Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 28 May 2016

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

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

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

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Current time: 19:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 19 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a while ago; here's a new list of the 32 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes hooks at least ten days old. As of the most recent update, 38 nominations have been approved, leaving 147 of 185 nominations still needing approval. There continues to be steady activity working on these old reviews; only one is left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

• March 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Ständchen (Strauss)
• April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Corina Abraham
• April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Moving Pictures (webcomic)
• April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Will Rogers Memorial
• April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Church of England churches in Wales
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander Prokhorenko
• April 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Jacky Lafon
• April 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Bishop's Castle Town F.C.
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Megan York
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Rathika Ramasamy
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese Nü Yr
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/1979 Revolution: Black Friday
• May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Alita: Battle Angel
• May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Winschoten railway station
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Manthos Papagiannis
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Euphemia Eleanor Baker
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/The creation of the violin
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Chi l'ha vista morire?
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Commentaires sur Corneille
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Tsakirgis
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Chicago Justice
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography
• May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Wangkhei Phee
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Kojo Aidoo
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Ocasio v. United States
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Li Yuru
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Jacques Cavallier
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Trinity Green (building)
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Taubert Seeger
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Alison Sheridan
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption within the Wehrmacht
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Amanda Barnes Smith
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Geraldine Roman
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Steve McGarrett
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Lowestoft Maritime Museum
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Ellen Edmunds
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Abortion in Saint Kitts and Nevis
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Todd Carroll

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) 05:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

10 (MercyMe album) on Prep 5

This article carries the {{non-free}} tag. Is it still good for use on MainPage? --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No, not unless the tag is taken care of, PFHLai. What seems to be at issue is the non-free justification for the sound sample in the article, which J Milburn found "really lacking" in his edit summary when adding the tag; I think this is something that Toa Nidhiki05 needs to address before the hook can be sent to the main page. (Obviously, I disagree with Northamerica1000, who promoted the hook despite the tag.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled. I pulled the hook from Prep 5, reopened and left a comment about this matter at Template:Did you know nominations/10 (MercyMe album) and notified both the article creator and reviewer about this matter, pointing them to the DYK nomination page. In the process of verifying things before promoting the hook, I apparently overlooked the tag atop the article. North America 20:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Milburn has taken issue for some reason with many of my articles I've recently worked on. The justification is standard and I have dozens of good articles using NF material without any complaint. I frankly find his complaint really lacking, unless he wants to add it to the literally hundreds of good and featured articles using them. Toa Nidhiki05 20:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Arguably individual songs, unless deserving of special mention, do not require samples on articles that are not about that song. I think its safe here since at least a couple of the reviews of the album call out that song specifically for praise/criticism, however that needs to be made explicit for NF usage. 'Audio files demonstrate the song better than words alone' is not a fantastic rationale by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree, which is why when I do put songs in album articles (usually 2 or 3, maybe more if there are a ton of songs commented about or the album has more songs than normal) I make sure they are either singles or album cuts with notability. But he's even tagged articles for songs I've written - and it's generally accepted, at least from what I've seen, that a song article can have a sample of the song. Your clarification on what would be problematic is much appreciated, though - I'll add a better justification. Toa Nidhiki05 15:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

archived error

I can't seem to find any information about correcting errors in archived DYKs. I happened to find one and mentioned it in the relevant talk page, Template talk:Did you know nominations/Marin Temperica. Should anything else be done? --Joy (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Joy. I am the author of the article in question and dyk nomination. What is the error you have in mind?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently an extraordinary statement was referenced to an Ivo Vukcevich source, which is not only not WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's not even WP:RS, because of his countless biased diatribes against nationalities other than his own (he's so biased that he even put some of that in book titles, so it's not only non-encyclopedic, it's Vojislav Šešelj territory - a borderline WP:ARBMAC violation in and of itself). I have recently edited the article to remove the invalid source and the contentious claim, and the remaining issue is whether we still do something with the DYK entry (and what). --Joy (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Vuckevich's works are indeed not WP:RS. I should have checked them better before using them. I added alternative sources: reference to a primary source with original text and secondary source. I don't think there was anything extraordinary in a dyk statement. Many people believed that version of Serbian language spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina was most beautiful and purest (meaning most correct). I think that Vuk Karadžić, who also dealt with preparation of literary language, took this version for modern literary Serbian language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Age of Trevor Ford (now on Main Page)

I changed

• ... that the Welsh footballer Trevor Ford once stepped in as a replacement fielder for Glamorgan County Cricket Club during a match, at the age of 45?

to

• ... that the Welsh footballer Trevor Ford once stepped in as a replacement fielder for Glamorgan County Cricket Club during a match?

Template:Did you know nominations/Trevor Ford @Kosack, Joseph2302, Cwmhiraeth, and Casliber:

The age of 45 is supported by the source, but seems to be wrong (or else his date of birth is wrong). The article gives his date of birth as 1 October 1923, and the date of the match he played in was August 31, 1968 (in the same source, and also in e.g. Garfield Sobers#Six sixes in an over. If these two dates are correct, he was 44 at the time of the match, not 45.

This didin't seem sufficient to pull the hook completely, but I removed the age anyway. Fram (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Great catch. All the references I have match his dob and the date of the match so perhaps the newspaper article simply assumed that it was because it's 45 years between the dates. Apologies for not checking that myself. Kosack (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, great catch. I checked the source, which said he was 45, but great catch on realising that the source was wrong. My bad. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 lead hook

The hook for George O'Mullane includes the phrase "pluck and skill", which reads to me like a quote—at least "pluck" does, since it's a characterization that is highly unusual for encyclopedic prose. Unfortunately, I can't check the offline source, but rather than pre-emptively pull the hook, I thought I'd ask nominator HappyWaldo whether "pluck" or the larger phrase is taken from the source. If it is, then the appropriate quotes should be added to the article (or the phrase reworded); if not, then a word other than "pluck" is probably more appropriate (perhaps something along the lines of "determination" can be used instead). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, BlueMoonset. "Pluck and skill" comes directly from the source. Perhaps quotation marks should be added? - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

HappyWaldo, thanks for the quick response. I've added the quotes to both the Prep 4 hook and the passage in the article. If the quoted material from the source is more than those three words, please modify the placement of the double quotes in the article as appropriate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hooks that contain part of a source

The above section on the Prep 4 hook prompts me to put a reminder here about how hooks are worded. Being a fairly new admin, it's also new to me for checking each nomination against its source before moving a prep up to queue. After a couple of weeks of it, I think I can safely say DYK "takes a village" on catching the slip ups. No blame is applied here, because I believe each reviewer catches errors on instinct of what they're used to noticing. Not everybody catches the same type of error. I just removed three promoted hooks because the wording is too close to the source. I think that's kind of a biggie to have a hook on the main page that is almost verbatim to the source, if it's not in quotes. So, please, when anyone is promoting to prep, checking the hook against the wording of the source is a plus factor. — Maile (talk) 15:30, 23 May 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 #6 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) 22:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep areas need immediate attention

We've entirely ran out of queues again and have no completed prep areas. Can someone please address this soon so a promoting administrator (such as myself) doesn't have to break the chain of review by adding a hook theirself. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw:, @BlueMoonset: Please see above. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah:, @Northamerica1000: — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Starting...Montanabw 01:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 and 2 done, will take a whack at the others until I run out of hooks. Montanabw 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, Preps 1, 2 and 3 are now filled, 4-6 partial, I'm out of hooks I can promote. I cleared a couple of hooks that needed additional reviewers and did a qpq on a DYK, so there should be enough approved hooks right now for someone else to finish up prep 4 at least. Lots of basic reviews needed, fewer dramas to settle than usual. Montanabw 03:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We've been scraping the bottom of the barrel for a while now. Right now there are only 15 approved hooks to choose from to build new prep sets. The set running on the main page right now has 5 U.S.-based hooks, in contradiction of the rule to have only 4. Is it time to slow down the promotions and go back to 7-hook sets? Yoninah (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to keep 8 hooks but slow the rate, otherwise it compromises the balance of the main page, and that's not fair on ITN or OTD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the main page right now, it's unbalanced with 8 hooks; 7 would clearly be better today. The sweet spot is typically 7 to 8, and reducing to 7 is something we've done many times in the past without deleterious effects. Reducing to 7 hooks twice a day would decrease our burn rate by 14 hooks a week; reducing to 8 hooks once a day would decrease our burn rate by 56 hooks a week. Why don't we try 7 hooks per set and see if that works; if it doesn't, we can go to one set a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I boldly reduced the hook count to 7 in Preps 4 and 5, and found that filling in these sets was a breeze. Could a bot program the other prep sets to 7 hooks? Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If the "sweet spot" is 7, stick to 7 for good. We have lots of very wordy hooks at the moment: admins are promoting too many unhooky hooks. And I'm not sure how filling 7 is "a breeze" yet 8 is nigh-on impossible. Maybe it's a "lost in translation" thing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it's one less unwieldy hook to wade through... Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Boldly going where no other bot has gone before, I temporarily reduced the others to 7 hooks. Also the "clear" template admins use when they promote to queue. Took only a few seconds. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see how 7 is "a breeze" and just one more hook is so much more difficult. Oh well. We'll have to trim the OTD/ITN side to match when we have shorter blurbs then. Which is a shame. The rest of the main page shouldn't have to suffer just because DYK can't get its act together. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Seven hooks should be okay, if most of the hooks are wordy. Let's not have too many short hooks together. --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks PFHLai. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@PFHLai: Trust me, that won't be a problem. Gone are the days when nominators used to write snappy hooks. My favorite: "Did you know ... that Wooden Leg didn't have one?" Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, maybe we can "cheat" by making the picture slightly bigger (or taller, if it's a portrait). We just need to be consistent in how much space the hook sets occupy on MainPage. My favorite short hook: ... ?  ;-) --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

1979 Revolution: Black Friday (Queue 3)

In Queue 3, the hook about 1979 Revolution: Black Friday should say "after the announcement", not "after the release", per the article and sources. – Rhain ☔ 05:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pull needed from Q2

Please pull Pashtun colonization of northern Afghanistan from Q2, it contains too-close paraphrasing of this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you basing this statement on, though? After all, the copyright violation percentage for this article here is a mere 5.7%: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Pashtun+colonization+of+northern+Afghanistan&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Futurist110 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Futurist110: Copyvio tools will only catch exact word-for-word copying, not close paraphrasing. Compare for example:

• Article: In many cases, voluntary migrants to the north were provided with travel expenses, animals, free land in perpetuity and a three year tax exemption. Abdur Rahman's policies of voluntary migration for sedentary Pashtuns proved to be more successful than previous forced attempts, especially regarding nomads.
• Source: In many cases voluntary migrants to the north were provided with travel expenses, animals, free land in perpetuity and a three year tax exemption. Many accepted this offer. Abdur Rahman’s policies of voluntary migration for sedentary Pashtuns proved to be more successful than previous forced attempts, especially regarding nomads (Kakar, 1979, p. 134).

These two excerpts are almost identical, but not exactly - so this likely wouldn't be caught by a copyvio tool, but it's still problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, on closer look it appears that the tool is only comparing the first couple of sections of the source article anyway - that is also contributing to its failure to pick up on problems here. Anyone know why that's happening? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's related to the recent switch to Yandex? We had to stop using Yahoo and can't use more well known search engines like Bing or Google for TOU/cost reasons. @The Earwig: might be able to shed light? Intelligentsium 19:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay...

• This has nothing to do with the switch to Yandex. This direct comparison does not involve a search engine.
• The source uses JavaScript to load its text, so most of the content is not available to the comparison tool. A PDF is available on the page, but unfortunately its formatting is too unusual for the tool to handle properly.
• The tool can catch close paraphrasing, as long as it finds a source URL to compare with. The example you gave would definitely be detected. For fun, I copied the paper to a plain text document, and it finds plenty of interesting stuff.

— Earwig  20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. @Futurist110: 65%! Tools aren't perfect, but this should give you an idea of where to start. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Prep 6 needs promoting, but I compiled the set

Just an FYI on Prep 6. All hooks are loaded, but I promoted 6 of the 7 hooks. I think someone else needs to promote it to queue. — Maile (talk) 11:31, 26 May 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 #6 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) 22:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And I repeat here. Prep 6 is ready, and I promoted the majority of the hooks to it. Can an admin other than me please promote Prep 6 up to Queue 6? And just in case, I'm alerting BlueMoonset — Maile (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did it myself, since there's only about 10 minutes before the deadline. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably for the best, Maile. I had just pinged Crisco 1492's talk page, in case he showed up before 00:00, and was about to do the same with Cas Liber, but there were no guarantees they would be on line in time. Since I'm not an admin, there's nothing I can do directly. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting clarification of hook currently on Main Page

I was reading through the DYK section on the main page when one of the hooks caught my eye:

• "... that Anna Rügerin's 1484 books are the first publications known to be typeset by a woman?"

When I followed the link to the article for Anna Rügerin, I noticed that this fact isn't mentioned in the article. Instead, the article simply says that "Anna Rügerin is considered to be the first female typographer to inscribe her name in the colophon of a book" (see Colophon (publishing) to learn what a "colophon" is). The article does not say that her 1484 books are the first to be typeset by a women. In fact, the source cited by the article states that "In Mantua, northern Italy, about 1476, Estellina Conat, wife to physician and printer Abraham Conat was involved in the typesetting of one of the earliest printed Hebrew books ...." If I understand this correctly, it sounds like Rügerin's books were not the first to be typeset by a woman, because they were preceded by Conat's work eight years earlier.

I am posting this here rather than at WP:ERRORS, because I don't want this pulled prematurely if my interpretation is wrong. I am pinging Carwil (who wrote/nominated the article), MartinPoulter (who approved the nomination), and Maile66 (who promoted the hook). Thanks in advance for the clarification! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you pinged the nominator and approver. I noticed this is translated from the Spanish wikipedia. What I see in that same source is: The very first woman to ever add her name to the colophon of a printed book as its printer is Anna Rügerin, who published two folio editions in the summer of 1484 in the imperial city of Augsburg in southern Germany. I'm sure that's the basis for that hook. Let's see what the others have to say. — Maile (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the hook is not supported by the source. Can we change the hook to something like this:

• ... that Anna Rügerin is considered to be the first female typographer to inscribe her name in the colophon of a book?

Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: I placed a post at WP:ERRORS in which I asked for this hook to be changed. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Update #2: This has been removed from the main page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: As I feared, I have now had to reduce OTD to four items as the DYK section is so short. Please reconsider using just seven hooks, it would be better to slow the updates down and go back to eight hooks, as the current approach is compromising other sections of the main page. This is unfair as other, well-managed sections of the main page should not have to suffer because DYK can't get hooks sorted out and accurate enough in time. Slow it down. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't we have some mechanism for immediately replacing a pulled hook with another that's approved and in the preps/queues? Yoninah (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Which would mean that if an erroneous hook gets pulled after 6 or 8 hours (not uncommon), the replacement unproblematic hook would only get 6 or 4 hours on the main page, due to a problem with another hook. This seems hardly fair on the people who worked hard to get their hook on the main page. Plus, you then need to check that the replacement hook wasn't intended for a specific day or timeslot, and that it doesn't unbalance the DYK section on the main page (by then having e.g. two hooks on works by the same German composer or memebers of the same animal family or two different dino eggs or two creeks from Pennsylvania or ...) "Immediately" replacing a hook would put a significant extra burden on the people removing hooks from the main page. I for one will not burden myself with it. Fram (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is on me: apologies to everyone concerned. One cited source describes Rügerin as "the first recorded female printer. Her 1484 books..." The other source specifically mentions typography. Reading in haste, I missed the statement about Conat. Lesson learned, thanks to Notecardforfree for the correction and, again, sorry to the volunteers whose time has been wasted. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to Yoninah: I can't recall ever having a hook replaced once the set has gone to the main page. We do replace pulled queue hooks with ones from prep, because we want the proper number to be promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 popash problems

• ... that Popash, Florida was named after a large tree that nobody at the time was able to identify?

Template:Did you know nominations/Popash, Florida @SSTflyer, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, and Northamerica1000:

I removed this from Prep4 because

• The source used in the article () states "The community of Popash, possibly named after the poplar ash or pop ash tree, began in the 1850s. According to the University of Florida, the popash or pop ash tree is native to Florida. This is the Fraxinus caroliniana. The hook comes apparently from another source but it is unclear to me why this one would be considered reliable, or why when we have tco contradictory sources, we would go with one of them and not with the other.

• Speaking of sources, apart from the one unreliable sources all others link back to a freepages genealogy site that is nothing but a page of scans of copyrighted texts from newspapers and the like, some with source, some without. This violates WP:ELNEVER rather badly. (Well, not all others link back, there is also a commercial link to a company located in popash: it is not clear to me why that would warrant free exposure here either, but luckily the domain has expired and the link isn't doing anything at all expect linking to Godaddy.com: at the moment, I can't even verify that the Oaks Ranch in Popash ever existed, which is weird).

Please remove the elnever link, consider removing the other link of questionable reliability, remove all reference to the Oaks Ranch, and rewrite the article to incorporate both theories about the origin of the name or eliminate the current one (without a reliable source). Fram (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note at the time. Just because the tree is later identified does not make the hook incorrect. SSTflyer 13:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You are rapidly on your way to diqualify yourself as a DYK reviewer with such comments. Anything relevant to say about my comments? The fact that we have two contradictory sources, where the article and hook choose to go with one (unreliable) source and completely ignore the other, is somehow not important because the hook says "at the time"? Incredible. Fram (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn. I have copy edited the article to address content about the possible origin of the town's name, and have removed the link in question per WP:ELNEVER. Content about The Oaks Ranch has also been removed from the article. North America 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • N.b. Popash, Florida. Despite all of this, (WP:ELNEVER, et al.), it is easily arguable that the manner in which the sources exist and were presented in the article technically qualify under Fair use. However, I suppose it's moot now since I withdrew the nomination. It's all good. Who cares? It's just a rural town that hasn't really received any significant attention by mass media. The end. North America 14:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:ELNEVER states in its lead (in bold): "These external-link guidelines do not apply to footnoted citations within the body of the article." So, they are not relevant to references in the article. Further, even if the online copies of the newspaper are not accessible, the newspaper articles themselves can be linked as off line sources. Stripping the article of references is not an improvement and if it is what Fram seeks then Fram should rethink. EdChem (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Let's just keep nitpicking and wiki-lawyering everything forever. It's just a hick town, no big deal. Maybe just nominate it for deletion instead. The end. North America 14:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I thought I was helping by pointing out that ELNEVER does not apply and the changes you are being asked for are unhelpful, but whatever - no reason for anyone to give a damn about my trying to help. EdChem (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
          • @EdChem: Your comments were helpful. You just happened to step into an already sore situation, not your fault. — Maile (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
            • My comment is open-ended; not directed toward anyone, just observations. There's no "sore situation" here. Bleh. I came along and improved the Popash, Florida article; seemed worthy of DYK so I nominated it. Yeah, I think the source and source usage is fair per Fair use. Maybe somebody will come along and work on the article later. It's just a small hick town. Who cares? It seems that I wasted my time working to improve a Misplaced Pages article, only to be met with derision and shaming, rather than discussion about actually improving the article. And people keep wondering why Misplaced Pages keeps losing editors. North America 14:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't believe WP:ELNEVER is usable here, then you can always read WP:LINKVIO, "a Misplaced Pages policy with legal considerations." Some quotes: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. " and "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Misplaced Pages and its editors." So, EdChem, the changes that I asked for are not "unhelpful", they are necessary under policy. And no, NorthAmerica1000, a site that reprints full articles without commentary and in some cases without even any indication of what the source was is not "fair use" under any stretch of the definition, it is pure and blatant copyright violation. My comments were necessary things to improve the article (and the hook), if you can't accept that and are being misguided by others here than tough luck, it's not my intention to discourage you but maintaining our policies is more important than what you believe or what must be accepted to keep you editing. Fram (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 5: eat and be eaten

• ... that the California smoothtongue has a black pigment in its stomach lining which may help this small fish avoid being eaten?

Template:Did you know nominations/Leuroglossus stilbius @Cwmhiraeth, Jakec, and SSTflyer:

Removed from prep 5 because the hook is not supported by the article and at first glance not by the source either. The only line in the article related to the hook says "The fish has a double-chambered stomach, the first chamber having a black pigment in its lining which may prevent the light from luminescent prey it has swallowed from being visible from the exterior." No mention is being made of "why" this light is prevented from being seen from the exterior. Is it too hide the smoothtongue from its predators, or is to hide it from its prey? Perhaps another reason? The source given for the hook, also doesn't seem to shed any light on this (pun intended). Page 110 is the only part I could find that deals with this black pigment. Fram (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I see that now. Though I suspect it would be a relatively easy fix. Perhaps something like ... that the California smoothtongue fish has a black pigment in its stomach lining which may prevent its bioluminescent food from being seen inside its stomach? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This fish spends much of its life in the deep ocean in total darkness. If it had eaten bioluminous prey it would not want light to shine through its translucent, pigmentless skin so evolution has solved the problem by including a black pigment in the lining of its stomach. Researchers observe things like this without being able to prove why the stomach lining is black. They state "an adaptation that may prevent light from bioluminescent prey from showing through" and my article states "... may prevent the light from luminescent prey it has swallowed from being visible from the exterior." This is one of many small fish that make daily vertical migrations to the surface to feed and then down into the depths to remain quiescent and digest the food. The hook statement seems OK to me, it does use the word "may" after all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR. It is only your idea of why this "may" happen, not something sourced. Fram (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced secondarily by Caillet and Ebeling (1990, p.110) where is has a primary original source of McAllister (1961)? They feed close to the surface, so what other purpose would preventing the escape if light have? This seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw. 86.171.17.120 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that this is indeed pure WP:OR. Fram (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not "pure OR" at all, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the article quoted. 86.171.17.120 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:OR? From the lead: "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Please explain how "this seems a prefectly reasonable conclusion to draw" differs one bit from this definition of WP:OR... Fram (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Slow down

We've had a large surge in error reports for DYK, we've had problems balancing the main page since dropping to 7 hooks per set, can we please go back to 8 hooks but slow things down, perhaps even to one set per day. It's completely unfair on the ITN/OTD side of the main page to have to accommodate such meagre offerings from DYK and it's clear that the rush to try to get even 7 hooks promoted is causing more problems than it's solving. There's no deadline, I don't even know if the WikiCup is running or whatever, so why the need to rush the hooks through? Please, do us a favour and slow down. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

We've slowed down to 7 or even 6 a set plenty of times before and never had any complaints from ITN/OTD, why should it be any different this time? Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Balancing" is still a thing in an age where screen sizes vary from mobile to 17.3" to 24"+? Ed  17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at a main page with 7 hooks, and the last two (on my screen) are matched with white space in the ITN/OTD side. Going to 8 hooks would make the imbalance even worse. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

^my point exactly. Ed  19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Bollocks I'm afraid. I was forced to reduce OTD to four items today because DYK had only six viable hooks. This is unacceptable. Deal with it or I will start to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And you are getting complaints, right now. ITN and OTD are relevant and useful and receive serious pageviews, while DYK is a little bit of fun. We cannot compromise the encyclopedic half of the main page because DYK can't get its act together. Eight hooks, SLOWLY. If not, then it will be easy for me to remove the last entry at DYK whenever I need to in order to balance the main page rather than continually juggle ITN and OTD to suit the vagaries and inadequacies of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not bollocks. I'm far from a DYK cheerleader, but the false notion of "balancing" the main page is (to a point, of course) straight from a decade ago. If you pointedly start removing DYK hooks from the main page for balancing reasons, I will revert you myself. Ed  19:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps you don't know what you're talking about. And doing that would be wheel warring and you would be de-sysoped, which, by the sounds of it, wouldn't be such a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, back from the hysterical ed, can someone explain why we can't just stick with 8 hooks and slow the rate down, considering we can't fill it properly and we have had a surge in errors because of lackadaisical promotions, prompted by the continued rapid demand for hooks? SLOW it down please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

... I think you need to go re-read WP:WHEEL. Ed  18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

On one of the suggestions you made above, where we would go back to eight hooks, and it would be up to you to delete whichever one you chose once it was out there, if you felt like it, but not always, sort of hit and miss if you felt it was needed, in order to attain balance. How would you decide which nominator's work gets short-changed, and would that hook be put back in the rotation for another chance? That part of it isn't good. I'm not debating the number of hooks with you, just saying it's not a good idea for you to yank a hook at will, just because you see the balance off. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, if we went back to eight hooks we'd probably be okay most of the time unless hooks were pulled once on the main page through errors. As for "yanking a hook", that's precisely what we have to do to OTD to make it balance when DYK fouls it up. And I agree, it's not good, so DYK should work harder to avoid it happening to any section of the main page. People have worked hard on all parts of the main page, not just the fun DYK aspects, so it's unfair on them when DYK causes a mess by having fewer and fewer hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem here, folks, is not enough reviewed hooks. The other day, I could only build a couple of prep sets, and in the process I also approved about a half-dozen reviews that had been languishing with tags. I would suggest that qpq alone isn't getting us there, and that perhaps the solution is that anyone who has to put on a tag should also be obligated to find at least ONE article per day (as sometimes it IS necessary to tag multiple problematic articles that they can pass). But in the meantime, we HAVE gone to one set of hooks per day if needed, and that probably is preferable over fewer hooks. (Frankly, when I have an article at DYK, I kind of like it to stay there as long as possible while I tell all my wiki-friends and neighbors, ups the page view count, don't 'cha know? LOL) Montanabw 01:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Inre: "How would you decide which nominator's work gets short-changed, and would that hook be put back in the rotation for another chance?" – It's likely that if a valid, qualified hook is to be pulled for balancing purposes, it would simply be placed in a different DYK Queue or back to a Preparation area, rather than the nomination being rejected or hook being erased. North America 03:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly there would be no "punishment", so reinserting them to a later queue would be fine. But listen, what's the problem with going back to eight hooks and slowing the rate? That way we have a decent chance of not continually having to remove items from ITN and OTD (both were down to just four items yesterday because DYK had slipped to six measly hooks). If we don't have sufficient hooks to fill the sets, slow it down until we do. The rush seems to have resulted in poorer quality DYKs, with hooks being re-written on the fly or removed from the main page, with an increased frequency lately. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Using eight hooks and slowing the rate from time-to-time as necessary seems like it would be the easiest route in terms of making things easier for those involved with other aspects of Main page content. The rate of DYK queue time on Main page can be adjusted accordingly when necessary; slowed when there are lesser promoted hooks and sped up when DYK gets flooded with a bunch of new promoted hooks. It's not like it has to be set in stone. North America 05:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's certainly my opinion, but there seems to be so much emphasis here on getting things rotated around the main page as quickly as possible, regardless of the lack of quality that ensues. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I keep hearing this assertion that if only we slowed down the number of hooks, quality control would improve, but why would it when it's still the same group of people applying the same procedures? All that slowing down the total number of hooks in that circumstance is likely to achieve is to reduce the amount of time people spend on DYK management, which isn't the same thing as quality control, at all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why the surge in poor hooks/pulled hooks/errors in preps then? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that we are already promoting fewer hooks, by your reasoning there should have been a corresponding decrease in the number of problems, but since that apparently hasn't been the case, that would appear to support my argument. Gatoclass (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the panic to meet the 12-hour deadline that's causing the pisspoor promotions and errors. You know that, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support eight hooks. I'm a fan of working in unison with others to keep things running as smoothly and simply as possible. As such, I'm for using eight hooks on an adjustable/variable time rate for DYK content, based upon content levels in the DYK queues and preparation areas. North America 05:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral about how many hooks. Just for the record, I don't care how many hooks there are, as long as we are decided on what that should be. I don't want this dissolving into a constant edit war on this issue, so I'd like to see more opinions here than two or three people. And maybe some opinions from the very people who have "skin in the game", the people who promote to both prep and queue. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment We have run with six and seven hooks for months at a time on many previous occasions, and there were never any complaints about main page imbalance. This just looks like a manufactured issue from a user who has long argued that the number of hooks should be permanently reduced to improve quality control - an assumption which I have pointed out above, doesn't follow. Speaking personally, I don't much care whether we run one set of 8 hooks for 24 hours or two sets of six or seven in the same time frame, but I strongly suspect that if we go to 8 hooks every 24 hours, the next step from the aforesaid user will be to attempt to make this arrangement permanent. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  Why is there a need to push hooks through quickly? And no, if DYK can sustain a quality set of 8 hooks every 12 hours, brilliant, but right now it seems they can't sustain even 7 hooks that rapidly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, hooks must be either promoted or rejected at about the same speed as they are nominated. It's not a matter of "pushing hooks through quickly", but of matching the pace of nominations. There are a lot of potential methods of improving quality control at DYK, but merely reducing the number of promotions isn't one of them. Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not when you have a backlog of 170 already. Slow it down, as you have already noted it wasn't long ago that you had twice as many in the backlog. It makes little difference. Just stick with eight, and stop cocking the main page around. If you get to a backlog of 40 or 50, then worry. All that needs to happen (which has done lately) to address this in any case is that a set is delayed in promotion to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make now. Yes, we are all agreed that the current rate of promotion needs to be slowed a bit because it has been exceeding the rate of nomination. The question is how best to achieve that slowdown. As I already said, I don't really care what solution is adopted so long as there's a clear understanding that the solution is a temporary measure employed to increase the available pool of hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is the same I asserted from the outset. Stick to eight hooks per set so the main page isn't cocked around every time DYK fails its "mission", and promote every day instead of every 12 hours until such a time that the DYK regulars feel confident that they can meet a more demanding schedule of an eight-hook set every 12 hours. It's really simple and much better and effective for the whole of Misplaced Pages than tinkering with the number of hooks, especially given the fact that if an update is missed, the whole equation goes out of the window anyway. If you don't really care, just say "Yeah, 8 hooks and slowed down to one set per day for a bit". That would be great and actually productive, unlike the majority of this discourse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that your real agenda here is to permanently reduce the number of promoted hooks. Sorry, but if that's your goal, you should start a debate about that, rather than attempting to use another issue as a trojan horse for your cause. Gatoclass (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you lying? I've already refuted your accusation and your bad faith. I have no such goal. What part of "slowed down to one set per day for a bit" don't you understand? Do you need me to help you understand that more, or do you wish to continue lying about me and my "agenda"? I just want DYK to stop cocking the main page up. Simple as that. You, on the other hand, are defending the indefensible and lying about me at the same time. Please retract your lies and we can continue the discussion on how best to deal with this obvious problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Rambling Man, please keep your cool. I am not "lying" about anything, I am merely responding to your own comments. You are the one who has continually conflated the issue of nomination deficit with that of quality control. This discussion has nothing to do with quality control, it's about ensuring we have an adequate pool of hooks. You started out by arguing that less than eight hooks in a set unbalances the main page, and thus not a good way to rectify the hook deficit - which is a legitimate argument, even if I don't happen to agree with it - but now you are back on your hobby horse of quality control again. What I have tried to say above is that I think it's perfectly fine to be concerned about quality control and to raise it as an issue - but not in the middle of a discussion about something else. Gatoclass (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment We currently have about fourteen new DYK nominations on an average day. If we have two sets of seven hooks, the total number of nominations will remain about the same. If we had one set of eight hooks, the nominations would accumulate, so I think we should stay as we are at two sets of seven per day. What we do need however, is to make a bit of an effort to reduce the number of unreviewed nominations. If everyone that read this did one extra review, that would be a start (I aim to do two reviews for every article I nominate). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We want the overall number to accumulate a bit because the current 170 or so is a bit on the low side. A year ago the backlog was routinely around 340 hooks, which was high, somewhere in between is probably ideal. We just need to set the update size and time to a point where hooks are accumulating, the debate here is basically about the best means of achieving that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify the initial assertion, fourteen noms per day doesn't equate to fourteen promoted per day, how many promotions take place each day? If you increased to 8 per set, and base it on you initial assertion, you will use up the backlog in, what, 85 days?!! I think the system can adequatley handle that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is due to be archived, so here's a new list of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which includes all the non-current hooks (through May 20). As of the most recent update, 39 nominations have been approved, leaving 136 of 175 nominations still needing approval. There continues to be steady activity working on these old reviews, though any from before May 11 are left over from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

• April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Pop out cake
• April 24: Template:Did you know nominations/International Lover
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander Prokhorenko
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese Nü Yr
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Ocasio v. United States
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Li Yuru
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Jacques Cavallier
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Trinity Green (building)
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Taubert Seeger
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Debra Marquart
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Dana Coin
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ferrari 330 TRI/LM
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Mexico Ingles Airplay
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Allan Domb
• May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme Sultan
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Gender pay gap in India
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Domestic violence in China
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Minishi
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Cabot Wheelwright
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner
• May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Evliya Kasim Pasha Mosque
• May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanhira Puzhan Dam
• May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Totality of the circumstances
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Habitat
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Nina Alovert
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Gabriel Ripstein
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Calgary Central Library
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Tayy
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Korean Patriotic Organization
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Sebastián Aguirre (actor)
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Mostert
• May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Antonia Merkelbach
• May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Meade
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Televisa Radio
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Yellamma temple, Saundatti
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Potala Tower
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Gussie Nell Davis
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Roadeo

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) 02:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Aromatization

I'd like some advice on the aromatization article. I had been meaning to nominate it for DYK but time has now passed and I am not sure how it would be viewed. A brief history:

• Page created as a redirect on 9 July 2005
• Non-redirect page started on 4 May 2016
• Turned back into redirect on 5 May 2016
• Non-redirect page restarted on 5 May 2016 and again redirected quickly
• Third attempt to start a page on 16 May 2016 (944 characters according to DYK check)
• Version immediately prior to my first edit (1017 characters, 17 May 2016)
• Version as at my last edit (12 525 characters, 22 May 2016)

Since that time, I have some difficulties including an overnight stay in hospital and a break-up.  :( My questions:

1. Is it still worth my nominating this?
2. If so, on what date would it go and is it "new" or "x5"?
3. Re the hook, I would like to use "... that aromatization can produce "moderately aromatic" arsoles?" but I wonder if that is beyond quirky and into tasteless, and from the reverse perspective, could the page link be obscured as something like "... that "moderately aromatic" arsoles can be produced?"
4. An alternative hook in the use of aromatase inhibitors in cancer treatment is possible, though less "hooky" IMO.

There are other changes that are needed, so I guess the other approach is to try and make a GA, but maybe that is too difficult. Any advice welcomed. EdChem (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• The DYK Check says "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 58 edits ago on May 18, 2016" You don't have any edits on the article prior to that date, so I believe we can assume DYK Check is correct. It was 1017 characters on the edit right before you began, and is currently 12526 characters, so it meets 5X expansion. So, we're talking about a 3-day grace period on whether or not this is eligible. grace period says P1: If your article was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations, it may still be approved. So you have at least seven days, but probably a few more. Give it a try. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 28 May 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 #3 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) 10:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Errr, Q3 is full....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

While there is a set loaded at Q3, the {{DYKbotdo}} template was removed. The bot will only promote the set to the Mian page if the template is present. --Allen3  11:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hook in current Q4

Regarding this nomination currently in Queue 4, the hook states what Justice Sotomayor did but I think the hook is misleading as one justice alone does not determine a case. I suggest the hook be changed to note that Sotomayor J was writing the unanimous judgement for SCOTUS. EdChem (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@SSTflyer, Notecardforfree, and Omni Flames: for input. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of "... that in a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"?" something like:

• ... that a recent unanimous United States Supreme Court decision declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"?
• ... that in a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Justice Sotomayor (writing for the Court) declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"?

I also wonder whether "retained" might be better than "declined to remove", shorter and it removes the double negative. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

EdChem, I really don't think there is anything wrong with the original hook. Although the opinion was joined by seven of her colleagues, Justice Sotomayor is given credit as the author of the opinion. In fact, in legal scholarship, it is standard practice to attribute doctrinal developments to the Justice who authored the opinion. Compare, for example, "Chief Justice Marshall explained why ..." in this Harvard Law Review article at p. 2124 and "As Justice Brennan explained ..." in this Harvard Law Review Forum article at p. 275. Nevertheless, if you really feel strongly about this matter, then we can use this hook, which you suggested above:

• ... that in a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor (writing for the Court) declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"?

As for the "declined to remove" v. "retained" issue, I think that "declined to remove" is a more accurate characterization of her opinion because there is dicta at the very end of the opinion (in which Justice Sotomayor explained that "it is up to Congress if it wishes to incorporate other entities into 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)’s special jurisdictional rule") that could be interpreted as an invitation for congress to break down the "doctrinal wall." In any event, I appreciate the fact that you took a close look at this hook (I really do think that check-ins like this make DYK much better). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphans

I was looking at an article to review and found the article is an orphan and it's not obvious what should link to the article. Are orphan articles allowed in DYK? EdChem (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not among the DYK criteria. Review it if you like. — Maile (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages