Wikipedia talk:Did you know

src: pbs.twimg.com

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

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

Video Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Fictional characters rule

A lengthy discussion at Main page errors yesterday (which can be seen here) revealed that there is considerable disagreement as to the meaning and proper interpretation of WP:DYKSG#C6: "C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way". The hook was "... that in the novel New England White, Stephen L. Carter writes about the murders of a black professor and a schoolgirl set in a town described as "the heart of whiteness"?". I think the argument ultimately came down to whether the purpose of the rule was:

A) only to prevent wholly in-universe hooks that did not make it clear the hook covered fiction In this case two illustrations were suggested in the discussion as unsuitable hooks which covered up the fictionality: "Did you know that Kellen Zant is a black professor in a town described as "the heart of whiteness?" and "Did you know that a black professor and a schoolgirl were murdered in the heart of whiteness?"

B) To prevent virtually all hooks dealing with fictional characters and subjects, unless given a clear link to something in the real world. The argument for this was to prevent a flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc.

The rule has apparently been there since 2009, but no discussion prior to adding it could be found. Several editors supported both versions above of the intention, and there was disagreement as to whether the rule was "honoured as much in the breach as the observance, it hasn't been strictly enforced for years, and there have been occasional discussions about repealing it (not a good idea in my view." (User:Gatoclass) or "well-known, well-understand and, until now, [a] well-enforced" (User:The Rambling Man). Some felt the hook was a "technical breach" but did not want it removed as (per User:Newyorkbrad): "Stephen L. Carter is a law professor who writes both fiction and non-fiction regarding American racial and political issues as well as other matters. The subject-matters of his novel speak to Carter's own unusual career path as a senior academic who also writes popular fiction on such topics. As such, I believe they have "real-world" rather than just "in-universe" relevance and the hook is therefore acceptable.", or (per User:Gatoclass):"I did consider pulling this hook, but decided it was a pass given that the novel deals with a real-world topic of more than usual interest in current world affairs, racism."

But most editors who supported keeping the hook thought that merely clarifying that the back end of the hook dealt with fiction was sufficient to meet the rule, and that beginning it with "that in the novel New England White, Stephen L. Carter writes ..." achieved this.

Given this disparity in interpretation, I think the rule needs clarifying, either way. I won't propose new wording at this stage, as I think it is worth first seeing what the dyk community thinks the purpose of the rule is or should be. Please comment on the option you support below, also saying whether you think some change to the existing wording is needed (just one comment in sections A to D below, please): Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A) The rule is only to prevent wholly in-universe hooks that do not make it clear the hook covers fiction, so as not to mislead

This, and a clearer wording needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Support - I believe the rule is meant to prevent presenting fiction as reality. As long as the hook makes it clear that it's about a fictional work, I don't see any problem with featuring something interesting about the plot or characters. -Zanhe (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Support - This is the way I have always interpreted the rule. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Support This has always been my interpretation of the rule, which is to avoid confusing people who don't click on the links. Which is not to say that I don't agree wholeheartedly with Newyorkbrad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Support - This is how I read the hook, but granted I have never seen it explicated before now. I assume it is a bar on hooks like "... that the three starter Pokémon from Red and Blue can be obtained by meeting certain requirements, such as Pikachu having full happiness?" -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk o contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Support this is now the reality, whether it was the intention or not. Hooks have been passed which match this interpretation and nothing else, and as long as we're all clear on it, and there's no subjective wiggle room as we've seen exploited in recent times by certain decisions being made behind the scenes, then I have no problem with it at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. Who knows what the rule was originally intended for, and frankly it's not really relevant, given that nobody can find any discussion leading up to it. But on the question of what sort of rule is appropriate and most meets the reality of current DYK operation, this (A) is absolutely the way forward. Yes, it should be made clear that an in-universe fictional fact is not true in the real world, but no, we should not be making any other restrictions on including in-universe facts in our hooks. For many films and books, the plot is likely to be much more interesting to readers than details of writing and production history or how many "tomatoes" it received by self-appointed experts. And if a hook is indeed uninteresting or "subpar", then we already have a rule please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article which enables us to use our judgement about whether the hook is interesting or not. -- Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Works of fiction cover books, comics, movies, plays, video games and goodness knows what else. Permitting hooks which are solely about plotlines or other fictional elements is going to add up to a lot of samey hooks, especially considering the adage that there are only seven basic plotlines in all of literature. And how exactly are we supposed to judge whether one fictional plotline is sufficiently different from run-of-the-mill plotlines to warrant its own hook? This is going to lead to a nightmare of wrangling on nomination pages at one end of the process, and in all likelihood a steady progression of woefully substandard hooks reaching the main page on the other. Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
As opposed to a "nightmare of wrangling on ERRORS where we all have to convince the DYK admin that he's wrong"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Support The alternate view essentially prevents us from highlighting quality articles about fiction in DYK, which seems incongruous with our mission. It has always been clear to me the rule is primarily about hooks which mislead one to believe fiction is real life, but hooks about works of fiction or fictional characters that make it clear they are discussing them as fiction seems the original intent of the rule, as well as a good idea. --Jayron32 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
We're always "highlighting quality articles about fiction in DYK", the rule doesn't prevent that at all. And while this proposal might seem like a good idea to you, who AFAIK has had little if any involvement at DYK, as a regular reviewer I am not looking forward to trying to persuade a succession of nominators that their favourite rapper's deep and meaningful lyrics are actually banal. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No, we seldom highlight "quality articles" at all. Don't try to make that claim given the ERRORS. And your personal opinion is quite irrelevant to this, even as the self=-proclaimed DYK admin. Banal lyrics from a rapper would probably be far more interesting than some of the crap that's in the current queue (e.g. a fish which meets IUCN's data deficient criterion, just like 5000 other species... YAWN). DYK used to be for things that would get a reader to go "ooh, interesting", and now it's about the 74 rules or whatever that govern it, which actively dissuade new editors, part of the raison d'etre of DYK in the first place. I'm glad you've been called out on this, along with being called out on your approach to "concision". It's about time the community regained control over DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

B) The rule is to prevent a flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc

Support this meaning and think the wording should be clarified but not sure how. "Such-and-such happened in a book by so-and-so" does not strike me as a real-world connection. Tell me about how a real person inspired a character. Or how a book inspired something to happen in real life. Or how the author's life and writings show parallels or contrasts. Or how a character or plot line in a TV show caused said show to be banned in Country X. Or.... I think you get the idea. --Khajidha (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a pretty good description of how the rule should be interpreted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
How would that have applied to the hook just posted and staunchly defended? It was a fictional quote about a fictional event in a work of fiction, yet it was still posted by completely subjective means by the DYK admin. The DYK admin appeared to defend it by suggesting it was somehow relevant to the real world but yet it was all "in universe". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. This is the clear meaning of the rule. If the intent was only to make clear that the hook was about fiction, the rule would have said that rather than requiring a real-world connection as it does. --David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Piece of piss then, just say "In the video game..." or "In the movie..." and then write whatever you like, right? I think even suggesting the rule to be infallible is quite a stretch of the imagination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Support There is no option here corresponding to my own view precisely, but as this is the closest I guess it will have to do. The reason we should not have hooks based on just describing fictional plots or characters is that there is no way to objectively assess their interest factor. A real-world fact can be demonstrably exceptional, surprising or out-of-the-ordinary and thus interesting, but in works of fiction, by definition anything can happen, limited only by the imagination of the author. How then can one judge whether or not a plot device or character is out-of-the-ordinary for a work of fiction? You can't, because works of fiction are full of bizarre and unlikely events and characters. This means that whether or not any given hook meets the "interesting" criteria is almost totally subjective, one person's preference against another's, which (a) leads to unproductive arguments on nomination pages about the merits of any such hook, and (b) inevitably results in crappy hooks making it to the main page because there is no clear criteria for pulling them.

One further point I think that needs to be made: it was suggested at the WP:ERRORS discussion that merely mentioning that any given fact is derived from a work of fiction, or a mention of the author etc., should be sufficient to meet the current rule requirement that a hook involve "the real world in some way". In my view it isn't, for the very reason outline above, and I've never interpreted it that way. I have always interpreted it to mean that the principal hook fact has to be non-fictional, or that an interesting real-world fact has to be included alongside any fictional element. To take a broader view is to open the floodgates to a deluge of substandard hooks, and I'm speaking from long experience as I've seen a ton of substandard hooks about supposedly interesting fictional plotlines proposed. Having said that, we have occasionally bent this rule when, for example, some outstandingly imaginative plot device has been referenced, or when the plot device pertains to, for example, a novel or topical philosophical idea - but in practice the rule has worked very well at keeping embarrassing garbage off the main page and I'd be opposed to any attempt to weaken it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

But just by way of illustration, if you want to see an endless array of hooks on the mainpage with the form "Did you know that in video game A the hero B uses special power C to battle villain D and his minions to save realm E?" then you should !vote for option A) above. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"keeping embarrassing garbage off the main page" is this the same garbage that we're seeing at ERRORS, about three times per set right now? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Support We don't want fan fiction, nor do we want selling by blurb, breathless, "Sam Author writes about the daring love between a man and a moose", "Feclia Writer authors the tale of the beleaguered postman, who solves the weird murder." "Mack Scribbler gives us a world of fire, ice, and mayhem, in his novel." We don't sell. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Support per Gatoclass. That was always how I interpreted the rule. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. This is how I have always understood the rule, and I'm rather surprised at the level of support for option A. I'd like to answer Jayron32's comment in particular; I write about fiction quite often, and I've rarely had a problem finding a decent hook without relying entirely on the plot. The trouble with allowing "inuniverse" hooks is that they could turn into fancruft very easily, and there isn't sufficient consensus on what constitutes an "interesting" hook to prevent this, at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. Allowing a hook such as "... that Big TV Show character Georgie Human aged from 30 years to 300 in three hours while running a full marathon but didn't die?" should not be allowed, yet it presumably has a real-world connection in the name of the show. One of my best hooks came from having to add real-world information to the nomination of a television character article; it can be done for fiction, and should be. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Support This seems the clear meaning of the words of the rule, and moreover, is what in my view the rule ought to mean. A totally in-universe hook, even if it makes celar that it describes the plot of a fictional work, should not be OK. In some way the hook should describe the impact of the fiction on the real world, or perhaps the effect of the real world on the fiction, but something that is at least partly out-of-universe. If the rule merely meant that fiction should be identified as such, that could have been said much more clearly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Support I can imagine how the quality will deteriorate if plot hooks, etc. are allowed. HaEr48 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

C) The rule is to for something else

Hooks must clearly distinguish fiction from fact, and inclusion of real-world aspects will usually be preferable, but ultimately the goal is to create the most interesting hook available within the limits of fairness and accuracy, not to enforce rules for the sake of doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow your assertion, hooks almost invariably distinguish between fiction and fact, it's easy, like "... in the novel by XXX, YYY said ZZZ happened?" appears to now be completely acceptable to the status quo (and the DYK admin) and to you per your statement here. Right? I dig your "most interesting hook" slant, because actually what's happened to DYK lately is that "NOTHING CAN FAIL" so we get the junkest (tm) hooks ever made being slated for the Main Page. I'd prefer to see completely fictional hooks rather than "... this fish is IUCN data deficient?" which is going to run in 95 minutes, thanks to our stringent quality control and "YOU CAN'T FAIL HERE!!!" policy at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

D) The rule should be removed completely

DYK has far too many rules and it's our general policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There are 72 of these unwritten rules and the discussion shows that there's no clear consensus about this one and so it should be pruned. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the second LOL moment of the day, linking "unwritten rules" to a bunch of "written rules". Little wonder you're not taken seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably because they were called "unwritten rules" before they were "supplementary rules". And that's because before I wrote them down as the "unwritten rules" (although I didn't write this rule), they were literally unwritten rules, enforced against contributors who had no way of learning them. The only thing worse than 72 rules, is 72 unwritten rules you can't learn until after you've wasted days on a DYK article that doesn't qualify. Art LaPella (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and of course I take Andrew D. seriously. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

"Stephen L. Carter writes about the murders of a black professor and a schoolgirl set in a town described as "the heart of whiteness"", is not clarified as fiction just because it's in a novel -- people write about real people and circumstances in novels, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein - I take it you've not read yesterday's discussion. Any idea that the meaning of the rule is currently "clear" is unlikely to survive doing so. The argument of many (most I think) commenting was that, as User:Art LaPella put it: "involve the real world in some way", as that rule has been used in practice for years, is covered by the word "novel"." Really what we're after here is what the rule should say, rather than re-entering yesterday's exhaustive and exhausting discussion of what the current wording means. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If making it clear that fiction is involved isn't what a real-world connection means, then everything has a real-world connection. For instance, a completely in-universe hook like "... that Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star and saved the galaxy?" has a real-world connection because the real world is part of a real galaxy, and besides destruction is real. Absurd because anything would pass, but what else does it mean? Is it just a way to arbitrarily pass or fail something? Art LaPella (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

How about "A hook about fiction must include a non-fictional fact, not counting the creation of that fiction."? Is that what you meant to say? Art LaPella (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If making it clear that fiction is involved were the only point of this rule (what the RFC is about), then it would just say to use the word "fictional" rather than being more specific about what kind of hooks we should have. I think the point is more that there should be something hooky and sourceable to say about the work that is not just plot summary. --David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So use that phrase: "A fictional hook should have something hooky and sourceable to say about the work that is not just plot summary." Art LaPella (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, something along those lines is what I think the intention of the rule has always been, and is certainly how I've always interpreted it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much this. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example from my experience: "... that Dr. Watson was first told about Sherlock Holmes in the bar of the Criterion Restaurant?" That hook is fine but the rule was invoked to bloat it with unnecessary links such as the name of the author. Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That hook is not fine as that is not a fact, it is a story summary. No such conversation ever took place. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, C6 would be irrelevant in that case because the subject, the Criterion Restaurant, is not a work of fiction. The problem with that hook, rather, is that it implies that a fictional event really occurred. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've always thought that it was to prevent hooks like "...that the Confederacy invented nuclear-powered submarines?" linking to an alternative history novel. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well at least, regardless of outcome, the one thing we can all agree on is that no-one can really agree on what this was supposed to mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the rule should be clarified or removed (really removed, not kept as an unwritten surprise that discourages participation). Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine I'm like most supporters of A) above in not at all wanting a "flood of "sub-par" hooks just describing characters, plots etc". Various hypothetical examples of such hooks have been suggested above, and I wouldn't want any of those on the main page. So we need a wording that encapsulates what we want more clearly. Some subjectivity will be unavoidable, but at least the "spirit" of the rule, to which various people have referred in this or the first discussion, can be made clearer. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Gevninge - pulled hook

Ping: Gatoclass, Cwmhiraeth, & Moonraker.

... that in the epic Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, the titular hero passes through a place like Gevninge on his way to fight the monster Grendel?

Gatoclass, you recently pulled this hook without notice. The only explanation was your edit summary, which states "pulled Gevninge - hook looks OR-ish". I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion; there is an extensive discussion on the nomination page, including the relevant passage (and translation) from the source. If you would like to explain your thoughts in pulling the hook, and whether you read the article and nomination beforehand, please do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read the article, the nomination page and the sources. I don't pull hooks lightly. However, I momentarily forgot to reopen the nomination page outlining my reasons for the pull. I'm logging off shortly so I'll do that tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess Gatoclass means it sounds like original research. It is certainly constructed, based on more than one source, there isn't a single RS that says this, but I'm not aware of any rule against putting two facts together for the first time. I think it passes muster, and there doesn't seem to be much else to say about Gevninge, apart from the helmet fragment, which doesn't have a great image to support it. Moonraker (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say there's definitely other possibilities; something like "Gevninge, a small village, may have been the port for a royal capital?" wouldn't be so bad. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with Vanamonde93, that would definitely be less contrived. Usernameunique, if you would like to put that forward as an Alt on the nomination page, we may have a good way forward. Moonraker (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In what way does the hook feel contrived? The second source (Herben) is only used for the plot summary component (i..e, "on his way to fight the monster Grendel"). Christensen 2002 by itself links Gevninge to the place Beowulf passes through. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Usernameunique, it *is* a bit contrived because it ties together the real world and the world of fiction in a way that is just speculation. I don't know of a DYK rule against doing that, and I do wonder what Gatoclass will come up with tomorrow, but I thought Vanamonde93's idea might be a way to settle the matter easily. If you want to defend your Beowulf hook with Gatoclass, then so be it, but you could have an interesting time ahead. Moonraker (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Classic. This is the self-proclaimed DYK admin making a bogus decision and then disappearing. What a joke. This hook is just fine. Particularly based on the fact that this very DYK admin posted a fully fictional hook which was far more banal just days ago (and attempted to defend that decision, extensively). Now, suddenly, a genuinely interesting hook appears, based in fiction with a link to the real world, and the DYK admin removes it and is too busy to say why, but not busy enough to confirm he pulled it. I think DYK is becoming something of an autocracy here, and it's completely unhealthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reopened the nomination page and made my reply there. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

forgive me father, for it is only my second week with GIMP - Album ...

src: i.imgur.com

Back to 24-hour cycle

I had hoped to run the total number of nominations down to around 150 before returning to a 24-hour cycle, but given that we only have two complete sets left in the queue and 40 or so approved hooks waiting for promotion, I think it's probably time we switched. I would suggest running the current and next set on 12 hours and returning to 24 tomorrow. In other words, the first set to be run after the switch would be the one currently in prep 1 with the "Burning Lake" lead. Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree its time we returned to a 24 hour cycle as I am finding it increasingly difficult to fill a balanced set. Do not make the change before Queue 6 has run however, because it contains a date-dependant hook for 14 May. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cwmhiraeth. It looks like we will have to leave the changeover to the set after the Burning Lake set, currently in Queue 1, otherwise we will be switching over at midday UTC. I can probably attend to that tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that we're seeing around three to four errors reported in each set now, I'd say it's time to go back to one set per day. The backlog is irrelevant. The quality of sets heading the main page right now is shambolic, an embarrassment, and a timesink. We should have dropped back to one set many days back but no, the DYK admin disallowed it. Poor form, just like the DYK queues. At least we now have 24 hours to address the terrible quality being sanctioned for main page inclusion, we stand a chance.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be splendid if someone could switch us over to every 24 hours now, or any time within the next 10 hours. In fact, so long as it happens before Prep 2 is promoted to Queue 2, it can even happen later than that. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the correction BlueMoonset! Gatoclass (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(Just some unimportant thoughts:) Seeing the difficulty we're now having in sustaining twelve-hour sets, I wonder how DYK managed to do regular six-hour sets back in the day. Was it simply because there were more participants then? Or were we less fussy about quality? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Less fussy. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Much less fussy about the quality of articles, complete rubbish was summarily passed onto the main page multiple times per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course so many items are being pulled these days, we probably get through quite a few more than the nominal number. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps DYK reviews should embrace the concept of "fail" for hooks which are so banal as to be completely unappealing to a broad audience. That would also help reduce the backlog. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

... that not enough is known about the Portuguese sole to indicate whether it is in need of conservation?

It is interesting that this hook, which The Rambling Man made such a fuss about on the Errors page, managed over 5000 page views in its 12 hour stint. I shall have to use that format again as it is obviously very hooky! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Yes, and you do realise that the hook was modified while it ran on the main page to something far more hooky, don't you? Hmm? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was modified, but only for the last couple of hours. Whether the new hook was more hooky I doubt. Actually, I think the hook may have attracted attention because of its subject being a "Portuguese sole", - it's not at all obvious what that is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is, you'll never know when those hits came in and why, so actually pinging me with such a smug comment really looks bad on you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What I find amusing here is that you seem utterly incapable of acknowledging that you might have been wrong in this instance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What I find amusing here is that your assertion was (and still is) completely unfounded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Or they could have all been from people who, as I did when I first saw this hook being discussed, clicked through thinking "Is that REALLY the best they could get out of an article? Surely to God there must be SOMETHING interesting to say about this damn fish." Unfortunately, I was disappointed. The article really was that destitute of actual information. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, yes, that ????? !!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to please you and 5000 others, the bastard sole is on its way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just an aside, you do realise that 5000 pageviews does not equate to 5000 people, right? And please, please, please, let's try to come up with a better hook this time before it gets raced onto the main page without due care and attention to one of the fundamental DYK rules. If you need help in doing that, feel free to let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, bla bla bla. You do realize that pageviews is the most objective measure we have? Art LaPella (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the only one if you exclude error reports, of which there have been plenty (although strikingly few since we went back to 1 set/day, imagine that?!!) So bla thrice to you too, very highbrow addition. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Archived DYKs erased...

The Did you know... entries from 12 May do not appear on this page. Did somebody forget to archive it? - PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We had a couple of less experienced users do the credits for those two sets, which had to be completed manually as the bot broke down, and it looks as if they forgot to add the sets to the archive. I'll do it now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not trying to push blame, but copying old hooks to the archive and doing credits for the hooks are clearly listed as separate steps in the manual update process here. I simply did what was requested on this page, which was to do the credits. Moral of the story: manual updates suck! --kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 15:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

src: i.imgur.com

Worst English award (Prep 2)

that Portuguese international footballer Andreia Norton played her first professional match at the age of 13? Cwmhiraeth, Zanhe, SirEdimon (blocked)(nom)

Holy crap. I just started reading this article. It's pretty clear that the reviewer and promoter didn't. A complete carnival of English language disaster. Please, I know we don't expect FA-quality here, but just get the grammar right, it's going to the main page after all..... D-, must try a lot harder. Perhaps read the actual article being promoted rather than just the hook.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty dire. I assume it's a translation? I've edited the mess of the final paragraph a bit, but there's still overlinking of football(er) throughout and things such as "Norton started to play football at the age of two in her native city [Ovar according to the infobox, otherwise unstated & completely unreferenced]. When Norton was seven, she went to play for the "Furadouro Sports Club", an amateur club in Ovar... Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

English as she is spoke. EEng 01:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago; here is an updated list with all 39 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 7. Right now we have a total of 169 nominations, of which 34 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four remaining from February and March.

Over two months old:

February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/An Wasserflüssen Babylon
~~March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Endsleigh Gardens~~
~~March 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Group testing~~
March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Birgit Remmert

Over one month old:

~~March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Zeke Upshaw~~
~~March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Fallet Kevin~~
March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Edmond Genet
April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Gilmore Oil Company (two articles)
~~April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Triangular corner flags in English football~~
~~April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Sílvia Rebelo~~
April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Kronans Apotek

Other old nominations:

April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Dafydd Gibbon
April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Goat Canyon (Tijuana River Valley)
April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Orgelbau Mebold
April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Christina Gerstberger
April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/John G. Hawthorne
April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Boltonimecia
April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Cockroach farming
April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Northwest Cannabis Solutions Satsop facility
April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Da der Herr Christ zu Tische saß
April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Appleton (two articles)
April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Regional council of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Intel 5-level paging
~~April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Intuitive eating~~
~~April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclothymia~~
April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Centre interarmées d'essais d'engins spéciaux
April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Nous Citoyens
~~May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Epidemiology in Country Practice~~
~~May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Bruiser (bull)~~
May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/FotoFilm Tijuana
~~May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Mette Ivie Harrison~~
~~May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Maurine Whipple~~
~~May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Zehra Borazanc?~~
~~May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Corinne Foxx~~
May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Re Bristol South-East Parliamentary Election
~~May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/S?n Tùng M-TP~~
~~May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Piscicolidae (two articles)~~
May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Evacuation of Ayvalik
~~May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Messe solennelle (Vierne)~~
May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Drift whale
~~May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Oxalaia~~
May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Yellow Sand Society
May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Ayane Sakura

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) 01:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales: The birth of Wikipedia | TED Talk

src: pi.tedcdn.com

Pulled from Queue2

Template:Did you know nominations/Birgit Arrhenius @Usernameunique, Gerda Arendt, Cwmhiraeth, and Gatoclass:

... that Birgit Arrhenius demonstrated that a Germanic figure on a Torslunda plate had had its eye struck out, in a possible invocation of the one-eyed god Odin?

She didn't actually demonstrate this (or at least not in the sense of "shown this for the first time"), this was a well-known fact which obviously also was visible when she studied the same plate. This is clear from the actual quote used to support this hook ("I will also point on one famous detail on the picture, the missing right eye (of Oden) which is clearly marked."), unless you believe that she called her own discovery a "famous detail" instead of referring to something already known. The source for the hook is from 1992, but already in 1987 this is clearly stated (both the "one eye" and the identification with Odin), referring to a 1974 work by Rupert Bruce-Mitford.[1]. I guess something better can be said about her career than "she pointed out an already well-known fact", as that really isn't complimentary of her work. I have pulled it from the queue to avoid it reaching the main page, another hook will need to be added to get a full set and this hook returned to nominations and reopened and so on. Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram, firstly it was quite unnecessary to pull the hook when there is still 12 hours to go before the set is featured and thus plenty of time to resolve the issue. With regard to the latter, my understanding of the source is that the scan revealed that the eye was deliberately struck out and not simply lost through wear or damage. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Then your understanding of the source is wrong. If they previously believed that the eye was "lost", then they wouldn't have identified it with Odin. She may have demonstrated how or when it was removed ("probably in the original model"), but that is really not the same thing at all, and not conveyed by the hook or the article. Fram (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram, then why does she say a few sentences on that If the man with weapons and a horned helmet could be identified as Oden ...? What she's saying is that it's never been certain that he is a representation of Odin, but that the deliberate removal of the eye indicates that he is - and thus that the associated myth may be considerably older than previously thought. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Late to the party: I was more interested in the first hook and just forgot to strike the complicated ALT. How about the first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, but I already replaced it with another hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, she isn't saying that. A sentence starting with "if"and continuing with "could be" doesn't indicate the certainty you read in it. She may have added a stronger element for it, but even that is very unclear from the few lines she spends on this. And the deliberate removal of the eye was known before, like I already said... Fram (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say there was any certainty about this, you did. You said it was a "well known fact" that the figure represents Odin, I simply pointed out that that is not what she said. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And no, the deliberate removal wasn't known before, that's the entire point of the passage. Or perhaps you can point out the part where you think she states it was already known? Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram & Gatoclass, as described in a 2014 publication, p. 524: "Following long speculation as to whether the 'dancing' figure was missing an eye, scholars from the Archaeological Research Laboratory in Stockholm submitted the plate to a laser-scan, and conclusively demonstrated that its proper right eye had been struck out with a square-section object, probably a chisel (Arrhenius & Freij, 1992)." --Usernameunique (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Using that source (which judging from the wording was used to write the hook and sentence in the article in the first place) verifies the hook, although it is awkwardly worded (i.e. the identification with Odin had been made long before and wasn't a new idea by Arrhenius, which the hook doesn't explicitly say but rather strongly suggests). No idea as well why the hook discusses a Germanic figure, that term doesn't appear in the two sources as far as I can tell and can only be confusing. Fram (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

All the relevant information was in the original source, you simply misread it. But to avoid further pointless debate, Usernameunique I suggest you add your new source to the article and I'll restore it to prep. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the original source said nothing about "speculation about whether the dancing figure was missing an eye", which was (as I demonstrated) given as a fact by older sources anyway. If you restore the hook as is, I'll simply have to pull it again I guess, as you overlooked my other comment apparently. Fram (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I figured you would deny making an error, which is why I asked Username to add the additional source. But since as I said I have no interest in wasting further time on this, I'll simply close by noting that the source is right there in the article and that anybody who cares to do so can read it and draw their own conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"There has been much discussion about the personage represented by the helmeted figure, and the most convincing identification, in view of the fact that the Torslunda man has only one eye, is Odin." If a 1987 source (based on a 1974 one) says this, then it means that it was quite clear before 1992 that the figure had only one eye, that this was done on purpose, and that it likely was Odin. Which is what the hook suggested was only demonstrated in 1992 by Arrhenius. All Arrhenius did was show how the eye was removed, and remove whatever doubt may still have existed (none I could find, but obviously I haven't read all sources on this) whethere an eye was missing: doubt which can not be read in the article used originally to source the hook, but only in the source now given (but probably used originally anyway). I have no problem in admitting an error, but your claims that I made one are not really convincing. You still haven't adressed the other problem with the hook I raised either, even though you plan on restoring it "as is". Fram (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram, what part of the hook exactly (apart from the word "Germanic", which is a side issue) are you taking issue with? The source states that the scan proved the eye had been deliberately struck out. It also makes clear that this is consistent with the Odin legend. That is virtually all that the hook says, so what is the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do you consider "Germanic" a side issue? It is a description for the figure which comes totally out of the blue, not from either source (the original one or the new one), and which doesn't belong in the hook at all. Fram (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I just mean it's something we can deal with later Fram, it's not (apparently) the main point here, which I am trying to get you to explain so that it can be fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram, are you saying the only hangup now is the Germanic issue? If so, Usernameunique can you please add a source for that? Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Germanic" is the only wrong (or unsourced) thing remaining. I'm not happy with the hook in general, as it incorrectly may give the impression that she was the first to make the "Odin" connection (or even the "one-eye" discovery), but with the new source it is no longer unverified and being unhappy about a hook is not really a reason to pull it (unless too many people are unhappy about it for such factual reasons, not for e.g. political or religious ones). Fram (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram & Gatoclass, I can look for a source re: "Germanic" in a few hours, or we could just remove that word from the hook. "Horned figure" or "helmeted figure" could also work if an adjective is wanted. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said Fram, I believe the hook was adequately sourced to begin with, apart from the word "Germanic" which is arguably well enough known not to need a source. I will admit however, that the more I read the original source, the more confused I am about what point exactly the author was trying to make, though that's not really relevant to this debate. Usernameunique, it's up to you whether or not to retain "Germanic" or substitute some other word, but personally I think "Germanic" is probably more informative. Gatoclass (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you seem to be confused about why a source is needed. If a word is not well-known, a link is needed. But even the most well-known words need a source to show that they are correct in the hook. If the figure is not described as being "Germanic" in the sources, then it shouldn't be called "Germanic" in the hook, no matter how well-known (or "informative") the word is. Fram (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Odin is considered to be a god in Germanic mythology, so if the figure is Odin, then it is Germanic in at least one sense of the word. Won't be able to look at sources for a few hours though. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Zeus is a Greek god, and often depicted as a bull. Doesn't make it a Greek bull, and would be really weird to describe it as such. if the figure (not Odin, the figure) is not described as Germanic elsewhere, then we shouldn't add that description either. Fram (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I follow the example, but I can see the distinction between what an object is and what it depicts; an English copy of a Greek depiction of Zeus would not be Greek. Here are two quickly-Googled sources: 1 ("archaeology clinches the case with circumstantial evidence scattered across the early Germanic world ... here, too, Weldon is right--archaeological evidence strengthens my argument--and his suggestions are astute, especially regarding the famous Torslunda dies."); 2 ("Germanic pagan mythology epics were only recorded in writing during Christian times, evidence of the true, pagan, oral literature does survive in graphic form on metal, wood and stone. Thus the Torslunda dies, for example, are important evidence of the reality of the pagan mythos."). --Usernameunique (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested alt:

... that Birgit Arrhenius revealed that a Torslunda plate helmeted figure thought to represent Odin had, consistent with the associated legend, had its eye deliberately struck out? Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fram? Gatoclass (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If you remove the duplicate "had", I think this is good to go. Something like

... that Birgit Arrhenius revealed that a Torslunda plate helmeted figure, thought to represent Odin, had its eye deliberately struck out, consistent with the associated legend? Fram (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Restored to prep, thanks all. Gatoclass (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Can't verify hook in prep 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Seraph von Kohlbrenner @Gerda Arendt, Zigzig20s, and Narutolovehinata5:

... that Franz Seraph von Kohlbrenner (pictured), a civil servant at the Bavarian court, published a journal and hymnal in German at a time when Latin was the language for science and church?

This is the picture hook in the next queue to hit the main page. "Latin" doesn't appear in the body of the article, and is unsourced in the lead. His "journal" was an intelligenzblat, which was extremely common in Germany (and in German) at the time ([2] "Im Frankreich der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts entstanden, hatte das Intelligenzblatt im deutschsprachigen Raum seit den 1720er Jahren Einzug gehalten und rasch weite Verbreitung gefunden. Moderne Schätzungen gehen von mehr als 220 Gründungen im Laufe des 18. Jahrhunderts aus.") For the hymnal, the article has "which promoted liturgical singing in German." with two sources, [3] and [4]. Neither source discusses the language aspect at all. So it is unclear to me where the hook is discussed and sourced in the article. Fram (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We can drop the journal.
We can be more specific about the hymnal, - while songs were used in German before, it was new that the mass ordinary was sung in German. [5] Will change the article and then word an ALT here. See also Deutsches Hochamt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I pulled it so that the issues can be straightened out properly. Fram, could you please respond to Usernameunique's post in the previous thread so that we can get that one sorted? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I proposed ALT1 in the nom (which is not linked from any nominations page). Review welcome. - I propose that a pulled nom gets back to the open noms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The nomination is back on the nominations page under April 30. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Pulled incorrect hook from prep 3

... that Ghanaian police officer Juliet Appiah is the first female to referee a match in the Ghana Premier League?

Template:Did you know nominations/Juliet Appiah @Crosstemplejay, Vanguard10, and Cwmhiraeth:

The article (even in the title!) only claims that she was the first woman to do so this season[6], and this distinction is quite important, as e.g. Theresa Bremensu already was the referee for a Premier League game in 2016[7] (no idea whether she was the first, just proving that Appiah was not the first). The hook could be completed with "this season", but that's not really a very remarkable fact, and the article needs a thorough cleanup anyway before it should reach the main page, as other claims in it, like "History was made when Juliet Appiah became the first Ghanaian female referee to be awarded a FIFA refereeing badge." are equally incorrect, and the source given for this[8] actually makes it very clear that she was at best the 4th woman to get this. Fram (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Thank you for the review. I must say you are right and I have made the necessary edits to make the article read as such. Please consider the hook below as I have reworded the one above to reflect the changes made in the article. Thanks CrossTemple Jay 10:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

... that Juliet Appiah is the first female police office to referee a match in the Ghana Premier League?

I have just reverted the original promotion/approval and put the nomination back onto the nominations page. It will need a new review, since the original one was clearly flawed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Ascension hymn

I wrote about an ascension hymn on Ascension Day which I felt would be too short for DYK, but now I was wrong ... - Template:Did you know nominations/Christ fuhr gen Himmel, best before Pentecost if possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The thanks were for reviewing. It's now in prep for Pentecost, while I said before. (Ascension is 10 days before Pentecost.) Please either squeeze it in for tomorrow, or have it much later and during the week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving, Yoninah! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

DYK was changed/rephrased after approval

Hello. I have a DYK about Jefferson Street on the main page today, but it's not what was approved. One word was changed. It used to say it was "decimated" by the construction of the interstate, not that it "declined" as a a result of it. "declined" may sound more neutral but I wonder why the change was never discussed. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It was replaced because the word "decimate" was literally incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it was partly decimated literally, and completely so figuratively. But my point is that I wish this had been discussed before posting. Hopefully this won't happen again. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it will happen again all the while badly worded hooks or erroneous hooks get promoted to prep sets and queues. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nominator blocked

Hello -- I started to review a DYK nomination from April, but just discovered that the nominator SirEdimon has since been blocked from editing Wikipedia. What should I do? I don't know if the nominator's block will be permanent or not, but they are currently unable to directly address any issues in their DYK nomination (and there are some issues). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Fail it. The nominator has been indef blocked, we don't encourage those types of people to get main page exposure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yeah, "those types of people", who get indef blocks. hahaha. 86.187.160.123 (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Good input. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty -- will do. Thanks. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Another question, do you know that most of the material is plagiarized? Maybe with permission and pay. Sock puppet? You haven't even spotted the tip of the iceberg. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:71 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks, even for socking, have not always resulted in automatic failures at DYK, but given the issues with this nomination and another by SirEdimon, perhaps the last remaining nomination by this editor, which has been ticked--Template:Did you know nominations/Andreia Norton--should be given another look; plagiarism isn't always so easily spotted, especially when the sources are in a foreign language. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Indef blocked editors should not be allowed the satisfaction of seeing their hooks on the main page of Wikipedia. That's crazy talk. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. If the article is a good one, and the hook is appropriate and interesting, we should not care who created or worked on the article or nominated it. If the user was blocked after the work was done, that is in no sense a reason to fail the hook. Plagiarism is another matter, of course, although if the copy was done with permission, it isn't plagiarism. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and we did it, remember Cassianto's architect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law

Currently in Preparation area 5. I submit that most affordable is more encyclopedic than least expensive. (If my suggestion is accepted, the article ought to be edited as well.) Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the sources say "most affordable"? "Least expensive" presumably refers to tuition and fees; "most affordable" would likely have to include information about financial aid and scholarship availability, which also affects how affordable a school is. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with BlueMoonset. Unless a source invokes the term "most affordable" it can't be presumed UNT@D CoL is most affordable rather than least expensive. I also think, generally, least expensive is more encylopedic than most affordable. "Most affordable" describes a quality and, by doing so, has a persuasive rather than strictly informational function and would (in my opinion) be more appropriate for a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia article. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, you've persuaded me. (You, too, Chetsford.) To answer your question, here's what's in the source cited in the article for the statement UNTD is the least expensive law school in Texas:

UNT's new law school has drawn interest in large part because of its low cost. Full-time, in-state students pay just $14,040 a year in tuition, plus about $500 a year in fees. That's far less than what the state's other law schools charge.

Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychology course students reviewing one another's nominations

Hi, just wanted to make reviewing and promoting editors aware that a batch of nominations (mostly from late April) came from a course in which the students (I have to imagine, innocently) have been nominating entries and then approving nominations for their classmates. Jytdog has tracked down a number of them and it looks as though BlueMoonset had already caught a bunch (well done!), but I thought it was worth flagging the issue, to keep an particular eye out for any psychology-related nominations that may have been developed and approved this way. Meanwhile, I am reaching out to the instructor to ask them to communicate with their students about this (and consider engaging WikiEd for help heading off such issues in the future). Innisfree987 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Secondary mania in Prep 1

... that secondary mania has been associated with caffeine consumption?

It might be all the espresso talking, but I don't think this meets the medical project source guidelines; it's a single case reported in a letter doi:10.1016/S0163-8343(02)00273-6. Perhaps someone could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that that is not well enough sourced to serve as a DYK hook. There's an alt hook on the nominations page that might be viable, but I haven't checked it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha, your wheelhouse Espresso Addict! But yes this nomination is in the batch of student entries I'm concerned about. One's headed toward deletion and others I fear are full of medical claims that have not been properly vetted. I am not a MEDRS expert so I can't say whether the ALT hook is any better but I'm quite nervous about the whole group and would suggest that if someone from the medical project can't be found to have a look, it's better to pull the hook until the whole can be properly evaluated. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've now pulled the hook from prep, further discussion can continue on the nominations page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominating an article during a move discussion

I have a recently expanded article I'd like to nom for DYK but it has to go through a page move discussion. Would it be alright to list it now under its current name, requesting a DYK be put on hold, and change the transclusion link if and when a page move occurs? I don't wish to cause confusion, but neither do I wish to miss the eligibility window. - Reidgreg (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, there's not even a reason to hold. The only thing we should avoid is a move on the day of appearing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Very true Gerda, though it's not entirely debilitating as you can still check the stats manually and add the two together (like what happened at I'm a Good Ol' Rebel.) To the OP, generally it doesn't matter what title the nomination page is under, as long as the syntax coding in the nomination is linked to the correct article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Syntax coding, eh? Well, I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the quick replies. - Reidgreg (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"that compulsive showering in hot water is a common symptom of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome in cannabis users?"

(moved to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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) 23:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 1 - who is Hannah Dobbs?

... that in 1878, Endsleigh Gardens was the scene of a murder for which Hannah Dobbs was acquitted at the Old Bailey? Philafrenzy, Cwmhiraeth, Edwardx, Whispyhistory

This hook would be interesting if "Hannah Dobbs" was notable. Many thousands of people have been acquitted at the Old Bailey. If, and only if, the "wanted" posted could be used and this hook go to the number one slot, would this hook suitable, otherwise what the hook is really saying is just "... Endsleigh Gardens was the location of a murder?". If you can't request the image slot, and inferring from the article, was the murder ever solved? It could be that "... Endsleigh Gardens was the location of a unsolved murder?". And strictly speaking, Endsleigh Gardens wasn't the scene/location for any of this, it was contemporaneously part of Euston Square (indeed, the article states that the murder was called the "Euston Square Murder"). This source has some pretty comprehensive details over the discovery of the remains, which could be included and used as a more interesting DYK (along the lines of the original, much hookier, hook). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get it moved here: User_talk:Cwmhiraeth#Prep_1. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I moved it to the image slot, but I agree with TRM that the hook needs more work. I'm swapping it over to Prep 5 so we have some time to work on this. Pinging @Philafrenzy: and @Edwardx:. Yoninah (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, will look. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know nominations/Dafydd Gibbon

This nomination was incorrectly placed in template talk. I'm having trouble moving it to the template space. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dafydd Gibbon How does it look now? -- Maile (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
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) 22:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Stephen J. Herben Jr.

... that after a future philologist's older brother reportedly shot their missionary mother, their reverend father said he would not let the facts be known?

Gatoclass, a couple minor questions about this that I'd like your input on. Sorry to ask while it's in prep--have been thinking about this, but wasn't expecting it to get promoted without further discussion. First, I've recently been in touch with Herben Jr.'s granddaughter, Sarah Andrews, and she should be able to get some photos fairly soon. Would this be worth running in the first slot if so? Second, how would you feel about expanding it to include the grandparent(s), one of whom I've just created an article on, and another of whom I could do so quickly. It would then read as either:

... that after a future philologist's older brother reportedly shot the missionary daughter of their minister grandfather, their reverend father said he would not let the facts be known?

... that after a future philologist's older brother reportedly shot the missionary daughter of their minister grandfather and preceptress grandmother, their reverend father said he would not let the facts be known? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia

Senin, 21 Mei 2018