasion happened in the summer, so your comparison doesn't even make sense </small> <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 06:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The runner up borders on being political spam. Who approved it? ] ] 10:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::While you are technically correct that the invasion happened in the summer, in the sense that it was prior to the ], ''Yidishe Bleter'' published its last issue a full ''two months'' before then, when no one was anticipating an imminent German invasion.
*Tony, for the RAAF hook at least, that is at the very least somewhat interesting for those familiar with military matters. Can you imagine the USAF using ] (WWII) in ] (1990-91)? That's how out of date those planes were when they were finally taken out of service in that squadron.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::And otherwise your attempt to claim my comparison "doesn't make sense" itself does not make sense, because it misses the point: there is no rational way anyone would believe that an event that occurred in a year known for a tragic, world-altering event that no one anticipated would have anything to do with that event if it occurred some time before that event. Better comparison, perhaps: "While many people believe ] died of COVID, that is not the case" (although frankly given that he died very early in a year mostly marked by the pandemic, that would be a more forgivable misconception. ] (]) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:* I'd guess that Tony isn't particularly conversant with military matters because as someone who is, I can say that fact definitely is surprising. I'll go and have a look at the article now to find out the story behind this... ] (])
::*WP's main page doesn't aim exclusively at military experts. If the hook can't convey a surprising aspect to normal readers, I think it shouldn't be displayed. ] ] 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*In which case you should suggest a change to the DYK rules, as the currently written ones do not specify a general audience.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::::*I approved the Nunn hook. Given that the election in question isn't until November 2014, I figured it wasn't an issue. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::*I moved the RAAF hook to the prep area. I didn't know anything about the airplane and I wouldn't have visited the article if I hadn't been checking it for promotability, but I recognized that there are people who are very interested in military aircraft and that 45 years is a long to use any one airplane model. If DYK limited itself to topics known to be of widespread interest among people who visit Misplaced Pages articles, it probably would only feature current topics like reality TV, popular music, hot video games, and the latest iPhone model. Let's not go there! --] (]) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*No, all that is required is that the point of the surprise or interest be clear from the hook to main-page readers. This should have been weeded out long before it got to the main page if no better alternative hook could be conceived; but I'm guessing that no one even ''bothered'' to improve it. ] ] 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*:Tony, if you wanted a stray poll, "45 years" is enough to draw attention of non-specialist. Move on. ] (]) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*::What is notable about 45 years? If this is the best you can come up with, DYK should be terminated, or at least drastically reformed so that GAs can at last gain a little exposure, with much better material. ] ] 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*:::Several editors are trying to convince you that it is a pretty long term for a military piece of equipment, especially an aircraft. Hooks are not about "better material" - you'd have to shift your criticism to the article for that. ] (]) 02:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*::::Tony, that ''you'' do not find it interesting or unusual does not mean ''nobody'' does, or even that barely anyone does. I yawn a little bit wider every time I see a sports hook, but there are a significant number of readers who go berserk for them.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*It's not the topic: it's the hook. ] ] 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:*And most of the hooks for sports-related articles are... sports related, and at times barely penetrable.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


== ] ==
*'''Today's winner:''' There are so many candidates it was hard to choose. I settled for "Did you know that Ravi Shankar, the world-renowned Indian sitar player, was a musician from Varanasi?" Errr ... it's a fact, yes, but is it a suitable DYK hook?<p>Runners-up: again abstruseness abounds for anyone who isn't already an insider for the topic—this seems to be increasingly prevalent. So we have "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards?" ... Um ... OK.<p>And "Did you know that Tom Collins resigned the presidency of RCSI-Bahrain over the alleged government cancellation of an ethics conference?"—Wake me up when it's finished.<p>May I ask why prehistoric "hill complexes" feature <u>twice</u> in the current shift? This is very bad control of theme. ] ] 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
**''Sigh''. And that's why there are links, for those who are not "insiders". If rules required, for instance, "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards, Indonesian film awards which have been likened to the Oscars?", then I (and most active DYK editors, I should think) would rather just not go through DYK. Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
***"Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant."—you're going down a rabbit hole there. "Did you know ... that Zainal Abidin acted in more than 150 Indonesian films, but won only two of the coveted Citra Awards?" – that would be a tiny bit better, at least providing a cultural anchor and pointing to the reason for the irony. And no, visitors to the main page should ''not'' have to click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it. Bad idea. ] ] 10:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
****Citation for "coveted", Tony, per the ]? I agree that it's true, but verifiability is not truth. I don't think I said readers need to "click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it". If they get it, good. If they don't get it but are interested, even better&mdash;they've learned something. If they don't get it and don't click, no biggie. Very few DYKs get the same level of attention as a TFA or POTD.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


===]===
What Tony's complaint boils down to, I think, is that a fair number of DYKs are of specialist interest - mushrooms or Bach cantatas, for instance. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Many editors are specialists too, but there's no requirement that DYK topics should be "populist", nor should there be. I think the range of topics - including those which are perhaps rather esoteric - is a good thing, in that it exposes readers to subjects that they probably would never come across from their usual daily reading. ] (]) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
{{yo|Yue|Jeromi Mikhael|Hilst}} Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:It does. "With distinctive bay windows that expand the floor space of the second storey, the Sam Kee Building was recognized by Guinness World Records as the narrowest commercial building in the world." ] (]) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Forgot to add the CBC source used in the nomination to the sentence in the body, but it also attributes appropriately: "The structure at 8 West Pender Street is also the world's narrowest commercial building, according to the Guinness Book of World Records." <big>]]</big> 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::The sources both attribute Guinness but don't use quotes. We shouldn't either.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We should when it's not paraphrased from the source. ] (]) 23:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I used quotation marks because they're titles made up by Guinness. Not opposed to removing them either way though. <big>]]</big> 08:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


===]===
== Singapore; frequent DYKs lah ==
{{yo|AstrooKai|SL93|Royiswariii}} As far as I can tell, the promoted hook was explicitly rejected on interestingness grounds, and I think quite rightly.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's true. I only approved the first hook. ] (]) 19:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::I swapped it with ].--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you. ] (]) 01:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


===]===
We are seeing many hooks related to Singapore recently. I guess not much fuss has been made yet on ] about this. {{small|(Birds are still being attacked there.)}} Before people start doing that i think we should avoid second Gibraltar episode. I am sure the admins who promote hooks take care that no two Singaporean hooks are showcased in same set. But i don't know if each consecutive set is scanned that way or not. Admins should take care that this doesn't happen. Maybe we can have a hold down area for Singapore also. Double review like Gibraltar is unnecessary. The main concern is that almost all hooks have "Singapore" or "Singaporean" in them and that be alarming. §§]§§ {]/]} 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
{{yo|TheLonelyPather|Toadspike}} The hook is contradicted elsewhere in the article; it says she published the book "in 1908, when she was sixteen years old" but the article claims she was born in 1893, which would make her 14 or 15.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Erm, they are almost all the work of two editors, and neither of them (to the best of my knowledge) are getting paid to place information about Singapore on the front page. One is a university professor who has his students write articles, using their own user names, about Singapore's law and legal climate, while ] is just a very productive editor. The main issue with Gibraltarpedia was the fact that the government had helped pay for the program and was offering some incentives. Nothing like that here.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::I am aware of the Gibraltar issue. That's why i did not propose double reviews. Articles are not a problem here. {{small|(You see, birds also most probably don't pay editors to feature their snaps. But still they attract criticism.)}} We simply need to space out these hooks properly. Hence a special standby area for them. §§]§§ {]/]} 13:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::*See, in my opinion "second Gibraltar" is scaremongering. DYK always gets people complaining about the frequency of certain topics. Last year it was horses and paralympians, right now it's Bach cantatas. Gibraltar was... something else.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::::Have changed the name of the topic if you think its being used by me to scare people. §§]§§ {]/]} 13:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::::*Thanks.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*AGF for Dharmadhyaksha, but agree with Crisco 1492 that this is nothing to be alarmed about. DYK tends to have runs on topics. I think the Gibraltar dual-review and sectioning out (and I'm the one who did the RFC that created it) proved nothing, except that DYK has its own closet of anxieties that can be easily rattled by a few whose motives are in question. We should not repeat that mistake ever again with any topic. Where do we draw the line? How many promoters and admins want to spend their time flipping up and down on the nomination page to make sure they included something from the appropriate sections? We should stop worrying about topics and concentrate on the qualifications of the individual noms. ] (]) 13:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Heh how did I know this would transpire sooner or later. No scandal here, sorry. The SG gov. would never do things like that. Singapore is already popular enough. (COI) I admit though that I love Singapore deeply. :) ☯ ] '''\(^_^)/''' ''']''' ☯ 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:And thanks Crisco. Appreciated. ☯ ] '''\(^_^)/''' ''']''' ☯ 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:*You're welcome.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:*Too many articles on Singapore lah! That can't be possible, ah. :-) ] (]) 17:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::*You've gotten the hang of the slang, eh? ☯ ] '''\(^_^)/''' ''']''' ☯ 04:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
::*Apologies to those who've already seen this quip elsewhere, but a reliable source already stated that it's very rare for ''any'' topic to appear on DYK "more than once", so we must all just be imagining it :) --] (]) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::*Yeah, I must be faking all my trophies.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
* For editors who think this is an urban legend, some examples are given below.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;background-color:#F9F9F9;font-size:89%;"
|-
! colspan="3" style="background-color:#C3C3C3;font-size:12px;text-align:left;" | ''Some examples of #Singapore and #Singaporean.''
|-
|style="vertical-align:top"|
'''May 2013'''
* ... that the Singaporean ''']''' re-sold leftover sticks of satay?
* ... that stingrays ''']''' in Singapore with raw peanuts and sugar?
* ... that Singaporean rocker ''']''' was banned from performing in Malaysia for seven years because he had long hair?
* ... that Singaporean rapper ''']''' has been hailed as "Singapore's Kanye West?"
* ... that former chef ''']''' is credited with establishing Singapore's first Malay restaurant?
* ... that Chia Thye Poh, formerly detained under Singapore's ''']''', has been called "the world's second longest serving prisoner-of-conscience after South Africa's Nelson Mandela"?


:@] I'm guessing this is down to ], which adds a year or two. ] </span>]] 19:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
'''So far in June 2013'''
::In my opinion, this is not an error, and the hook can run as-is. However, we can also add a footnote to the article clarifying the Chinese age counting system once TLP has confirmed that the dates and ages accurately reflect the sources. ] </span>]] 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that ] ''(pictured)'' is the first ''']'''?
:::I think adding a footnote would be an excellent idea.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that ] has ''']'''?
::::I support a footnote. ] (]) 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that Singaporean businessman ''']''' was the first non-American recipient of the American Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award?
:::::@]@]@] Thank you all for catching this. I will double check and get back in 24 hours. In case I cannot find East Asian age reckoning, I can also change the hook to include her year of birth. Cheers, --] (]) 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that ''']''' accounted for only 0.5% of the country's GDP in 2010?
::::::@]@]@] I checked my sources and it turns out that only Liu 2016 mentions that the book was published when Liang was sixteen years old. The 1908 date is confirmed by another source. To avoid overcomplicating things for the reader, I removed the mention of the phrase {{xt|sixteen years old}}. Now, may I suggest a new hook based on ]:
* ... that English botanist ''']''' wrote the first book on gardening in Singapore? (Maybe not this one)
* ... that photographer ''']''' has been called "one of the most sought-after commercial photographers" in Singapore? ::::::* ... that ''']''' published a Chinese poetry anthology in 1908, when she was about fifteen years old?
::::::Thank you all for your detailed attention. Cheers, --] (]) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that Singaporean politician ''']''' was "Singapore's first Malay minister"?
:::::::That looks good to me. ] </span>]] 08:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that businessman ''']''' is considered "one of the most influential Chinese (Cantonese) tycoons in Singapore"?
:::::::Sounds good. ] (]) 14:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that Singaporean politician ''']''' got robbed of his trousers while on a family holiday?


