Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Informal tracking of the stats

Unhide to see a few months' history of available hooks and backlog size

GA with copyvios in Queue

I have removed a hook from Queue2, as it was from a GA with copyvio additions during the GA process. I'll delete the article (the revisions from the start of the GA push that is) after this post. Template:Did you know nominations/Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu. @Ochiwar, 3family6, Georgejdorner, 97198, and Mike V: I pinged you all as one of the steps in the article-to-DYK process, but the copyvio was not easy to spot, so I'm not blaming you (or the system) for how this slipped through. Ochiwar, this doesn't apply to you of course, as the one that seemingly has introduced all these copyvio's in your push for GA status. I hope this is the only article with such problems.

Examples of problematic copying (there may be more, these were sufficient to delete the article revisions): Fram (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Source	Target	Link to target text
The appliqué as well as the geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found in Afikpo dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Igboland.	The appliqué, concentric, spiral, and geometric patterns that characterize the Igbo-Ukwu pottery have been found at[...] dated to about A.D. 670, indicating that the decorative grammar on Igbo-Ukwu pottery was established at least two centuries earlier in Afikpo.	[1]
The elegant design and refined details are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze casting of the same period.	Its elegant design and refined detailing are matched by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze-casting of this period.	[2]
The occupant may have held the position of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but only limited political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century.	The occupant may have held a position as a forerunner of a high personage, possibly a forerunner of the eze nri, a priest-king. Such figures held religious but not political power over large parts of the Igbo-inhabited region well into the 20th century.	[3]
[...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads, relief sculptures of crickets and flies and covered by a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu.	[...]decorated with four frogs being swallowed by four snake heads. The rest of the shell surface has a network of parallel lines, crosshatchings, and granulations typical of Igbo Ukwu. Scattered across this are relief sculptures of crickets and flies.	[4]

