Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"Did you know..."
DiscussionWT:DYK
RulesWP:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Noms (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps & QueuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKsWP:DYKA
StatsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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

IAR? Question re planned event July 21 50th anniversary of the Moon Landing[edit]

Can an article never before featured on DYK and was recently promoted to FA qualify for DYK nomination? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the rationale for their exclusion is that FAs get their turn in the sun via TFA. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any rule that expressly forbids featured articles from being run on DYK, but practically speaking, it would likely be too late to nominate an article for DYK after it was promoted to FA quality. feminist (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@feminist, I believe what C&C is asking is whether something promoted direct to FA—i.e., skipping the intermediate GA stage—can still qualify under "newly promoted good article". I'd be inclined to say "no", but I don't believe there's ever been a formal policy written on the matter; it's not something likely to come up very often as few of the people writing at FA level have any interest in DYK. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is what I am talking about: Template:Did you know nominations/Roger B. Chaffee. I have it penciled inTFA is penciled in for February 15, 2020. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the Main Page history and early history, it appears that Chaffee has never appeared in bold anywhere on the Main Page before. It has appeared twice at OTD on 2017 January 27 and 2014 January 27 but was not in bold.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs The GA inclusion dates to Good Article RfC-July 2013. The push for this to happen, was because FA and DYK had their own main page section, but GA had been ignored in that regard. So, just getting something to pass FA, a formidable achievement in and of itself, is not a qualification for DYK. — Maile (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To qualify this a little more, the intent of this is for a special occasion. WP:S2019 is a planned event (discussed a little on DYK last year) to fill the front page with space related articles for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing (July 21 2019). At one point I was going to try to run Apollo 11, Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin all at TFA, but it seemed like giving them their own day at TFA was a better idea. My alternate plan is to have Armstrong run at TFA, Aldrin at TFP, Collins at DYK, and Apollo 11 at OTD. Unfortunately, I thought of this after Collins was promoted to GA (and A in MILHIST). He will be running through FAC shortly and should be promoted in time, so we are hoping for an exception for him so he will not be left off the main page when Aldrin and Armstrong are on it. THe other issue is shear number of DYKs; I have been working really hard to get eight Space Race firsts promoted to DYK before the anniversary, but we are trying to have a couple of backup contingency DYKs in case we do not finish in time. Chaffee is one of those. So the second thing I would ask for a concession on is for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if I do not finish the other articles in time. If the other articles are finished in time, we just never run Chaffee at DYK and that is fine with me. To summarize, the two things I am hoping for:
  • Concession for Collins to run at DYK on July 21, 2019
  • Provisional concession for Chaffee to run at DYK on July 21, 2019, if we do not have the other articles ready
Sorry if that is a bit rambly, I was about to head out of the house. Let me know what you all think. Kees08 (Talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If that's the question, the answer is a clear "no", WP:IAR notwithstanding. feminist (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: Why? It's a clear IAR. It's an important anniversary. I'm all for it. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, brainfart. feminist (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the collaborative esprit de corps is best fostered by addressing other editors as "brainfart". EEng 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
EEng: My interpretation of Feminist's comment (accompanied by a relevant strike-through) is "Sorry, [I experienced a] brainfart." —David Levy 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
David Levy, it's me -- remember? Think. THINK. Review my user page if necessary. EEng 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your bon mot seems to have been perceived as bon not. — Maile (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tough crowd. EEng 02:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It had me cracking up.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, brainfart.[FBDB] EEng 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed the above section heading a little for you. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08 why don't you all write this up as an RFC subsection here. Is this a basic request to IAR and make this the lead hook for July 21, 2019? Do you want other editors to aim for a full 8-hook Moon Landing set specifically on that date? Clarify what you want, then people can Support or Oppose, and otherwise offer comments. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I think a full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years, would be great, and fully justified. EEng 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: Would you be able to formulate the RfC? Rationale for Collins could also include that I got him to GA recently (ish), but thought he would be run at TFA so did not bother with DYK. EEng, the plan was for one day of hooks that had spaceflight firsts (first earthlings around the Moon, first payload to impact the Moon, etc (try to make it not all about America and diversify it, there is even a French article!)). If we could miraculously get even more DYKs ready in time, we could maybe do a couple a day during the eight-day mission. Kees08 (Talk) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin are all now FA, and can be run during the anniversary. I've renominated Michael Collins for FAC. What we need now is some intrepid reviewers to go up there and do their thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have never created an RfC unless you count the one or two move discussions have started. I would hate to inadvertently sabotage it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC Ignore All Rules for 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to IAR. SITH (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


NOTE: The lunar module landed on the moon July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first walked on the moon the next day, July 21 02:56:15 UTC.


Currently the DYK nominiation policy is: Within 7 days of nomination - newly created, or 5X expanded (2X for unsourced biographies), or achieves GA status

Proposed by Coffeeandcrumbs and Kees08: Ignore all rules policy in effect to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the July 21, 1969 Moon walk.

Second idea from EEng: A full set or full day dedicated to the landing, or maybe a series of one or two hooks per day following the progress of the eight-day mission at +50 years

New articles could be created. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of existing articles and their status:

  • Apollo 1 - GA June 6, 2016 - the first crewed mission of the Apollo program for the moon landing. All died in the January 27, 1967 launch rehearsal
Roger B. Chaffee - FA on March 9, 2019, currently a DYK nomination
Gus Grissom - GA on June 1 2017
Ed White (astronaut) - C-class article
  • Apollo 11 - FA January 13, 2019, numerous main page appearances in OTD
Neil Armstrong - FA - nominated for TFA by Hawkeye7
Buzz Aldrin - FA
Michael Collins (astronaut) -currently FAC Michael Collins (astronaut) needs reviewers

Support/Oppose/Comments[edit]

  • Support - We have an opportunity for a once-in-our-lifetime commemoration of the event. Today's Feature Article, whatever they select, will be only one article. POTD (Picture of the Day) has scheduled Buzz Aldrin's bootprint. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Maile66, TFA isn't necessary a single article; it's just that it's rarely appropriate for there to be a double or triple TFA as it means that there need to be two or more existing FAs on the the same topic, neither of which has already run. (Plus, when there are multiple articles on the same topic they're generally written by the same author, and most people aren't overjoyed at the prospect of monitoring multiple articles for the bombardment of stupid to which TFAs are generally subjected; it also has the potential to cause interminable arguments over the order in which the articles are mentioned.) See Nazi blockhouses in France, the Sedin twins, triangular constellations, the Northern and Southern Crowns, the 2008 US elections or pilots shot down on 7 September 1940 for other examples of multi-article TFAs. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure. feminist (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely, this sounds like a great idea.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all hooks related to the spaceflight on July 21, 2019. In terms of the 8-day mission, I could see up to 2 hooks in each set, but not more. Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A great idea - 2 hooks a set for the entire 8-day mission. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to support a) relaxing the nomination time limit, allowing an article (or multiple) that has passed GA but wasn't nominated at the time to be nominated for DYK, and b) the construction of a special occasion set. It's a little unclear whether the list of proposed articles above includes things that have previously been featured in bold on the main page; I would not support running those at DYK, because that's a dangerous precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sounds like a good plan, and will calm my nervousness about the fact that the POTD is set to be similar to the TFA. If DYK joins the party too then there's safety in numbers. Of course, the Americans will be celebrating this event on July 20, due to their inconsiderate decision to position themselves in the western hemisphere, in a negative timezone... But WP operates on UTC and the articles all quote figures thus so it seems a resasonable choice to do it on that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point, actually, on the time zone issue. I've added the UTC figures above, from what is listed in the Apollo 11 article. Moon Landing was July 20, 1969 at 20:17 UTC. Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC, followed 19 minutes later by Buzz Aldrin. Yoninah has mentioned above a 2-hook set each day for 8 days of the mission, which might even be a better idea taking into consideration that Wikipedia is global. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sympathetic to the proposal, but I have some concerns that this may lead to some kind of double standard: i.e. why do this only for Apollo 11 but not for other similar milestones? This would be a support if this proposal could leave open to the possibility of similar projects being done in the future instead of being a one-off. I also share Vanamonde's sentiment that the DYK stuff should probably be limited to GAs and not articles that don't meet the 5x expanded requirement. Another possibility of course could be a DYK drive for making more new space-related articles for that date, but I guess that's a topic for another time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Conditional support Sure let's relax the rules upon occasion. It should only be done so in the way that Vanamonde proposes and only for events that are of substantial global historical importance. We should not do it for some countries centennial/bicentennial for instance. If this rule had been in effect some of the WWI anniversaries might have thus qualified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support relaxed rules, but keep in mind hat there will probably only few pictured hooks, so if you want something pictured, consider an earlier request. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the current proposed July 21 DYK list is: Michael Collins (lead article), Sputnik 1, Luna 2, Félicette, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, and Alexei Leonov (Maspalomas Station will replace one of them, TBD). I plan to have them all at the GA level at a minimum. If we decide to do 2/day for the other days of the mission, we can select from existing spaceflight articles that are GA and above, if not enough new GAs are generated. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support being able to run occasional events like this, for exceptional historic events of indisputable global significance. I expect this topic will be well received by readers and draw positive attention. Alsee (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial support: This is big enough that I'm willing to bend the rules for July 21, though I agree with Vanamonde that articles that have previously been featured on the main page in a bold link should prevent them from running again at DYK. I do, however, oppose the idea that we should mine long-standing GAs if we decide to include hooks during the rest of the mission, as proposed by Kees08 just above: if we have the hooks available through regular processes, then we can include one or (at most) two on those days, but only those articles that are new, newly expanded, or new GAs between now and then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    To be clear, would you be opposed to Collins appearing in DYK on July 21 if he has not appeared in bold before (pretty sure he has not)? Kees08 (Talk) 01:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    The Collins talk page has no listing of previous DYK, ITN, or OTD appearances, so I have no reason to oppose there; if someone were to find one, I'd still allow it because it wasn't recorded at the time. The exception being allowed here is that the article was not nominated back in October when it became a GA, so it will be a very late GA nomination. (Get it nominated and approved before it loses GA status and its DYK qualification, which happens if the current FAC succeeds...) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There appears to be near unanimous support to invoke IAR (including myself) in this very special case. I don't see the need to rely on a technicality when the GA-basis would also require IAR to ignore the late nomination. I can nominate it today; I just did not want to preempt the conclusion of this RfC.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    Just to clarify the "very special case", the next time we would possibly apply such an exception will be in 2025 (the 80th anniversary of end of WWII).--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:, @Hawkeye7:, @Coffeeandcrumbs: I want to make sure I understand your meaning above, BlueMoonset. Are you saying that if we nominate Michael Collins now, based on its Oct 2018 GA review, you feel we could IAR for the special occasion? But if we don't nominate it now, and it passes FAC, then the GA qualification is nullified and it would not be eligible for IAR? But if we do nominate it now and get the review passed before FA, the FA rating won't affect it? If all you are talking about is to hurry up and nominate it here, and get it approved, then we should run up a nomination template for it. Hawkeye7 or Coffeeamdcrumbs, if you will open the nomination template, I will review it. Or I would be willing to nominate it myself. A DYK hook is never a set-in-granite situation, and we could make changes later on the hook. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - sounds good. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this celebrates exciting milestones in the history of humankind. I like the discussion above about this being a "very special case." = paul2520 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like a good ideaa, and I would not object in principle to further items of this type. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Just as an update, here is a mock up of how far we have gotten on this project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Space 2019/Main Page/July 21.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tech question re DYKUpdateBot/Errors[edit]

DYKUpdateBot/Errors kicked off this error three minutes before it should have moved the hooks to the main page:

Could not tag Siege of Calais (1346–1347) by ArticleHistory; please tag article manually

Ten minutes later the bot posted that all errors had been cleared, and moved the hooks to the main page. In checking Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347), the bot did not add the usual DYK template of the nomination appearing on the main page. I added it manually.

Can someone please advise what the bot saw as an error, so that we can avoid/correct the issue in advance next time? — Maile (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Shubinator, who wrote the bot, and is likely to know what would cause that error to be generated. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 4:Crab in Macau[edit]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 and Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nanhaipotamon

... that researchers discovered a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhaipotamon, in Macau, one of the most densely-populated regions on Earth?

Not clear from hook how Macau being densely populated has any relation to discovery of a new species? I see it mentioned also in the article and abstract of the source, but no indication why it's relevant. It feels like random information. --valereee (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think it means that the crabs were mostly populated in Macau, but finding something where it most lives seems quite normal to me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The point is that in a densely populated area you do not expect to find a species which has not previously been described and is therefore new to science. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you think there's a way to pull that in? Like, "...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhalpotamon, in one of the world's most densely populated areas?" or something like that? --valereee (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, much of the appeal of the hook was that it was discovered in Macau, so while sometimes vagueness adds to the hookiness of hooks, this doesn't appear to be such a case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We might be able to shoehorn Macau in...
ALT2 ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab, genus Nanhaipotamon, in one of the world's most densely-populated areas, Macau?
ALT3 ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab in one of the world's most densely-populated areas, Macau?
--valereee (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's go with:
ALT3a: ...that researchers were surprised to discover a new species of freshwater crab in Macau, one of the world's most densely-populated areas? Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Why are we saying "surprised"? It's not in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Good point. There's no evidence that anyone was surprised about it. Also, given the article is about a genus, having a link referring to a "species" seems a bit WP:EASTEREGG maybe. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The hook is now in Prep 5. If nothing is done about it in the next 24 hours, I'll return it to the noms page for further work. Pinging nominator @Bubbleleg96:. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, Amakuru, Lee Vilenski, Cwmhiraeth, and Narutolovehinata5: This most likely will have to be reconciled without the nominator/article creator. This article has been their only contribution since one edit in 2018, and several edits in Nov-Dec 2017. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, Amakuru, Lee Vilenski, Cwmhiraeth, Narutolovehinata5, and Maile66: Macau is a tourist destination and very small and densly-populated place. So even in places where you would never expect it, researchers still discover new species, and, apparently, at the same time not many people seem to care for their close-by environment. That is the whole point of the hook and the article. I am not entirely sure how to change it without removing its appeal... Bubbleleg96 06:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering the issues with the new proposals, how about:

Seems to better reflect the article, and I personally think the mention of Macau itself is hooky enough even without the mention of densest places, though I suppose others may disagree. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

So none of these sources make any references to it being somehow unexpected to find new species in places like Macau? Is it SYNTHy for us to develop a hook around that? We're putting the two points into one sentence, so implying there's a connection and that it's relevant information. No one else is connecting the new species vs. the dense population? Maybe it's just that all these sources are scientific publications and it's just understood? I agree it's fascinating, but shouldn't someone be pointing it out? --valereee (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
ETA: the source that supports the hook hereis a paper about the freshwater crabs in Macau. The introduction starts with a short paragraph describing Macau, mentioning it's a gambling capital and densely populated. The next paragraph starts with The freshwater crabs of Macau have not been scientifically documented to the best of our knowledge. So it's probably not unexpected that a new species has been found, even in a densely populated area. --valereee (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Its not unusual to find new species in densely populated areas. It just takes someone with the required knowledge to identify them making an effort to look for them. Although its normally insects (you would be surprised what you can find even in the average city yard/garden), its unsurprising that a city on the banks of a huge estuary has found crabs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Based on the numerous opinions here pointing out problems with the premise of the hook, I've returned it to WP:DYKN for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee, Yoninah, and Only in death: It is just my opinion, but even if the freshwater crab fauna of a certain place has not been studied to the best of our knowledge, would you always expect new species everywhere? That is to say, in Zhuhai and adjacent areas, Nanhaipotamon guangdongense is pretty common and widespread and even occurs on Qi'ao island, which is farther away from the mainland than Macau. So I'd have expected N. guangdongense to occur in Macau, not a new species. This new species is indeed endemic, only known from Macau, although extensive survey efforts in the surrounding areas have been made. @Only in death: I agree that new insect species are constantly discovered even in big, densely-populated cities, but these crabs are pretty big (up to 4 cm carapace width) and abundant where they live (although mostly nocturnal, they come out at day after heavy rainfalls). So as a comparative example, wouldn´t you be surprised to find a new species of 4 cm long stag beetle, which is endemic to a small area, which also happens to be full of people? What´s more, Nanhaipotamon crabs are collected for the pet trade and have been known as a food source in some places, so there is even a certain economic value to them. Of course, I can talk about this all day and it is up to you to believe me, because most of this information has not been officially reported in scientific publications yet. Nanhaipotamon crabs and freshwater crabs in general are an incredibly understudied group. I may be biased since I am really interested in these crabs, but just as a comparison, when a new species of micro-mangrove crab was described from mangroves in Hong Kong, this was featured in a similar fashion, as beeing unexpected during a routine survey of mangroves [1]
Bubbleleg96 (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Is nothing safe from DYK?[edit]

Template:Trains portal/Did you know uses SNCF BB 13000, which is a couple of years old. I thought that once articles had been around for a while, they were safe from this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Safe from what? You have linked a portal template: Template:Trains portal/Did you know. Are you concerned someone might try to nominate an old article to DYK? @Slambo:, who is an admin, created that Portal. Maybe they can explain. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned when any article gets nominated for the DYK treatment. I'm particularly concerned that it still has this bizarrely secretive process, where the last thing that anyone familiar with the article knows is when it's tagged as "Today a randomly picked and almost always misunderstood factoid has been plucked from this article, whatever its insignificance, and plastered somewhere prominent". At least it's not on anywhere anyone reads. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little inexperienced with portals,but isn't this completely separate to the official DYK process? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Those are Portal:Trains DYKs, which have absolutely nothing to do with Main Page DYKs. I'd say that most people here were probably completely unaware of them until now (I certainly was). See their rules at Portal:Trains/Did you know. You should probably take your concerns to Portal talk:Trains. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What a bizarre thread this is. In my experience "DYK" style templates are used all over the Wiki, particularly in places like WikiProjects and Portals, as a means of showcasing a selection of articles. I even had one transcluded on my own user page many years ago. As noted above, such entities are unconnected with the main page DYK process, and are not km any way governed by its rules of recently expanded or recently promoted good articles. Furthermore, I'm not sure why any of this matters. If you spot something inaccurate in an article or portal then fix it. Otherwise, just let people present the information on that topic in any way they choose.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    If you spot something inaccurate in an article or portal then fix it.
How does one "fix" a DYK which has already gone live? How does one know that a DYK is inappropriate beforehand, when their selection is kept secret from those who worked on, or who are watching, the articles concerned? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Nothing about DYK is kept secret. Every single nomination is listed at Template talk:Did you know, which is directly linked from the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Nominations, or potential nominations, are not notified on the articles, or to those involved in their authoring. Despite this having been repeatedly put forward over several years. You might also note that SNCF BB 13000 is not linked from Template talk:Did you know. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Please read how things work over at WP:DYK. Note that the majority of DYK nominations are put forward by the article authors or contributors themselves, so while it happens, it's relatively uncommon for article authors to know that their article has been nominated for DYK, because usually they themselves are the ones that launch the proceedings. In fact, as a courtesy, if the weren't the nominator, they tend to be pinged or notified otherwise of discussions. As for "fixing" DYKs, there are two venues: this page and WP:ERRORS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:OWN comes to mind about your frustration. Nobody on Wikipedia is required to notify anybody about anything they choose to edit or nominate. DYK can't make rules requiring something that would suggest ownership. Other than that: (1) Under your user Preferences/Notifications/Notify me about these events/Page link. Check it, and that should take care of any links for something you created. Any DYK nominations have the article linked in the nomination. Your issue is not with DYK but with what you perceive as a lack of system to notify you or interested parties on the article itself. That's something that needs to be developed by programmers. You may discuss that at WP:VPT. — Maile (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not OWN, it's the WP:COMPETENCE of those at DYK. For years it has been suggested, seriously, that DYK should be closed because of the poor quality of the hooks it produces. A factor in doing that is the deliberate exclusion of editors involved with, and thus at least somewhat knowledgeable about, the topic at hand. Automated processes to give better notifications are certainly possible for DYK (we do this for AfD and have done for years), but equally a manual process would suffice (with a bit more typing effort) and is what we do at ANI. Why does DYK now simply have a policy that candidate articles are templated on their talk: page? That would be trivially easy and could be set up in moments. Why is the DYK clique so opposed to this.
I already have all the potential link warnings etc. for this article turned on. Thus I was notified yesterday that it was already live on a DYK box (fortunately just for a portal). There were no other preparatory links made (at least none which I saw, or can see now) until the "live" link. Now if this is because portal DYKs simply don't follow the "new article" filter rule that the main DYK does, then why couldn't you have simply said that from the outset? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, so your argument seems to be that DYK needs to go away because those working at DYK are incompetent. Do you think the problem is that only incompetent people are attracted to working at DYK, or that somehow working at DYK turns competent people into incompetent people? Because I'd argue that in fact it's a challenging job that gets very high levels of scrutiny. --valereee (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is it too hard for people working on DYK (any DYK location) to tag the pages being considered for use? One simple template, that's all it would take. Much like ANI.
As it is, the hooks generated are poor and frequently their paraphrasing leads to inaccuracy (the claimed links between the South Devon Railway and the Talyllyn would raise a few eyebrows amongst older steam preservationists in the UK). For the BB 13000 it seems to have randomly picked one of the least important and uninteresting points about it, just because it was the last para in the article. Why not instead use something important about these locos, from the last para of electrification or the first of Design?
DYK seems to go out of its way to exclude the involvement of those writing the articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, the point about posting a notification to the article talk page is a good one; I believe I've actually done that on every DYK I've nom'd, and I'd support that as being required. But you're still missing 99% of the point we've been making to you: The project you are referring to is NOT part of this project and is completely unconnected to it. --14:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley - Hey man, let's talk on the appropriate talk page about this. I've posted below about how I select the items for inclusion on Portal:Trains; we both want to improve the process and the outcomes. Let's talk! Slambo (Speak) 23:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have begun a lengthy section on the portal DYK talk page for this discussion. I suggest that it be closed here and further comments directed there. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 00:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
SNCF BB 13000 is not linked from Template talk:Did you know because it's never been nominated for DYK. Slambo is the person who added it to Template:Trains portal/Did you know, but that page has absolutely nothing to do with DYK. That page seems to be entirely maintained by that single editor for the past 14 years! -Zanhe (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This conversation is so silly. We're talking about Template:Trains portal/Did you know, which, despite the name, is completely different to this. It doesn't effect this, and has no bearing. The rules are different, and seems like a one-person creation that isn't related. We should ignore. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley,Did you know ... that Did You Know ... is a phrase that is used everywhere, and has been for centuries? A random search on Google news brings up 68,800,000 results of the term, and that's just current stuff. Newspapers.com brings up 99,003,222 matches. The DYK in question here has nothing to do with our project. Clarification below from the editor of Portal Trains. So please stop arguing about our project over something that had nothing to do with this project. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I am the main editor on Portal:Trains. This portal's purpose is to highlight articles that are within the scope of WP:Trains and to give an overview of material about trains. As noted above, the portal has no connection to the Main Page processes other than to use them as a procedural model. I choose the items that are listed in the portal's DYK section and I have done so daily since the portal's inception in May 2005. I have also tried to encourage other editors to suggest candidates for portal content since May 2005. The DYK suggestion page, specifically, is at Portal:Trains/Did you know candidates, which is reached directly from the Candidates link within the DYK box on the portal. When nobody suggests articles to show in this section, which is the case that I see almost every day, including today, I have to pick something. My current process is to look at Category:C-Class rail transport articles; I am currently looking at articles whose titles begin with S. The article mentioned at the beginning of this discussion happened to be the next in the list that I saw on the morning that it was included that was sufficiently complete, had an interesting fact, had an appropriate photograph, was reasonably verifiable and had not appeared in the DYK section in the last 10 years.
If there is an article or image that you want to see highlighted on Portal:Trains, please click on the associated candidates link and let me know. I am happy to include other editors' suggestions as they are given.
Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The text of the specific DYK item in concern for this discussion was copied almost exactly from the last paragraph of the article's Design section. So if there is something that should not be included in DYK because it is false, it should be corrected on the article where it is mentioned so it is not included in the first place. I have been corrected on the accuracy of items in the DYK before, and every time it is the article from which the DYK item is derived that requires an update. If needed, I have and will update the DYK item as it shows on the portal, and I copy that correction to the portal's DYK archive.
If you have a better way to select and curate the portal's DYK content, I would be happy to discuss it; a better place for that discussion would be the portal's DYK candidates talk page.
Slambo (Speak) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Most processes that put special focus on a particular article (AfD, GA or FA nomination, peer review) involve a notification being placed on the article itself or on its talk page, so that editors who have shown an interest in the subject can participate. That has nothing to do with ownership and is perfectly logical. I've often thought that DYK's not doing this is an oddity, and it should be corrected. I've certainly seen DYKs run off the rails, and feature broken stuff on the main page, in ways that could have been avoided had editors active on the article known what was going on before it was too late. Placing a talk-page notification when nominating for DYK can only reduce ERRORS and pulls. (I'm talking about the main-page DYK and have no idea about portals-shmortals.) EEng 15:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • While I am struggling to understand a lot of what the OP is complaining about here, it is certainly not a bad idea for the DYK nomination to be automatically added to the talk page of the nominated article. It is likely quite simple to automate this process, which I think is preferable to adding another step to the instructions. @Wugapodes and Shubinator: how much work would it involve to make one of your bots handle this task? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: I threw together a script that should be able to do this. For every nomination it would check to see if the article exists (following redirects) and if so adds the DYK nomination template to the talk page (if it is not already there). This would allow page watchers to see the edit as well as seeing the nomination text itself on the page as it develops. I haven't been able to test it because the bot's not approved to write to talk pages, and I haven't come up with a great way to test it in my user space yet. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

Hello all, I just wanted to ask a quick question about a requirement for DYK articles. My article I've recently nominated - Bank of England £100,000,000 note (Template:Did you know nominations/Bank of England £100,000,000 note) - was first created by me on 28 April 2019‎ and so therefore is not considered new in terms of creation as it is clearly older than 7 days. However in terms of the minimum 5x expansion, does the expansion have to be in terms of total number of characters (including spaces, infoboxes, notes and refs, links, symbols like [ { etc...) or is it only in terms of actual content like pure, hearty writing. I'm asking this because, before expansion, the article (a stub) contained simply a 1 sentence lede for all the content and a barely filled out infobox, however it was around 2400+ characters big due to things like random external links and a massive unfilled infobox and, therefore, in terms of characters I've only expanded it by, say, 3x (if it was in terms of content it would be expanded by around 15x-20x). TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheBestEditorInEngland: For the 5x requirement, you only need to make sure that the prose content (i.e. just text, not tables/infoboxes/references/etc.) was 5x longer than what was in the article when you started expanding it. There's the DYK check tool which can make checking this a lot easier; I recommend you use it even when writing articles since it helps you keep track of length and other requirements. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
... and, according to DYKcheck, 5x expansion began on 10 June. You nominated it on 11 June, so your timing was perfectly acceptable. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, highly recommend DYKcheck, as it's how most of us review the articles in the first place. BTW, the idea of a 100 million pound note even existing is exactly the sort of thing DYK is designed for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for clearing that up for me! TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for July 1 (Canada Day)[edit]

I've nominated a time-sensitive six-article DYK hook and wanted to alert volunteers before there's even more of a time crunch. The last GA passed June 16, and the articles and hook are ready for DYK review at Template:Did you know nominations/1st Canadian Comedy Awards. It's meant to be a fun Canadian thing for Canada Day. I believe that the expansions are long enough, but if some do not qualify I'd still like it to run (with any failed articles non-bolded). Three of the articles (including two GAs) are fairly long. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg I've reviewed the two food articles; maybe someone else could take a look at the remaining ones? --valereee (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
There's less than 10 days before the target date and four two articles for the hook haven't been reviewed. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
All reviews have been completed. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

New script for making DYK nominations[edit]

Those who regularly create DYK nominations may want to use this new script - User:SD0001/DYK-helper, featuring a live character counter to make sure your hooks stay within the 200-char limit. It also displays the prose size, and automatically transcludes the nomination to T:DYKT and article talk pages. Any cool new feature suggestions or bug reports or other feedback is most welcome. SD0001 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

SD0001, way cool! Is it possible for others besides the nom to use portions of the script? That is, if I start reviewing an article and discover the nom hasn't been transcluded to the article talk, will that be obvious to me and will this (or can this be tweaked to) allow me to just push a button and make that happen? Sorry for my ignorance of how scripts run. --valereee (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not possible as of now. Though it'll be easy to tweak the script to do that, or maybe to integrate that functionality with any existing DYK reviewing scripts. Will look into it. SD0001 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SD0001, Valereee - Unless we see a special request on this talk page, the nomination would have to be transcluded for reviewers to even know it's there. So at this point, I guess it falls on the nominator to make sure it transcluded to the correct page. If not, they could add it manually, or ask someone here to transclude it for them. Since a lot of nominators are new to the process, I'm also guessing we also retain the current method for those who won't have the script loaded. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Has there been historical objection to asking noms to add the transclusion to the article talk page, as the OP in the above convo says? No matter how wrongheaded he is about the trains thing, it does seem like having folks who've got an article on their watchlist see it's been nom'd at DYK would be productive to ensuring hooks and articles are in the best possible shape, and their scrutiny of hooks would almost have to be helpful. But maybe I'm missing something there. --valereee (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Valereee I wasn't talking about the trains thing. That's not for this thread. I was responding to your comment above about whether or not we would be able to see if the new script above transcluded the nomination to T:DYKT.— Maile (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: valeree is clearly talking about transcluding of nomination to article talk pages, not to T:DYKT. SD0001 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SD0001 she said "T:DYKT and article talk pages" in her comment. Right now, each nominator has to manually transclude their nomination to T:DYKT. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile66, Going by the quoted text, you're probably mistaking what I wrote in the original post with what she said. While I understand transclusion to T:DYKT is compulsory, transclusion to article talk page as well is recommended at Template:T:TDYK/editintro. The script automates all these steps, so that the nominator doesn't have to do them manually. The script is only there to make life easier, it doesn't replace any existing process, or indeed cause any visible changes to the DYK process. SD0001 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a fantastic adition. Well done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The hook character counting algorithm is incorrect. It apparently doesn't count any italicized text. While "(pictured)" doesn't count, other italicized text does. In the example on the script page, "Golem" should be counted, and the total should be 85 rather than 80. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Fixed Italicised text that is not in brackets will now be counted. SD0001 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

July 12 and 31 birthday requests[edit]

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Isao Kataoka for a July 12 birthday anniversary, and Template:Did you know nominations/Kent Angus for a July 31 birthday. I hope this is sufficient notice, and thank you for considering the nominations. Flibirigit (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Template:Did you know nominations/Isao Kataoka reviewed and placed in special occasions holding area for July 12. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Kent Angus review in progress. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done Both reviews completed and moved to Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Nikolai Yegipko[edit]

@Amakuru, Yoninah, Valereee, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't know who is around right now, and it's about 3 hours to promotion. Could we shuffle another hook in place of Nikolai Yegipko, and put this Hero of the Soviet Union in a lead hook somewhere? I don't mean moving Al Hoceima National Park. Leave Yegipko's hook as written, but make it a lead hook somewhere? Take a good look at his image. It's excellent quality, and an interesting article (AGF on Russian sourcing). And this would make a great lead hook. Would anybody be willing to do a swap? — Maile (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds a good plan. I'll look at it now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That gives us two bio portrait hooks in a row for now, but we can work that out when we've got another empty prep --valereee (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I've also moved prep 3 up to queue 3 and moved the Nikolai hook out to prep 3, to avoid the issue mentioned by Valereee above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Maile, why do you say the image is "excellent quality"? It's awfully dark at thumbnail size, and being a little blurry doesn't help. Can one of our image experts fix this up somehow?
It doesn't look so blurry on mine, but that could either be my browser or monitor or anything. I agree it could be lightened up. We have time, if someone here can work a little magic on the image.— Maile (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm also wondering why the new prep sets are appearing with nine hook slots when I inputted eight slots at Template:Did you know/Clear? Also, the new sets have a question mark after each hook ... strange. Yoninah (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps Amakuru is using an old 9-hook template copy? — Maile (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I was told my Maile on my talk page to be resetting it to nine hook versions for now, and it looks like there was consensus from the discussion above to do that, given the daily problems with balance. @Yoninah: why did you change it back to eight? There should be a fresh discussion if we want to reverse the earlier one.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru you have to go back up and read the rest of the thread on WT:DYK#Increase_number_of_hooks?. This whole issue gives me a headache. Start where it says "FYI, Queue 4 next in line ... ". I've thrown in the towel on that issue. — Maile (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: Ah, I see. So one person objected after we'd come to a consensus to make the change, with several editors in support, and suddenly it's reversed again without anyone being notified? We should stick with the decisions we've made, otherwise there is not much point in people participating in the discussions. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You're right, Amakuru, but Gatoclass was also right. As soon as we switched to 9-hook sets, Maile added a tenth hook to further lengthen the set, and at that point I realized things were getting out of hand. We could easily have added an eleventh hook to fill up that little space at the bottom. So I acted boldly and went back to 8-hook sets. Yoninah (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That really wasn't much of a discussion Amakuru, the move to nine hooks was made without much consideration at all - just "oh good, it will eliminate the whitespace and stabilize the backlog". But as I tried to point out above, there are other considerations. Firstly, the "wall of text" issue that Yoninah mentioned, an objection with which I fully concur. Secondly, the increased difficulty in creating balanced sets - we generally have a large number of hooks on recurring themes - sports, building and structures, species hooks etc - the difficulty in creating a balanced set increases exponentially with every hook added. It's more work both for set builders and set verifiers. In addition to the problem of variety, there is also the issue of overall hook interest - two good hooks are enough for an 8-hook set, but for a 9-hook set you really need three. Also, as I said above, running routinely longer sets is only likely to encourage the other projects to do the same.

Ultimately, the two sides of the main page are never going to line up perfectly anyway, unless one adjusts the border width on a daily basis (I'm not sure what happened to that discussion). And I really don't think a little bit of whitespace is much of an issue anyhow - there is one particular user who agitates about it constantly, but other than that, we have never had complaints about it. Above all, it's the readership that matters - and cramming the page with as many hooks as will fit is doing a disservice to the reader in my view, per the "wall of text" argument above. So I think we should stick to 8 as the standard. If you want to add an occasional hook to correct a glaring gap, that's fine with me, but I don't think we should be running nine routinely. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And just my perspective about this, and recent events of pulled hooks and whatnot. It seems to me that for the good of the project, all discussions about changes to the process, or problems with any nominated hook or set, should happen either on this talk page, or on the nomination template. It facilitates the process and the end user to only have to look to one of two places - here, or their own nomination template - to find information on changes. — Maile (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure. My general approach is that when an issue is reported at WP:ERRORS (or, indeed, at the controversial WP:ERRORS2) I raise it here if it seems like the fix will be controversial, otherwise I go ahead and do it. When the main page is clearly unbalanced, either top or bottom, I add or remove bits from whichever sections make most sense (today I took away an OTD hook). That said, though, the change to nine hooks did seem like a good one to me - and just because I didn't pen a whole essay on the topic in the section above doesn't mean I hadn't thought about it. Ultimately it's up to you guys and I'm not that bothered about the number we use, but given that most days we are likely to end up with nine hooks anyway once it becomes clear that the page is unbalanced, I would have thought it's still better to have them generated through the normal process, which ensures balance, rather than on-the-fly by an admin. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Yoninah, Valereee, Cwmhiraeth, and Gatoclass: just so you all know, my recent comment above was not about any of you all, or any one or group of users. More of a comment of my recent experiences of the last month or so. Beginning with the unsourced hook I pulled back in May, where the end user assumed I had done so at the insistence of some off-project comment. And everything else since. This is beginning to seem to me like a Through the Looking-Glass experience, in regards to the confusion generated because threads to any given action are found hither and yon. We could do better by concentrating where the end user finds relevant conversations. Either here, or the nomination template itself. — Maile (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not too bothered about whether there are eight hooks per set or nine, but if at any time an extra hook is to be added for balance, I suggest you take one from a prep set rather than reusing one that previously ran. We currently have 164 approved hooks, so it is not difficult to make balanced sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The potential problem with this is that the person doing this may not know how to ensure that the proper DYK credits are distributed, and should also do the necessary checking on the hook/article being promoted to make sure everything makes sense, since the normal in-queue checks won't be done. Not to mention that the late promotion means that it doesn't get its full 24 (or 12) hours on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Jedermann[edit]

Ellen Schwiers is in the next queue, playing the role of the Buhlschaft in a play and a film. A translation of Buhlschaft, Paramour, has been added, but I am not too happy. Paramour is not mentioned in the play, nor in the film. When we say that a singer plays Carmen, we leave the role name without translating it to "Song" although that is what it means. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: the problem was that you wrote in the hook, "the Buhlschaft", which made me wonder what a Buhlschaft was. Usually you just write the role piped to the play: [[Jedermann (play)|Buhlschaft]], without the definite article. Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, my mistake. In German, you would say "die Buhlschaft" and "die Carmen", - still too much in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, we'll delete the "the". But the hook is in the queue. @Maile66: @Amakuru: could you change the hook to:
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Re-pinging Maile. Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: please delete "the" before the role. It should read: who starred as Buhlschaft at the Salzburg Festival. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

a script[edit]

I have created a script which adds Did You Know link to the top toolbar. Can you check it out User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA/DYK___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this. Good to have. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oldest DYK nominations needing reviewers[edit]

I am relisting older nominations which need a reviewer to help out.

Over 3 months old
Over 2 months old
7 to 8 weeks old
Over 1 month old
Other nominations from May

Thanks for helping out. Flibirigit (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Golden_State_Killer[edit]

My friends, how did a hook slip through stating that an unconvicted suspect is one of the most notorious serial killers in history --

... that the "Golden State Killer" was actually born in New York?

-- not to mention that there are a dozen far more interesting facts in the article that could have been used (the suspect is a former policeman, he was identified using an extraordinary new technique, etc etc)? EEng 15:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess the quotation marks are shorthand for "alleged"? You see that in tabloids all the time. Hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? I added "suspected" and that's the way it appeared on the main page; see WP:DYKA for June 14. I agree the hook wasn't the best, but what's done is done. Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies to Yoninah, who did indeed add suspected -- I was looking at the nom page, which doesn't have that word. EEng 01:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we shouldn't be endorsing this sort of attribution. I don't really see how it's an interesting hook even if it were definite. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention it's not even hooky for the 90% of the world that doesn't know what the "Golden State" is. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Turns out I was wrong about the BLP issue (see the interchange between Yoninah and me a few posts up from here) but the point that the hook isn't hooky remains. EEng 01:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
While this issue is resolved (it seems) I think it best to avoid ascribing a factual element of a suspected criminal to the "criminal identity" (eg "Golden State Killer" here, since we would really be saying is that "The alleged suspect believed to the "Golden State Killer" is from New York", which starts to wash back into BLP problematic territory (pending conviction). --Masem (t) 01:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Queue 4, next on the main page[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Edith Campbell - sorry this is so late. Pinging Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy. I just noticed:

  • ... that Canadian nurse Edith Campbell (pictured) received the Military Medal for her bravery during enemy air raids on her hospital in Étaples, France, during the First World War?

It wasn't "her hospital", even though the sources worded it that way. She didn't build it. The hook doesn't say who the enemy was. I have made a last-minute change to the hook.

  • ... that Edith Campbell (pictured) served as a nurse at the No. 1 Canadian General Hospital in Étaples, France during the First World War, receiving the British Military Medal for bravery during German air raids?

The new hook is 196 characters. The medal linked is British. I don't see that Canada had a Military Medal. But if they did, then the one in the hook needs to be unlinked. Please feel free to revert me or otherwise make a change. But the hook needed clarification. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: please move the hook back to prep and replace it with something else. It's not hooky anymore. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: please swap it with Herbert Maryon in Prep 2, also by Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
She got the British Military Medal. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I altered the hook, then some other admin needs to move it, if it needs to be moved. I believe it's hooky. So, all other admins invited to do their thing. Amakuru, David Levy, Gatoclass, Casliber, whoever is around. — Maile (talk)

OK,  Done. Personally I have no particular opinion on whether it was hooky or not, but if people want more time to think about it then that's probably for the best, isn't it... (and just to note as well, the Herbert Maryon hook is actually by Usernameunique rather than Phil and Whispy). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Meh ... "whatever" on the rest. Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy should certainly have their say on this, any direction it goes. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Main page error[edit]

Looks like Herbert Maryon got switched to today, but the photo did not. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Pulled[edit]

Pulled as factually incorrect. Stephen 09:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Also pulled[edit]

Per discussion at WP:ERRORS. Courtesy pings and apologies to those involved: @Edelseider: @Gerda Arendt: @Yoninah:  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The error is to assume that this is an error. "Refined" is a correct translation for épuré. It is. Edelseider (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I know. I also found that translation when I was looking into this earlier. It's listed as a "less common" translation, and probably isn't the one intended here. And either way, given that the phrase in question is lignes épurées, the clean/refined adjective is talking of the lines, not the architecture as a whole.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I am glad that you know. I wonder why your pal rushed to remove my reply, then. Maybe we should have talked first, you and I. Edelseider (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Edelseider, it was probably an edit conflict. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Late to this: sad that a good DYK was lost just because of translation problems. You who speak English better: could you next time please just improve the hook instead of pulling? It was not an error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

To pull[edit]

Post a cleanup, the article has gone below the 1500 character count and is effectively, a stub. WBGconverse 13:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What a mess. The photo of the clipboard-calculator is just perfect. EEng 14:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
[1], [2], [3] #JustSaying. ‑ Iridescent 14:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. It was over 3200 prose characters at the time of promotion, dropped down to 1278 after the clean-up, and is currently at 1515, just above the 1500 DYK minimum ... and still on the main page with a little under five hours to go. No idea how good the newly added text might be. Generally, requests to pull something already on the main page should go to WP:ERRORS, as it says at the top of this page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As a matter of...historicl significance, has there ever been an occasion where all hooks on the MP have had to be pulled? ——SerialNumber54129 20:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: automated notification of DYK nomination on article talk pages[edit]

This follows from the discussion above, but I'm breaking it out into a separate section because the length of that thread means few people are going to respond. This isn't a major policy change, so I don't think we need a formal RfC; just a rough gauge of consensus, on the following question; should we automatically place a notification on article talk pages when an article is nominated for DYK? I see no good reason not to, and many reasons to do so; and Wugapodes has kindly already created the code for it. Can we give them the green light? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Pinging @Maile66, Narutolovehinata5, and EEng:, who made somewhat related comments above. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    I don't really see need for it when article alerts exists. With that said, I would not be opposed to a template similar to the current one but would be added even to articles whose DYK nominations failed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: I don't think article alerts is filling the same need. Those are alerts for a broad set of articles and a large set of processes. This would alert (via watchlists) specifically those users with interest in a given article, including, but not limited to, the main contributors to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Article alerts, which are associated with a particular wikiproject or topic area, only work for you if you're watching the article alert page for that topic, absolutely do not do what's needed here. Those watching a given article are precisely the audience we want to bring into play for a DYK nom. The more I think about it the more I think this could have a definite (if modest) impact on quality, for the better. (Modest because the "new" articles, which are the bulk of the grist running through the DYK mill, have few watchers; but for articles qualifying via GA, there are often a lot of watchers.) EEng 05:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Those interested can see an example at User:WugBot/DYKNoteTest. The bot would transclude the nomination template to the article talk page under a level two header. Those who go to the talk page would see the nomination, and finding the nomination after the fact would be much easier as it would be in the talk page history, if not archived, and the entire closed discussion transcluded in that archive as well. The bot respects the {{bots}} template and should not run on talk pages where editors disallow this bot or bots in general. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I write and nominate a lot of new articles where I am the only editor. I think it would be pretty pointless adding the nomination template to these, however I do see the utility of the alert for articles nominated by someone other than the creator/expander.
Would the bot remove the nomination template and replace it with the DYK tag when the hook had been on the main page? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I do see the utility of the alert for articles nominated by someone other than the creator/expander – No such distinction should be drawn -- add the notification to the article talk page no matter who nominates. Just because the creator/expander does the nominating doesn't mean others haven't contributed or otherwise taken an interest.
The notification is simply a new thread on the article's talk-page, the new thread containing nothing more than a transclusion of the nom template. This allows watchers to see the nom discussion so far without even having to click through to the nom page, but it's easy to click through if they want. This notification thread will be archived in due course just like any other discussion thread. (Depending on archiving settings on the particular talk page this could happen prematurely, given the sometimes long periods that DYK noms languish, but that's a minor problem.) [Later added: Actually, Wugapodes you could add {{subst:DNAU|120}} to the thread, to guarantee the thread isn't archived for four months, which covers about 90% of nom lifespans.]
I might add that this is exactly the design I would have proposed. Good work, Wugapodes. EEng 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems to me like it could clog up talk pages for regular contributors. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Big deal. How does this affect regular contributors more than anyone else? EEng 05:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My proposal would be that (after a little more discussion) we give this a 60-day trial and then evaluate whether we want to keep it. A trial seems harmless at worst. I'd been active on Golden State Killer but had no idea it was going through DYK; had I known we wouldn't have had problems being discussed in another thread on this page, and the hook could have been much better. EEng 06:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems like a sensible idea. Not all articles sent to DYK are written by the nominator. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's an idea. The German Wikipedia does it. If we go for it, we should remove the link to the nomination from the credit on the article talk, to not have it twice there. Probably also from the credits to people involved, - once it's established to be found on every article talk page, it would be easy to find it there. Less clutter on my talk, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is a great idea. Support a 60-day trial, too, though given how many articles are nom'd by their creator and only editor, it may take longer than that to see this have a major effect on a DYK nomination. --valereee (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I suppor this change. However, I disagree with Gerda Arendt, I think that the other notifications should remain unmodified. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Just for curiosity: Why would you want the same link twice on one article talk page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    I want to keep the current link, in addition to any new link, because I think that the link in the headers will be more easy to access, as opposed to have to scroll to the section. I think it is analogous to the link for the GA in the header, in addition to the transclusion of the section. Am I misunderstanding your proposal? StudiesWorld (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    For clarification, take example Talk:Herbert Schachtschneider. It says in the DYK message: "The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Schachtschneider." - I think once we have the proposed entry, that whole sentence is redundant. - In an average year, I get that sentence 200 times on my talk, and I could happily do without it. I know where to find a nom ;) - Same someone on the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, that change I would be fine with. I thought that you referring to removing the box all together. If you are only suggesting that same removal for the user credit template, then I wholeheartedly agree. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for the confusion. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    No no no no no. You guys aren't thinking straight. The existing little box at the top of the talk page, "A fact from this article was featured on Did You Know etc etc etc" stays forever. The new notification is a regular thread (containing a transclusion of the discussion going on on the nom page) on the talk page that will, in due course, disappear into the archive. They serve separate functions. Don't change the box, just add the nom page transclusion as exemplified by Wugapodes. EEng 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Incidentally, would also support a cross-wiki notification on Commons when an image there is nominated for a hook here. The average Commons user is more copyright savvy than your average en.wiki user, and more eyes evaluating images before they hit the main page can't be anything other than good. GMGtalk 12:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Long overdue. Wugapodes - I very much like your Test Note, which transcludes the nomination template to the article talk page. I support the test phase before fully rolling it out. The template allows the opportunity for anyone who has watch-listed the article, to choose whether or not to engage in dialog of the nomination. A possible side benefit is that in situations where a nomination seems to be abandoned, any editor seeing the notification on the article talk page will have the opportunity to join the dialogue. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Just something I realized about closed noms. When a hook is promoted, so that it no longer appears on the approved page, {{DYK top}} adds <noinclude> tags around it, which means that once the nomination is closed it would not be seen from the article talk page. Since WugBot already removes closed nominations automatically, having closed nominations take up space isn't much of a problem anymore. So that the closed nom can still be seen on the article talk page and archives, is there consensus to stop noincluding the DYK template? I am also fine with a trial period, and would actually prefer it. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 15:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    The whole misbegotten idea of using templates for the nom discussions was one of the stupidest design blunders ever on Wikipedia (and that's saying a lot). Anything you can do clean up the bizzarro things related to that is welcome. But there may be hidden reasons and side effects lost in the mists of time, so be very careful in testing, and we all must be high alert for unforeseen ill-effects for a few weeks after such a change is installed. EEng 18:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    @EEng: I've done some tests that you (and others) can review. The examples and documentation are on the template talk page. The edits should not change any behavior on DYK pages but allow the discussion to be displayed only in the Talk namespace. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As long as the way this is gonna be done is similar to Wugapodes' proposal (i.e. do something similar to what we already do with GANs), then I'd support it. As mentioned above, kinda surprised it hasn't been done already. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have filed a Request for Bot Approval. Further comments are welcome. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Hell, I can't understand why the discussions for each article don't take place on their talk pages with only a link from here. --Khajidha (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Prep/Queue 6: Kamchatka meteor[edit]

There is a refimprove tag on the second section of this article, which is probably legit: Assertions like "The shockwave was strong enough that it would have cracked windows if the shockwave was over a populated region" and "although as the larger Chelyabinsk meteor occurred less than 6 years previous, the exact interval is essentially random" are uncited. Parts of the lede don't appear cited as well (or it's unclear where to look, anyway). @Exoplanetaryscience: @Mike Peel: @BabbaQ: @Mikeu: @Yoninah: as those who worked on the nom, (or anyone else watching) are you able to sort out the issues before this evening? If not, I'll push it out to a later set, or reopen the nom. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: that section was just tagged today by The Rambling Man, long after approval and promotion. I think you should return it to the noms page so the page creator and nominator have more time to work on it. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: yep, you're right. I won't comment on the rights and wrongs of the TRM process, but we are where we are. I thought if the issues could be easily resolved today then no reason to pull it, but otherwise will just punt it back to the nom page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on the hook: I'm pretty sure air bursted, apart from sounding absolutely ridiculous, isn't correct English; it should probably read something like "exploded in an air burst". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes. That wasn't in the approved hook, it was changed later. This DYK nomination has been second-guessed by way too many people after I reviewed it over 2 months ago, I honestly feel sorry for the nominator right now. By all means return it to the nomination stage again if you want, but please also then work with the nominator and article text to improve it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I've now fixed up the cite issues myself, and updated the hook wording, so this one is good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Links to sections article?[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

Just a small inquiry: are wikilinks to sections allowed? I've got an editor who'd like to use them here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure on legalities,but why not just pipe link to the full article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I commented on the nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah and Lee Vilenski.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Review request[edit]

I just created Wei Shoukun, and realized that June 30 will be his fifth death anniversary, which is a week away. It would be great if Template:Did you know nominations/Wei Shoukun could be reviewed in time to be featured on that day. Thanks in advance! -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Review in progress. Yoninah (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue[edit]

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Buddha: performance of miracles not RS'd[edit]

Prep area 4 right now states ... that the Buddha, who performed many miracles, . This is nonsense, and not RS'd in the article. He was attributed the performance of miracles; there's no serious evidence that he performed any of them. Boud (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that none of the original and ALT[1|2|3] blurbs at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha claimed directly that Buddha performed miracles. I understand that the intention was to provide smoother wording, but we can't have the front page of en.Wikipedia claiming that miracles are real. Only the Almighty Jimbo, PBUH, can perform miracles... ;) Boud (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Boud: thanks for fixing that. Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a note in passing: in modern usage Poohbah is spelled out in full. EEng 11:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Review needed for an upcoming date request[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final would be a great hook for its 10th anniversary (June 28), but needs to be reviewed. Any comments would be appreciated. SounderBruce 05:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done and reserved slot in Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)