Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Belle (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 4 August 2014 (→Older nominations needing DYK reviewers: Strike one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

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

DYK queue status There are currently 7 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 22:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 10 hours ago( verify reset purge )

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Catch and release

• 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Two related issues re what might be called "promotionalism issues"

COI editing

(See my disclosures.) I am passing on a comment that suggests DYK's current backlog struggles further due to COI editors. I don't know if yet another rule is appropriate, but I didn't see anything in particular advising DYK reviewers to watch out for the visible effects that COI editing can have; the references to standard policy and NPOV may not be enough. I think DYK should stay open to all including COI editors, subject to the ordinary content policies, but maybe there should be guidance about promotional content, checking user history for signs of disclosed or undisclosed COI, etc. What say you? Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll stake out a position right now, as a starting point. Under no circumstances should a paid editor be making DYK nominations. Even if the project had the manpower to take on whatever additional evaluatory burden this might entail (which it doesn't right now) a substantial part of DYK's mission is to give editors -- volunteer editors -- a warm inner glow through the momentary recognition of their work. Paid editors already have the cold hard cash in their hand, and don't need any warm inner glow (assuming they're even capable of experiencing such, the mercenaries!). EEng (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Just kidding about mercenaries. Sort of. Mostly.

Support this position. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support this position. Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And especially no DYK if they're planning a coup! EEng (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Well, then. I didn't realize there was such sentiment, but the fact that WP:DYK#Aims and objectives supports your view somehow gives me a warm inner glow. But then a few thoughts come to mind.

• Belated thanks to EEng for promoting my DYK on Jonathan Quinn Barnett, but I guess my paid involvement wasn't obvious enough. Oops!
• I asked about COI in general but you replied about paid COI, so I hope that other COI or close connection is okay because it's more like ordinary bias.
• Since paid editors must disclose, a reviewer who disagrees with paid DYK on new articles would have the simple additional duty of checking the three places among which the disclosure is required.
• Even then, if it's just a consensus sentiment and not a rule, another unconnected editor might be free to review or pass the nom based on taking a different view and independently judging the value of the hook.
• User:CorporateM believes in working all paid articles to GA status, and I'm leaning that way. If a paid article reaches GA it's had broad support and that's quite a different story; might that qualify for DYK?
• And if a paid editor is otherwise aboveboard and says something is not a paid article, I believe others would AGF.
• If a paid editor wanted to suggest DYK without going to GA, might we make a list of editors willing to consider nominating on behalf of paid editors? You could announce something in an appropriate place and we could keep a list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation. Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I discovered an old page where our WikiProject seems to have encouraged DYK submission by COI editors. This presents a good but implicit statement of the opposite practice and also suggests that COI editors qualify for the related award. I think the resolution should be that this page should recommend that potentially conflicted editors request DYK on the talkpages of other editors who have come forth as willing to review such requests and possibly pass them on. But having yet another layer is a bit tortuous. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Prohibition on featuring articles about current political candidates?

Do we have any rules concerning featuring articles regarding current politicial candidates? We should have a prohibition against it, in my opinion. I'm writing about this for the Signpost but I'll give you a preview here. Cam Winton, fourth place candidate in last year's 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election, just told Minnesota Public Radio that his article was created by a friend to promote his campaign. And last October, DYK helped his campaign by putting him on the front page of one of the world's biggest websites twelve days before the election. So congratulations.

So I'm formally proposing amending the DYK rules to prohibit featuring in DYK any article about a political candidate currently running for office for six months prior to the date of the election.

• Support as nominator. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I have seen several articles that look as if they are created by the political team. This rule would also allow wiki editors to avoid coming under pressure if they are working for a candidate to write an article. The article may be written but we don't need to show it here. Victuallers (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• If this gets consensus, I suggest they just be delayed until after the election, rather than rejected. That way no one looses out on DYK eligibility just because they happened to do the work near an election. Monty₈₄₅ 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• This seems reasonable to me. We delay articles for lots of reasons. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although if people only hear "Misplaced Pages delayed a report on until after the election!" then that also can seem biased. Somehow I think the thing to do is completely suspend the nom -- in fact, it would be better if there isn't even a hook on the table, just an abstract "Article about Candidate X" -- all discussion held in abeyance until after the election, the nom just preserving that the nom was soon enough. EEng (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Of course, if we didn't have that idiotic "new content/7 day" preoccupation we could just say, "Don't even make such nominations until after the election."

• Oppose just check for neutrality as per the DYK policy. --Jakob (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Check for neutrality" is a false standard. Just the fact that one candidate gets exposure on MP, while the others don't, is ipso facto not neutral, even if the hook itself is as neutral as "Candidate X's favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla." There's no such thing as neutral when exposure itself is valuable. EEng (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just ask Cam Winton; if not for the three people ahead of him he'd be mayor thanks to DYK. Belle (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Be serious a minute, Belle. Are you saying that exposure on DYK might not make a difference, even the difference, in some cases? EEng (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it could and I'm sure it does for all sorts of things (Is Arthur Beale selling more rope than their competitors this morning? Maybe). I'm certain we should have a rule against promotion of political candidates (and we do), I just found the chastising tone of the introduction a little out of balance with the "help" we gave Cam Winton. Belle (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• We already are checking for neutrality, or should be. That has nothing to do with the issue of using the front page as a promotional tool. Gamaliel (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Putting an article on DYK ≠ promoting the subject of the article unless the hook or the article is promotional. --Jakob (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Surely you are aware that editors have taken money to promote topics via DYK. Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support but there are problems -- for one thing I'm not sure it's easy to tell who's a candidate (officially or unofficially) -- and aren't incumbents always running for re-election, so to speak (term limits aside)? Surely ITN has dealt with this, and I'm sure I've seen something somewhere re N days before elections. Seems to me this conversation could be usefully had in conjunction with ITN (and maybe On This Day), and perhaps at Village Pump. EEng (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: there is already a rule about this on WP:DYK: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. It's basically one month rather than six, but it has been on the books for quite some time, and is usually enforced. Winton's hook should have been delayed until after the election per this rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Then I'd support removing that rule as per my comments above. --Jakob (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• So we just dropped the ball. Hopefully the ongoing streamlining of rule pages will solve the issue of overlooking the more obscure rules. One month seems weaksauce though; six seems more appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• As BlueMoonset states, we have had this rule for a long time. It's a good rule. Contrary to Jakec, it's important because any non-negative publicity (and possibly even negative publicity) that a candidate gets in the run-up to an election could be valuable to the candidate. The fact that the rule didn't get enforced in Template:Did you know nominations/Cam Winton was presumably due to two factors: (1) the hook wording didn't alert DYK reviewers to the political candidacy and (2) the DYK reviewer who OKed it was considered to be highly trusted and competent. Failure to enforce the rule was a case of dropping the ball, as Jakec notes. I recall that the rule was a consideration (discussed somewhere on this talk page) in connection with another Minneapolis mayoral candidate in 2013 (same DYK nominator as Cam Winton, as it happens) for a hook that ran more than 4 months pre-election: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Andrew (politician).

I agree with Jakec that one month might be too short, but 6 months seems to be too long -- in many jurisdictions, elections aren't even announced that far in advance, so when looking at articles about potential candidates, we could get into unresolvable debates about whether an election is likely to be called within the next 6 months. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this is highlighting an issue in DYK whereby everyone gets a pass. The problem is that most of the hooks aren't even "hooks", they're just statements which aren't of any interest to anyone. While DYK claims to be all about getting new editors involved (which is factually erroneous, more later), and while it's used as an easy vehicle for WikiCup etc (more on that later), we should be looking for something interesting in DYK, or else rename it "factoids" or something else equivalently bland to some of the hooks. Who decides which current political candidate hooks are in or out? Or is it a moratorium on these nominations globally? Impossible to adequately define, impossible to implement, pointless and really, it should all boil down to interesting hooks. WP:TFP have a bird every three days or so, but it's a brilliant picture of a bird. Get it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree re many hooks are utterly dull and many others are hardly better, but I don't understand how you can't see that it's inappropriate for us to highlight a current or soon-to-be candidate (upcoming/new products might be another similar category, and there could be other categories as well). In fact, the more interesting the hook, the more inappropriate it would be. EEng (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• "WP:TFP have a bird every three days or so, but it's a brilliant picture of a bird. Get it?" - No closer than seven days apart, in the past few months, and none at all in April to stop people from complaining (I get so tired of that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• But Crisco 1492, there are two today and they are not more than a few pixels apart (excuse me now, I have to go poke a bear. As a joke. ) Belle (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is all brilliant, but we shouldn't have main-page-section-specific rules. Doesn't this kind of thing fall under a Misplaced Pages global WP:COI or WP:POV policy or guideline that we should already be paying close attention to? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As pointed out above, we already have a one-month moratorium; this seems appropriate but six months is surely excessive. Prioryman (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not excessive. It depends on the race. For US presidential candidates six months might not be long enough, sad to say, though this leads to questions about how we determine who's a candidate. For the moment, though, I think we'll soon have a consensus reconfirming that some prohibition is appropriate (there already being such a rule) -- the question then will be the time period and definitional questions. EEng (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not even sure that the one-month moratorium is fully justifiable. There's no evidence that I know of that suggests Misplaced Pages has any political impact. The idea that a DYK article that appears on the Main Page for a few hours one day has any significant impact - that is to say, any more than the presumably significant volume of media coverage of a candidate - seems fanciful. The idea that an article that appears up to six months before an election might have any impact seems frankly outlandish. Prioryman (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. for me this isn't where the problem is. I worry more about overtly tasteless or distressing stuff (current wars, murder cases etc). For me this isn't in the same ballpark. And an interesting fact on some current figure will probably garner more interest than many other hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary censorship of political topics. If elections are motivating editors to write quality content on candidates, then it serves the purposes of DYK to highlight their work just as much as it does to highlight the work of other editors motivated to write quality content for any other current events. Yes, elevating exposure of one candidate may be "unfair" to other candidates, but that same principle is true for virtually every DYK nomination on any topic. Why highlight a particular species of butterfly in DYK when there are thousands? Why highlight a particular artist in DYK instead of others? The answer to these questions is because editors have volunteered their time to work on these articles and bring them to DYK. So long as every editor has an equal opportunity to work on such articles and bring them to DYK, which they do, DYK is achieving its mission of encouraging quality content generation. This principle should apply to all articles nominated to DYK. We should not discriminate against political articles and their editors. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the argument being made here-it increases profile-could be used to prohibit company's pages being featured on DYK-I suspect all the views do lead to a rise in profits, but we can't really ban company articles at DYK. Thanks, Matty.007 20:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; Prototime put it very well. Basically, forbidding articles from appearing on the main page for anything but their quality or physical threats of violence constitutes WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not wild about how many military-related FAs there are and how few language-related ones, but what do I do for that? Fix it by working on language articles myself, not stifle the military editors' work under the aegis of overrepresentation. Tezero (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP. The fact that the OP wasn't aware that there was already a rule of this sort demonstrates that there are too many rules here. Andrew (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Neglected June 18 nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Allan Kournikova is getting ignored because the reviewer (Storye book) has not edited in 10 days. Since this nominee is getting so old maybe someone else should take over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Same situation and reviewer at June 15 nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Horatio Chriesman. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Storye book has suffered equipment failure and has been unable to log in. Both of these noms have had active "review again" icons for a couple of days now, indicating a new reviewer is needed; I'm not sure what more you're expecting should be done here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I was only piggy-backing on the chance to mention here this one was sitting there for the same reason. Not to comment about Storye book, but in hopes someone would see it and finish off the review. And, lo and behold!, Belle came forward and took care of it. Thanks, Belle— Maile (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've stepped in (yes, like an absolute heroine; notes of thanks and gifts will be accepted by my entourage, but don't ask for autographs or photos). Horatio Chriesman I've signed off, Allan Kournikova needs a little tweak. Belle (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Prep 4

There's a funny word, "airgonation", in the third hook, which does not appear in the article or the dictionary. Yoninah (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Added by EEng; I can't see his link, but Google (all hail) seems to suggest that the term was coined by Horace Walpole for travel by hot-air balloon and never caught on until EEng's attempt to popularise it via DYK (don't worry, maligning EEng is just my hobby, he can take it) Belle (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and you're getting better and better at it. I learned the word years ago in the course of some research on John Wilkins. "Horace Walpole, in a 1784 letter describing an ascension balloon he had seen (terming its occupants airgo¬nauts and what they were doing as airgonation) goes on to speculate that Wilkins' "plan of an universal language" had been “no doubt calculated to prevent the want of an interpreter when he should arrive at the moon"'. EEng (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed that word. It seems that User:EEng found it in a dictionary and thought it would be cute to add it to the hook in prep. --Orlady (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I put it back. I didn't find it in a dictionary -- I knew it already. Anyway, it means to travel by hot air balloon , and though the subject probably didn't really travel anywhere in the balloon (just went up, looked around, and came back down) I think that can be forgiven. If people really think it detracts, that's one thing, but that it might "be cute" isn't an argument that that's the case. Hooks are allowed, even encouraged, to be cute. EEng (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I could add the word to the article if you like.

Oh no. I shortened the hook ... but now I see the hook fact isn't cited in the article. Yoninah (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. "Alexander continued his intelligence gathering by volunteering to go up in a hot air balloon at Gaines' Mill on June 27, ascending several times and returning with valuable intelligence regarding the position of the Union Army." (cited to Alexander, Fighting for the Confederacy, pp. 115–17.) EEng (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The part that Yoninah found unsourced (and removed) was the rest of his biography. Meanwhile, please don't edit-war to get your word into the hook, User:EEng. --Orlady (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, those are cited too. "Finding that he no longer desired the Georgia plantation life of his youth, he taught mathematics at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, and then served in executive positions with the Charlotte, Columbia, and Augusta Railroad (executive superintendent), the Savannah and Memphis Railroad (president), and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad (president)." (citing Eicher, Civil War High Commands, p. 101.)

Of three people commenting here, only you seem to actually object. You seem to object that the word is (or tries to be) "cute", but as I said, "If people really think it detracts, that's one thing, but that it might "be cute" isn't an argument that that's the case. Hooks are allowed, even encouraged, to be cute." Let's wait to hear what others think. In the meantime, how about you not edit warring to remove it. EEng (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• So... can anybody cite that airgonation is even remotely in common use? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 9:23 am, Today (UTC−4)

(oops, sorry, lost your comment there for a minute -- now restored) No, it's clearly an anachronism. But hookes routinely use weird words -- it's one way they get to be hooky. EEng (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with EEng's logic. If it says "airgonation" in the hook, it should say it in the article, per DYK rules. The uncited hook fact I was referring to was about going up in an observation balloon. A hot air balloon is not the same thing. And obscurity is not hooky, IMO. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying you can't aviate in a 747 because when the word aviate was coined there were no jets. But hey, if the community think hooks are best when they're cramped and lifeless, I'll defer. EEng (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

1. And that would include Robert Hooke, who really used a lot of weird words, let me tell you.

The bare truth

Quick

Hi, I would really appreciate if someone could review Template:Did you know nominations/Adam Peaty and it be put in a prep before tomorrow, as the 4 by 100 medley finals are tomorrow at 9:00 PM GMT, I would love it to be up then. Thanks, Matty.007 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Two of us are on it, but there's a sourcing problem with 'competes today' -- see nom page. EEng (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, we think this is OK but because of the hurry can a third reviewer take a look? EEng (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Move hooks from prep to queue

I am noting that no hooks are in the queues while two completed sets are in the preps. Someone needs to move at least one set before the next update time, if possible.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 includes a date request for the 29th. It would be good to get this setup for to move to the main page promptly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 29 July 2014 (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:

1. 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.
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) 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is the queue I mentioned last night. There is a date request for today in the next set in the prep area. Please move some sets to the queues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved one hook set to the queue. We're still on a 12-hour update schedule, so it will be a little while before the queue gets promoted. --Orlady (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

UTC please

Can someone please add a UTC column at Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. That is actually the most important time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this so important? London is UTC for a good part of the year, and UTC+1 for the rest of it. The idea for Local update times is to get a feel for when the hooks about people and places from different countries will run: most of Europe is an hour later than the UK, and so on. UTC is not a "Local" time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you live in any time zone other than the 6 chosen you have to calculate differences based on knowing how different the local time is from one of the others. UTC is constant and an easier basis for such calculations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why this is relevant to when future DYK queues will be promoted to the main page. Yours or my local time zone has nothing to do with when a hook will ultimately run (which is what the table is there for), and doesn't matter to the person assembling hook sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, TTT is right on this. In any situation where you're posting Tokyo, SF, NY, London, etc., clocks, it means you're trying to let people worldwide figure this time in their own locality. Unless the set of locations you're explicitly listing is precisely the locations you need (e.g. branch locations of a corporation) it always makes sense to include UTC. Someone who knows that his local time is e.g. UTC+5 shouldn't have the addition trouble of trying to remember if he should add 5 to London, or subtract 1 first or whatever. EEng (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Space constraints limit the number of entries in that local update times table. Anyway, the primary "update time" template is Template:DYK-Refresh, which gives the time of the next update in UTC. The "local update times" template is there only for the convenience of humans who don't think in UTC. The local update times table includes London time and it's immediately below the template that gives the next update time in UTC. With that information, it should be a trivial matter to determine whether the London times are UTC or one hour off, and convert accordingly. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, as TTT just explained, if someone's not one of the listed timezones they need UTC as a starting point to compute the updates times in their local zones; in that sense humans do "use" (i.e. need) UTC, and there's no reason not to give it them. I certainly hope your day job isn't being in charge of airline operations, train schedules, or anthing like that. "It's easy. First, just compare the UTC given in this box to the top entry in the London column of this box. If they're the same, then the London times are the UTC times and you're good to go. Otherwise, UTC is one hour off of the London times, so in that case just add one hour to the London times and tell all the planes to take off then. Or is it subtract one hour? OK, wait. the UTC time is one hour ahead, so London must be..."

There's plenty of width available. Just add a UTC column, preferably to the left of London since London is sometimes the same as UTC, but sometimes one hr ahead. I'd do it myself but there's some hairy code for DST and I gotto get to the li-bary. EEng (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a UTC column, and so far the sky hasn't fallen nor Jupiter left its orbit. I'd feel better if some template wizard checked me, though. EEng (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the last set just archived, I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. Thanks to everyone who reviews.

• June 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Bahrain–United Kingdom relations
• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Trijata
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/List of fictional characters on stamps of the United States
• June 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Woodworth Personal Data Sheet
• June 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Tall: The American Skyscraper and Louis Sullivan
• June 29: Template:Did you know nominations/James McLemore (four articles)
• June 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Buffy hummingbird
• July 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Stratum (album)
• July 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Steven the Sword Fighter
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Fabien Cousteau (four articles)
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Quest
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Gaćinović
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Saints Row: The Third downloadable content, Enter the Dominatrix (two articles)
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Development of Deus Ex
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/EarthBound, fandom, fan translation, Marcus Lindblom (four articles)
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Dexter
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Mihai Ralea
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF
• July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Raphinae
• July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Puig
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Grizzled tree-kangaroo
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Sinaloan mastiff bat
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Isopoda
• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Emmanuel Ifeajuna
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve (eight articles)
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Family Building Society
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Ugly Heart
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Word Crimes
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Health issues in American football
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/La fille aux cheveux de lin (three articles)
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Things Which Have Never Yet Been Done
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Ponte Conde de Linhares
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Basma
• July 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Philcade Building
• July 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Autumn Sandeen

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) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Queue 1

What exactly is the significance of the lead hook in this queue? --Jakob (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The significance is that the requirement that hooks actually be interesting is completely ignored. It may be that in Sweden people would go, "Wow! You mean Elsa Billgren is the daughter ofcErnst Billgren??? Who would have guessed!" (though they'd say it I Swedish, presumably). But this is the English Misplaced Pages and this is a good example of a random fact that has no reason to catch the interest of the typical reader. I'm not picking on this particular hook -- it just happens to be the one that was mentioned -- I'd say at least 1/3 of the hooks coming through are like this. EEng (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Aside from the issue of hook interest (yes, I agree that it's a dull one, but I've generally been a bit more relaxed about that then others) I don't think the article itself is up to par for leading a set. I thought the convention was to ensure that the pictured hook link to a fairly well developed article, not something that just barely passes the 1500 minimum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• In regard to Crisco's last comment: In the last couple of months, I've seen several users assert that the article in the lead hook slot should be fairly well developed. However, I don't recall ever hearing of that rule before, nor do I recall any discussion about adopting it as a rule. The principle as I have understood it is that the image is the main consideration in choosing a lead hook, including (but not limited to) considerations of image quality, inherent interest, visibility at 100px, extent to which the image enhances or adds to the hook, and promoting diversity in image topics.

