Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 110

Archive 105

←

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

→

Archive 115

Likely sockpuppets self-approving DYK noms

After WayKurat contacted me on my talk page at User talk:BlueMoonset#User:PapaJeckloy and his questionable DYK nominations and reviews, I took a look and agreed that two different new accounts each approving one of PapaJeckloy's DYK nominations minutes after the user's first edit was suspicious behavior, so I submitted a sockpuppet investigation. The results have just come back that the two accounts are "Likely" matches, which I gather is strong evidence but not enough for "Confirmed".

The question is, where do we go from here? PapaJeckloy's reviews have required extra scrutiny: EEng asked me to intervene a few weeks ago, and even today PJ's review of Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Dexter missed close paraphrasing. His own articles have weak prose and he shows an inability to recognize issues with his own, another issue that carries over to his reviewing. Only today, he opened, reviewed, and passed a GA nomination in eight minutes: Talk:Adderall/GA1, a complex scientific article of 3210 words (23139 prose characters). I find these actions quite troubling.

Is this enough to disqualify the two nominations in question? To withhold DYK credit? To suspend DYK privileges? I'm not sure what has been done in similar situations in the past, or what sorts of sanctions are typically invoked against the sockmaster. (One of the two likely socks has already been blocked for having an offensive name.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC) (minor edit at 04:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

I think the SPI should be closed shortly by a closing admin, who will decide on sanctions, so I would wait for that. HelenOnline 07:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that given the way he has stepped up his reviewing activity (with continuing problematic results) and has now started assembling prep sets, DYK should definitely consider what action it wishes to take. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a hook that he approved and promoted in the same edit and reopened the nomination (though I haven't struck the approval), and I've also removed Template:Did you know nominations/Broadway Hollywood Building. I haven't got it in for TonyTheTiger (despite the fact that I only ever seem to suggest that his articles are withdrawn or don't qualify; sorry, I'm going to make it up to you in a second TTT); it was just that it was approved by Gongon3336 whose only other contributions seem to have been to approve or edit nominations by PapaJeckloy. Belle (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's your opinions, i'll just wait for an administrator to close the sock investigation, and i'll never edit Wikipedia again, your comments are hurting me a lot, i feel sorry to my self that my contributions in WP are controversial because of lack of experience and the accusations to me are being judged as likely or something else, i'll just wait for it to be closed (if i'll get an indefinite block), but it's not yet confirmed, i'll just tried my best to help and contribute to wikipedia but seems like it's not effective and i am always controversial, i understand the evidences and i think it is caused by lack of experience thereof, so i temporarily will not build prep sets, review GA and DYK's and create/contribute to articles at this time, i am hardly percieved by the whole community, and to be safe from judgemental persons (i'm not sure), Maybe it's a sign for me, Well, I just want to thank everybody who helped me contributing on this site, I just want to help but this is the result of everything i done, You can give me sanctions, judge me, percieve me, i understand my wrong and damageable edits here and i also know that it causes waste of time, but i just can't insist that i am accused that i abusively used multiple accounts, i'll just hold this to an SPI clerk or something else. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have re-opened the sockpuppet investigation to address Gongon3336, please add any other possible socks there. PapaJeckloy got a week's block and is showing no remorse so I think the next step would be to propose a topic ban at ANI. I am prepared to get the ball rolling if I have enough support here. HelenOnline 12:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gongon3336 has been confirmed and blocked. Please participate in ANI discussion re proposed ban. HelenOnline 15:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I created an ANI discussion against Jeckloy. Feel free to join and share your experiences dealing with this guy. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

PapaJeckloy has been indeffed by TheBushranger after proof of further socking (initial block had been one week), but I would like to move forward with a topic ban here as well for when he returns, so we can relax the ban at what we consider to be a prudent rate. I don't believe we are restricted from that, even if the ANI thread has been closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia protocol is that such a ban would have to be agreed upon at AN(I) and is not an option at this time based on the outcome of the ANI discussion closed earlier today. Please correct me if I am mistaken. HelenOnline 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Two of my hooks (the EarthBound four-part multihook in Q1 and Crawl in Q3) were added by PapaJeckloy, and I'd like to request reconsideration of their placement. Would someone be able to take a look? EarthBound is sitting near the bottom (for a four-part hook), and Crawl, I thought, had an exception animated image that would be worth displaying. czar ♔ 08:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Queue 1

Can somebody add "US" before the $ in ".. that Walter W. Law went from being a carpet salesman to shipping 8,000 roses daily, earning up to $100,000 annually?", as other currencies use the $ and some of them would seriously dent Mr Law's bottom line. (I know it was in US$ because he shipped the roses to me for my attendants to strew in my path. He died in 1924? I'd like to withdraw my previous claim) Belle (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's The Rambling Man! (I don't know why I thought he might be a bird or a plane, he's not flying and hasn't even got wings; I'd better get my eyes tested) Belle (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oueue 3

Oueue? Is that like a DYK oeuvre, maybe with a Ouija board? EEng (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Encouraged by the sound of an open door flapping in the wind and the tumbleweed rolling down the street that accompanied my last request (look, it's just above this one), I thought I'd bring your attention to the the hook for Johannes Østrup in Queue 3. Although that hook wasn't struck out, it wasn't approved either. See Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Østrup for all the exciting details. Belle (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with approved hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it A F G D X on the top line? No, it's The Rambling Man! (I was right, I did need to get my eyes tested.) Belle (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too picky but ... that in 1893 Johannes Østrup rode on horseback for 60 days from Istanbul to Copenhagen? Copenhagen is on an island. Art LaPella (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why it took sixty days. EEng (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Horses can swim but, yes, I think you are being a bit picky; nobody will imagine that he remained constantly on horseback for the 60 days either (and Copenhagen is on more than one island; pow! picking at the pickiness). Belle (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A quickie

Need someone to take care of "Violence & Destruction, Islander (band)"--should be done easily. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Alt1 reviewed and passed. — Maile (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hook accumulation

There are currently four filled queues and two filled prep areas. Despite this, there are over three hundred nominations waiting to be processed with forty-five of these being approved. The size of the backlog has been growing for several weeks and I suggest that it is time to either increase the number of hooks in a set or else increase the frequency of the changeover to three sets a day. Any other views? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Closure of RFC on main image of upcoming DYK

treats! is going on the main page in a little over 26 hours. It has an WP:RFC regarding its main image that has been waiting for closure at WP:ANRFC since August 31.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I also left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_of_RFC_on_main_image_of_upcoming_DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize someone responded to this because no message was left.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the last set of unreviewed nominations recently archived, I've compiled a new set of 35 older nominations that need reviewing. Many of these may look familiar. Thanks to everyone who reviews.

• June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Foreign policy of Narendra Modi
• June 18: Template:Did you know nominations/John V. Farwell & Co. (two articles)
• June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Russell Wilson (mayor)
• June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Rock 'n' Roll Cities
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Gaćinović
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Lena Nyadbi
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Dexter
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ștefan Baciu
• July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Childcare infection
• July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Genes, Brain and Behavior
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Ponte Conde de Linhares
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Walter W. Law
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/The Beatles (album)
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Shopping for Fangs
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/50 Carnaby Street
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Brod Pete
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Minor White
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/José Carlos Cocarelli
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Ghassan Alian
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Ferhat Akbaş (needs someone with Turkish language skills)
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Aphaenogaster mayri
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Maynard (broadcaster)
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Burns
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Squaw Island (Canandaigua Lake) (two articles)
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Short Term 12
• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tessa Hughes-Freeland
• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Islander (band); Violence & Destruction (one article)
• July 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Indianapolis Traction Terminal
• July 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Hkonmaing I of Onbaung–Hsipaw
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Antonio Iranzo
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Transformer
• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Church of All Saints (Sutton Courtenay)
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/What I've Been Looking For
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Databending
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Pride parades in South Africa
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/William Henry Strahan
• July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Manning (baseball)
• July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/The Harrowing (Inside No. 9) (experienced DYK reviewer requested)

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) 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these continuing updates! Would it be possible to automate this? It would be helpful to have a "dashboard" that has just the titles and the most recent bullet for all open nominations, like an expanded version of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Antony-22, I suppose it might be possible to automate something, where those entries that have either no icons or the last icon as the "review again" are listed. The problem is that this often doesn't tell the whole story, that people seem not to want to get involved with the no-icon nominations that have a lot of exchanges, and that I frequently have to add those red arrow icons to reviews that already have other icons but have now progressed to the point that they need a new reviewer. If someone wants to try they're certainly welcome to, but it's not something I'm interested in doing myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset We can have a section reserved on the project talk page for older nominations needing reviews. The nominations which have been passed or failed can be removed manually and the section can be regularly updated. I have added a comment in this section so that it doesn't gets archived.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997, you mean on this talk page? I'm not sure how well that would work; where do you think it should go? If it sits at the top of the page, which is where it will end up eventually (like this section has), it's less likely to be seen as it's old; if it sits at the bottom, it will obscure more pressing matters needing immediate attention. Not that the current process of starting at the bottom and moving up is ideal, but it seems to attract enough attention. We could add and delete nominations—I already add new entries within the post's original timeframe when I spot them—though the nice thing about the struck entries (rather than deleting them outright) is that it shows progress (or lack thereof) since the section was posted. But that's my impression; other folks could have different ideas on what would work best. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset the list of older nominations needs to be somewhere. WP:GAN and WP:FLC have a note of older nominations right at the top of the page. I don't think putting it at the top of nomination's page would help but since many editors visit this page frequently putting it somewhere on this page might help speed the reviews and help maintain low backlog.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997, unless there is consensus that a section of the sort I've been creating needs to be pinned somewhere on this page, rather than be introduced at the bottom and gradually rise toward the top and get archived in the usual way as has been the practice for years now, I think I'm going to stick with the status quo. If you feel strongly that it should happen in a particular way, why not create a new section at the bottom of the page (where people will see it) and see what sort of consensus develops—people may have preferences about this that I may be completely unaware of. I do think we should let this obsolete section of hooks be archived off the page, since it has been superseded once and is about to superseded a second time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hooked facts

Does the fact(s) in the hook has to come from the newly added content in case of 5x expansions? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, just needs a ref right next to the fact, or several if more than one fact is mentioned in the hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the meaning of main article at Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame?

I have just discovered Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame and want to fill in some of my hooks. What is the meaning of main article in the table on that page? Does it have to do with the Lead hook from the set they were in or the hook at issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The way I've always interpreted it is: if one of the articles in the hook is clearly the major topic and the other articles are subsidiary to it, put the one that is the major topic in the first column. For example, one of mine was List of places of worship in Hastings plus four articles about individual churches, so I put "List of..." as the main article. For many hooks, though, there isn't really a main article: they all have the same "status". In those cases, just put a description (or link to an article) that covers all of them. For example, for your hook about the Michigan Wolverines football team in 1990 etc., perhaps enter "Michigan Wolverines football team seasons" in the Main article column. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Thanks as always to everyone who reviews.

• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Development of Deus Ex
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Fu Shanxiang
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/50 Carnaby Street
• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Glen Rounds
• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/PLDT HOME: The Last Home Stand
• July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Poverty in Cyprus
• July 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Trussed Concrete Steel Company (six articles)
• July 30: Template:Did you know nominations/1 (2013 film)
• July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Betty May
• July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Joss Whedon
• August 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Animatronics
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/ZMapp
• August 6: Template:Did you know nominations/St. Augustine Parish Church (Bay)
• August 6: Template:Did you know nominations/St Helen's Church, St Helens, Merseyside
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Yuxian (Qing dynasty)
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Broadway Hollywood Building
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Brian Brushwood
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Aspergirls
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Balu Mahendra
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Jealous (Beyoncé song)
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Visionary Fiction
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Guthrie Historic District
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Owl Drug Company
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Fat Cow (ALT hook needs reviewing)
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Local marketing agreement
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Cottell
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Transfiguration of our Lord Parish Church (Cavinti)
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle album)
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Apterostigma electropilosum
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Otto Stadie
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Timing (Kim Hyun-joong album)
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Hot Sun
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Sherard
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Bardentreffen
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Beat the Chefs
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/The Making of the English Landscape
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Wood
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Come Over (Clean Bandit song)
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Louder (Neon Jungle song)
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Cultural competence in health care
• August 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Measures of gender equality

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) 18:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

Has the http://stats.grok.se pageview tool been discontinued. I have never not gotten a response within 24 when inquiring about a delay in updating. It has not updated since September 2. I have queries in at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pageview_tool_down_again and User_talk:Henrik#Pageviews_not_updating. P.S. I know another tool exists at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/?, but it does not accounts for non-alphanumeric characters very well yet. E.G., Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, which has an apostrophe only counts about two thirds of the page views (see the variants tab at the bottom).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, I don't know about Henrik's tool. That's always been iffy for years. You might get an answer if you email Henrik. Have you tried installing User:Hedonil/common.js on your js? The results are spectacular, in a way. Yeah, there's a section tied in to the page views you have issue with. One thing Hedonil's tool does is give you a "heading" line on every WP page of stats, who created the article, how many authors, how many revisions, etc. If you double click on "See full page statistics" on that heading, it takes you to a wonderful breakdown page of various information. Interesting to look at. However, if as you say, you think those stats are off somewhat, then maybe this will not interest you. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

His tool is back up. A six day hiatus is a record though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

PapaJeckloy

Something buzzed in my head over the nomination for the 2014 Philippine FIBA Basketball World Cup team, and checking Gelacost Mouse's contributions shows they are suspiciously PapaJeckloy-esque, so I've reopened the sockpuppet investigation. It's just like a really mundane Nancy Drew adventure. Belle (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you, PapaJeckloy's latest sock has been blocked, and I rejected the DYK nomination. He'd also signed up for GOCE and edited an article for it, even though said article wasn't on the GOCE list until he added it. Fortunately, the sock hadn't gotten around to GAN yet. Unfortunately, Gelacost Mouse managed to get Confirmed days in advance of the standard autoconfirm by requesting it; I've pointed out what happened to the confirmer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DYKSTATS or not?

The other day, a DYK of mine, for Deep Creek (Pennsylvania), got onto the Main Page. It apparently just missed out on a DYKSTATS spot, getting 4949 views. But then it got 395 views on the next day for no apparent reason. I've heard that DYK views from one day are sometimes carried over to the next day. Is this what's happening here? --Jakob (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering its pageview stats and the fact that it removed from the main page at midnight it gets carryover totals. Its official total is 4752+393-(11+36)/2=5122.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

New Hooks to the bottoms of sections

Can we have the editing prompt on the nominations edit screen be changed to direct new articles to the bottom of sections? The Nominations page as a whole already reads oldest to newest when scolling down it, it does not make sense to have the new noms placed at the tops of the sections in my opinion. --Kevmin § 00:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In a similar vein, actually, I'd like to renew my suggestion that new nominations be entered under the date of nomination instead of the current "date of expansion/date of creation" system (designed, I'm guessing, to maintain some kind of first-creation-first-featured fairness, which hasn't made sense for a very long time given the highly unequal rate at which noms progress to approval).

For those of us who like to eyeball each nom it would make things much easier if new noms just appeared at the bottom. It would also make it easier to find noms that have been neglected.

EEng (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

One reason to keep nominations under the date of creation (or start of expansion) is that if said date isn't in the Current nominations section, then the nomination is clearly overdue. And since a great many reviewers seem to work from the bottom up, it might be nice to continue having those who submitted their nominations sooner get seen sooner by these from-the-bottom folks, rather than have subsequent submissions get a leg up by getting placed in that prime position. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's a big deal either way, but the "subsequent submissions get a leg up" argument makes no sense i.e. there's no strategy that goes "I'll nominate tomorrow instead of today because that way, when I nominate I'll be in the prime position at the very bottom" -- if you nominate right now you'll be in that same prime position, too. EEng (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I didn't say it was a strategy, but a simple fact of placement: those at the bottom get the attention of those who work from the bottom up. Anyone who's been working at assembling sets will have seen how the lowest nomination is more likely to have been reviewed than the ones above it. If we change the placement, we change the likely order the nominations will be reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's a conscious strategy or not, the point is the same: you're saying that "subsequent submissions get a leg up " i.e. somehow nominating later gets you reviewed sooner, and that makes no sense. EEng (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it will matter a great deal within each days grouping, with the more reviewable nominations getting reviews quicker then the more intensive ones, as already happens to be honest.--Kevmin § 00:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Queue1 problems

@A P Monblat, Hawkeye7, and Wasted Time R: The third item in Queue1 (Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton twin towns mural), "... that all of Sutton's European twin towns can be seen without leaving Sutton High Street in London by looking up at the twin towns mural?" should be removed and put on hold as I have just nominated the article for deletion.

Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Hawkeye7, and Yoninah: The final item (Template:Did you know nominations/A Dog's Love), "... that Shep the Dog proved a better actor than his child co-star in A Dog's Love?", I must be overlooking something, I can't find that fact in the article at all. Can someone else check this please? Fram (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, the hooked fact is missing in the article. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, hook refers to this line "The dog's emotions — including "depression", "groveling pathos", and "joy" — were noted to surpass the child's histrionics." --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pulled until a better hook can be agreed upon. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The hook is indeed based on the source quoted by Vigyani. Not sure why it's not a good hook. Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just reopened both nominations, which had been left as "approved". Any nomination that's pulled needs to be reopened as part of the removal process, and a message added to the nomination template noting the issues that need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not unusual for a hook to be pulled without prejudice, usually to make way for a time-critical hook. If there is no comment on the nom, then it is liable to be added to the next prep area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pulled Perce Wilson from Queue5

@Cbl62, Cambalachero, Hawkeye7, and HJ Mitchell: I have pulled Perce Wilson (Template:Did you know nominations/Perce Wilson) from Queue5. The hook fact was sourced to two sources (one a wiki) which did not include the hook fact (and flatly contradicted it by omission), and one editor-written note stating that these two sources are wrong, as evidenced by some primary sources and a source of dubious reliability. This piece of WP:OR was then used to promote this to the main page (or nearly, pulled from queue). If source A and B say X and source B says Y, then doing some research in primary sources and finding that Y is correct may give a kick, but it is not the kind of impeccably sourced fact that should be a hook. I don't understand why no one even bothered to discuss this, to raise this problem, at the review.

Realise also that the hook is possibly incorrect synthesis; even accepting the original research, what source states that he was the only or first Canadian-born quarterback? The sites that list Canadian-born ones separately omit him, and the source used to indicate that he was Canadian-born doesn't list who else meets that description. If the reliable sources have omitted one player from their list, what makes you decide he is the only one? Fram (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK Toolbox needs an edit

Orlady, Crisco 1492, Mandarax, BlueMoonset - I'm hoping one of you can edit Template:DYK tools. I'm a little hesitant I might not get it correct on this one if I try. In a nutshell, Dispenser's tools for Dablinks and External links are not functional and may not be in the foreseeable future. There is a Village Pump discussion about replacements. Therein, it suggests Extension:Disambiguator does the same thing as the Dablinks tool. Can any of you make the change on the DYK toolbox? — Maile (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've hidden Dispenser's tools, but I don't see how one is supposed to use Disambiguator through a template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Worst hook in the history of DYK

"...that ketchup was originally prepared using mushrooms as its main ingredient, and was sometimes referred to as mushroom ketchup?" currently sitting in Prep 4 has to be the worst hook I have ever seen. Seriously. And according to the ketchup article, is actually factually incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• "... that records of mushroom ketchup go back to the 18th century?" IMHO MK is, for American readers at least, enough of a double take that the hook doesn't need to be spectacular. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  Better, more interesting, more accurate. Who's signing these off? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  The nomination was by Northamerica1000 and review was by Miyagawa. Pinging both. (As an aside: this would probably taste great on burgers). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  Tasty Spanglish hook anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  A rather harsh assessment of the original hook I devised. In developed countries, tomato ketchup is very common, but many people don't know that it was originally and historically prepared from mushrooms. Describing my work as "Worst hook in the history of DYK" is rather negative, insulting, and ultimately discouraging to editors. Please consider trying to be more friendly toward Wikipedia editors, which encourages participation. Also, I think the proposed hook here is not very intriguing; it reads more like a simple factoid rather than a hook that draws interest to a subject, as they are intended to be. Also, the new mushroom ketchup article is written directly from sources; the ketchup article is what likely needs updating for being factually incorrect, not vice versa. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  But I loved it! Knockout! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  It was personal opinion. I have honestly never seen a duller hook. That mushroom ketchup is ketchup made of mushrooms? And the erroneous claim that original ketchup was made with mushrooms which is instantly refuted in the ketchup article. Just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• NorthAmerica, if you would rather the article be pulled so that a new, more interesting hook can be discussed, I will do it for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I like my hook, as described in my above comment, so no thanks. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• You and I both know (well, I should hope that we do) that if the original hook that was promoted is reinstated, it is likely that the hook will be pulled anyways owing to concerns over its accuracy. Might exacerbate the situation, but I don't doubt that it will happen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• This all sounds a bit saucey to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• The ketchup article needs to be edited for accuracy, not vice versa. Mushroom ketchup is written entirely from sources. I have copy edited the ketchup article for clarity, also adding inline templates requesting further verification within its lead, where clarification is needed. What part of the ketchup article contradicts this article at this time? Please review and compare both articles, as the supposed contradiction stated above isn't qualified by specifically stating how. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Sources which may, themselves, be inaccurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps redo the original hook as ..."that ketchup was originally prepared with mushrooms?"--¿3family6 _contribs 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no - there are sources that state that ketchup was originally made in the far east, from fish sauce - and explain the etymology. [1][2] Given such contradictory evidence, we shouldn't be making definitive assertions about this, especially on the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the Malay kecap (current version, at least here, is closer to soy sauce in my opinion). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• And on Wiktionary. Yeah, not a spectacular source. But it cites better ones for some issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And yet another source... yeah, questionable assertion at best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to users for qualifying the stance of inaccuracy. I wasn't specific enough in devising the hook, which made it inaccurate. A simple way to modify the hook is to reword it, adding accurate qualification with, "in the United Kingdom". See example below. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

“ ...that in the United Kingdom, mushroom ketchup was originally prepared using mushrooms as its main ingredient? ”

How is a statement that mushroom ketchup was originally made from mushrooms even remotely interesting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That can be worded better. Here's something below. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

“ ...that in the United Kingdom, early preparations of ketchup were prepared with mushrooms as its main ingredient, and was sometimes called mushroom ketchup? ”

“ ...that in the United Kingdom, early preparations of ketchup were prepared with mushrooms as its main ingredient, sometimes called mushroom ketchup? ”

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Early preparations prepared... gosh. How about

“ ...that early recipes for ketchup from the United Kingdom called for mushrooms as a main ingredient? ”

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There we go!--¿3family6 _contribs 15:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• ALT review: from the above, we have the following. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• ALT1 ...that records of mushroom ketchup go back to the 18th century?
• ALT2 ...that ketchup was originally prepared with mushrooms?
• ALT3 ...that in the United Kingdom, early preparations of ketchup were prepared with mushrooms as its main ingredient, sometimes called mushroom ketchup?
• ALT4 ...that early recipes for ketchup from the United Kingdom called for mushrooms as a main ingredient?
• ALT5 ...that mushroom ketchup dates back to the 18th century in the United Kingdom and United States?

• I support ALT5 at this time, which is similar to ALT1, includes the complete article title, and also includes clarifying geographic information. Struck a comment above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer ALT5 too, it seems factually correct and doesn't contradict the ketchup article (which User:Northamerica1000 has stated needs fixing). But in future, and as AndyTheGrump has reinforced above, I hope reviewers remember that a hook along the lines of "... that A of B is B from A?" is in no way interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ABBA tomato sauce? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent, ALT5 it is. We've got consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Should we talk about the possibility that the image will make Main Page readers worldwide lose not only their appetites, but possibly even "lose" meals they're already eaten? EEng (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was secretly hoping it would make WP:POTD (in the same way that Tracey's Emins My Bed "made" haute couture decor). But, apparently, it's not even British!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 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) 10:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Now two hours overdue. Admin needed to promote at least one prep (and three are ready to go). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed from Prep 1

@Shhhhwwww!!, Cwmhiraeth, and Hawkeye7: I have removed "* ... that the first Bay Church was made of bamboo and nipa and was built along the lake shore of Laguna de Bay, Philippines?" from prep 1. The hook was sourced to one unavailable page and one wordpress page that had copied the info from Wiki Pilipinas. Worse, it looks quite likely that the info is simply wrong, and that people have been confusing the St. Augustine Parish Church (Laguna) with the San Agustin Church (Manila). This doesn't seem fit to be on the main page. And that, sadly, seems to be happening quite often again these days. Fram (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• • An oddity was that it was nominated twice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Where's the other nomination? I only see Template:Did you know nominations/St. Augustine Parish Church (Bay)... Fram (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• No sign that San Agustin Church (Manila) was ever nominated (it dates back many years), and the only way it could be eligible now would be if it were to become a Good Article. The creator of St. Augustine Parish Church (Laguna) has posted in the DYK template that they are two different churches entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• No one claimed that the Manila church was ever nominated (unless Hawkeye was referring to that, no idea what he meant). The churches are two different churches, but it seems as if somewhere along the way the nominated Bay Church has appropriated the early history of the much more important Manila church. Note that already the second sentence of the article, "It served as an old Franciscan mission town in 1578. " is wrong, as it was supposedly Augustinian at the time, and only became Franciscan in 1737, or nearly 150 years later... Sourcing and fact checking of the article don't seem to be up to main page standards. Fram (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out several errors. I hope so that the comments was also written on the article's talk page to address it immediately for revision. It was an honest mistake to mixed up the Franciscans and Augustinians in the lead paragraph. Changed the second sentence to "It was first administered by Augustinian priests and later transferred to Franciscans." Changed also the references to more credible one like the book of Huerta and the Historical Marker of the church. If it does not meet the DYK criteria, well then, close the nomination and fail it. We'll respect it. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)