Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 19 December 2011

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP: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)

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. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 13:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 62 minutes 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. However, proposals for changing how Did You Know works are currently being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Good articles redux
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Some thoughts from a semi-regular
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Brainstorming related to RFC

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Edit notice

I have noticed that the nomination pages (Template:Did you know nominations/article) have an edit notice when edited, with a summary of the things to check when doing the review. There is a line at the end that says "You may notify the nominator of problems with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}". Is it possible to change the edit notice to replace "Article" (which is a static word, the same for all nominations) with the name of the nominated article, so that people using that code can simply copy and paste it? Cambalachero (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding the notification of the nominator is less important now that each individual nomination can be watched. For my last reviews I planned to notify nominators in case nothing happened in 3 days, but they always responded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I just changed it. Now it will replace "Article" with the name of the DYK nomination subpage. Usually that is the same as the name of the article, but not always, so this won't always work correctly, but it's the best I can do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a new reviewer, the change was quite convenient earlier today. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Marking nominations as "ready for re-review"

Seeing how many DYK nominations undergo an extensive inquisition process before being approved, it occurs to me that the lives of DYK reviewers could be made easier if we had a method for marking a nomination as "ready for re-review." For example, it would take a person a lot of time to read through Template:Did you know nominations/1804 Haiti Massacre to determine that the article has been revised to address the concerns that Nikkimaria raised there. I propose that we add a symbol to the standard DYK arsenal to visibly identify a nomination as "ready for re-evaluation" (or "Please re-review").

Some possible candidates that would not involve cluttering Misplaced Pages with another new image file are:

• File:Symbol redirect vote2.svg -
• File:Recycling symbol.svg -
• File:Symbol recycling vote.svg -
• File:Emblem-question-yellow.svg -

Of those suggestions, my preference is for the first of the two recycling symbols. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems a sensible suggestion. A problem with the first three is that their colour is very similar to the "verified" tick – although your preference (the one without the circular border) probably looks sufficiently different. I wonder if could be re-coloured and used for this purpose? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go with the bent arrow but a different colour. (yellow maybe?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please not yellow; it doesn't show up well (as in the Emblem question yellow symbol above). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Our range of DYK symbols doesn't include a red one yet. Perhaps we could have a red "bent arrow"? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Like this one Froggerlaura (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea and I like the red bent arrow personally, but red/green color blindness? How about orange? or purple? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a person with red/greed colour blindness, it looks more brown to me, but then we don't have a brown symbol either :). It's the symbol itself that's important and I don't think that I would have any problem with it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added Froggerlaura's image to the nomination templates, so now we can see how this arrangement works. --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

alright then....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think red is an appropriate colour for a recycling symbol. What is wrong with the first recycling icon above, suggested by Orlady? It's an appropriate colour and symbol, and its design could hardly be confused with the tick icon. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to use the recycle symbol . To further discussion, I am hereby transcluding the DYKsymbols template (below) for comparison with the symbols shown above. The symbols are a bit larger in the template than they are on the noms page; the recycle symbol in this comment is the same size as the ones in the template below. The distinction is pretty clear to me, but YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• {{subst:DYKtick}}
• {{subst:DYKtickAGF}}
• {{subst:DYK?}}
• {{subst:DYK?no}}
• {{subst:DYKno}}
• {{subst:DYK?again}}

You may notify the nominator of problems with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}

Now that the red arrow symbol is used several places on the noms page, I share Gatoclass' opinion that red is the wrong color for this -- for most of us, red connotes "something wrong here". I would prefer that green recycling symbol. --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the Simple English version of that symbol. Art LaPella (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Death and Destruction

Since I disqualified on the grounds that it was out of time for nomination, I have been informed by the author that "the article was submitted on November 14 but it wasn't approved until November 23. If I had submitted it while still in AFC, I would have been told to wait until it was moved to mainspace."
I think its possible inclusion in DYK should be reconsidered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Added later. The author of this article does not have a user name. He/she seems to write articles on wrestling, particularly with reference to North Carolina. I have seen 3 nominated for DYK that appear to be by the same author and there may have been others. By using different but very similar IPs, he/she avoids the necessity to review other articles. Is there any policy on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should enforce the review other articles requirement. We need more reviewers. PumpkinSky talk 12:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it's asking too much saying that a contributor to DYK has to sign up and not use an IP? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely; Misplaced Pages is intentionally designed to allow IP editing, and I don't think we should stray from that here. Harrias 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say editing in general nor creation of articles, but perhaps DYK? - Also I think to open a account is not a big deal, anybody could do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

On the original question, Rjanag has reopened the nomination, and I agree with that decision; the timer started when the article hit mainspace. There are some complications when this IP user nominates articles. Since an IP cannot create pages in Template space, this user creates the nomination in Template talk. Unfortunately, this does not work correctly, as {{DYK nompage links}} assumes pages are in Template space. I have moved nine of the user's nominations from Template talk to Template. Four of them have been promoted, one rejected (a reviewer had concerns, the IP responded within a few hours, and the reviewer never returned), and four are pending. Although the IPs are all different, it's reasonably obvious that it's all the same person, and they may or may not have additional DYK credits. IP users should be subject to the same rules as everyone else, but it can generally be difficult to determine whether different IPs are the same person (or the same IP is different people), and how many DYK credits an individual has accumulated over various IPs. Also, although IP edits are appreciated and a valuable Misplaced Pages resource, I would say that IP reviews would be greeted with suspicion. For example, a user could log out and review their own hook as an IP. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK check

The tool normally works fine for me, but for Fürstenzug never returns, remaining on "processing". I had to restart my system. I don't see what might need a change in the article (not mine) and/or the tool, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just tried it and it worked fine for me. (Prose size (text only): 1985 characters (337 words) "readable prose size"; Article created by Pschemp on June 22, 2010; Article has not been expanded 5x since it was created; Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (537 days), for the record.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So it may be my system that is wrong? - DYK check worked for all other articles so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fürstenzug works with DYKcheck for me too. Prose size is 1989 but the old prose size is 1009, so it's not 5x expanded.. PumpkinSky talk 12:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Which browser are you using? (and the browser's version number) Shubinator (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 8.0, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I have too. PumpkinSky talk 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Q1

Should we really have two concert halls, and a classical composer, in one batch? Could at least one of the halls be re-scheduled? Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You read my mind, I just didn't want to cause too much trouble. If you ask me move the lead, it will be night in Europe for that set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I went to swap some hooks, but the bot moved that queue to the main page before I could save the set! --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! This (8:00) is a set now to show to people who think DYK is only about facts nobody wants to know anyway, - right to freedom of speech, curtain up! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Q3

Bachata Rosa

We would not say that Elvis popularised the rock and roll, or that Miles Davis was a leading exponent of the jazz; remove the in Juan Luis Guerra brought the bachata music mainstream Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the wording. --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Entre a Mi Mundo

What definition of noting is being used here? It might mean something in the world of music criticism, but not in general parlance, and not consistent with any definition in Wiktionary or Chambers. Is it imitating a vocal style? Plagiarising a song? Paying some form of homage? Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hook has been pulled. --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Balance of the set

Two Latin music album hooks in the same set? Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

One of them has been pulled (see above). --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP

I hope there are impeccable sources for putting an accusation that somebody (Count Grog) treats his employees dishonestly on the main page. At the very least, we need to be able to attribute the accusation or add allegedly. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is almost completely staged, although many fans seem to think it's real. All of the participants, apparently including this "manager", are playing roles. Accordingly, Count Grog can be considered a fictional character, even though he is identified with a real person. --Orlady (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

But employment contracts are not part of the performance. The article gives no impression that he is play-acting at being a manager, and neither does the hook.

Hmm... The cited source is offline. From the context in the article body, I thought that the "double-crossing" related to his antics in and around the fights. Where do you see a statement about employment contracts? If this one is pulled, it looks like it could be converted to a double hook with another hook currently on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how you can't see: that Pro Wrestling Illustrated has called manager Count Grog the "least employee friendly boss around" due to his frequently double-crossing his own wrestlers? The hook is entirely about manager/employee relationship. Not specific mention of contracts, but that is the sort of thing a manager/promoter/booker handles with the sportsmen in such a context. I see no reason why you put manager in inverted commas as though it were a pretence: according to the article, that is precisely what he does, even if he does so with in rather flamboyant manner in keeping with the theatrical nature of the entertainment. Basically, the current hook says that a magazine made a comment about him, and then states without reservation something highly detrimental about his professional conduct, implying that the publisher of the hook (ie Misplaced Pages) considers him to have indulged in illegal, or at last immoral, activity. There is a world of difference between saying "Mr Jones was arrested because he is a wife beater" and "Mr Jones was arrested by the police, who accused him of beating his wife": in the first instance, the person making the comment is making a statement as to Mr Jones' actions, in the second he is only talking about what the police have done. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I swapped that hook to Queue 4 to allow more time to figure out whether this is a tongue-in-cheek remark about his behavior (as I read it) or an indictment of his actual treatment of employees (as you read it). --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that people who know pro wrestling will understand immediately that this is part of the wrestling storyline ("kayfabe", a term I hadn't run into before looking into this), and everyone else, myself included, will wonder whether it's tongue-in-cheek or real, though in my case I thought it was extremely likely this was scripted behavior. The Pro Wrestling Illustrated article isn't any help, since 1999 could be in the kayfabe-only era, or "recent" enough that it could be from a more real-world point of view. The article itself is odd in that "Count Grog" is a character ("ring") name; the guy's real name is Greg Mosorjak. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is some kind of fantasy world around the entire wrestling industry, that should be explicit in both the article and the hook, which it is not. It can't be totally fantasy: wrestlers need to be paid real money, real venues need to be booked, real customers need to buy real tickets etc etc. All of this is the realm of managers, promoters and bookers, and those are three of the roles attributed to Grog/Mosorjak in the article. Note that the claim is no longer in the article: I removed it 11 hours ago on the basis of BLP, in which regard safe is better than sorry. Kevin McE (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I replied to the message left on the talk page. The link to "double-crossed" points to Swerve (professional wrestling) so it's pretty clear (especially if you read the article further - e.g. "The Brotherhood" section) this is a kayfabe statement. 71.184.47.206 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is just absurd. Do the article and the source state that Count Grog has turned on his wrestlers, or do they say that Greg Mosorjak has turned on his wrestlers? In both cases, they speak about Count Grog, the character. This clearly shows that the statement in PWI is to be read as commentary on the character's fictional relationships with other characters. This needs to be restored to the Queues. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Do the article and the source state that Count Grog has turned on his wrestlers?" Yes, so we can say that that accusation has been made, but we can't present it as though it were incontrovertible fact. If it is to be taken as fictional (and I don't believe that simply using someone's professional pseudonym in the report makes that explicit), that should have been intrinsic to the hook before it appeared anywhere near the main page. And as to your comment that it should be restored to the queue, that simply proves that you have not been following the progress of the issue. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Basketball rivalry

The rivalry itself does not include anything: the hook lacks semantic coherence. The history of the rivalry could, at a push, be said to include such games: we can certainly say that the history of games between the sides (with a piped link) included such meetings.

The hook is long and, at least to those not used to the terminology of the sport, clunky to read. suggest ...that the history of games between basketball rivals Duke and Michigan includes games that have gone to overtime when each team has been defending champion? And champion of what? Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I boldly replaced the hook with a different hook that I think is more effective (I verified it). The new hook reads: ... that seven of the twenty-nine times when Duke and Michigan played one other in men's basketball, both teams were ranked in the top ten in the AP Poll? --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK. Bores me silly, but I can't imagine anything about that sport that wouldn't. Makes sense without semantic acrobatics though. Kevin McE (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

<--Shoot, I wish I had seen this before--the front page ran with "played one other". That's not grammatically correct. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it ran an unproven accusation of fraudulent activity against a living person, after that had been removed from the article, in the following batch (see BLP above) Kevin McE (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3: Entre a Mi Mundo

I don't understand the fourth item of queue 3, Entre a Mi Mundo. Specifically, the phrase 'that some music critics believed Selena was noting Diana Ross and Leslie Gore in the song "Missing My Baby" ': what does "was noting" mean in this context? Emulating? Copying? Sounding like? Following in the footsteps of?

The phrase is a quote from the article's lede, and is also problematic there as well. The "Other Songs" subsection references reviews that are more specific and mention Gore and Ross with more specificity. Perhaps the hook can be rewritten, but I think it should not be published in its current form. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the hook out of the queue. Maybe somebody can figure out what this was supposed to mean. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3 (John Vanderpoel)

What exactly is his book a "standard reference" for? In art, nudes drawn from behind? In anatomy, the spread of the epidermis? For a construct like "whose book The Human Figure is a standard reference", I'd expect a bit of extra information (even a complement). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not too familiar with the terminology, I understand "standard reference textbook" or however a book from which many students learn and to which references are made may be called. He was teaching drawing "The Human Figure", the one shown is an example, more examples in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest using my original hook, which the reviewer also preferred for several reasons including the one Crisco mentioned: ... that artist John Vanderpoel, whose book The Human Figure (drawing from book pictured) is a standard reference for art students, was praised by Georgia O'Keeffe as "one of the few real teachers I have known"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur. "For art students" is clear enough, methinks. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been changed to add "for art students" to the alt, but it looks repetitive as it has "art teacher", "art students", and "teachers". Also, the "pictured" strikes me as awkward. The original hook listed above is better. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we could drop the repetition "her art teacher" the first time, the picture shows it's about art, teacher appears in the quote. (It's now in Q3). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Production line continues...

Ok, Hawkeye and I have rejigged some of the prose of Bill Bellamy (soldier) to distance from sourcing so anyone else is welcome to take a look, see Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Bellamy (soldier). Some of the other older noms are held up with the same issue (just scroll down from the top). I have to hop off the computer soon, so if folks could take a look that'd be great. I've loaded some preps into queues so we have lots of space to fill. Be back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Q4

Thomas Crawford

dead of night is more suitable for poetry than an encyclopaedia: suggest simply at night or under cover of darkness. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I quite liked "dead of night" but have changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Abdoel Gaffar Pringgodigdo

He was Minister of Justice in 1950: the Dutch invasion was in 1948, so he should not be referred to as a former Minister of Justice in relation to that event. Although not necessarily ungrammatical, losing much of his archives sounds as though it is: I would suggest that having archive in the singular is equivalent in meaning, and avoids the jarring phrase. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking out the "Minister of Justice" note undermines the interest, so I have changed to "future minister of Justice" as that is what he was at the time and makes the hook make more sense. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

JT Floyd

A cornerback you say? And I didn't even know Michigan had a hurling team. (see C2 here: "Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about". Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

added "football" Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That figures, because Gaelic football teams have 2 cornerbacks. Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lest that were too subtle. the simple word football does not identify the sport. Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Now duly Americanised....I'd bluelink it but it'd make the hook rather.....erm, blue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wording of hook in Queue 5

The wording of the last hook in Prep 3 was changed on a concern that I think has now been dispelled at the talkpage - that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother are not/were not referred to as Fisher & Fisher. I think the new wording, referring to "the sibling partnership," is clunky and fails to recognize that the firm continued with a second generation Fisher as a partner, and would like the original hook restored: "... that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother Arthur (Fisher & Fisher) designed the oil company town of Parco, Wyoming, in a unified Spanish colonial style to foster community?" But it's now in Queue 5 so I can't switch it back myself. In any case, the "that" has gotten left out and needs reinserting. Thanks. (And thanks to Casliber for inserting the credit to the article creator for the company article. I've already had to be a nudge about this nomination once, sorry about that.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it because the initial impression was that Fisher and Fisher referred to Arthur. I would think that whatever the company subsequently became is quite irrelevant to the hook: it is the name, and partnership composition, of the company at the time that would be relevant. I also thought it worth clarifying that they were architects, not just oil company men exercising authority over something not necessarily in their area of expertise. That they were collectively known as Fisher and Fisher is still not attested in the article of that name, although there is some evidence at talk. Kevin McE (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If the current hook is to be kept:
• it needs a "that" (as mentioned by Yngvadottir)
• "Architects" should be made lower case. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Variety of hooks

As I've been loading I have found "runs" of similar hooks, which I am guilty of myself I know. Anyway, for diversity, anyone is welcome to pillage ideas from User:Casliber/To-Do#Potential_DYKs where I stored ideas for 5x expansions from previous discussions. If you do, feel free to strike, tick off or remove from my page (I might even trim it myself). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Locoweed Q1

Gross exaggeration of what the article asserts. Article says that One to three months of heavy exposure causes death; hook claims that livestock usually die from eating it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Any rewording to less dramatic sounds......less dramatic. I love the name "locoism" so changed to:

"... that livestock eating white locoweed develop a neurological syndrome known as locoism?"

Howzat? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenny Demens Q1

As in the case of his teammate, we need to specify the sport per supplementary C2 Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"American football" added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Beneath The Snow Encumbered Branches nomination (Dec. 9)‎

I believe that the orthography of the article title, and hence the nomination, is incorrect: going by MOS:CT, "The" should be lowercase: Beneath the Snow Encumbered Branches.

Fixing it would require moving the article, and, the trickier part, changing the Template:Did you know nominations/Beneath The Snow Encumbered Branches and all the various places within the DYK pages affected by this. This may be easier at this stage than I think; I just remember what a headache it was to change a DYK when an article was moved to adjust its title orthography after it got to the prep area stage, and don't trust myself to figure out all the steps needed. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The template title needs to be kept the same, but everything else is fixed. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For a situation like this, all that is really necessary is editing the capitalization of the title in the hook, which is what readers see. Readers don't generally see the nomination subpage, and thus that never needs to be moved or changed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm glad to hear that the hook can be fixed without having to adjust the name of the nominations subpage. I'm new to DYK reviewing, so I'm still learning. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I completed the final step: adding a subpage parameter to the DYKmake. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination gone missing

After fixing some issues, Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Anne Genter appears to have left the nomination page without having had a final tick, so it shouldn't be 'in transition' on its way to the queue. The nomination date is no longer on the page, so maybe there's a related issue. Schwede66 17:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Found it here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is it doing there? Schwede66 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. I just looked at "What links here". It looks as if - after a lot was approved - sourcing issues were raised. I would still expect it to go back to the Nominations in such a case. Be bold, do that, I would say, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's back. What happened is that it was the last open DYK for November 26. When it was initially closed, the November 26 date was removed from the page. Unfortunately, when it was removed from the queue or prep area, the November 26 nominee section was not restored at that time. I've just restored it, but as I'm fairly new at the DYK game, if I've done wrong, someone please fix things and forgive my boldness. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I thought it must be a silly little technicality that caused this. Thanks for fixing it. Schwede66 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert of 00:00 17 December 2011 (UTC) DYK update

Does anyone know why the 00:00 17 December 2011 (UTC) DYK update was reverted? There appears to be no discussion at either Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors nor this page. I suspect this is a simple case of fumble fingers but the admin who made the revert appears to have stepped away from the keyboard so it is not possible to confirm this theory. As the update is "on the clock", so to speak, a quick resolution would be useful. --Allen3  01:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just returned (to my keyboard :) and reverted - whatever it was, it should not be done without an explanation. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I discovered it at roughly the same time as Materialscientist. I'm thinking that we should give the current (restored) set an extra hour. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As per Orlady's suggestion I have extended the update time for the current set by an hour. --Allen3  02:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a glitch . Materialscientist (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1 & 2

I built a couple of preps this morning—hadn't done this in ages and last time was long before all the fundamental changes. I see that both preps have been changed around substantially. This might be normal, but if it's to do with what I've done, then I'd appreciate some feedback. One can only learn from feedback :) Schwede66 03:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK is a collaborative enterprise so I would describe this kind of editing as "normal". People are entitled to tweak and improve hooks and hooksets, right up to and even after they hit the mainpage. So no concerns here, unless the changes bother you, in which case you can revert giving your reasons, or discuss them with the other editor. I'm not sure what the "subpage" business in the credit template is about though. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I was the one who added the "subpage" parameters, I'll explain. In the Credits section of individual Prep and Queue pages, accompanying each article is a "View nom subpage" link. That link is displayed automatically when the nomination subpage has the same name as the article. When the names differ (e.g., for multi-noms or nomination subpages with typos in their names or if the article was moved subsequent to the nomination), a "subpage" parameter is required to display that link. This parameter is normally added automatically when necessary by the new nomination template. In this case, however, the nomination page originally had the same name as one of the nominated articles, so the "subpage" parameter was not automatically added. Then the nomination page was moved, with the new title naming both articles. (Such a move is not necessary and, in fact, it is recommended that such moves not be done.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

@Gatoclass - I wasn't bothered about it, but just wanted to know whether I could have done things differently / better. That's all. @Mandarax - thanks for the explanation. Schwede66 09:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Q2 has 3 Germany related hooks

Isn't that a bit too much of a good thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I swapped out one of the three. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Read It Later

I'm not sure if two of the sources - Engadget and Techcrunch - are considered reliable for DYK. I have seen articles from TechCrunch help save stuff from deletion in AfD. I would like the article reviewed soon because the hook ends with "this year". SL93 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, both of those sources are reliable. The articles are written by staff and they have an editorial review board. Silverseren 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3 fix

The first hook in Queue 3 is missing a leading "that". Thanks. —Bruce1ee 07:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Added, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Westminster Psalter template cock-up

Something went wrong here, which I hope is easily fixed by those who understand these things. My attempting to redo will probably make things worse. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done. Fixed. You had left out the closing curly brackets when you made the nom, so I went back to square one. You will have to reinsert your QPQ review though. Here's the diff. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're very welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Q6 Error

Q6 needs (pictured) removed from it. PumpkinSky talk 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)