Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maile66 (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 3 November 2016 (→Possibly irrelevant observation: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status There are currently 7 filled queues – all good! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 22:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 22 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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

C6 appears to have never actually been a rule, yet it continues to be applied

In an effort to fill out the entries for Destination: Universe!, I wrote two articles and posted them to DYK. I made what I think were interesting hooks about the plots, only to have both be rejected by something called C6. I read C6 and was surprised, it seems to be a rather odd rule that is utterly arbitrary. So I looked into the history.

I found, to my dismay, that it was created without prior discussion by a single editor, who then used it as a reason to reject many hooks. There was no discussion of the rule before it was created (using search, which is not exactly exhaustive, I admit). The editor apparently created a new rule for their own use and then applied it as they saw fit. This so utterly flies in the face of everything that I believe the Misplaced Pages stands for that it takes my breath away.

A month or so later, this thread comes up, where everyone involved expresses their surprise that it even exists - even Gato had not seen it (and that says something!). Now at this point, one would imagine that such an edit would be considered disruptive and RVed. But that did not happen. What happened instead is a wonderful example of the Iron Law in action.

The next discussion I can find comes up a year and a half later, in this discussion. By this time this made-up rule is simply accepted as "real". The thread wanders off topic, but there appears to be wide consensus that it should not be interpreted in the way it is, that this was intended to prevent fictional works from being presented as if they were real. Gato first makes this point, and numerous editors all agree with it, going so far as to propose changes to make this clear. In spite of their being what appears to be some consensus on that change, nothing happens, the original rule remains as-is. Once again, at no point does the issue that this rule should never have been added even mentioned.

The issue next comes up that October, when a number of editors express their dissatisfaction with the application of this rule, with very clear consensus stating that it is being misapplied and the editor's actions are contrary to that consensus. Once again, the fact that the rule was never agreed to in the first place does not come up. Instead it drags off into a (failed?) attempt to have the editor banned from (non-review) DYKs in order to prevent this non-consensus view of the rule being applied.

Now here we are 7 years later. Today the "rule" is simply accepted, and applied in precisely the fashion that was clearly against consensus. This is such a wonderful example of the bureaucratic love of rules that it makes me smile as I write this. Rules, even fake ones, tend to become real in bureaucracies. And it's not like this was in the wild-west days of the early Misplaced Pages, by 2009 the process for these sorts of things was well developed, and simply not followed.

For strictly procedural reasons, I believe the argument can be made that it should be stricken as it was never agreed to. But there was wide agreement that fictional hooks should identify themselves as such, and I can get definitely behind that.

So...

Proposal: Change C6 to read "Hooks about fictional works need to identify themselves as such."

This would mean that:

"Hamlet says the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would not meet C6, while:

"In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the titular character speaks the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be'"

would. Whereas today's application demands some sort of convoluted hook:

"Charlie Chaplin recites the famous soliloquy 'to be or not to be' as king Shahdov".

The purpose of such a connection is completely lost on me, and apparently most of the people who considered it in the past. So lets get this fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: per diff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just delete the arcane rule. It's not as if it makes any difference, particularly if the hook was featured as the "quirky" last hook is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes lets strike off the rule. From after this discussion it should no longer apply. But it was applied in the past, so we should not make it disappear without trace. Strike it and note that it is historical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the rule should be stricken if there was no proper consensus for it. And I agree that we should not be prejudiced against fiction, just because it's fiction. But there is an issue in that fiction is often written to be exciting and surprising and that makes it too easy to use its hooks. I'm not sure that we want our hooks to be such obvious plot twists or spoilers. For example, "Did You Know ... that Ramsay Bolton is killed by ********** in HBO's Game of Thrones?" We should try to do more than just steal the story's thunder.

By the way, I noticed the difficulty that Maury Markowitz was having with those nominations and that got me started on something similar. I already have a good hook in mind ... that the Black Destroyer was the start of science fiction's Golden Age and inspired other works including Alien? Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! So it seems there's not even consensus for a "make it clear its fiction?". I'm happy with that too. I'm not sure who wrote the "I agree..." part (Andrew?) but perhaps then the real concern here is "No spoilers in the hooks", but perhaps that might end up being abused too. I'm up for its consideration though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with TRM, it doesnt have any use at all, except as a reason for DragonflySixtyseven to decline noms. There is no reason to maintain any part of C6 in my opinion. In regards to "spoilers", we are writing about things that have already happened so I see no reason to try to avoid the possibility of a spoiler.--Kevmin § 00:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• • I imagine part of the reason people thought C6 was reasonable is that you avoid hooks that are "in-universe", and also ones that depend entirely on an unsourced plot section. One of my hooks several years back was rejected because it dealt with events in a television episode, and I came up with what turned out to be a far more effective hook once I had to bring the real world into it. All of the rules are supposed to have described a consensus at the time, either the way things were done or after a question came up and the consensus was codified, such as the article-for-article QPQ. I'm surprised to hear that this wasn't created based on how things were already being done or by consensus, in part because it makes a certain sense. Will hooks that are completely fictional need to be explicitly supported by a source other than the work in question, or will it not be possible to check those hooks any more short of reading/viewing/hearing the work in question? If the latter, I'd be concerned about uncheckable hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Such hooks would have to be cited and confirmable, as per the other rules. Preferably by a secondary source writing about that "fictional fact". Uncited plot sections could not supply DYK hooks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

      Which would apply in my two hooks, BTW, but I'm fine with that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so there is a very clear consensus to kill C6 outright (which, frankly, surprises me while lightening my heart). What is the process for actually doing that? I saw a suggestion to leave in a note about it being historical and that seems like a good idea. So do I simply remove it and renumber the C series and put a note somewhere, or leave it in a strikeout? Does there need to me a longer process, or are we good to go with this SNOW as it is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Either remove it or strike it with an edit summary referencing this conversation. Don't renumber the other rules though, that can cause confusion (see for example WP:CSD, when criteria A4 and A6 disappeared years ago we didn't renumber all the others because people had got used to referring to them). Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm going to argue in favor of the rule. Articles on fiction are supposed to be more than plot summaries; they are supposed to indicate the real-world significance and importance of the topic. Likewise, hooks about fiction should make sense to people who have not read/seen/gained familiarity with the topic. Things like the hook that Andrew Davidson mentions above, about the story setting off the new golden age of sci-fi - that indicates real world significance. That gets me interested in reading both the article, and the book it's about. A mere summation of a plot point, like, "Did you know that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's son?" does nothing. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  I believe you are confusing two issues. The demand for real-world significance is true same for any article - to establish notability. It has nothing to do with articles about fiction. The second issue is about hooks, and there is nothing anywhere about having to establish notability in the hook.

  As to the claim that it would make for better hooks... really? Anyone can write a bad hook about any topic. Here's one: "...that Robert Watt moved to London?" That meets every rule, would you say we should use it? Or contrariwise, what possible reason should we not be able to use "...that the evil antagonist from Star Wars, Darth Vader, turns out to be the father of the hero, Luke Skywalker?" That seems like a great hook, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  Addition: Further on the last point - there's nothing to say that it's the 3rd party interest that won't be the better hook. For instance, in "Black Destroyer" I would argue that this is the case - it's both the topic of a lawsuit about Alien and the marker for the Golden Age. Either of those is more interesting than the relatively simplistic story, IMHO. But now consider the contrary case, "A Can of Paint" is not interesting because someone made a movie out of it, so why should that be the hook? For that matter, why do we need Robert Forward to simply recount the original plot point of "Far Centaurus" that makes a perfectly good hook on its own? In this case, there's not even any difference, we just put someone else's name on it. "The best hook" is a decision made on an article-by-article basis, and having a rule just for this one article type is pretty much the definition of arbitrary. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm somewhat torn on this issue, but hooks are supposed to be interesting, which usually means, that they highlight something unusual, unexpected, out of the ordinary. But when it comes to a work of fiction, it's expected that weird things will happen, so arguably, highlighting fictional events fails the hook interest requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am missing the logic here - you seem to be saying that something could not not interesting because it is expected to be interesting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I've never been totally comfortable with this rule myself. However, what it has done is prevent a small avalanche of subpar hooks making it to the main page - hooks along the lines of "Did you know that in PlatformGameW spriteX runs around bashing a whole bunch of Ys with weaponZ?" I mean, you know what they say about there being only a very limited number of plots in fiction, with most of them just being variations on a theme. So, while I'm not totally opposed to the notion of permitting fictional events in hooks, I am inclined to the view that the "interest" bar has to be set higher if you don't want to be deluged by examples such as the one above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so C6 still goes in its current form. Is there any reason for me not to do that now?

But we still have the open issue of tools to kill bad hooks. I'm all for it, with two provisos, it doesn't single out a particular type of article, and doesn't make certain hooks illegal even if they are good. It's that last part that is the real problem here, C6 kills off more good hooks than bad. I'm not sure what such a bar would look like, but I'm certainly open to any ideas along those lines. In fact, it would seem such a discussion is long overdue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be removing C6 unless or until we find something better with which to replace it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

C6 is clearly in violation of policies we had in place when it was written, and you're the only remaining holdout on what is otherwise a very clear consensus above. I'm happy to start a new discussion on what should replace it, I'll even stickhandle the entire process, but unless you actually have that suggestion right now then I'm going to strike unless you have a procedural opposition you would like to raise. There are hooks that are being held up for no reason, we need to move this along. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No, not the only one. We've lived with C6 as a rule for half a dozen years or more and people have been able to come up with reasonably interesting hooks in that time; I do think there should be some restriction on the use of completely fictional, in-universe hooks. If it's fictional, we certainly have an obligation to make that clear. (I'm not sure whether April Fool's would affect this obligation or not.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the most fundamental aspects of DYK is that hooks must be real-world facts. This is always the case, even for April Fools' Day. In that sense, C6 might be considered redundant. But we still need the rule, to explicitly state that; if it were removed, some people might see that as a giant loophole allowing any kind of fictional pseudofact. The real issue is interpretation of "involve the real world in some way". I have always interpreted it very literally. If a hook says that in the novel X, y happened, that does involve the real world in some way, because it's stating what was written in a book that exists in the real world. Maury, regarding your hooks which prompted this discussion: while I have great respect for both of the editors involved, I disagree with their interpretation of C6 as a reason for rejecting them. I would support altering (or appending something to) C6 to explicitly state that it's simply intended to prohibit hooks which are completely fictional. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2 (argon compounds)

... that argon oxide, an argon compound, interferes with the detection of iron in inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry?

The article actually states that it's iron-56 and other isotopes of iron, not actually just iron itself (to whit, ...which can interfere with detection of iron-56 56Fe and other isotopes of iron in mass spectroscopy.... My understanding is that isotopes differ from their element through a different number of neutrons, so perhaps just saying "iron" here is mildly inaccurate, or possibly just a little misleading. It would be better, or more accurate, to say "... with the detection of certain isotopes of iron in ...." don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The term iron encompasses all of iron's various isotopes, though of course certain of those isotopes are much more common in nature. There's no one isotope which is "elemental iron". "Elemental" mean Fe uncompounded with anything else i.e. not chemically compounded as in e.g. FeO; the Fe involved (whether compounded or not) could be any isotope or mix of isotopes. EEng 19:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. "Elemental", for some other elements, can mean compounded, but only with itself e.g. H2 or O2. (This is all from my highschool chemistry, so I'm happy to be corrected by someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about.)

The "and other" formulation to me implies that it doesn't matter which isotope specifically it is. The article though notes that the similarity in the mass is the issue which sounds like the isotope mass does actually matter (also because 40 nucleons in the most common isotope Argon-40+16 nucleons in the most common isotope Oxygen-16=same mass as the 56 nucleons of Iron-56). What does the source say? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The source is offline, yet the text in the article is very specific, while our hook is very generalised. It may be foolhardy or rash to assume that " iron-56 56Fe and other isotopes of iron" means that it doesn't matter which isotope. If that were the case, I don't see the benefit in the article of singling out isotopes, when just "iron" would do the trick. Perhaps, to avoid any kind of doubt, we should find a different hook from this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone's gonna build a faulty inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer based on this imprecise hook, we're overthinking this. It's like if we said "sharks live in water" -- well, actually, it has to be liquid water, and it needs to be salt water now that you mention it, but that doesn't make "sharks live in water" wrong. EEng 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the hook in the prep area. As a chemist, I can state that the article is referring not to all isotopes of iron, but specifically to iron-56, the most common isotope (~90% of iron). TRM refers to the other isotopes based on the article, but the article is awkwardly worded and is saying that the formation of ArO interferes with detection of Fe whilst ArN interferes with detection of Fe. EEng is correct that "iron" would typically mean the mix of naturally-occurring isotopes, but mass spectrometry responds to individual isotopes separately, and so is one place where different isotopes are different. Jo-Jo is correct that the individual isotope masses most definitely matter. In fact, high resolution MS will be able to separate ArO at m / z = 55.947 from Fe at m / z = 55.935, but at low resolution they will be detected together. The isotopes don't matter (much) when they are only present in trace amounts, so taking argon as just argon-40 (which is 99.6% of it) is ok, as is taking oxygen as just oxygen-16 (which is 99.76% of it). I take EEng's shark in water analogy for Ar and O, but in the case of Fe it is not so persuasive. The change I have made is chemically accurate and more precise, and it removes an ambiguity with TRM noted while not burdening the hook significantly. I hope it will be supported. EdChem (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your change is not unhelpful, but I do wonder if there aren't better places the DYK hive-mind's limited pool of attention could have been expended. EEng 01:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: It did lead me to clarify the article, so there was a benefit for mainspace.  :) As for where we devote attention, it often comes down to personal interest, as you know. TRM devotes a lot of time and effect to main-page quality (and is presently making fantastic contributions, if I may say so). As a scientist, I saw this as one discussion where my expertise suggested clear support for an approach, so I followed it, and then posted a rationale here for the edification of all. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In view of the article improvement, I withdraw my comment in this case. Nontheless I wonder sometimes whether the intellectual resources -- not to mention the gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair -- invested in taking certain hooks from 99% accurate ("sharks live in water") to 99.44% accurate ("sharks live in liquid saltwater") is worth it in general, given that there are plenty of hooks that are only 50% accurate, 10% accurate, 0% accurate, or even less accurate than that (if that's possible). Letting stuff like this go would allow more focus on truly needy hooks. EEng 02:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Noted, but unless others are reviewing every hook, I don't actually see that working in practice. Thanks for your thoughts though! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I own at least 10 shark-based films that show Sharks to be living places other than salt water. We have Sand Sharks, Sharknado, Sharkalaunche, Ghost Shark (if you consider the ethereal realm), Sharkano.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

...and in the real world, there is the freshwater shark.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

:P EEng 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Something wrong with the DYK nominations special occasion holding area?

None of the subsidiary templates appear to be displaying . I've tried purging the cache but that doesn't seem to be making a difference. Prioryman (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not only there, the noms for today and yesterday also display only partially (2 of 4 yesterday, none of 2 today. I guess some div is wrong but can't find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Transclusion issue, too many templates on the page. Misplaced Pages has a limit to.how many it can display and we apparently hit that number.  MPJ-DK  15:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There are 33 empty spaces in the prep areas, I'm thinking if we fill those it'll alleviate the problem at least temporarily.  MPJ-DK  21:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Template talk page seems to overrun template limit

Hello all. I am just dropping a note that the page at Template talk:Did you know has exceeded the template include limit, so now we can't see any of the nominations at the bottom of the page. Thanks, epicgenius - (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Already seen this. See #Something wrong with the DYK nominations special occasion holding area?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Oops. Thanks for the link. epicgenius - (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominations page transclusions

Ping-a-ling EEng and others. Please see Village pump (technical) DYK template transclusions on nomination page. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a description there of what sounds like some real possibilities for moving boilerplate out of the individual nom pages (or something like that), thus addressing the parser-limits problem. Unfortunately I lack the technical skill to do this, but I someone will take a look. (And thanks to Maile for taking the lead getting answers.) EEng 07:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

One thing we all can do right away is to reduce the number of templates we add to the review pages. So, no more {{tick}} or {{ok}} or the like. If you can do reviews in text rather than use templated checklists, that will help as well going forward. What will help most right now, of course, is filling up some prep sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent days not displaying

On the main noms page nothing from October 24th on is displaying correctly. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

See above. Unfortunately my idea of keeping noms open longer will make this worse, so we have to solve that problem first. EEng 03:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Billy White (basketball)

This hook was promoted to the Main Page on October 27, but there is no record of it (on its talk page) or its nominators receiving any DYK credit. Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The DYKmake templates were filled out incorrectly in prep (and then queue), giving the article's name as Billy White rather than Billy White (basketball). I've updated the notifications on the two creators' talk pages to reflect the actual article name, and moved the talk page notification from the wrong article's talk page to the correct one's. We should be all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars

• ... that in 1995, the eponymous chef of The Restaurant Marco Pierre White became the youngest to win three Michelin stars?

Template:Did you know nominations/The Restaurant Marco Pierre White @Miyagawa, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah:

The claim is reliably sourced and can be found in other sources as well. However, it is wrong. Pierre White was 33 when he received his third star in 1995.

• Heinz Winkler (chef): 31 or 32 years old in 1981this one explicitly notes the erroneuous White claim
• Jean-Michel Lorain: 27 years old in 1986

Pulled from Main Page. Fram (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Nice piece of detective work! Yoninah (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

So why did Marco Pierre White say he was? Ritchie333 09:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

He may have thought he was. For the time being, how about replacing the hook on the main page with this hook, and I will amend the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• ... that in 1995, the eponymous chef of The Restaurant Marco Pierre White became one of the youngest chefs ever to win three Michelin stars?

or possibly

• ... that in 1995, the eponymous chef of The Restaurant Marco Pierre White became the first British chef to win three Michelin stars? Ritchie333 10:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article and the hook - I had absolutely no idea that the claim was incorrect. Miyagawa (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to say that at least with Ritchie's hook, we know for certain that was true. The only chefs that pre-date him were the Roux Brothers and Pierre Koffman. Nico Landenis won it the same year that White did, and it wouldn't be until Gordon Ramsey that another British chef would win three stars - even today, it's still only three with Heston Blumenthal also on the list. Miyagawa (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Michelin stars are ratings of restaurants – they are not awards to particular members of their staff or ownership. Naturally, particular individuals will want to claim the credit but we should not encourage such vainglory. Andrew D. (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Michelin stars are awarded to chefs while they are at certain restaurants. The stars White earned at Harvey's moved with him to The Restaurant. The way it is usually gotten around these days is by having say, Gordon Ramsay be the chef at a particular restaurant and holding the stars - but not working in the kitchen on a daily basis. So when the head chef (who does work on a daily basis) leaves, the stars don't move because Ramsay is still at that restaurant. This situation has happened this year, wherin two 2xMichelin star holding chefs have moved, taking thier stars with them - albeit one of them moved into the other's former kitchen, so it looks like the restaurant's rating never changed. Miyagawa (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• The star is explicitly awarded to the restaurant, not the chef. The process of making the awards is internal to Michelin and it's not open. Maybe reputation, lobbying and persuasion make a difference but it's not possible to say exactly. For example, in this case, a chef is moving on. The restaurant keeps the star until the next round of awards and it's then anyone's guess as to whether it will keep it and/or the chef's new home will get one. It just depends on the inspections and the "food on the plate". All you know for sure is which restaurants get awarded stars in a particular year. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pull needed from Queue 2

Only one of the four Ariel Awards (Best Actress) has enough original prose to qualify for DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They all have over 1500 characters, but some wording is common between the pages. However there is plenty of text in tables, so how about leaving it as is? There is more work in making each of these than in many other DYKs around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatting point: Ariel Awards should be incorporated into the first bold link:

• ... that Mexican performers Marco Pérez, Sofía Espinosa, Noé Hernández, and Adriana Paz received the Ariel Award for Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress, respectively, in 2016? Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed: If a pull is not done, seven of the eight articles will not be credited unless the DYKmake templates in the queue are edited to include the same subpage parameter as is in the first of these. And, for that matter, the same problem is true with all but the first of the four Talking Gravestones DYKmakes. Admin: please add these as soon as possible. Everyone: A basic rule of thumb for preps and queues is: when looking at the preview of the page, all of the credits should have a "View nom subpage" link at the end of the line unless it says "Nom credit:" in black at the beginning of the line. If there is no "View nom subpage" link, please add a "subpage" field at the end of the DYKmake template that points to the exact name of the Template page (excluding "Template/Did you know nominations/"). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Pull, per above, but also as the filmography in each case is missing vital citations, many claimed appearances do not have any kind of reliable source to reference them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok hang on - let's look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, I have pulled it as the issues sound too complex for an 8 hour turnaround. We are trying to organise a halloween party here so am tied up for a bit. @Nikkimaria: can you please spell out outstanding concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Ariel Award for Best Actress so they can be ticked off once done? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue2 now has seven hooks. I have placed a suitable additional hook in Prep4 which could be added to bring Queue2 back to its usual 8 hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Add de-disambiguation as a category of pages to include in DYK.

I would like to propose that we add to DYK rules pages that have, within the preceding seven days, been converted from a disambiguation page to an article on the underlying concept. We now have a thriving program of de-disambiguation of broad concept articles, which can go in a fairly short time from being completely unsourced disambiguation pages (constrained in part by the limitations on what can be included in a disambiguation page) to well-sourced broad concept articles. Examples of pages that have undergone such a transformation include Container, Enemy, Guessing, Size, and World domination. I believe that adding this as a DYK category will further stimulate editors to quickly and efficiently convert broad concept topics from disambiguation pages into articles, where appropriate. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Aren't such conversions usually a 5x expansion (especially since disambiguation pages are almost entirely lists, which don't count). Pppery 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably, although some disambiguation pages are already quite lengthy, and include material unrelated to the broad concept, which is then moved to a separate page. bd2412 T 17:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, true. But wouldn't the existing requirement that 1500 characters of readable prose has to be "new" content already make it eligible? Surely, a de-dab would have to be new prose. Who is going to create an article and keep in a list of whatever else was on the dab? Why make an extra rule for the obvious? — Maile (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We kept the lists, basically, for Cardboard and Container (and the recently de-disambiguated Nanotube). bd2412 T 19:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be obvious, but I made a small change anyway , subject of course to the approval of my esteemed fellow editors.

However, not to throw cold water on the OP's efforts, I fear some of these new pages he's created (e.g. Size) are decidedly SYNTHish. EEng 18:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Abstract concepts are difficult to describe otherwise, but we do our readers a disservice if we don't try to explain them. bd2412 T 19:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that, all else being equal, might be nice to include here, but which we don't because there aren't appropriate sources. I'm serious. You can't be putting together your own overviews of abstract or highly general concepts by cobbling together various sources. Such efforts belong on Wikiversity. EEng 21:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

By the standard you have enunciated, I can't think of a single multi-sourced article in Misplaced Pages that couldn't be called WP:SYNTH. bd2412 T 01:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I note EEng's change and am concerned that the phrase "other pages" could be read as referring to pages outside article space - like new WP-space essays, for example. I suggest "and other pages" be changed to "and other articles" or "other article-space pages" or something to that effect. EdChem (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, but are we really worried that someone will nominate a project-space page for DYK? (I think it would be amusing to see someone expand ANI 5X and then nominate it here. Of course, expanding ANI 5X is no trick.) Anyway, DAB pages aren't articles, so "and other articles" is out. "Other article-space pages" is precisely correct, but I still think overfussy. But if others think that it helps, I certainly don't object. EEng 23:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Queue 2 has only seven seven hooks and is due to be promoted to the main page at midnight. There are suitable additional hooks in Prep 4 which could be added to bring Queue 2 back to its usual 8 hook length. Prep 3 hooks are scheduled for Halloween. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Maile, can you please also fix the second through fourth DYKmake templates in Queue 2, all of which need subpage parameters. I asked in the previous queue 2 topic, but no one has made the fix. (If we don't, one contributor gets no talk-page notifications when the queue hits the main page, and the other gets only one of the two, and it'll be up to someone to clean it up. Far better to let the bot do it right the first time.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Never added the sub pages before, so please have a look and see if I did it correctly. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Maile, the top ones that I asked for were fine; the 370 Jay Street ones were not correctly added, but I don't believe they harmed anything, as the messages seem to have been correctly delivered. (There shouldn't ever be a subpage parameter on a DYKnom template, and the subpage addition to the DYKmake template should have been "New York City Board of Transportation; 370 Jay Street", not just "370 Jay Street"—the subpage parameter is supposed to match the final field of the nomination page name.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (general)

Gentle suggestion, avoid placing two hooks next to each other which feature INITIALISMS or similar, such as OREYA and FUNCINPEC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (OREYA)

... that the Ukrainian mixed chamber choir OREYA (pictured) won a special prize for the best interpretation of a religious choral work?

"won a special prize"? This sounds a little lame to me, sadly like something a pre-teen would win for writing into a newspaper with a special suggestion for recycling or something. Is this the best we can do with this article? The fact that that neither the competition nor the prize they won at the competition seems worthy of redlink as a minimum somewhat undermines the impact of this hook. I won a "special prize" when I was eleven, a couple of cinema tickets and a tracksuit, thanks Rocky IV!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I added more from the source to the hook. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 (Banda)

"... that the Banda people of central Africa suffered so much during slave-trading that "Banda" is synonymous with being a slave?"

Perhaps just a poorly phrased hook, certainly not backed up by the article, ""Banda" is a synonym for slave or the equivalent in Persian, Arabic and Turkish" and there appears to be no reference to "suffered so much" which is highly emotive and possibly POV/OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Returned to noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Did you miss the source quote right below that hook on nom page, before alleging "there appears to be no reference"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean to ping me, good news that I'm watching the page here! No, I didn't look at the "nom page", nor would our readers, I would guess that most of them don't even know what a "nom page" is!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-wording hooks after they have been promoted

Hello everyone. I was very confused to get a DYK notification on my talk page that included a DYK that was worded differently from the ones that were reviewed. I did a bit of digging and then wrongly accused a editor of changing it when they moved it across to the queueing system. I then went about looking for somewhere else to complain to and came across this page. A magical place where all the post-promotion editing appears to be debated (this was when I realised my earlier mistake). Given that I had no clue these discussions were going on, I was not surprised to see that neither I or the editor who reviewed my DYK in the first were not pinged.

Could I suggest, out of common courtesy or simply to make the workload less for the small number of editors who work this page, that the nominators and reviewers of problematic DYKs get pinged before any rewording takes place? Gaia Octavia Agrippa 00:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Per our standard rules: A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. Users are encouraged to contact nominators when hook issues arise, but it isn't compulsory, nothing would ever get done around here if we had to have a discussion about every hook tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa I completely agree with you. How long could it possibly take to ping an editor when someone is typing their issues with a given hook? Two seconds, tops? But, then, we also seem to have some who don't link the article or nomination either. So, they complain, and everybody else has to do extra work to find the nomination in question. What are you gonna do? None of us control anybody but our own selves, so it would seem to be a good idea to put this talk page on your watch list. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Also put T:DYKQ on your watchlist, so you can watch your hook as it progresses from the prep sets to the queues. If you disagree with a change, you can post your comment here. Be aware that once a hook reaches the main page, it may also be changed if readers write in disagreeing with it. Misplaced Pages is very much a collaborative process; no one owns what they write. Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As Maile has said, it takes seconds to ping the nominator and reviewer of a hook. I've added the pages to my watchlist. Part of the problem is how many editors know of this pages existence? It seems to be a small number of editors who are doing all the work here. It makes sense that the nominator and review are pinged about these changes as they know the hook and the article/references in question better than anyone else (or at least they should if they've reviewed it properly). It would save a lot of work on your guys' behalf. It would also stop errors like those introduced to my latest DYK: a gazetteer is in no way a "basic guide" as that suggests some kind of simple textbook, it's like saying a French dictionary is a basic guide to French literature! I know Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, which is why it is even more annoying that there seems to be concerted effort to hide this page away and to keep the post-promoted editing in the hands of a few editors. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 16:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As for Gatoclass's comment, "nothing would ever get done around here if we had to have a discussion about every hook tweak", surely that is exactly what is happening on this page? Except that process is slowed down because the only people involved have to acquainted themselves with the hook/article involved. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Gaia Octavia Agrippa there are a very small number of editors keeping DYK going. If you'd like to join us, jump right in! The more you get involved in the project, the more you'll see the soft spots. Often the nominator and the reviewer don't "know the hook and the article/references in question better than anyone else", for a fresh pair of eyes often ferrets out the mistakes in interpreting the source and even untrue citations (see this recent example). I was tangentially involved in the rewriting of your gazetteer hook. I suggested paraphrasing the source rather than using the whole quote from the newspaper. The fact that I didn't ping you wasn't deliberate; often it takes days (or weeks) for page creators to get back to a simple review, so it falls on the ones who regularly patrol the DYK project to make the fixes. Yoninah (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It may be that some editors wander off and do other things, but if they are not pinged they are never given the chance to be involved! If there's a problem with a source being miss-used/confused then it is up to the original reviewer to find that out. Perhaps new reviewers should have their work reviewed for the first 2-5 attempts? I've seen myself that some reviewers are no where near thorough enough. Surely that's then up to the promoter to re-open the review rather than promote it and bring the editing to this mysterious page? Gaia Octavia Agrippa 17:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• (sigh) I renew my modest proposal that nom pages not be closed when the hook is moved to prep, but rather left open. The nom page is the best place to have further discussion of potential problems, since all the prior discussion is there already, and presumably it's on the watchlist of the various interested parties. The bot could close the nom page when the hook appears on the main page, at the same time it puts the little congratulation box on the nominator's/creator's talk page. If what's-his-name or what's-her-name who takes care of the bot is willing to do that, is there anydownside to this? EEng 17:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "what's-his-name" is Shubinator who runs the DYKUpdateBot. Actually, that's not a bad idea if it works with the overall flow of how things are supposed to work. BlueMoonset might ought to have some input in the mechanics of how that flow works.— Maile (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the proposal at all! How am I supposed to know if a page has been selected already? We will wind up promoting the same hook multiple times. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion's closure isn't an intrinsic element of denoting a hook's promotion. A different type of tagging could be used instead. —David Levy 22:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, instead of closing the nom page the promoter just adds at the bottom, "ALT2 to Prep4, but without the image. ~~~~". As already mentioned, when the hook makes its main-page appearance, then the bot closes the nom page. EEng 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

One downside that we're experiencing right now is that the nominations page cannot handle the number of open nominations as it is. If we delay closure by another few days, it will be worse. Another is that closing the page shouldn't be done by bot: for example, it's not going to know of any comments that should go into the "2" field. (On the other hand, it might be smart enough to realize that there is text below the line where the comment says not text should be added.) There has been a proposal to move approved nominations to a separate page, in which case leaving them open wouldn't overload the regular nominations page, but it hasn't gone anywhere, perhaps because of the downside of moving hooks back and forth any time something changes on a nomination, and the necessity of creating a new page and a new bot to do such moving, plus the necessary revisions to DYKHousekeepingBot, which would need to be recoded to handle gathering data from two different pages. But a basic downside is that you get more eyes on a problem when it's raised here; post-promotion issues are more likely to get the necessary eyes on this page than on the original nomination/review page, which might only be seen by the nominator, reviewer, and promoter: is that really enough? If we need to reopen a nomination page because of issues with the hook and/or the article, it isn't that hard to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Another is that closing the page shouldn't be done by bot: for example, it's not going to know of any comments that should go into the "2" field.

The idea, if I'm not mistaken, is to separate the hook's promotion from the discussion's closure. The insertion of such comments would remain part of the former.

I like the idea, but I suggest that the discussion remain open until the hook is removed from the main page (i.e., when the next set appears). —David Levy 22:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer that too, but I suspect it would be much more trouble to implement -- the bot does all this other stuff as the hook moves onto the main page, so it should be relatively easy to tinker with the nom page at the same time. EEng 07:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how much effort would be required to delay the bot's actual edit by one set, but I do know that it could include conditional code that causes the closure to take effect after a predetermined duration (24 hours, under DYK's current schedule). —David Levy 12:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I believe this shines a light on one of the fundamental issues at DYK, that of the quality of reviews. Right now, I'd estimate that I'm picking up something like one "pull"-worthy issue per set promoted to the queue every day. I'm not just talking about a bit of a re-word, I'm talking about "pull that nomination right back to the pool" kind of thing. Hooks are apparently reviewed, accepted, promoted and then shuffled to the main page, but the problem is that the first three stages seem to be failing, hence the last-minute changes before they're shuffled to the main page. While the OP is concerned with last minute changes (and I agree that the arcane methodology of templates, transclusions etc make it almost impossible to track a nomination from nom to main page), they are inevitable given that we have such a low threshold on quality control. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the "hook tweaks" is that they don't go through the same checks, so they require extra care. In assembling a prep area, some tweaks are inevitable, such as removing the "(pictured)" from some hooks, but I won't go beyond that. I've had hooks of my own made incorrect by well-meaning copy editing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Coupla points:

(a) I suspect we're having the problem with the giant concatenated nompage being too big (i.e. exceeding parser limits on # of calls, total output size, whatever) because the review bot thingee adds so much text. Some relief would be gained by making its results less verbose.

(b) Would someone who knows something about Mediawiki (I know nothing but generalities) post a query at an appropriate place on Mediawiki re whether there's some magic word that can be used to override the parser limits?

(c) I don't think it's necessarily an advantage to have every question on a promoted hook come to Talk:DYK right off. Start by taking questions back to the nom page (optionally removing the hook from prep, depending on the seriousness of the issue), at which point at least four people will be involved via their watchlists: creator/nominator, reviewer, promoter, and whoever questioned it. That's enough eyes for a start; once in a while a post might be make to Talk:DYK asking for more eyes on the discussion.

EEng 21:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't see that as a "problem", that's just the way it works, if someone see a serious issue missed by the various review stages prior to promotion to the main page, fixing first and talking about it later is the optimal approach for the reader. It may upset the nominator etc, but that's really not relevant. Everything we do here is released "under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", so getting too sniffy about the content of various items that hit the main page is almost irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, who are you responding to? EEng 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye, hence the indentation. Your mixture of indentation is a little offputting to me I'm afraid... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse Gaia Octavia Agrippa's complaint. It is quite outrageous that reviewed hooks are being second-guessed without proper consultation with the original author(s) and reviewer(s). Such action is doubly disruptive because it is apt to introduce error, as in this case, and it gives offense to the editors who have done the heavy lifting and so know the topic best. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  Then may I humbly suggest you raise an RFC to remove the instruction from the rules allowing copyediting of hooks without discussion, because until such a time that the clause is removed, the copyediting can (and should) continue. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need an RFC for this, because it is quite simply a terrible idea. It would lead either to a tsunami of substandard hooks making it to the main page as quality controllers simply stop bothering to make appropriate tweaks, or alternatively, the end of DYK as we know it due to an exodus of quality controllers from the process altogether. DYK could certainly use some reforms but the last thing we need to be doing is adding still more red tape to discourage the tiny number of people who work to keep this process running. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good idea, all I meant was that simply complaining about an existing allowance will result in nothing, no change. Often as not it's better to make practical changes rather than hypothesise about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, my comment wasn't actually directed to you but to Andrew. Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Consultation and consensus isn't red tape; it's basic common sense and courtesy. Consider a fresh example below – the section headed Prep 5 (Ahn). This doesn't seem to contain any links of any sort. It doesn't link to any of:

1. The prep page
2. The article in question
3. The nomination
4. The author(s)
5. The reviewer(s)
6. The prep builder(s)

This is so unhelpful that it seems like deliberate obfuscation. If links to the editors involved were included then the item would get more attention. What's wrong with that? Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A fresh example of what exactly? Do you mean a fresh example of a poor article that has been promoted with a possibly erroneous hook? Or something else? I'm confused. I read the article, I found some issues, so I raised them at the talk page. I'm shocked and deeply upset that you would accuse me of deliberate obfuscation. It's pretty obvious which hook it's referring to and the Prep area is noted in the heading of the section. Honestly, if people spent more time fixing the issues that are raised rather than complaining about the issue of issues being raised and resolved, we'd have more issued resolved and fewer errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A fresh example of what the original poster was complaining about – starting discussion about a DYK article/hook without pinging the nominators and reviewers. Andrew D. (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I fear you're conflating issues, but that's understandable, this is a very confusing place! The OP was actually talking about Re-wording hooks after they have been promoted. This isn't a "fresh example" of that at all... Good luck with your quest, but I'm still deeply shocked and upset that you assumed such bad faith in claiming I was deliberately obfuscating issues. Could you expand on that? I don't see how anything I wrote "obfuscated" anything. I was very plain with my language and the direction to the issue at hand. Can you please expand on what I "obfuscated"? (For the avoidance of doubt, obfuscate means make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. I don't think I did any of those things. My points were very clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson:, I see you've edited this very page without the courtesy of replying to my request. Please respond so that we can all follow up on your suggestions. In particular I'd like to investigate the accusations of obfuscation that you have levelled at me. It's very important that this is clarified, as you know. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse the complaints. There are a small group doup doing this, by no means all notable for the quality of their suggested "improvements". Eeng's suggestion of keeping the nom open is a good idea - people have that watch-listed. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Suffolk University)

I know, I know, it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I'm afraid that:

that Nate Silver's website FiveThirtyEight gives the Suffolk University Political Research Center a "B+" grade for polling accuracy and methodology?

is possibly the dullest "hook" I've seen this year. I even expanded it a touch so the world's vast majority who have never heard of FiveThirtyEight have a clue, but really, is this the best we can muster on this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ALT 1: ... that the Suffolk University Political Research Center was the first research center to make all of its demographic cross-tabulation data for all of its polls available for free?

ALT 2: ... that the Suffolk University Political Research Center has an 82% accuracy record in calling elections?

— Probably not much better, but the article is pretty thin on possible hooks, and for that matter, pretty thin on prose. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Either of those is better than the current which frankly just says "A website rates a research center as okay"... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors: @Neutrality, Alansohn, and Cwmhiraeth:. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the "interesting" criterion is over-egged. There is often not anything particularly eye-catchng in an article and I don't see that an article should be excluded from DYK just because no "interesting" hook can be found. Of Yellow Dingo's suggestions, ALT1 won't do because it is a claim made by the Center itself. ALT2 might be OK, but "races" rather than "elections" is used by both article and source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I respectfully disagree. If an interesting hook can't be found, a nomination should be failed, not simply passed on the basis that mediocrity is adequate. I simply fail to see how this current hook could be claimed to be interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I have struck ALT1. On your point about election/race, I think it is quite clear that the source means elections, and in a hook, "elections" is more clear than "races", which has multiple meanings. At least, IMO. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, ALT2 looks good to me, but it would probably be better if I returned this to the nominations page for formal consideration of the new hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Go for it (edit: I see you have pulled from the prep, but not re-opened the nom page yet). — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I undid my previous edit to return it to the Nominations page so you may need to refresh the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Just to reinforce TRM re interesting-ness. If an article doesn't have anything worth putting in a hook, it doesn't belong in DYK. This isn't the Special Olympics, with everyone getting a ribbon just for showing up. EEng 00:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added additional proposed hooks (based on newly added content) at Template:Did you know nominations/Suffolk University Political Research Center, and would appreciate revised comments there.

I will note that I think the originally proposed hooks (while not the most interesting hooks of all time) are way one more interesting than many DYKs, including one on the present DYK ("Lidiane Lopes holds the Cape Verdean record in the women's 100-metre sprint?" — a completely boring stat to most, to be frank). Neutrality 00:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I wasn't talking about this nom in particular, but the interesting-ness requirement in general. EEng 01:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ALT2 works well for me. As for the current selection on the main page, they all seem quite dull. The final hook about the Senufo people was the best of a bad lot but was still less interesting than ALT2. Andrew D. (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Czech this out)

Minor, more of a query really. So the hook says:

that the 1987 Czechoslovakian film Princess Jasnenka and the Flying Shoemaker is based on a fairy tale by Communist writer Jan Drda?

The article didn't explicitly say that, so I've tweaked it a little, assuming good faith on the various foreign-language sources. However, should that be "Czechoslovak film" (per the article - ... a 1987 Czechoslovak fantasy film ...) or "Czechoslovakian film" (per the current hook)? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Czechoslovakia article says the demonym is "Czechoslovak". — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose that means the hook needs to be corrected! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Btw, that pun is naughty! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Ahn)

Besides the article being a puff piece which really does a great job of advertising Mr Ahn and his career highlights, the hook says:

that over four days in 2015, American writer Tony Ahn hiked the Bataan Death March route, taking only one liter of water and one cup of rice per day, to raise awareness of Filipino involvement?

Now, I take that to mean the hike was conducted over four days, not that it took "over four days", however the article states It was sunny the entire four and a half days Ahn took to make the trek, presumably taking the extra half a day to do the last bit. But there's more confusion, one sentence says he hiked the "112km Bataan Death March" (non-breaking space and conversion required there really) but then it says ... taking four days to cover the 102km ... plus ... and a 6km march from the ... (more non-breaking spaces and conversions needed). That adds up to 108 km, not the 112km noted in the previous sentence. Finally, the hook needs to be clearer, as per the article, it was to raise awareness that Filipinos were also involved in the march, not simply "to raise awareness of Filipino involvement". P.S. ... with temperatures soaring past .... Soaring I tell you! The humanity!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bataan Death March article puts the distance as 97 km. Also added link to Tony Ahn page to TRM's quotation of the hook, for convenience, and here is the nomination and pings for contributors: @Cwmhiraeth, ScooterSponson, and KAVEBEAR: in the hope it might lead to progress in addressing TRM's substantive point, and because discussing whether on there were links and pings is unproductive. EdChem (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

When you mention editors (e.g. by pinging), you are humiliating them, naming and shaming. If you don't, then you are deliberately excluding the people who know most about it and have invested considerable time in the hook. When you pull a hook, you should simply have corrected it instead. When you correct a hook, you should first have discussed this with everyone involved. And so on, and so on. Basically, if you comment on or do anything with a promoted hook, you're screwed. Fram (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well the good news is that I'm not discouraged by all the negativity! I'll carry on reviewing and posting comments because I think that's more helpful than just complaining about those who apply quality control in whichever way they choose. After all, if the process worked better, all these threads need not have been created!! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have dealt with the "involvement" issue that TRM raised. In response to Fram, what people like Gatoclass and Yoninah do when they find an error is make an alteration to the hook, where this is possible, or otherwise return the hook to the Nominations page with a suitable explanation. In most instances, there is no need to bring the matter to the DYK discussion page at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Besides the article being a puff piece which really does a great job of advertising Mr Ahn and his career highlights" (quoting TRM), numerous paragraphs lack cites. I'm returning this to the noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth as you know, I am under close scrutiny and can be blocked at any moment by any admin who determines that anything I say may be construed as "belittling". As such, I will continue to bring issues here to the talk page for discussion. I'm not sure how to deal with hooks that have been promoted with so many issues such as this, per the discussion going on a few threads above about wholesale changes to hooks. If you have a problem with the way I'm doing things, i.e. noting each and every issue I find with many hooks on a daily basis, you could ask Arbcom to determine whether my behaviour is reasonable or not. Thanks so much!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah thanks for taking action, this is clearly an example of an article that wasn't reviewed properly at any stage of the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a shocking article that should never have been anywhere near the main page. For example, when the subject is being disagreed with, the article claims "Parties opposing ATEK's goals began a smear campaign against the founders.". Massive dubious sections in the "Digital Public Relations" section are unsourced. This is a puff piece, end of story. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation about the modified hook, does it seem to anyone else to imply that the Filipino involvement was small relative to the US? Because the article on the march suggests to me that the majority involvement was Filipino. It wouldn't surprise me if US teaching is highly US-centric (just as Australian teaching of other death marches in WW2 implies Australians were the major victims), but a WP hook should (IMO) reflect the reality. I know this is really a topic for the re-opened nom, but it seems also relevant given the adjustment made following discussion here. EdChem (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In the Stars & Stripes article, Ahn is quoted as stating the way it was taught in the US "we thought it was only Americans." In fact it was 16,000 Americans and 60,000 Filipinos according to the sources I consulted. 16,000 Filipinos died and 500 Americans died. ScooterSponson (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, taking a look at all the issues raised here:

• Now, I take that to mean the hike was conducted over four days, not that it took "over four days", however the article states It was sunny the entire four and a half days Ahn took to make the trek, presumably taking the extra half a day to do the last bit. But there's more confusion, one sentence says he hiked the "112km Bataan Death March" (non-breaking space and conversion required there really) but then it says ... taking four days to cover the 102km ... plus ... and a 6km march from the ... (more non-breaking spaces and conversions needed). That adds up to 108 km, not the 112km noted in the previous sentence.
• The Bataan Death March article puts the distance as 97 km.

A photograph in the article is of the 100km marker, and there are 112 kilometer markers along the route. So I respectfully submit that at best, various sources disagree, and at worst, the source cited in the Bataan Death March article is incorrect. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Finally, the hook needs to be clearer, as per the article, it was to raise awareness that Filipinos were also involved in the march, not simply "to raise awareness of Filipino involvement".

Those two things mean exactly the same thing as I read them, but nonetheless, this has been corrected. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• P.S. ... with temperatures soaring past .... Soaring I tell you! The humanity!!

That is a direct quote from the Stars & Stripes reference. I will put quote marks around it. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• numerous paragraphs lack cites.

This is simply untrue. There are exactly three paragraphs that lack cites: the first three paragraphs under "Korea," and two of those are single sentence, noncontroversial statements, with the third being supported by the photo that appears to the right of it, which is a certificate certifying (in Korean) his entry to the Jogye Buddhist order, and his Buddhist name "Ji Gwang." His LinkedIn page can serve as a legit noncontroversial reliable source for his job changes. I'll add those to the article. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Massive dubious sections in the "Digital Public Relations" section are unsourced.

There is not one section in the "Digital Public Relations" section that is unsourced. The first paragraph is sourced from Rogue Magazine and adobo magazine, and his website (subject's self-written sources are legit for noncontroversial statements about themselves). The second paragraph is sourced entirely from the Rogue article. The third paragraph is sourced from The Daily Dot, Mumbrella Asia, and Interaksyon. The fourth from Marketing Magazine, Mumbrella, and Rogue, and the quote that follows is also from Rogue. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, very badly sourced then. Whole paragraphs are based on the Rogue Magazine article, which is based on an interview with Ahn. I would expect better sourcing than that from a neutral article. The Adobo magazine article was written by Ahn himself. The Mumbrella article is a Q+A with Ahn. The Marketing Magazine "article" reads like a reprinted Ahn & Co. press release to me ("Aside from whooping reach, StarNet’s results are measurable. Clients are given access to up-to-the-minute results, including reach and impression data most marketing directors expect to see" - really??). No, this needs proper third-party sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Rogue article is traditional reportage (interviews take place in traditional reportage) from one of the finest monthly magazines in this country and all facts were checked by the editorial team. It was not written as a Q & A or an as-told-to piece which is how journalists escape liability for fact checking. The organization put their own weight behind the writing with a proper byline and editorial that comes from the writer, who is an Associate Editor there. It was one of the issue's features: a four page layout with three pages of art. The adobo magazine citation is an editor's note not written by Ahn (but introducing him), which means it had independent editorial review. No press release was ever issued about StarNet, and when I Google it, I find this and the source cited, which I think is more credible. I don't see any PR newswire or marketwire type sites, although there are a couple sites that clearly scraped the Marketing Magazine Thank you for conceding that there are not "numerous paragraphs which lack cites." Rule D2 states: "The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph..." The article does in general use inline, cited sources, and 33 sources total in the 27 paragraph article. I think D2 is satisfied. ScooterSponson (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The whole section is sourced via quotes from Ahn. There is no neutral third-party sourcing. You must surely understand the difference between proper third-party reporting and articles which merely repeat what Ahn has said in interviews. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• When the subject is being disagreed with, the article claims "Parties opposing ATEK's goals began a smear campaign against the founders."

I have replaced that with a direct quote from the source: Rogue Magazine reported that "opposing parties countered with a smear campaign." ScooterSponson (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already explained my issues with the Rogue source. It is merely parrotting Ahn. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is a puff piece. We need to strip out all the hagiography before it stands a chance of being encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, can the various authors please indicate somehow when their particular concerns are satisfactorily addressed? Either strikethroughs or a "Fixed" comment or something? Just so I know what I'm still working on and what is done? Thanks much! Your feedback is helping improve the article and I appreciate that. ScooterSponson (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued on the nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Ahn. Could someone also move this conversation to the nomination page, perhaps in a collapsible box? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's all relative

• ... that descendants of the first settlers of the rural hamlet of Kingston, Mississippi, include actors William Holden, Tom Hulce, and Patrick Swayze?

Template:Did you know nominations/Kingston, Mississippi @Magnolia677, Epicgenius, and Yoninah:

Removed from Queue. The source for the claim is , but while this makes it clear that Patrick Swayze and presumably William Holden are descendants of these settlers, it has no evidence that Tom Hulce is a descendant of these settlers as well, only that Tom Hulce is a "more distant" cousin of Patrick Swayze. By which family line this relationship was established is not given. Fram (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the pull but it is worth pointing out that queue 4 now has an empty space. Could an admin do the required rejigging of hooks sometime in the next ~13 hours. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops. A mea culpa on my part for not reading carefully. I think you can consider ... that descendants of the first settlers of the rural hamlet of Kingston, Mississippi, include actors William Holden and Patrick Swayze? as a future hook, if it ever comes to that. epicgenius - (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

As the promoter, I saw William Holden and Patrick Swayze in the source, and assumed good faith on Tom Hulce. I've removed Hulce from the hook per epicgenius' suggestion and given it the green tick. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Another good case in which quoting the source directly after the hook would have helped. EEng 00:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

typo misstake

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/West_Afrixcan_Ebola_virus_epidemic made a typo mistake should be West African Ebola virus epidemic, how to fix? (template wont show b/c of it ) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa Leave it as is. We don't move/rename templates, so it's fine with the typo in it. It won't hurt a thing. What is important is the content in the template. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In this very rare case I moved the template because the content in the template did not have the typo that the name did. I have no idea how that happened—it shouldn't be possible if the "Create nomination" box on the nominations page is used—so it could be that Ozzie10aaaa created the template from scratch. I believe everything is fixed now. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

I have begun checking and filling but have to attend to RL chores. If someone can continue that'd be great. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Penistone Hill Country Park DYK

Hi, all. I nominated an article (Penistone Hill Country Park) with two hooks on the 24 October 2016. It seems to have disappeared. A bot came along and wagged its metal finger at me chidingly for some perceived errors (which I think (IMHO) were incorrect). I responded with a comment to the template (which is here).

Now, I cannot find it on the DYK nominations page and I also conducted a 'Find' search on the page to no avail. Its probably something that I've done (in which case I apologise profusely). But what has happened? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I did try purging the page, but this did not solve the problem. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, you transcluded it properly and it's there on the noms page at the end of the October 24 hooks which are not displaying due to the length of templates on the page. As soon as earlier nominations are promoted, it will appear again. Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy days. Thank you and regards. 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Transclusions on nomination page, suggested solution

We have to do something soon. The nominations page is quickly dissolving into nothing but wikilinks with no transclusions. Yes, I know the Prep/Queue page has always been used as the holding area. We cannot control how other people edit nomination templates - i.e. large amounts of text, template comments, additional image suggestions. The way it has always been is not the way that will work for the future.

Below is my suggestion. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested solution

• The nomination page stays but only includes those which have received no approval whatsoever.

• Reviewers who only are only interested in non-problem hooks have less to scroll through to find something of interest.
• This would make a cleaner page for first-time reviewers who get confused by the glut we now have.

• The Prep/Queue page stays exactly like it is, nothing changes about how it works.
• A new subpage is created where any nomination that receives an approval is moved there by a bot (or human).

• Special occasion holding areas, including April Fools' Day, appears at the bottom of this page. It stays consistently as is, in the fact that hooks are only moved here after approved on the main nominations page.
• Prep promoters draw from this page.
• Reviewers who like to check for problem areas on approved nominations look here.
• Any disputed approval and any post-approval ALT hooks added are worked out on this subpage
• Any hooks pulled from Prep, Queue, or the main page are put back here.

Please add comments below

Comments

• Yep, sounds like an excellent idea to me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The bot will now used the substed the template {{*}} - it's weird that the page exceeds the transclusion limit so easily though. The previous time involved {{hat}}, {{hab}} which were being used more than once per nomination, and had several transclusions underneath as well, whereas {{*}} seems to be just a Unicode character. However I think it may be a bit of a hassle to move hooks between two pages - if you move them the moment they are seen by a human, you would probably quickly get the same problem on the second page, but moving them back and forth would be a huge hassle. Intelligentsium 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I know you have worked hard on the bot, but we didn't have this problem before it was activated. If the problems with it can't be ironed out soon, I think we are just going to have to retire it. That would surely be a better solution than having two separate nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's more trouble, but I think having a place where approved noms are gathered, for further intense scrutiny by the "eagle eyes", will extremely helpful, as well as solving the overflow problem. EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The bot had been down for a few weeks, and this problem continued even in its absence. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and... can we add the provision that nom page stays open until the bot closes it (maybe at the moment the hook moves to the main page, or -- better -- at the moment the hook comes off the main page)? EEng 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And have any dialogue on pulled hooks happen there, so that any nominator, reviewer, or other participant on that nomination would be aware of it as long as they watch-listed the open template. I don't know the mechanics of having a bot close the nomination, but it's worth asking Shubinator if that's possible to do in conjunction with whatever else DYKupdatebot does. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd also like to add a further suggestion that adding the green tick (which is presumably what will trigger the bot moving the nom page to this new "approved area") should always be accompanied by a tentative designation of exactly one of the (possibly several) ALTs as the one to used. Further discussion in the "approved area" might change that, but this way once the nom moves to the "approved area" there's just a single ALT that the "eagle eyes" (our precious editors who focus on quality control) will have to focus on checking. EEng 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If closing a nomination just involves subst'ing the DYKsubpage template and marking it as passed (with humans responsible for moving the noms between the various pages, except for queue -> main page), DYKUpdateBot can do this while promoting the set (not while taking it down). As BlueMoonset noted, the bot will not know about comments that should go into the "2" field. With this model, how will folks know which admin promoted the nomination into the queue? Shubinator (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The promoter simply posts on the bottom of the nom page e.g. ALT1 to Prep4 (without image). ~~~~. The bot closes the nom as it swaps the hook set onto Main Page (i.e. at the same time the credit boxes are posted to creator/nominator talk pages) and the 2= could be Swapped onto Main Page 0800 22 Jan 2017 UTC. This way, all concerns prior to the actual main-page appearance can be discussed on the still-open nom page, where it belongs; concerns arising after that time have to go through ERRORS as now.

I think it would be ideal if, while we're at it, we changed the bot actions of posting credits to editor Talk, and closing the nom pages, to the moment the hook set is swapped off of the main page. Then the nom page really stays open for the entire life of the hook, "cradle to grave". But I recognize this might be more complex to do. EEng 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Mark me as opposing the further suggestion: the reviewer should feel free to check and approve as many interesting hooks as seem appropriate and are properly support in both article and sources, but not all reviewers are the best judges of which is the best, and sometimes the person assembling a prep set will pick one good hook over another good hook because it better balances the prep set. To limit it to exactly one hook of the reviewer's choice also reverses the deference we've given to the nominator regarding proposed hooks.

As for the promoter, may I suggest that the promoter be required to fill in the 2 field with their promotion message? The bot's closing of the page will cause the time of closure to be added to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The reviewer can approve as many ALTs as he or she wants, but (my suggestion is) that just one of them will be designated, tentatively, as the one that will appear. Further discussion might change that, selecting a different ALT, but starting at this point there would be only one ALT on the table at a given time for a given nom, so that attention can focus on it for error-checking and so on. To increase quality and reduce errors appearing on Main Page, it's essential that the checking process begin further upstream than it does currently i.e. currently this doesn't start until Prep, and now it can start when the nom is moved to this new "approved area". But it needs to focus on one potential hook at a time; if multiple hooks are in play, the checking just can't be thorough. I don't buy that this constrains prep set assembly enough to outweigh the advantages, and again I say that the designation of a single hook is only tentative, subject to change. EEng 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It will make it so much easier to scroll through the set of approved hooks when building prep sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support sounds fine LavaBaron (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, since I have no major objections. I do have a couple of doubts though. First, my understanding of the technicalities is not great, but if this problem is arising from people using too many templates without substituting them, it would seem that this is relatively a small fix: and that unregulated use of templates in the review process is going to create a problem again sooner or later. So, wouldn't it make sense to create some guidelines for folks editing the nomination pages, to help with this? Second, I find that very many of the hooks that need reviewing at any given time, and indeed the ones requiring the most attention, are not "fresh" nominations, but those that have been reviewed already, but require a new reviewer for whatever reason. @Maile66: where would these fit in your scheme? Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Regarding the guidelines, it does begin to be instruction creep. We cannot control what editors really do, no matter how many guidelines we write. As we experience on this talk page, a lot of editors aren't reading the guidelines anyway. So, we can spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and complaining on the talk page about those who do what they want, but we cannot control others. As to your second question, perhaps I wasn't clear. The minute a nomination receives a passing tic, it gets moved to the new page. There it stays, and any further issues or comments happen on that page. That means turn-around ticks on review questions, pulled hooks that were already promoted. Anything. EEng has suggested we keep the template open until when/if the nomination is off the Main page. Keeping it on that page does not close out the nomination, but leaves it there in a way that anyone with a given nom template on their watch-list will be aware it needs attention. New (first time) reviewers will have an easier time with unreviewed templates than figuring out why an already approved nom is in the midst of revision for one thing or another. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mail66 and Gatoclass: I think you're right about the guideline creep, but I didn't necessarily mean another page or another bullet point in the current set. What I mean is that we can do minor things that should still add up to something substantive. For instance, some folks mentioned templates (DYK checklist) that are only used at DYK: we can add a note to the documentation saying that they must be substituted, and also possibly have a bot substitute them every time. We can add to the DYK template edit notice, asking people to minimize their use of templates. And so forth. I imagine that other folks can think of other options. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Vanamonde, I think what we need to be doing is working out why this problem is occurring, and take steps to eliminate or minimize it, because it never used to occur even with 350 nominations and now it's occurring with just 150. If the number of nominations builds up again, the problem will recur. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: Keeping the nom open up until (and even through) the main page appearance seems reasonable to me, so long as the technical template issues can be addressed. I think it is fine and appropriate for a reviewer to choose a hook, but also to leave the choice open to the promoter, but I would like to see some reasoning posted. I've had a few cases where I've wondered why a hook was chosen (or not chosen), which I find frustrating and yet asking the promoter every time could get awfully intrusive given the relatively small group of set builders. Having another approved hook available is also useful in cases where an issue arises, because sometimes swapping hooks rather than pulling might be reasonable and appropriate. I would also like to see an explicit requirement that all ALTs be reviewed because I've had at least one case of offering several and only the first being reviewed / promoted on the presumption it was my preference (an incorrect assumption on that occasion, but understandable and arising from poor communication on my part). EdChem (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe you make a valid point about the ALTs being reviewed. I've noticed the same thing. If all hooks are not reviewed, then the review isn't complete. It does a disservice to both the nominator and the promoter. Also, I have no problem with the promoter leaving a small note on the template about why a given hook among several available was promoted. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Maile66, with my Timothy N. Philpot nomination, only the ALT0 has been reviewed and it was my fall-back option if all the others (which I think are more interesting) are rejected on undue negativity grounds. So, I posted here at WT:DYK requesting input, but the thread attracted no responses. I'm not sure what to do because the rules technically require all ALTs to be reviewed but making an issue of my case will focus on the reviewer, who is behaving as others do and does a lot of DYK work. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Good idea. There are currently several structural problems and the proposal looks like a sensible way forward. If there isn't one already, it would be good to have a page to document the process flow so that it's clear how a nomination progresses from page to page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Possibly irrelevant observation

As somebody that knows nothing about transclusion, templates etc, I wonder if there is any significance in the fact that when a nomination is promoted and gets archived, the archived page concerned, like this one, has a stray pair of "}}" at the foot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has corrected a few of these, it's not all the templates. It has something to do with the original creation of the template. Look at the very last line of that template on the day it was created, what what is right to the left of the "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.". On the nomination you linked, the only code that is before it is the }} This also happened on Juanita Musson. Now look at the bottom line of Charles E. King. Do you see the {{-}}that is missing to the left of the }} on the template you linked? So what should happen when a template is closed by a promoter, {{-}}}} should change to /div> and "noinclude" . Why that happens when a template is created, I don't know. Perhaps some individuals are creating a template from scratch (copy and paste?) rather than go through the pre-set process on the Nominations page. I'm only guessing, but the error does seem to happen when the templates are created, and it's not everybody's template that happens to. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What Cwmhiraeth mentions happened to me 3 times yesterday while building prep sets. So should I delete the stray }} at the bottom of the page after closing the nomination? Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't just delete it. There are two different things you could do: (1) When closing a template, before you click "Show preview" or "Save changes", look at the bottom. If the {{-}} is missing before the }}, add it. That should work. (2) If you already closed and notice the stray }}, please follow what I did on Junita Musson. Remove the }} and replace it with the "noinclude" coding. — Maile (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just looked, and the {{-}} is absent in many of the nominations I've created (Timothy N. Philpot and e-baby, for example), and I create them from the box on t:tdyk by adding the article name and clicking to start the page. In these two cases, I am absolutely certain there was no copy-and-paste process in creation, I used the pre-set process. Not sure how this is happening, but the it is happening with the nom page pre-set process too. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So we have a bug somewhere in that process. I wonder what changed that made this start happening, or made it happen more often? — Maile (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I created the nomination for the aromatization article in May, again by the nomination page method. This diff shows the close with promotion to prep where the {{-}} was missing but the close seems complete. Could it be that the close used not need the {{-}}? Also, could the issue be browser-related, explaining its non-uniformity? EdChem (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So it seems to not be necessary. I do wonder what hiccup in our process causes this. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea, maybe there is a change that has made it necessary. I don't have the knowledge to figure out what is wrong, but am pointing to evidence that I hope is useful for others. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 why should I have to manually change the </div> to </noinclude> on every template that I close? This certainly seems like a bug. Here I tried to pre-empt the problem by deleting the extra }} before closing the nomination, and it wouldn't close. So here I didn't do anything, and the </div> inserted itself between the four }}}}, leaving us with a stray }} at the bottom of the page. Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yoninah I didn't tell you to replace the /div with /noinclude. You asked if you should delete the stray }} if it was there after you closed. I told you to replace the }} with the /noinclude. Yes, there obviously is a bug, as mentioned in conversation above with EdChem. But I do not know what the bug is. — Maile (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: OK, thanks. But what if I don't delete the stray }}? It's happening every time and getting pretty bothersome. Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Yoninah asks what happens if they don't delete the stray }} on a malformed close? Do you know if it does any harm? Also, I think we have a bug, because it happens more frequently. But I don't know who originally programmed the process we use. There seem to be so many steps from creating the template to eventually closing it, that there is likely more than one person involved in how that evolved. How do we input a bug report, and how do we word it? — Maile (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

And a P.S. I just closed Peter Reulein, which seems to have all the correct coding when it was set up. Yet, when I closed it, the "no include" was absent, but that didn't show up on a Preview before saving. So I had to re-open the template, delete the extra }} and insert the the "no include" to get it closed out properly. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops, this was a mistake I made when editing {{DYK bottom}} back on October 29. Fixed. (The issue with the missing noincludes and stray }}, not the missing {{-}} Pppery 22:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us. I think I may have mentioned previously that before you mess with a DYK template, you should post here. In any event, that template is now protected so that only admins can edit it. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Maile, for protecting that page. Major trouting to Pppery, who caused a great deal of confusion and not a little damage with that highly unfortunate edit. Note to EdChem (and anyone else interested): the {{-}} is added before the final }} on nominations with images, to make sure the image doesn't overflow the bottom of the nomination when transcluded onto the nominations page. It's basically irrelevant to the close. Yoninah, it's important to replace the stray braces at the bottom with the /noinclude tag so that the initial noinclude at the top of the just-closed nomination doesn't keep running on the nominations page. I believe that it will hide up to the next already hidden nomination, since the next /noinclude tag it sees will cancel the original noinclude. So it's important that we track down every template closed between Pppery's initial edit at 17:49 on October 29 through it's reversal at 22:14 on November 2, and fix the closure, so any unclosed but "disappeared" nominations will show up again on the nominations page. I'll see what I can do, now that I know the time frame we're talking about. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: thanks for the explanation, that is useful to know. I realised it would have to be before the final pair of braces, but I didn't realise what it did. As I am adding an image to an existing nom at the moment, I'll know to change the end to {{-}}}}, which I would not have done otherwise. I wonder if this piece of information is worth documenting somewhere for when an image is added to an existing nomination. (No, I don't mean a new guideline or anything like that.) Maybe an edit filter flagging a warning in the case where an image is added and the {{-}} is missing, if it's worth the effort? EdChem (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

EdChem, I don't think it's worth it: given how long the average nomination is now, what with sources and all the rest, it's going to be the very rare nomination that isn't taller than any included image. The worst that could happen is that an image might overflow into the next nomination by a little bit; in the unlikely event that it happens and someone doesn't like the aesthetics, they'll fix it.

I should probably mention that I think I've fixed all of the problematic closes that hadn't already been taken care of (most of them) due to the template error; if anyone sees any problems remaining (be sure to refresh the nominations page first!), please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset FYI, I have now watch-listed all DYK templates I could find. It's possible there are more, and many of which I did find do not seem to be requisite to the flow of the overall process. Nevertheless, it now seems to be a good idea to pay attention to the background templates. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean the problem with nominations reverting to wikilinks has been fixed? I see that some noms are still not showing up in full on the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The nominations page view is not related to what Pppery did on the template. The nom page issue is all in the thread above this, and we still need to make a decision about what to do. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 24 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through October 24. Because so many hooks are waiting for promotion such that there isn't room to transclude them all on the nominations page, I've limited the number I'm offering here. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four that are over six weeks old and urgently need a reviewer's attention.

Over two months old:

• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Luscombe Castle

Over six weeks old:

• September 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware
• September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Andy Vernon
• September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Far Centaurus

Other old nominations:

• October 6: Template:Did you know nominations/John J. Horn
• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Ahn
• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Suffolk University Political Research Center
• October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Vice News Tonight
• October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Painting of the Six Kings
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Scull
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Metro: Last Light
• October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Mark, Old Leeds Road (six articles) (actually five)
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Irene Garza
• October 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Dirgahayu
• October 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Inspirasi
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Cizhou ware
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Zarma people
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/José Antonio Raón y Gutiérrez
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Equus (film)
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/South Sudan National Cup
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Swaziland national cricket team
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Dr. J. Butz
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Rafael María de Aguilar y Ponce de León
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Penistone Hill Country Park

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2 (IK-3)

that the prototype Rogožarski IK-3 (pictured) crashed during a test flight when its windscreen detached and half a wing broke off?.

There is no need to italicise the name of the aircraft. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass, the italics should probably also be removed from the caption. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2 (1966 NCAA Championship Game)

Having read the source, it seems clear that it wasn't just five starters, it was the entire squad (including the two reserves) that was black. I would adjust the hook accordingly, particularly as to non-experts, it's not immediately obvious that " to field five African-American starters" means the entire squad was African-American. It would have even more impact if it was also noted that they won against their all-white opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to look up that there were only 5 playing, so it was more significant, being the whole team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages