Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:01, 4 September 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 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC) Current time: 04:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 4 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.

LavaBaron's editing restrictions

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

The enforcement of these rules should be the responsibility of all editors who promote DYK hooks. Any editor may undo the promotion of any hook to a prep area or a queue area (for admins) whose promotion was made in contravention to these restrictions, assuming good faith and citing this AN restriction. --Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this addition to the header section of T:TDYK really necessary? It feels to me like a scarlet letter. LavaBaron has agreed on his or her user talk page to note that double reviews are needed in his nominations and reviews, which is where the reminder is needed, so is a header notice necessary and appropriate? EdChem (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary given Lavabaron's commitment to add a note to his contributions, so have reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass - thanks, but I don't have an issue with it. It may be better for everyone involved if it was still in place. I'll defer to your judgment, though. LavaBaron (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem, I very much appreciate your comment. However, by way of explanation, I don't have any issue with the header, personally. This restriction will eventually slip off other editors radars and I don't want to risk getting blocked if another editor doesn't notice my own warning notes and accidentally promotes anyway. In the grand scheme of things, I'm fine with being publicly exhibited in the stockade for awhile if the alternative is the hangman. I'm probably wrapping things up here anyway, so it's not really a big deal. LavaBaron (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You are not going to get blocked for the actions of another editor! However, since you've made the commitment to remind other editors of your restrictions in your contributions to T:TDYK, you will need to stick to it as failing to do so might attract unwanted attention. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity, I think LavaBaron is wise to include reminders on his nominations and reviews. Just because something is objectively unreasonable doesn't mean it won't happen, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, however, I was just blocked on accident the other day - which I've just learned can't be WP:REVDEL from my log and will be part of my permanent record as long as my account exists - so I would like to be extra careful in any edit I make, or any edit anyone else makes that may in some way reference me by name. (I apologize, in advance, for publicly disagreeing and if the preceding comment seemed insolent; it was not my intent to be but rather to observe a personal experience as a possible reason for maintaining the header alert so that as many people as possible know that my DYKs require extra scrutiny. I appreciate all the work you do for WP as an admin and will defer, without further debate or objection, to you judgment on this question.) LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

EdChem you claim Given there are some admins whose behaviour appears to be to act on DYK contributors given the slightest opportunity..., could you provide an explanation for this including diffs please? As far as I could tell, most people who are pulling hooks are doing it based on the fact that they are erroneous, or ill-sourced or malignant. Of course, you could correct me if I'm wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I expressed my opinion. I am in favour of higher quality and minimising inaccuracies in articles on WP. I am not, however, comfortable with the discussions which come across as disdainful of the contributors and contributions to DYK. Examples, quotations all being from you, FYI:

• "Admins who deal with errors here are under no obligation to do anything" is the exact attitude of image patrollers who tag and notify when fixing the problem was as easy or easier, and ignoring the disruption caused. It comes with an apparent belief of superiority which is really irritating. That you can just pull a hook rather than fix does not mean that that course of action is appropriate or wise. Also, you signed as an admin who "participate at DYK but rarely move prep sets to queues and updating main page" but reserve the right to disregard the structures of DYK ("DYK rules are non-binding on admins", "I'm not arguing, I'm stating fact. Admins are not under any obligation to comply with the arcane and multifarious "rules" of DYK") - hardly helpful. Maybe things wouldn't be so oppositional if hooks were corrected rather than pulled (by all means discuss here or with the nominator / reviewers afterwards) or returned once corrected. You could build some goodwill by protecting the main page and advancing the goals of DYK within that broader goal, rather than always coming across as critical. Admins are supposed to be editors with extra buttons not rulers, and while I have no doubt you can make a case for being uninvolved, from my perspective you come with a pre-existing opinion and bias against DYK - you come across as disdainful ("DYK are no longer interested in interesting hooks it would appear, they are just too obsessed with self-preservation").
• "... not worth the grief and the disruption to the arcane processes and delicate individuals here" - good to see your healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here.
• "... the review process is up shit creek" - this is an over-broad generalisation which does not acknowledge or recognise the good work being done by many reviewers. Take me, for example... I've never had a hook pulled from the main page (nor do I recall one from the queue) and I don't recall one of my reviews being subsequently faulted. I've noted problems with paraphrasing and sourcing and I believe I am thorough (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - you can look at all my DYKs if you like). In some cases, I have posted after a tick is given to address a problematic review. Is my work "up shit creek" too? Or are there people here who could use some acknowledgement and who can serve as examples for new reviewers to follow? The QPQ system has its flaws and I favour removing QPQ credits from poor reviews so that another review is needed for their nomination to proceed, but the flaws don't make DYK worthless. There is some high quality work done here, both editing and reviewing, and that seems to go unnoticed. For example, I am proud of this case where what was brought to DYK was inaccurate and low quality and what went on to the main page was much higher quality (IMO).
• "The answer: slow the rate down" - you said this in the context of the JetBlue hook which you described as "dreadful and promotional" (an accurate assessment, IMO). You have posted repeatedly about section length and rate and built no consensus for change. I suggest that is, in part, because your approach leads to a high degree of defensiveness. I can't see why 8 hooks rather than 7 is a problem for DYK, and if that is better for balancing the main page then it is something that should be collegially achievable. Isn't it better for WP and our readers if we can work together?

All of the above are from the last two weeks or so. In that time we've also had a proposed topic ban at AN, and you are not alone in having an approach which I see as counter-productive. DYK has problems with reviewing, there is no doubt, and at times hooks need to be pulled from the queue and (sadly) sometimes from the main page - sadly because they shouldn't get that far - but what feels like a "gotcha" approach even in cases where a small edit would address the issue is IMO leading editors to feel threatened and attacked when what is needed is for them (and us) to understand how things get missed and to learn from mistakes. EdChem (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

TLDR: DYK regulars don't like the fact they're being scrutinised and that they're being unveiled as a reasonably owny bunch who are content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page. If you think the admin tools have been abused by me or anyone else in pulling detritus from the main page, then do something about it. As for "healthy respect for DYK processes and contributors here", damned straight. The process consistently fails, and the individuals involved put up the shutters, heads into the sand and pretend everything's okay once these awkward people pointing out all these issues will go away. Well newsflash, we're not going away. And low quality or erroneous hooks will continue to be removed and those responsible for continually supporting them will be called out. Sorry if you misinterpreted that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Blunt version: Your strategy is frustrating your aim. Your description of MY work as "low quality" and me as being "content to peddle low quality items and errors to the main page" as a consequence of my reviewing work is rejected as unsupported by evidence and obnoxious. Your attitude and behaviour convey disdain for DYK which renders your objectivity questionable. Newsflash, DYK isn't going away. You could try working with us to address problems... or is that too difficult? Sorry if this is too sensible for you. EdChem (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I work every day to improve every DYK that goes through the system. I don't have time to double check every hook but have pulled or suggested several be pulled en route to the main page. I have made multiple suggestions to improve things and yet DYK and its guardians see themselves as impervious and near-perfect, and criticism of any type is simply rejected. There's too much ownership and mollycoddling of editors in this part of the main page, it's unhealthy and contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages. There's not enough responsibility taken for continuous issues, this thread is the first of its kind and is probably about five years too late coming. Sorry if that's too much truth for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I made one suggestion for improving DYK, and you shot it down, in a fit of ownership, perhaps. Lay out your proposal(s), perhaps at VPP, if you don't like this page, and live with the fact that others have different opinions and views than you. Other people are not going away, either, and as you appear to think you are besieged, there must be more of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It takes more than one opposition to "shoot down" a reasonable proposal. And I'm here for the longhaul, whether the masses like it or not, so wise up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it got quite a bit of reasonable support, including from Fram. But your comment shows either a lack of the wisdom of self-awareness, or just plain hypocrisy, you act as if everyone who does not agree with you is suddenly a borg, when what's true is they just individually disagree with you and you can't handle it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, here's my take, speaking as an on-again, off-again DYK participant: First, EdChem is right that there is a sense of a "gotcha" approach that does discourage people from reviewing and promoting DYK hooks. We fear being slamblasted for a good faith error and fear reprisals. On the other hand, if The Rambling Man spots a problem and removes a hook, groovy, so long as I'm not slamblasted for a good-faith error, I can live with that, he does a good job of spotting problems others miss and so long as he wants to do that job, I'm good with it. Similarly, when Moonriddengirl sends an approved hook bac for another round, she does what she does best. At the end of the day, I am fine if I make a mistake and others have to fix it, as long as it is acknowledged that I did the best I could at the time and intended to do a good job -- we all are human. But finally, having created about 200+ articles for WP, and about 50 of them have been DYK, I do hope that everyone here who criticizes content also creates it from time to time and so understands the challenges we face. (I know that TRM does...which is one reason why I'm not too upset if he has a high standard; I've done GAN reviews for his articles, and he DOES create content) Montanabw 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Obviously, as my sometimes contributions on this page attest, there is no objection to re-running a review, where others take a look and find an issue that needs more discussion or reversal. Such additional review rarely need to be an accusation (or a gotcha) and in extreme cases where it does need to be an accusation, those should go to AN/ANI. And policy reform proposals should either be accepted or rejected here or at VPP, and then move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Query on editing restrictions

Deryck C., I was wondering about the fourth restriction, which starts with "(To balance the maths)". I initially thought this explanation meant the second QPQ would be requested to make up for having two QPQs used to review a single LavaBaron nomination, but the way this reads, LavaBaron's second QPQ can be of a nomination already approved by another reviewer. Is this what you meant? While sometimes this means simple duplication of results (as here, which would not normally be eligible for QPQ credit), it can mean LavaBaron finding issues with an approved review, which does help the process. Also, so far as I can tell, the first review doesn't actually need to start from scratch, but simply that the DYK review has not yet been approved/accepted, unless by "accepted" you mean "accepted for review (but not necessarily approved)". Please clarify. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your interpretation is correct. One of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree " or "I disagree because...". Rule #2 has essentially side-stepped LavaBaron from the review chain, so I tried to find a way to balance out the reviewer effort while allowing LavaBaron to participate meaningfully and receive oversight at the same time. From the reviews linked above, I think LavaBaron has been using the requirements of his restriction to participate constructively, which is encouraging. Deryck C. 23:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Deryck C. That's very clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

#4 is struck per discussion. Deryck C. 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden

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

Probably because someone wrote below the line that states "Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I left that last bit there temporarily until bot-owner Intelligentsium has had a chance to see it in place, though I can edit the Vic Lambdem template sooner if this is likely to disturb people. I imagine we'll have a fix before too long; until then, this bit from bot sig to the end will show up when the nomination is promoted or rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've seen this issue and am looking into it. Intelligentsium 18:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for the fix, Intelligentsium. While the suggestion to remove or comment out affected nominations makes some sense, the problem is that any nominations that are promoted to prep or queue and then pulled back will not show up again if they've been commented out. I'll do the extra work of editing the templates for now. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Intelligentsium & BlueMoonset. I'll remove the no-longer-needed "<noinclude>"and "</noinclude>" the next time I encounter them on T:TDYK. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek Day: Trouble Ahead

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

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

There isn't much point trying to figure out an appropriate cycle right now as we may get more nominations yet. But we can certainly run three sets on the day if we have to. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just run three sets of seven. Easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming here to suggest three sets of seven - that'd only leave one out (and I'm more than happy for it to be one of the filler expansions I did when I wasn't sure if I'd hit two full sets (i.e. The Lost Era or something). One other thing - the bottom of the holding sections seems to have become malformed, but I can't work out what it is. Can someone take a look? Miyagawa (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Negative BLP hook in next set

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

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

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

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

As this prep set has now been moved into the queue with only seven hooks, perhaps someone would like to add another to complete the set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nutcracker dolls

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

That's what I thought when I promoted it to Prep. But there was no request for that on the nomination template, and Christmas is 4 months off. The guidelines on the Special Holding area limits to 6 weeks ahead of the requested date, with the exception of April Fool's Day. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The holiday sets tend to be so sparsely populated (I remember the scramble to put something up for July 4, American Independence Day), that I think we should make an exception in this case. Perhaps seeing Christmas in the Special Occasions area will inspire other editors to come up with more hooks, too. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could set up a separate page for holding Christmas hooks, like we do April Fool's Day. That way, people won't have to work up their Christmas articles in a much shorter deadline and chance missing the date. We could potentially get a lot of hooks. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved the hook to a later prep set (Prep 4) so it won't be promoted during this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why this discussion is languishing; it seems a lot of editors have deserted the project. I'm going to be bold and open a Christmas section in the Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Yoninah; too much other stuff happening. I'm actually dubious about letting the various special days proliferate and be given exceptions to our quite generous way of offering special date placements. Should we save Christmas hooks year 'round? Half a year? Will other such religious holidays be given equivalent consideration? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thought, is that not every culture celebrates Christmas in December. Please see Christmas traditions. So, whose Christmas celebrations do we do this for? — Maile (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 5

"that actor Nat Polen played Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live from 1969 until his death from pancreatic cancer in 1981?"

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

FrickFrack What to you say about the above hook? — Maile (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In case there is no response in the next hour or so, how about the following (which mostly moves clauses around):

• ... that Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live was played by Nat Polen from 1969 until the actor's death from pancreatic cancer in 1981? —BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not trim "from pancreatic cancer"? Shorter and hookier without it. Edwardx (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Let's go with the trim. FrickFrack 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting a variance on this, because I can almost see "this is unclear" said by somebody somewhere:

• ... that the character of Dr. Jim Craig on One Life to Live was played by actor Nat Polen from 1969 until his own death in 1981? — Maile (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man one of the changes you made was incorrect. Regarding W. Wallace Kellet, The United States Postal Service did not exist until 1971. I changed it back to United States Post Office Department with a link in the hook. The source confirms this. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, both the hook and the article were incorrect. So I'm guessing the reviewer(s) and promoter(s) all missed that too. And for the avoidance of doubt, you didn't change it "back" to United States Post Office Department because it was originally "United States Post office". Finally, of the three sources used to ref that hook, only one mentions the name of the organisation explicitly, and guess what... "the first autogyro used by the U.S. Postal Service.... Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

That's not in queue 5, it's currently on the main page so you would need to register the issue at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6

... that the father/son team of Pantera and El Hijo del Pantera is the only team to have participated in all three Legado Final professional wrestling shows so far?

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

I would agree that the "so far" is superfluous: the way I would understand it, that is an implicit qualifier to all "biggest," "longest," "oldest," "all" type of hooks. Vanamonde (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thus removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New update needed

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

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

• I have all but the quirky hook spot filled, looking for a non-bio quirky hook preferably. But I got to jet for a while, hopefully someone else can fill the last spot?  MPJ-DK  12:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Prep 6 bowling hook

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for identifying this problem while the hook is still in prep. I have pulled it, as I don't see a quick fix for this problem and the article may need closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Never mind, I finished it myself after all. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I think the sources cited in the article after the sentence: "He helped found the American Bowling Congress in 1895, which set in place a legislative body that enforced these rules and regulations for all to follow as the standard for the game of bowling."
support a hook like this: … that Moses Bensinger (pictured), an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, helped establish the rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling?
or this, not as exciting:
… that Moses Bensinger (pictured) was an initiator of the American Bowling Congress, which established rules and regulations used in modern ten-pin bowling? Jsayre64 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of a better hook should happen at the nomination template, not here, but in any case: no on the first: you shouldn't change "he helped found A which established B" into "He helped establish B" as that indicates that the had an active role in writing the rules and regulations, while the source only supports the claim that he helped bring together others who then did the writing. Fram (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Q6 Sandra Blow

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

The source just says "the departure lounge" so I don't see why we need to be any more specific. Gatoclass (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick google. The other sources available say either 'departure lounge' or 'Heathrow Airport'. I did find this which indicates Terminal 3. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the hook from "the departure lounge" to "a departure lounge" which will be make it accurate in all circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I imagine Heathrow has something like 50 to 100 departure lounges so to claim that "the departure lounge" is acceptable is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Heathrow has 125 airbridges so that's 125 departure lounges for a kick off. Then there are the others. Please, when making glib assertions that hooks are somehow fine and that an encyclopedia doesn't "need to be any more specific", think harder about it. Some people don't realise that Heathrow has more than one departure lounge, so the hook, as was written, was misleading, probably even incorrect. Try harder please, especially now we only have to verify 8 hooks per day. If we can't manage that, give it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So now it's wrong to state exactly what the source itself says? The source says: In 1995 she completed an important commission to produce large glass screens for the departure lounge of Heathrow Airport. Could there be a main departure lounge at the airport that everybody thinks of as the departure lounge? Could the writer have meant multiple departure lounges, but just been referring to them generically as a familiar space, "the departure lounge", in the same way that one might say, perhaps, that "the plane is on the runway", even though airports typically have multiple runways? So one might just as well argue that substituting "a" for "the" was an example of OR. One can endlessly quibble about such minutiae, but i hardly think that castigating those working to keep the project running over trivia of this kind can be described as constructive. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's wrong to blindly follow and parrot hooks which are clearly wrong. Heathrow has five terminals so it can't possibly have one departure lounge. There's nothing wrong with applying some common sense to these hooks, and if a reference is dubious, making some odd claim about something that couldn't possibly be correct, it shouldn't be used. I'm sure there are plenty of other hooks in that article, along with plenty of errors too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically Heathrow only has 4 terminals as Terminal 1 has closed. But still agree with the intent of the statement. Just saying. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As usual TRM, in your haste to criticize you ignore alternative points of view. You may be justified in arguing that the indefinite article is more appropriate in this case, but I have no idea how many departure lounges Heathrow might have and I don't think it inappropriate of me to sound a note of caution about deviating from the source in the last post I made before logging off last night. One thing I do know is that switching to the indefinite article made an already weak hook so much the weaker, by further trivializing what was described in the source as an "important commission". There are many factors to take into account in evaluating hooks, hooks are rarely if ever perfect and there is almost always another tweak, clarification or rephrasing that can improve it, the fact that such tweaks can be identified is not actually evidence of negligence or incompetence on the part of set builders as you never seem to tire of implying. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Moot, now at ERRORS!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  It really highlights the one of the fundamental problems here, that DYKs are taken at face value by the reviewers, the promoters and the admins who sanction them for the main page. That this kind of thing can change so radically after an innocuous complaint about a dubious hook is testimony to the poor review process. We're seeing, on average, at least one hook per set being modified or worse, rejected, after promotion to a queue. The error rate is creeping over 10% and is something which is certainly unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Sure. Checking for those sorts of errors requires expertise which the reviewers, the promoters and the admins may not have. But putting them on DYK brings more sets of eyes to bear. Much better than leaving the article incorrect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  If by "expertise" you mean the ability to use Google, then yes. I don't believe anyone here is necessarily an expert on the works of Sandra Blow, but several people have pointed out issues with the hook and the article that were overlooked and promoted by reviewers and promoters alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The law of diminishing returns also applies here. One can spend hours cross-checking sources to verify that something said in a source is unquestionably correct, or one can do something useful, like, I don't know, adding some new content or something. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that there is no direct evidence that an ancient Roman bust known as the Capitoline Brutus actually depicts the Roman consul Lucius Junius Brutus (d. 509 BC)?

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

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

Getting close to pulling time: PericlesofAthens can you fix this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, added some more phrasing and removed the nugatory text. Tough if it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the meaning of the original hook was clear enough, but regardless, I think the changes are an improvement, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry that I didn't see this in time to do anything about it. Looks like you guys handled it. Cheers! Pericles of Athens 13:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Queue 6

... that the number of traffic collisions in Gaziantep, Turkey, decreased by about 40% within two months of the installation of TEDES?

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

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

Getting close to pulling time, so can CeeGee please address this? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, pulled, I'm off to bed soon, I don't want to see errors on the main page, so better safe than sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a lot of trouble reading the underlying source. I cannot read Turkish and Google Translate does an appalling job of translating the language into English. In the end, I pretty much gave up on it and decided to AGF that the hook was correct. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But the hook, as written, wasn't backed up in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I overlooked that. I went immediately to the source when I opened the article to verify the hook, but got so frustrated trying to interpret the google translation, decided to AGF on the hook, forgetting to check that the article itself said the same thing. I'll try to be more careful next time. Thanks for picking up the error. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing and promoting in the post-DYKReviewBot era

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

While that's pretty important, it's a little bit surprising that you have to remind promoters to actually re-read the article and check it meets the DYK standards. Perhaps it's a symptom of the bizarre and arcane workings of the process that things can change so radically between a hook being "approved" and it being on the main page. Perhaps that needs to change. In the meantime, please work on the hooks that are promoted to the queues regardless of when they were promoted. So far, even with the slower rate, I'm seeing hooks promoted that aren't referenced, or are just incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Need help

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

MediaKill13 it's always nice to see a new editor at DYK. You do seem to write well. Instructions for nominators will help guide you through it. If you make a mistake in creating the template, it can always be corrected. Your hook(s) should be 200 characters or less, have a neutral point of view, and be "hooky", something that makes the reader want to click on the article link. You can use the Character Count tool to check the length of the hook. The hook must be stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence in which it is stated. The article qualifies as new the date it is moved to main space, and must be nominated within 7 days. New articles need to be 1500 characters in length, but you've already exceeded that in draft space. If you need more help, please feel free to ask for it either on this page or on the nomination template itself. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: So can I remove the {{New unreviewed article}} template and move the draft into mainspace now? MediaKill13 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

MediaKill13 Yes. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

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

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi did you want this to be a new nomination? Just follow Instructions for nominators and create the template. Don't worry about making a mistake, because we can always correct errors. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 I was expecting my servants to do it for me. Since they made such a pig's ear of bringing my tent. _Muffled 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, another glaring tents error at DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

Over a month old:

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

Other old nominations:

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

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

Queue 2

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

I've given it a copyedit and removed the tag, so it should be fine now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, better, but why would it have been promoted in that state? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There's been some debate about whether or not DYK should withhold articles with minor copyediting issues - minor in this case meaning articles with grammatical issues that are nonetheless comprehensible. DYK articles are not required to be perfect given that they represent mostly new content, and it's been found in practice that articles needing a copyedit are quickly cleaned up after they hit the main page. Given that one of the supposed purposes of DYK is to allow articles to be seen and improved upon by a wide audience, it can be argued that featuring articles which still display a copyediting tag is an example of WAD. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"WAD" ? Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Working As Designed". Gatoclass (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that articles highlighted on the main page of Misplaced Pages should not require a wholesale copyedit for the basics of English grammar, nor should articles tagged as such be promoted until the issues are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know you think that, but not everybody agrees. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Having said all that, I do find it somewhat ironic that the supplemental guidelines pay homage to WP:DASH (F5), MOS:NUM (F6), WP:ELLIPSIS (F1), and even have to go as far as to tell editors "Don't capitalize your article as it appears in the hook, just because that's how it appears in the article" (B2), but at no point anywhere do I see anything that says "the article should be written in English, even simple English, with minimal grammatical errors and typographical issues". The project cares more about an en-dash/hyphen debate than readable English? Even worse is the instruction to self-appointedly remove the any stub tags (D11) (because that way you get your article onto the main page quicker and get those WikiCup points!). That's just plain wrong, article assessment doesn't work that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The "F" rules pertain to the hook (except F8, which really shouldn't be there). Obviously, consistency of presentation is required for the hooks that actually appear on the mainpage. MOS breaches in the article, on the other hand, are of little concern, DYK is not FA. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think given the state of the articles being promoted, you don't need to clarify that. I'm not (and never have been) looking for even GA quality, I just believe that the main page should feature articles that are written in grammatically correct English, and if an article is so bad that it has to be tagged for copyediting, it shouldn't go anywhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Queue 2

... that Hamilton was first presented at Vassar College as part of the Powerhouse Theater program?

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

I changed it to:

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

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

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

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

Gatoclass In case you want to go with that last one, which I also like, I linked the plays. — Maile (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dab Broadway if that's what you're going with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note the target article doesn't substantiate the "award-winning" claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It substantiates the claim now, and the claim is sourced. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Great, pity this all wasn't done before it was promoted etc etc etc change the record etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the sourcing, Maile66. All of this looks fine. Sorry this wasn't dealt with sooner. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Change made in the queue. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shit Museum

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

 Done Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Please check the history on this article.

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

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

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

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

• The existing nomination page cannot be reused for the new nomination. I have reverted the recent edits to it, so it is restored to its condition at the original closure. When a second DYK nomination needs to take place for the same article—very rare, but it can happen—then the best thing is to add a " 2" to the end of the original name, for example, Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog) 2. The new nomination template page has to be created directly, rather than go through the normal "Create nomination" process on the nominations page (it wasn't set up for this unusual exception). Whether the article should have been recreated or not is not the purpose of this post, though the DYK template has a specific option for articles recreated from a redirect because a lot of article pages have only ever been a redirect, sometimes years old, before the topic gains sufficient individual notability to be initially created as an article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. As you said a second nomination is extremely rare, so I wasn't aware of that convention. I'll take care of the rest of it. I recognize that this is a very unusual circumstance that basically never happens, so thanks for bearing with me. The Wordsmith 01:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Amafufunyana hook - inaccurate?

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

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

Yes: it should be pulled or rewritten. The source claims " Some overlap between and schizophrenia (DSM-IV) is apparent. " and "The culture-bound syndrome amafufunyana and the culture-specific phenomenon of ukuthwasa are both used to explain symptoms in patients with schizophrenia". If I read it correctly, the study took known schizophrenia patients and checked whether they had been "diagnosed" with amafufunyana before; it didn't take amafufunyana patients and check whether they had schizophrenia. So while this study confirms that many amafufunyana cases suffer from schizophrenia, it doesn't establish (or aim to establish) that amafufunyana is schizophrenia, it may just as well be a name for a series of syndromes or diseases. Fram (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How about something like, "is often applied to schizophrenics"? Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just avoid trying to cobble together a pseudo-medical hook and stick with another fact, e.g. that they are commonly treated by exorcism. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

That was totally unnecessary Fram. The hook was under discussion and a quick fix was probably not far away. I would suggest just dropping the "is actually schizophrenia" phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Leaving an inaccurate hook on the main page while we discuss a better alternative hook is a better solution than pulling it from the main page while we discus a better alternative hook? It takes just as much effort to change the hook as to put it back in the corrected form (and both require an admin). In what way was my move "totally unnecessary", or in what way was it better not to pull it for now? Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not start all this again. Better safe than sorry. Try getting it right before it gets to the main page, after all it's only eight hooks a day, although there seems to be a current error rate of around 25%. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggested alt:
• ... that while the condition known as amafufunyana is associated by the Xhosa people with demonic possession, the preferred treatment is shifting to psychiatric assessment? Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Which seems also to suffer heavily from selection bias. This is the source, which is about "the experience of 10 Xhosa-speaking schizophrenic patients attending a community psychiatry clinic in Cape Town": yes, among these ten people already at a psychiatry clinic, the preferred treatment is the "use of psychiatric services". How many are not using psychiatric services? How many have used psychiatric services but no longer do so? Your hook may be correct, but is not supported by the source. That source actually also makes it clear that the original hook was indeed very dubious, as amafufunyana is a lot more complex than simple being "actually schizophrenia". Fram (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well as I'm not inclined to spend any more time on this, as far as I'm concerned it can stay off the main page. We are not responsible for the fact that the nominator did not take sufficient care in crafting their hook. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the reviewers and the promoters are responsible for ensuring that it doesn't get to main page. Otherwise what's the point of all the arcane steps required to get these hooks to the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are, I was simply making the point that the nominator ultimately only has himself to blame for the fact that his hook was prematurely removed. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, that was incredibly rude on all your parts. And the suggestion to remove the end part was just fine. And your issues with it are really just technical nonsense that could have been fixed with a single word change if necessary ("actually" to "often"). Do you normally treat other editors with such disdain, @Fram:, @Gatoclass:, @The Rambling Man:? How many editors such as myself wake up to find you all badmouthing them for a technicality in wording? Silverseren 18:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  An error on the mainpage has to be treated swiftly. This kind of thing is happening all too often. I don't recall anyone bad-mouthing you, other than Gatoclass suggesting that the failure was of your own making, and that was just a statement of fact in reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Because of you all being upset at a single word not technically being accurate, in your opinion? And rather than changing that one word and fixing the problem entirely, there's this whole nonsense section? Why are you all in charge of this area again? Because it seems you all completely lack the professionalism to be doing anything here. Silverseren 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you think that keeping an inaccurate hook off the Main Page is "unprofessional", perhaps you ought to reconsider that opinion. Fixing it and re-presenting it would be by far the best course of action at this point. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  The latter is what i'm saying should have been done when it was brought up here in the first place. Especially since a simple single word change would have fixed the problem. And this was even brought up in the above discussion and yet no one did it. Also, I dispute "inaccurate hook" completely. The issue brought up here is a technicality based on an opinion of the sources and doesn't meaningfully change what the hook says at all. Silverseren 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  No, it does. The hook says that amafufunyana = schizophrenia. Now whilst that may well be the case, the article doesn't make that definitive equivalence. This shouldn't be a difficult one to fix, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Is that even allowed? It was pulled directly from the main page and it's been 12 hours since then. Silverseren 19:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Um, I hadn't realised it had been pulled straight off the Main Page. Someone else more familiar with the arcane maze that is DYK rules could probably tell you. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Given the frequency of this kind of issue, it would be worth the DYK regulars preparing some words based on consensus as to whether pulled hooks can or should be reinserted, or even renominated (e.g. if they've only been on the main page for, say, half an hour). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• While you're here, could you clarify where, in particular, I "bad-mouthed" you? That would be very helpful. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  By trying to put me in your "error rate" statistics, when this has nothing to do with the hooks that are actually wrong or biased. This was a technical wording issue around a single word that was easily fixed. And yet no one even tried to fix it. Also, don't you have a long history of essentially badmouthing the entire DYK process and trying to make it seem like it's worthless? Silverseren 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  I certainly have a long history of observing that the process fails relentlessly and the rate of failure is astonishingly high given the number of "quality gates" through which a DYK has to pass before it hits the main page. It wasn't badmouthing you at all, so you need to redact that, it was simply that the pulling of the hook contributes to the overall failure rate of the wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  It shouldn't have been pulled in the first place. It doesn't contribute to a failure rate when it shouldn't have been removed at all. And I stand by badmouthing, per its definition, unless you're going to say your comments above weren't criticism. Silverseren 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  If you don't understand the difference between criticism and bad-mouthing, this conversation is no longer of any use. It does contribute to a failure rate as it was removed. Sorry if that's hard to swallow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Silver seren: Welcome to the world of DYK, which is currently suffering from people, and their hangers on, who pull hooks off the main page (sometimes for ridiculous reasons), are scornful, rude and disparaging to others, and generally bully the rest of us, with the result that many editors who used to help with DYK regularly have curtailed their activities, or been driven away from the project altogether. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Set builder needed

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

Never mind, I've done it myself. But we could still use some additional sets. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see you need me, so I'll relent ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pringles unsung

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

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

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

Not, as far as I can tell, from any of the sources currently in the article at least. Fram (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

After quite a bit of searching, it appears a band called The Toy Band won the competition . This is the only page I can find claiming this, though. Putting "The Toy Band"+Pringles into Google produces only this page as relevant. We have no article on the band (Toy (band) are a different group). There is so little about this competition that I do wonder if it's even notable as a stand-alone article, and should be merged to the Pringles article if not deleted. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I pulled it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In Prep 3

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

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

It's a technical breach, yes. But I don't see any point in making a song and dance about it. This can simply serve as a reminder to Fram and everybody else that the cite is supposed to come directly after the hook fact. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Fram (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Oh jeez I missed that, sorry. Fram fixed it. Herostratus (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible hoax?

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

Not a hoax. Fram (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just found one of those sources myself. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanking Gatoclass for the large dollop of WP:ABF there; a genuine thanks to Fram for pointing out the ease with which sources are, after all, discovered. The rather outrageous attitude displayed originally, though, persuades me against promoting any further articles in this quarter of the project. Cheers, _Muffled 17:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sakes Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, this has nothing whatever to do with ABF. The fact is that we have had hoaxes on DYK in the past, and it's standard procedure to check the bona fides of articles sourced entirely to offline or foreign-language sources in such a way that you cannot verify that the subject of the article actually exists per supplementary rule H3. Having said that, you are quite correct that I should have made a google search before posting here, but as I was in the middle of something else, decided to leave a note here while completing the task in hand. I immediately thought better of it, initiated a google search and quickly found a source, but when I returned here to delete my post, found it had already been responded to. I will nonetheless offer an apology for my over-hasty post, and add that I hope it won't deter you from further participation here. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken code on WP:DYKN

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

Intelligentsium Is this related to Problem with the closing "/noinclude" tag when the DYK template closes? — Maile (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass what you are seeing on the nominations page appears to be left over from Did you know nominations/Capitoline Brutus. It didn't close correctly and has to do with the noinclude. I tried to fix it just now, but that hasn't worked. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this all have something to do with the new DYK review bot? Because this is a problem with more than one nomination, I have encountered three or four noms with the same problem and it's getting quite annoying. Maybe the bot should be disabled for now to see if it fixes the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's the review bot, if you go by Intelligentsium's talk page link above. It also looks like he thought he had it fixed, but maybe not. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, I deleted the Capitoline Brutus nom from the nominations page, and at least now NSO Group is displaying correctly, but I don't know about the other nominations I've seen with a similar issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Gatoclass Yeah, it's the review bot, all right. Both those nominations were just promoted today, and the closing apparently messed with the review bot code or vice versa. Straf mich nicht in deinem Zorn and Albert Sherman Christensen. — Maile (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a known issue, as discussed above in WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden. I've been taking care of these as I see them, but I'm not always around. Basically, all of the nomination templates that were reviewed by the bot when it started regular operations on August 25 and over the next couple of days, before Intelligentsium made the bot fix early on August 28, will have this issue when they are promoted. Eventually, we'll run out. The issue was fixed and recent reviews will not have this problem. So it's a temporary condition, but one that will crop up over the next couple of weeks with fair regularity, and then happen with less and less frequency. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, BlueMoonset is correct; this is an annoying problem but has been addressed and will not affect future nominations. I'll also make the fixes when I see them. I could attempt to automate it to lessen the work in fixing these but it might take too long to go through BRFA. I think the most time-efficient solution is if you see a nomination like this that hasn't yet been human-reviewed, just undo/revert the bot's review and it will replace it with a new review (which is not affected by this issue) on its next run. Intelligentsium 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify what the problem was (for those new to the discussion): at the end of the BRFA there seemed to be a consensus to hide the full bot reviews from the nominations page to avoid clutter and improve the page loadtime. I originally went with one of the suggestions to add <noinclude>...</noinclude> to the bot review so it would not be transcluded onto the nominations page. When a nomination is closed by subst'ing, it surrounds the nominations with <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to hide closed nominations from the nomination page. The issue which I did not foresee is that the MediaWiki software interprets the first </noinclude> close tag as the close tag for the entire nomination, so anything after that is still transcluded. I have removed the <noinclude> tags from the bot review template so future reviews will not suffer from this issue, but reviews that were saved before that still have them. Intelligentsium 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please withdraw following nominations

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

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

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

Good luck with your extended leave. I fully expect Arbcom will be knocking on your door should you find a few "New message" notifications. Happy Christmas! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - regarding what, The Rambling Man? To tell me you don't like me? I don't think Arbcom delivers personalized greetings like that, but I could be wrong. Happy holidays to you, as well. LavaBaron (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry if it wasn't clear. The behaviour of individuals at DYK is forming part of the forthcoming Arbcom case, so there'll be a few pings going around no doubt. Happy days! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• Cwmhiraeth, I didn't see this until after I had already closed several per LavaBaron's request, which is his right as nominator: a number of these had long been awaiting action by LavaBaron and I think those should remain closed (i.e., the Barbary, Italian Parliament, Trump plant, and declaration of war nominations). If you want to bring back Template:Did you know nominations/Political designations in Massachusetts or even Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen, which I closed because they were on the list of oldest nominations needing reviewing and it seemed silly to leave them there when the nominator had withdrawn them, you can, but in that case they become your responsibility going forward. All ones that are not ultimately withdrawn will still need two reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My enthusiasm for helping does not quite extend to reopening nominations you have closed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek hooks

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

I had a go at doing Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation). It is now in prep 3. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 4 needs to be 8 hooks to completely promote all existing ST hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done All approved Star Trek hooks are now in Preps 2, 3, 4. I made Prep 2 the 8-hook set, while 3 and 4 have 7 hooks. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Yes. We all want to make sure these are correct. Now is the time to speak up. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, if there are concerns about the hooks or articles, please discuss here so a fix can happen. Thanks to everyone for their hard work on this anniversary. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Linda DeScenna hook, Prep 4

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

• Easily fixed. The Academy Award is for the set designer, not the set design. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Heads up certain people (you know who you are), Linda DeScenna is an American, so in keeping with American style, there is no need to now insert "the" in front of "set designer". — Maile (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Janeway Lambda hook in Prep 4

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

I must say I am totally bewildered by the first and second paragraphs of the Janeway Lambda one article in any case. The intro doesn't adequately distinguish between fictional and real-life events IMO, I can't imagine anyone not familiar with the program would be able to follow the description here and I think it needs a rewrite for clarity. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Aoba47 and Miyagawa: as article creator and GA reviewer. Input please. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Bradley Cooper

FrB.TG I just saw this in Prep 1:

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

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

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

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

Sure both of them work for me. The above one was tweaked by the reviewer who thought that one might get confused whether it was acting non or..? FrB.TG (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the phrase "for acting" is redundant and should be deleted, it's obvious what he received the nomination for. I would also delete the definite article in the phrase "the ten actors" because it too is unnecessary and sounds a bit peacockish. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• DYK/Discussion pages