===]===
'''Upcoming'''
{{yo|An anonymous username, not my real name|Ornithoptera}} Where's the hook?--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that in 1989 the Singapore Parliament reversed the effect of a 1988 Court of Appeal case holding that the Internal Security Act did not ''']''' of decisions to detain without trial?
:"Eoscorpius was placed in the newly erected family Eoscorpionidae by American paleontologist Samuel Hubbard Scudder in 1884. While other experts of the time, such as Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions, Scudder believed that it was sufficiently distinct to warrant the creation of a new family." ] (]) 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that fish heads ''']''' (dish pictured) in Singapore with a range of ingredients including milk, brandy, and fried noodles?
::@], for some reason, this hook wasn't picked, even though Ornithoptera explicitly preferred it. Is it possible to change it? — ''''']''''' 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that Singaporean community leader ''']''' could speak excellent English?
:::ALT1 is fine by me. I wasn't sure if there was a preference because both hooks were approved. ] (]) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that the ''']''' (Jurong Island pictured) generates five percent of the country's gross domestic product?
:::"British geologist Ben Peach expressed regret that the name Eoscorpius was given to a genus so similar to modern scorpions, speculating a much earlier origin for scorpions as a group." for ALT1. "Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions" for ALT0. ] (]) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that Singaporean make-up artist ''']''' has done make-up for Zhang Ziyi (pictured), Stefanie Sun, The Spice Girls, and Chris Isaak?
::::Thanks, I got thrown by the word "extreme". I didn't see ALT1 in the nom as it wasn't properly labelled, and I think "criticism" is slightly stronger than the source and article.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that with their combined wealth estimated at $1.6 billion, Singaporean couple ''']''' and ''']''' are among the richest people in Singapore?
:::::@], is there another word you would prefer? The source indicates that Peach publicly indicated his displeasure (however mild) with the chosen name, which seems like enough to constitute criticism (even if it's not the most severe). I don't think readers will be shocked and upset to find out that Peach didn't go as far as to leave a scathing review of the scorpion's naming. — ''''']''''' 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* ... that Singaporean businesswoman ''']''' has a Master's degree from the George Washington University?
===]===
* ... that Singaporeans commemorate the ''']''' (Monkey God pictured) by writing in blood?
{{yo|UndercoverClassicist|Zeete}} Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
|}
For editors who assumed my proposal was in good faith, thanks a lot. §§]§§ {]/]} 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:To put this in context, we run about 2,000 DYKs a month. You're raising concerns about running 6 or 7 in the course of a single month. That's about 0.3% of the total. I hardly think it's overrepresented given the number of DYKs on other topics. ] (]) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


:It's in the St. Clair source, cited in both: {{green|"Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey."}}. This is ], who was a Greek academic. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 19:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::As I said elsewhere about the "too much Bach" claims, the DYK process runs those nominations that are (1) submitted, and (2) pass the criteria for inclusion. If you submit valid nominations about topics that are not to do with Singapore, then they will appear in DYK - thus bringing a lower proportion of Singapore-related DYKs. If you do ''not'' do so, then nothing will change. --] (]) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:It does. "Was everything built on the Acropolis between ancient and modern Hellas to be regarded as a temporary intrusion? Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the Tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey." I had to scroll down to page 494 because the search option didn't work. ] (]) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I simply pointed out a possible future commotion which could be avoided by a simple scattering strategy. In case you find it unnecessary, its okay. But when someone comes complaining on Talk:Main Page, do remember this. Sorry for wasting your time. §§]§§ {]/]} 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::What I meant was that the source attributes Kaphtantzoglou but does not uses quotes, and we shouldn't either.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Do not worry, I have lots of it. My memory is like a goldfish, but even that will be sufficient to remember this until the next time someone comes complaining on Talk:Main Page - because that happens at least twice a week. --] (]) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:::I think I have written enough on Misplaced Pages, and written enough essays, to know that quotes are used for direct statements that are not paraphrased. That avoids a copyright issue. ] (]) 01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{small|Contrary to popular belief, goldfish do have relatively good memory}} ☯ ] '''\(^_^)/''' ''']''' ☯ 07:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:::@]: Ah, I see -- I'd agree with removing the quote marks (and will do so in the article); it's quite likely that he actually wrote "owl-shit" or something similarly (un)printable. I don't think that creates any ] concern, as there's no real way to rephrase the quote more than trivially without losing ]. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
You even took the effort to make a table... ☯ ] '''\(^_^)/''' ''']''' ☯ 04:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
::::I'm not so sure about that, but it is an easy fix if someone complains. ] (]) 14:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Is "bird poo" too lowbrow for the main page, I wonder? '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
7 DYKs for June 2013 as of 7 June 2013! ] (]) 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
*Heck, there are times where I kept up two articles on Indonesia per day... been over a year though.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


===]===
Above, Prioryman claims that we run about 2,000 DYK's a month. In reality, we run now 7 per batch, 3 batches a day (= 21), max 31 days a month, is 651 DYKs a month only. Even with 4 batches of 8 (did we ever have that rhythm?), we only come close to 1,000 a month. ] (]) 08:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:Oh, that's embarassing. :-( I was thinking of the total over three months, which was under discussion elsewhere. You're quite right about the monthly totals (3 x 651 = 1,953). ] (]) 11:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC) {{u|Di (they-them)}} {{u|Cremastra}} {{u|Hilst}} I don't see why "humanity's cradle" was used rather than "Cradle of Humankind". ] (]) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:I just used a descriptive phrase rather than the actual title to create intrigue. ] (]) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== {{prep|4}} Anti-Muslim pogroms in India ==
::I'm not sure how I feel about using a descriptive phrase for it, but I will see what others think. ] (]) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just a fancy form of a name that was pretty poetic in the first place. Some wordplay is allowed. ] (]) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Either one is fine by me. – 🌻 ] (] &#124; ]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the input. ] (]) 20:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


===]===
The promoted hook on ] should be rescheduled till the article is cleared of NPOV issues. Discussion started on talk page of article. Also split discussion happening at ]. §§]§§ {]/]} 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
*{{Done}}.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC) {{u|Generalissima}} {{u|EchetusXe}} The article says "in late 1452 or early 1453", but the hook says "in 1453". ] (]) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:Rephrased the article portion a bit - the eruption may have occurred in either year, but the cooling occurred in 1453. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Better hook needed ==
::That works for me. ] (]) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Actually, just to be less ambiguous, it'd be nice if an admin could rephrase it to '... that in ''']''', a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere?' to make it clear the eruption wasn't necessarily in 1453. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 02:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Done. ] (]) 02:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] (26 January) ==
At ]. Reviewers think my hook is too boring (with which I agree), but they propose alt hooks which are factually incorrect or otherwise problematic, I am afraid. Perhaps somebody new can come up with a better hook? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 03:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


===]===
== Queues empty and no preps built ==
{{ping|SL93|Extraordinary Writ|Staraction}} this hook seems misleading. If Im following the ariticle correctly, the fight to get the hymm removed ran on for years, so to say it was "removed from the hymnal within 24 hours" is dubious. ] ] 01:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
... ] ] 12:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:I don't think that it is misleading. The hook is ".. that a U.S. government official ordered that "It Was on a Friday Morning" be removed from a hymnal within 24 hours?" which is a true statement. It does not say it was removed within 24 hours. Per "On July 9, the chief chaplain of the Veterans Administration, James Rogers, issued a memorandum ordering: "Hymn No. 286 shall be removed from all new Books of Worship within 24 hours." ] (]) 01:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*Could you build one so I can move it to a queue?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, I don't really see how "ordered that it be removed within 24 hours" can be read as anything other than "within 24 hours of the order". ] (]) 01:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:*I did not have time at that point, but someone has filled two preps and I'll now try to fill the other two preps, approved hooks allowing.] ] 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:Posting here to note that I've seen this conversation; I agree with {{noping|SL93}} and {{noping|Extraordinary Writ}} that {{tqi|'''ordered''' "It Was on a Friday Morning" removed from the hymnal within 24 hours?}} (emphasis mine) makes the action the order, not the actual removal. ] (] &#124; ]) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::*Just a reminder that there are three approved hooks ready for prepping at ]. ] (]) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:10, 24 January 2025

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 06:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 6 hours ago( )
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204

• 2011 reform proposals
• 2020 RFC LT Solutions
• All RfCs
• Removed hooks: 2023–24


This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Back to 24 hours?

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

5 January

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

8 January

@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

11 January

@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We are now back to a significant backlog. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93 We need more @DYK admins: to keep the queues filled, and then we could go back to 12 hour sets. If you're willing to help out in that department, I'd be happy to nominate you for WP:RfA. Or, if you prefer, I could just give you WP:TPE. RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I thought that I needed to meet "The editor should have made at least 150 total edits to the Template and Module namespaces." for TPE. We also don't have that many prep builders so I wouldn't want to stop helping fill preps just so that I could promote them to queues. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I see now that template namespace also refers to DYK nominations. I should have figured. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've granted WP:TPE to SL93. It'll be good to have more hands working the queues! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I hit something of a wall last week after attempting two in a day, but I plan on resuming in the next couple of days.--Launchballer 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I do have one question about moving a prep to queue. For example, I promoted two hooks that are in prep 2. Could I still promote those two hooks to a queue and leave a note on the DYK talk page for someone else to check over it? I wouldn't want to promote prep 7 or prep 1 because I filled those preps by myself, but I'm curious about if only a small amount of the hooks were promoted by me. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I used to do both preps and queues, and often found myself in this kind of dilemma, so I decided to mostly work one side of the street. But, yeah, when I promote a set to a queue where I've had hands on one or two of the hooks, I'll post a request here for somebody else to look at those. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I listed Noel Hilliam under the section Prep 2 to have someone look over the article because I promoted it to prep. I wonder if using the @DYK admins template would be acceptable in such a case. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't usually bother with the {{dykadmins}}, but it can't hurt. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
👍 Like. Welcome aboard! —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

18 January

If someone can queue Prep 2, we can go to 12-hour backlog mode tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queued, currently finishing checks. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
12-hour mode should be activated between midnight and 12:00 noon UTC tomorrow. If nobody has done it by then, I'll flip the switch after I wake up tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The instructions say For a variety of technical reasons, you should only make a change shortly after midnight UTC. I've always assumed that means "sometime before noon", but I'be never been quite sure if there's not more to it than that. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure when the bot does its runs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, whether that depends on update frequency and how long it takes for the bot to notice a change in updates per day, but I don't really think anything will break if we change the time between updates in the late UTC morning. I wouldn't flip the switch at 11:55, but 8:30 should be pretty safe. —Kusma (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The last queue I promoted was a few minutes after midnight. I must have caught it in mid-update and confused something because as soon as I saved it, I got the "Oh no, all queues are empty!" warning box (which tankfully turned into something more encouraging shortly after). RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that the lead hook of Queue 3 is a special occasion hook that is supposed to run on 26 January. It will have to moved soon: if we don't continue twice a day on 22 January, then it will have to go into Queue 6. If we do continue, then it would need to end up in Prep 2 if we don't again continue on 25 January, or Prep 3 if we continue twice a day on 25 January as well. The key, of course, is to get it out of Queue 3. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

BlueMoonset I took care of it. However, the new first hook in Queue 3 will need to be reviewed by someone else because I promoted it to prep. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done. The Silicon Island hook and article look OK to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

10 hook sets?

We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Last Song for You

Pinging Prince of Erebor The fifth reference on Last Song for You seems unreliable. Google Translate reveals that it is a WordPress blog. I'm planning on promoting prep 2 when it is ready, and I'm just doing some early checking. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey SL93, I believe you are referring to Film Pilgrimage, which should be considered a reliable source because Gary Wong Kwun-ho (王冠豪) is an established film historian and writer with a long career researching on film location scouting and his books are widely cited in this field. (He is also a notable figure that warrants an article, and I have had him on my to-write list for a long time.) So I believe he qualifies as a subject matter expert according to WP:RSPWORDPRESS. (Film articles on zhwiki have also cited Film Pilgrimage for the same rationale.) Also, the article is an exclusive interview with the director and lead actress, discussing the filming locations (which falls within Wong's expertise and does not contain exceptional claims). So I see no issue with citing Wong's piece in this case. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
That’s great. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Arthur Swanstrom

Pinging 4meter4 The Unruh, Delbert (2018). Forgotten Designers Costume Designers of American Broadway Revues and Musicals From 1900–1930 reference was published by Page Publishing. It is a self-publishing company. The source can work if Delbert Unruh received significant coverage over his work. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93 You have not actually looked at the article and what sources are physically cited in the article for the hook. Unruh isn't cited in the article for the source. Hischak is for the quote which is from Scarecrow Press. But Hischak oddly excluded Swanstrom from the lyrics credits. That's why I provided two different sources verifying Swanstrom as a co-lyricist of this work when I proposed the hook. One was Unruh, but the same content is also found in Bloom which is the source actually cited for the hook content in the article. Bloom is published by Schirmer Books. There isn't a verifiability issue here.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
4meter4 I never said that the Unruh source was used for the hook. I brought it up just in case because no unreliable sources should be used in articles. If the self-published source doesn't help anything, I fail to see why you want it there. Checking preps is not just about checking hooks. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
SL93 Here is Delbert Unruh's obituary here. He was a full professor of theatre at the University of Kansas where he taught for forty years. He was a Fullbright scholar and was honored by the United States Institute of Theatre Technology and by the Kennedy Center for his work as a theatre scholar and educator. He's clearly a subject matter expert. Given the source is only used to support a single non-controversial sentence in the article I don't think this should be issue. The Internet Broadway Database has the same content, but I think Unruh is a better source to cite given who he is over a database without an attributed author. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
4meter4 That is all that I needed, and you did not need to assume bad faith on my part. You should also know better. Well, it certainly isn't an issue now. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your objection because I had mention Unruh as a supporting source of the hook in my nomination. I didn't realize initially that you were objecting to its inclusion in the article overall. I didn't mean to make you feel attacked or slighted in my comments. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It's fine. I guess I will be clearer next time. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
This has been resolved. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Noel Hilliam

I promoted this to prep. Can someone check over it? SL93 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Are NZ Short Walks and The End is Naenae reliable? Pinging Petersmeter and Schwede66. SL93 (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I've had a look, SL93, and are happy to share my thoughts:
  • NZ Short Walks – that's obviously a blog and I couldn't figure out who the blogger is. Seems a well-informed person but without knowing more about who is doing the blogging, the default position has to be that this isn't a reliable source.
  • The End is Naenae – this is a blog by Dr Anna McMartin, Wikidata Q131787008 (I've made a Wikidata entry for her). She's a reasonably senior civil servant, and the area she's blogging about falls squarely within her professional expertise. I suggest that WP:ACCORDINGTO is appropriate guidance and this content, if presented as McMartin's opinion, is acceptable to be used. And I've just spotted that the same story has been published by North and South; that's a rather well regarded magazine and gives the whole affair a lot of credence. The full story is behind a paywall and if anyone has access to it, that would obviously be preferable to use as a source.
That's at least my 2c. Schwede66 05:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
NZ Short Walks is by Joanne Rolston. She is the author of The Kingdom (ISBN 9780473338923) but appreciate that is fiction. I believe she is working on a book on NZ history - but not yet published. I can't find much about her background/qualification etc. So accept that we have to default to not a reliable source. Petersmeter (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I have removed NZ Short Walks from the article. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

2/day

I have just activated 2/day, 12-hour set backlog mode. Hope a few people can pitch in and help promote hooks to prep and preps to queue so we can do this without burning out anyone. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There are only five queues filled after the midnight promotion was made, so it's time to go back to 1/day, 24-hour set backlog mode. Pinging @DYK admins: so that this can be done in the next few hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is the current rule that we only do 12-hour sets for three days at a time? I must have missed that change, but I'll trust BlueMoonset to be on top of it.  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn’t seem like a good idea with 135 approved nominations. It also looks like we will have to go back to two sets a day again soon. SL93 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
IIRC the three day cut off was put in place to ensure the rate was reduced before admins (and now template editors?) burnt out. Being able to trigger it a second time quickly is I believe part of the intended design, dependent on there being filled preps and queues that show that volunteers have not yet burnt out. CMD (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for the information. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I pushed for the 3-day rule exactly to prevent burnout. Previously, our only criteria for mode change was how many noms were stacked up in the approved pile. So we'd start doing 12-hour sets and quickly run the queues empty with nobody willing to put in the work to keep it going. Now at least we find out if we've got the work capacity to handle it without getting to the crisis stage of zero queues filled.
Informally, I think flitting back and forth between modes is a bad idea because it complicates the job of people trying to schedule special occasion hooks. I'd rather see us stay in 12-hour mode for a bunch of consecutive cycles, but not at the cost of running the queues down to zero. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I've done one, though I notice that PSHAW hung when I clicked the button - pinging @Theleekycauldron:. The next one has one of mine in it; will do the other eight if no-one else does in the next three hours.--Launchballer 19:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: We now have seven filled queues, which means we head back to 2-a-day. An admin needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates - or better yet, unprotect it so I can have at it. The two date requests, for 26 and 28 January, are in queue 2 (at least 26 January morning) and prep 6.--Launchballer 22:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not think we should unprotect the bot controls like the Time Between Updates. The change to that page should happen after midnight UTC (otherwise the bot will update DYK immediately). I can do it in the morning if nobody has got to it by then. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma; unprotecting the bot controls would be unwise. I expect to be around shortly after 0000 UTC; I'll take care of it. RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, one could change it from full to template protection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That seems inadvisable when template protection users seem ready to change the file at the wrong time. Leave it for the admins. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not just that. If an admin screws up editing that page, they can fix whatever mess the bot will make. Template editors can't. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
PSHAW also hung when I tried to do a set yesterday... regarding flitting back and forth, I think that's far better than just ploughing on regardless. I would oppose removing the 3-day cut-off. Remember that burnout might not only lead to unfilled queues, it might lead to a reduction in the thoroughness of the admin checks and we want to give people a breather. It seems like the process for moving special occasion hooks around is not so onerous? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Doug Hamlin (nom)

@Queen of Hearts: The hook fact lacks an end-of sentence citation. —Kusma (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma, do you mean in the article? TarnishedPath 10:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, yes. Thank you for adding it. —Kusma (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma no worries. I didn't worry about it when I was promoting the hook because it was at the end of the paragraph anyway. Can't hurt to have it at the end of each sentence though. TarnishedPath 10:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, it is actually a requirement per WP:DYKHFC. —Kusma (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Scientific Research Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of Defense in Sergiyev Posad (nom)

@Le Loy/Ле Лой, @Geni: The lead should be expanded a bit to make the article properly presentable. —Kusma (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma, done, please take a look. I got so sick of this institution it took me a while to return to the article. Le Loy (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Le Loy: much better, thanks! —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Du Toit's torrent frog

Olmagon AmateurHi$torian AirshipJungleman29 - How does anyone know that only two people are known to have seen the frog alive? The article even says this about the first discoverer - "He collected three individuals, which would later be studied and recognized as a new species by British biologist Arthur Loveridge in 1935." That would be two people already if those specimens were alive, and that is without mentioning the next discoverer of live specimens named Ronalda Keith. SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Olmagon: I guess the collected species are presumed to be dead, but is there a source which says that? If there is none, maybe ALT1 can be used instead. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
SL93, collected specimens are dead. The source clearly says that they were preserved in formalin after their collection in the field. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 Collected specimens are not always dead. As for the source, I only have access to an abstract that didn't answer my question. SL93 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
See Zoological specimen. If they are not dead and preserved, they are not yet considered specimens. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Not true. Searching "living specimen" and "living specimen meaning" shows otherwise. Cambridge dictionary along with this and this are just three of many examples. Although it doesn't matter now. SL93 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The source right after mentioning Arthur Loveridge makes it clear that they were preserved. The View Article link originally didn't show up on my screen. I just had to refresh. I'm sorry. SL93 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I suppose it's always possible that someone saw this frog alive but never reported it or didn't realize it was this species, that's why I specified "known", but I suppose you seem to have solved the issue already without me anyways. Olmagon (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sitaleshwar Temple

AmateurHi$torian MartinPoulter AirshipJungleman29 - A direct citation is needed after the hook fact. SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93: Added -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Tokyo Expressway

Mccunicano A citation is needed after "Southbound exit." SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) @SL93: That's what the Google Maps reference is for at the top of the junction list, but the information also exists within the page linked to the junctions that are to be closed, it's redundant to attach it for a junction that is not impacted by the closures. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Mccunicano I wrongly assumed that everything in the notes was meant to be sourced to the 6th reference, and I didn't think Google Maps was the best option when another source is available. I came to that conclusion after searching recent discussions about if Google Maps was completely reliable, and I came across WP:GOOGLEMAPS a few minutes ago which revealed to me that it can be used to such a purpose as this. You can remove the citation. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Caffey family murders

Jolielover Pbritti Hilst Caffey family murders has WP:CLOP issues per Earwig such as "to be tried as an adult" and "All four defendants were initially charged with three counts of capital murder". SL93 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Jolielover Will you be taking care of this? SL93 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, some false positives due to quotations & things such as names of shows the case was featured on. I have paraphrased the rest, hope it works, thanks. jolielover♥talk 02:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Orlando Bagwell

This is my nomination so someone else needs to look over it. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Will take shortly.--Launchballer 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done (edit conflict) Hi @SL93: I've taken a look at this and looks good to me. The only thing is, I thought the Career section seemed to be missing coverage from between 1987 and 2012, but then I noticed that was contained in the Filmography section. I've taken the liberty of folding those two into one as that seems to offer a better chronology. It's still a bit on the short side and could do with expansion on more of his career, but fine for a DYK IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Two football hooks

Queue 6 has two football hooks from the same editor because of moves that happened to accommodate a special occasion hook. Only admins can edit Queue 6 at this point. Just seeing if an admin wants to switch one out for a non-sports hook, or decide that it isn't an issue. @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Loew's Jersey Theatre

@Epicgenius: The newspaper.com link for the restored organ clipping is incorrect. It links to a completely different article. The ProQuest link is fine, though. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs)

@Hilst, thanks for pointing it out. I found the correct clipping and fixed it. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The Hangover (Suzanne Valadon)

@Viriditas, Jonathan Deamer, and AirshipJungleman29: Do we need to include the fact that it "features model Suzanne Valadon and the stylistic influence of Vincent van Gogh"? I don't see what those tidbits add to the hook. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The model can be cut; I find it interesting that a painting inspired by van Gogh could be found suitable for a nightclub. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The suggestion of @AirshipJungleman29 sounds good! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Works for me. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 8. We have a total of 271 nominations, of which 156 have been approved, a gap of 115 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit top section

I tried to correct a grammatical error but this page doesn't seem to edit like others: "go to article's talk page" should be "go to the article's talk page". Al Begamut (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I corrected it at Template:DYK archive header.--Launchballer 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK's use of the T: pseudo-namespace

There is currently a proposal (Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to prohibit the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects without prior consensus) to fully deprecate the T: pseudo-namespace. A significant chunk of the remaining T: pages (Special:PrefixIndex/T:) are related to DYK, including the main T:DYK redirect and redirects to all the preps and queues. Some of these are directly referred to in our Template:DYKbox, and in places such as the Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Prep builder instructions. I've !voted to exclude DYK from the proposed sunsetting, but perhaps we should also think of switching to using TM: shortcuts as standard. CMD (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What I can't promote

The nominations that I have participated in and that are not being promoted is getting longer. Here is a list of the oldest ones needing promotion.

Template:Did you know nominations/2019 NFC Divisional Playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay)
Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fiction Chronicle
Template:Did you know nominations/Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in the Segregated South
Template:Did you know nominations/The Scarecrow (children's book) SL93 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Always happens when one person takes on most of the promoting load—I should know. Thanks for directly identifying them, I'll take care of them. Ping me if you need the same sort of help in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I will be sure to. SL93 (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sticking to either prep building or queue promotion (but not both) avoids this kind of conflict. It's not a rule, just something that I've found which makes my life simpler. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I will stick to queue promotions for the most part now. Hopefully, we get more prep builders once we enter a crisis mode of empty preps. SL93 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Eye-rolling hook in Q5

"* ... that the discontinuation of a Warsaw-based Yiddish literary journal in the summer of 1939 was unrelated to the invasion of Poland?"

If you read the article, you learn that the journal folded due to financial shortcomings and published its last issue on June 30 of that year ... about two months before the Germans invaded. At a time when no one was expecting that to occur, at least not imminently. Hell, if you read the hook and know basic history, your first thought would not be "Well, I'd like to read the article and find out why" but "Whoever would have thought it was?" Just because the war in Europe started on September 1 of that year does not mean every event in Poland that year, especially those prior to that date (save, of course, the Gleiwitz incident) must automatically have something to do with it.

Put it this way: it would be like a hook saying that the cancellation of an American TV show that happened to occur in spring 2001 was "unrelated to 9/11".

I could understand, perhaps, if the sources showed that it was a common perception that the journal had been shut down due to the invasion. But they do not appear to. We do appear to have one source offhandedly saying this, but purely on its own. That's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have made it into the article because of SYNTH-y ness like this. Pinging @AirshipJungleman29: (reviewer) and @Generalissima: (creator, who in fairness did say during the nomination that they were open to alternate hook ideas. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was a much higher volume of Yiddish literature curtailed in Poland after the Nazi invasion than there were American TV shows cancelled after 9/11 also, the invasion happened in the summer, so your comparison doesn't even make sense Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
While you are technically correct that the invasion happened in the summer, in the sense that it was prior to the September equinox, Yidishe Bleter published its last issue a full two months before then, when no one was anticipating an imminent German invasion.
And otherwise your attempt to claim my comparison "doesn't make sense" itself does not make sense, because it misses the point: there is no rational way anyone would believe that an event that occurred in a year known for a tragic, world-altering event that no one anticipated would have anything to do with that event if it occurred some time before that event. Better comparison, perhaps: "While many people believe Neil Peart died of COVID, that is not the case" (although frankly given that he died very early in a year mostly marked by the pandemic, that would be a more forgivable misconception. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Sam Kee Building

@Yue, Jeromi Mikhael, and Hilst: Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It does. "With distinctive bay windows that expand the floor space of the second storey, the Sam Kee Building was recognized by Guinness World Records as the narrowest commercial building in the world." SL93 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Forgot to add the CBC source used in the nomination to the sentence in the body, but it also attributes appropriately: "The structure at 8 West Pender Street is also the world's narrowest commercial building, according to the Guinness Book of World Records." Yue🌙 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The sources both attribute Guinness but don't use quotes. We shouldn't either.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
We should when it's not paraphrased from the source. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I used quotation marks because they're titles made up by Guinness. Not opposed to removing them either way though. Yue🌙 08:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Pantropiko

@AstrooKai, SL93, and Royiswariii: As far as I can tell, the promoted hook was explicitly rejected on interestingness grounds, and I think quite rightly.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That's true. I only approved the first hook. SL93 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I swapped it with Sympathy Is a Knife.--Launchballer 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Liang Sishun

@TheLonelyPather and Toadspike: The hook is contradicted elsewhere in the article; it says she published the book "in 1908, when she was sixteen years old" but the article claims she was born in 1893, which would make her 14 or 15.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer I'm guessing this is down to East Asian age reckoning, which adds a year or two. Toadspike 19:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is not an error, and the hook can run as-is. However, we can also add a footnote to the article clarifying the Chinese age counting system once TLP has confirmed that the dates and ages accurately reflect the sources. Toadspike 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I think adding a footnote would be an excellent idea.--Launchballer 19:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I support a footnote. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer@Toadspike@SL93 Thank you all for catching this. I will double check and get back in 24 hours. In case I cannot find East Asian age reckoning, I can also change the hook to include her year of birth. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer@Toadspike@SL93 I checked my sources and it turns out that only Liu 2016 mentions that the book was published when Liang was sixteen years old. The 1908 date is confirmed by another source. To avoid overcomplicating things for the reader, I removed the mention of the phrase sixteen years old. Now, may I suggest a new hook based on WP:CALC:
  • ... that Liang Sishun published a Chinese poetry anthology in 1908, when she was about fifteen years old?
Thank you all for your detailed attention. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Toadspike 08:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Eoscorpius

@An anonymous username, not my real name and Ornithoptera: Where's the hook?--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Eoscorpius was placed in the newly erected family Eoscorpionidae by American paleontologist Samuel Hubbard Scudder in 1884. While other experts of the time, such as Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions, Scudder believed that it was sufficiently distinct to warrant the creation of a new family." SL93 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93, for some reason, this hook wasn't picked, even though Ornithoptera explicitly preferred it. Is it possible to change it? — Anonymous 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
ALT1 is fine by me. I wasn't sure if there was a preference because both hooks were approved. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"British geologist Ben Peach expressed regret that the name Eoscorpius was given to a genus so similar to modern scorpions, speculating a much earlier origin for scorpions as a group." for ALT1. "Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions" for ALT0. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I got thrown by the word "extreme". I didn't see ALT1 in the nom as it wasn't properly labelled, and I think "criticism" is slightly stronger than the source and article.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer, is there another word you would prefer? The source indicates that Peach publicly indicated his displeasure (however mild) with the chosen name, which seems like enough to constitute criticism (even if it's not the most severe). I don't think readers will be shocked and upset to find out that Peach didn't go as far as to leave a scathing review of the scorpion's naming. — Anonymous 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)

@UndercoverClassicist and Zeete: Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's in the St. Clair source, cited in both: "Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey.". This is Lysandros Kaftanzoglou, who was a Greek academic. UndercoverClassicist 19:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It does. "Was everything built on the Acropolis between ancient and modern Hellas to be regarded as a temporary intrusion? Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the Tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey." I had to scroll down to page 494 because the search option didn't work. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
What I meant was that the source attributes Kaphtantzoglou but does not uses quotes, and we shouldn't either.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I have written enough on Misplaced Pages, and written enough essays, to know that quotes are used for direct statements that are not paraphrased. That avoids a copyright issue. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Ah, I see -- I'd agree with removing the quote marks (and will do so in the article); it's quite likely that he actually wrote "owl-shit" or something similarly (un)printable. I don't think that creates any WP:CLOP concern, as there's no real way to rephrase the quote more than trivially without losing WP:TSI. UndercoverClassicist 09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that, but it is an easy fix if someone complains. SL93 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Is "bird poo" too lowbrow for the main page, I wonder? UndercoverClassicist 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

long-legged lovebird

Di (they-them) Cremastra Hilst I don't see why "humanity's cradle" was used rather than "Cradle of Humankind". SL93 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I just used a descriptive phrase rather than the actual title to create intrigue. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about using a descriptive phrase for it, but I will see what others think. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Just a fancy form of a name that was pretty poetic in the first place. Some wordplay is allowed. Cremastra (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Either one is fine by me. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

1453

Generalissima EchetusXe The article says "in late 1452 or early 1453", but the hook says "in 1453". SL93 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rephrased the article portion a bit - the eruption may have occurred in either year, but the cooling occurred in 1453. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That works for me. SL93 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, just to be less ambiguous, it'd be nice if an admin could rephrase it to '... that in 1453, a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere?' to make it clear the eruption wasn't necessarily in 1453. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (26 January)

It Was on a Friday Morning

@SL93, Extraordinary Writ, and Staraction: this hook seems misleading. If Im following the ariticle correctly, the fight to get the hymm removed ran on for years, so to say it was "removed from the hymnal within 24 hours" is dubious. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that it is misleading. The hook is ".. that a U.S. government official ordered that "It Was on a Friday Morning" be removed from a hymnal within 24 hours?" which is a true statement. It does not say it was removed within 24 hours. Per "On July 9, the chief chaplain of the Veterans Administration, James Rogers, issued a memorandum ordering: "Hymn No. 286 shall be removed from all new Books of Worship within 24 hours." SL93 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I don't really see how "ordered that it be removed within 24 hours" can be read as anything other than "within 24 hours of the order". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Posting here to note that I've seen this conversation; I agree with SL93 and Extraordinary Writ that ordered "It Was on a Friday Morning" removed from the hymnal within 24 hours? (emphasis mine) makes the action the order, not the actual removal. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions Add topic