Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 128 Bowling

photo src: www.fame-textile.ru

photo src: www.youtube.com

Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews

Prep 1

I didn't expect Template:Did you know nominations/Grace's Little Belmont to be approved and promoted within 2 days of nomination! We hope and I have been working on expanding the History section - it wasn't incorrect, but it was missing a lot of facts. I just posted the corrected version now, along with a great new image of Wild Bill Davis, and would like to request that the hook be returned to the noms area so (1) an editor can review the new material and confirm it meets DYK criteria, (2) We hope can be added to the creation credits, and (3) the image can be added to the nomination. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Modest proposals

It's worthwhile trying to simplify things, if anyone wants to have a crack at it and post a draught page and what page or pages it'd replace. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

EEng 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more than content to limit DYK to GAs; after all there are hundreds of GANs and DYK could use a quality hike. While Maile66 makes a fair point, i.e. that GAs are promoted by an individual, it would be instructive to see the rate of failure of that process. There's no QPQ, there's no main page badge for a GA (I should know, I have about 163 of them), so the reason for doing it is somewhat different from the lightweight, happy snack DYK approach. I would expect to see the rate of failure of DYK plummet if we stuck to GAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

• Honestly, not a big fan of the idea. I think that even if DYK is failing at the "easy achievement for relatively new editors" notion, it still provides an incentive for people to create and improve articles on marginal topics. I don't mean marginal in terms of notability, but of available information. I've created a good few articles myself on subjects that are clearly notable and obviously important, but that have no chance in hell of reaching GA status in the near future, given the paucity of information available. There's flaws with both processes, for certain; but they're not going to be solved by clubbing them in this strange way. GAN needs more scrutiny, and more thorough reviews. DYK needs (among other things) to simplify its rules, and focus more on some basics like hook accuracy and hookiness. Which is sort of where this post started, it seems to me....Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is one of the reasons why I !voted against GAs being allowed on DYK. I knew that there would eventually be a creep towards GA trying to take over DYK's position. This is proving my point. DYK as it is currently allows for new and improved articles to be showcased on the main page while also gaining articles exposure to editors who might be able to help improve each individual article. Not to mention it gives new editors a chance to show what good work they have done and also allows for smaller articles to make it. To make it GAs only (of which most reviewers seem to just give out free passes to just because they are GAs and we have had more than our fair share of GA DYKs being pulled) would actually lower the quality as inaccurate hooks can be hidden and not to mention makes it very unwelcoming to newer editors. Also making a lottery on what runs will only benefit us regulars who will only vote to run what we have a personal interest in. As I have always said, interest is subjective, and while the regulars may vote an individual DYK as uninteresting and essentially censor it from appearing on the main page, others may well find it very interesting and want to read about it but they wouldn't be able to because us regulars would have been the self-appointed guardians of the project and censored it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• EEng What you are attempting is a takeover by GA of the DYK slot on the main page. At the end of the day, it's about the prize on the main page. -- Maile (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• DYK is supposed to be about showcasing new content, confining DYK to GAs would kill that. GAs aren't that great either - a lot of the GA articles I have looked at here don't even pass the DYK criteria, let alone meeting legitimate GA standard. The GA process is a joke, it's even less rigorous than DYK because it requires only one reviewer whereas DYK nominations are generally looked at by multiple users. Also, the GAN process only produces 3 or 4 passed articles per day, which not only is not enough to fill even a single hook set, it isn't remotely enough to produce a sufficiently large pool from which to build a varied set. I just think the idea is a non-starter. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• If it works, don't fix it The original issue here was a request for Grace's Little Belmont to be given a bit more time. It appears that this was done and done correctly. As this incident was resolved expeditiously, there doesn't seem to be a problem that needs fixing. Opening up the discussion into a radical reworking of DYK seems to be quite off-topic. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Brunswick Bowling Austell Video

18 verified hooks

It looks as if we only have 18 verified hooks, and only 167 hooks overall. That isn't nearly enough. We may have to slow down to one update per day for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Give me a day or two and I can whip up 70 articles ;-) But in all seriousness I agree there seems to be a slump, if we go to one a day for a bit it would help. And while there have been issues found in prep, I am just glad they were not found on the main page - we're actually using the prep areas as intended, keeping the main page more error free. But there have been too many "approved" hooks I was not able to move by doing a simple check before moving, that is really concerning.  MPJ-DK  18:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the input, I have reset the clock to run one update every 24 hours. I agree that we should probably go back to eight-hook sets while this rate is in place. We can review the situation again in a week or two. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ BlueMoonset, I am struggling to understand the logical steps here. Maile66, any chance you could do what BlueMoonset is requesting? I have already verified the set in Prep 6. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. Thank you for the assistance BlueMoonset. Gatoclass (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Would it be fair to say they took a trip down mammary lane? EEng 16:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.specialolympicsga.org

Visual oddity on the bot review

I see the same thing with both Firefox and IE. I purged the page several times. Template:Did you know nominations/Epinecrophylla shows the Review bot check all four hooks. But if you look at it Here, it looks like the Review did not much at all. @Cwmhiraeth and Intelligentsium: ? Something funky happened here, but I'm guessing it was DYK funky and not bot funky. -- Maile (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.regmovies.com

Notes on quality

Now we have a more optimal turnover rate (as I'd suggested several times) of one set of eight per 24 hours, we should be capable of reviewing each set properly before it gets promoted to the main page. Please remember to check that the hook is cited correctly (ideally with more than one citation) and please, please, please read the rest of the article to ensure that errors aren't found there too. Check for violations of the fair use of images, check that articles are categorised correctly and aren't stubs. If you have the knowledge, check the articles meet some of the basics of the WP:MOS. Yes, each hook and article will have been reviewed two or three times before the set is built, but errors still make it through, all too often. Between us, we should be able to cover those quality control items for eight hooks per day reasonably easily, as long as people genuinely care for the quality of the DYK project and its ongoing existence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.starsandstrikes.com

Low on approved hooks

Putting together Prep 5 this morning I found that we're a little low on approved hooks, especially approved hooks where there are no issues. The "Approved" number on the page looks higher than it is since the bot cannot tell when anything LavaBaron is involved in needs a second approval so the numbers are off. I am going to go through and pull in approved hooks to get as much in the preps and then I am going to do a round of reviews, but that means I cannot move those hooks to prep areas.  MPJ-DK  10:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.superpages.com

Error on Main Page for 12 hours, after involved admin reverted it ion the main page to the wrong version!

• ... that a group of people carried fake breasts over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer?

Template:Did you know nominations/Tamar Bridge @Ritchie333, Cwmhiraeth, MPJ-DK, and Gatoclass:

This one is really very problematic, and may ned further action. The above, incorrect hook was nominated by Ritchie333 and approved and promoted by Cwmhiraeth and MPJ-DK. It was then at the last minute, but correctly, changed by Gatoclass[1] to read:

• ... that a group of people removed their boobs pending a walk over the Tamar Bridge to highlight breast cancer?

The source [2] clearl indicates that the breasts were removed, so Gatoclass was completely correct to change this.

Ritchie333 then changed the hook back to the promoted version[3] while it was already on the fully protected Main Page, and despite being the nominator of the article and hook (making him clearly and undeniably involved). So restoring an error to the Main Page while clearly very involved, I don't think one can do much worse than this...

I wanted to note it here first, as pulled hooks get discussed here first, but I'll probably put this on WP:ANI as a very problematic admin action. Fram (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• As the chief hooker in charge of titillating (get it?) hooks, what I don't get is that "removed their boobs" is a way hookier hook anyway, in addition to literally following what the source says. EEng 20:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• The source does not say they carried them, but it does say they removed the costumes before they got on the bridge, and the point according to the source was that they were removed before the bridge so as not to distract. So, Fram appears to be right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup I agree, did not look close enough at the source when building the prep.  MPJ-DK  20:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • And there it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Whoop there it is? There is what exactly? If that was a hook it would be yanked off the main page for being too ambiguous.  MPJ-DK  22:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • There is another example of how the quality of reviews here is a timebomb for the project. Sling it into the current Arbcom case melting pot... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• No idea of this meltingpot you are stirring somewhere else but whatever floats your boat I guess?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is perhaps water under the bridge now but I like to get to the bottom of such mysteries. My impression from this source and that source is that the focus of the walk was the bridge rather than it being a crossing point to somewhere else. So, when they were refused permission to wear the costumes on the bridge, they will have taken them off and walked across without them. After parading on the bridge, they then will have walked back, recovered the costumes, and then gone back to their college student's union. The bridge is 34 miles from the college's main centre in St Austell so it may be that they had a coach to take them to the bridge, rather than walking there. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: hulafrog.com

Queue 1

• ... "that the first public house officially visited by Queen Elizabeth II was the Bridge Inn, Topsham?"

There's nothing wrong with this hook, but the interesting thing is that it took the Queen 46 years of her reign to officially visit a public house, given that they are such an intrinsic part of British life. I wonder if this could be added? i.e....

• ... "that Queen Elizabeth II first officially visited a public house, the Bridge Inn, Topsham, in the 46th year of her reign?"

Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• This sounded like an unlikely "first" and quick browse soon finds coverage of the Queen visiting a new pub in Stevenage in 1959. This was reported in Parliament too and so seems reasonably "official". This indicates that the claim should be toned down. Andrew D. (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.superpages.com

Not an error as such

But the DYK about David Pountney is completely non-understandable, and going to the page doesn't explain it any further. Red Fiona (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• So the DYK is not about Pountney but the Merchants of Venice article in bold, If you look for this in Pountney's article it is possible you won't find it. In there he is quoted as stating something along the line of "I was part of the silence, now I am part of the noise" - Mercantile = Merchant.  MPJ-DK  11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.ohiochristian.edu

DYK nompage links

Can we add a link just to the nompage in the nompage links (which display as "( Review or comment Article history )" under the article name on T:TDYK). The current "Review or comment" link automatically takes the user to the edit screen, which may not be desirable if a user simply wants to view the nomination without editing it. The relevant pages are Module:DYK nompage links and Template:DYK nompage links. Unfortunately I don't have experience with Lua, the wiki scripting language to do it myself (and I'm also not able to edit these pages as a non-admin/template editor). Intelligentsium 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.superpages.com

Jason Spriggs, Queue 3

I have linked "All-American" in the hook to College Football All-America Team, as the term will be meaningless to most of those outside North America, and it isn't explained in his article either. Could someone more au fait with American Football just check that I have linked to the correct article, please. (I was going to link to All-America originally, but it's a terrible, mostly unsourced article). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.regmovies.com

Queue 2

The article says "During her mid-twenties, she spent a period of two years not looking in mirrors;" i.e. she didn't stop looking in mirrors period, as implied by the hook, it was a brief interlude of two years. The hook should be made more accurate or replaced with something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: -- Maile (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also @Gatoclass: as the queue's promoting admin, just so he knows this question is out there. -- Maile (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(<-) Could someone please close this thread? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

photo src: www.superpages.com

Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden

Why is the last bit of this approved nom sticking out at T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on August 8? Something funny with that "</noinclude>" before DYKReviewBot's signature at 19:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)? --PFHLai (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• The issue seems to be the bot code itself. Please see Problem with the closing "/noinclude" tag when the DYK template closes. -- Maile (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed the problem (many thanks to BlueMoonset for an exceptionally detailed issue report!). This was due to a brain fart on my part for using noincludes without realizing nested noincludes don't play nice after the DYK templates are substituted once a decision is taken. I had assumed the inner pair of noincludes would just do nothing but apparently the MW software only reads up to the first close tag and then closes both of them.

It's always OK to hand edit them to clean them up as the bot doesn't touch them again after but as this may be a lot of work, it may make more sense simply to remove or comment out affected nominations. I have applied a fix for future reviews, moving to a collapsible box rather than a noincluded bot review, per one of the other suggestions in the original discussion. However, it should be noted that while this keeps the nominations page more tidy than showing the reviews by default, unlike the noinclude solution, this does not address the issue of load time as everything in the hidden box is still part of the page HTML and thus still has to be rendered by the user's browser. Intelligentsium 04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Negative BLP hook in next set

• ... that Mexican politician Marco Antonio García Ayala has been described as a "ghost deputy"?

Template:Did you know nominations/Marco Antonio García Ayala @Raymie, Cwmhiraeth, and MPJ-DK:

Now in prep5, the next prep to hit the main page. This seems to run against our DYK rule that "[...] hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.". The source is a column in a local newspaper.[4]. Fram (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's an opinion piece by the looks of it as well, not a investigative story. Pull. Black Kite (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

I think that "so far" is superfluous here as "in all three" comprehensively defines the scope. Alternatively I suppose you could lose the "three"? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

Sadly, this can be read as either Nat Polen or Jim Craig dying from pancreatic cancer in 1981. Please reword to avoid the ambiguity, I've already fixed two other hooks in that set, and made some obvious corrections to the target articles, as approved by a reviewer, promoter, admin etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Heber Robert McBride hook would be hookier if "ill-fated" were inserted before "Martin Handcart Company". Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New update needed

Can somebody please put a new update together? I can't verify an update to load into the queue if there are no updates. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I will work on Prep 6 to get the last 5 hooks in it.  MPJ-DK  11:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing and promoting in the post-DYKReviewBot era

When reviewing a nomination or promoting a hook to Prep, please have a quick look at the article history for anything that significantly altered the article from what was reviewed by either the bot or the human. To be clear, I'm not laying blame on anybody, just giving an example of why it is important to glance at the article history. The Triggering had so many significant edits that it lost half its size since the bot review, and was not the same article. The bot review version, first human review version. So, please, what you are reviewing or promoting might not be the same version DYKReviewBot, or any subsequent reviewer, signed off on. -- Maile (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

The article says that it's only in areas monitored by TEDES that this reduction was observed (to whit: It was reported that the number of traffic collisions at the TEDES-monitored intersections and fast lanes in Gaziantep declined by about 40% within two months...), not in the whole city of Gaziantep. Hook needs clarification or pulling so it can be revised into something succinct. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 bowling hook

• ... that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was the initiator of the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?

Template:Did you know nominations/Moses Bensinger @Yoninah, Doug Coldwell, and Jsayre64:

As far as I can tell from the article, he was the initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which was the initiator of the rules and regulations. And even the claim that he was the initiator of that congress is debatable, it looks as if Joe Thum has at least as much claim to being the initiator of the congress and the rules and regulations. E.g. the Bowlingmuseum.com mentions the essential role of Thum, but doesn't discuss Bensinger at all. Here as well they discuss the role of Thum and also mention Thomas Curtis, but no mention of Bensinger. Looking there for Bensinger gives no results. The Historical Dictionary of Bowling doesn't mention Bensinger at all! It mentions again Thum's role in 1895, and it mentions the Brunswick company (but nothing about them for the period of the hook), but nothing about Bensinger... This book lists four crucial members at the founding of the ABC, but doesn't include Bensinger (he isn't mentioned anywhere in this book on bowling).

Other sources do indicate that Bensinger helped founding the ABC[5]("played an important role in establishing the ABC")

It seems to me that Bensinger can be described as an initiator of the ABC, which was in its turn the initiator of the rules etc. But to go from this to the hook seems quite a stretch. Fram (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have verified the four hooks already in Prep 6, but since I had to pull the other three for various reasons, I am probably not going to have time to put this update together now, so someone else will have to complete and promote it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

So what? The clearly needed link here is that it's "commonly thought to depict the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus". Missing that fact from the hook makes it relatively pointless unless we expect all things called "Brutus" in some form are supposed to represent all things called "Brutus". Plus, I'm not sure why we need the "(d. 509 BC)" as we've already covered that this is ancient Rome we're talking about. Please reword swiftly and succinctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass you promoted this, so I'll leave it to you to fix this issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, everyone. So I'm a newbie and I'm interested in getting a DYK done, but the whole process seems so complicated. I'm writing my draft at Draft:Devonshire White Paper and I'm looking for someone to guide me through the process. I asked Shubinator and they directed me here. If anyone would like to help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

...that King Henry IV's English invasion of Scotland in 1400 was delayed while they waited for the king's tents to arrive? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

Cwmhiraeth, AKS.9955, Antidiskriminator: The Mijo Babi? article has been recently tagged since 27 August as requiring a copyedit. Despite that, it was promoted four days later with nothing in the article being addressed. I've had a cursory glance - this really isn't the quality of article even DYK should be aspiring to post on the main page. Suggest it is pulled and given the needed care and attention before it is promoted to a queue again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

I found this confusing as when I went to the Hamilton article, it stated that it wasn't the musical per se but a "a workshop production of the show" which comprised just "the first act of the show and three songs from the second act". Maybe that's covered by "was first presented at" (which I also find odd phrasing). It also notes that it was actually called The Hamilton Mixtape when performed. And actually, part of Hamilton appears (according to its own article) was performed first at the White House... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that an act from the musical Hamilton was first presented at Vassar College as part of the Powerhouse Theater program? Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Though I think it would be hookier to have something like:

• that award-winning Broadway shows Hamilton, Bright Star, and The Humans were workshopped at the Powerhouse Theater? Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Paging Bobamnertiopsis for comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shit Museum

Malformed nomination. Could somebody correct this. Thanks. And my apologies. 7&6=thirteen (?) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog) on August 28

BlueMoonset, The Wordsmith We have an error here. How do we fix it?

Please check the history on this article.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Right Stuff (blog) was opened on June 23, 2016 and closed July 9 as being merged with Triple parentheses.
• The merge was done on July 15, 2016, leaving behind a redirect.
• The Wordsmith recreated this article over the redirect on August 28.
• The old article had been pending-changes protected on June 8, which has carried over to this recreation.
• A second DYK nomination was created at the bottom of the old closed nomination, on the same template.
• A footnote appears at the end of the hook, causing the footnote to mysteriously appear at the very bottom of the nominations page below the special holding area.

This article never should have been recreated and needs to be converted back to a redirect. We can't just delete the article and salt it to prevent it from being recreated, because there are hundreds of pages that link to the redirect.

Meanwhile, BlueMoonset, what do we do about this template? Sitting in the nominations area, it messed up the formatting. Scroll to the December 25 special holding area to see what I mean. -- Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• First off, I removed the reference, that was an error on my part. It fixed the formatting error. Second, I'm not sure what the procedure is for a second nomination after a failed first nomination is. I don't know that there's much precedent. Third, there's nothing wrong with rewriting an article that had previously been redirected, especially if there are new sources used and the content is substantially different (both are true). That's why the DYK template has a specific option for articles created from a redirect. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Set builder needed

We need somebody to complete the set in Prep 3 as the queue is empty again. I can verify completed sets, but I can't both build sets and verify them, it's too much to do. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In Prep 3

... that golfer Thomas Detry broke the Challenge Tour record for largest winning margin with his 12-shot win at the 2016 Bridgestone Challenge?

• So let's start by pining hook creator @Fram: and then reviewer @Herostratus:. Being in the prep area means this will hit the main page at some point soon so this requires immediate attention. The actual fact used for the DYK hook is not directly sourced in the article, there is a source after the next sentence, but not the hook sentence and that is not acceptable.  MPJ-DK  11:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that we're all human and no one is infallible.  MPJ-DK  12:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just one thing more that perhaps I should add - the rule requiring the cite to be placed directly at the end of the sentence containing the hook fact was originally added because many nominators would forget altogether to add a cite, or would put the cite someplace where it was difficult to identify. So the rule is there for the convenience of reviewers, it's not meant to be something that a reviewer must ensure has been done before approving a nomination. Nominators should certainly follow the rule, but if they have failed to do so and the reviewer was nonetheless able to find the cite with ease, then there is no problem and the review should move ahead regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2016 (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) 22:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible cock up

I did this one earlier, but not sure if I finished the process properly? Any advice, accusations of hoaxing, or other assistance most welcome  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:15, 6 September 2016 (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) 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Q6 Sandra Blow

I've just noticed in Q6 it says Sandra Blow made glass screens for Heathrow's departure lounge. I think that is a bit vague as Heathrow Airport has more than one departure lounge as they have more than 1 terminal. I think that the hook should be clarified as to which terminal it was or reworded to be more general. The Royal C (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's nothing to do with that. The hook needed to be fixed. It was misleading. End of. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've amended the hook to conform with the source highlighted by Andrew D. This is unfortunately one of those issues that occasionally turn up when the source for a hook turns out to be incorrect. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 15. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 46 nominations have been approved, leaving 139 of 185 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the six that are over a month old; they all need a reviewer's attention.

Over a month old:

• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Kunwar Singh Negi
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rogue Fitness
• July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Mani Yadanabon
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cash Trapped (two articles)

Other old nominations:

• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Region, Nigeria
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mathilda Twomey
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Satoshi Mitazono
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Bathurst Deane
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Eliza Walker Dunbar
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Political designations in Massachusetts
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Elizabeth Manning James
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Bolivia
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Rangers signing policy
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesús Sesma Suárez
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ioan Kalinderu
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Captain Rex
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Swift videography
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/A??n Bridge
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Heroes of Remix
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gustavo Cárdenas Gutiérrez
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/José Antonio Arévalo González
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Clare Palmer
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Street Bridge (Portland, Oregon)
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Kentucky Avenue Renaissance Festival
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Talbieh Camp
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Black
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/La Negra Formation
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/T. J. Friedl
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Revival (comics)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Nutcracker dolls

Currently the lead hook in Prep 6. I'm thinking this could be saved over for Christmas? We didn't have enough variety in the Christmas sets last year and I'm thinking this one would make a nice addition. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek hooks

Prep area 2, 3 and 4 are for the Star Trek anniversary hooks in the special holding area. I have put in a total of 16 hooks in the 21 spots - and there are three hooks I reviewed so I cannot move those: Lincoln Enterprises, Ronald B. Moore, Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation). once they are moved by someone we'd have all Trek hooks in with two spots open, so close to a clean sweep.  MPJ-DK  02:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

REALLY, REALLY, REALLY important. We've had several weeks to know this anniversary was coming up. For those of you who like perfection hooks and articles, you've also had that long to review everybody else's work. If you have questions, please list the hook and details here, rather than wait and pull something from either prep, queue or the main page.-- Maile (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• That is also one of the the reasons I filled ALL prep areas, get eyes on the hooks before they hit the Queues or main page. And the Paralympic hooks are next, anyone feel like giving them a once-over that would be great as they are up soon too.  MPJ-DK  13:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Linda DeScenna hook, Prep 4

• Linda DeScenna hook, Prep 4. Yoninah When I loaded this hook, I left an edit summary saying I have changed "five" to "5" to keep the hook within the 200 character limit. When you changed it back, it then exceeded the limit. I have reverted it back to "5". -- Maile (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Janeway Lambda hook in Prep 4

• "... that Janeway Lambda one was the first holonovel to be featured on the Star Trek franchise?". Holonovel redirects to Holodeck which is a terrible collection of mostly unsourced fancruft and original research (which doesn't even explain very well what a holonovel is). Is there a way of rewriting the hook without linking to it? Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: @Black Kite: Thank you both for your input, but I disagree with your comments. The lead does in fact distinguish between fictional and real-life events as it discusses the production, writing, and filming of the scenes involving this narrative element as well its reception so I have no idea where you are getting that from to be honest. I clearly identify what the "holonovel" means in the context of the show as "a holographic simulation" so I am not entirely sure how it can make it more apparent than that, and how it operates within this specific instance/storyline.

And the first two paragraphs you are referring to discuss how this narrative element is used on the show itself so by that its very nature, it has to be in-universe. All of the subsequent sections (Production, Themes, and Reception) discuss it as a fictional narrative element so again I do not understand your point of criticism regarding that fact either. The criticism that this page does not distinguish between fictional and real-life events is completely invalid IMO.

I have provided two alternative hooks belowf that hopefully can be used:

• ALT1: ... that the set used to shoot the Star Trek: Voyager subplot Janeway Lambda one was nicknamed "the Jane Eyre set" by the filming crew due to its similarity to locations from the novel?
• ALT2: ... that the Star Trek: Voyager subplot Janeway Lambda one was developed as a futuristic adaptation of audiobooks?

If you do not believe that either of these ALTs are appropriate for the main page, then I am open to suggestion (particularly @Miyagawa: since he has the most experience working with DYKs from the Star Trek franchise) or I could just remove this completely. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead does in fact distinguish between fictional and real-life events as it discusses the production, writing, and filming of the scenes involving this narrative element as well its reception - Aoba47.

I'm sure it does to you, because you have presumably read and understood the source material. What I am telling you, from the POV of somebody who knows nothing about this topic, is that the lede reads like gobbledegook. I have tried to read it half a dozen times now, and I still can't understand what the heck it is trying to say. If you need a few pointers on some of the issues:

Janeway Lambda one is the name of a fictional computer program in the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. So far so good.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures of the Starfleet and Maquis crew of the starship USS Voyager after they were stranded in the Delta Quadrant far from the rest of the Federation. Uh, wait, I thought the topic here was "Janeway Lamba one", so what are we discussing here, Janeway Lambda one the fictional program series or Star Trek Voyager, the actual television series? And if the latter, what is this sentence doing here when the topic is something else?

Developed by series creator Jeri Taylor What was developed "by series creator Jeri Taylor", Janeway Lambda one, or are we still talking about Star Trek: Voyager? Is Jeri Taylor a character in the series Star Trek: Voyager who developed the computer program Jane Lambda one, or is she a real person who developed the television series Star Trek: Voyager?

... the program name was given by Captain Kathryn Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) Wait, are we talking about a fictional event, where the program name was given by a character called Captain Kathryn Janeway, or a real event, where the name of the fictional program called Janeway Lambda one was given by Kate Mulgrew?

... for her holonovel, a holographic simulation in which she plays the governess Lucille Davenport in a fictional gothic novel. For her holonovel? Whose holonovel, Kate Mulgrew's or Kathryn Janeway's? Is this holonovel Janeway Lambda one itself, or is it a "fictional gothic novel" named after the computer program Janeway Lambda? And who is the "she" referring to in the sentence, the fictional character Kathryn Janeway or the real-life actor Kate Mulgrew?

Now, all that confusion from just the first three sentences, and the rest is no more transparent. It needs a rewrite. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Having spent some time reading a bit of the rest of the article and the holonovel article, I think I have a better handle on these admittedly complex concepts than I had before, so I might as well suggest some changes myself. I suggest the article open with something like:

Janeway Lambda one is a holonovel, or advanced virtual reality adventure, experienced by one of the characters in the television series Star Trek: Voyager. The character's experiences within the holonovel are presented as sub-plots across several episodes of the Star Trek: Voyager series.

- Something like that would be a much better way IMO to present these otherwise quite complex concepts to somebody totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. With a couple of plain statements of this type at the outset, the likelihood of the reader becoming further confused by what follows ought to be greatly reduced. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Since we are running out of time to discuss this, I decided it would be quicker to just make a few edits myself. I think the intro reads a lot more transparently now and prepares the reader for what follows. The rest of the article appears to be reasonably well written, so I think this is ready for main page exposure now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Gatoclass Another editor swapped to ALT1 hook in Prep 4 three days ago. If you have problems with the hook, please speak up now. Otherwise, it will eventually go to Queue 4 with the other hooks. -- Maile (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: Thank you for the update. I just want to make absolutely sure. The ALT1 hook is perfect. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

World Enough and Time (new nom just promoted)

Just to be aware, I've created another spare article/nomination should it be needed at Template:Did you know nominations/World Enough and Time. Needs a review, but the hooks are really straight forward. I hadn't written it specifically for this, but it's there if needed. Miyagawa (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Galileo (Star Trek) (needs review)

Awesome. Do we want an 8th hook for that third set, because I could certainly rustle something up. Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Done Reviewed and ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Timing

• Do we really want three solid days of Star Wars Trek hooks, isn't that a bit excessive? How about reverting to changing sets every 12 hours for the duration? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No we certainly don't want 3 solid days of Star Wars hooks, it's crap compare to Star Trek anyway. If you note the discussion I raised above about "Trouble Ahead", the agreement was to revert to 3x7 for that day only. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 121

It has just occured to me that the image currently in Queue 2 is a small snippet of a larger image which is going to appear at the same time on the main page as Today's Featured Picture - File:The Shuttle Enterprise - GPN-2000-001363.jpg. Is this an issue? I could swap out the image in the article for File:Gene roddenberry 1976 cropped.jpg and then the one in Queue 2 could also be switched. It just isn't as good a photo. Another alternative would be if a cropped version of File:MONY Gene Roddenberry.JPG would be created (since the full size image wouldn't work as a thumb for DYK purposes). That perhaps might be the preferred photo since that image actually dates closer to the crash than the current shot. Miyagawa (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Bradley Cooper

FrB.TG I just saw this in Prep 1:

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of the ten actors to receive an Academy Award nomination for acting in three consecutive years?

Seems a little awkward to me. It sounds like he was nominated for being gainfully employed three years in a row. How about wording it exactly as you have it in the article?

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of the ten actors to receive an Academy Award nomination in three consecutive years?

It sounds so much more clear worded that way. What do you think? -- Maile (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What about

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is one of only ten men to be nominated for an Academy Award for acting in three consecutive years?

That way, you make it clear that it is about acting nominations only, and you make it clear that "actors" here only applies to male actors, not actresses, and you avoid the duplicate actor / acting. Fram (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that Bradley Cooper (pictured) is the tenth man to be nominated for an Academy Award for acting in three consecutive years?

Image for 1st Trek set (up now)

The image used appears to be a crop of today's Featured Image. Is there another suitable image available? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek Day: Trouble Ahead

I have just noticed on Star Trek Day (8 September), we have 20 approved hooks. Given we have just gone to 1 set a day, I can foresee a problem here. I am bringing this to the community's attention so we are aware there is a potential issue with a large number of hooks here. Will the solution be we go to 2x8 (and lose a couple) or 3x7 for that day? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was wondering that myself too, two sets of 8 would still leave 4 out - but perhaps the rest can run on different days? MPJ-DK  16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Pringles unsung

Currently in prep 3, we have an article on Pringles Unsung, a music competition, which has no information on the actual competition, like, I don't know, who won it? Aren't DYK articles supposed to be comprehensive? This one, while long enough for DYK, can hardly be described as anything but a stub IMO. I can't even tell, from the article, whether it had one edition, two or more ("Pringles Unsung was a music competition in the United Kingdom that ran from 2006 to 2007" is all it says, and that line seems to be unsourced). A highly unsatisfactory article. Fram (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• An article about a talent competition which does not actually tell you what the result was is, or who won, is pretty pointless IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get around to looking at that one yet. If the problem is that it fails to name the winner, that can probably just be added from one of the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken code on WP:DYKN

I am encountering a lot of broken code at WP:DYKN over the last couple of days, for example, the NSO Group nomination looks like it has been verified on the nominations page, but it actually hasn't, the verification belongs to another nomination that is half hidden. I've come across several of these in the last 24 hours, and it's making it difficult to select nominations as some of them show verifications that don't apply while others can't be accessed at all. We need somebody with a bit of technical expertise to go through the page and try to track down and correct the error or errors. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, I note that several days on the DYKN page - August 16 and 17, for example - start with broken code, which may be of some assistance in tracking down the error. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Amafufunyana hook - inaccurate?

Did you know that amafufunyana is believed by the Xhosa peoples to be caused by demonic possession, but is actually schizophrenia?

Is this hook actually accurate? Emphasis on the use of the word actually in the hook. The article says that the term is applied to people suffering from schizophrenia. But it doesn't say that it isn't demon possession. And demon possession, as something that is supernatural, is something that couldn't be scientifically determined or not as a cause, I would venture to say. I'm fine if the hook is left as is, or is tweaked or pulled. This comment was more for future reference. I personally think that a statement like "that amafufunyana is believed by the Xhosa peoples to be caused by demonic possession, and describes schizophrenics?" or something like that (probably could be polished up more) would be more neutral and accurate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled it for now, as there seems to be little enthusiams for keeping it as is in any case. @Silver seren, Yoninah, and MPJ-DK: Fram (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggested alt:
• ... that while the condition known as amafufunyana is associated by the Xhosa people with demonic possession, the preferred treatment is shifting to psychiatric assessment? Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Which seems also to suffer heavily from selection bias. This is the source, which is about "the experience of 10 Xhosa-speaking schizophrenic patients attending a community psychiatry clinic in Cape Town": yes, among these ten people already at a psychiatry clinic, the preferred treatment is the "use of psychiatric services". How many are not using psychiatric services? How many have used psychiatric services but no longer do so? Your hook may be correct, but is not supported by the source. That source actually also makes it clear that the original hook was indeed very dubious, as amafufunyana is a lot more complex than simple being "actually schizophrenia". Fram (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Wow, that was incredibly rude on all your parts. And the suggestion to remove the end part was just fine. And your issues with it are really just technical nonsense that could have been fixed with a single word change if necessary ("actually" to "often"). Do you normally treat other editors with such disdain, @Fram:, @Gatoclass:, @The Rambling Man:? How many editors such as myself wake up to find you all badmouthing them for a technicality in wording? Silverseren^C 18:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  While you're here, could you clarify where, in particular, I "bad-mouthed" you? That would be very helpful. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren: Welcome to the world of DYK, which is currently suffering from people, and their hangers on, who pull hooks off the main page (sometimes for ridiculous reasons), are scornful, rude and disparaging to others, and generally bully the rest of us, with the result that many editors who used to help with DYK regularly have curtailed their activities, or been driven away from the project altogether. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Silver seren and Cwmhiraeth: what in my posts in this section was "incredibly rude", "scornful, rude and disparaging"? I agree that I pull hooks of the main page (though never for ridiculous reasons), but the rest of your post is a severe personal attack. I only discussed the hook and sources, not the editors involved with it. There was 6 hours between the initial post here and my first reply, and a further hour between that and my pull. Should we have waited until Silver seren was again available for comments? Then you can just as well close down this page, as all anyone would have to do to make certain that his or her hook remained on the main page was keep quiet for a few hours. So how should I have handled this, in your opinion? Fram (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have modified a couple of my comments above, which in retrospect might be read as unduly abrasive. My response arose from a growing sense of exasperation about the number of issues I have been finding in nominations that need to be dealt with, at a considerable cost in time, but Silver seren is not personally responsible for the systemic problems, nor is there any reason to single him out for particular criticism. I do understand how difficult it can be to write an appropriate hook when one is the author of a new article and still very close to the source material, so again, chief responsibility for identifiying hook issues lies with the initial reviewer. At the same time, however, I think it bears repeating to all nominators that if you take the time to craft your hook with sufficient care, you will be in no danger of having your hook removed prematurely from the main page regardless of the quality of the initial review. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible hoax?

I'm always a bit bothered when I see an article with no checkable references. English invasion of Scotland (1400) is one of those. I can see no mention of an English invasion in the Henry IV of England article, although that may be simply because the invasion was apparently short and uneventful, but still, it would be nice if somebody with some expertise in this area took a closer look at this one before it gets promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Gatoclass In any case, has this been pulled. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

In the next due update:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a reported comment by a Kent official claiming women only made teas in there?

- This hook has been bothering me for a while, because while I understand more or less what it is trying to say, it's not getting the point across very clearly IMO. I would suggest something along the lines of:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a Kent official's reported suggestion that women there were only good for tea-making? Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Or more simply:

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (current pavilion pictured) because of a sexist remark reportedly made by a Kent official? Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, the original is fine. The others are misleading as he didn't say women were "only good for tea making". Also, this was the 1910s and was common language and attitude at the time so can hardly be considered sexist in context. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1

Lisa Martin (equestrian) is sitting in this prep area, but approximately one-third of it is quotation which could (and should) be paraphrased as the precise verbiage adds precisely nothing. In actual fact, the quotes help push the article above the 1,500 character requirement. I would suggest reviewers are more judicial when it comes to allowing such quotefarms to be counted as characters for one of the main DYK criteria. Suggest this article has its quotes re-mastered and if it stays above the minimum, fine, but a lesson to all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

This is badly worded, I had to read it three times to fully parse it. I would suggest that slightly peacock "and even some from Russian" clause is removed altogether. Better still, an alt hook like:

Just a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please withdraw following nominations

I am going to leave WP for an extended period. Unless someone would like to recover them, I have the following active DYK nominations that can be closed (I believe this is all-inclusive, however, if there are others please consider them also withdrawn at request of nominator). I apologize, in advance, for inconvenience this may cause to reviewers or promoters.

• Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary
• Italian Parliament (1928-1939)
• Ecology Party of Florida
• Political designations in Massachusetts
• Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• Opera Lafayette
• Austin Petersen
• Trump plant theory
• 1917 United States declaration of war on Austria-Hungary
• A7FL
• Chris Keniston

Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think these nominations should be withdrawn en bloc, but each one should be considered on its merits. I will volunteer to help resolve any issues, and if the proposed hook is found to be unsuitable in an otherwise acceptable nomination, an alternative hook can probably be found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area glitch

For some reason, two of the headings in the Special Occasion Holding area are not transcluding, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Christmas_season_.28December.29 and the September 12 Paralympics section -- one shows the link to the article, but doesn't transclude; the other (the Christmas one I just created) just links the raw template. Both look normal in preview. There's probably some hidden text or formatting that I can't see that is causing this, so can someone more techie than I am look at these? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 4 September 2016 (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 #1 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) 22:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Understandable error in queue1

• ... that Madison Janssen, a national and world champion as a junior BMX rider, won a world championship on a tandem bicycle with skier and athlete Jessica Gallagher in world record time?

Template:Did you know nominations/Madison Janssen @Hawkeye7, Amgisseman(BYU), and MPJ-DK:

They set a new world record in qualification, and went on to win the world championship, but they didn't win the world championship in world record time.[12] states "Gallagher and Janssen broke the world record in qualification with a time of 11.045 seconds". The same can be read in more detail at e.g. [13]. I have not pulled the hook yet, perhaps some easy fix can help here. Fram (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5

Sevda Alt?noluk is one of those articles written in poor English with basic grammar faults. The hook is really not hooky at all, particularly when none of the tournaments at which she was top scorer are notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article. And the article is still marked as a stub, and assessed as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• So instead of trying to address the problem you go "well MPJ missed it too", not the DYK reviewer but the guy that took the approved hook and put it in prep for another set of eyes? Moving the hooks to prep does not mean I am also reviewing the article in anybdetail. I generally look for the hook in the article, but that is about it - don't put any shortcomings on me, you got to own it. You made a similar "I am not good at English" claim on another hook where I was the actual reviewer, that one is not approved, partially because of the poor language. Now as a hook movet should I be the third set of eyes doing a full assessment? It would naturally help and I try to at times but not always. I do believe that instead of throwing around names you need to own the poor English part yourself - you want articles featured in DYK? Put in the work on the grammar, even if it is not your native language, you made the choice to edit the main Wikipedia, you mad?e the choice to write in English.  MPJ-DK  12:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

If the "2014 Kingsizegala" is lacking in notability such that an article doesn't even exist, why is this hook even remotely interesting? I would have preferred to see a hook perhaps relating to her performance with an Afghanistani refugee to Sweden. And if the hook stays, it ought to be "the award" rather than "an award". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Eleonore Büning hook in Prep 1

• ... that Eleonore Büning wrote in the FAZ that the French team staging the Jahrhundertring revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany?

Template:Did you know nominations/Eleonore Büning @Gerda Arendt, Bobamnertiopsis, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

This is discussed at the DYK template, but despite everyone being eventually convinced that the hook is supported by the source[14], I can't find a reference in it for the "French team". Büning discusses Patrice Chéreau, not his team (French or otherwise), and makes no mention of the other members of the supposed "team" (Boulez is mentioned, but only as the one who recommended Chéreau to the organisation: "Pierre Boulez hatte ihn [...] an die Festspielleitung weiterempfohlen"). Note also how the intro to the article, which supports other parts of the hook, is clearly about one person, not about a team or group of people: "Mit seiner unbefangenen ,,Ring"-Inszenierung aus dem Jahr 1976 revolutionierte er das Wagner-Verständnis der Deutschen." Can any of you please quote the line(s) that discuss the French team and support the hook? Fram (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Alt1 was not clearly covered by the source without some poetic license so I picked the one that looked like it had no issues.  MPJ-DK  16:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that Eleonore Büning wrote in the FAZ that the way the Jahrhundertring was staged at the Bayreuth Festival revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany?

You don't have to be able to read the source language in order to review or promote a hook, you are permitted to AGF on those hooks if you are unable to use a translation program on the source, in the same way as you can AGF on a source if it is offline. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• ALT: ... that Eleonore Büning wrote in the FAZ that Patrice Chéreau's staging of the Jahrhundertring revolutionised the understanding of Wagner in Germany?

9/11 anniversary hook

I recently completed Henryk Siwiak homicide, and nominated it for DYK, about the only official homicide in New York City on 9/11. I have requested expedited review so we can get it on the Main Page Sunday ... I see there are still two slots left in Prep Area 6.

I have also thought, if someone really wants to dare me, of another missing-person case that also ties into 9/11, Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris (TL;DR: woman going through acrimonious divorce upstate who still lives in same house as wealthy soon-to-be-ex-husband is last seen leaving her job on the night of 9/11; the ex-husband, who had left a phone message threatening to "make [her] disappear", was tried four times for the murder, at one point doing four years in prison, until he was finally acquitted this spring although many people still think he did it, taking advantage of law enforcement's attention being mostly elsewhere in the state at the time) that I could get a reasonable article ready in time to fill the other slot. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Time between updates

Now that the Star Trek series of updates has begun, aren't we supposed to have switched to three updates per day? Right now, User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates is still set to 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Holding area request missed?

I've just been looking over the preps and queues and i know they're slightly out of whack with the Star Trek Day but as aras I can tell, it looks like Template:Did you know nominations/Rangers signing policy, which was in the holding area for 10 September has been overlooked and isn't in the preps. Could someone please move it into the prep that will run on 10 September please? It's because that date coincides with the first Old Firm league match in 4 years. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2. -- Maile (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

24 track flamenco recording (prep 6)

• ... that the purely instrumental album Flamenco Road by Michael Laucke in 2001, is believed to be the first recording in this style to employ a 24-track recording system?

Template:Did you know nominations/Flamenco Road @Natalie.Desautels, Ritchie333, MPJ-DK, and Cwmhiraeth:

The hook correctly summarizes the source (note that "style" refers to flamenco, not to instrumental), but the source is incorrect in its belief, I think. Paco De Lucia has a 1984 live album which was recorded on 24-track[15] (one can dispute whether Ottmar Liebert is a flamenco artist or not, he had 24 track recordings like Borrasca in 1991). This article discusses a 1989 48-track (!) flamenco record, and states that the standard in Spain at the time was 24-track ("El disco «Flamenco Challenge» supuso la primera grabación digital en España en 48 pistas, cuando en aquel momento lo habitual era grabar en 24 pistas."). So, while it is true that one journalist believed the hook to be true, it actually appears not to be true, so it seems better not to present it like this. Fram (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook from prep 6 and reopened the nomination. I'll also restore the date and hook transclusion to the nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dyknu listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Dyknu. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 20:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it too late to add a picture?

The Razer Naga hook is in prep 2 right now, but I was wondering if it'd be too late to add an image to the hook. Adding an image will probably result in it being removed from prep 2, which may cause problems. Image in question would be File:Razer-naga-hex-goliathus-lol ?? (8615327683).jpg.

The hook would change to

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Errors

There is currently a proposed ALT at WP:ERRORS proposed by EEng for a hook currently on the main page. I'm inclined to be in favour of it, but more input would be useful. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination: Kai-Tai Fang

Did you know

• ... that the statistician Kai-Tai Fang's dissertation was written in two weeks under the supervision of Professor Pao-Lu Hsu (pictured) but not published for nineteen years--because of the Cultural Revolution?
• ... that the statistician Kai-Tai Fang promoted designed experiments to improve Tsingtao Beer (pictured) during the Cultural Revolution?

Self-nomination 162.250.169.162 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Template:Did you know nominations/Kai-Tai Fang. -- Maile (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Special holding area October 2016 Great Britain's Olympic Parade

Cowlibob per your request on Helen Richardson-Walsh, I have moved it to the Special Holding area for Great Britain's Olympic Parade. As soon as the exact date in October is announced, please add it to the subheading. Thanks. -- Maile (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so here's a new list of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all those through August 26. Some of these have initial review info from the new DYK review bot, but still need a full human review. As of the most recent update, 73 nominations have been approved, leaving 136 of 209 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the eight that are over a month old and have received little notice lately; they all need a reviewer's attention.

Over a month old:

• June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Not Me, It's You (game show)
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Cavu
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/The Triggering
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Rogue Fitness
• August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Cash Trapped (two articles)
• August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Ecology Party of Florida
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Under Armour All-America Baseball Game
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/CMLL 68th Anniversary Show
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Eastern Region, Nigeria
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mathilda Twomey
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Lights of North Shields
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Southwest Airlines Flight 345

Other old nominations:

• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Elizabeth Manning James
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/List of athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics with a prior doping offence
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/A??n Bridge
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/José Antonio Arévalo González
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/XHLUV-FM
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Talbieh Camp
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Zwölf Stücke, Op. 65
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Luscombe Castle
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Master of Arts in Applied Legal Studies
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Revival (comics)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Chapo Trap House
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Saprykin
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace's Little Belmont
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Jones (footballer, born 1994)
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Lupe Fiasco versus Daigo Umehara
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Sundström
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Democratic Alliance List : Though we can't run it until after 8 October as its an election hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Dafo Temple, Zhangye
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/1928 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team
• August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Yale Institute of International Studies
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Debatable, Make Me an Egghead
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/TEDES (traffic enforcement system)
• August 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Bishophill
• August 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of songs recorded by Siti Nurhaliza
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Clay Blaker
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/NSO Group (two articles)
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Bound (video game)
• August 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tharsis (video game)
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Léolo
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Bilberg
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/1928 Florida Gators football team
• August 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Former Residence of Lu Xun (Shanghai)

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) 06:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody Speak (Prep 5)

Currently in Prep 5:

• ... that in the music video for DJ Shadow's "Nobody Speak", featuring Run the Jewels, two groups of politicians start an all-out brawl?

I find this hook completely uninteresting, as anything can happen in a music video, and I think it violates supplementary rule C6 that a hook about "a work of fiction ... must involve the real world in some way." I would suggest the following in its place:

• ALT1: * ... that the music video for DJ Shadow's "Nobody Speak", featuring Run the Jewels, has been described as "brutal" and "politically charged"? Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue1: 2004 or 2002?

• ... that in 2004, the University of Oxford tried to block registration of Oxford Blue cheese as a trademark, because "Oxford Blue" is well known as a sporting award?

Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese) @Northamerica1000, The C of E, and Cwmhiraeth:

It looks as if Oxford tried to do this in 2002, and that the ruling only happened in 2004[16]. Change to "in 2002" or simply drop the year? Fram (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... that in 2004, the University of Oxford was denied the right to block registration of Oxford Blue as a trademark for cheese, despite "Oxford Blue" being a well known sporting award? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, the pdf link above appears to refer to dispute between a clothing company, H S Tank & Sons Limited, and Oxford Limited, which is "wholly owned by the University of Oxford" (link). Oxford Cheese Company, the producer of Oxford blue cheese, is not mentioned in the document, nor is any mention of cheese. The book source cited states, "An example of an unsuccessful opposition is OXFORD BLUE Trade Mark, Registry, 23 March 2004, where Oxford University failed in its attempt to prevent the registration of OXFORD BLUE for cheese." It is possible that the book got the facts incorrect, or that the book content is correct, and the pdf file content simply does not mention the cheese product for whatever reasons. Per this uncertainty, I have removed the dates from the article for the time being (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Adding edit request template below, to remove "in 2004" from the Oxford Blue (cheese) entry at Template:Did you know/Queue/1. Since I'm involved, I won't be performing the edit myself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook. While the source in the article did claim that the case was about the cheese, both the original case documents (linked above) and other sources[17] make it clear that the case had nothing to do with the cheese. Fram (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed the content from the article for the time being (diff). Yes, it is quite possible that the book source is in error. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have struck the hook content at the DYK nom page, and have added a new ALT hook there, at Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford Blue (cheese). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

Firstly this "led the nation in scoring" is a direct copy from the second source used in the article for the claim. Secondly there appears to be no context for what "led the nation" means, when in reality it seems to be referring to scoring the most points in the 1928 college football season. Thirdly, the hook is boring, a real "so what?" moment. Other, more interesting facts from that article include the claim that six of the squad could run the 100m in 10.1 s (which, in 1928, seems incredibly impressive), an ambidextrous quarterback (don't know how rare that is, but it seems unusual, and certainly interesting, especially when combined with the fact he could punt with both feet too), or even the controversy over the single-point win for Tennessee which denied the Gators a place (and secured it for Tennessee) in the Rose Bowl would be preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

The article has an unreferenced "formation date of 10 October 2014. The lead says the service was "conceived in September 2014". The article says "In February 2015, five months after they started ... " and then "On Australia Day 2016, the two co-founders were jointly named Young Australians of the Year...". That's the 26 January 2016. As the hook isn't directly referenced in the article, I'm unsure how the 16 months is derived. At the very least the article should be clearer on the start date of the charity. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Great example of why hook sources should be quoted directly on the nom page. EEng 15:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Five months prior to February 2015 is October 2014 as the operation's start, consistent with unreferenced 10 October date.
• Australia Day 2016 = 26 January 2016
• October 2014 to January 2016 = 3 months in 2014 + 12 months in 2015 + 1 month in 2016 = 16 months from start to joint young Australians of the year. EdChem (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

BBC supports October 2014 formation. The point is that the hook is accurate, so add refs rather than pulling the hook. Address the actual problem, in other words. EdChem (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who is right or wrong in the above debate and am not interested in figuring it out as it's inessential to the hook, so I have just changed it to "* ... that in their second year of providing a free laundry service for the homeless, the co-founders of Orange Sky Laundry were jointly awarded Young Australian of the Year?" Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Errors on nomination page

I'm only able to read up to "Articles created/expanded on August 31" at WP:DYKNOM. Entries after this are not showing up, including the special occasion holding area. I tried purging, checked through the page, etc., but I haven't been able to find the cause of the error. I was thinking the problem might be due to missing syntax in the hidden comments, but they all seem to be in order. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Thanks for the ping. Pppery is correct, the issue here was because one of the paragraphs the bot grabbed included a pipe character/vertical bar "|". Review pages can't have pipes in the text because they are wrapped in a template, {{DYKsubpage}}, and the pipe breaks the template. On further inspection, the bot should not have grabbed that bit of text as it was an image caption which does not count under the DYK rules. I've made a tweak to the code so this won't happen anymore. This is not related to the previous issue. Intelligentsium 20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia