ProverbialElephant (talk | contribs) →Leonhardt Schröter: new section |
Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) →QPQs and slap-dash reviews claimed: it's an option |
||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
::Or we could just [[WP:AGF|assume]] that reviewers aren't complete liars and have actually checked what they say they've checked. --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' <small><small>aka Jakec</small></small> 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
::Or we could just [[WP:AGF|assume]] that reviewers aren't complete liars and have actually checked what they say they've checked. --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' <small><small>aka Jakec</small></small> 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::If that was the case, we wouldn't be removing items from preps, the main page etc. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::If that was the case, we wouldn't be removing items from preps, the main page etc. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::You certainly could, just as you could assume that all reviewers are blue and from the planet Mars. [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== DYK is almost overdue == |
== DYK is almost overdue == |
Revision as of 21:11, 19 October 2015
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. |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.
Ada Lovelace Day on Tuesday
Just realised that Ada Lovelace Day is on Tuesday. I am going to look through the approved list and see if there are any about Science, Technology, Engineering women. I will mark them with "Ada Lovelace" so you can find them. Can someone assist with moving them? Its late notice so we will need to move promptly if we are to do anything. Thanks for listening Victuallers (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
- Fine! - Talking about late notice, it's already 11 Oct where I live, and special occasion hook still not in prep - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! the current Prep 3 has two hooks related to Germany, a bio and a railway, - I don't mind, but perhaps others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Adding: the 11 Sep hook is in prep (Prep 1), but was changed to a grammar I don't understand, and the set is not full, - more help needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you are talking about unreviewed articles, they'll get noticed quicker if you list them here. This close to the date, I'm not sure how many people are scrolling down the nominations page. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I admit its very close and maybe too late to do anything. I think they will need to be approved or very simple to approve articles. If this proves to be impossible then I guess I realise why. Its a pity I didn't spot it earlier. I have identified three or four but there are only one or two that are approved or close. Not surprisingly some are by me, Victuallers (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've been through all the noms and identified six that we can use - there are quite a few more that just need some help. Six is good given the late notice but could you help make it more? Goodnight. Victuallers (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Quick, somebody review Rommie Amaro! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- We have about ten hooks all loaded - thanks to all who helped especially Yoninah. Still may need some polishing but not bad for a very late start. Impressive to see that we had a lot of the right type of hooks without any targetted writing. Victuallers (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen
- What I see is that the special request for today is now in a barely filled prep instead of the next queue. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have no idea how that happened. I haven't been involved in prep building for a long time. Unfortunately, the queue that it should have been in is already on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- And what now? Swap at least to the next possible possibility? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I've done that: the next prep to be promoted to queue is Prep 4, so I swapped the lead hook there with your special request. If some admin is around and can swap the lead hooks of Queue 3 and Prep 4, it could go to the main page in 4.5 hours rather than 16.5 hours. I have no idea how it was skipped; last I saw, about 24 hours ago, was that it was in a partial set in the next prep due to be promoted, and when I checked again a number of hours ago, it was still in the same prep with the same partial set, but that prep had been bypassed for whatever reason. I'm sorry things went awry, though I have no idea how they did. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: and @Gerda Arendt:, nothing in that hook says (pictured), and nothing in the hook mentions the cross (at least not in English). So why is the cross the accompanying image? — Maile (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's trying to translate "Kreuzstab" to readers not fluent in German without using extra characters. See nom and talk where the meaning of the title is questioned. The cantata is known as the "Kreuzstabkantate" in German. Can you word that? Perhaps (Kreuzstab pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- see also Cross-staff cantata --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: and @Gerda Arendt:, nothing in that hook says (pictured), and nothing in the hook mentions the cross (at least not in English). So why is the cross the accompanying image? — Maile (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I've done that: the next prep to be promoted to queue is Prep 4, so I swapped the lead hook there with your special request. If some admin is around and can swap the lead hooks of Queue 3 and Prep 4, it could go to the main page in 4.5 hours rather than 16.5 hours. I have no idea how it was skipped; last I saw, about 24 hours ago, was that it was in a partial set in the next prep due to be promoted, and when I checked again a number of hours ago, it was still in the same prep with the same partial set, but that prep had been bypassed for whatever reason. I'm sorry things went awry, though I have no idea how they did. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- And what now? Swap at least to the next possible possibility? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have no idea how that happened. I haven't been involved in prep building for a long time. Unfortunately, the queue that it should have been in is already on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- ... that in the cantada Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, in English "I will gladly carry the Cross" (cross pictured), life is compared to a sea voyage, while addressing death to come? 198 characters — Maile (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kreuzstab is literally not the cross (Kreuz), as explained on the talk (with many images), but a cross staff which pilgrims, bishops etc carry, of course to symbolize the cross. Simpler: ... that Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, ("I will the cross-staff gladly carry", cross-staff pictured) was called a cantata by Bach himself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I just added (Kreuzstab pictured) to the hook, and I think that might clear it up. Have a look over in the prep area. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I just fixed that. Perhaps we should discuss the topic in general, now that we have the captions: Do we have to interrupt the flow of the hook by some pictured when a caption says (more) clearly what is pictured? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't know the answer. It's a good topic to be discussed. I just had this mental image of a lot of high drama happening here because the hook got pulled from the front page for not having the word "pictured". Or some other such prancing about. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, we can't be too cautious. There's an image in the article which was pulled from the Main page because of this, similar situation, fishermen mentioned in the cantata title and pictured, but how to add (pictured) in the middle of a bolded title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100% on the Kreuzstab hook - it was clear without (pictured). I'm not sure (pictured) is always needed. But you know how it is around here. There needs to be something written into the rules that using (pictured) is the promoter's discretion, or we get yanked hooks. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, we can't be too cautious. There's an image in the article which was pulled from the Main page because of this, similar situation, fishermen mentioned in the cantata title and pictured, but how to add (pictured) in the middle of a bolded title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't know the answer. It's a good topic to be discussed. I just had this mental image of a lot of high drama happening here because the hook got pulled from the front page for not having the word "pictured". Or some other such prancing about. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I just fixed that. Perhaps we should discuss the topic in general, now that we have the captions: Do we have to interrupt the flow of the hook by some pictured when a caption says (more) clearly what is pictured? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I just added (Kreuzstab pictured) to the hook, and I think that might clear it up. Have a look over in the prep area. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kreuzstab is literally not the cross (Kreuz), as explained on the talk (with many images), but a cross staff which pilgrims, bishops etc carry, of course to symbolize the cross. Simpler: ... that Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, ("I will the cross-staff gladly carry", cross-staff pictured) was called a cantata by Bach himself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Can a clearly involved editor review a DYK nomination, and can a DYK reviewer reject a nomination?
This is the nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti (Rihanna album). (See Special:Permalink/685308782) sst✈ 07:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer User:SNUGGUMS moved the article into draft space without consensus, stating CRYSTAL despite the article clearly meeting GNG (with enough non-CRYSTAL content for at least a start class article). He also failed and rejected my nomination without any discussion. Is this appropriate? sst✈ 05:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note that this article has been restored to its original location: Anti (Rihanna album) sst✈ 05:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Answered on the template, but it comes down to this: WP:DYKR: ...an uninvolved editor will soon review the discussion and likely close it and promote the article. If the article does not qualify for DYK for some technical reason or if the participants cannot agree on at least one viable hook, the discussion will eventually be closed by an uninvolved editor and the article will not be promoted.
— Maile (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The nomination is approved already but the article has problems needing address. But the nominator keeps reverting the comments. Just pointing out if some coordinators really want to take this up may do so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- We don't have official coordinators here, but I restored your review again and left a warning on the other editor's talk page. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Though for the record, I don't believe that the issues you mention are absolutely necessary for DYK. It's okay for articles to be incomplete and rough around the edges, so long as they are neutral, well-cited, and lack copyvio or close paraphrasing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind if you object or others with consensus feel that the article is ready. I and others have been seeing many a times poor articles at DYK and this one won't be an exception. So am fine. I am anyways steering away now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Though for the record, I don't believe that the issues you mention are absolutely necessary for DYK. It's okay for articles to be incomplete and rough around the edges, so long as they are neutral, well-cited, and lack copyvio or close paraphrasing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Size of DYK Images
Hello, DYKers. I'd like to ask what the DYK image size should be, please. Wikipedia:Did you know#Images says "100x100px". Yet I keep seeing over-sized images (120px wide and >120px tall) displayed using {{Main page image}} in the prep areas. We could use some consistency from hook-set to hook-set, and across MainPage (the current images at ITN and SA/OTD are both 100px wide). What is the preferred size, please? Do we want to make "|width=100x120" the new standard size for DYK? Please advise. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is there one out there now as an example? — Maile (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I thought the idea was that all the sections were now supposed to use the same "main page image" template and its default size of 120—the images have been a bit larger since the template was introduced—only modifying the size if the photo was unusually narrow or wide in aspect. The "100x100px" is a legacy from the old method, and should be updated. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
QPQs and slap-dash reviews claimed
As I was scrolling the nominations page, I made the turn-around tick and notations on templates where there were no details on what was reviewed. In this case, it looked like an editor sliding by on numerous slap-dash check offs in a row. Please don't hesitate to question QPQs from any editor if what they are claiming looks like a review was not actually done. Anyone who has done a review should be able to provide some details. The very least respect/courtesy we can pay to nominators is to not fake the reviews, to list the details. In the long run, questioning a review helps lessen the complaints we get on this page when a promoted hook has to be pulled. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Maile, are you satisfied with the reviewer's response on those reviews (plus more) a few hours ago? Hooks are already being promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Let's list them here, because it's getting to be confusing going back through my contributions history. Any other seasoned DYK reviewer is welcome to express their viewpoint:
- Mount Cotton Road - I have no issue with your comments here. I believe you are correct. Listed here because this was on my talk page this morning. Quite amusing, don't you think?
- Aydın Archaeological Museum -Should not be used as a QPQ, and should not be promoted as is.
- Harry Anthony - Should not be used as a QPQ, and should not be promoted as is.
- Robust tuco-tuco - Should not be used as a QPQ, and should not be promoted as is.
- Nathan Waller (soldier) - Should not be a QPQ and should not be promoted as is.
- Francis Doughty (clergyman) - Should not be a QPQ and should not be promoted as is.
- Vern Miller - ????
- Let's list them here, because it's getting to be confusing going back through my contributions history. Any other seasoned DYK reviewer is welcome to express their viewpoint:
- ADMIN, PLEASE PULL FROM PREP 3 Marsh Creek (Bowman Creek) - Should not be a QPQ, and should not have been promoted.
- ADMIN, PLEASE PULL FROM PREP 3 Evangelienmotetten - Promoted without adequate review.
- ADMIN, PLEASE PULL FROM PREP 4 Frigid bumblebee - Should not be a QPQ, and should not have been promoted.
- We have a problem, folks. Things are being promoted that shouldn't. Remember Signpost/2015-09-09/Op-ed from @Fram:? While we encourage everyone to get involved in DYK, it is of particular concern that we have so many in the above list. Is there any recourse to this? — Maile (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a serious issue. Time for more thorough reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like the real problem is verifying that reviewers are actually going through all the relevant criteria. Right now, the rules for reviews are a little ambiguous; although they require reviewers to look at all criteria, I don't think there is anything in the rules (as they are written right now) that would prevent a reviewer from saying "I have looked at all the criteria and this nomination passes." Instead, I propose we implement the following baseline standards for DYK reviews:
- State the date on which the article was created, 5x expanded, promoted to GA, etc.
- State the length of the nominated article
- State affirmatively that the article "passes relevant policy considerations, including (i) neutrality, (ii) citations, and (iii) close paraphrasing"
- State the length of the hook
- State why the hook is interesting and link to the source used to support the hook.
- State affirmatively that "QPQ has been satisfied"
- If applicable, state affirmatively that "the image complies with relevant guidelines"
- A hypothetical review under this system would look like this:
- "This was created on October 19, the article is 2345 characters long, and the article passes relevant policy considerations, including (i) neutrality, (ii) citations, and (iii) close paraphrasing. The hook is 123 characters long, it is interesting because most people wouldn't know a fact like that, and it is supported by a source at [this link] via inline citation. QPQ is satisfied, and the image complies with relevant guidelines."
- Without affirmative requirements like these, I don't see any other way we can require editors to "show their work" (for lack of a better term), and we will simply have to take their word at face value. Nevertheless, I am definitely interested to hear other thoughts on this matter. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Or we could just assume that reviewers aren't complete liars and have actually checked what they say they've checked. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If that was the case, we wouldn't be removing items from preps, the main page etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Or we could just assume that reviewers aren't complete liars and have actually checked what they say they've checked. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Calling on an administrator to promote Prep 5 to the queue – Ada Lovelace Day is starting in half an hour! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Credit fixes
Three credits should be fixed in the upcoming Queue 6. The correct credits are:
* {{DYKmake|Entrepreneur First|Yoninah|subpage=Entrepreneur First, Alice Bentinck}} * {{DYKmake|Alice Bentinck|Yoninah|subpage=Entrepreneur First, Alice Bentinck}} * {{DYKmake|The Verse of Wilayah|Saff V.|subpage=The Verse of Wilayah}}
The first two are currently missing the subpage parameter, and the other one has a redirected article title. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Please don't run Halloween hooks before Halloween
I would have thought this would have been pretty bloody obvious, but could promoters please make sure that they do not run Halloween hooks before Halloween? We have already lost two Halloween hooks because someone wasn't paying attention. Prioryman (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed that. I'm not sure what section the hooks were taken from, but IMO it's important to ensure any eligible hooks are moved to the special occasions section to lessen the chance of them being selected prematurely. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I found some approved hooks appearing both in the main nominations area and in the Special Occasions area, and deleted the former. Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prioryman, is there a reason that you are double listing Halloween hooks in both the regular and special occasion sections of T:TDYK (e.g. [1] and [2])? Moving a nomination to the special occasion holding area is a two part action, removing the nomination from the regular section and the addition of the nomination to the special occasion holding area (e.g. [3]). Leaving a nomination listed in both sections is an open invitation for confusion. --Allen3 talk 13:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Simple enough: If they're listed only in the main area it's hard to see at a glance which articles are meant to run on Halloween. If they're listed only in the holding area they get overlooked by reviewers (as we found with Gibraltar). The best solution is to double-list them so that they are reviewed in the normal course of events, while simultaneously enabling us to keep track of which nominations relate to the specific date. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your dilemma, Prioryman. Perhaps we could create a subpage for Halloween, Christmas, and other significant special-occasion hooks, the way we do for April Fools' Day hooks. On the subpage, there are 2 columns: one for suggested hooks, and one for approved hooks. Then there is no misunderstanding, and anyone who wants to review a Halloween hook is directed straight to the subpage. Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is an excellent idea. — Maile (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The main special occasion section states quite clearly that unapproved hooks should not be placed there. Double listing them is not going to prevent them from being promoted prematurely if they are not moved at the time of approval, and may in fact confuse people who see that the hook is already in the special area, so they think they don't need to do anything. The subpage idea might work if links to it were posted here on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think all special occasion hooks should be moved straight to the special occasion section whether they have been approved or not. If they haven't been approved within a few days of the occasion, attention can always be drawn to that at this page. Special occasion hooks need to be in the right place otherwise they can be completely missed before the occasion, or inadvertently promoted as occurred with the two Halloween hooks above. Prioryman, the reason the Gibraltar hooks languished so long is that (a) they were controversial and nobody wanted to touch them, and (b) they weren't actually special occasion hooks, they were hooks requiring a double approval as I recall. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- The main special occasion section states quite clearly that unapproved hooks should not be placed there. Double listing them is not going to prevent them from being promoted prematurely if they are not moved at the time of approval, and may in fact confuse people who see that the hook is already in the special area, so they think they don't need to do anything. The subpage idea might work if links to it were posted here on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is an excellent idea. — Maile (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your dilemma, Prioryman. Perhaps we could create a subpage for Halloween, Christmas, and other significant special-occasion hooks, the way we do for April Fools' Day hooks. On the subpage, there are 2 columns: one for suggested hooks, and one for approved hooks. Then there is no misunderstanding, and anyone who wants to review a Halloween hook is directed straight to the subpage. Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Simple enough: If they're listed only in the main area it's hard to see at a glance which articles are meant to run on Halloween. If they're listed only in the holding area they get overlooked by reviewers (as we found with Gibraltar). The best solution is to double-list them so that they are reviewed in the normal course of events, while simultaneously enabling us to keep track of which nominations relate to the specific date. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prioryman, is there a reason that you are double listing Halloween hooks in both the regular and special occasion sections of T:TDYK (e.g. [1] and [2])? Moving a nomination to the special occasion holding area is a two part action, removing the nomination from the regular section and the addition of the nomination to the special occasion holding area (e.g. [3]). Leaving a nomination listed in both sections is an open invitation for confusion. --Allen3 talk 13:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I found some approved hooks appearing both in the main nominations area and in the Special Occasions area, and deleted the former. Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- As the person who committed this grave error, I can say that I promoted these two hooks from the main nomination area. One of the two hooks in question, Template:Did you know nominations/The Conjuring 2: The Enfield Poltergeist, did not have any indication that it was to be kept for Halloween. The other, Template:Did you know nominations/Anniyan, did vaguely mention Halloween in the middle of the discussion but that was all. Any approved hook in the main list is liable to be promoted at any time unless clearly marked as reserved for a special date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
BattleTech (video game)
I have promoted for BattleTech (video game) to Prep4 but I found the template was incomplete and I was therefore unable to archive it. I also had to create an appropriate credit for the prep and I think I did this correctly, but someone might want to check. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- The template was mangled when it was incorrectly unpromoted after being pulled. I've fixed it. The credit you added was correct. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- My fault, sorry. Perhaps, though, we should read the articles before promoting them in future to check they're written in parsable English. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Nomination request for Thomas á Jesu
Hi there, per the instructions, as an IP I have to post here rather than filling in the form. (Don't know if this happens to you much, but that's what it says in the first line.) Could the following nomination be made please? Thank you much, 184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- ... that monks who wanted to live a life of solitude in the 16th-century "desert" hermitages founded by Thomas á Jesu had to apply and meet strict criteria.
P.S. for the quid pro quo I reviewed Melipona beecheii.184.147.131.85 (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas á Jesu. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.184.147.131.85 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which takes us through the end of September. As of the most recent update, 89 nominations are approved, leaving 222 of 311 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one left over from August and those from early September.
- August 21: Template:Did you know nominations/2015 attack in Thalys train car
- September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Shelby Gem Factory (two articles)
- September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Celebrity Fifteen to One
- September 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sigala (musician), Good Times (Ella Eyre song) (two articles)
- September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Equatorial Guinea
- September 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jared Tebo (two articles)
- September 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Marathwada Liberation Day
- September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/2008 TNA World X Cup Tournament
- September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Brendan Clouston
- September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Istibsar
September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/1989 (Ryan Adams album)- September 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Sword Art Online: Lost Song
- September 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Lee Ee Hoe
- September 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Hart (settler)
- September 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Lizzie Halliday
- September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Scaptotrigona postica
- September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Lenuzzi's Horseshoe
- September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Fireweed Studio
- September 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Mercedes Gleitze
- September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Ernst Beyeler
- September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P (two articles)
- September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Umaid Bhawan Palace
- September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Indre
- September 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Dana Records
- September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Picturesque Palestine, Sinai, and Egypt
September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Frigid bumblebee- September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Referendums in the Netherlands
- September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Bad Timing (Adventure Time)
- September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Yusuf al-'Azma
- September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Padma Bhushan Award recipients (1954–1959)
- September 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Abandoned mine drainage
- September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Haute-Loire
- September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Ni no Kuni mobile games
- September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Ni no Kuni
- September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/George Givot
- September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/The Internet and cats
- September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Khumarawayh ibn Ahmad ibn Tulun
- September 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Moodu Pani
- September 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Val-d'Oise (two articles)
- September 30: Template:Did you know nominations/National Socialist Workers' Party of Norway
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- ... that Leonhardt Schröter lost his job, so he became a librarian?
I'm not seeing how this hook meets the "interesting" requirement. Perhaps that "Leonhardt lost his job as town Cantor because of his Philippist sympathies?"--ProverbialElephant (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)