Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172→Archive 175

RfC on the Fivefold expansion rule

If I'm understanding the various discussion correctly, combining 1 and A gives us consensus at "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." 1 and A adopted, but exact wording of the change to be determined by further discussion. This frees nominators from having to do an exhaustive search of an article's history. DYKCheck will need to be updated. —valereee (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Updated per further discussion below.—valereee (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


(This is a question about the Fivefold expansion rule.) 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As seen by this nomination and the resulting discussion, there is a considerable amount of disagreement between DYK regulars over how to interpret Supplementary guideline A4. The responses fell in three main groupings (points of contention in red).

  • 1: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expansion started, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
  • 2: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article in the entire edit history, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
  • 3: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article in the last X months of the edit history, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.

There was also a considerable amount of discussion over the idea people have or may cut down an article and expand it later to try to make it eligible. In hopes of finding a way though these diverging views, which of these two options do you think best clarifies the fivefold expansion rule (updates in green)?

  • A: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
  • B: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article in the last 9 months of the edit history (assuming it was not shortened earlier in the edit history by the nominator), no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.

A is the minimalist position that a sizable portion of the discussion endorsed. B is my attempt at a middle path between opinions 2 and 3, above, based on further conversations.

Pinging editors from the free-form discussion @Narutolovehinata5, Gatoclass, Mandarax, Evrik, Lee Vilenski, Yoninah, Bloom6132, Serial Number 54129, David Eppstein, RLO1729, Ivar the Boneful, BlueMoonset, Buidhe, Shubinator, Alanscottwalker, Vanamonde93, Ruby2010, Amakuru, and Pawnkingthree:

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • 2 as this is very easy to measure with the DYKcheck tool. Otherwise, if the check fails, you might have to look through every revision in the last nine months to verify that it had never exceeded the size during that interval. buidhe 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A come closest to my interpretation. I would change "the day before the expansion started" to "the day before the expander began substantive work on it." Sometimes an article in bad shape is nominated for deletion and you cut it down to bare bones and then expand it from there. Assuming one person did both the cutting and the expanding, I would want to compare it to the article before they began any work on it. But "any" is a broad statement; I have articles on my watchlist and to do list that are in bad shape that I've been meaning to get around to doing something with them for years. Sometimes I'll make a minor copyedit to them, but I wouldn't think a single copyedit from 2-4 years or more ago would mean one should count from the day before the very first edit that editor ever made to the article. Of course, my wording would lead to endless questions about how one defines "substantive", but the idea is that we're looking for the beginning of the period of activity that lead to the article being nominated. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    IMO this encourages the creation of sockpuppets to reduce the article and then nominate for DYK. buidhe 17:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Buidhe: I blocked quite a few socks in my day and I haven't ever seen anyone try to do that. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    That's because the DYK rules were previously interpreted as meaning at any time in the past, so there would be no benefit to such behavior. If this rule were enacted it would be very easy to do and unlikely to be detected. Different people review different hooks and there's only a handful of people who are dedicated article rescuers anyway. A rule which enourages someone to break other, more important rules is never a good idea. buidhe 17:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    Not wishing to rehash the previous argument, but it's untrue to say that DYK rules have ever meant "at any time in the past". The rule says: "been expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days". That means it's five times bigger than the version of seven days ago, and with few exceptions that's the rule applied. Of course, if someone had obviously cropped an article with a view to re-expanding it, or simply reverted to an old longer version, then that should be disallowed but as Guerillo says there's no evidence this has happened, and it's IMHO unfair on genuine nominators and against the spirit of what this rule is there for, to expect them to have run a size check on every version of the article, just because someone might use this in bad faith.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    As has been pointed out in past discussions, a number of people, myself included, have never interpreted the rule the way buidhe states, and to see this claim made once again is most unfortunate. If some people did have this interpretation, more did not, as I think was established in the earlier discussion. Furthermore, invoking DYKcheck in this way ignores what Shubinator, the author of DYKcheck, stated about its origin, specifically that it was never written with 2 in mind, since it wasn't the process at the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • B is my favorite. I personally think that the risk of socking is over stated --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    I would also be okay with A --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not 2, needlessly penalizes nominators for prior actions which are not their fault. I find Gatoclass's argument here particularly convincing; additions that get reverted within hours definitely shouldn't count. I am not sure which one of the proposed options achieves the best balance to prevent gaming the system. Instead, I would support using the maximin 1-year stable length of the article over its entire edit history. Precise definition: Look at all possible 1-year windows since the creation of the article, and find the minimum length of the article during each window. Now take the maximum of all these lengths (including the length of the article the day before the expansion started, regardless of whether it has persisted for at least 1 year). Intuitively, this tries to find the longest stable version of the article, where "stable" is defined as "persisting for at least 1 year". It shouldn't be hard to update DYKcheck to do this check automatically, it's Algorithms 101 material. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking of algorithms, what's the runtime of the proposed algorithm compared to the current algorithm? At a glance, it looks significantly worse, probably enough to render this component of the tool unusable - it's already the longest-running component, even with the speed of the current algorithm. Shubinator (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The current algorithm is linear-time, so if it's taking too long them most of the time must be spent on I/O calls and/or parsing each revision text. Even if we go with the naive quadratic implementation, I wouldn't expect a significant increase in runtime because it's dominated by the big constant multiplier on the linear term (as we can reuse the results computed for each revision). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A of the choices above. I've always felt a little uneasy about "in the history of the whole article", if for no other reason, that article standards have changed over the years, and were (IMO) fairly lax several years ago. Older articles passed muster with very little standards of sourcing, and some of them got their content size reduced years before, or any number of things. If we are to encourage users to expand articles, let's not box them in with standards that discourage their will to participate. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A has always been what I thought it was, and should be. I have seen cases where articles were bad before, got reduced in size, then were 5x'd from there and made good. The idea of DYK is to reward and promote the 'made good', regardless of how long ago or under what circumstances it was bad. I have not seen cases where people run socks to shorten an article just so it can be 5x'd. That seems like a long way to go. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A AS the centre of this point, I'll say what I had in the previous discussion. I've always taken the wording "as is" to mean the article at the point where the nominator found it and expansion started providing they haven't meddled with it shortly before. There is no requirement (nor should there be) for an editor to go delving into the history to find all the junk that was removed because that will put people off and not encourage further contributions. As for the point above about people making socks to game the system, even if that was a problem (which it isn't as I've never seen any evidence of anyone doing that), it would be fairly easy to spot by looking at editors contributions. It would be a lot of effort for little meaningful reward. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A fit my views closest. In most cases, the nominator was not even aware if there were any previously existing larger revisions, especially if they weren't among the original main contributors. Penalizing them for what they don't know would be unhelpful and would hurt good-faith editors. If there were any clear attempts to game the system, as these are relatively rare, they can be dealt with on an individual basis. On the other hand, for cases where an editor cuts an article then later returns to it to do a 5x expansion, they could be discussed on a case-by-case basis; passing or failing these would depend on the circumstances of the cut and expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Here we go with yet another RFC started with no warning and thus no discussion of the wording, which is almost always of crucial importance. Regardless, although the wording here is far from ideal, the meaning is hopefully clear enough, and my choices as I said in the previous discussion would be 1 and A, since the alternative would mean pointless additional work for reviewers, not to mention that expansions would always end up having to be made from the trashiest and most irrelevant previous version that other good faith users have already trimmed back over time. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
But with regard to the wording, 1/ should probably read something like "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the version that existed prior to the expander or his collaborators beginning work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception) ..." - because "version" is more specific than "article" and there are clearly ambiguities in the phrase "the day before the expansion started", firstly because the previous version was not necessarily made the previous day (it might have been made the same day) and secondly and more importantly, because it could be misinterpreted to mean that the expander can trim the article as he pleases before starting the expansion, which is absolutely not the intended meaning here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, after taking a closer look at the alternatives, I am struggling to even understand why we need both the numbered and lettered alternatives, as the introductory statement for the lettered alternatives, There was also a considerable amount of discussion over the idea people have or may cut down an article and expand it later to try to make it eligible doesn't even make sense, and I can't see any substantive difference between the numbered and lettered alternatives anyway (except that there is no lettered version of 2/). Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: There were arguments over if there was a consensus in the previous discussion, so here we are. 1-3 was my attempt at summarize the previous discussion and A and B was my attempt to create a binary option based on further discussion. One of the reasons, I felt, that the previous discussion was hard to read was that it was a ternary. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
That's one of the problems with attempting too much precision. Sometimes the expansion involves more that one editor, working together or separately, as is the case here. DYKcheck reported that the expansion began on June 2, 2020, and coupled with the fact that it was nominated on June 3, well below seven days prior, should be sufficient. (The prior edit I check is the most recent edit prior to the day on which the expansion started, whether that's the day before or a week before, and regardless of whether there were more edits by other editors earlier on the day when the expansion began in earnest.) Obviously, more wordsmithing needs to be done. Gatoclass's proposed modifications to number 1 might help this, though "collaborators" might be too specific. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A combination of 1 and A, made as simple yet comprehensive as possible. The expansion shouldn't be restricted to the nominator/expander (see this example), and the seven-day limit reflects the beginning of the expansion to five times (as in 1). However, the point that Gatoclass makes with version that existed prior to the expander or his collaborators beginning work on it is well taken, given the concern about pre-expansion cuts, so something along those lines should probably be included (taking off from A). Going further back to such an earlier version for the five-times calculation should not affect the basic seven-days qualification period. Note that I wouldn't object to a variant of B, if it were made far shorter, on the order of one month or six weeks, or perhaps three months at the outside. Nine months is way too far beyond. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A: Adding my pile-on support here. It's just simpler to implement and is what I defaulted to in my 200-odd DYK reviews so far. SounderBruce 05:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A: honestly didn't realize there were other ways to interpret that. I agree with BlueMoonset that if B were shortened to a month or so it would be acceptable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone think this needs a formal close, and if so does anyone object to my closing it now? —valereee (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think we need to formally close this. In my mind, I think the consensus is to approve the proposal, bur I am unclear what we have agreed to. --evrik (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note to valereee: I think this close as you have written it, unfortunately, will cause problems because sometimes the expansion is started by someone other than the main expander, and this prevents counting that initial extra expansion, which could be needed—Yoninah pointed out this issue on June 20, and both Gatoclass and I pointed out the significant issues involved and what might be done. I'm hoping you can give this more consideration, and amend the close accordingly. (There are complexities, no matter how it's parsed.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Adding or expanders ("Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expander or expanders began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion.") if we really need to state a plural wouldn't be controversial. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, Guerillero, I am completely open to unclosing this or revising my close if people think the close wasn't good. I tried to assess (it was difficult because 1 and A were both overwhelmingly preferred, but they weren't identical) but I'm totally open to whatever makes it work for everyone. Sorry for misinterpreting! —valereee (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, it's not your fault, the problem was that the wording of the RFC wasn't properly workshopped to begin with. I think the result of the RFC is clear enough, it's just the wording that needs to be tweaked a bit, and we never got around to deciding on an appropriate tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, should I unclose to allow for that? Or can we just discuss it here? —valereee (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you leave it closed, but change the wording to say something like "1 and A adopted, but exact wording of the change to be determined by further discussion." Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done —valereee (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 16. We currently have a total of 346 nominations, of which 123 have been approved, a gap of 223. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the eight remaining from May.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

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) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Davido - was listed at Candidates for Speedy Deletion

BlueMoonset, Yoninah I ran across this at Candidates for Speedy Deletion.

Template:Did you know nominations/Davido

I take it that the nominator has changed their mind on this. If I should Speedy Delete it, I will. But don't we just close out the withdrawn nominations, and leave the template in the system? Please advise. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Maile, the nominator never transcluded it, so the nomination process never got going, and they're no longer interested in pursuing it. There's effectively nothing to withdraw when it hasn't been submitted and no one has managed to find it and review it. If you've ever looked at the Incomplete DYK nomination bot message that is posted on nominator talk pages when they don't do that final transclusion step, it reads: If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. That tagging is a speedy deletion request. What I was doing was tagging it for the nominator (although with g6 rather than g7), so a speedy deletion request, but a different one. (You can read that request on their talk page; I put a link in the speedy request for that reason.) Please proceed with the deletion: it is standard DYK process at this stage of the proceedings. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion request

I would appreciate a new eye on Template:Did you know nominations/Enamelled glass. The article is good, and the hook topic is very hooky, but I had a small concern over the hook wording. CMD (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Q7 July15B

Template:Did you know nominations/Wakanui

Schwede66

I'm not finding in either bolded article that O'Connor 'defended' the feedlot? —valereee (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

valereee, the sentence is in Wakanui, at the end of the "Wakanui Beef" section. The Radio New Zealand source cited characterizes O'Connor as making a "scathing attack" on the feedlot's critics, and the quotes of what he said that appear in the source are certainly a defense of this particular feedlot. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, the hook says although he said (pastoral farming quote), he defended the feedlot. That to me says that the pastoral farming quote either was not the defense, or we wouldn't need 'although'. Either that phrase was not the defense, or we have to recast the hook. Am I missing something? —valereee (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it by recasting/adding to the article sentence. —valereee (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Adding: I'm not sure whether "defended" is a neutral way of presenting this. Perhaps a more neutral phrasing would be he called the 19,000-cow ANZCO Foods feedlot (drone footage featured) at Wakanui "innovative"? (I think including the capacity of the feedlot, 19,000, is appropriate to give context; the article would need to be modified to include the "innovative" quote.) I'm not sure your fix works, since it inverts the order of his statements and connects them in a way that isn't there in the original. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
valereee, sorry that I forgot to ping you after the edit conflict. I've just edited the article further and added the "innovative" quote to it, so the following ALT should work (I've dropped "19,000-cow" because that took it over the 200-character limit):
Thanks, team. You've earned yourself a keep; there's nothing further for me to do! Schwede66 17:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I'm a bit lost as to what the hook is trying to say. I'm not really familiar with what a feedlot is or what its connection to "an image of New Zealand pastoral farming" is: could that be made clearer in the hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, this is OR, but 'an image of NZ pastoral farming' would refer to the idea of cows wandering through grassy green fields, doing what cows normally do -- eating grass and flowers and weeds, mostly being happy -- in smallish herds. A 'feedlot' on the other hand is a fenced area so small and containing so many animals that there's nothing left growing; too many animals' hooves have torn up the turf. Like you see in the video, the entire ground is brown mud or dead vegetation. Animals are fed in troughs, close-up photos show them covered in mud. It's ugly, and animal rights organizations show it that way. Though TBH it looks a lot better than the US feedlots I've seen. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Valereee, that's a good explanation. We have an international promotion going on, representing ourselves as "clean, green New Zealand". When this video appeared, it caused quite a commotion; people genuinely didn't know that something like this existed in the country (including me), and it's the only one at scale. It really is very surprising; it's a stark contrast to how we promote ourselves internationally. Schwede66 17:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Schwede66, I wondered. By US standards that video is a nothingburger. Here in the US we have animals standing ankle-deep in manure in feedlots that are much more crowded, and probably thousands of instances. I'm glad you kiwis are upset by that video. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We must insist on neutrality for police brutality articles and hooks

I've just come across two nominations for articles about alleged police brutality—Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Manuel Ellis and Template:Did you know nominations/Buffalo police shoving incident—and I'm sure there will be more with the events that have occurred in recent months. In each case, the nominator chose to write a really juicy hook, presenting it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I'd like to alert reviewers to be on the lookout for such hooks and to insist on neutrality. Without a criminal trial and convictions, these are all alleged crimes and should be presented as such. As in my alt suggestion for Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Manuel Ellis, there are ways to write a hook that uses the bolded article name while focusing on another angle of the event other than that the police did it. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Buffalo police shoving incident is "... that in the Buffalo, New York police shoving incident, two police officers were suspended and charged with assault for pushing a 75-year-old man to the ground?". I approved it and I fail to see the problem with neutrality here. Mujinga (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Well for a start, re the page linked in the lede for context, the "caused by" section in the infobox also eg [1] (am only a fraction of the way through sentence one), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Mujinga, Yoninah the neutrality aside, both these hooks are pretty close to being the exact phrasing of the headlines that we've all seen numerous times since these incidents happen. I wonder if something more original can be crafted that hasn't been all over the headlines? — Maile (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree reformulating the hook might be the best solution to keep everyone happy, but the "we" here is US-centric, I knew nothing about the Buffalo incident before reviewing the nom and I doubt many people worldwide have heard about it. And if the hooks do in fact resemble the newspaper headlines surely that is a good indication of their neutrality? Mujinga (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Ha Ha Ha! Boom! Boom!, newspaper headlines as paradigmatic paragons of neutrality, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Maculosae tegmine lyncis I assert that Americans learned everything they know about tabloid headlines from the British. Or was that Rupert Murdoch? Mujinga can I assume you are not American? Much of the news coverage in this country (an aspect that drives me nuts) is that if one news outlet comes up with a headline-grabbing phrase, and they all repeat it .... over and over and over . Neutrality is not the goal of the news outlets, but their share of the ratings market. That old axiom of "if it bleeds, it leads" holds true. The media outlets aren't particularly concerned about neutrality,. — Maile (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I went through the whole article and found a shocking lack of neutrality in the presentation. There have been no trials or convictions, so everything should be "alleged". The lead is totally one-sided and does not summarize the article or the varying viewpoints on what happened. There is also a whole paragraph discrediting the One America News Network which appears to be completely WP:UNDUE. Mujinga, it doesn't matter if this incident is not well-known internationally; we still must abide by Wikipedia policy and not report things in Wikipedia's voice that are not neutral. We have always given preference to books over newspapers as reliable sources, but as this incident is quite fresh, obviously there has been no analysis written about it as yet. But relying so heavily on news headlines should be discouraged. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I read through the whole article Yoninah and didn't detect any obvious neutrality issues, it seemed pretty straightforward and factual to me. Is there anything in particular that bothered you other than the OANN material? Because that seemed reasonably relevant to me. Gatoclass (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: well, I did edit it already. Yoninah (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
So you think the article is neutral enough now? Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No. First sentence. What is the "protest" about? Follow the link for context, then the "caused by" section in the infobox also eg [2], Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that people here are somehow managing to forget about how we use reliable sources to back claims but the real debate is happening in edits over at the article, so that's OK, I'm sure it will work out in the end. Regarding me saying that the incident is not well-known internationally, that was in answer to Maile asking for a reformulated hook to escape US media headline monoculture and I don't think that should be requirement number one for a website which is global (although yes it must be annoying to see the same headlines appear everywhere in the US). That was my point, not as Yoninah seems to be implying that the story not being known internationally gives it a "get out of jail free" card regarding wikipolicies. We actually can report things in wikipedia's voice that are not neutral per WP:ACHIEVE NPOV, we just need to keep a neutral tone overall. Back to my original point, I fail to see a problem with neutrality regarding the original hook for the Buffalo article. Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would say that in criminal/legal issues like this, we must always presume that ancient right of innocent until proven guilty by a trial of his peers guaranteed under the Magna Carta. We do need to be careful that the sources aren't just media outlets fanning the flames of discontent by taking images out of context. If needs be, hold the hooks until after such a trial. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Queue 7: 1973 Londonderry City Council election

I think there are two issues with this: firstly, the hook seems to imply that the loyalist group "won" the election, but the lead of the article says that the most significant aspect of the ballot was that "following changes to the election process and districts, Irish nationalist parties were able to take control of the council for the first time". And secondly, this has been put forward as a special occasion hook for the The Twelfth, i.e. tomorrow, which is specifically an Ulster protestant holiday, which was associated with sectarian troubles for many years and Derry/Londonderry is a 75% Catholic city. This may be contoversial, but to maintain WP:NPOV I think this should be pulled, a clearer hook used, and not run on that day. Pinging The C of E and Harrias as nom and reviewer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a factual hook as it just says they won a majority of votes, just not the election (a bit like Hillary actually!). If needs be, just add "but not the majority of seats" at the end. As for the date, there was clear intend to coincide with a unionist celebration by the fact it had a unionist parties mentioned in the hook, we do need to remember WP:NOTCENSORED. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is not the first time that the C of E has appeared to push a political POV on the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The only reason that one didn't feature was because people felt it was too close to the Lyra McKee murder. It has nothing to do with my personal opinions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I see no relationship between the perennially cited WP:NOTCENSORED and a special occasion request. It is not in any way censorship if it runs up against neutrality concerns; hooks can run at any time, and if a different time is more neutral, then we should opt for neutrality. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Since there was no reaction and consensus was that it should not run, I have simply removed it. So we now have a current DYK one hook short. If anyone wants to replace it, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've done the first and third of those things, not sure about the archives. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for stepping in, Black Kite. And apologies, I intended to come back to this earlier but ended up busy with IRL things. I do think this was the right thing to do, it seemed very dubious to me, but I wanted to get a few more opinions first.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No need to remove it from the DYK archives because it isn't there yet, and as the hook was removed from the set on the main page, it won't ever get into the archives (hooks removed from the main page before their run is complete are not archived). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No problem, I don't blame anyone from outside the UK for not realising the major issue with this nomination in the first place, good work on noticing it. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination pages don't change for hooks that are promoted and then removed, unless the nomination is reopened. So the question is whether it should be reopened or not. Black Kite did call this "outrageous", and as The C of E has made highly controversial nominations in the past, perhaps we shouldn't allow this one to be resurrected. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Therein lies the question. It did run even if for just a few minutes so credits were awarded accordingly. However if we choose to reopen and rerun at a later date, then yes credits should be removed and then awarded when it runs later. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The only reason for the objection was as to the day it ran, not to the article itself (which is actually about a rather mundane council election) nor to any issue with the hook aside of maybe clarifying they didn't win the most seats despite the majority of votes. I think that if you wish to remove all the credits that have already been issued, then this should be permitted to be rerun for there is no other way in the rules for that to happen short of redacting the grant, which would be a misuse of redaction if they were used in that way. So from my perspective you either have to retain the credits and not run it again or remove the credits but permit it to run again on a less "controversial" day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Both the hook used here, the relevant text in the article, and perhaps the entire article, are problematic. This issue extends beyond the date. As Amakuru said above, the way everything is phrased seems to imply, intentionally or not, that the United Loyalist Group should have won, which is a clear NPOV issue. The hook and the article are factually wrong. Both say the United Loyalists got "the majority of votes" (through the writers interpretation of some tables), which they did not. First of all, this is a gross misrepresentation of the voting system used. STV has vote transfers, in which each vote has a ranking rather than a single preference. That does not mean, and it is very poor form to imply, that the transferred votes do not count as votes for the parties they transfer to. Perhaps the current presentation is due to unfamiliarity with the system, but it's not a good way to write the article. Throughout the article, only first-preference votes are shown. However, even among first preference votes, the United Loyalists received only 36.8%, which is quite short of a majority. This hook should not appear on DYK again, and in its current state neither should the article. CMD (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This just makes it even worse than it is already. It is painfully obvious that the nomination was suggested for July 12th in order to get the inflammatory "Londonderry" onto the Main Page for that date. Just to give you an idea how much of bad-faith nomination it was, when I found out that the hook had been deliberately requested for the 12th, I was actually inclined to block The C of E for disruption, and I'm still not convinced that I shouldn't have. The C of E has restored the credits, which I am about to remove again, as such bad-faith nominations should clearly not receive credit. I think this is the point that we have a discussion as to whether any more of the C of E's political nominations should be allowed on the Main Page (I note that Template:Did_you_know_nominations/1946_Londonderry_Borough_Council_election is in the queue as well). Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who isn't very familiar with the Northern Ireland issues, is the Flag of Ulster considered to be a controversial symbol? The hook proposed by Evrik (ALT0c) seems mostly fine to me, except for the "to claim a kingdom" part which may (unintentionally?) have a political subtext to it. As for the 1946 election nomination, it's actually not on queue yet (it has actually yet to receive a review), but I'd suggest someone take a close look at it due to the context of the Roman Catholic mention. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm no expert either, but I strongly suspect that an article and a hook about something that is said to be an ancient and prehistoric Gaelic symbol that discards all that history and instead credits the symbol to a bunch of Normans is going to be controversial. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any similarly blatant issues with the flag and 1946 election articles, but the 1946 hook really needs more context in the article. The text doesn't even state what party they're from, and the name is spelt differently in the table below it. CMD (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, the only reason for submitting these rather dull election articles to DYK is to get the word "Londonderry" onto the Main Page, so I think we can discard that one. As for the Ulster Flag, see what David Eppstein said above - according to the article "the origin of the Red Hand of Ulster however is shrouded in mystery" contradicting Red Hand of Ulster by missing out relevant facts. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Not true, it was actually a side effect of taking part in the destubbathon, where I am also doing those on the other side of the political spectrum such as Template:Did you know nominations/Gerry Mullan (politician). I came across them when looking for some Northern Irish stubs to expand as part of it. I just put them up for DYK as an additional. I am actually going to ask here, are we actually looking at banning the word Londonderry from the main page then? It can't be helped if back then the council was officially called Londonderry Borough/City Council which is permitted for use as per WP:LONDONDERRY in IMOS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
In that case, please explain what relevance a minor election in 1973 has to the 12th July? Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Black Kite: There are two reasons for this, one narrow and the other broad. Broadly, this allows The C of E to push his mandatory pro-Unionist/contra-Nationionalist PoV on the front page of en.wp; that's always a bonus of course, but to do so on the most inflamatory and controversial day of the NI calander is the big kerrching. The narrower reason stems from this: that having caused a massive brouha and heightened passions on all sides, C of E then reaps the exponentially (but artificially) increased number of hits for "his" hook. Simples, if a manipulative and shoddy piece of drama-mongering as I have seen in some time. Well, since the last time. Or time before that. ——Serial # 10:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually it was nothing sinister as you appear to imply it is. I simply thought that with the word loyalist in the hook could match up with those who celebrate the 12th and the nomination was a simple add-on to the primary reason for expansion for the destubathon, nothing to do with any political pushing especially when I have been writing on nationalist topics too. Also, I seem to recall the flag of Ulster is actually a nationalist symbol, so I'm not quite seeing what the connection is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I expanded the article considerably, though I didn't look at the DYK nom so didn't spot this. The article itself should be suitable for DYK, the hook is somewhat misleading, whether deliberately or not. C of E is correct in stating that the correct name of the council at the time was "Londonderry", not "Derry", which was nonetheless in frequent use. 12th July is not a suitable date for this to go on the front page, but in principle, I'd like to see it on DYK with a suitable hook. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Warofdreams: I think you're missing the point here, though. Not only have we got a deliberate attempt by this editor to put this article (with, as you say, a misleading hook) on the Main Page on the 12th July (a date which it is completely irrelevant to), but as stated above we have a previous attempt in 2017 to put the Orange Order article on the Main Page on the 12th, and a current DYK nomination (Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Ulster) which also appears to have been written in a very misleading manner. The Wikipedia Main Page is not for political posturing. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought the Flag of Ulster piece was neutral. C of E is writing in an area of interest. Problems with the articles should be hashed out there. I cannot speak to the broader topics brought here, but I'm seeing a lot of accusations. --evrik (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7:Bad apples

  • ... that the meaning of the metaphor about bad apples has changed from warning people to stay away from corruption to claiming that bad apples are not emblematic of an entire group?
@Evrik:@Zayeem:@TheAwesomeHwyh:
The definition is using the term in question. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Re-ping @Kmzayeem: Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Amakuru said what I was thinking, however Yoninah, this would be an alternative:
  • ... that the meaning of the metaphor about bad apples has changed from warning people to stay away from corruption to claiming that a troublesome individual is not representative of an entire group?
--evrik (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: thank you. I have already shortened the hook length a bit to:
  • ... that the meaning of the bad apples metaphor has changed from warning people to stay away from corruption to claiming that bad apples are not representative of an entire group?
But from a grammatical point of view, it should probably be changed to something like:

Special Occasions

Can we set up an area to propose collaboration on more work like the 2015, Frank Sinatra centenary? We'd have to set up some guidelines, but if we put something out there that said, with x number of weeks lead, we can set up a "Special Occasion"? Just a thought. --evrik (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A bit like when we had [Star Trek Day on 8 September 2016]? I think it does come about through natural mutual agreement. But I would agree with having a special area for focused collaborations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Editors who want to make a serious special occasion effort usually post on this page to let everyone know. There was a similar big push for new articles and GAs for the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing in July 2019 which started a year in advance. At first they wanted to run hooks over a whole week, but after discussion here it was narrowed down to one full set. I think it's best for big ideas to be discussed here at WT:DYK to see how much consensus there is for reserving a large part, if not all, of the DYK set for that day. Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should discuss it somewhere with links to previous efforts? Not many people know this type of thing happens. --evrik (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to two sets a day

I was surprised to see that we have just hit 120 approved DYK nominations, which means we need to go back to two sets a day from the current single daily set. The changeover should happen after the next set goes to the main page at 00:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

I haven't yet had the opportunity to check to see how many special occasion hooks will need to be moved, but I imagine some of them will be, so in addition to needing an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates after the midnight set goes up a little under six hours from now (please not before!), we will probably need an admin to shift a few hooks around between queues or from queue to prep (and swap another hook the other way). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I found for special occasions:
  • Queue 5: the Roger Poole hook is supposed to run on 11 July, Poole's birth date; he's British, so this would run between 1am and 1pm BST.
  • Queue 6: the 1973 Londonderry City Council election hook is supposed to run on 12 July, so it will need to move to Queue 7. Since this is the third hook in the current set, and The Who by Numbers Tour tour is the third hook in Queue 7, a straight swap would probably be easiest.
  • Queue 2: although not labeled a special occasion hook, the lead hook actually is one: Qibla observation by shadows is supposed to run on 15 July during the period that include 09:26 UTC, so it will need to become the lead hook in Prep 6. If a straight swap of lead hooks is done (with Marie Hassenpflug), that would put two people lead hooks in a row (and the top two hooks in Queue 2 would now be people, so the set would need to be reordered a bit), but since there are two leads in a row right now (Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti and Joe DiMaggio), I'm not so worried about that, since DiMaggio is another special occasion hook that will be moving into a later prep; there will still be two people in a row, not an increase to three).
  • Queue 4: the Joe DiMaggio streak is the lead hook; it should move to the lead spot in Prep 4, which is currently empty; that way it will run during the day of 17 July in the U.S. (8am to 8pm Eastern, 5am to 5pm Pacific). A new lead hook will need to be found from among the preps.
I believe that is all of them. Pinging Cwmhiraeth to see if she's willing to take care of these, and make any other balance or other adjustments needed as a result of these moves. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I should be available to make these changes when I come online on 11 July, which I usually do a few hours after midnight, UTC. When the "Time between updates" is changed, will the queues and preps table adjust automatically to show the new dates/times? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, yes, the table adjusts automatically. Thanks. Can you please also change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 to set the twice-a-day interval (or, if there's a passing admin who can do it now, that would also be fine)? I forgot to ask earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, we're going to need that backlog drive sooner rather than later. I am headed off on vacation but with any luck will be able to work next week, but I know that's a week you're expecting to be still busy? —valereee (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
valereee, I simply can't start this on three hour's notice, and I have no time to deal with a short drive in the coming week. Waiting seven days shouldn't hurt anything. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It took us 17 days to get from 60 to 120, so the surplus during this period is about 3.5/day, for a total of 11.5/day. If we're back at 60 in two weeks or so, that's evidence 12/day is a long-term stable rate and we should seriously consider doing 16-hour 8-hook sets (i.e. 3 sets per 2 days), to avoid yoyoing back and forth every two weeks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    16-hour slots are not practical for managing special occasion hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    Why not? Let A = Day 1 0:00-16:00 UTC, B = Day 1 16:00 - Day 2 8:00 UTC, and C = Day 2 8:00-24:00 UTC. If an American hook needs to run on Day 1, use B; if Day 2, use C. If an EMEA hook needs to run on Day 1, use A; if Day 2, use C. If an Australasian hook needs to run on Day 1, use A; if Day 2, use B. If a hook is not geographically linked, just follow UTC and use A or C. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why I was doubtful about the 120-approved-nom cap - because it would cause us to yo-yo too quickly between the bottom trigger and the top. 17 days is an absurdly short time to be going back to 2 sets per day. I think I suggested a cap of 150 in the previous discussion, and this 17-day turnaround just constitutes more evidence IMO that 120 is too low. Gatoclass (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I really think that we should allow a couple of cycles before we toss everything out that we just decided. We are still in unusual times. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with BlueMoonset, let's hold back and work this out a little rather than a quick knee-jerk reaction because it hit a "target". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with BlueMoonset, too, it's just way too soon to tell whether 120 is too low. We've had a nice little period of one-a-days, which has been a welcome respite. Going to two-a-days for a few weeks to pull it back down is fine. I'd much rather do a few weeks at two-a-day more frequently than several months less frequently because we let it build up to 400. And for multiple reasons we're in an exceptionally high nom period. Let's let this ride for a while and see how it works once we're in a more normal period. —valereee (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I like the decision of fixing a concrete number that automatically triggers the switch so that we avoid haggling all the time, but I agree that the 60 - 120 range is way too narrow, and the switch will be too often. The switches are not cost-free especially with regards to checking whether special occasion hooks still align. If we have a max of 14 set in the queue/prep set, and only 17 days before the switch, the expected number of adjustments are too high and prone to human errors. Suggest increasing the range so the switch is less often. To me one switch per 1-2 month seems a good goal. HaEr48 (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Cwmhiraeth switched back to two sets per day on the 11th, and as of today we still have 150 approved noms and 333 in total, so I guess it's just as well we made the switch when we did. The numbers of noms we seem to be getting these days is quite alarming though, we may be heading to a more-or-less permanent two-per-day cycle the way things are going. Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

We seem to have a lot of nominations by new users; no QPQs needed. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, what appears to have happened is that we've had volunteer reviewers working on the backlog of unapproved nominations over the past ten days, which is why the approved number skyrocketed so quickly. On July 1, 74 of 329 noms were approved; July 4 had 78 of 331; July 7 jumped to 98 of 338; this thread started at 120 of 343 late on July 10; and it was 150 or 333 earlier today and now 146 of 324. The thing about having a single metric for the switches—in this case approvals—is that an unexpected burst of reviewing can cause a switchover to happen sooner than expected, as happened here. It's hard to understand whether a process is working or not if you don't look at the data in full. The recent spike is mostly new approvals, not new nominations; we had the usual start-of-the-month increase in the latter, but I don't see a permanent two-a-day in our future. It may take a while to get below 300 noms, and the approvals are likely to continue increasing for the next couple of weeks, but I imagine we'll get back to one-set-a-day by the end of the summer. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A contradiction in the rules?

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Youyang Gu COVID model. This article about a COVID model has one sentence about the model. I believe this fails Rule D7. The nominator, however quotes from WP:DYKNOT: Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality. It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, and so on. As DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia. As the nominator has removed herself from the discussion on the template and I would like to either promote or close this nomination, I'm asking for guidance here. Pinging Maile and BlueMoonset, though other views are of course appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For this specific one, I would allow it through as it is unfair to expect nominators to meet multiple sets of conflicting rules. However, for the future we should tighten up the wording of WP:DYKNOT to avoiding implying that articles failing D7 can be promoted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This article has literally 2 sentences explaining what the model does. The fact it's mostly endorsements makes it seem promotional, which would be a policy-based reason for not accepting this short article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Bri: Under normal circumstances, I would have some sympathy, and give a little leeway, to this kind of case if the nominator followed up with expressed intent to give the needed expansion to resolve questions about eligibility. But this does not seem to be the case here, and this nominator has been with Wikipedia for more than a decade. They've created numerous articles and have a few GAs under their editorial belt. Bri, it would seem to be the least you could do if you want this at DYK. Yoninah, I trust your judgement on this one. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought Yoninah was correct in the request for more: this is a threadbare article that tells us how great this model is without telling us anything about how it works: all shiny surface and no guts. If Bri is unwilling to expand it to accommodate this request, I think it should be closed as not meeting the DYK criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No need for repeated pings. I thought it was clear that this isn’t in my interest area right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will close the nomination. But do you think there is any cause for change in WP:DYKNOT, BlueMoonset? Yoninah (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion about updating WP:DYKNOT, but this case is not the first time I've come across this situation. It hits on a pet peeve of mine, whether it be here or elsewhere at Wikipedia. None of us are on anybody else's payroll. A few years back when I was learning the ropes here, an admin (not one of our regulars) nominated an article that I reviewed, which needed certain editing to pass the DYK review. When I listed what needed to be taken care of, the admin responded with "Why don't you just fix it, instead of telling me?" I also see this at other areas of Wikipedia. We help those who are unable to handle it themselves, or don't know how to do it on their own. But seasoned editors are a pain when they act like the rest of us need to pick up after them. This is just insulting. — Maile (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see the WP:DYKNOT quote and WP:DYKSG#D7 as contradictory when you think about it: the first can be interpreted to simply mean "the article doesn't need to be GA-level higher to be eligible for DYK", while D7 more-or-less means "yes it doesn't have to be GA-level, but at the very least it should give a good overview of the subject". It's a bit of a fine line: it can mean that an article can be incomplete but not too incomplete. Maybe it can also mean "it's okay if the article is missing a few minor aspects, but it should at the very least not leave out anything major". As an example: an article about John Doe could miss a few minor details (like for example unimportant life events), but should be expected to at least cover basic important information if known (such as date of birth, full name, parents, education, spouse, children, claim to notability, etc.). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Naturolovehinata5. WP:DYKRULES 2d: "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers." I don't see how a note that articles need not be GA quality conflicts with a desire for a base level of quality. CMD (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any contradiction here either. Leaving out any description of the subject of the article is a violation of WP:DUE, in my opinion, which is a core policy; as such the "policy-compliant" criterion trumps everything else. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

After taking a close look at the rules in question, I agree that there is an apparent contradiction, as one rule says nominated articles "should appear to be complete" and the other says "[i]t is fine for articles to be incomplete". Either it's fine for an article to be incomplete or it isn't, it can't be both. IMO the phrase "It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished)" should be dropped from DYKNOT as it simply isn't correct, directly contradicts D7, can only cause confusion and serves no purpose in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no problems with removing that text. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I also think it's an excellent idea, and thanks to Gatoclass for doing the comparison. Maile, will you do the honors? Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2

I swapped the following hook out of prep 4 and into prep 2 to get some feedback. I couldn't find a citation in the article for it being the only department not located in Jerusalem. Am I missing something?

— Wug·a·po·des​ 00:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"All offices of the Mandate Government in Palestine were based in Jerusalem, except that of the Survey Department", page 100-101. CMD (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh duh, can't believe I missed that. I found it in Survey_of_Palestine#Headquarters, thanks for the help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6: Thirst trap

A man taking a selfie
A man taking a selfie
  • ... that a thirst trap (example pictured) can lead to harassment and bullying?
@LittleT889:@Epicgenius:
I'm a little concerned that the picture does not show a thirst trap, but a man taking a selfie. A thirst trap is a social media post. How can we word the (example pictured) part in the hook? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Maybe try (example post pictured), or that a thirst trap post... epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: thank you, but it's not an example post. It's a guy taking a picture that he will post on social media. Would it be too much to write:
How about (selfie pictured)? Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I prefer (selfie pictured). Generally speaking, that is what a thirst trap would look like and for readers who aren't familiar with the trend it's actually pretty informative. In some ways, it would actually be very appropriate, since we're using a photo of a shirtless man to attract attention to our hook and article. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a classic thirst trap image --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
LittleT889, you don't happen to have a screenshot of a social media post using that selfie? This discussion is hilarious and meta. Also nice abs. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Valereee https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a25607338/thirst-trap-definition-tips --evrik (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we change the name of the 1929-30 psittacosis pandemic?

Basically, what I mean is that the page said there were only about 750-800 cases and 100 deaths, WAY less than COVID-19, and 800 is only a millionth of the number cases of swine flu back in 2009-10.

I think a better name for it would just be 1929-1930 psittacosis outbreak, mainly due to the low number of cases when compared to other pandemics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Zoath (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5

@Lajmmoore and Terasaface: The second part of this hook is not borne out by the article which only mentions the Black Panthers in passing. The information could be added to the article or the hook could be revised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Cwmhiraeth: I've added another link where she advises on a film about the movement, as a former member. Or we could do a revised hook? A revised hook could be
ALT ... that Leila Hassan edited the journal Race Today and was an important figure in the Black Unity and Freedom Party?
Thanks (Lajmmoore (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC))
@Lajmmoore: The article doesn't say she was an "important" member of either organisation, so you cannot use the word important in the hook, but you could say she was a member. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for pointing that out - the text your wrote represents the article better. I think (as I'm still learning DYK) that I'd got confused with how sources describe her (e.g. the Gal Dem source) and article text. Thanks for your time on this and thanks for clarifying things - it's really appreciated :) (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC))
I will substitute the new hook in the queue. DYK has a lot of rules, but the hook facts being present in the article is one of the most fundamental. I look forward to your next DYK contribution! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Cwmhiraeth for these clarifications! This is actually my first DYK review so I truly appreciate this knowledge! Terasaface (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Photos of three ships

Looking at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, we are about to end up with three ships on the Main Page. Can this be avoided? Courtesy ping Howcheng for input about OTD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Suggested quick solution: swap Q3 with Q5 (there are no date-sensitive hooks in either set). Normally I would do it myself but the lead hook in Q3 is mine. Gatoclass (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth? Amakuru? Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass I've replaced the hooks and such in these two. I think I've done this correctly, but let me know if I did a dumb. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
That looks fine Lee, thank you :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Changed the OTD picture too. —howcheng {chat} 17:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

We desperately need non-US hooks at the moment

I just built out preps 7, 1, 2, 3 and 4, and by the end it was very difficult to find enough articles for region and topic balance. While DYK always struggles from an abundance of American hooks compared to the rest of the world, it's especially bad now. I didn't bother counting, but I'd say about 2/3rds are American-related. Complicating matters, 10% of all remaining hooks are by Dumelow and another 10% are by Hog Farm, and we can only run one hook per author per set.

I'm requesting that DYK regulars prioritize non-US topics when doing QPQs until we get a bit more balance in the available pool.

Also, with 60 hooks remaining and an average of 9 nominations a day for the last two weeks, we may need to go back to one set a day pretty soon.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You know technically, there's nothing in WP:DYKSG that actually says you can't do sets with multiple hooks from the same author. I know I've had sets where I've had more than one of my hooks in them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I've had two hooks in one set a couple of times. And if it makes people's lives easier, seems sensible. Although I agree that people doing QPQs on non-US hooks would be the most helpful solution. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It should really be avoided whenever possible; in the past, it has led to instances where two hooks about the same or similar topics were featured in one set, which led to complaints. Two hooks by the same author being featured in the same set has usually been done unintentionally and only rarely on purpose (usually for special events such as April Fools Day). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If the articles are about completely different things, I don't see why it's an issue. When I had 2 hooks in one set in 2016, one was a road in Brighton, UK, and one was a Spanish football president. As long as the articles aren't similar in topic/country it relates to, I don't see an issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't done a DYK review for a while, but I can see how much of the backlog is non-US and get to work on that, if it would help? We could also hold a drive with regional WikiProjects encouraging them to nom their articles and offer guidance. Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of non-US nominations which have not been reviewed or are still on the nomination page. Flibirigit (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
What Flibirigit said. The 2-a-days have relieved the approved noms backlog, but now we need reviews; it's absurd to go to 1-a-days when we have 300 unapproved noms, but we're going to have to because the prep builders can't build balanced preps with under 60 choices. We definitely don't need a drive for noms. :D —valereee (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously not now, but if there's a consistent lack of non-US hooks, encouraging at least better DYK noms might be worth it in the future? Kingsif (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, it is pretty consistent that we need to run 3-4 US-related hooks. It would be great if we got more from other areas. Sometimes it's a matter of a regular contributor who prefers to work by systematically covering a topic, and their current topic happens to be US-related. That may be what's happening now, over the past few years we'd been seeing a slight general trend toward more non-US hooks that had allowed us to go from pretty much always including 4 US hooks in every set to including 3-4. Or maybe that slight general trend was the artefact. :) It would be interesting to analyze. —valereee (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Or we could just start reviewing and approving the non-US hooks- there's enough of them in the backlog. I've done 3 DYK reviews from 3 nations (India, Nepal, France) today, so that should help a bit. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Has this flipped completely the other way now? The current front page is arguably 7/8 non-American. CMD (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Good, 3-4 US hooks per queue was just a symptom of US-centric editing on Wikipedia. The more diversity in hooks and countries the better. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but given there have been some recent queues with more than 4 US-related hooks, this suggests there might be room to better balance each queue. CMD (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for your observation. Actually, DYK is a cyclical process. Sometimes we have way too many bios, sometimes none at all. Thanks to The Squirrel Conspiracy for his effort to nominate more non-U.S. hooks, together with more nominations by our foreign editors, we now have an abundance of non-U.S. hooks. We've also had long runs of Pennsylvania rivers, radio stations, ships, and Confederate battle sites. Inevitably the circle will turn again and we'll have something else to deal with. Our main concern right now, by the way, are hundreds of unreviewed nominations. If you'd like to do some reviews, it would be greatly appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
These seem too close together to be a cyclical issue. If there's a swing from a desperate need on 23 June to a all-but-one majority in 2 July that indicates to me that there might be a smoothing issue. I'm not suggesting anyone hasn't been doing great work here, just wondering about why the swing seems so significant and whether improvement is possible. It was possibly an anomaly, possibly an overcorrection (and I don't really know the rate at which hooks pass through the approved page and how they're selected for queues). As -valereee says the data would be interesting. I've done three reviews in the past week, but am still refamilisarising myself with the rules. Last time I remember spending time with them the limit was 5 days and there were no Good Articles! CMD (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, one thing that changed was we switched from promoting 2 sets a day (16 hooks) to one set (8 hooks) starting on June 24. We had been scrambling to balance the sets regionally for a few weeks. Now things are moving more slowly and nominations have caught up with the rate of promotion. Still, in building prep sets today, we have an overabundance of U.S. hooks... Yoninah (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking into it. Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions needs to be updated to refer to Template talk:Did you know/Approved. CMD (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if anyone wants to nominate it for some kind of hook, I've built out Hungarian-born London-based art critic Paul George Konody more than five-fold over the past few days. He has lots of interesting tidbits in his biography. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yep, I've taken more than my share. Actually, I'm not sure if the article is still within the time limit for a nomination. Does the clock run from when the five-fold revision begins, or from when it is completed? BD2412 T 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This is related, but I reviewed a Nepal article at Template:Did you know nominations/Kartik Naach, but I'm not sure if there needs to be a lead in the article. I have heard both sides so now I'm just confused. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: the article is short enough that it doesn't need a lead. The images are too big, though. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Alright. I will just go ahead and take care of those myself. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: thanks. That's what I did on CAPTAIN MEDUSA's last nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I uploaded new cropped images that focus only on the subject (except for one that the nominator did already) and I finally managed to figure out how to make the images appear smaller in a gallery. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There are these two:

--evrik (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I made this nomination, DYK nominations/Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London, but there was little support for the nomination. I have withdrawn the nomination. Could someone please archive it? Thank you. --evrik (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oooooohhhhh. So, you have the same kind of thing happening on your side of the Atlantic Ocean, as we do over here. It seems our heroes had a few flaws, the kind that we now have no tolerance for. Thanks for explaining. — Maile (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5: T. F. Secor

@Gatoclass: just a quick query about this one - I can't see any definition in the article as to the meaning of a "crack" boat, I don't think we have an article on crack boats and I'm actually genuinely unsure what it means. The source seems to just use the term without quotes, so if it's a standard term then we should probably also use it without quotes but also define what it means. If, by including quotes, we are suggesting that it's a bespoke term that only that source uses, then we should also attribute it. Either way, I think we should avoid using it if it's not clear to readers what it means or else define it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, the meaning can be found in standard dictionary definitions.[3][4] Haven't you ever heard of a "crack shot", for example? Gatoclass (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass Eh, it's a bit vague though, except in the meaning crack shot which everyone is familiar with. Putting it in quotes (which the source doesn't) suggests it has another meaning as well. Why not just replace it with something like "very fast"? Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with BK --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Crack troops" is another common usage. Quite frankly, I'm astonished that some people are apparently unfamiliar with this usage. But there's no need to alter the hook - I'll just add a footnote to the relevant article explaining the term. Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Added footnote. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Never heard it used with relation to ships before. I don't think it should be phrased the way it is in the article. Putting the quotation marks around the whole phrase, instead of just the adjective, like in "crack boats", makes me think they're smuggling drugs. It works as phrased in the original source, where it is clearly an adjective and it is immediately explained, but I don't think the meaning transfers well into the article text. CMD (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's rarely heard with regard to watercraft any more because boats of exceptional speed ceased to become a topic of interest long ago - however, the meaning should be obvious given the common parallels such as those given above - and the article also has the explanatory footnote now. However, I accept your comment regarding placement of the quote marks and have dequoted the word "boat" accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

On reflection, since it's clear the term is causing confusion for some people, I have substituted the term "crack" with "exceptionally fast" in the hook so that the meaning is unambiguous. Gatoclass (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: thanks, that sounds a lot clearer to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

20 July date request

I've just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Carlshof Institutions, and it has a date request for 20 July, so would need to be in Prep 2 or 3. Would someone be able to promote it to one of the appropriate preps? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done and promoted. Yoninah (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

and another

Sorry, I just found out that a birthday is on that day, see Template:Did you know nominations/Liselotte Funcke which still needs a review. However, as she is no BLP, perhaps an image slot later would be better than a squeezed-in birthday gift that few will notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait to promote it to an image slot. Yoninah (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 1. We currently have a total of 313 nominations, of which 154 have been approved, a gap of 159. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four remaining from May.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

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) 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Queue 1 image

File:พรบ typeface comparison (cropped, transparent).png

I've uploaded a new version of the image of Thai characters, utilizing a transparent background – this should have a better appearance on the Main Page than the original with a white background. The new image is at File:พรบ typeface comparison (cropped, transparent).png; please replace the image in the queue with this one. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no understanding of whether your version has a better appearance or not, but as nobody has objected, I have made the change. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Queue 3 video clip

One of the dances performed in the play

The set I have just moved to Queue 3 has a video clip. I have no idea on how to check on its copyright status. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth You can check it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kartik_Naach_video.ogv. SL93 (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. And by the way, the promoter of an article to prep is not expected to have read the text in full and noticed any anomalies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Wugbot

For some reason, the bot hasn't moved multiple nominations to the approved list for the past few days. One of them is Template:Did you know nominations/Rembrandt's Mughal drawings. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That one was moved in this edit. Maybe Wugapodes has some insight into why it took a week after approval. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the logs suggest there was a formatting error. I think this edit is what fixed it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, now that I look at it, Wugapodes, I think what fixed it was actually this edit. Thanks, Gerda Arendt, for taking care of that. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's the one meant to link to, no clue how I got that link mixed up. But yes, thanks Gerda! — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3:Music video plot

  • ... that Harry Styles befriends a gold-dappled fish and takes care of it in the music video for "Adore You"?
@Ashleyyoursmile:@Corachow:@Cwmhiraeth:
How exactly does this satisfy Rule C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way? Yoninah (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Is not the "music video for "Adore You"" real world enough for you? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
No. It's the same as mentioning any plot device in a film or novel. We just posted a hook with the plot of a novel that includes an additional descriptor to meet C6: ... that Real Life, Brandon Taylor's debut novel, is an American campus novel about a gay, Black doctoral student in a mostly White Ph.D. program? Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah apologies for overlooking Rule C6. Black Kite, Cwmhiraeth thank you for coming up with these hooks- all of these work fine by me. --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


Jayanthi Kuru Utumpala atop Mount Everest
Jayanthi Kuru Utumpala
atop Mount Everest
@Abishe:@The Squirrel Conspiracy:@Cwmhiraeth:
It's hard to tell from the hook and the image that she's a woman. Could we add some identifying description before her name, like:
You have got to have the "in 2016" at the beginning, or the hook becomes ambiguous. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
OK:
I'm happy with ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth:, @Yoninah: I accept that the image and the hook aren't really specifying that she is a woman. I agree with the ALT1 hook and happy with it. Cheers. Abishe (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Automatic image dimensions

Moved to Talk:Main Page

Student editors

Another school year ended in June and with it numerous nominations were posted at DYK. Since we have such a backlog, the reviews are being done after the student editors are no longer editing. I'm wondering how we can save our reviewers the trouble of reviewing articles that usually need more work but which will not receive it. Since the nominations are usually posted on graduation day, there is almost no time to do a review and ask for changes.

Here are some examples:

Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Expanded list above. Flibirigit (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could get some input from the Wiki Ed folks, who are the Wikipedia liaisons with the course professors, including what they might suggest to avoid situations such as this, or the creation of nominations that never even get to this point because the nominator doesn't transclude them. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), who is the member of the team I most frequently engage with, in the hopes that we can come up with a way forward. For example, are professors urging (or requiring) DYK nominations? Why do students end their academic course and Wikipedia career with a nomination if they won't be around to see it through? (Also pinging Piotrus, who is pointing his students at DYK, since he was involved in one of the two examples Yoninah provided.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Student editors are a valuable asset to creating new content on Wikipedia. I hope we are not discouraging their contributions. Perhaps we can get a more co-ordinated effort in processing student nominations on DYK, such as getting them nominated sooner or establishing a dedicated follow-up team with Wiki Ed. Flibirigit (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. This is an interesting issue, and I'll discuss various aspects in a bulleted list:

  • students are capable of creating DYK-level content, and they have the right to nominate their work
  • however, in 99% (or at least a vast majority) of the cases, students stop editing once the semester is finished, and can't be expected to address any issues, which obviously means that we may be wasting a review on this, at least as the Main Page is concerned (since a review still is useful for editors who want to improve it in the future, if they notice it, which these days is easier due to the bot-transcluded moms on talk). And occasionally another editor / reviewer may be interested in the topic to rescue this.
  • because students are new editors with no DYK experience, obviously they are not doing QPQ reviews, nor could they be expected to do them well, so each student nomination will increase our backlog
  • as an instructor, I encourage students to submit DYKs because sometimes they can do it early enough to still be around to address the issues, and I hope that seeing their work on the front page will be motivating enough to them to help improve the rather abysmal ration of retaining them as proper editor volunteers. Whether this actually works, frankly, is unknown as the topic of student editor retention has not been studied (it is on my list of potential topics to research).

So what can be done to reduce to the burden on the community? I can think of several elements, some of which I use and some of which I recommend in my best practice papers:

  • best practices for the instructors include constructing the deadlines so that DYKs are submitted early enough to be reviewed, and asking the community to prioritize the reviews so that they happen before the course is over. They should also make a note in a DYK submission that it is a course-related submission (this also could be automated, see below). One could also suggest that instructors to a QPQ review, but most won't want to or be able to anyway, very few instructors are also experienced, volunteers.
  • for the community, I have the following suggestion: DYKs submitted by students should be clearly marked, and perhaps auto-declined once the course is finished. This could be automated if the instructor is using (as most are these days) the dashboard (ex. see this). A bot could check if the nom was done by a student editor (would be nice to have a student editor flag on Wikipedia, has this ever been considered - ping User:Sage (Wiki Ed)) and add a note about when the course is finished. This would let the nominator know about potential issues / lower usefulness of their reviews, and we could also categorize such submissions/list them on a subpage, where edu-friendly volunteers could prioritize reviewing them. Anyway, once a nom is clearly marked with the 'course expiry' date, it could be auto-declined (unless a student or another editor confirms they are willing to work on this after that date). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus:, thank you for the thorough reply. I do not want to see student nominations automatically declined, but I do support measures which tag such nominations as being from students and a group effort to review such in a timely manner. Flibirigit (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I also appreciate your well-thought-out reply, Piotrus. I'm not so worried about the QPQ aspects, but I think it's an excellent idea for the course deadline to be moved up, maybe by 2 weeks, and for a notice to be placed on WT:DYK alerting us to the need for a speedy review. The course instructor should also indicate whether s/he is willing to respond to the review and address issues after the student editor has left. After the course is over, the nomination should be tagged to indicate that the nominator is no longer available and it's up to the reviewer to do something about any non-compliant DYK issues, although it's not ideal for the nomination to linger on the nom page without any attention paid to it until someone finally comes along and closes it. BlueMoonset has also raised the subject of non-transcluded nominations, those that were not listed properly at WP:DYKN by the student editor. It should be the responsibility of the course instructor to make sure all nominations are properly transcluded, which would of course have to take place before graduation day. Yoninah (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Joining as an educator; my student submitted the Chocoholic DYK, (one of my students also submitted the Isle_of_the_Dead_(Tasmania) that went up a few weeks ago, so varying degrees of success here). I acknowledge that my judgement when suggesting which students should submit scan be misplaced, especially with the lack of expertise across all areas and thinking those students would continue to stay engaged in the process. But this is not what is being discussed here. Is it worthwhile suggesting a more specific teacher review of student DYK submission in the first instance, perhaps with guidelines for educators? I know this will create additional load on educators but maybe some are willing to undertake this step. Or perhaps asking for the nomination to be sponsored by the mentor in the submission? I had around 90 students this semester and I suggested DYK to around 6. Also, would adding a section for students in the DYK submission instructions be helpful and more specific, whereby the concerns being discussed here can be outlined. I think the inclusion of the course expiry date is useful.--Carrolquadrio (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think some of the suggestions given above, such as mentioning that the nominations were done by students, would be a good start since these could catch reviewer attention. One of the issues with student nominations has been that by the time the reviews have started, the relevant courses have usually ended and the student has ceased editing. Addressing the time issues would go a long way in ensuring a higher success rate and allowing problems to be fixed earlier. As for guidelines, it would be good for instructors to familiarize themselves with the DYK criteria to help the students too if necessary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone love chocolate?

This abandoned student nomination needs adopted: Template:Did you know nominations/chocoholic. Kudos to anyone with a sweet tooth! Flibirigit (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

3 queues open, 6 prep sets full

Where are our queue promoters? Pinging @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:@Cwmhiraeth:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Just did one this morning. —valereee (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, valereee. But we're promoting 2 a day now. Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep. :) —valereee (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I just did 2 of them --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Guerillero! Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Please let me know what I invariably messed up in the process --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Well, Prep 1 is not showing on the page. Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean Queue 1. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Now it is. Thanks again, Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, sorry I forgot about the 2-per-day thing. Guess I'll have to work a bit harder for the next little while. I've done queue 3 so all seven are now full. Will do the checks on the next 24 hours. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Cwmhiraeth: Since we are promoting 2 sets a day, maybe you could work it out among you that each admin agrees to move a set to the queue once or twice a week? The reviewers have been working hard to get hooks ready and the prep builders have also been filling sets diligently, but often (like now, again) queues are sitting empty that could be filled to make more room for prep building. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Happy to commit to a set a week! If there's any way to 'claim' a prep to prevent duplication of effort and make need clear, I'm all for it. —valereee (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I do when I can see. It is after 7am here now (Sydney Australia). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Also down to help; forgot that we were doing two sets a day. I'll try to do a set every day or two, but definitely one a week! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Cwmhiraeth: Ready for you again with 3 open queues. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I have done two of them. One more empty. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Cwmhiraeth: Ready for you again with 3 open queues. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
On it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I have done two of them. Checks to follow later on.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't normally be responding when you call for moves in this way because I move one set first thing in the morning most days, and in fact moved two sets this morning. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI Queue 3

I just promoted Prep 3 to Queue 3, and added the word "on" to one hook:

(original hook) * ... that harpsichords built and restored by Claude Mercier-Ythier were played in thousands of concerts and hundreds of recordings?

(change) * ... that harpsichords built and restored by Claude Mercier-Ythier were played in thousands of concerts and on hundreds of recordings?

Feel free to change it back if someone thinks I erred. But thought I'd mention it here, in case anyone objected. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Help for DYK

I’m interested in getting this article (user:Remember/r) up to snuff to publish and get it as a DYK on December 16. It’s been awhile since I’ve done this and I was hoping someone could help me through the process (or tell me who to go to to help me through the process). Thank you! Remember (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That’s great advice! Remember (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If you want it for 16 December (for some reason her birthday is also given as 12 December, don't move to Main space before 1 November because we don't hold articles for longer than 6 weeks after approval. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I’ll do that! Remember (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unlinked names in hook

I was recently informed that there was a general consensus here that unlinked names should not appear in DYK hooks. If this is the case, I feel this should mentioned in the guidelines somewhere, so it can be found by both nominators and reviewers. Potentially it could be added as a C11, or even as an addition to C1. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The answer is yes or no, according to WP:BLPNAME. Please see this thread (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_169#Non-notable_persons_mentioned_in_hooks) from June 15 for a more complete explanation. Flibirigit (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. That discussion seems to indicate a consensus to include something in writing. In the DYK I reviewed, the person mentioned was very notable within that event but not otherwise (clear WP:BIO1E), and is no longer a living person. Per my reading it would have thus been acceptable within User:Only in death's formulation, but not within a general discouragement of unlinked names. It would be good to have a clearer answer on this. I would support the general discouragement as it is simpler and thus easier to understand and check for, and probably doesn't make hooks any worse. Any exceptions could be argued here per IAR as they could with all guidelines. CMD (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I support putting a sentence with a reference to the discussion above in the instructions. --evrik (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. We should eliminate uncertainty in the rules. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
C11: It is the accepted practice not to include names of non-notable people. WP:BLPNAME is the most relevant and also shows the common exceptions to that. This is assessed on a case by case basis, taking into account the BLP policy and presumption in favor of privacy. If someone is non-notable, and only slightly relevant, then their name should not be included in the hook.

--evrik (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What if the person is long deceased meaning BLP no longer applies? That might have to be clarified there as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
We should remove the explicit reference to BLP and just have a blanket guideline. Whether someone is alive or dead, if they are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page they are unlikely to draw interest to the hook. My interim suggestion would be changing C1 to "No redlinks or unlinked names in the hook." CMD (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, CMD, that is exactly how I understand and apply the guideline. Let's write it that way. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please put a revised statement here so that we can look at it?--evrik (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Change Rule C1 to:
  • C1: No redlinks or unlinked names in the hook.
Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I would like to move forward with this given no objection. It can be revisited later if needed. CMD (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Queue 2: Rhys Ernst

  • ... that all of transgender filmmaker Rhys Ernst's productions have been about LGBT+ issues, but critics still want to boycott his film Adam for being transphobic? (nom)

@Kingsif, Raymie, and Yoninah: I think that the wording could be improved slightly to make it sound a little less colloquial. I admittedly know nothing about the topic at hand, but the hook particularly appears to imply that critics are still calling for the film's boycott, even one year after its release, which is not supported by the article. Also, "for being transphobic" seems to me to be inappropriately presented in Wikipedia's own language, instead of the critics'. I propose the following:

  • ALT1: ... that critics called for a boycott of transgender filmmaker Rhys Ernst's film Adam for perceived transphobia, despite all of his productions having been about LGBT+ issues?

I have also rephrased the hook to place the emphasis on the boycott, and that it happened in spite of Ernst's LGBT-focused filmography. Does this alternative work for everyone? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

My only issue would be that none of the critics say anything like 'even though his other works are all LGBT+, boycott this one' - the original hook presented it as 2 related facts, whereas you have connected them. Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
This is not a good hook. There are numerous topics within the broad spectrum of LGBT+, and the hook seems to imply that people are expected to have some sort of standard set of views covering various issues. It also doesn't make sense on its own terms, making productions "about LGBT+ issues" could mean making a large number of homophobic productions. CMD (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Even if they were intended as two separate pieces of information, the fact that they're juxtaposed in the same hook lends an air of connection between them – at least that was what I gleaned from it. I think that we could just remove that part of the hook (struck through above), which should also alleviate Chipmunkdavis's aforementioned concerns regarding "about LGBT+ issues". Is this acceptable? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that alt. Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Administrator needed to change the hook in Queue 2 to:
... that critics called for a boycott of transgender filmmaker Rhys Ernst's film Adam for perceived transphobia?
Pinging Amakuru, Casliber, Maile66, valereee, Vanamonde. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD

Lately I seem to spend more time asking authors to fix their nominations than promoting hooks. One thing that keeps turning up again and again is a too-short lead that does not summarize the key points of the article. Note to our reviewers: DYK nominations have to satisfy all Wikipedia guidelines besides the five main DYK criteria if they are to be featured on the main page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The eligibility criteria doesn't mention the lead and I have heard mixed messages about them, regardless of the article length. Maybe adding that information to the eligibility critera will help fix the issue. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
This is tiring. There are so many rules, and not one of them says an article has to meet basic Wikipedia guidelines? Yoninah (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Yes, it is tiring. A guideline can have exceptions and even that guideline doesn't state that short articles don't need it, which I was told recently. SL93 (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Per my reading the only WP guidelines DYKs must adhere to are WP:V, BLP, NPOV, COPPYVIO. I've only been commenting on leads when they're clearly missing something obvious. CMD (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
IMO it's unacceptable to have a lengthy article with a one-line lead. If I see it, I tag it. Maile, could you weigh in here please? Yoninah (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the relevant guideline here is DYKSG#D7, which states that nominations can't be promoted if they are deemed "incomplete". This does not mention lede sections and it's clear from this discussion that there's disagreement on whether or not articles should have complete lede sections before being promoted, but it's something to keep in mind here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I see nothing in the DYK rules which states the lead section must be up to its potential. I have made friendly suggestions on nominations to expand an introduction, but I wouldn't fail the nomination because of it. Flibirigit (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Earlier in the month, I suggested that we have a way to send people to GOCE. This fits in with that. If we see problems we should list them and send the article back for more work. Balance that though with the fact some editors are more stringent than others. --evrik (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: Hey, I don't have to be stringent. I can promote anything that someone did a QPQ on. But then you'll see me being pinged a lot more often on this talk page and at ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
GOCE has its own backlog, I don't know if they'd appreciate receiving a large number of DYKs, or if that would work for DYK if it was full of entries awaiting GOCE. It could be done on a case by case basis, but I don't think it should be standard. CMD (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Since the discussion is about leads, I think the part of MOS:LEAD that states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." should be discussed. For an example, there is the article List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments which was approved recently for DYK. SL93 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, the idea that DYK nominations have to satisfy all Wikipedia guidelines to make it to the main page is a new one on me. Good Articles don't have to satisfy the entire Manual of Style, and that's a Wikipedia guideline. DYK's requirements have always been a subset of all the guidelines and deliberately so, significantly less than GA, which is less than FA, etc. I can see that single-sentence leads would be problematic, but MOS:LEAD in all its glory has never been an absolute requirement that I'm aware of, including the requirement to reflect the article as a whole and to not have any information that isn't also in the body of the article. Those come later, but certainly shouldn't be required in Start-level articles that have historically had a place at DYK. Yes, they need to be neutral, verifiable, and so on, but you're talking about a whole new level. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the comments. What is your opinion on when it is acceptable to help out the nominators? SL93 (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if a lead is required or if it needs to be a certain length. I just want to know what is acceptable. SL93 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm so confused

Isabella Grinevskaya has been nominated for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Isabella Grinevskaya. The talk page of the article says, "A fact from Isabella Grinevskaya appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 31 March 2009 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isabella Grinevskaya." Strangely, there is no record of the article on that Recent additions page and the nomination listed on the talk page goes to the current nomination. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is recorded against 1 April 2009 at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/April#1 April 2009. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes, sets hit the main page on one date and are archived upon removal on the next date. It is the archive date where you find it under Recent additions, so if you don't find it on the date given on the talk page, look at the following date. It's usually right above it on the page, but if the month changes, then go to the following month. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we had special nomination templates in 2009, did we? Otherwise, if someone had created a template with this name, it would have said one already existed, and s/he would have had to add the number 2 to the title. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
That is why I thought this edit was strange. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Definitely weird. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6 image

I uploaded this image to the prep set, but now I see the licensing tag is disputed. Could someone verify whether this is usable? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Weathering with You

Hello, kindly asking for a review of this nomination as the nominator and I have requested a special occasion date request on August 22, which is the birthday of the film's lead female character. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed. CMD (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the approval, but the date isn't actually "part of the plot", it's simply the female lead's birthday so that may just need to be corrected. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, I hope. CMD (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday with only six entries remaining, so here is an updated list with the 40 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 16. We currently have a total of 265 nominations, of which 108 have been approved, a gap of 157. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five remaining from June.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

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) 02:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7 lead hook

@Lajmmoore:@Gerda Arendt:@SL93:
The hook and image are great, but I have tagged the lead as not summarizing the article properly. If this is not taken care of soon, the hook will have to be replaced. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Seen, but I first hope the author can do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I think I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: thank you! Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
So...based on our conversation earlier, should I undo my lead expansion? SL93 (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I really think our nominators should take more responsibility here. We bend over backwards to get their articles on the front page, and if they disappear altogether, we "adopt" their articles for them. Why? Let's wait to hear from Lajmmoore tomorrow. Yoninah (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, then make it clearer that you want the nominator doing it instead of pinging everyone involved without stating it... SL93 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think I understand now. I shouldn't help out the nominator, including resizing pictures and copyediting articles which plenty of editors do. Expanding the lead should be no different. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Helping out is great, but it is more work for reviewers, and should be minimised. It should be an exception, not an expectation. CMD (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: That's great and all, but I have only did it a few times in my over 10 years of editing on Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah, SL93, and Gerda Arendt: Hi everyone - thank you for your help. the rest of my life is pretty busy right now with caring responsibilities so i've not been able to be as responsive as i would like to be. i edited the lead this morning, but i think it then got subsequently edited (thank you). i'm away from my computer right now & am struggling a bit with an old phone. i am very grateful for the help and support. i thought I'd replied to the message you kindly left on my talk page Yoninah (but i had not done a double bracket but i fixed it now). thank you for the help - life sometimes gets in the way of things, which i hope you understand. thanks again (2A02:C7F:509E:1200:DCBD:2B94:DB7D:E16B (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC))
I expanded the lead that you wrote because it was still too short. I'm glad that I could help. You're welcome. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi All, I'm back at a computer now - just to reiterate, thank you for your help @Yoninah and SL93: I'm going to refresh my understanding of the LEAD terms, so thanks for flagging and fixing in the meantime (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC))

Q5 July 28b

Template:Did you know nominations/Penn v Lord Baltimore

  • ... that the decision in Penn v Lord Baltimore in 1750 helped end the 85-year dispute over the Pennsylvania–Maryland border?

Legis The C of E The Squirrel Conspiracy

Multiple paragraphs have no citation provided. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#Other_supplementary_rules_for_the_article each paragraph needs a citation. —valereee (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Really, whole paragraphs are uncited. This does not satisfy Rule D2. I have tagged the article as needing more references. Could an admin move this back to WP:DYKN and swap in a non-bio hook from a prep set please? This hook from Prep 1 would work well, balance-wise:

Prep 7

@GinaJay: @Elie plus: @Seven Pandas: A quote in the article The Silent Patient is sourced to a blog interview which I can't tell if it is a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: How about this [5] it's at least better.Seven Pandas (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi @SL93: I assume you mean this [6]? This website has been used in the article only to cite the number of years it took to write the book. If you feel it doesn't meet WP:RS, that sentence can be removed. GinaJay (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: May I suggest using Mockumentary in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, for Template:Did you know nominations/Konnie Huq? --evrik (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Lynching of Wilbur Little

Moved to Talk:Lynching of Wilbur Little#From WT:DYK Lynching of Wilbur Little
 – Diff

— Maile (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So, I was asked to provide a source...

Did you know nominations/Mother Kinzig

...in English. And I provided a source in English. And then I was told: yes, but it's only a translation. Of course, the subject is foreign, so there had to be a translation. Because Foreignspeak is not Englishtalk. Where are we going? What are we doing? Is this a bad dream or a nightmare? Is DYK only for a handful of people? I try to fit in, but not too hard; it's impossible. There will always be a next threshold after the last threshold. Oh, and it's abouth this. Thank you for reading. --Edelseider (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: pinging Gerda about this. DYK is for everybody, and we get nominations where the sourcing is a variety of non-English sourcing. — Maile (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think we have misunderstanding. Edelseider, if you are convinced Mother Kinzig is anything like a common name, than say so in the nom. I can approve, and have done my reviewer's duty to point out that I don't think so. We have horrible article titles because German websites translate without much understanding of English. - I have no idea why the simple question if Mother Kinzig is a common name gives you bad dreams. Sorry about that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Deepak Manange

Requesting a second-opinion here on whether or not the currently proposed hook meets WP:BLP guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4:Election result

@Feminist:@CeeGee:@Seven Pandas:
Could someone explain to me why this is hooky? It just sounds like an election result, and tells me nothing about who the subject is. The ALT was better:
ALT1: ... that although Wong Pak-yu nominated Woo Kwok-hing in the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive election, he decided to cast a blank vote to protest against the election's lack of democracy? Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: because that's a low election margin in a place the size of Hong Kong. If you want to switch the hooks I have no objection.Seven Pandas (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, the hook is expecting me to think too much. We've run hooks about 19th-century American elections where the margin of victory is one vote. That seems like a close turnout. Yes, I'd prefer to switch the hooks. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, feel free to switch the hooks. Either works for me. feminist (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

QPQ requirement question

The following question came from Template:Did you know nominations/Nippon Professional Baseball playoffs. The nominator has more than five DYK credits before the QPQ requirement came into place, and less than five since. My interpretation is that a QPQ is not required in this case. Any thoughts or comments? Flibirigit (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO, they should have had to do a QPQ after they did 5 nominations regardless as soon as it came into play. I don't think "I've only done five since the requirement is fair. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It just sounds fair to me. SL93 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think there's precedent for the QPQ requirement being waived in the past in at least one similar case, I just can't remember which one. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone can always donate a QPQ if they want, but one is required. It isn't five credits since the QPQ requirement came in, it's five credits in toto. I should point out that the nominator was told about the QPQ requirement on their second post-QPQ-era nomination, and provided this QPQ. I see no reason why they should be exempted now when they provided a QPQ for their nomination prior to this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
My 2p is the rule is very clear that you get 5 QPQs, which is already pretty generous. Adding exceptions like this would just create confusion. And the article creator hasn't even asked for an exemption, so not sure why we're considering it at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Flibirigit I'm in a similar position to Torsodog in that my first two DYKs were from 2007 and 2008 (see here and here). They were so long ago that I can't even remember if I was the nominator or not. After not participating in DYK for many years I now have four since the QPQ requirement was brought in and have not yet been asked to do one. The QPQ check shows only four for me. It could just be an oversight I guess but maybe it is simplest to go just go with what the bot says if User:Torsodog's other DYKs were that long ago. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Jueteng

I want jueteng pulled out of Queue 3. There is a dispute over whether or not it should include an image. Cwmhiraeth promoted it, putting it at the very bottom of queue 3, without weighing in on the image issue. I was about to go to WP:3O and request a third opinion as to whether an image is appropriate. I understand why Cwmhiraeth did it because no progress on dispute was being made, but I was waiting to see if anyone would reply before going to WP:3O. Please, an administrator should (a) pull jueteng from Queue 3; (b) reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Jueteng; and (c) ping me so I can open the 3O. I agree to accept whatever the third editor thinks and not push this more, to RfC or DRN or whatever. But, note, despite Yoninah's comment there, I did not accuse DYK of favoritism, simply brought up WP:Systemic bias, which applies to whole project. Pinging other parties: Yoninah, Chipmunkdavis. Thanks, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I don't see a reason to pull the hook. Articles that have usable photos are commonly placed in the other slots as set builders move through the list of approved hooks --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Are you offering a 3O opinion that the image shouldn't be used, therefore not pulling the hook on this basis? Or, are you saying that I'm not even allowed to dispute this? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
You are allowed to dispute it. I personally don't see the decision to place a hook on the quirky slot over the image slot to be outside of the normal bounds of a set builder's discretion. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are over 48 hours before Queue 3 is promoted; I don't see why a consensus can't be established here before then—this is really the best place for that discussion, since more people are likely to see it. There's no point in pulling the hook if the consensus turns out to be to leave it where it is, though if this issue turns out to be contentious, the nomination can certainly be pulled in another day to day and a half. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Oh sure, okay. I didn't know timeline for responses, but I guess this page is on many's watchlists. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: Please note that the two best positions in the prep set are the top slot and the bottom slot. Your hook is not at the very bottom of queue 3, but in what we call the "quirky" slot, which ends off the set on an upbeat note (see Rule J7). It will be seen and get plenty of pageviews there! Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Oh, okay. Today I learned, as the kids say. Sorry for complaining so much. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it time yet?

We're now at about 100 approved nominations, and the total number of nominations has (thankfully) been reduced to 266. Is it time to adjust the burn rate again? Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please! --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. We don't change until we hit 60—that was the result from the RfC, and the fact that we've recently spiked to have 7 queues and 4+ preps filled (11+ in all, as compared to the 8 or 9 that has been typical recently) means that the 106 approved now is artificially low in the general scheme of things. Why is this question even being asked, when we went through all that trouble to set the raise/lower points? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I had thought the trigger point was 120. Yoninah (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No, we should wait until we are in the 60 neighbourhood as per the RFC. Flibirigit (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, 120 is the trigger point to increase sets from one-a-day to two-a-day. It's 60 to step down from two-a-day to one-a-day. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
OK. So my memory isn't completely faulty. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, but if 60 turns out to be too low, we can discuss. We basically set on 60/120 from people saying that with 100 prep builders felt they had plenty to choose from, with 40 they were having a hard time balancing a set. We knew it was possible people would find that those weren't the exact right numbers. I don't think we'd need a full RfC to tweak them if you and other set builders think they aren't ideal. I'm hoping one of these days we'll start averaging fewer hooks eventually. The most recently closed date is July 22 with 32 hooks. :( —valereee (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios

While moving a prep set to the queue earlier today I found an article where several sentences had been copied wholesale from the source. Earwig stated "32.9%: violation unlikely" and the reviewer of the nomination stated "No copyvios." Without pointing fingers of blame at anyone, can I remind everyone that the Earwig percentage is of itself unimportant, it is what has been copied that matters. Very often this is the titles of organisations or publications, or quotations from the source, and therefore does not violate copyright policy, but where it is sentences of prose, it often does. So please check the highlighted areas in the Earwig display, and not just the percentage figure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

When reviewing, I sometimes leave a note like "Earwig returned 35% probability, but these were proper nouns that could not be written any other way". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Rakkestad

Hi all. I need an uninvolved user to add Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Rakkestad to prep 2 (date request). I can't add it because I'm the nominator. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of Prep 2, I noticed that the hook promoted for Broken Wings (ballet) was ALT0; however the review only approved ALT4. In addition, the nomination page hasn't been substituted with the promotion yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5: Rembrandt's Mughal drawings

@TerentiusNew: I have noticed that the "List of 23 extant drawings" section has no references. It ideally needs the data in every line (including the dimensions and where the drawing is held) to be cited somewhere within the section, or on each line. Will you able to fix that before the scheduled go-live time at 00:00 (UTC) on Tuesday 4 August? If it will take longer than that, I will replace the hook in the queue and reopen the nomination page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the drawings are taken from the Getty exhibition catalogue here, which is mentioned in the References; so don't think we need to repeat the same reference for every drawing. Hope that solves the issue! Best, TerentiusNew (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
PS: I've now made it explicit and added a line for sourcing under the Notes section. Regards, TerentiusNew (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Q6 Aug5a

Template:Did you know nominations/Palika Kendra

Deepak G Goswami

I'm not finding in the sources that it's 'one of the few' brutalist buildings in Delhi? The source says Today many of these buildings are part of Delhi's everyday urban landscape and the preservation of these structures has become more important than ever. and then goes on to talk about eleven buildings. I like this hook, and it's a good hook for the image, but is there a source that says there are few examples of brutalist architecture, or few left, in Delhi? Or should we recast this hook (and article sentence) to say something like it's an example of Delhi's Brutalist architecture? —valereee (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, as per the Atlas of Brutalist Architecture, there are only 23 Brutalist buildings in whole India. (source) The cited source in the article doesn't specifically says that those are the only 11 buildings (of Brutalist architecture) in Delhi but considering there are only 23 such buildings in the entire country it's implicit that Delhi doesn't have many in the Brutalist architecture style. Please share your thoughts on this. Also, as per Vice, "this building was the tallest on Delhi’s skyline", can it be used to augment the interestingness of the hook?--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Deepak G Goswami, I would think adding to the article and the hook that the building is one of only 23 in all of India would completely solve the problem as well as increasing the interest of the hook! If you suggest new wording, I can approve. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
hm...hold on a minute. That article says there are 23 buildings in India that are included in the Atlas. Does the Atlas claim to comprehensively list all buildings? —valereee (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: as per the Hindu, "(Brutalist architecture) from across the world is documented in the Atlas of Brutalist Architecture and its commissioning editor says that "[they] wanted to put together a comprehensive volume".--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Deepak G Goswami, for me the problem is "wanted to put together a comprehensive volume" doesn't necessarily mean they found and included EVERY building of that style in the world. How would you feel about
ALT 4 ... that the Palika Kendra (pictured) is one of 23 buildings in India documented in the Atlas of Brutalist Architecture? —valereee (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, your uneasiness is understandable. Alt4 seems alright.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone approve ALT 4, Yoninah or Wasted Time R maybe? Thank you, Deepak, for your flexibility. :) —valereee (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done ALT4 is good to go. It is reasonably interesting, mentioned inline, properly cited and verified by the source. Flibirigit (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/e5 Project

5225C, there's an unsourced para, first para in 'Ship design projects' section. —valereee (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Citations added.
5225C (talk • contributions) 22:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3 image: UNESCO World Heritage Sites

According to the website this logo is legally protected. Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the logo fall under "too basic to be copyrighted"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Since it's not merely text in a font, but also has a design element around which the text is arranged (and also has a non-texted version of the design), possibly not, but note what could not be copyrighted on the Commons:Threshold of originality page. Pinging nominator Kareldorado and also uploader Siyuwj. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I did have some reservations, but I figured that if someone was going to challenge the PD-textlogo determination, it was going to have happened already. The image is very heavily used across several projects. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
For some reason, I was asked about this at User talk:Marchjuly#Opinion on image requested at DYK. If the image being discussed is File:World Heritage Logo global.svg (the "emblem" linked to above), then my first impression is that this is probably {{PD-logo}} in the US per c:COM:TOO United States; so, it would be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if it's not PD in its country of origin (Commons requires a file to be free/PD in both the US and it's country of origin). Since it appears to also be an official work of UNESCO, there's a possibility that it could be OK for Commons per c:Category:UNESCO logos. Of course, there's no guarantee that all those files are licensed correctly, but it does seem possible for this to also be OK for Commons. My opinion is, however, nothing more than that; so, if you really want more opinions, then perhaps asking at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC would be a good idea. If you really want to sort this out, on the other hand, then c:COM:DR would probably be the way to go. Since it's a Commons file, it can be discussed on Wikipedia, but there's not much that can be done about it on Wikipedia other than to remove it from the articles where it's being used. If it needs to be deleted, it needs to be deleted from Commons-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
First of all, we do not care if the creators/owners of a image claim that it is copyrighted, as we always do our own due diligence; see Monkey selfie copyright dispute. For me this is clearly under TOO. Secondly, they aren't even making a claim that it is copyrighted, as I don't see the word "copyright" appear anywhere. They are making a trademark claim, and Wikimedia Commons is allowed to host images which are protected by trademarks (c:COM:NCR). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
But what about posting it on the main page? Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
If you believe the Commons licensing is wrong and you want to challenge it via c:COM:DR, then you can. From a copyright license standpoint, it seems fine to me; so, I don't see why it can't be used on the main page simply based upon that reason alone. Commons is only really concerned with how the files it hosts are licensed; it's not really concerned with how they are used. Matters related to image use are pretty much left up to each local Wikipedia community to decide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago with only a couple of entries remaining, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 23. We currently have a total of 229 nominations, of which 103 have been approved, a gap of 126. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

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) 04:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 hook substitution

A double hook has been approved for the 2nd hook in the set. Could someone substitute this hook wording:

... and close this nomination template: Template:Did you know nominations/Governor of North Sumatra. (As I approved the Governor of North Sumatra hook, I'm recusing myself from promoting it.) Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone to adopt a baseball article?

Template:Did you know nominations/Nippon Professional Baseball playoffs is currently stuck, but only needs a few minor changes to be approved. Is anyone willing to adopt this? Thanks in advance. Flibirigit (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

3 queues open, 7 prep sets full

Pinging @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I did one for now; I also added the queue navbar as an edit notice mostly for my own convenience, but hopefully others find it helpful. If not let me know and I can remove it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
All preps are filled again with 4 queues open. I'm just going to copy the pings from above - @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I promoted one, but have to go. If there's some left when I'm free again I'll do more. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Though the lynching article in the next prep has sourcing issues. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Article problems

The Campfire ash ceremony article currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 keeps getting tagged. The discussion is here: Talk:Campfire ash ceremony. Your comments and assistance are appreciated. --evrik (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved this to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4, so you have time to work this out. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The source used for the hook is from someone's own personal website (https://nrarso.wixsite.com/nighthawk/campfire-ashes-ceremoney). It would need a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I can't find one either, which is weird if the hook is true given that it supposedly came from Baden-Powell. If it isn't, the entire article shouldn't exist. Surely there must be something... Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
This source can be used for the hook: Bowles, Martha (2019-04-06). "Lee's Summit Girls Form Scouts BSA Troops". Lee's Summit Tribune. --evrik (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a very local newspaper from 2019, though, which with the greatest of respect they could have got from anywhere - Google? An interview with a local scout person who'd heard the story somewhere? We don't know. And it's only even a passing mention in that source. You certainly can't hang an article on it - as I said, if the ceremony really originated with Baden-Powell, surely there's a decent source in the 80 years since he died? Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
A newspapers.com search revealed 0 hits for the term "campfire ash ceremony". SL93 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
There are scores of sources, but most are from scouting related websites. --evrik (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I had a look at this article when it was in the nom page here, and didn't feel confident about the sources. The topic has no hits in a Boys' Life search, so I doubt it should be written as if it is a ubiquitous ceremony. CMD (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Therein lies the irony, the ceremony happens all the time. There are scores of websites about it, but little of it is formal. There are even retailers that sell products for it. --evrik (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it is common with some troops and events, but not in others. CMD (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping all issues have been resolved. --evrik (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7 image

@Hdolf:@SerAntoniDeMiloni:

The image File:LeslieGoonewardenePortrait.jpg is tagged for deletion at Commons. Apparently the licensing has not been sorted out yet. Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hdolf:@Yoninah:. The licensing has been sorted, but I haven't received a response from the nominator. Hence, I went and republished on Wikipedia (where an Declaration of consent for all enquiries has been submitted for the File LeslieGoonewardenePortrait70s . jpg – that one should be fine for use. Best, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your declaration, but as the file is still tagged for deletion, I wonder if we should wait until everything is sorted out. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That may work best. It'd be good to see if Hdolf would mind removing the DYK and re-adding when the image is sorted? SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of. A Wikimedia Commons admin is currently having a look at the file's permissions email. It would be super if we could hold off for 24 hours. Thanks, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@SerAntoniDeMiloni: Apologies for the late response. I'll be on holiday for the next couple of weeks, so will be relatively inactive. Either of your suggestions works for me, and I'd be happy to wait a day to see. If that doesn't go to plan, I'd be happy to remove the DYK pending. You can ping me when the image is cleared up and I'd be happy to re-add. Hdolf (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Returning the hook to WP:DYKNA for later promotion. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2

Wilbur Little

The article has a section disputing whether the lynching actually occurred and the conflict is never resolved. Should the hook be re-worded to better reflect the article or is it fine as is? — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith and BTV55: as noms — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. There was a discussion on this talk page, but I'm thinking it was archived. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
SL93, The dispute is total WP:FRINGE based on non-WP:RS. See WP:RSN#Lynching of Wilbur Little. The hook should stay the way it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the RSN link, Roy! I think that's reason enough to keep the hook. In light of that, it may be worthwhile to trim the "hoax" section a bit since it now seems WP:UNDUE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I have significantly trimmed back the section in question, verifying that the cited sources match what we say in the article. There's plenty of primary sources cited which promote the hoax theory, so if readers want to go down that road, we've given them the required pointers. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't concerned much either way. I only wanted to point out that there was an earlier discussion. I wasn't even paying attention towards the end of it. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I originated the entry and subsequently watched the WP debate over this with great interest. As a Wikipedia noob, I thought it best to watch and learn. But I went to graduate school for American history and spent a career as a journalist and I have to say that, in my judgment, we can't really say what happened to a Wilbur Little in 1919 at this point. Personally, I am satisfied with the conflicting information as the best we can do. But I defer. 71.169.18.200 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC) BTV55

User RoySmith has undertaken an effort to suppress a paragraph from this article, based on his opinion that a source is unreliable (although there are multiple reliable sources referenced). This issue is still under discussion at WP:RS, so the action taken by user RoySmith to blank the entire paragraph is without consensus. I cannot revert without triggering 3RR. This disputed article should be removed from DYK until the matter is resolved -or- the deleted paragraph restored and the conflicting information left in place for all to consider (as per the suggestion, above, by article originator BTV55). Much less harm done by delaying, or printing the entire two sides, than the larger potential harm to Wikipedia credibility by presenting an article of a disputed event, with a suppressed paragraph Gulbenk (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

E (New York City Subway service)

  • ... that the New York City Subway's E train has been nicknamed the "Homeless Express" due to its large ridership of homeless people?

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: the article doesn't cite the "homeless express" epithet, and I cannot find reference to it in the article cited on the nom page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to prep 3 for now — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, this fact is supposed to be sourced to this ref. I've added it in. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hooks about things named after people

It was brought to my attention by @Yoninah: at Template:Did you know nominations/Casilda Iturrizar that hooks about things being named after people are not interesting. However, one of those three things has an article at Doña Casilda Iturrizar Park. There is also the issue that plenty of such articles, including Template:Did you know nominations/Teshio River and Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Samuelson plus several others recently, have been promoted with no issues brought forth. I can likely find another hook by doing more research, but I'm trying to get consensus on this issue first even though I really am not all that excited by my DYK nomination being the guinea pig. I'm also pinging the original reviewer @Alan Islas:. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's not the most inherently exciting hook, but personally I have a relatively low bar for hooks since I recognize that different people find different things interesting and wouldn't reject it on that basis. Also, I think using an image to enhance the hookiness of a hook is entirely valid, and a hook need not be hooky without the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking of a hook which is based on new information I found which states that hers is the only case of someone having two streets named after them in Bilbao (which the article currently lacks). There are also two facts I find interesting also - that she endowed a fund for scholarships which still operates today and that she was the richest woman in Bilbao. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @SL93: I left an ALT4. I don't know if it's helpful, or different, but I tried there. I can't get inside Yoninah's head, but I think they were asking for something that hooks the reader into wanting to read more. The world is full of philanthropists with memorials. I think Yoninah was looking for something to make the reader want to know more. Re the promoted hooks you list above, the Agnes Samuelson hook mentions that she was an inductee into the Iowa Women's Hall of Fame, which is fairly hooky. I don't know about The Teshio River. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • What do you think of my two proposals above in this discussion, which is sourced to here? I did use Google Translate, but I do know that the original reviewer knows Spanish. I am more frustrated that the hook was approved on July 14, only to have a long discussion started on August 6 which is essentially a long discussion on one sentence. I wouldn't be as frustrated if the conversation came sooner. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Just by doing a search on the Approved nomination page by using the keyword "named", I found these articles - Fort Trump, Acorn Creek, Exchange Place (Manhattan), Moritz Hall, Helen Hope, and more. While in the not yet approved page, there are four such hooks. It could be argued that everything is named after something. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
What it comes down to is, (1) is a reviewer asking for something extra; (2) is the promoter saying it isn't hooky? The issue is not (to me) whether or not something is named after somebody. It's whether or not the hook is worded in such a way as to draw in the reader. And since each promoter might see that differently, it still comes down to addressing that particular promoter's questions — Maile (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: I guess a flaw in that reasoning is that a promoter could have no issues with the hook and promote it, but then someone else can come along and have it unpromoted based on if the hook is interesting. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that pretty much describes DYK in a nutshell. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I realize that and I do believe DYK really needs an overhaul. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The issue of "the reader" is so abstract. We don't know which particular demographics will visit the main page during the time that a hook is on the main page. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
SL93 there's a different issue you might want to have a look at, and I'm not enough of an expert in this area to tell you. It's that really excellent infobox image. I love the image. But when I look at it on Commons, it's missing information (I think) about the copyright. Obviously, it's an old painting. You can tell by the texture on it that it came from another website. The uploader says it's their own work, but I have my doubts. Probably should get this settled if it's going to be used in the article. — Maile (talk)
Maile66 I brought it up on Commons. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
SL93 Thanks - I added my two cents to your comment there. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I haven't been able to clarify my position until now as I was offline for Shabbat. SL93, I don't know how you got it into your head that I object to hooks about naming things. What I object to is un-hooky hooks. A park or a street being named after someone could be said about anyone. Why would anyone click on Template:Did you know nominations/Casilda Iturrizar because she's a philanthropist and has a street named after her? Do you know how many philanthropists have streets and statues and whatnot named after them? On the nomination template, you seemed to be focused on the fact that she's the only one in Bilbao that this happened to. If so, say it in the hook. Don't expect the reader—who probably glances at the hooks for a millisecond while skimming the main page—is going to realize that on their own. Right now, the only person who might click on it is someone from Spain who knows where Bilbao is. Additionally, the Template:Did you know nominations/Teshio River is not a hook about naming things, IMO; the hook interest there is the meaning of the name, "river of fishing weirs". As for your Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Samuelson, this was promoted by a new editor and I just decided to leave it instead of argue about the hookiness. Again, only people in Iowa might be interested in that. (Actually, only 782 readers were interested in that.) Our goal at DYK should be to get the hookiest hooks on the main page, not just to throw up anything that sticks. If you can come up with a hooky angle about Casilda Iturrizar's life or career, that would work much better than posthumous accolades, IMO. Yoninah (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I will just withdraw the nomination, though I’m not sure if that was an insinuation that I just try to come with anything that sticks...which I don’t. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
SL93 no one is telling you to withdraw the nomination. Just find a different hook angle. And I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth (or mind). Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah I know that that no one told me to withdraw the nomination, but I still will. I didn’t put any words in your mouth or mind. If I did, I would ask you to stop insinuating things. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah The comment that I’m referring to is “Our goal at DYK should be to get the hookiest hooks on the main page, not just to throw up anything that sticks“. I’m not sure why someone would say that in response to someone if they didn’t think that was what was going on...I know that I would only do such a thing if I was assuming something. As for the Agnes Samuelson hook, it was up for only 12 hours. SL93 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: Well, I was referring to you in the sentences before and the sentences after, but not in the sentence Our goal at DYK should be to get the hookiest hooks on the main page, not just to throw up anything that sticks.. That was supposed to be a general statement. You'll just have to take my word for it. As for the pageviews, 65 pageviews an hour is pretty low. Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I guess you have a point about those page views. The majority of my hooks have over 1,000 views and I mostly nominated the Samuelson hook because of my success with Hanging of Patrick O'Connor, but I guess murder speaks well for views. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I always thought that having the goal of having more clicks was never the main intention of DYK, but rather the articles being featured at all. Click counts are nice and all but they really should be treated more as bonuses or incentives instead of being the end of all things. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, pageviews are an indication of hook interest. Even a hook subject that does not have broad appeal, perhaps because it's geocentric or obscure, can get a lot of attention if the hook is worded well. My all-time favorite: Did you know ... that Wooden Leg didn't have one? Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I feel it is unfortunate that this nomination got withdrawn, but that is a nominator's prerogative. And secondly, reviewers and promoters have Wikipedia guidelines:
WP:DYKHOOK under the "Content" section: When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article — as long as they don't misstate the article content.
Reviewing guide: Review the hook Consider whether the hook is "hooky".
That's our guidelines. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3:Raft

@Mbdfar:@Chipmunkdavis:@SL93:
I think the hook could be hookier with this tweak:
ALT1: ... that Leicester Hemingway, the brother of Ernest Hemingway, was elected president of a micronation founded on a floating raft? Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I find it less hooky to explicitly state "micronation", and quite like the idea of a raft President. It sounds unique, and doesn't immediately suggest the hook is going to take me to a dull example of yet another person claiming to be the leader of a made-up country. However, it's just as accurate as a hook, so no strong objections if others do not feel the way I do. CMD (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion either way. SL93 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how you feel about micronations. To me "president of a raft" sounds quirky, while "micronation" sounds obnoxious. (Probably just me, though, and possibly because of too much time spent here -- I have seen and deleted too many articles about the micronation some random person and their friends made up yesterday). —Kusma (t·c) 21:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Keeping it the way it is. Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 image, Pappajohn Sculpture Park

The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures, so the picture being used technically shouldn't even be on Wiki. Infact none of the images of sculptures in the article should be there. From my understanding you can only include images of public sculptures in the US under Fair Use, unless they were completed before 1924 or published before 1978 without a copyright notice. per :Commons:United States Freedom of panorama). Found5dollar (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. The image has been removed in the article, and in the hook. I've moved the hook down to the 2nd hook, which is not an image slot. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: A "lua error" was left behind in the prep. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure how. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 Fixed thank you for catching that! — Maile (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Alan Islas, while not allowed on Commons (or on the Main Page), I'd recommend adding the Nomade image to en.wikipedia with a fair use rationale (see {{Non-free 3D art}}) and restoring it to the article. It would be best to upload a low-resolution version, but if you just use the full-size one, a bot should come along and reduce it for you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Mandarax, thanks for making me aware of this possibility. I agree that the article would benefit greatly from having an image, even a low resolution one, specially of Nomade as you say, since analysis of this sculpture is included.
Since it's not allowed in Commons, would a direct link to Flickr be use to place it in Wikipedia? Flickr is where I originally obtained the images in the article, using the Commons Upload Wizard tool, which checks the licenses and gave me a false sense of security that it was ok.
I didn't know about US laws about images of public art, and removed the images from WP after users in Commons told me about the issues and proposed the files from deletion. I would have to be very careful in uploading an image under the fair use rationale, because I don't want to make more picture copyright mistakes. I would prefer if another editor with more experience did it, but in the meantime I'll study the process as best as I can. Regards, Alan Islas (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Alan Islas, I would've done it myself, but I was on an iPad when I left the above note. Now I'm on a desktop, and have uploaded a reduced version of the image, and added it to the article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Mandarax, that's great, thank you! Alan Islas (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6: Naki Sumo Crying Baby Festival

I'm not sure why the hook contains "begins with". As far as I can tell from the article, the showdown between the infants is the main event at this festival, and presumably happens several times throughout, with different babies each time. Or, to put it another way, if that's just the beginning, what comes next? Also, the article body says "often while held in the arms of professional or student sumo wrestlers", which suggests they aren't always held in arms. Do they sometimes also duel on the ground? Pinging Thats Just Great Yoninah Brinacor Narutolovehinata5. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I suggest ... that Japan's Naki Sumo Crying Baby Festival has showdowns between infants in the arms of sumo wrestlers?" From reading the sources in the article (except The Telegraph which I need to subscribe to), I can't find anything that says that they are at times never in the arms of the sumo wrestlers. It also seems like that is the whole thing with multiple showdowns, with it not being a beginning thing. I admit that I missed these details when I promoted the hook, but I'm glad that you caught it. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
No one else wants to chime in? SL93 (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: Your suggestion looks good to me, and I've updated it to that for now. @Thats Just Great: @Yoninah: @Brinacor: @Narutolovehinata5: if you have any issues with this, or want further discussion, then let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
No objections. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5 picture hook (live at 12:00 UTC)

There's a discussion which I started at WP:ERRORS about this hook. Any input would be useful in saving it ... Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This update doesn't seem to have taken place as expected. (I see it is UTC and not UK summer time.) Personally I think the hook is written in a jokey manner and is OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Being jokey doesn't excuse it from being inaccurate. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion/Fivefold expansion definition

Hate to do this with a messy RfC already open, but at some point we need to have the further discussion required by the overwhelming consensus at both

1. Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expansion started, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion.

and

A. Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion.

We need to agree on what the final language is. I tried to call it "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion," but there were concerns. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • The two wordings are at odds, and we need to bridge the difference. Currently valid expansions would not be allowed under the A wording because the nominator couldn't count an expansion that started with other editors the day before they began their work, while the 1 wording fails to prevent the problematic case where the nominator/expander cuts down the article and later comes back to expand it from a lower base, which was also deemed important to disallow. This is why some careful wordsmithing is needed, a fact pointed out by a few people at the time, and is why the close punted on the exact wording. I think we can handle any cases that fall between the cracks of 1 and A should they occur before we come up with a wording that addresses these issues, but suggestions on that wording would be helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset: You have had since the RfC opened to come up with a wording a pleases you and so far you have yet to offer a constructive way forward. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Can someone please suggest a change? I've suggested this: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. BlueMoonset and Gatoclass thought it might be problematic. Can someone please suggest an improvement so we can close this already? —valereee (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Valereee: I am fine with that wording --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not fine with the wording, and I thought I pointed out the problem quite clearly. I had hoped that others would give the wording their consideration, but apparently everyone is exhausted by the various RfCs. The key here is not to restrict it to the expander alone, since it's the whole expansion that matters, and at the same time not allow earlier significant trims by the expander. Perhaps it could be something as simple as the day before the expander and other editors began substantive work on it. I don't know whether the wording might have disallowed the recent Template:Did you know nominations/Truman Taylor nomination (which ran a couple of days ago), but the border cases are very hard to word around, and it does address issues like Template:Did you know nominations/Héctor Suárez (where the expansion was started by someone else the previous day, which was still within the allowed seven days).
I am wondering whether we are introducing an unintended consequence that just occurred to me: if we always calculate from the expander's beginning, does that mean that if they didn't nominate the article until they'd been working on it for 14 days, we go back that far to calculate the expansion, regardless of the seven-day rule? That doesn't seem right. We only want to go back beyond the seven days prior to nomination if the expanding editor(s) had earlier made significant cuts. Pinging Gatoclass for any thoughts or ideas on these points, given the mention above. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a problem there. All nominations have a seven-day cutoff, whether new or expanded. So if the expansion began 14 days before nomination, it would be ineligible, unless the size of the expansion within the last seven days were still five times larger than the article as it existed seven days earlier. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Both the above suggested versions are problematic in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How about something like:

"Fivefold expansion is calculated from the version of the article that existed (a) immediately prior to the beginning of expansion work by the user or users who are seeking expansion credits (and their collaborators, if any), and (b) prior to any pruning of said version by the same parties (with copyvio content being an exception)." Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Works for me! —valereee (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it still has an issue, so I still need to do a little work on it, but it may have to wait a bit as I want to take a break from this. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6: Cecil Duncan

  • ... that hockey executive Cecil Duncan experimented with a blue line at the centre of an ice hockey rink (pictured), before introducing the red line to speed up the game?

Several points with this one.

  1. I thought at first glance that the hook was saying the use of a red line (as opposed to blue) in itself sped up the game. Presumably it was actually just the line itself.
  2. The "(pictured)" appears to be referring to a rink with a blue line, but the picture obviously depicts the modern version with a red line.
  3. I'm not sure if "to speed up the game" is supported by the source.[7] The article says "in an effort to open up the game", which is already slightly different - is an open game the same as a sped up game? The source is even more divergent though, saying "helping facilitate an excitement to the game as teams could then pass the puck out of their own zone". This doesn't seem to automatically imply a faster game, just a more exciting one. We should probably reword or use one of the other hooks. Pinging Flibirigit, HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Raymie as noms/reviewers.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I have no clue what is being said in point 1, and cannot understand the point of view in point 2. "Opening up the game" and "Speeding up the game" are used interchangeably and mean the same thing. Please compare with the other hook source here. Here are some other hook suggestions. Flibirigit (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT6 : ... that hockey executive Cecil Duncan experimented with a blue line at the centre of an ice hockey rink, before introducing the red line (pictured) to allow more passing of the puck and create an exciting game?
ALT7 : ... that hockey executive Cecil Duncan experimented with a blue line at the centre of an ice hockey rink, before introducing the red line (pictured) to allow longer passing of the puck and create an exciting game?
I think regarding point 1 that Amakuru means the hook suggests the blue and red lines are two different lines, rather than just the same line in a different colour. The proposed ALTs raise the same suggestion, although they solve point 2. CMD (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't understand the comment above. Flibirigit (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Flibirigit What I think Chipmunkdavis and Amakuru means is that to non-hockey fans it's an odd hook. Why does introducing a red line (or a line of any colour) speed up the game? The meaning behind the blue line (defense) is needed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
At this point, I think it would be futile to even try to explain the current blue lines compared to the past blue lines to non-hockey fans. Here is another hook. Flibirigit (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT8 : ... that hockey executive Cecil Duncan helped introduced the centre red line of an ice hockey rink (pictured) to allow more passing and create excitement?
What I, and I think Amaukuru, were referring to is that the blue and red lines in question appear to be the same line, a centre line, just in a different colour. On the new ALT8, that seems good to me if it is preferred. CMD (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to Cwmhiraeth who updated Queue 6 with the new preferred hook. Flibirigit (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6: A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020

Statue of Hans Christian Heg

I do not understand why we are not including the most interesting part of this hook, that he was a Union soldier and abolitionist. May I suggest:

This is far more hooky while making no opinionated statements. This hook is 188 which we can accomodate in Prep 5. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. SL93 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: KAVEBEAR, Ergo Sum, Toddy1, HappyWaldo, Yoninah, and Kingsif. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Union soldier and abolitionist is verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I suggested including that. Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1:Posthumous publication

@Mujinga:@Feminist:@SL93:
This hook is disingenuous; she did not release it after her death. Also, this is too gruesome for the "quirky" slot IMO. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
she did not release it after her death - as nominator i think this is fine, we already had this discussion at the template page and there are two other approved hooks to choose from as a result. too gruesome - I don't know what the criteria for the quirky slot are, it doesn't seem that gruesome to me. Mujinga (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The two alts also name her as the protagonist:
ALT1 ... that after her execution by hanging, Margaret Clark posthumously released two pamphlets arguing her case?
ALT2 ... that Margaret Clark published two pamphlets from beyond the grave arguing against her execution by hanging? Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Readers will know what the hook means and that she didn’t write them as a zombie or ghost. I don’t know about it being too gruesome, although I’m fine with darker humor. SL93 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I like ALT2 a lot. It's tongue in cheek enough, and not so gruesome —valereee (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I will be watching for the end result either way to see which death hook I should move out of prep 1 to another prep. SL93 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think we've had death-related hooks in the quirky slot in the past so I don't really see the problem with this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Even beyond the issue of the posthumous publication—the release was out of her hands, and someone else had to arrange for publication and distribution (we don't even know if Clark was literate), the problem I have with all three hooks is that the implication is that she was arguing her innocence, and the article states that she had admitted to the arson, which to the reader would indicate that she set the fires. Unfortunately, I can't check the Cambridge Companion source for the crucial details that detail the information used for the article and hooks, so I don't know exactly what is written there, but as it stands I don't think any of the hooks are acceptable, and the original hook the least so. A hook could, based on the article, say that Clark told onlookers that she'd written a pamphlet explaining why she committed the crime she was being hanged for, or something else could be found. If we can't find something here soon, then the hook should be pulled and a new one determined on the nomination page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I've specifically pointed out this issue in my review; since I disagree with Mujinga on whether this hook meets requirements, I delegated the decision to whoever is promoting this hook. Just swap it for ALT1 or ALT2. feminist (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
As I noted above, I think the problems run deeper than that. The hook that's there is clearly ineligible, but the ALTs have problems as well, and neither should be swapped in. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I reopened the nomination page at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Clark (arsonist) since the issue is so divisive. SL93 (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
As stated above, this was discussed during the review and new ALTs were provided. ALTs 1 & 2 specifically don't make a claim on whether Clark was guilty or not. Mujinga (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
It's a complicated story, although all the necessary details are in the article already. Clark was convicted and was resigned to her fate, but pleaded her case in the posthumous pamphlets that she had been manipulated by a Catholic plot and bribed by Satterthwayt, who was acquitted. So she admitted staring the fire but blamed it on the Devil and Satterthwayt. I don't know if the Cambridge Companion adds much on top of the already cited ODNB, but for @BlueMoonset: here's a relevant bit of it: "Standing on a scaffold awaiting hanging for arson, Margaret Clark interrupted the proceedings to explain she had 'left an account in a writing' of her very limited complicity - and the guilt of the man was acquitted. Although Clark refers to herself as the writer, she seems to have depended on the kind of collaboration that produced depositions albeit after rather than before her trial". The hooks are currently cited to ODNB: "Satterthwayt was acquitted, but Clark was found guilty and hanged on 22 March 1680 [...] Clark went to her execution penitent, accepting her guilt, refusing to seek a pardon and protesting the truth of her allegations against Satterthwayt, repeated at length to several Anglican divines and her many visitors in gaol, and printed after her death in two pamphlets" Mujinga (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Clark (arsonist). Please leave further comments there. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

For the current month, the Flag of Grenada item (currently #2) is also counting the considerable jump for the day in views of nutmeg, which not was not a dyk article at all. Is this correct? I thought only the actual DYK views counted. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. Binksternet, only the bolded link(s) in a hook count for the pageviews. Yoninah (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for the information. Years ago, all linked items were counted. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Second Option

I've just added hooks to Prep area 4 (the first time I've done this). I'd greatly appreciate someone with a little more DYK experience having a glance over it to check that I've not done anything stupid Pi (Talk to me!) 18:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Pi You didn't close the nominations. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
SL93 Thank you, I'm doing that now Pi (Talk to me!) 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice job, Pi. You had two bios side-by-side (we usually try to stagger them), so I swapped it with a non-bio hook in Prep 1, which was short on bios. Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4

I would like to change this to something like:
I personally think both hooks are fine and I wouldn't object to the change. SL93 (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The changed version as given comes to 209 characters, so it will need to be shortened to be usable. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I have amended the new hook and swapped it into Queue 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_170&oldid=1085471834"