@Fram: I checked a few of Ochiwar's other contributions, and his other GA, Igbo Landing has a 93.4% probability of a copyvio according to Earwig's tool ([5]). I randomly sampled other content on his userpage and found Pilon fracture at 39% and Upper gastrointestinal series at 45%, which are low enough to not be considered an issue, but it does seem to indicate a possible problem with copyvios. On the other hand, the tool also reports Mersea Island (my most recent GA) as a 59% possibility of copying a Flickr caption, which it isn't (they copied from us, not the other way round), so I wouldn't read too much into the reports. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked him on his talk page whether he thinks there are other pages with the same issues. If he realises the problem, helps with the cleanup, and changes his approach, then we can continue without problems. Fram (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just proceed with caution - a look at the sites that the bot is complaining about Igbo Landing violating shows they are quite clearly copying from Wikipedia. One explicitly attributes us, the other implicitly. I can't see the deleted revisions for Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu, but are you absolutely certain who has copied from whom? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In at least three of the four cases, yes, as our article gave the source of the text as source for the information (an indicator, to me, that the copyvio problems are more ignorance of the rules or carelessness than deliberate violations). The Scribd article is from 2005, the book as well, so these clearly precede our article. Fram (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was not aware that this type of close paraphrasing constitutes copyright violation since I always attributed the source with in-line citations. Having looked at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing in detail again, I understand the problem. It says: Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. So although I did credit the source per inline citation I should have also attributed in the text by saying "John Smith said...". By the way the third of the four examples you quote is most certainly copied from Wikipedia and not the other way round. If you look closely you will find that it is an almost verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article as it was in December 2013. For the other three cited cases I agree that I was close paraphrasing but did not realize it as a problem as explained above. But surely, I had added over 20,000 bytes and images to the article most of which was not in violation. Is there anyway I can get at the deleted content to clean it up and summarize close paraphrasing to my own choice of words or in-text attribute the source and salvage the article? It would be a great shame to see all the hours I had put into the article go to waste. I will also go through my other articles for corrections were they may apply. Ochiwar (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave the wrong source for the third one, I had seen the text in quite a few sources and choose the wrong "origin". It also appears in Britannica though, which makes it a lot more likely that it is really a copyvio of course. And as a rule, I never publish email, userfy, whatever) texts or revisions which are known to be (in part) copyvios. That is indeed a pity if a lot of work has crept into it, but it's better safe than sorry. We are now aware of these four, but chances are that there are more of them, and that not all of them would be corrected. Fram (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I see, but that particular quote from Britannica is still part of the article in its present version which you reverted to, which is a version that existed before my first edit of the article, so it is not from me. Though I understand your rule and the reasons for it, it would be a loss to the encyclopedia to have all that content gone, most of which was good. If you could make an exception, I promise a complete re-write of the article in my sand box and thorough check to make sure there is no possibility of any close paraphrasing. After that I would invite you to vet the result before going back to main. I am very sure that in my edits to the article prior to June 2014 there is no close paraphrasing, at least not from me. You can check that out and if I cannot get back at the deleted content perhaps you could revert to a version from December 2013 and I can take it from there? Ochiwar (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not catching these violations. I did try to look for close paraphrasing, but did not notice just how similar these passages were.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Listen, you guys, you gotta cut it out with these statements that some tool has determined there's an X percent "probability of a copyvio". That's ridiculous. No tool can possibly make such a determination. These percentages are nothing more than an ill-defined measure running from 0 ("seems like only trivial matches") to 100 ("boy, a whole lotta stuff matches!"). It's completely impressionistic and has nothing to do with probabilities. These tools detect smoke -- humans must determine whether there's fire. EEng (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I made and why I decided to deliberately include the tool's results where it suggested I had violated copyright in a GA when I know I did nothing of the sort. Websites copy from Wikipedia all the time and consequently the tool is just that - a tool. It works well for brand new articles, but once an article is "mature", websites will copy it left, right and centre, and if you're lucky they'll attribute it. Trapping copyright is difficult and a bit of a black art if I'm honest, and the best thing you can do if you spot it is to copyedit it away, if possible. I don't mind concerns being flagged up, but I am a bit concerned that Fram may have cracked a nut with a sledgehammer here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously there is no need to delete twenty to thirty thousand bytes I have added to the article, because the close paraphrasing is not extensive. Flagging the problem and notifying me might have been an adequate first measure. The third example was not added by me, the fourth example you cite is the description of an image. There are only so many ways you can describe an image, so it actually falls under WP:LIMITED. I plead to be given a chance to salvage. Ochiwar (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is now completely deleted, as indeed one of the copyvios predated Ochiwars additions, and the original version of the page, where this was a remnant from, was a blatant copyvio of [6]. Fram (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A cautionary tale. Did you know nominations?History of Briarcliff Manor was an important lesson in use of computer related copyright violations. It can tell you there was a violation, but not who is copying whom. The raw data is one thing; but careful analysis, with all available facts, is indispensable. Only then can you arrive at a reasoned and right conclusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the first that I've ever encountered Earwig's tool, but boy, is that a handy thing. So much less clunky then dup detector.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Can it be re-nominated?

So, now that the article was re-created, could it be nominated again, since the old history was deleted?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably only if it makes GA again. I would imagine that a fair amount of the non-infringing material is being reused in the reconstituted article, which would run into the 5x expansion requirement for previously existing material even if the article is "new". BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that GA reviewers should not also review the same article if it's nominated for DYK as a GA, so we can get another set of eyes on the article. We've had a number of GAs that were found to have copyvios or close paraphrasing issues by the DYK reviewer, and the problems might have been discovered here if the reviewer hadn't been the same person in both cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. That was one of the reasons, when I reviewed the article for DYK, that I indicated I wanted another review, to double-check that I hadn't missed anything. By the way, can we include Earwig's tool on the small sidebar for DYK noms, as it seems far superior to the dup detector?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, non of the previously existing material is being re-used because the old article had been plagiarized by a Nigerian newspaper that copied the article verbatim from Wikipedia as can be seen here, so in order to avoid being accused in future of copying from this source, whose writer will now be assumed to be the original author (since old versions of the article have all been deleted and there seems to be no way for me to prove anymore that it was copied from Wikipedia), I decided to re-Write the article from scratch. Some of the sources remain the same of course but the content and structure is not based on the old article. Ochiwar (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

vole

... that in the event of a severe flood, the gray-tailed vole will abandon its complex network of tunnels and head for high ground? (12/12/14)

— That vole won't be the only one... Sca (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So...

@DocumentError:, @Mandarax:, @Hawkeye7:

Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum was closed as unsuccessful, and archived shortly thereafter. However, the reviewer left a note urging the nominator to resubmit it if they could promote it to GA, which they did. They then renominated it here, which I told them is not the right way to go. The question is, how is the nomination supposed to be reopened? Do they need to create a new nom page (Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2?) or do they have to copy-paste a blank DYK nom template into the old one? Is an article even eligible for re-nomination after being rejected once? Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

An article is eligible for renomination after being rejected. It was rejected for being insufficiently expanded. Having passed GA, it is now eligible on those grounds instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

G S Palmer, they should create a new nomination page. Once the old page is closed, especially as a rejection, it shouldn't be reopened. (Sometimes closed pages need to be reopened if the hook is pulled from prep or queue.) As Hawkeye7 notes, a new GA gives a new opportunity for an article that failed to qualify the first time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it hadn't been done yet, so I took care of it, using the title suggested above, the hook from the original nomination and the timestamp from the attempted renomination. DocumentError, you may, of course, replace the hook or add ALTs as desired. Also, it appears that you have six DYK credits, so a QPQ review will be required. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Mandarax thanks, I did a QPQ review here, however, I can't figure out how to add a link to the DYK review you kindly put up. When I open it to edit I just see the old DYK. DocumentError (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! I forgot to put the new nom page in {{DYK nompage links}}. I fixed it now, and I added your "reviewed" link to your nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Promo talk

In Queue 4, I changed

• ... that demand for Zoe Sugg's debut novel Girl Online was so high that every bookshop started selling it before its official release date?

to

• ... that the publisher claimed that demand for Zoe Sugg's debut novel Girl Online was so high that every bookshop started selling it before its official release date?

It's bad enough that we repeat such blatant promo talk on our front page, but at least we can make it clear that it is promotional talk and not some well-established fact. I seriously doubt that literally every bookshop (in the UK, one presumes) did this, as many specialized bookshops won't even stock this item... E.g. this one doesn't seem to have this book, which doesn't come as a surprise. Fram (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would much rather we did a completely different hook that has quantifiable facts, such as "....that the novel Girl Online broke the record for first-week sales for a debut author in the UK, selling over 78,000 copies" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be much better, but I try to avoid pulling hooks except for factual errors (or BLP reasons, copyvios, ... and the like). Too many people get upset when a hook gets pulled. Fram (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's change it to:

• ... that the promotional hype for Zoe Sugg's debut novel Girl Online ridiculously claimed it was "sold out" in stores that didn't even carry it?

EEng (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

But it is factually incorrect! As you say, I would be utterly astonished if this was a best-seller in Chaucer Books (a great place to get old book sources for WP, but that's beside the point). If you won't pull it, I will (although being cascade protected, that might be difficult) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is factually incorrect (at least the original hook was, the current one just says that someone claimed something), but as it was sourced to newspapers (who sourced it to the publisher), some people will object if I pull it anyway. Too much insistence on factuality (and neutrality) isn't always appreciated. Fram (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe change "every bookseller" to "booksellers." Although I suspect it is too late to change it by now. Neutron (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed GA from the main page

I thought, when we allowed GA's to be in the DYK section, that they might have a positive influence on the quality of DYK. However, there seem to be a lot of problems both with our GA process, and with the GA hooks. The difference with other hooks certainly isn't really noticeable.

I have now removed a hook from the main page for being, well, nonsense. We claimed

• ... that Beaver Brook State Park's name may derive from a beaver pond that was once present?

This is not sourced in the article. (Sentence "The park encompasses Bibbins Pond, and the acreage to its north, but the park's name may derive from a beaver pond that was once present." has no source). This lack of source is logical, considering that the Park was created in 1955 around the Beaver Brook, a brook that had that name already in the mid-19th century[7] and still does. It starts in Beaver Brook Pond. Now where could they possibly have found the name for their park? Now, it could well be that Beaver Brook and Beaver Brook Pond were originally named thus because there was a beaver pond. But the park is not named "Beaver Brook State Park" because there was perhaps once a beaver pond, but because the center of the park is the Beaver Brook (pond and stream). Fram (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri, Bloom6132, Colipon, 97198, and Mike V: Template:Did you know nominations/Beaver Brook State Park. Fram (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As the reviewer of this article I am sorry for not doing more due diligence in this case. Since this wasn't a BLP nor a controversial subject I guess I let down my guard and Assumed Good Faith. In the future I will exercise more due care in reviews. Colipon+(Talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Colipon: and @Fram: Leary actually notes this connection, but I seemed to have jumped that over when editing for context and flow. It was just a missing book citation, but it is an attributed albeit speculative comment based on the name by the author. Feel free to re-add it to the list or do as you please. Sorry for the confusion, normally I cite every thing in-line, but this was until I edited it. Though normally I don't like speculative comments even based on conventional wisdom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Special occasion hook needs promotion

Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Daniel Anthonisz was approved on 11 December. The nominator had requested that it should be featured on 17 December and the reviewer also approved the hook but it was not moved to prep. Now it should be moved to Prep 6 so that the it appears on the Main Page on 17. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise...

Prep 6, Template:Did you know nominations/Andries Jan Pieters. @Crispulop, Cwmhiraeth, and Fuebaey:

• ... that Andries Jan Pieters, the last person to be executed in the Netherlands, might otherwise have been executed by the Germans for desertion?

To me, this strongly suggests that if the Dutch hadn't executed him, the Germans would have done it. However, this is highly unlikely. If the Dutch hadn't arrested him, or if the war had continued for a bit longer, then perhaps the Germans would have executed him for desertion. But as the hooks stands now, the juxtaposition doesn't make sense. Note that Capital punishment in Germany states that it was abolished in 1949 in West Germany, while Pieters was only executed in 1952, making the hook even more unlikely. Can this be reworded or pulled please? Fram (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. What about substituting:

• ALT1 ... that since the execution of Andries Jan Pieters and a German soldier for war crimes on 21 March 1952, no further executions have taken place in the Netherlands? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A lot better, thanks. Fram (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your input Fram. As I posted with the nomination; I was struggling with the formulation. I (and the journalist coming up with the idea) indeed meant this "If the Dutch hadn't arrested him, or if the war had continued for a bit longer, then perhaps (it was likely apparantly) the Germans would have executed him for desertion." ALT 1 still needs to be implemented btw. Crispulop (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now replaced the hook in Prep 6 with ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another corporate CEO ready for grilling

Ready for grilling, sir!

Guineas not ready for grilling

He's well-"Prepped" for the witness stand. Yum! EEng (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC) DYK neophytes may look here [8] for a hint.

Forty Guineas buys a lot of hamburgers, even in Covent Garden!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your turn to grill the witness, counselor!

No need to mock! I think that hook is very "punchy". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

First since...

Now in Prep 3, Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Helmand Province incident, a GA. @It Is Me Here, MelanieN, and Cwmhiraeth:

• ... that in 2013, Alexander Blackman became the first British serviceman to be convicted of a murder whilst serving abroad since the Second World War?

The approved hook was actually

• ... that, in 2013, Alexander Blackman became the first British serviceman to be convicted of a battlefield murder since the Second World War?

but Cwmhiraeth changed it when promoting it to prep 3, matching the hook to the article which makes the same claim (murder), while the Daily Telegraph (one of the two sources, the other the rather less reliable Daily Mail) narrows it down to the first convicted for a battlefield murder.

As the hook (and the article) now stand, it is hard to see why e.g. the case of Leslie Grantham doesn't count. In 1966, he was a lance corporal in the British Army, and served in Germany, where he murdered a taxi driver. He was convicted and spent more than ten years in prison for it.[9] The hook and the article probably need to be changed to make the correct claim. Something like

• ... that, in 2013, Alexander Blackman became the first British serviceman to be convicted of a battlefield murder while serving abroad since the Second World War?

Fram (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that "a battlefield murder" would be enough, since it rules out Grantham since Grantham did not murder the man on a battlefield/during a battle? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So what precisely is a "battlefield murder". I changed the hook when I promoted it to agree with the article and because it didn't sound like a battlefield to me. The soldiers dragged their injured prisoner across a field and then shot him. The soldiers were on duty but not on a battlefield in my view. The soldier you mention was presumably off duty when he shot the taxi driver? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No idea whether he was on-duty or not. "Battlefield murder" doesn't seem enough, the "while serving abroad" needs to be added I think, as there have IIRC been convictions for murders during fights in Northern Ireland. Whether that is more or less of a battlefield is debatable, but they certainly looked to be "on-duty" murders. Something like Lee Clegg (though later overturned) or Ian Thain, or Mark Fisher and James Wright[10]. Fram (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt about how to describe something, follow the sources. The Telegraph says "Blackman was given a life sentence at court martial for the battlefield execution of a badly wounded Taliban fighter during a patrol in Helmand province in September 2011" and "The case is unprecedented in modern times, with no other serviceman having been convicted of murder on a foreign battlefield since at least the Second World War" - twice using the word "battlefield" and once specifying "foreign battlefield." The Daily Mail says "the first British serviceman to be convicted of murder on active service abroad since the Second World War" - specifying "abroad" while not saying "battlefield". Based on the sources I think the ultimate hook should include both "battlefield" and "abroad". The hook suggested by Fram does both, and I would approve it in place of the one I initially approved. I would also suggest adding the word "battlefield" to the appropriate sentence in the article's lead. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's go with Fram's hook, then, as you suggest. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 01:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the hook in Prep 3 to Fram's version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 18 December 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 #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) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Admin needed: now over an hour overdue. There are three preps ready to be promoted. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  DYK is dead! --Pudeo' 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Admin still needed, even though Pudeo removed the call for admins from everyone's watchlist. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

I suggest changing the hook currently in Prep 6 to this ALT because the picture is being exhibited from November 2014 to March 2015. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• ... that in 2014, The Roses of Heliogabalus (pictured), owned by Juan Antonio Pérez Simón, exhibited in London for the first time in over one hundred years?
• ALT ... that The Roses of Heliogabalus (pictured), owned by Juan Antonio Pérez Simón, is being exhibited in London for the first time in over one hundred years?

I agree with your suggestion, and have just altered the hook in Prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 4 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 19 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 83 nominations are approved, leaving 215 of 298 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over six weeks:

• October 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com: Revision history
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/I Won't Let You Down (OK Go song)

Over one month:

• October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Hail, Caesar!
• November 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Yongin–Seoul Expressway
• November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Comoros at the 2008 Summer Olympics
• November 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
• November 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Gill Spottswood
• November 9: Template:Did you know nominations/1996 Silver Spring, Maryland, train collision
• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Ali Akbar Aboutorabi Fard
• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Pakistan Armed Forces deployments
• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Bristol County Jail
• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/From The Doctor to my son Thomas
• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Gambia at the 2008 Summer Olympics
• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/McDonald Ranch House (two articles)
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Gregorio Jiménez de la Cruz
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Sigma I-62 war game
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Sigma I-64 war game
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Oceana County Historical & Genealogical Society
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Captive Pursuit
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/GL Mk. I radar

Also needing review:

• October 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Afternoon (ALT3 needs checking)
• October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/CNN Philippines
• October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Disability in China
• October 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Seth Andrews
• October 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Mischocyttarus mexicanus
• October 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Momentum
• October 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Madonna of the Book (Botticelli) (needs another review: this is supposed to run for Christmas}
• October 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Simon Clark (novelist) (ALT hooks need checking)
• November 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Can't Stop the Love (Neon Jungle song)
• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Ebbor Gorge
• November 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Bu Shang
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Cognitive specialization
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Negativity bias
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/The Game (mind game)

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) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Error in Queue 2

The final hook in Queue 2 (Glenwood Generating Station) has an error introduced by a change made after the review was closed. The rejection of the power plant was made before the town supervisor's comments, not after; this is clear from the source but not from the part quoted in the article itself.

In addition to this, the wording has been changed in a way that make it less clear, in my opinion. In general, such large changes to hooks should not be made in the prep areas. Either the approved hook should be restored or the review should be reopened. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This hook is due to go to the Main Page in about 2 hours, so it should be taken care of soon either way. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the change, and there's no way anyone could tell in what order the rejection and the comment occurred. If indeed the order is as you say, then we might change it to

X1 that after an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected, an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said that consumers were lowering thermostats and wearing sweaters?

The original hook appears to be in error as well, BTW. It was

that an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected in part because the Oyster Bay Town Board believed that consumers could instead save energy by wearing sweaters in their homes?

I can't see the entire source just now, but from its lead it appears the "energy conservation" (not specifically sweaters -- that's just one member's comment) was part of the rationale for the rejection. EEng (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That hook makes it sound like the sweaters were happening in response to the rejection rather than being a pre-existing rationale for it. If you want to discuss the hook further could you just pull it so we have time to come up with an acceptable one? My copy of the original source is on a printout at home and I'm at work now. I don't mind taking extra time to improve the hook, I just don't think it's a good idea to make such changes after the review has closed, and without notifying the nominator. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think you're overthinking this, but how about

X2 ... that in conjunction with rejection of a proposed expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station, an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said that consumers were lowering thermostats and wearing sweaters?

or

X3 ... that, commenting on rejection of a proposed expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station, an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said that consumers were lowering thermostats and wearing sweaters?

EEng (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this: Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

X4 ... that after an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected, the Oyster Bay Town Supervisor justified it by saying that consumers were lowering their thermostats and wearing sweaters in their homes?

Justified "it" is a bit awkward, so howzabout:

X5 ... that an Oyster Bay Town Supervisor justified rejection of a proposed expansion of Glenwood Generating Station by saying that consumers were lowering their thermostats and wearing sweaters in their homes?

EEng (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think "justified rejection of a proposed expansion of" is more awkward than "justified it". X4 flows much better than X5. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you need do change "it" to something else (like "the action" or "its action") and do something about the fact that there's more than one supervisor. EEng (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is only one Town Supervisor; that is the name of the top executive officer for towns in New York. How about:

X6 ... that after an expansion of the Glenwood Generating Station was rejected, the Oyster Bay Town Supervisor said the action was justified because consumers were wearing sweaters in their homes?

I removed the "lowering their thermostats" part because the hooks was above 200 characters. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. I apologize for misunderstanding re # of supervisors and thereby adding further to the confusion. EEng (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, there's still time to change it before it's done on the Main Page. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done on MP. Harrias ^talk 08:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Queue: admin instructions

@TParis, JohnCD, and Waggers: We've been having issues with late updates to the DYK section on the main page recently, due to a lack of admin attention. One of the problems highlighted was that people didn't know what to do for the queue update. After scrounging around I found some instructions, but they haven't been updated since DYKUpdateBot was introduced. So I've tried to put together a general to-do list below:

After confirming that a suggestion meets the DYK rules, an administrator may move the suggestion to the DYK template and then delete the suggestion from the DYK template prep area page.

This section describes the steps to perform a full update to the "Did you know" section on the Main Page.

Preparations

• Make sure the template was last refreshed more than 12 hours ago (check the {{DYK-Refresh}} template on the suggestions page, or the edit history of the live DYK template).
• Make sure you have the proper number of eligible items so as to balance the main page, generally about seven hooks.
• Make sure you have a suitable picture.

Please check that nominated items are eligible:

• Are interesting facts based on articles created or substantially expanded or listed as Good Articles less than 168 hours (7 days) ago before originally nominated.
• Are over 1,500 prose characters in length.
• Comply with Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright.

Process

1. Check the talk page for any outstanding hook issues in the preparation area. If in doubt, switch the problematic hook with one from another preparation area.
2. Make sure the image/media for the hooks to be loaded is on English Wikipedia or protected on Commons. If the image/file is on Commons and not protected, upload it to En and tag it with {{c-uploaded}}. You do not need to protect the picture; this is done automatically because of the cascading protection of the Main Page. Alternatively, if you are an admin at Commons you can protect the image/file at Commons instead of uploading to En.
3. Move the contents of the preparation area to the next queue.
4. Tag the top of the numbered queue with {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} once it is loaded and ready.
5. Preview the template and make sure everything is correct, and that the image is protected. Save the template.
6. Reset the contents of the preparation area with Template:Did you know/Clear.
7. Edit the queue counter to identify the next preparation template to be copied to the queue.

The actual draft can be found here. If anyone wants to add to or make corrections, feel free. I'd appreciate it if a regular DYK admin, @Crisco 1492, Casliber, and HJ Mitchell: could once over this before it's posted over at T:DYK/Q and WP:AN. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, that's so quick and uncomplicated I can hardly believe we have have trouble getting those lazy admins to do it. EEng (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also highly problematic, because it's pre-bot and the intro and some of the steps are inappropriate since what's really wanted is to move a set from prep to queue. I've struck the 12-hour wait, since that's irrelevant, and made some other quick adjustments; queues can be loaded at any time, and the bot moves them when the time is right (which could be right away if the main page is overdue for an update). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, can only work with what I have. I've tried to hack redundant stuff off the old guide, though I'm not familiar with it all so I might miss some. If you want to simplify it further, go on ahead. Each prep actually has instructions at the bottom but I take it that's just too confusing. Fuebaey (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've always found it an exceptionally simple process. It is just extremely time-consuming to re-check all the article comply with all the guidelines. Harrias ^talk 15:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the fact that someone wrote something in itself a justification to use it as a hook?

See Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. The author of the Cronica Walliae wrote a number of things. A few of these are considered today to by mythical or, in the case of King Arthur's alleged grave, a medieval hoax. I'd suggested an alternative hook which was accepted, then rejected when the author of the article. User:Doug Coldwell, removed the text (now reinserted by me and slightly edited by him). He's now added several other alternative hooks, most of which push supposed voyages of the legendary Prince Madoc to America, a subject upon which Llwyd, who wrote the Cronica, noted " it is a tale which in the retelling ‘the commen people do use in distance of place and leingth of tyme rather to augment than to dyminish’. Coldwell and User:7&6=thirteen argue that there should be no suggestion in the hook that there is any doubt about the voyage on what seems to be the grounds that only what Llywd actually wrote should be included, User:Elaqueate and I disagree. Is there any precedent or common practice for this sort of issue? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought it a cleaner hook. Hard to suggest that it has been the subject of debate is hard to fit into 200 characters. That hooks are sometimes misleading (or a diversion) has been used as a criterion for their hookiness. Do you have a suggestion, as this has been the subject of innumerable debates. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about something like "Did you know...the Cronica Walliae popularised a legend that the Welsh discovered America in about 1170, a tale used to justify English encroachments on the territory of Spanish America?" __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It gives more context, demonstrates significance, and shows how scholars perceive it today.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)