As for the hook in question (not on the main page), I agree that it's not a particularly interesting hook fact. However, I object to the suggestion that DYK should only feature items likely to be of interest to large numbers of English-speaking readers -- or that we should assume that readers don't care about places that use languages other than English. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As usual you've misrepresented what I said, though (also as usual) I don't know whether that reflects intention, indolence, or just inability. Anyway, I didn't suggest we "should assume that readers don't care about places that use languages other than English" (Christ, I can hardly believe I have to explain this...). What I said was that hooks should have "reason to catch the interest of the typical reader". One way of doing that is to point out a little-known connection between people the reader is likely to already know about, but these two people don't fall in that category, because their celebrity is apparently limited to Sweden, so none of our readers will have any idea what's "hooky" about this father-daughter relationsip. To be interesting to an audience outside of Sweden, it needs to say something whose significance will be understood by people outside of Sweden. That's not asking too much. EEng (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I never said rule, I said convention. I don't have any diffs (it's been a while), but I recall several users stating that they prefer putting better developed articles in the first slot when possible as those are the most prominent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We have GAs and we have 5x articles. They are better developed and should be looked after to lead the set. Not as a rule but just as a guideline set-preping editors should take care of this. For example, in the same set, Skeet Shoot is a GA and DAP Racing is quite a long article. Speeking on the Billgren hook, that's a dull one. In fact inheritance is not even a notable point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Skeet Shoot also has no free images, and DAP is much better as a "quirky". None of the other articles have imges. Orlady does great work, and obviously from the articles in that set Billgren was the best choice... it's just that I'm not too sure the quality of the Billgren image justifies using it rather than something else from T:TDYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming the editor who assembled it. I don't even know who did it. But just wanted to point out that GAs or 5xs should be given preference for leads. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Completely disagree with the assertion that expansions or GAs should be given any preference for the leads. This has never been the case. While I prefer an article that goes beyond the minimum 1500 characters when selecting a lead, a truly stellar image will always grab me. GAs should not be allowed to get first in line. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who asserted that GAs should get preference over, say, 5X, or new articles that are 2500 or 3000 characters? Nobody; even Dharma included 5x expansions. Personally, I'd much rather 10,000 people read an article with 3,000 characters of prose than an article with 1,500. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel this discussion has gone off track. I believe the OP was asking about the hook itself, not its relative position in the set. EEng (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose he was asking for both, more so because of its position. We have promoted such hooks before too, but maybe not as lead hook.

... that writer Anuradha Ramanan is the granddaughter of Tamil actor R. Balasubramaniam?

... that volcanologist Barry Voight, a former professor at Pennsylvania State University, is the brother of Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight and songwriter Chip Taylor?

Am not sure of the current situation of pending vs available DYKs. Are they sufficient enough to run for a long time? Can we afford rejecting such lame hooks altogether? The obvious purpose of the DYK is to present something interesting. While the hidden purpose is to promote new article formation. But not every new article should get to be there. Topics might be notable to stay on wiki but they might be just average in content facts.
While some reviewers are stressing on quality of the article, the hookyness; the most important quality of the hook; is being neglected many times. We have had nominations which slumber forever on various issues and finally get rejected. Why can't "boring hook" be a good enough reason to reject articles? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's where I wind up my broken record: Putting GAs aside, I have long said we should be explicit in telling readers that these are new articles at varying levels of finished-ness, and stop worrying about article quality beyond conformance to core policies like BLP.

The hook, on the other hand, should be ironclad verified, and should be interesting, whatever that means. Yes, there are issues surrounding how to decide what's interesting, but it can be done, by crass voting if need be. I point out that both OTD and ITN manage to somehow decide what 10 things to list each day out of literally tens of thousands of potential candidates, and generally their items really are at least minimally interesting. Only DYK features pretty much everything that's nominated, refusing to dare to make any kind of subjective judgment of worthiness. <end broken record ... for now> EEng (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cebrennus rechenbergi

I need a reviewer to close out Cebrennus rechenbergi and hopefully approve it. It was originally nominated with a host of problems, all of which I believe have been solved. OTRS has authorized the image. In addition, another editor has expanded the article to solve the length problem. I've also helped out the nominator by removing the close paraphrasing and rewriting the article and modifying the hook to remove redundancy. Although I could approve the hook, I believe the work I've done requires another reviewer to step in and look at it from a NPOV. Thanks for any help you can offer. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading that "Cwmhiraeth had approved Cebrennus rechenbergi" made me wonder whether someone's keyboard was intermittently garbling text. EEng (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2014 (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:

1. 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.
2. Once completed edit queue #5 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) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding grammatical errors in Paano Ang Puso Ko?

I was going over some of the articles in the queue and noticed that Paano Ang Puso Ko? is chock-full of grammatical errors. Some phrases are an easy fix, but the plot section is entirely lost on me. Should we pull it from Queue 1 until we can get it copyedited? 23W 23:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that "plot" starts badly and gets more and more muddled. Edwardx (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Already copyedited the plot. Wasn't too difficult, if you're familiar with ESL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! 23W 04:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages