Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180←Archive 183Archive 184Archive 185Archive 186Archive 187→Archive 190

DYK update is late

Courtesy @Shubinator:. DYKUpdateBot has not performed the update from Queue 5. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If one of the @DYK admins could perform the update manually while we wait for the bot, that would be ideal. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Working on it. —Kusma (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll award credits. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Cheers. I'll go to sleep. I think I've done all the protected edits. —Kusma (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't add the DYKfile to the image (has no local description page?) and I would appreciate if someone could double check whether Template:Did you know/Next update/Time is set correctly. Whoever does that should also do the move to 2/day (between now and 12:00 UTC). —Kusma (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: I'm pretty sure that Template:Did you know/Next update/Time should be set to 00:00:00, so that the bot updates at midnight instead of 24 hours from your update. I could be wrong, though? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins again to edit User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates so it changes from 86400 to 43200. This way we change over to two sets a day as planned. Also, please change Template:Did you know/Next update/Time from "2022-03-11T00:20:05Z" to "2022-03-11T00:00:00Z". Please also be around at 12:00 UTC in case Shubinator has not been able to restart DYKUpdateBot and another manual update needs to be done at that time. (Or more than one of you can take different portions of these tasks.) Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I've updated to "43200" and "2022-03-11T00:00:00Z". The way I understand it is that the seconds get added to the date and once the current time matches the sum, the next upgrade happens. Is that correct? I'm asking because "2022-03-11T00:00:00Z" is in the past. Schwede66 02:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: yep, that's right—funny, how "Next Time" doesn't refer to the next time. I assume we do it this way because that way, when we do the manual switch-overs for TBU, we don't have to update this too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
(ec) The filename Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has the unfortunate and misleading appearance of being the time for the next update, when, in fact, it's the time the most recent update was already done. To address this potentially confusing situation, I included a note in the admin instructions a few months ago. (BTW, I would've been inclined to just leave the "2022-03-11T00:20:05Z" in place and let the bot handle it.)  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  02:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I thought so too, but the editnotice disagreed (but that hasn't been updated in almost 10 years). —Kusma (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back online :) As for the "Next update/Time" page, the naming was inherited from DYKadminBot - I agree it's confusing. Shubinator (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Heh I just realized how old that sentence makes me sound - DYKadminBot hasn't edited in over 12 years! It was DYKUpdateBot's predecessor. Shubinator (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
What’s the story with moving the page to a sensible name, Shubinator? You would presumably have to update the bot at the same time. Is that difficult? Schwede66 07:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks like people tried to move the page to Template:Did you know/Time in 2009, but that didn't work for the bot so they continued using the old page, and the old data was deleted instead of being history merged back in. (Insert rant here about how TFD/template space and its focus on the present makes it impossible for non-admins to understand Wikipedia history). —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward on the bot side, just a matter of coordinating the timing. Best if the various templates referencing the page were also updated. Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2: Smiley v. Holm (nom)

  • ... that when queried at her confirmation hearing about the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Smiley v. Holm, Justice Amy Coney Barrett replied that she wasn't aware of the decision?

Hmm... this hook is throwing a neutrality/due weight red flag for me. The hook is sourced to Vox, which WP:RSP says is considered by some to be a partisan source. I can't overrule RSP, but in my opinion—speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool leftist—it is a biased (if still reliable) source. I wouldn't mind if there were other sources, but the only thing I could find was the SCOTUSblog tweet that Vox cites. For a hook that makes a pretty negative assertion from a left-leaning source against a sitting U.S. Supreme Court widely considered to be biased towards the right, I'd want to see less biased sourcing than Vox, to show that it's something important that belongs in the hook/article and not just a minor talking point. I could, of course, be wrong. Pinging @Extraordinary Writ, Sammi Brie, and Kavyansh.Singh as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Amy Klobuchar: (04:08:08) Okay. Here’s one that I think is, a selection of electoral college electors. You know that each state has laws that dictate how electoral college electors are selected. Judge Barrett, in 1932, the Supreme Court in Smiley V Holm, a case involving my state, ruled that the Minnesota State Legislature could not change election rules unilaterally. Do you agree that the unanimous opinion in Smiley V holm, which has never been questioned by any other Supreme Court case, is settled law?
Judge Amy Coney Barrett: (04:08:44) I’ll say two things about that. First of all, I was not aware of that case. So you’ve taught me something. But secondly, I can’t comment on the precedent, “Give thumbs up or thumbs down,” in Justice Kagan’s words.
  • I think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize it as negative: I don't think anyone expects Supreme Court justices to be omniscient, and the fact that she wasn't familiar with a minor ninety-year-old case that didn't even have a Wikipedia article until two weeks ago would hardly be damaging to her reputation. Indeed, Vox wasn't even using it as "criticism" at all: it was simply included to illustrate the statement that "her thoughts on the independent state legislature doctrine are not yet known", not to imply that Barret was an unfit justice. I appreciate the sensitivity to BLP concerns, but I'm not quite convinced that the "negative aspect of a living individual" rule (which was intended to refer to things like affairs and criminal charges) really applies to a milquetoast statement like this one. Of course, this isn't a hill I'm going to die on, so I'm glad to try to come up with a replacement if there's consensus that the hook is problematic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Extraordinary Writ: I think it's true that you and I don't have those expectations of omniscience; but I think the rub is that that context is super evident in the hook or the article, and without that light, it does look a bit like we're making that criticism—fair or not fair. If there were a way to convey that, I'd be totally fine with the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    I suppose you're right, theleekycauldron: although it wasn't my intention, I can certainly see how it could be understood that way. Let's find another hook. How about:
    • ALT1 ... that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Smiley v. Holm, the 1932 general election ballot in Minnesota contained 30 candidates for Congress?
    Let me know if you have any suggestions. The source would be pg. 60 of this: "An unprecedented scramble for nominations followed the Court's decision....Thus, thirty aspirants were presented to the voter, on the office-column type of ballot, and he was asked to choose nine of them." Thanks for bearing with me on this! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    @theleekycauldron, it occurred to me that my last ping probably didn't go through, so I'm trying again. I've suggested another hook above; feel free to tweak it if you'd like. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, Extraordinary Writ! Full disclosure, I did get the ping, but I've been all over the place recently and it slipped through the cracks. I like this hook a lot better, it gives agency to the bolded article and the fact is quite interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Amy Klobuchar's Senate pagewebsite provides the transcript, and the YouTube video of it. It happens in the video at about minute 29, toward the end. You Tube video. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: I think Smiley v. Holm was a really important 1932 US Supreme Court decision. And while I believe you used the Klobuchar-Barrett hook as clickable, I think it might be more important for the Main Page to have a hook on how a 1932 decision impacts us in 2022, or 2021. Is that possible? — Maile (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Something along the lines of (but better than this), "that Smiley v. Holm was referenced by Supreme Court justices Hugo Black and Wiley Rutledge in the 1946 Colegrove v. Green case of a malapportioned Illinois congressional map?" Or make a hook telling us how Amy Klobuchar used it, aside from the Barrett barb. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Maile66. This hook isn't really telling us anything interesting about Smiley v. Holm. It would be better to add some context (to the article) - why is Klobuschar asking Judge Barrett about this case, and what does that tell us about the case and its enduring legacy? Then craft a hook that is more about the case and its impact. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This hook is now in Queue 2, so if any change is needed, it will have to be done soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I think we're good to go with the ALT1 proposed in this thread. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've substituted ALT1 for the original hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI re Russia-Ukraine articles

I don't believe in censorship, and support those above who wish to run Russian or Ukrainian hooks. But FYI on this recent posting at WP:MIL: Warning of doxxing of Wikipedia editors seen as opposing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Follow the links in that discussion. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Two queues approved, six prep sets full

@DYK admins: we have six prep sets full and only two queues approved, if anyone could help. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Main page image of torture

In re to DYK Main Page image, I pulled the image. I think we need to reassess the difference between "we don't censor" and traumatizing the readers. Let us step back to January and look at how we Topic banned one editor, with cause. I agree with that ban, but it somewhat pales behind an image of torture. We were tired of the F-word? Thousands, perhaps millions, of people around the world have been the victim of torture. We don't censor, but perhaps we should pay more attention to our images in the queues. I ask the question here: If the image was not water torture, but a graphic image of a nude woman being gang raped, would we put it on the main page? Can we please have a discussion here about what we as a project tolerate as "we don't censor"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maile66 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Link to nomination; pings for awareness to Buidhe, BuySomeApples, and Kavyansh.Singh. DanCherek (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This is kind of a blameless snafu, but I think that admins ought to give a quick look at the lead image before it goes live. This went right past me, because I had not done any of the promoting, and was otherwise busy in RL and other concerns. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I accepted this for Main Page inclusion. Can you explain to me what the problem is? We see a horrible crime, but we can't identify the victim. We see the perpetrators smiling and wonder whether people even thought of prosecuting them for this. Compared with many other war images, this is fairly tame (you need to know what happens to be shocked by it). We should show how terrible war is on the Main Page, and images help with this. —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
We had three people complain about it within an hour which I think is a good enough reason to pull the image. From just those three people, we know that they were shocked by it. I'm sure people already have enough of an idea of the brutalities of wars without the image. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
People complaining isn't by itself a good reason to pull an image, or we could never have anything controversial on the Main Page. I think attempting to be unoffensive is harmful, especially for images, where the pressure to censor has always been strong. —Kusma (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I just think there should be limits for our readership in some cases as Maile66 put forth in his opening comments. The information is still there and the image is still in the article for those who are interested to view. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess we shouldn't have any images on the Main Page then. —Kusma (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
It's interesting about that being what you received from my comments. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldn't snap at you; "there should be limits" is certainly similar to the longstanding "the Main Page is a bit more censored than our articles" consensus. But we shouldn't try to make everyone happy. I honestly think "no images on the Main Page" would be a better as a neutral stance than "no potentially offensive images on the Main Page". —Kusma (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess I'll repeat what I said at the nomination; I don't see this image as being too graphic for the main page. We've run images of Holocaust murders before, which are worse for me, without controversy. (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess my point, is that more eyes are needed on the Queues. If anything like this comes up, get it resolved here first that way. Maybe it will be nothing, maybe it will be something. But I'm one of those who might look for licensing and etc., but this issue never even went through my mind. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Even I don't see that image to be "too graphic". Wikipedia is not censored. But if the consensus was to remove the image, I'd abide by that. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Replacement photo

Meanwhile, I've added the James A. Merriman photo to Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection. Once protection has been applied, I'll upload it to the mainpage. Schwede66 22:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Already done, thanks. Great minds and all that. Stephen 22:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hook positions swapped and Merriman photo added. Schwede66 22:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Resubmitting a DYK

I recently expanded the Napoleonic looting of art article, and it has now passed GA status. The article previously failed the DYK process, about a year ago. I'd like to resubmit, but the nomination tool won't allow me to, since there's already a DYK template at Template:Did you know nominations/Napoleonic looting of art. What would be the best way to appropriately reopen/resubmit a DYK nomination? —Wingedserif (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wingedserif: try going through that process again—when you receive the error message, copy the wikitext it gives you into Template:Did you know nominations/Napoleonic looting of art 2 or something. Make sure to transclude the nompage to WP:DYKN and the article's talk page! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7 – 75 Wall Street

The lead hook in Prep 7 reads:

A few points:

  • First, the source says that Clarkson Crolius was a founder of Tammany Hall, not the founder; indeed, the extensive Tammany Hall article doesn't even mention Crolius. (How much do we trust the attributed curator in terms of detailed historical knowledge?) Also, the maker's mark on the crock was "C. Crolius", so to say in the article that it contained the name Clarkson Crolius is incorrect.
  • Second, I'm not sure what a "political ring" is, but it doesn't sound neutral; "political organization" is what the Tammany Hall article uses, and I'd recommend a change to that in both article and hook.
  • Third, the Tammany Hall article gives its founding as 1786 (and incorporation a few years later), when Crolius was still a minor. The badly undersourced Crolius article pegs him as Grand Sachem of Tammany Hall in 1811, when he laid the cornerstone of the first Tammany Hall building—this is 25 years after the founding and 22 years after incorporation. (The information in this bullet point is mentioned in online sources, such as this one.)
  • Finally, Crolius was indeed a manufacturer of stoneware, a business that his immigrant grandfather William (Johan Willem) started, father John continued, and son Clarkson Jr. closed down two years after Clarkson died, so a "C. Crolius" maker's mark makes perfect sense.

At a minimum, I'd change "the founder" to "a founder" and "political ring" to "political organization", but I find the curator's assertion as to Crolius being "a founder" dubious under the circumstances, and the article's use of "the founder" untenable. Perhaps a different hook could be used, or a source incorporated to back up the Grand Sachem fact, which might allow "linked with an early Grand Sachem of the Tammany Hall political organization?" (though "early" is one of those words that's hard to establish, so maybe not; perhaps "linked with a Grand Sachem" would be feasible).

Courtesy ping to nominators/creators Feminist and Epicgenius, reviewer Bahnfrend, and promoter Theleekycauldron. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the first point is my fault, as I did indeed mean to write "a founder". I've fixed that. However, I think saying "political organization" really downplays the role that Tammany Hall had in NYC's history; they were highly corrupt, something explained at length in Tammany's article, and the Tammany page itself says "ring" and "machine". Perhaps we can say:
– Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I'm happy with both hook modifications ("political machine" and "a leader"), since the former is much clearer and the latter is accurate. I am not, however, happy with article, which also needs to be accurate: the modification in the article of "established" to "helped establish" still doesn't appear to be true chronologically despite the source, and "Clarkson Crolius" is still not the actual mark on the three-gallon crock in question. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, OK, I have modified the article accordingly, mentioning that the mark was "C. Crolius" and that Crolius was a leader of Tammany Hall. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I modified the hook in prep and also made a further modification to the article. Unfortunately, your hook was subsequently moved six prep sets later by someone, which may end up delaying its appearance by as much as six days. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Should this hook be saved until April?

I'm seeing how people feel about Template:Did you know nominations/Utroba Cave running in April due to the possibility that our readership wouldn't like it on DYK during International Women's Month. I know we're not censored, but I don't feel like being on the receiving end of any backlash. Pinging nominator Bruxton and reviewer John M Wolfson. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: good call. very good call. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@SL93 and Theleekycauldron: I believe the cave was made to symbolize fertility and thus, ultimately, honor rather than disparage women. Forgive me if I am quite mistaken in that regard, but I think it would be a bit puritanical and misunderstanding of the cave's intent to hold it back for that reason. However, if consensus disagrees, we do have precedent of pulling a hook image depicting a nude prostitute in the spirit of not being gratuitous. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the people who would object to this will care whether it runs in March or in April. There will be some complaints, but they won't be connected to whether it is International Women's Month or not. —Kusma (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add something to either or both hooks that mentions the symbolize fertility aspect? Our readers aren't always known to read the actual articles before complaining. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Anyone with sufficient maturity would probably guess that it's about fertility, and anyone else who complains otherwise doesn't have complaints worth listening to, much less heeding. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I will promote it even in April because I really don't feel like dealing with any complaints no matter how stupid they are. It doesn't sound like a fun time. Theleekycauldron could or some other prep builder. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: hey, I got the Belle Delphine thing. It's your turn ;) (i'm only joking) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of that...and I personally found no issue with the image or hook. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I've finally had a look what the fuss is all about. Reminds me of Q31450610, which isn't artificial but natural and the vent is about 10 times as tall as the Utroba Cave. Here's a good photo. Would you like me to write an article about Red Crater (there's also a crater of that name in the USA but without an article yet), which is on the Tongariro Alpine Crossing? Schwede66 00:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why go that far? Just promote this hook yourself. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I see that you promoted it now and I think the one chosen is less likely to bring complaints, but I did see how theleekycauldron was dragged through the mud for a hook (and image) that I was fine with which is why I didn't want to touch this one. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I can certainly remember the blowback received by theleekycauldron. The Utroba Cave hook may trigger some editors / readers. I believe ALT1 is perfectly acceptable and if there's a bit of flak, I'm happy to take it. That said, I do invite comments from others who watch this page; the hook in question is in prep 7. Schwede66 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Honestly, I think you sidestepped the brunt of it well—promoting without the image and using the alternate, less interesting/more scientific hook will cool down a lot of potential blowback. Of course, it also decreases clickrate, but sometimes that's what we're supposed to do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the photo would last the whole distance of the DYK mainpage cycle. Schwede66 21:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Queues

@DYK admins: We have only two open queues, with one of them hitting the main page in around six hours. We have plenty of preps to start moving in with six and a half of them being full. Thanks for whoever does the moving because DYK wouldn't work without your help. SL93 (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Moscisca

Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Moscisca: nominated for her birthday on 15 March (which is today) it was approved on 4 March, but I lost track, sorry. While not daring to hope that she can appear today, I'd like to make sure that at least she'll make it in March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: put it in P7 for ya :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We're below 60! (?)

The readout is currently showing 57 approved hooks. Normally, that'd mean we'd switch back to 1-a-day, but a couple of things are keeping me from supporting that on a whim. First, around a dozen hooks are currently marked as "on hold" pending the above RfC—quite a few are going to be automatically re-approved if consensus is found in favour of option A or B. Plus, we're currently at six queues filled (and six-and-a-half filled preps), which is unusually high. So, the actual count is probably somewhere around 80–85 when the dust settles. Thoughts on whether we should switch anyway? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My feeling is that we shouldn't switch to one a day: it's only five days since we went over to two a day, and if the final prep (which should generally be kept open) wasn't already being filled, we'd still be above 60. The point behind going to two a day is to get a higher run rate to reduce the backlog, and running up the number of filled queues and preps from 7 to 12 (with a proportionate decrease in approved hooks) defeats the entire purpose of switching. However, we've set the numbers in stone, and I think we may be stuck with it. (It likely means an equally quick switch back to two a day in about a week's time.) Note that before any change is made, someone will need to check for special occasion hooks, one of which is in Prep 5. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Also the problem is April Fools Days is coming so we wouldn't change it before April 1. Thingofme (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Back at 68 now. We also have 10 or so approved April Fools noms. Best way forward is probably to just review a few noms instead of fiddling with the update rate. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
If we stay on two sets I request that the Prayer for Ukraine hook in prep 6 be swapped with Eleonore Schönborn in prep 7. After having waited weeks for a GA to appear, it should please not run in a set while Europe sleeps. Rather wait. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Grimes2, Schönborn is also your hook—are you okay with that swap? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm okay with that. Grimes2 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Akari Akase

Hello, I just made this nomination and if it's okay I'd like to request a quick review. I was wondering if, should the article be approved, that the article could go up on March 21, the birthday of Wakana Gojo (the protagonist of the anime My Dress-Up Darling, which the subject performed the ending theme for). It's okay if the request isn't approved, it was just a thought. Apologies for the urgency! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We've been very clear in the past that fictional character birthdays (usually attached to the actor portraying them) are not appropriate for DYK special occasions, and this is way more indirect than that. In my opinion, this does not qualify for a special occasion. Sorry, Narutolovehinata5. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I see. It's okay, it was just wondering if it would be allowed. Since the answer is no it can be reviewed regulaarly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on Ukraine and Russia hooks

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus that hooks related to Russia and Ukraine should be scrutinized more carefully for verifiability and neutrality than normal. However, with (by my count) thirty votes favoring option A and only seven favoring anything else, it is clear that the community overwhelmingly opposes any hard changes to our process. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Should articles related to Ukraine and Russia currently be eligible to appear on the main page through DYK? This is only about DYK and no other Wikipedia projects or even other language Wikipedias. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There has been back and forth commenting on the DYK talk page and elsewhere about which hooks related to Ukraine and Russia can be run. The argument is that the English Wikipedia shouldn't appear to be picking a side of an ongoing dispute. A hook that was brought up frequently is Template:Did you know nominations/Prayer for Ukraine which is an 1885 spiritual anthem. There are also Template:Did you know nominations/Yulia Tolopa, Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Snake Island, Template:Did you know nominations/MV Millennial Spirit, Template:Did you know nominations/Kyiv Offensive (2022), and Template:Did you know nominations/Russia (if the GA re-review passes). This is greater than only those who contribute to DYK so I feel that we need the community's input in relation to DYK on the main page. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Related nominations
(Did you know...)
  1. ... that the 1885 spiritual anthem Prayer for Ukraine (nom) was performed by a choir from New York on Saturday Night Live? (passed DYK criteria)
  2. ... that Yulia Tolopa (nom), a single mother from Russia, has fought for Ukraine in the War in Donbas since she was 18 years old? (passed DYK criteria)
  3. ... that not only Stsiapan Putsila (nom), but also the judge who refused to extradite him to Belarus, face criminal charges there? (passed DYK criteria, copyedited ALT needs reviewing)
  4. ... that florists in Russia (nom) can see a fifteenfold increase in profits on International Women's Day compared to other holidays? (pending result of GAR)
  5. ... that when a Russian warship asked the Ukrainian defenders of Snake Island (nom) to surrender, their response was "Go fuck yourself, Russian warship"? (awaiting QPQ)
  6. ... that the Russian crew of the MV Millennial Spirit (nom) were shelled and forced to abandon ship by a Russian warship? (review in progress)
  7. ... that on the first day of Russia's 2022 Kyiv Offensive (nom), the U.S. secretary of defense announced that Russian troops had advanced to within 20 miles of Kyiv? (stability concerns)
  8. ... that the Temporary Protection Directive (nom) was never used until the Ukrainian refugee crisis? (passed DYK criteria)
  9. ... that when Russia joined the Council of Europe (nom) in 1996, "no serious observer believed that it met the criteria for membership"? (passed DYK criteria)
  10. ... that since the start of the Russian invasion, over 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees (nom) have left Ukraine, the fastest-growing refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War? (passed DYK criteria)
  11. ... that when the Ivankiv Historical and Local History Museum was burned during the recent Battle of Ivankiv, artworks by Hanna Veres (nom) and Maria Prymachenko were destroyed? (passed DYK criteria)
  12. ... that Oleksandr Oksanchenko (nom) won the As the Crow Flies Award at the Royal International Air Tattoo in 2017? (passed DYK criteria)
  13. ... that the NewsFront (nom) website evaded a Facebook ban by posting its content at "mirror" URLs? (passed DYK criteria)
  14. ... that before Vladyslav Buialskyi (nom) sang the Ukrainian anthem with the Metropolitan Opera, he told his mother not to listen to the broadcast due to a power outage in her city of Berdiansk? (passed DYK criteria)
Options
A: Yes, as long as they meet DYK criteria
B: Yes, but not directly related to the conflict
C: Yes, but with a Ukraine hook and Russia hook paired in the same set
D: No to hooks that may seem like we're ignoring one side
E: A blanket ban on all but historical hooks that can't be thought to be promoted based on the conflict

Votes

  1. Support B, oppose C as per my comments in discussion section. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. Support A. If they meet the DYK criteria, they should be reliably sourced and neutral and not promote one side or the other. If the material is verified, if it is neutrally written and what is in the article is supported in the sources, if the sources are high-quality and reliable, and if the material is not presented in a way that injects humor into what is decidedly not a humorous situation (I think the terminology on DYK is "quirky") there should be no issues, as WP is not censored. Common sense would dictate that articles specifically analyzing the current conflict should be avoided, because it hasn't had time to be analyzed by experts and current news may or may not be reliable as it is an active situation. But, barring any article that is not specifically about the conflict and claiming that it is supporting a side simply because it is about Ukraine, Russia, a Ukrainian or a Russian is illogical. Analyzing every article and inappropriately looking at them through the lens of the current conflict would be violating our neutrality mandate to my mind. If we go down that road, since most nations have voiced an opinion on the invasion, wouldn't we have to avoid hooks on any subject from any country that has chosen a side? — which of course would then make moot the above suggestion for balancing a hook from each of the "sides". SusunW (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. Support A. As long as ITN keeps reporting updates in the situation, I see no reason why DYK can't post its own hooks. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support A per my previous comments. Also, in case i haven't been clear on this, C and D are false balance and I oppose them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  5. Support A, per SusunW. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    adding on IWD:
    • I show two women on my talk who didn't make it today, one from Russia and one from Ukraine, but at least both in prep.
    • I suggest we open a new topic where nominations that could be regarded as problematic are discussed individually. How a factual article about a 1885 piece of music would fall in that category I still don't see, but am willing to discuss if needed.
    • In response to a remark below: in a hook just mentioning Russia or Ukraine, the country would not be linked, so the state its article is in is not relevant for a hook. I try to avoid both, but can't change the title of the piece of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    quoting from my user page: the only real nation is humanity --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    We now have a hook about a singer from Russia on DYK, see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  6. Support A with caveats – this is generally where I land but it's not a !vote for a blanket approval on all affected hooks without additional special considerations. In particular, if Russia is kept at GAR, we need to think twice about running a hook like "Did you know that [quirky random fact about Russia]?" because that is the kind of business-as-usual distraction that the Russian government is attempting to push across its channels and I think there would be real and deserved blowback from readers. So I am settling on option A with the possibility of additional discussions about individual nominations, beyond this RfC. Also, strongly oppose C; false equivalence is not the way to go. DanCherek (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  7. Support B, if an article just happens to be about a Ukrainian or Russian subject but is not obviously about conflict, then in theory it should be fine. However, I'm wary of hooks that are obviously showing a particular side in a negative light, if only because non-Wikipedians may misinterpret our actions. In addition, one of the DYK guidelines suggests that we should avoid hook that clearly support one side of a debate regardless of our personal opinions, so this opinion is just following that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  8. Support A, per SusunW. And per our founder, who though, of course, not the ultimate authority, but is still a rather experienced and rightly influential editor.

    I think it isn't necessarily "taking a side in current events" to feature more relevant content in DYK in response to what is unquestionably a huge news story. I have not reviewed the content of the DYK line itself, but I don't see how the fact that there is a current conflict would change anything really - if it's neutral, then it's fine, and if it is not neutral, then it is not fine no matter when it might be proposed to run.
    — User:Jimbo Wales 08:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

    --GRuban (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  9. Support A, If it's as neutral as possible with all reliable sources, I see no issues. I'm not worried about non-Wikipedians being upset per what the media and social networks are already showing - which you can only not notice if you're basically a hermit. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  10. Support A, per DanCherek.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  11. Support B due to the ongoing conflict --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  12. Support A. WP:DYK is not WP:ITN. We don't need to, nor should we, restrict the presence of otherwise worthy front-page articles because we don't like seeing a bunch of new articles on related topics. If DYK reviewers are able to do their job and ensure that article sourcing is good, which I have confidence that they will, I see no issue. Allowing DYKs focused on Russia and Ukraine is also in line with the core value of Wikipedia to not censor a topic area simply because it is sensitive. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  13. Support A, with the explicit reminder of DYK eligibility criterion #4, within policy. Editors and reviewers must take care that articles featured on the Main Page (1) are about actually notable topics and not just flashes in the pan of the broader conflict and (2) do not repeat misinformation or propaganda. Editorial judgment is going to be crucial here. If something seems uncertain, wait for reliable sources, ideally more than one, to confirm it. That's generally only taken a day or two. And strongly oppose options C and D as well-intentioned but mislocating neutrality. Lagrange613 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  14. Support A All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited. Since Wikipedia articles are written from a netural point of view, as long as the hooks follow this idea, I don't see a problem with Russia or Ukraine hooks. Rlink2 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  15. Support A, with caveats. We need to be a lot more careful with hook construction here; no clickbait, no quirky hooks, no sensationalism, no cherry-picking. If the nominated articles are compliant with NPOV, and the hooks are strictly informative, then there's no reason to avoid them. In fact I'd say that avoiding the subject altogether isn't actually neutral; we should be presenting what the best sources say, as in any other situation. And while I recognize that this is the worst ongoing conflict, with perhaps the widest geopolitical implications, there's many other armed conflicts that are currently causing some of our readers distress; are we going to avoid them all? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  16. Support A, and Oppose C as false balance. However, we should be careful with this - we shouldn't be basing DYK hooks or articles on rumor/hearsay/potential propaganda, and we should only be running straightforward hooks about this - none of the clickbaity or quirkier stuff that's more popular for DYK subjects. Hog Farm Talk 04:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Hog Farm and Vanamonde93: trying to get a feel for your position, then, how do you feel about the Snake Island hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    I'd say that if the article were stable, I would have no problem featuring it, but the hook strikes me as one that's trying to make a point, and I would recommend against that. FTR, I'm aware stability isn't a DYK criterion, but if an article is changing quickly enough that the version we'd feature on the main page is substantially different than the one reviewed, it's a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    While I don't see a large issue with the hook there, I'm also fairly pro-Ukraine here, so I may not be a wholly neutral commenter. I think there would have to be a source review of the article (are we citing only sources with an axe to grind, or are there third-party sources in there, as well as source reliability). I do think Vanamonde makes a good point about stability, and given the nature of (sometimes intentional, sometimes not) misinformation going around with these subjects, I think we should definitely be waiting for several weeks after the event to main page it. For instance, with the Snake Island one, consider the difference in the article content back when it was thought the guards were dead, when now we know there POWs. I'm not sure why List of last stands is still linked as a see also, given that doesn't seem to be relevant given what we now know about it. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  17. Support A, but triply scrutinise any article or hook that would be prohibited by B for WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  18. Support A, with the disclaimer that I've got skin in the game, having nominated MV Millennial Spirit for DYK. I do think that the reviews of articles related to the subject should be scrutinized more closely, reviewed more thoroughly, and polished a bit shinier in order to ensure that they meet or exceed DYK guidelines. It'd be ignorant to believe that these articles wouldn't be subject to greater scrutiny, so they should be treated carefully, but not disallowed. It's my belief that choosing not to take a stance is taking a stance in and of itself. Censoring DYK submissions by not allowing certain topics to be published on the first page violates Wikipedia's neutrality. If there is an influx of content in a certain area, for whatever reason, and more editors are inclined to submit DYKs for that topic, then we should not curtail that, merely ensure that every DYK submitted meets quality standards. Fritzmann (message me) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  19. Support E - I have to assume that few contributors here also look at how people respond to DYKs, while I will every week or two check the Twitter mentions; flames break out over some really benign hooks that just are highlighting something some people don't want to see talked about. So imagine backlash here. We have to remember that DYK is not considered a fundamental part of WP, but is beneficial in converting readers to editors, and we should try to protect it, really, first and foremost. If excluding some subjects for a while is a "rather safe than sorry" approach, I see no issue with that - because we can also note that being nominated does not denote that the article has to appear on DYK, anyway.
    I agree with several people above that C and D are unfavourable options. I would think that A is also obviously unfavourable - if anything, we are not the news, either, and may want to hold off on posting things that may yet change massively, like two of the noms concerned in particular (Snake Island and Kyiv Offensive).
    I think that B is the only other option (besides E) that is reasonable, and I would support it as long as there is scrutiny and then overwhelming agreement that the hook is suitable - if it decided that criteria-meeting non-conflict Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian hooks can proceed, we should not just then wave them all through (i.e. with potentially inflammatory hooks getting passed because nominators don't want to change it and argue "but the RfC agreed they can appear") Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Kingsif: I have to disagree with your statement that we should take into account how people off-site will react to DYK hooks. Wikipedia is not censored by social media, and we should not change our policies because of some buzz on twitter. Your point that DYK is not the news certainly holds merit, and I agree that rapidly shifting articles should not be featured. However, that is not exclusive to coverage of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Any article can be unstable because more information is certain to be released. If that is a concern, which I think it probably is, then we should have a separate RfC which deals with that issue. Fritzmann (message me) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Fritzmann2002: As DYK is one way a lot of readers become editors, the readers' impression of DYK is quite important - social media being one of few ways to gauge this, do you want to send out a survey. In short: the DYK section is not part of the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia, it is actively promoting curated content to readers; I am not suggesting censorship, I'm suggesting mindfulness.
    Readers can expect to find cold hard facts that don't care about timeliness in an encyclopedia, but they are somewhat aware that a recent decision (and many assume it is an overarching editorial decision) has put the pushy DYK "fun facts" up on the MP. If the dictionary.com website were to make something like "antitank missile" or "surrender" its entry of the day right now, would you judge them? Yeah, probably. But where that website does not get its content from glorified readers, at Wikipedia, if readers don't become editors because of a DYK they don't like, Wikipedia suffers - or if readers do become editors specifically because of it, so they can lobby against putting insensitive facts on the MP, even if that doesn't go through (though there has been internal objection to DYK, especially with more boring hooks), we have to deal with more disruption.
    The purpose of DYK isn't, actually, putting everything up there, and we can and should use discretion.
    As for stability - we get lots of articles that "aren't quite finished", because of the newness requirement. I think it is fine to put up new articles, even those on recent subjects, as long as they are not "developing". Perhaps more information will come, that's fine. What is not fine is when new information comes that completely negates what went before, either during the nom process or very likely to come afterwards. Everything written as fact in the current events articles could prove to be completely false next week, and then your hook is wrong and that's just the start of the issues.
    My gut reaction to this concept was a hell no, and the more you look at the angles rather than focus on principles of being inclusive, the bigger this can of worms is. I think it's unwise, but we have to let the closer weigh my arguments against the line other people are going with. Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  20. Support B, possibly a more restrictive version (i.e. not related to the active phase of the conflict beginning with 2022). So that would mean 1 to 3 would work, but no 4 to 6. This is primarily because our inability to practically enforce NPOV due to ongoing media campaigns. If the Snake Island DYK would have got promoted early, WP would have claimed 13 soldiers died there (because the opposite was only supported by Russian media, which is currently unusable per WP:RSN decisions), though all parties agreed some days later that none of them did.Anonimu (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  21. Support A, though we should be very careful to make sure the hooks meet all the requirements (including verifiability and NPOV). We should be especially careful about hooks sourced to recent news reports, as they can often be unreliable (though that might be a general principle for DYK, not specific to this conflict). I also agree with User:Vanamonde93's comment above – we should avoid sensationalism or misleading clickbait in these hooks. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  22. Support A with extra scrutiny--hooks should be as neutral as possible. I am not concerned about the "wave them all through" scenario Kingsif anticipates--that seems extremely unlikely given that these hooks will, as is already happening, get added attention, not less. blameless 00:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  23. A. People are looking for articles about this region and this war, and as long as they meet our quality requirements, nothing else matters. Sandstein 12:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  24. A or B. An overly broad rule about all Ukraine- or Russia-related topics will not be of help. Many Russians oppose the imperialist war that Putin has chosen to initiate. Many Ukrainians do not support either the Ukrainian state or another administration that claims control over them. Russian and Ukrainian culture is not offensive to learn about and recognise on our front page. Contemporary hooks that are extremely time-sensitive and POV hooks are not welcome at DYK anyway. — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  25. Support Option 1; the articles listed aren't harmful, rather simply aknowlegding awareness. Panini! • 🥪 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  26. A per Vanamonde and SusunW. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  27. B per Joseph2302 and Narutolovehinata. If DYK policies were applied stringently and hooks properly scrutinised (per Kusma and Vanamonde), I would be supporting A, but I don't believe that reviewers will always manage to spot/call out sensationalism. 15 (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  28. Support A I have proposed an alternative to B or E in the section below, but for the time being neither seems properly enforceable and will likely be more trouble than it’s worth. For now, I will simply assume that the DYK reviewers are able to scrutinize Russia/Ukraine topics very carefully to ensure NPOV, V, and RS are upheld. (COI note that I have gotten a conflict-related DYK on the main page already, before the war began: 2022 Ukraine cyberattacks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadspike (talk • contribs) 09:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  29. A, of course, and ensure the articles actually meet core content policies before promoting (actually, not perfunctorily). If you feel like looking at DYK through a "both sides" lens and think that one side is underrepresented, the answer is to start writing more articles and sending them through DYK. Most of this seems to be based on various degrees of false balance, either by presenting both together or omitting both. When one country invades another, it's not appropriate to say to the invaded country "oops, you're in a conflict now, and it wouldn't be fair to the other side if we link to a story about someone who lives there". Even if the circumstances were different, I don't think we should get into the habit of disqualifying hooks because of ongoing conflict. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  30. Strongly oppose C and to a less extend D per Hog Farm -- this is just staking out a position even more strongly than just running neutrally worded hooks about one side or another would be. Inclined towards A but with extra scrutiny towards any articles directly about the 2022 conflict, which is an incredibly fast-moving news environment with emotions running high. I would generally avoid running anything which the news cycle has not had at least a week or two to digest in this kind of situation, and wouldn't be opposed to B for at least a month or two. Rusalkii (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  31. Support A per SusunW. Oppose C as false equivalence. If the result of this RFC is that some hooks cannot be used (B-E) I suggest they be eligible to run once the conflict ends despite not being new then, because they were prevented from running now. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  32. Support B - Not everyone who comes to the main page knows what to expect from the various categories and sections they see presented there. Option B allows DYK to continue its good work while ITN covers the current conflict. Oppose C per various above. Retswerb (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Retswerb: it's worth noting that ITN typically covers much broader-concept articles than DYK, which runs a lot more human-interest and minutia. They'd never have a way to mention any of the facts in the hooks currently up for discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron: Noted, and I actually think that puts a finger on what matters to me here. Our writing about the conflict will be linked to via ITN in a general sense, and it's the possible prioritization or platforming of minutia related to the conflict that makes me oppose seeing this content in DYK. Retswerb (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Retswerb: well, i can certainly respect that, even if I have a different opinion of what DYK's role should be. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  33. First choice B, second choice A. We can be neutral and sensible without rubbing people's noses in it. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  34. Support A. I think it would be best to try to limit articles related to the conflict to one or two hooks per DYK cycle. Thriley (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  35. Support A, per SusunW. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  36. Support A If folks want to write about topics, let them. Telling folks they can't get a DYK because of real world events is a surefire way to create a morass of bureaucracy and drive away contributors. Plus, our readers will thank us for writing more about Ukraine or Russia, since they are currently a very popular topic and folks would like to learn more. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  37. Support A with carefulness - in effect, can edit without limitation, otherwise we're not really being NOTCENSORED. A de facto limit to one hook on the conflict/queue, as is usually the case for any topic. Additionally, a careful extra glance is worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  38. Oppose C I think we just proceed as usual - which I guess is A. Though I'm not sure I agree that strict neutrality has to be maintained. Even Switzerland hasn't maintained neutrality. It's pretty clear one side is very much in the wrong about invading it's neighbours. Sure, be professional and encyclopaedic. Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  39. Support A: per SusunW and Vanamonde. DYK hooks should remain, as always, neutrally worded and be well sourced. It is against Wikipedia policy to censor information. Some of the hooks identified above are not even about the conflict...Vladyslav Buialskyi, Oleksandr Oksanchenko, NewsFront (website), and Stsiapan Putsila. TJMSmith (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  40. Support A Business as usual is always the best approach to take lest we end up with hysteria like 9/11 and COVID. More scrutiny is probably appropriate lest we end up with another Snake Island/American Bounty in Afghanistan story (the latter, despite being ultimately disproven, was almost run at ITN) or "Ukraine is run by Nazis", or what have you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  41. Support A and please take the hold off these timely articles. We already require that articles and hooks be NPOV. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    @HouseOfChange: wish I could, but running a hook requires consensus—usually, that's achieved via consensus of reviewer, promoter, and admin, but since all the hooks are up for discussion, there's no consensus to run the hooks until someone finds that consensus by closing this. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron: Apologies if I mistakenly sounded as if I was complaining about anything you did--I was not! What I meant was, somebody please follow consensus to snow-close this RfC so that all relevant holds can be removed. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    @HouseOfChange: ah, gotcha! definitely agree :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  42. Support A. We should just proceed as usual. SunDawntalk 04:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Ukraine/Russia RfC)

  • Comment: not weighing in just yet, but Attack on Snake Island (nom) is also affected. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. I added it to the top. SL93 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the above RfC subsections are also missing the option of a simple "Yes" without any caveats at all. There may be editors who believe that any Russia/Ukraine hook can run regardless of the ongoing conflict as long as they meet the DYK criteria. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    Done. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • (With a disclaimer - this is not aimed at SL93 - the quote is a description of the argument made by other people in many areas involving politics) - "The argument is that the English Wikipedia shouldn't appear to be picking a side of an ongoing dispute." And this is an argument that should be rejected absolutely for the reason its apologism and implies there are equal sides to this 'dispute'. Rather than (as reliable sources report) an invasion of one country by another with ongoing issues by one side, targeting of civilian infrastructure, rampant disinformation, mass arrests of civilian dissent etc etc. The alternative is not 'picking a side'. The alternative is covering the invasion in a way that abides by our existing sourcing rules. "Dont pick a side" is the argument we see most often in politics from right-wing and other far-right persons who dont like their constant lying and anti-social actions being called out. *Not* covering this issue only enables the side who wants to hide their actions. The idea that 'equal weight' should be applied is overwhelmingly against our policies, as well as being immoral and unethical. Since Putin likes to claim he is fighting against Nazis, we wouldnt dream of insisting that for every Jewish article we offer a Nazi point of view. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm confused on where the correct place to vote on this is, but my preference is "Yes, but not directly related to the conflict". We don't post articles on political people/events in the run up to elections, and this seems like a similar case, especially if we're posting about ongoing battles in the conflict. "Yes, but with a Ukraine hook and Russia hook paired in the same set" seems wrong to me, as that seems like we're just trying to artificially "balance things out", and if it's a nomination about a recent battle, which many of these are, then how would that even apply? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment As I noted above in earlier discussions, one possible compromise could be to always pair a Russian hook with a Ukrainian one or vice-versa, with the order even being mixed up depending on the set in order for us not to give the impression that we're pushing one side over the other. I do not have any comment on most of the hooks (except that the hook currently proposed for Russia, which was intended for IWD, is likely not to pass in time) other than I have the feeling that either of the Tolopa hooks, especially ALT1, would be too provocative in the current environment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron and SL93: Other articles that would be affected by this discussion include Template:Did you know nominations/MV Millennial Spirit and Template:Did you know nominations/Kyiv Offensive (2022). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment on RfC format: My understanding is that RfCs generally begin with a brief statement about the subject on which comment is requested, usually phrased as a question. I'm having trouble finding that here. Maybe something like "Should articles related to Ukraine and Russia currently be eligible to appear on the main page through DYK?" with a series of possible responses (yes unequivocally, yes with caveat A, yes with caveat B, no, etc)? If I'm somewhat active on DYK and not sure what I'm supposed to say here, I doubt someone coming via FRS would know where to begin. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I will work on that now. I never started a RFC before, but I was frustrated that no one else has so far after so much discussion. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
ezlev: looks like the format's been cleaned up a little bit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, if an article passes the DYK requirements, it is supposed to be neutral and well-sourced, so it shouldn’t seem like Wikipedia is taking a side. If it does, that’s a content issue and not a policy issue. My only other thought regarding this is that if A is implemented, maybe there should be a cap on the number of Russia/Ukraine articles in any given day’s DYK section; what *could* be framed as NPOV is if, hypothetically, 80% of a day’s DYK is about the war. Toadspike (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think restricting it to "articles about Russian or Ukrainian topics that were notable before" is a good compromise regardless of which option you support. In the past few weeks there have been a lot of interesting new articles being created about Ukrainian culture that have nothing to do with the invasion – for example, Kernosovskiy idol – and I don't see any benefit in preventing these from being featured. DanCherek (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess it might work better to require that the topic existed before the conflict, even if it didn't have an article yet. That would exclude articles about recent battles, for instance, but would allow Kernosovskiy idol. Not sure I would support this, but it would probably be better than excluding new articles altogether. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
We should probably make sure no prep area is more than 50% Russia/Ukraine hooks, the same way we avoid having preps that are more than 50% US hooks or more than 50% biographies. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: I'd be surprised if we put more than two in a set, to be honest. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian on MP

as usual

The comment "we should proceed as usual" seems to summarize what many feel. How is this: we pick one hopefully uncontroversial hook to here, ask if there are any opposes, and if not bring it to a prep, then the next? We will not want to drown readers with a flood of hooks when the RfC closes, better only one per set. I suggest this one which I reviewed:

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.

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived several days ago, so here's a new list covering nominations until February 28. We currently have a total of 244 nominations, of which 109 have been approved, a gap of 133, up by one since the last such list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

More than two weeks old

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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Inter-prep image balance and Women's History Month

Per some discussion on my talk page (→), I think it's a good idea to waive the "no bio images in-a-row" rule for images of women during March. We have an influx of images of women right now, and I'd like to be able to use as many as possible. By way of name-dropping, SL93 and Gerda Arendt agreed as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need to? There are 13 approved hooks with women's photos, and 16 more days in March (or 32 sets). Indeed, going every third hook with a woman's photo would seem to be a reasonable frequency, and would keep the hooks from appearing in the same 12-hour time period each day. Are there no more hooks of flora and fauna, mountains and buildings, sea and sky? Having a few women left over for April seems a good idea, because we don't only want to run women's images in March. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
no, it's not a necessity at the moment. But I do want to avoid a scenario in which we have too many images we want to run before March ends, and inter-prep set balance rules put off images into April unwillingly. I'd also like to point out that nothing in WP:DYK, WP:DYKSG, or WP:DYKNN specifically bars this, as far as I can tell. I'm sure there's some rough-consensus discussion somewhere I'm missing, and we don't have to start jamming bio images next to each other right now. However, I really don't think it's a terrible idea to simply remember that this is something we may end up bumping up against in the coming weeks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5 - Green Line Extension

@Pi.1415926535 and Theleekycauldron: I'm fine with this either way. There's room in that hook to add a location name, if you like. "Green Line Extension" is a pretty common term for mass transit lines in populated areas. Just thought I'd mention it. — Maile (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy as is. I write hooks to pique interest - sometimes being deliberately vague - rather than including every detail. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thumbs up Great! — Maile (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Problematic entry

Hello, not a regular poster on Wikipedia at all but I like to look at the "Did you knows" regularly. To the topic, I feel like the entry: "... that due to variable endings of the ballet Swan Lake, Bolshoi Ballet dancer Anna Nikulina has been killed in Moscow, married to the prince in Kazan, and left alone on the lake in Chelyabinsk?"

Is a little bit misleading, I feel like adding something like says to be or something because it misleads you into thinking that it actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.234.42.10 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Queue 7 - two Anglo-Zulu war hooks in same set

Just checking if there was a deliberate reason for this, or if it was just an oversight? I think normally we wouldn't have two hooks on the same topic within a set, although correct me if I'm wrong! Pingin @Theleekycauldron and BlueMoonset: as primary set builders in this case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: that's my oversight, sorry! If you could swap it with the "Bacau Airport" hook in P6... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
OK  Done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with NPOV issues

I have recently reviewed my first nomination with NPOV issues, Template:Did you know nominations/Trial of Neumann and Sass. I am discussing the POV of the article on the talk page, but I am not sure what level of NPOV issues would make the article unsuitable for DYK. The earliest available version was almost entirely sourced to Lithuanian language sources and inherited their point of view and I have only changed around 10% of the article since then. Could someone take a look at the Trial of Neumann and Sass article and talk page especially Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass#More NPOV examples and advise what I should do next? Perhaps I should ask for a second review of the nomination. TSventon (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to defer to another reviewer, you can add a comment to the nomination and substitute the {{subst:DYK?again}} template, it will create the icon and indicate that a new review is requested. DanCherek (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I see you are involved in DYK, if possible, please could you expand on what level of NPOV issues are acceptable in a DYK article and hook? WP DYK says "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy", but I don't know how strictly that is enforced for DYK. TSventon (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
DanCherek, I couldn't get the template to work, but typing "again" seems to have. TSventon (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I did some copyediting for tone and neutrality. It could certainly be more balanced (with additional sources) but I feel it's passable now. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Queue/6 – James Clark (Jesuit)

Maybe I'm missing the significance but to me, this reads like two random and unrelated facts mixed together to make a bland hook: ... that James Clark was the second graduate of West Point to convert to Catholicism?

Unless others can educate me why that's unusual or interesting, how about making a hook from one of these article facts?

  • he lost more than one job for being too strict.
  • the College of the Holy Cross, one of the oldest Catholic college in the United States, got chartered under his leadership.
  • Gonzaga College nearly folded after he moved it from central Washington to the outskirts of the city.

Thoughts? Ping to those involved – User:Ergo Sum, User:Hawkeye7, User:Theleekycauldron. Schwede66 20:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What are the odds that you can run an educational institution for nearly a century and be able to count the number of Catholic graduates on your fingers? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
You have to go and look up that the United States Military Academy was founded in 1802. Clark converted to Catholicism in 1834. Yeah, ok, that's not many. It also says that he is the second known convert and that can be interpreted to mean that graduates converting to Catholicism is so not noteworthy that it does not get recorded. "What are the odds that you can run an educational institution for nearly a century and be able to count the number of Catholic graduates on your fingers?" is a great soundbite but where is that rarity explained? Not in the Clark or United States Military Academy articles, it seems. Schwede66 21:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that it is not the article/this humble editor that connects the two facts, but the source to which the article cites. So that author, at least, thinks it is a noteworthy factoid. I don't aim to suggest it is a terribly important fact, but I think it's certainly an interesting one. Quirkiness is the lifeblood of DYK. Ergo Sum 23:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Not really a synonym but one possible suggestion would be changing the hooks to say "that Gonzaga College almost closed after James Clark...", or perhaps mentioning "financial trouble" instead. Though I don't really see the issue with the term "bankrupting" (except maybe they never actually filed for bankruptcy?". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Right, I wanted to close this out and go with ALT1. The article says: "The relocation of the school proved to be disastrous and nearly resulted in its closure." The reference that goes with the article (currently #28; links to the history section of the school's website) has this to say: "At times, our location was seen as a liability." That's a far cry from a near closure, at least based on that particular source (there's also a book written about the school but it is not referenced here and offline, so I can't check what it says). Based on that, ALT1 to ALT3 are not viable. Schwede66 19:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Did you mean to say ALT2 and ALT3? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
no, they're all dead in the water, it seems. I could try toning it down:
but... y'know. yawn. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
It's interesting that a hook, which I agree is bland, received 3,589 views in a 12-hour DYK cycle. Very cool. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Not too shabby! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Bach's birthday 21 March

I wrote an article for it, nominated and approved in time, Template:Did you know nominations/Stephan MacLeod, but then forgot. Any chance to swap it in for tomorrow? Unfortunately I can't offer one of "mine" this time. - I'm a bit overwhelmed by feeling I have an article about someone who died every day, unplanned and sad, - please forgive my lack of attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's ready for promotion, so I've put it in prep 6 (bumped Schönborn again)—if one of our DYK admins is so inclined, they should swap it with the Albert Smijers hook in queue 5. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thank you, both! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

A new reviewer is needed at Template:Did you know nominations/Transquaking River. Seddon has been editing and hasn't returned to the nomination after I asked them on March 9 if a new reviewer was needed. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What is a DYK? nominator supposed to do if it looks like maybe a DYK? Reviewer might have abandoned the final step?

Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Bishop (cave explorer)...I think all of the Reviewer's concerns have been addressed (on March 13th), everything looks fine, they've edited since then (on March 14th) but haven't heard from them re: this DYK? nom since the 13th. Am I just supposed to wait for them to come back and finish someday? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I've sent out another ping to the reviewer, just in case it slipped their mind—let me know if they don't make a reappearance, I'll verify that you fixed the problems myself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Shearonink: if another week goes by without the reviewer returning, please post here so someone else can finish up the review. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron Maile66 Thank you both - appreciate your responses. I confess, I've been checking several times a day...I'll keep a more-casual eye on the Template and if nothing happens within a week from their last post on the Template I will pop back on here. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron Maile66: Well, I think it's been a week. Ivar the Boneful's most recent Wikipedia edit was on March 14th, their last edit to Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Bishop (cave explorer) was on March 13th. I've left a note on their User talk page & leekycauldron pinged them as well. Is it time yet for someone else to finish up the DYK-Review for Stephen Bishop (cave explorer)? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
ticked! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/International Habitation Module

Is anyone here willing to take a look at this and give an opinion about the suitability of the hooks proposed? Some of the hooks are planned for AFD and time is running out if any of them are going to make it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5: a few work as quirkies, but I don't think this is suitable for AFD, honestly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Regardless if any hooks run on AFD or not a new opinion on the hooks would still be greatly appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Siddington, Gloucestershire prep 5

Shouldn't the Siddington hook use plural ("lock flights") like so: ... that the lock flights (pictured) in Siddington, Gloucestershire, have lain abandoned for almost 100 years, but are part of a plan to be restored? Schwede66 02:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I don't see why not, but MIDI would know better than I do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The article uses lock flight. I would just wait for MIDI to respond...especially because it's in the very last prep. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A lock flight is a group of locks over a short distance. There is one flight at Siddington, which comprises four locks - so "lock flights" would be incorrect in this instance as it would imply multiple groups of locks. Hope this makes sense :) MIDI (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks, MIDI. Schwede66 07:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Two queues filled, with one of them hitting main page soon

We need more preps moved. Thanks in advance. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: We now have only one filled queue. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: we're about to burn through our last queue—someone, please? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I was moving one while you wrote. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
And that's on excellent timing :) Amakuru just moved two, so we're good for, well, another half hour, I guess. I'm going to bed, I'll help refill the preps tomorrow morning. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 1: Bare-headed laughingthrush (nom)

I mean, I suppose it is interesting that someone would find a bird-call funny, but a plain descriptor of something as "funny" might not get people bowled over on its own. I proposed an idea for a hook on the nom page, but since it was ignored, I'll put it here on interestingness grounds:

  • ... that the calls of the bare-headed laughingthrush include a harsh queer-queer-hoop-hoop-hoop and a yow-yow, the latter of which having been described as "comical"?

Speaking of which, the "comical" quote in the article isn't attributed inline, and I feel like it should be?

Anyways, mix and match from the article, but I found it pretty hilarious to read through those transcriptions the first time around. might be just me. Pinging @AryKun, Kavyansh.Singh, and SL93: as nominator, reviewer, and promoter (and apologies if I'm being badgery about this!) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, but "comical" is directly cited at the end of that sentence. "When the song is given in a duet, the ooh notes (thought to be given by males) are accompanied by loud, "comical" yow-yow or woh-woh notes or a loud, grating, mewing weeah (both thought to be given by females)." with a citation right after. SL93 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
yep, you're right on the attribution. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Even I'm fine either way. Though another suggestion would be to remove that comical thing in the proposed hook. I'm not sure if that is necessary then (well, queer-queer-hoop-hoop-hoop and a yow-yow) is interesting enough to gain attention! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be out of quirky hooks

We're at, like, 62, and we seem to have not a single hook I'd be comfortable using as a quirky among them. Pinging @97198 and SL93 as the other recently active prep builders. Perhaps we can get that International Habitation Module hook above, although that's only one and we need three. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The times are not for quirkyness, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: So, these two Jewish scholars, Eliyahu HaNavi of legend and Rabbi Broka, they're walking in a marketplace. Eliyahu points out these two clowns. "You see them?" he says. "They're going to olam haba". Rabbi Broka, psyched about this declaration, runs over to the clowns to ask them what great thing they must have done. As it turned out, they weren't miracle workers or charity organizers; they just went around, cheering people up when they looked sad, resolving disputes with humour and silliness. Just for that, this legendary prophet declared that they'd be happy in the world to come.
My apologies for the roundabout—such is the education I got in my home :) what I'm trying to say is that now is actually an important time for humour and levity (in a tactful way). Over the next week, we're going to run hooks about backsliding democracies, war, oppression, refugees—I think that it's of the utmost importance that for those who want to laugh instead of fume, we give them something too. The internet and social-media are well-known for their ability to inspire fear and sadness. Let's not be a part of that problem by saying "the times are not for quirkyness". The times need quirkyness. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC) yeesh, that was longer than I meant it to be.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Nothing wrong with cheering up people, just when I finished the articles about those who died I'm tired. I read a good line yesterday, about beauty helping in a fragile world, that line written in 2014, and I saw the site yesterday, and today, it's dead (to me at least). Tarasenko, Larysa (18 March 2022). "Cipollino as a source of joy / The National Opera of Ukraine held a charity performance for children refugees from the ATO area and occupied Crimea". day.kyiv.ua. Retrieved 20 March 2022. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron We could look for unreviewed quirky hooks and place them here to be reviewed. SL93 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There's no requirement for the last hook of the set to be quirky- if there aren't quirky hooks available, just use normal hooks? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Whose to say there aren't any quirky hooks when many hooks haven't been reviewed? It's not a requirement, but it's been standard practice for years. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There's no available i.e. reviewed quirky hooks, seems wrong to quick-promote hooks just because they're considered quirky. Because this just means other approved hooks just have to wait ages. Although people keep doing this with US hooks (demanding a quota that doesn't exist, and is a recommendation if and only if there are lots of US hooks), so I assume I'll be ignored... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
In either case, those hooks would still have to wait longer because of the standard practice that has been in place for years for the last slot. So it's the same case in a normal situation. SL93 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I reviewed a quirky one (before I saw this): Template:Did you know nominations/KPHO-TV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The only other option would be to hold a discussion about removing the quirky hook concept. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
for the reasons i expressed above, quirky hooks are incredibly important to me, and I'd go so far as to say that I wouldn't build preps without them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Quirky hooks are expected, but if they aren't available, then an ordinary hook can be used (see WP:DYKSG#J7). Shortages happen, and they usually solve themselves over time. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Locsin filmography

I've just reviewed this nomination. While reviewing it, I realized that Locsin's birthday (April 23) is approaching. While it was over six weeks from the date of the nomination (March 6), it is within six weeks of the date of the review (today, March 22). Would it be possible for the usual six-week requirement to be waived in this case and for the hook to appear on April 23, perhaps even as the lead hook? If we're doing two-sets-a-day, we could even have the hook go up for the first set since that would correspond to morning-to-evening of the 23rd in the Philippines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I always thought the six weeks count from being approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:DYK states this (emphasis mine): The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The page also says that the six-week maximum can be waived if consensus agrees with it via a WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It would have my blessing, no time for peanuts. The guideline ("should be", not "must be") doesn't make any sense for an article which was not nominated with a date in mind, but the special date found only afterwards. By the way, please check open nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Merseburger and Template:Did you know nominations/Chanson à bouche fermée. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is now eight days old, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 20. We currently have a total of 183 nominations, of which only 52 have been approved, a gap of 131, down 2 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than four months old

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

—BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2022‎ (UTC)

  • 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Prayer for Ukraine

Prayer for Ukraine is scheduled for tomorrow, 23 March. I just created Ukrainian Chorus Dumka of New York to which the hook's "a choir from New York" could by linked. The long name results from how the many recent sources call them, - the "of New York" is not really part of their name, but here we go per "common name", or not? Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've linked it. Gerda Arendt, could you please add project tags so that interested parties get informed with a chance of improving this article further before it goes to the MP? Schwede66 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, next thing to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

At 55 approved hooks now

We are now at 55 approved hooks so do we move to one a day sets? SL93 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: I was gonna say... yeah, it's time to switch. Yes, we have five filled queues, but I'm about to promote a bunch more and we really are below 60 this time. @DYK admins: sometime after midnight UTC (almost four hours from now), please change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. I'm not seeing any s.o. hooks in the queues or preps, although I'll ping BlueMoonset if they want to take another gander. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think its time too. Not that my opinion means much compared to DYK experts such as y'all, but that's what I think. Rlink2 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Definitely time to switch. There aren't any special occasion hooks that I can see, beyond the Women's History Month ones which don't depend on the exact date and are all set to run during March. There is one unpromoted Women's History Month hook that will need to added to a set prior to the AFD set currently being built. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, who will hopefully take care of this if no one has done so before she next logs on. Thanks to whoever does take care of the switchover. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's now set to one update per day. Please say if any special occasion shuffling is necessary. Schwede66 04:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I'm not seeing anything that needs shuffling; but there are hooks in the SOHA and DYKAPRIL that now need to be promoted. The ones I can't promote, I've left below. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion nominations I can't promote

There's a couple of time-sensitive nominations I'm not able to handle, could someone help out? Pinging @SL93 and Rlink2, Kavyansh is on break at the moment. Thanks in advance :)

User:Theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I promoted the first two, but the last one is a Women's Month hook relating to West Wing TV show, but the only slot remaining for March also has a West Wing hook. What to do?
Also thanks for fixing my talk page ;) Rlink2 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rlink2: Happy to! :D Okay, so, Ainsley Hayes. This one gets a little deep into the art of prep shuffling, so bear with me. If you can't put her in Prep 1, you're going to want to find an earlier prep for which you can take out a hook, move it somewhere else, and put Hayes in its stead. Note that there's no room in Prep 1 for any bio hooks at all, much less another West Wing character.
So, going up the list from P1, next is Prep 7. you can't put Hayes in Prep 7, because it already has four biographical hooks—since you can't put more than 4 bio hooks in a set without putting two next to each other, that leaves you stuck. So, next is prep 6- it looks like it has 3 bio hooks, and one is in the image slot, giving you room for one more.[a] You're going to have to re-arrange a couple of hooks to make room for the last one without putting two bio hooks next to each other—but if you swing it right, you can take out one non-bio hook, put it in prep 1, and insert Hayes in the spot in which it used to be. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Or... coming back to this one, you could actually just find a U.S. bio somewhere higher up in the preps (I'm sure there's on in prep 7), put it in the basically-empty P3, and replace that with Hayes. It's less optimal, but it works just fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron
I promoted it to prep 7, I changed stuff around so the bio hooks dont touch each other. I assumed "bio hooks" meant that its specifically about a person (ex: "Bethoveen" made the song ode to joy) rather than a non living object/thing (ex: the song "ode to joy" was sung by bethoveen). Not real DYK hooks, just examples, but they illustrate the point.
It's less optimal, but it works just fine. Well, that could work, but I tried the "better" but more complex option first. If that doesn't work we can just do the 2nd one. Rlink2 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rlink2: as it turns out, that didn't work out; don't worry, you did what I outlined perfectly. The screw-up was entirely my fault. What ended up happening was that even though there were four u.s. and four bio hooks in the set, there was no way to arrange it that didn't stick two U.S. or bio hooks against each other. I did a cursory test when I wrote the first thing, and I thought I saw a way around that one; as it turns out, i was mistaken. I ended up taking the other U.S. bio in that set and swapping it with a non-U.S. bio in P1, and now everything's back to normal. good work, and sorry about that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, good to know. But in the future, just so I'm clear on the rules - is it that:
U.S. hooks cant be placed next to bio hooks or U.S. hooks, and bios cant be placed next to other bios or U.S. hooks
... or is it ...
US hooks cant be placed next to U.S. hooks but can be placed next to bios, and bios cant be placed next to bios but can be placed next to U.S. hooks?
Thanks for the assumption of good faith as always. I really appreciate the advice and help. Rlink2 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Rlink2, it's that bio hooks should not be adjacent to other bio hooks, and U.S. hooks should not be adjacent to other U.S. hooks. If you have a U.S. bio hook, it can't be next to either a U.S. hook or a bio hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset Ok this makes sense. Rlink2 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Since the image (top) and quirky (bottom) slots can't be rearranged within the course of normal shuffling in a prep set, at least one of the two needs to be a bio hook to give you room for 4. If neither are bios, you only have 6 slots left, so you'll get to put 3 bios.

DYK closed without proper review

There is consensus that the nomination will not be reopened over article stability issues. Schwede66 23:46, 23 March 2022 (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.


Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka has been closed without a proper review. The article was about a current even that was progressing and took a while to settle. Initially the commenters on DYK claimed that the article is not stable, now the article has become stable. I asked for a review but the DYK has been closed instead. Is WP:NODEADLINE just for namesake? Please re-open it and review. Several editors have spent a lot of efforts in improving this article. Lets respect their time and efforts. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, as BlueMoonset noted in the nomination page, WP:NODEADLINE is not a policy or guideline, it is an essay that gives one common (but not universal) viewpoint about Wikipedia; indeed, the page itself gives multiple examples of Wikipedia projects that do have deadlines, including DYK itself. As the essay itself states, "there is no deadline" refers to the completion of Wikipedia's encyclopedic material itself, rather than its individual processes. As BlueMoonset noted on the nomination page, there is an expectation that if an article is nominated for DYK, any issues that it has needs to be addressed quickly given the focus on new and newly-improved content: a grace period of about two weeks is considered reasonable, whereas a month is already considered too long.
Secondly, according to my last check, the article is still not very stable: indeed, over the past week or so, the article has been receiving multiple edits per day, with various parts of the article still being added to or rewritten. That is not what we at DYK would consider stable by any means, unless such edits are made in progression in order to address concerns raised in a review. Indeed, it was pointed out in the nomination page that the issue is still receiving developments, meaning at this time I do not see the article being stable for a while.
As I mentioned in my closing comment, I mentioned that one way to ensure that the article can have a successful DYK nomination is if the article is brought to Good Article status. Being a GA means that any neutrality and stability concerns (among others) are already addressed, and would serve as a vote of confidence for any willing reviewer. The DYK nomination being declined now does not mean we do not appreciate the efforts of multiple editors who have worked on the article, and indeed they are free to do so even without DYK. Indeed, Wikipedia has no deadline, and there is no rush for the article to appear on DYK even after this initial rejection. The article can still be renominated in the future if it's brought to GA status, at which point it will be eligible for DYK again. Perhaps its time is not now, but that doesn't mean the time is never. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I would also add that the article did receive a proper review: Sammi Brie's first comment (which starts with New enough and long enough.) checked the article according to the DYK criteria, and so it would count as a review. She also mentioned other suggestions regarding wording issues and the like. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am just asking for a DYK review. This is not too much to ask for. Please do not make this an ego issue. The repeated reference to GA is just a distraction from this inappropriate closure. Venkat TL (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It already received a DYK review. Sammi's first comment to the nomination was a review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 No you did not review, all you did was close the DYK with prejudice based on past interactions or my comment on DYK. If you would have done a proper DYK review you would have pointed issues and given the nominator a chance to fix the issues you pointed. Sammie also did not review it, heshe came, she saw the daily page edits and said it is unstable at the moment. You have already said enough lets allow others to respond. Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Sammi's comment dating from February 16 was indeed a review of the article and was made several days before her next comment talking about instability. Indeed, her February 16 comment made no mention of the article stability or neutrality at all. If I may, let me quote the whole comment below.

New enough and long enough. QPQ not needed (3 credits). The article does need editing: I see a {{by whom}} tag and a {{excessive citations}} tag that is unacceptable for an article being highlighted on the Main Page, and I'd also like to see the references use citation templates (though this is not a DYK requirement). I can't say I like the construction of the hook, with "Hijab" twice in five words. Can I suggest some options, Venkat TL and Ainty Painty? Please ping me when this is done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If I may add, the article was given several chances for the issues to be addressed. Her initial comment about instability was made on February 21 and a request for a few week grace period was made, which was accepted. During that two weeks, there was plenty of time for the issues raised to be addressed and for any problems to be sorted out, but it appears that largely did not happen, hence the second marking for closure and now this closing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 instead of wasting your time here, writing walls of text here, you could have undone your close and reviewed the DYK. See WP:NOTBURO. Venkat TL (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not the article reviewer, Sammie Brie was. Indeed, had I been the reviewer, I wouldn't have closed the nomination and instead I would have simply marked the nomination for closure and waited for another editor to either close it, disagree and ask for it to remain open, or address any outstanding concerns. As I have mentioned multiple times in this discussion, the article has already received a review, so I don't understand why you're saying that the article hasn't received one. Sammi already checked the article against the DYK criteria, noted that there were some issues, and asked for them to be fixed. That was already the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Then undo your close, and let me ping Sammie (as heshe asked), they will do a proper review, most issues are already resolved. If there are any remaining, it will be fixed too. You just closed with an unnecessary long statement without giving me any time to address specific concerns. DYK page was full of off topic chats. Venkat TL (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll wait first for Sammi's reply before re-opening the nomination, but for what it's worth, Sammi and I have mentioned multiple times that the article was given plenty of time for its issues to be addressed. Her first comment was on February 21, after which multiple weeks passed before her second comment on March 11. Multiple concerns were raised and a reasonable amount of time was given for any concerns to be addressed, but they largely remained unresolved. I don't understand why you're saying that you were not given time to address specific concerns: the nomination had been open for over a month, that is plenty of time already.
Even if the stability issue was resolved, there were still concerns raised on the talk page about neutrality, and having taken another look at the article, I would have to agree that the concerns have merit and have not been addressed. Take for example the part which goes In many cases, Hindu students forced the issue by insisting that if the hijab was allowed in classes, they should also be allowed to wear saffron scarves. Given that the topic is under discretionary sanctions, we have to be very careful about the wording of the article, and to me at least the phrasing of this part (among others) feels too forceful to be NPOV. Neutrality is one of the main criteria for DYK articles, and an article that has neutrality concerns can be failed on those grounds. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Like I said, "prejudice". Venkat TL (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • TLDR The article was about an ongoing event. Was getting too many daily edits. Initial reviewer Sammie pointed this and we agreed to wait till article stabilizes after which I was supposed to ping Sammie. Now that the article has stabilized, instead of a review, the DYK was closed claiming "enough time" has passed. Venkat TL (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, I've taken a look at the nomination. The reviewer, Sammi Brie, has rejected the nomination over stability and NPOV concerns. Narutolovehinata5 has also chipped in during the review period and voiced some opinions. The only thing that is not ideal about the review process is for Narutolovehinata5 then having closed the nomination as unsuccessful; as he has commented throughout the review period, WP:NACINV applies. That said, I cannot see how an uninvolved editor would have come to a different conclusion.
    As far as the nominator, Venkat TL, is concerned, I note two allegations of concern. Firstly, on the nomination, they said that It appears there is a sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list. That is the most astonishing display of bad faith that I've seen in a long time and although BlueMoonset asked Venkat TL to apologise and strike out that comment, they refused to do so. Secondly, the topic heading chosen for this discussion is DYK closed without proper review, which is entirely untrue.
    I conclude from this that there is an outstanding apology to be made by Venkat TL and that this nominator displays WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Apart from a procedural mishap by Narutolovehinata5, I cannot fault the review process that has ultimately resulted in the nomination being rejected. Schwede66 17:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    I used the word prejudice, you used a more technical word WP:NACINV. The concern remains that the page needs a new reviewer. Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I have to note that I did not close the nomination with prejudice. In fact, I noted both on March 19 and my closing statement that the article can be renominated for DYK if it is brought to Good Article status. Indeed, I would highly suggest you do; not only would any remaining article issues be raised and addressed during the Good Article nomination process, but being a newly-promoted GA would also be a sign of confidence for the article and make it more likely to pass this time. I made it clear in my closing statement that the rejection was without prejudice towards a renomination in the future once the article is eligible for DYK again via promotion to GA status. To note Schwede66's comments about WP:NACINV, if my closure was out of process then I apologize for my actions, but like he said, I doubt that the nomination would have ended any other way given the way things were going. I would also echo his comments and note that I am shocked at Venkat's attitude throughout this whole process and I would say that his battleground attitude only further hurt the nomination's chances at success. I would suggest that Venkat apologize not just to me but also to BlueMoonset and Schwede66 for their statements. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I gave the page an initial review, as noted above.
  • I realized, several days later, that edit volume on the page was quite high. There were discussions on the talk page. I also began to worry about NPOV, and as an editor not intimately familiar with India topics, I did not feel qualified to review it for NPOV.
  • I gave the page time to stabilize, but there were still a lot of discussions on the talk page, even when it seemed like things were leveling off at about 600 pageviews a day. Then the Karnataka High Court ruled, and pageviews and interest spiked and have since settled at a higher level.
  • There are still issues. A section was blanked and restored—the "Reactions" section. I still do not feel comfortable reviewing this page's neutrality myself given that the topic is a subject of much controversy.
I gave this page time to settle down, but events in the row would not permit that, nor would the multiple discussions between editors which raised NPOV and other issues. Editing volume has come down, but the NPOV issues are beyond me to fix. (Also, for Venkat, my pronouns are in my signature.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I will not comment about off topic stuff on this page.
  • Sammie, Thanks for the reply. I respect your decision to not review it. Since the article has improved greatly thanks to to efforts of multiple editors, it deserves a full review. Someone should formally review the page. The page editors should get chance to resolve any issue that is pointed. The aim of all this is to end up with a better encyclopedia. (Remember WP:NOTBURO WP:IAR exists for a reason, to remind us when we forget the real purpose we are contributing here.
  • The closure by Narutolovehinata5 fails WP:NACINV and the closure need to be overturned on that grounds.
  • The issues in the article version at Feb 16 have already been fixed due to the WP:DR process being followed by the editors. Hence my request for second full review. What should I do to get the DYK reviewed. If this is not the right place, Where should I appeal against this closure? Venkat TL (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, in my closing statement that editors both in the nomination and on the talk page had noted that there were multiple issues with the article, some of which remained unaddressed at the time of the closure (indeed, this is already taking into account any edits made to resolve the concerns raised in Sammi's original review). Even if the nomination is to be re-opened, the article still has multiple issues with regards to neutrality and there's no guarantee that a re-opening will ultimately lead to the article being approved for DYK. This is the reason why I am suggesting that, even if my closure was out of process, it would be for the best for the nomination to remain closed and instead that the article should be improved to GA status, so that next time the article is more likely to have a successful nomination. At the very least, a GA nomination would help ensure that any neutrality and stability concerns are already addressed even before the article is brought again to DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no GA, stop distracting from the topic. Address the point, why despite 2 people pointing your mistake to you, you will not undo your blatant violation of WP:NACINV? Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This is not a case of insurmountable problem, if there are problems as you claim, they need to be resolved and sooner than later. If you are not willing to review, then why are you preventing others from reviewing it? This is clearly non constructive and unhelpful behavior. that is neither helping the article nor the encyclopedia. Venkat TL (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 is trying to point the way forward for this page, which IMO involves improving the page to GA status and nominating it. As part of a good article nomination, the reviewer will check for neutral point of view. They will see the page with fresher eyes than ours and check the page against the good article criteria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, WP:NAC is an essay and not a guideline, so while editors who have non-trivially commented on a discussion aren't encouraged to close them, they aren't prohibited from doing so, and in some cases, it may even be necessary. My reading of NACINV is that it refers mainly to discussions where !votes are involved (for example, requests for comments, deletion or merge discussions, and so on) but it's vague on whether or not it applies to DYK (indeed, I and other editors have previously closed nominations that we have commented on in the past without issue, although if this behavior is discouraged I will strive to avoid doing it moving forward). In any case, as far as I can tell I wasn't really involved in the discussion much: in fact, of my three comments to that nomination, two were replies to Vice regent as clarifications on questions they had. My third reply, which is the only one where I directly noted the state of the article, was also a response to VR and them noting that the article still had issues.
As for your mention of the issues being surmountable, that is why I offered bringing the article to GA status as an option. The nomination being open or closed does not affect the ability of any article concerns to be addressed. Even if the nomination remains closed, that does not stop you or other editors from continuing to work on the article and improving it. And if the article is brought to GA status, the article can be renominated, and this time it has a better chance of succeeding. Look at it this way Venkat, I'm trying to help you here. I'm giving you suggestions on how to ensure that the article can be featured on DYK and I'm offering you a path, one that is more likely to be successful. I'm not sure why you seem against the idea of the article being nominated for GA and dismissing the suggestion as being a "distraction" when it fact it's a way to make sure that the article can have a successful DYK nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Equivalent of DRV for DYKs

What is the equivalent page for appealing against involved closure of DYKs? For WP:AFD there is a WP:DRV, what is the corresponding appeal process for DYKs? Venkat TL (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO...? SN54129 19:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This talk page is where you can make your case and ask for a new reviewer if necessary. —Kusma (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
He was referring to me closing Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka even though I had already commented on the nomination prior (hence, "involved"). As noted by Schwede66, it probably wasn't proper for me to do it (per WP:NACINV) considering my comments about the state of the article, although he noted that it was unlikely that another editor would have closed it a different way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Isn't DYK like GAN so commenters and closers are usually the same people? —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: in general, no—the reviewer and nominator generally aren't allowed to close, and in case of a promotion, the person who suggested the hook isn't allowed to close either. NLH5 wasn't the reviewer, but given the extent of his involvement, this close is... shaky. But overturning it now just so that someone else can write the exact same close seems like needless bureaucracy—I can't see why I would've made a different call. The article was just too fluid for us to give any kind of quality assurance by the time it hits the main page—and that's not even mentioning the flurry of editing putting it on the main page would cause. We should be prioritizing the quality of our encyclopedic content before anything else, and main page exposure is not healthy for that article at this time. There's no way to address that until the article solidifies. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@theleekycauldron: OK, I think I don't understand what "close" means. The reviewer is allowed to reject a nomination, but not "close" it? —Kusma (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: They can mark it for closure with {{subst:DYKno}} , but the actual final closing of the nomination (putting it against the blue background) has to be from someone else—that's why we have prep builders. Until the nomination is closed by an uninvolved user, someone can step in and offer another opinion, or adopt the nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Learn something new every day. From my point of view, rejected nominations just disappeared at some point, I never noticed that "closing" was an extra step. —Kusma (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Meh. they just want to relitigate this >2600 word thread; I don't think that would be useful to anyone. SN54129 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Sections merged. SN54129 19:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Month deadline?

It was repeatedly claimed[2][3] that DYKs should be fixed within a few weeks with a maximum of 1 month period after nomination to resolve all issues. I see nothing on the page about this month deadline, and I've seen many DYKs remain open for much longer than that. In fact, today is March 22 and we have an open nomination from Nov 21[4]. That's 4 whole months. If there is such a rule as "1 month", lets write it clearly on the main and apply it consistently? Otherwise this nomination should be reopened.VR talk 23:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: it's not about a specific time limit; it's about whether there's a clear roadmap to approval, and whether someone's able to push the nomination there. With an issue like stability, there's nothing to do but wait; and with no end in sight, I don't think there was a purpose in keeping the nomination open one month or three. No, there's no hard deadline, but there does have to be a will and a way, and it looks to me like there was no way. That's why Sammi Brie marked it for closure, and I agree. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to comment that we've now moved from procedural complaints into straight-up relitigation of this nomination, and this is where things start to go off the rails. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that any time a nomination has a stability issue it must be rejected? Or that there is strict one month deadline for stability issues? Stability/NPOV issues take time to resolve. If for whatever reason we want to have a hard limit on stability issues then lets add that to policy.VR talk 00:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@VR: From WP:DYKSG#D6: The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus does not count.) Since an unstable article has high potential for edit wars (if not active edit wars right then and there), it seems pretty reasonable to say that an article with instability this chronic shouldn't qualify. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Since I'm the first of the ones who purportedly made the claim, I should point out that there is no "maximum of 1 month" in what I wrote. If there is regular progress toward addressing the issues, nominations can remain open for weeks or even well over a month; the problem is when the nominator is not working to solve the problems raised in the review and continues not to even when pinged and given a deadline: that's when reviews get closed. There are procedural issues that can stall a nomination through no fault of the nominator in which case said nomination remains open, such as prolonged AfD nominations or merges, which is the case with the nomination from November 21: given the way the merge discussion is trending for it, it's been likely for a long time that the merge will happen, but we're rather stuck until the merge request is formally closed, and no one seems interested in doing so (though there's a second request on this talk page that someone look into closing it). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, and nothing in NLH5's close suggested that he thought there should be a one-month time limit either... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: except both the nominator and myself were responding and engaging on the DYK nom page[5]. There were 10 comments (including yours) in the few days before the nomination was abruptly closed. It would be a completely different matter had the nominators been pinged and they didn't bother responding.VR talk 19:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If everyone agrees that one month is not a limit and since both the nominator and myself have expressed willingness to resolve issues, then I kindly request the nom be re-opened.VR talk 19:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It's already been reviewed, discussed and rejected as it can't get stable. Stop trying to filibuster this talkpage just because you don't like the outcome. And stop trying to bully people into reopening it. I wholly support the rejection of this article for failing DYK stability rules- consider this another review of the DYK if you really need an uninvolved review. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2022 (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.

Speaking of overdue nominations and closes...

Can someone please close this merge discussion? Its DYK nomination has been waiting forever, but we can't move forward until we know what the outcome of this discussion is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: Since a merge has been done, shouldn't University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy be a redirect now? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The merge hasn't been done yet. I closed the merge discussion as requested. BusterD (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:Merge Step 5: "Any editor, including the editor who originally proposed the merger, is permitted to perform mergers in accordance with consensus" (bolding theirs) BusterD (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, BusterD! :)) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome Leek! Sorry I can't be one stop shopping. I'm off to Gary Con to work on my nerd "continuing education" program! BusterD (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I thought in a merge discussion, if it's closed as merge, then the article that is proposed to be merged is then redirected to the target article? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, as it says at WP:MERGETEXT, Don't just redirect the source page without copying any content if any good content from the source page exists. The discussion indicated that some material about the Rebel theme controversy should be added to the destination article, so that needs to be accomplished; only after that should the redirect be done. I have added a {{being merged}} template to the source page, so it's clear there that the merger needs doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Problematic nominations

These four nomination dating back to December by Venkat TL need to be taken care of in some way. They have all been stalled for a while now mostly due to POV concerns. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

SL93 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Queue 7

I'm bringing this up here as the review since I mentioned in the review that I didn't consider this hook to be that good (I didn't mention it explicitly, but I implied that the hook was probably too niche for a broad audience to appreciate it, same with ALT0). In fact, the only hook I approved was ALT1. Theleekycauldron promoted it but she hasn't responded to my talk page message yet, and given that the hook goes up in a couple of days I'm bringing it up here too to get a quicker response. Would it be okay for the hook to be moved to a later prep for now while the choice of hook is sorted out? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I switched it to ALT1 for you. It can be discussed here, and my actions can be reverted by any other admin. I tend to agree with you that it's the more interesting hook. — Maile (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: hey! sorry, I'm out for shabbats these days. as someone who knows very little about hockey, the hook i chose stuck out to me the most—given how many players are on a team, that percentage seemed outsized. I wasn't aware you didn't approve that hook (i thought you were just expressing a preference). I stand by that (firsts are generally okay—seconds are kind of pushing it), but no sweat if consensus leans the other way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 6

  • ... that Barbara Shermund, who created this New Yorker cover, was one of the first women to join the National Cartoonists Society 25 years later?

This lead hook refers to the image without really mentioning it, too vague for my liking and is incomplete without the image (which shouldn't be relied upon) ... and the grammar in the back half is a little weak (since I am here about the image reference); do any of @Lamona, Mojag, Victuallers, Vladimir.copic, and Rlink2: object to the following tweaks? Kingsif (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  • ... that Barbara Shermund illustrated two early New Yorker covers (second shown) and, 25 years later, was one of the first women to join the National Cartoonists Society?
@Kingsif: I think you have invented a new rule of "shouldn't be relied upon" - after all no one needs to pick that hook. However I cannot be equally fussy - the modified hook is almost as good although I would say she "created" rather than "illustrated" the cover - as her work is the cover. Victuallers (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, assuming DYK tries to meet accessibility guidelines. I would argue that "create" is more likely to be misinterpreted, even though the hook establishes she is a cartoonist. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
No problem, sounds good. Rlink2 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I think its fine. They are different topics and not right beside each other. There is no rule for DYK that states there can only be one hook per country except for the United States. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

April Fools!

I just promoted 5 AFD hooks into prep (they'll be at the right time if we do the time switch when we're supposed to)—it looks like we have around seven more, so... anyone want to write some new ones/suggest how we handle having 12 AFD hooks for sets of 8? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind running a big set, but I'm assuming that'd be a no-no; actually, running some main page tests, it doesn't look terrible... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
If we picked our eight favorite hooks and put the remaining ones in other sets, that would partially alleviate our quirky shortage... DanCherek (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I thought of that, too, but we usually get dinged at ERRORS for letting AFD-style hooks in the quirky slot. AFD hooks tend to be a little more "out there", and I'm not sure which ones might fit in quirkies. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Some proposed AFD hooks aren't much better than quirky to begin with. They do frequently need revising to be used on other days because capitalization and some other issues are relaxed for AFD but not for other days. (Or an alternate non-AFD hook is devised.) Most of the hooks so far are quite short; I think we could (should?) go up to nine or ten if the rest are that short, otherwise we fail to balance the main page. Indeed, I think we've done so in the past. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The alternative is that we add some more AFD hooks so that we have two full sets and for that one day only, we run a 12-hour cycle. Schwede66 04:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I just checked the past three years, and in 2020 we ran a single set of 11 hooks on AFD; in 2019 we had two sets, one of 10 and the other of 9, and last year we also had two sets, one of 9 and one of 8. So I think going 10 hooks (or even 11 if they aren't too long) should be fine. Trying to scrape up some last-minute AFD hooks has not been a good idea in the past; let's go with what we have approved that make really good AFD hooks. Pinging Gatoclass, who has shown excellent AFD judgment in past years. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping and the kind words BlueMoonset. I have been intending to provide some input on the AFD nominations for some weeks, but unfortunately have been able to find no time for Wikipedia over the last couple of weeks. I'm still hopeful of finding the time to thoroughly vet them before the day in question however.
What I can say now after reviewing the proposed set in prep is that I agree that some of those hooks are not up to scratch (while others are quite good). So I think the set is going to need some work. I will try to find some time to take a closer look and make some recommendations over the next few days - thanks once again, Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
we could always refactor the Dorking Cockerel hook in p4- but my penchant for dirty jokes never quite extended there, so someone else can write it if they want. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
plus, it's nice to have the image. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
If you're after another AFD hook, I have just nommed AK-47 (cannabis), with quirky hooks but they also play on the name so seems AFD-suitable. Not sure if you're more after regular quirky hooks at this point, though. Kingsif (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about this set at WT:Main Page#April 1st DYK hooks. Since they've been promoted to a queue, I assume these hooks are all approved as far as this project is concerned, so I'd like to get some input from uninvolved editors, but of course you guys can weigh in too. Thanks. Dan from A.P. (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Queues and preps

@DYK admins: We have only two filled queues and five filled preps. Thanks in advance ro those who move the preps. SL93 (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

okies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI. This DYK:

is in the news today. It would be great to see it moved into a prep that happens over the weekend. --evrik (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. I don't agree with moving a hook from the queue for that one because then the pulled hook will have to be moved to the next open prep which is days away. Pinging BlueMoonset for their thoughts. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Another DYK suggestion?

I submitted a successful DYK last year and thought I'd suggest this article I ran across today.

Mary Renault nomination

I attempted to nominate Mary Renault for a Did you know, but I received an error message saying that the article had already been created. Can anyone help with this issue? Here is the nomination:


Mary Renault

(
)
  • ... that Mary Renault was encouraged to write a novel by J.R.R. Tolkein set in medieval times, but she burned the manuscript because she felt it lacked authenticity? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Renault

Improved to Good Article status by Srsval (talk). Self-nominated at 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC).

Many thanks, Srsval (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5

I'd rather not have people complaining to me about two US radio station hooks in one set. Is it possible to move WLNL (WIQT) out of P5 and swap it into another set? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Angel Locsin filmography

Reposting for more visibility and because the previous discussion got archived. As of this post the article is currently at Prep 7, which means it will go up around April 6th or so. Some days ago I asked if the article could instead be held until April 23rd, which is Locsin's birthday. I understand that April 23th is beyond the six-weeks requirement when it comes to nomination dates (the article was nominated on March 7th). However, it wasn't reviewed until March 22nd, which is within six weeks of April 23rd. It is noted that the six-week requirement can be waived per discussion here at WT:DYK; however since the last discussion didn't get much discussion, I'm asking here one more time to ask if there is consensus if the requirement can be waived in this case or if it's better to just run normally. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to promoter Rlink2 Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This seems fine with me, if others dont object we can move it back for the 23rd per your request.
Regarding the requirement, keep in mind Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Rlink2 (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)

I am confused. This does not seem to be in the queu for April Fool tomorrow's main page DYK? Or at least I couldn't find it at links to the pages.
Memorialzing my effort for the DYK I won't get on April 1. Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin).
This has been approved many times over for DYK. And that process was not easy.
Oh well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It is the second hook in Queue 2, which is set to go live at 00:00 UTC on April 1: "... that Nebraska once sued a gremlin?" DanCherek (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes to April Fool's set

Firstly, apologies for the lateness of this proposal, I just haven't been able to find time to do this earlier.

There are at least two hooks in the AFD set that in my opinion are scarcely suitable as AFD hhoks. These are:

  • ... that on this day in 1966, California radio stations KAHR and KVIP switched frequencies, leading to "mass confusion"?
  • ... that Thanos served in the army, while Thanos was a police officer?

Meanwhile, there are still two viable AFD hooks available on the AFD page, namely:

If there are no objections, I would like to substitute the above hooks, so the hook set would read:

Gatoclass (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: mmmm, not sure I'm on board. the second hook you want to swap in falls afoul of WP:DYKSG#C6, so that one needs to be revamped. Meanwhile, I like the radio station hook—it's actually relevant to April Fools' day, and it's a nice way of playing with the format of the hooks, and it is in the april fools' spirit of a harmlessly misdirecting (literally) hook. I do like the Nutty Narrows hook, and I don't mind if the Thanos hook gets taken out (although I don't see why it's unsuitable), so I'm fine with that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The second hook does not violate C6, it states clearly that the work is an epistle, and epistles deal with ideas not facts so it should be clear from the context that this a fable. The radio hook - I'm sorry, but I fail to see any AFD angle in that hook at all. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: unless I'm misunderstanding the idea that epistles are essentially instructional fiction, isn't the hook basically saying "this work has a very interesting plot point"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I missed the "on this day" mention in the radio hook - so yes, there is an AFD angle there, but the hook looks incongruous given that it's a straight fact, and also, unless you realize it's April Fool's day, you are going to completely miss the joke, so I still think the hook doesn't belong in the set. Gatoclass (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
pinging @Sammi Brie and Love and Parting as nominators of the relevant hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the "10 foot chicken" hook currently in Q4 would make an excellent AFD lead hook or at least an AFD hook, I don't understand why that is not in the set. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

it'd go well as a non-lead hook, but including the image gives the joke away too quickly for my taste—and the image is just too good not to use standalone. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the image is hilarious and would set the tone very nicely for the rest of the set. But there have also been some objections to the current lead hook at WT:MAIN, so it might be better to go with something a little less potentially controversial. Gatoclass (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
well, I don't see consensus to pull that one, but I won't object if someone decides to do so anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should feature an image of the chicken so soon after the last time. —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, the Cyril Croker hook could use a tweak too. Suggested change:

well hang on, Gatoclass, walk me through your reasoning on this one—it's my understanding that the original hook also contains a pop culture reference to the Suicide Squad (the way the thanos hook is referencing Thanos). why change that, and why change the name that was used for them by the opposition? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC
I gave the hook a tweak already, in case you missed it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
i missed that, but i'm pretty lost here even after seeing that. is it just added quirk? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Tweaked again). The problem with the current hook is that Cyril Croker could have been anyone. He could just have been a suicidal person who got together with some other suicidal person to do themselves in. There is, unfortunately, nothing terrifically unusual about that. Or Croker might alternatively have been somebody sent on a group suicide mission in a war. Again, not so unusual. So there is nothing all that unusual about just being a member of a "suicide squad".
If, on the other hand, it's a group of politicians who agree to commit suicide, that is very unusual because one doesn't expect such a group to agree to such a thing, let alone 26 of them. That I would describe as jaw-droppingly unexpected. And therefore a much better hook. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
But they didn't agree to kill themselves, they agreed to remove their own power. "Member of the suicide squad" is correct, "agreed to commit suicide" is not misleading in a hookish way, but simply a lie. —Kusma (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I disagree - I think the hook falls well within the parameters of the AFD rules - but I suspect you would not be the only one to raise the objection. In any case, this thread has attracted insufficient comment and unfortunately I have to log off now so cannot personally pursue the suggested changes any further. I do hope though that somebody will nonetheless consider substituting the nutty narrows and "epistle" hooks for the two rather drab hooks mentioned above, because the set as it stands could really use some improvement. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I like the nutty narrows hook. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Would it help to propose a new ALT1 for the radio stations?
(edit conflict) I'm fine with nutty narrows, especially if one or more of the existing hooks is being removed, but the "animals take humankind to court" nomination hasn't even been fully reviewed yet, so it can't be used—it's too late for that one. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: I think we're good to go if someone wants to insert Nutty Narrows into the set—possibly in place of thanos. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't care for the article. If you aren't bringing it to the AFD, make sure you bring it to the other AFD. If someone still wants to care on keeping the article, then make sure to check the other hooks on the dyk nomination page. Love and Parting (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've now lost my trust to the "trust-it-to-the-promoter" system. Love and Parting (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, which "the article" are you talking about? —Kusma (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanos Love and Parting (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
But that is on the Main Page? —Kusma (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
U can read the second sentence of this post: "There are at least two hooks in the AFD set that in my opinion are scarcely suitable as AFD hhoks [sic]." Love and Parting (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Special occasions hook

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do this myself - Template:Did you know nominations/USS Varuna (1861) has been approved and the special occasion date for April 24 (160th of sinking) okayed by the DYK reviewer - could this get moved to the SOHA? Hog Farm Talk 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done April 24 (160th anniversary of the ship's sinking) — Maile (talk)

Great April Fools this year

Some of the best jokes are ones that turn out to be just as weird as you'd initially expect. I still can't beleive Nebraska sued an actual car... Americanfreedom (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

speaking of, if someone wants to review this nomination, that'd be welcome ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 16. We currently have a total of 229 nominations, of which only 79 have been approved, a gap of 150, up 19 over the past eleven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Post-nominals

I'm asking this because I'm currently reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Christian Herwartz. For the most part, the article itself is being revised based on my comments. However, there is one particular concern I have and that is with the hooks. The nominator prefers that the initials "SJ" be included after the subject's name in the hook (for reference, the subject is a Jesuit priest). However, as far as I can tell, MOS:POSTNOM discourages the use of post-nominals on Wikipedia outside of article lede sections and infoboxes. The nominator is requesting for an IAR exemption, arguing that "SJ" should be allowed because MOST:POSTNOM largely refers to honors (think CBE/OBE and the like) and not to religious orders. However, the guideline also links to Post-nominal letters, which does list "SJ" as an example. I'm taking this here because the post-nominal issue is the only thing currently holding the article back and I would like to request for a second opinion on this matter. For what it's worth, I do not recall ever seeing a DYK hook that had post-nominal letters, so I'm not sure if they're allowed, but based on MOS:POSTNOM, are they to be discouraged in hooks? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the guideline, which I haven't had time to read, the "SJ" is redundant to the hook fact, which isn't at all dependent on the fact that he is a Jesuit. Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
We have two hooks, one speaking about the open community, in a Jesuit sense, the other about the street exercises based on the Spiritual Exercises of the founder. In both cases, while the hook facts are not dependent on knowing he's a Jesuit, it would help understanding, because both words, community and exercises, ae highly ambiguous. If we can't use SJ, I feel I need extra words to say he's Jesuit. Is that what you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The guideline is quite clear: Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honour. That means no postnoms in the hook. Schwede66 06:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I am new to the guideline MOS:POSTNOM, learning. What you say comes in the last sentence, and I never read so far. I am sorry but it doesn't make sense to me for DYK hooks that should be concise, please see reply above. - should we perhaps change the guideline, because two letters with a link would be preferable to prose explanation? - If not, it would be a good idea to mention this last sentence at the very beginning. I don't think I'm the only one with no time to read guidelines to the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Missed special occasion

I had an ALT0 hook for WBAA that was contingent on running April 4—and the reviewer liked it over a non-date-specific ALT1. It looks like it got missed, which is a shame because I happen to have another hook running in this slot right now (WOPR (Michigan)). Can/should something be done? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: is a swap possible? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think a swap would be good. It technically wasn't missed by a promoter because it was never moved to special occasions. SL93 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
On it stuck the anniversary one on now..otherwise it will miss the day. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
ah-
that's a rough swap for a couple of reasons. Don't rush to revert, but I will say that it was substituted into the quirky slot, despite not being a quirky hook—and that with five hours left, neither hook will receive the exposure they should in a 24-hour cycle. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There are 18 hours left. —Kusma (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
yes, sorry, i keep confusing midnight and noon. common mistake. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
No problem. When I lived in the US, I also had difficulties with the difference between wikitime and local time. Much easier from England. —Kusma (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry this wound up like this. I'll be more diligent with checking SOHA for hooks like these in the future. Perhaps WOPR can end up on a 12-hour set later if needed to make up for the missed time, though I certainly understand I have a lot of pages in the pipeline right now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sammi Brie, WOPR should get full time in a main-page set since it wasn't pulled because its own hook had issues, whether it runs 12 hours or 24—I've just inserted it into Prep 2, since it's the only set with available space, but it could be moved if set preparers feel it fits better in another set, whether later or earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Stability as a DYK requirement

Our current requirement for stability is found in rule D6 of DYK's supplementary guidelines. It reads, simply, The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring. It was suggested in May 2009 by Shubinator, in a dispute that arose from Wehwalt modifying a hook in queue. The language was drafted a week later by Art LaPella, quickly agreed to, and added to DYKSG as rule D5 (it would later become D6 as other rules were added).

I mention all of this to highlight that the rule was quickly conceived, drafted, and ratified by a handful of editors—albeit indisputably competent editors—at a time in DYK's history when rapid and destabilizing changes usually arose from an isolated content dispute. As I write this, we're currently seeing a concerning uptick in nomination that are, while not strictly under active edit-warring, see significant ongoing changes due to their relevancy as a current event or topic. These nominations are:

Quite a few of these nominations were already rejected on stability grounds—but it feels awkward to interpret the language this broadly, since active edit-warring is really a pretty narrow term. The third nomination in that bunch, by the way, caused a length discussion here at WT:DYK for pretty much this exact reason—and while consensus was that the nomination's rejection should not be overturned, it does leave a gap between rule language and informal consensus that I'd like to bridge. So, I'd like to hear y'all's input on instead changing the language to:

The article is likely to be rejected for chronic instability due to current events and topics or unresolved edit-warring of any kind.

Thanks for coming to my shpiel. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Just "The article is likely to be rejected for chronic instability" would prevent this being re-discussed in a decade ;) Adding "for example..." may improve the suggested text. Kingsif (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    an example might help; if we take out the "unresolved edit-warring", what happens if there's a short and bright spot of edit warring, just because two editors are in a content dispute? not necessarily chronic the way current events updates are, but it should still cause a hold... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I like the rule as it is. The common thread on the articles cited above is the quickly evolving nature of the subject. Maybe DYK can't be available to current news topics. --evrik (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be unfair if DYK banned ongoing events. Article instability isn't necessarily an issue for most recent topics (in fact, many articles about new topics are stable), and when instability happens, it ends to be more to do with the contentiousness of the topic itself rather than being a current event per se. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK articles are new by their nature, and therefore frequently subject to update, expansion and instability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily, usually most of the expansion and updating has already occurred by the time it's nominated for DYK. If instability happens again afterwards, it's usually because issues were raised during a review and edits are being done to resolve them. There's a difference between an article being unstable due to improvements as a result of a review, and instability for reasons outside Wikipedia's control. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
but we also have quite a few other criteria that are affected by updates, expansions, and instability; from the moment an article is ticked by the reviewer, it's a ballpark average of 2-3 weeks until it's on the main page. usually, it's on the prep set builder to check the validity of any new additions between approval and promotion; but for unstable articles, even the 1-2 weeks between promotion and its main-page run can cause too much change for the DYK process to reasonably guarantee that an article meets DYK criteria when it hits the main page. For particularly controversial topics (not just current), we're also exposing the page to a flurry of outside controversial editing, which is not good for an already unstable article.
Also, most new articles brought to DYK are the handiwork of one or maybe a handful of editors; those generally are stable due to their new placement on the map and probably not super-widely known. We're only seeing this stability problem with a few articles, but I'm hesitant to run any of 'em due to just the volume of editing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sora Amamiya

Hi there. So I've nominated this article for GA and am just waiting for the review to be completed. I'm thinking of bringing it to DYK if the GAN passes, but I'm a bit of a loss as to what could be used for a hook. Right now the only option that comes to mind is the following:

Is this possible hook niche, especially to those unfamiliar with Sawashiro or Japanese voice acting in general? Would this be a decent, broadly-interesting hook, or should a new hook be found? I'm asking this here before bringing it to DYK because I'd like to workshop the article and potential hook first, in case I'll need to expand the article further in the hope of finding a better hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the article is little more than a prose list of filmography/discography, followed by table versions, so I am not even sure it would pass GA (broadness and even a bit of notability: if there is no prose information/discussion about the person and aspects of their career, what we have is a NAME Filmography listicle) - but, and this may need some sources mentioning it, the use of question marks and exclamation points in her songs seems somewhat interesting, there might be something to say about that, if you aren't satisfied with "saw some voice acting, decided to be voice actor".
My true thoughts are, though, that not every article will have something that works as a hook and that's ok. Kingsif (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Slipped my mind to respond to this after looking through it—I do agree with Kingsif, not every article has a workable hook. I'm not a fan of the hook suggested above, so if someone has a better one, it could work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I would build something out of this line, "In 2016, she, along with her co-stars, Rie Takahashi and Ai Kayano performed KonoSuba's ending theme song "Chīsana Bōken-sha" (ちいさな冒険者, lit."Little Adventurer")." --evrik (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that not every article has a workable hook, I was just hoping to bring this one to DYK too since her co-stars in KonoSuba (Takahashi and Kayano) have been featured on DYK too and given that Amamiya is the lead female actress in that series. It would be nice to complete the set in this case. With that said, I will try to look for information regarding her music career, stuff like interviews and the like, and see if anything is usable there. I did try consulting her Japanese Wikipedia article for information but unfortunately it wasn't of much use either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I've been looking around for interviews with her (particularly about her music career) and this interview had some information that caught my attention. Granted, any potential hook would be dependent on the information being added to her article, but just in case, would any of the following work as broadly appealing hooks?
  • ... that voice actress and singer Sora Amamiya tends to release solo singles in odd-numbered years? (Source: "今まで2017年と2019年の奇数年に歌謡シングルを出させていただいて、2021年にも歌謡シングルを出したいと思っていてリリースすることが決まった1枚なので、そこは「フリイジア」のイメージも出しつつ、ファンの皆さんにも歌謡シングルだというのが伝わるものにしたくて。このヴィンテージ感のあるマイクも作っていただいたんです。")
  • ... that the lettering and microphone seen on the cover for Sora Amamiya's single "Freesia" were meant to be reminiscent of retro 7-inch records? (source: "たしかにジャケットの「フリイジア」の文字もレトロな、レコードの7インチシングルを思わせるような。" onwards) (note that the source says "jacket" but I think "cover" is a better word in this context)
  • ... that Japanese voice actress and singer Sora Amamiya's song "Jōnetsu no Te Amo" was heavily influenced by Latin music, including the use of a Spanish guitar? (source: [6])
  • ... that Japanese voice actress and singer Sora Amamiya's song "Jōnetsu no Te Amo", the B-side to her single "Freesia", was heavily influenced by Latin music? (source: same as the previous hook proposal)
I'll see if I can find more hook options, I just don't want to nominate the article for DYK later on if there's nothing hook-worthy that can be found in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep builders

We are close to 120 approved nominations which will move us to two sets day. I plan on taking at least a long break from building preps due to burn-out. I'm pretty sure that theleekycauldron doesn't want to build every set. Help is really needed. SL93 (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't built any sets in, like, a week- I'm sorry it's fallen nearly squarely to you, but I've been a little burnt out myself. I'll fill the remaining preps, but a number of things going on at DYKNA and DYKN have just been sapping my energy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't blame you, but I do blame the long-standing process of so many people being active at DYK and barely anyone wanting to help the nominations move along to the preps. SL93 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I have been helping and will continue to help. Rlink2 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I've been slowly returning to prep-building, but real life prevents me from being as active as some of the people above. If you are reading this, have experience in reviewing DYK hooks, and are interested in trying something new (and, in my opinion, fun) then feel free to try promoting a hook or finishing the prep of a set. If you post below, experienced prep builders and DYK admin will give feedback on your work. Many hands make light work, and many preppers will prevent burnout from the community. Feel free to ping me if we are low on preps. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think some kind of prep-building script would really help eliminate much of the burnout and time issues. Maybe someone with the coding experience can try to make such a script? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: coincidentally, I spent around three hours developing that exact script yesterday... god knows when it'll work, but it's coming along! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron @Narutolovehinata5
    I already tried creating a browserscript (actual browserscript that works in the browser directly).
    The one that closes the nom after prep promotion is basically perfect, the other one that copies the script from the nom set to the prep set is mostly good (for 95% of the time; the other 5% is when the hook is not at the top and is instead at the bottom and some other edge cases). At the very least, it does a good job of placing the DYK credits at the bottom. Obviously the script will never be able to detect bio hook rule violations, human supervision will always be required. But it has the potential to speed up the process.
    I haven't used it outside of testing, maybe I should bring it out of the woodworks. Rlink2 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Switch to two sets per day

There are now 121 approved DYK nominations. The switch to two sets per day should be done after midnight today. Flibirigit (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've swapped it to the 12-hour cycle. Schwede66 00:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for catching that, and sorry that I did not mark it as such when I promoted that hook. I will do so in the future so that it will be easier to identify special occasion hooks. Z1720 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

gonna need some queues

@DYK admins: maile just promoted a queue, but that puts us at two; could an admin promote a couple more? thanks so much in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

looks like maile took care of the lot :) thanks, maile! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Woo! Hoo! Onward march the intrepid prep builders of the world famous DYK. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

can i beg a boon?

I just promoted Lisa Winter (nom) to P5; full disclosure, I'm totally biased because I love BattleBots, but ScottishFinnishRadish and everyone here: would y'all mind if I took the infobox image and yoinked the hook to a lead slot? It's actually a pretty good picture, in my opinion... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, go for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

backlogged nominations I can't promote

these are nearing the top of the backlog, so if a promoter could take care of these, that'd be appreciated :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Extension

In this nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/The Devil Never Sleeps, @Mujinga: has correctly noted that the nomination was made outside the seven day window. Given that I found it and fixed it so it was actually an informative article while it was still relatively new, can we go ahead and waive the timeliness requirement? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest other editors put their comments directly on the nomination template, as I have done. Personally, I don't have a problem extending the deadline here, but the article needs work. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: thanks for the help. --evrik (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed on procedural grounds, per multiple observations that the RfC statement is not neutrally worded, unclear, and/or WP:POINT-y. It is difficult to see how dragging the thread out any longer would be productive. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations?
Until now, users who submitted DYK nominations were asked to judge a DYK Nomination if the nominator had 5 or more 'successful DYK Credits' (aka 'DYK credits' checked using this tool). A proposal to change this rule was made on 4 April at #QPQ freebies, where it was proposed that users with 5 or more DYK nominations (Successful or unsuccessful or pending) be asked to start judging DYK noms that others have filed. This RfC is to ratify this change. This proposal, if approved will demand users with 5 unsuccessful nominations, to start judging DYK nominations. Asking people with failed nominations to judge is a major change in WP:DYKRULES and deserves wider community consensus before implementation.

Currently being followed

Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. The review must address all five criteria listed here.
Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nominator is exempt from QPQ.

Proposed changes

Exception: If you have previously nominated fewer than five articles (whether self-nominated or otherwise), no QPQ is required. Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose The proposal intends to require a user with 5 'unsuccessful' DYK Noms to compulsorily judge DYKs that others have submitted. In my opinion, this proposal is a significant watering down of the current WP:DYKRULES (permalink) that require 5 'successful DYK credits before they can review nomination by others. This proposal is watering down the requirements without considering the ill effects caused by DYK reviewers without proper experience in DYK process. In my humble opinion, nominating a DYK is mostly just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line gives the surety that the nominator is familiar with the WP:DYKRULES and major Wikipedia policies. The reviewer needs to be 'sufficiently experienced' before he judges reviews by others, which is what the rule asking for 5 successful DYK Credits 'implicitly' demands. This basic expectation from the reviewers should not be disturbed. Moreover I fail to see the pressing need to make this change, it is not like there is a flood of pending DYK noms. Venkat TL (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support changing to 5 nominations was what was agreed in the last RFC, so not sure why we need another RFC to implement/re-discuss it. Even if all5 are unsuccessful, the fact they've nominated 5 times means that they've taken up considerable time of other users, and should be expected to give back some of that time by doing QPQs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I have understood this proposal, but I'm inclined to agree that the criterion should remain 5 DYK credits needed before a QPQ is required, because people who are having trouble getting their own nominations passed have no business judging the nominations of others. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    I believe this is in regard to the discussion above. The nominator is against a proposal made above by theleekycauldron: [Our] free pass for new nominators on the QPQ requirement extends to nominators with five DYK credits, instead of those with five DYK nominations—see WP:DYK#gen5 and WP:DYKSG#H4. Does anyone have an objection to changing the language from DYK credits to nominations? The above RFC is basically proposing the same thing: that the QPQ requirement be levied based on number of articles nominated, regardless of whether these nominations resulted in credits being awarded. I.e. if someone nominated 5 articles and all were unsuccessful, under the proposal they would be liable for conducting a QPQ.
    In this case, you would most likely be in opposition to the proposal outlined in the RFC. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    It seems like they don't want to do any DYKs, as per #QPQs and User:Venkat TL. Although nothing I've seen them do at DYK has convinced me they want to collaborate here- they seem to want to post highly charged political articles, and avoid doing QPQs. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Dismiss procedurally and maintain the current rules as updated by this August 2021 RfC. Even if you ignore the editor's previous conduct issues and the fact that their RfC statement is neither brief nor neutral (and the header isn't neutral either), this seems like a pretty cut-and-dry attempt to get everyone pretend like we didn't already modify these rules in the August RfC (although of course, they won't apply to nominations made before we officially put them on the books). Because if the outcome is "no consensus", he can argue that the default action would be not to implement the proposal, when in fact both it and the 20+ nominations "senior editor" qpq requirement were passed by RfC already. It's true, we didn't implement the rules until now, but the results are still binding from their addition to WP:DYK; reverting that addition (including the 20+ nominations requirement) as Venkat has done is... well, problematic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    Ignoring your Personal attacks. The concern I have pointed in my !vote was not discussed in the previous RfC. Moreover, more than 6 months have passed since the last RfC. Whatever the community consensus is on this issue, it will be clear once the RfC is completed. Venkat TL (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. I see no compelling upswell of editors aching for another change to DYK rules. This unusual RFC, requested AND opposed by User:Venkat TL, seems intended to advance the position of that editor and appears to be of a piece with their alleged gaming of current DYK rules as described by several in the thread above. In that thread I am seeing at least one uninvolved administrator who has suggested a DYK topic ban on Venkat TL. I'm leaning in that direction myself; Venkat TL seems to make lots of bad faith accusations against others on this page. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Procedural close, WP:POINT. Suggest that Venkat TL stay away from DYK procedure altogether until demonstrating greater experience and competence in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    Dont forget that Admin Gatoclass has commented alongside my opinion. Why I am not seeing any accusations of bad faith and personal attacks against him? On this RfC, I request folks to keep their comments focussed on the topic and stop pinging me. Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2022 (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.

Prep 1 to Queue 1

FYI - I can't do this particular promotion to Queue, because I have a hook in the set. — Maile (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 27. We currently have a total of 258 nominations, of which only 110 have been approved, a gap of 148, down 2 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than four months old

More than three months old

More than two months old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we get some help getting these two stalled February nominations moving?

These two February nominations from Gerda Arendt are stalled. At Template:Did you know nominations/Germaine Bailac, Gerda doesn't like any of the proposed hooks and she seems to only like the hook that has no consensus. Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaja Harnoncourt has a common hook which is just a woman marrying a widower with children from a previous marriage. I'm asking for help here because all that the participants have received are lengthy responses that don't fix anything. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: I've left a message on the Ladislaja Harnoncourt nom template. It's just a story about a woman who married and had children. There's nothing else there, nothing remarkable about the family. As for the Germaine Bailac, the sources are non-English, so I won't attempt that one. — Maile (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I lost all interest in Bailac weeks ago (said so on SL93's talk) and unwatched, - I hate when all we say about an accomplished performer is how often she did something but do what you want. Harnoncourt: getting ready for women's month, I thought it was unfair to have covered four sons, but not the mother and the daughters. - I am all for peace. Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt: the matriarchs don't always get the coverage they deserve to make the best hook, unfortunately. would you like to withdraw the nomination, or allow others to pick the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll look, am not quite awake yet. I proposed to have it for mothers day, isn't that quirky, for once? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Tweaks: queues 3 and 4

In the second hook of Queue 3, "... that without facial tattoos, Inuit traditional belief holds that women ..." seems very awkward to me. It would be much better as "... that Inuit traditional belief holds that women without facial tattoos ...".

In the third hook of Queue 4, "a set of guidelines were introduced" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "a set of guidelines was introduced".  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  21:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done both of them. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

QPQ freebies

While we're on the subject of rule changes and clarifications, Venkat TL recently pointed out that our free pass for new nominators on the QPQ requirement extends to nominators with five DYK credits, instead of those with five DYK nominations—see WP:DYK#gen5 and WP:DYKSG#H4. Does anyone have an objection to changing the language from DYK credits to nominations? I'd argue that a rejected nomination can provide just as much or even more interface with the DYK process (see Venkat TL's failed nominations), so I don't see a reason to not count those towards the limit. Plus, our current rule counts any DYK credit—including from an article creator/expander totally uninvolved in the nomination process—towards the rule, which I fail to understand. If someone else comes along and nominates an article I write with only a passing notification, that's counted as me gaining enough experience with the DYK process to know how to conduct a full review? I think this rule needs some updating. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I think one of the issues with the current wording is that, theoretically, an editor could nominate as many as 20 nominations without ever having to do a single QPQ, as long as at least 16 of those nominations are unsuccessful or have yet to be approved. In practice, such a form of gaming is unlikely, but the fact that it is possible does sound unfair. In addition, if an editor had more than five DYK credits but none of them were their own nominations, it would probably be a bit unfair for them to do a QPQ since it's possible they had little-to-no exposure to the DYK process before.
On the other hand, if consensus does decide to change the wording from "credits" to "nominations", the QPQ check tool will probably need to be changed to account for this. For example, perhaps it can count DYK credits and nominations separately, if that's technically feasible. That is, you can check how many nominations an editor created separately from how many DYK credits they've gotten. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: if it helps, I'd be happy to cobble together a tool listing all DYK nominations from a given user. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No objection. --evrik (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd object. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    care to elaborate on said objection, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Sure. The point of the QPQ seems to me as a way to encourage editors who frequently nominate DYK articles to actually review them. If people get a lot of failed reviews to start, then it might make more sense to have users succeed at submitting good DYKs before they are compelled to go out and judge other DYKs as good enough or not. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Mhawk10: fair point—i'm not sure i 100% agree, but I hear that. In any case, we should still probably stipulate that we're talking about successful nominations, and not just any expansion credit, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well, if we're talking only about counting successful nominations, then we're actually expanding the QPQ exemption beyond your initial proposal. There's nothing wrong with this in my view, since it isn't the non-nominators focused on expanding articles who are taking up DYK review resources. At the same time, this feels like an uncommon edge case. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. Poor reviews can cause problems further down the line. Let's not ask people who don't fully understand the criteria to participate in reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Credits aren't issued if it's an unsuccessful nom, so that won't happen. Indeed, I think it's a neat little bonus that (with this outlined in the instructions) such a rule change could rather discourage editors with failing noms from reviewing others. Though I'd also hope that if someone gets five failed noms in a row, they would reach out for help at the talkpage... or a regular would notice and offer... Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Kingsif your last comment is not making any sense to me. Currently the rule is that you need to have 5 "Successful nominations" aka "DYK Credits". The badly written Original Proposal is to modify it to "Nominations" that as I understand includes "unsuccessful nominations too. I agree with Kusma. Venkat TL (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Venkat TL: Well let me explain what you're missing, then. DYK credits are awarded from a semi-automatic system, when a hook goes on the main page. When an article is nominated, the template automatically generates credits for the nominator as well as creator of the article, and updaters or anyone else involved and named in the nomination. When the hook goes into a prep, the prep builder moves the credits to the hook set, and when the hook set goes to the main page, the admin awards all the credits on it - the DYK QPQ tool only checks those credits. So, only successful nominations BUT this includes creators and other editors, not just the nominator. The proposal here is only proposing to change the QPQ counter - or just change the credits automatically generated by the nom template, however leeky does it - to only be for the user who created the nom template. This still requires that the hook goes live, but won't award credit to users who have been involved with the article but not the DYK process. Because at the moment, theoretically, someone can get 5+ DYK credits just from creating articles that other people nominate, and have no knowledge of the system before needing to do a QPQ. Kingsif (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Wow, that is an extreme stretch. You are reading into stuff that just isn't there. @Theleekycauldron can comment if this is what she meant. I will be surprised if she did. @Kingsif you may need to propose this as a separate proposal. Not piggy back your opinions on something else. Venkat TL (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I outlined the current process of awarding DYK credits, how on earth is that my opinion; it preceded my involvement here. And how else, besides amending the credits or counter, would the proposal as it very much actually is be implemented, huh. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Kingsif, I will try an example of what TLC wants. TLC wants a user X with 5 unsuccessful DYK Noms to start reviewing DYKs that others have submitted. Implementation is not the problem, the idea is problematic, in my opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem with exempting a user who makes, like, five totally spam nominations of non-new articles (on a case-by-case basis). I do have a problem with users who are clearly experienced with the DYK process—users who have received a crash course in sourcing, neutrality, stability, and any other DYK requirement over the course of five nominations of varying viability—still claiming a free pass due to inexperience. I did propose kingsif's idea to mhawk10 as a compromise, so it's not out of the blue. I'd be happy to implement either one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal should have been shorter and there was no need to name me. The requirement of 5 "DYK Credit" is not the same as 5 nomination. This proposal is essentially watering down the requirement without considering the ill effects. In my humble opinion, nominating a DYK is just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the current rule demands. Venkat TL (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Venkat TL: My first DYK nomination was SLAPP Suits (nom), over a year ago. As you can see from the nom page, it was approved by the C of E, ran on the main page, and that was that. I didn't gain much experience with the DYK process from that; i saw that it was approved and didn't think much of it.
    By contrast, failed nominations such as 2022 Karnataka hijab row (nom), Russia (nom), and Curd of Bogra (nom) can actually provide a good introduction to some of the rules that give DYK its rigor—yes, the nominators were unable to address the problems presented, but they'll hopefully know for next time that an article with this problem won't fly. When I build prep sets, I don't learn from the 1,500th hook I promoted correctly; I learn from the mistakes I make, and I'm a better promoter for next time.
    My point is, not all successful reviews are substantial; not all failed reviews are open-and-shut. Why count one, but not the other? And why count credits, when not every credited user is a nominator? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Object to current language, as "nominations" implies only the DYKs where you nominated it. So if someone nominated an article with you as an updater, then that should count as 1 of the 5, regardless of whether the DYK was successful or not in my opinion. Whether a DYK passes or fails, it's still taking user's time to do the review of it, and so once someone has done 5 nominations, they should be reviewing others' work. The more free passes we give, the larger the backlog will become on average. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm struggling with your logic a bit here; if I create an article, and someone else nominates it successfully, that should count towards one of my five freebies? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes it should. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I would be opposed to such an interpretation. As far as the spirit of the QPQ requirement goes, I think it's meant to really be for the nominator rather than for the contributor or expander (assuming they're two separate people). If, for example, an editor had five or more DYK credits but none of them were their own nominations, then they decide to finally nominate on their own, it would be unfair to require them to do a QPQ if they had no exposure to the DYK process beforehand. On the other hand, if an editor has had five or more nominations, by that point they should already be expected to know how DYK works and thus should be better equipped to do reviews. No whether or not such reviews would be adequate ones is another discussion entirely, but the point is, personally, it would be more fair for the requirement to apply to nominators than to non-nominating editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, but credits were given to both nominator and creator/expander at DYK for many years, once the loophole that allowed a nominator to nominate for a creator and neither of them had to do a QPQ was closed. The spirit was for everyone involved to take credit and responsibility: one would certainly hope that a creator whose work was being nominated again and again would pay some attention to DYK and be ready if it came to them nominating one of their own, and for the very few this affected, they generally found their way or someone volunteered to donate a QPQ while they got up to speed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • My understanding was that back when we had the RfC that set up the mechanism for having experienced nominators doing two QPQs per nomination in times when the unreviewed backlog got out of hand, we changed "five credits" to "five nominations". So regardless of what various pages may say—doubtless because they were never updated after the RfC—it is currently five nominations. The assumption has been that this means five successful nominations, each of which resulted in promotion to the main page—in part, I imagine, because those are the only ones that are easy to track. Nominators are expected to be the point person for a nomination, making sure necessary fixes are made, and they get credits for all articles they nominate that are promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset The badly written proposal intends to replace "successful nominations" as explained in your comment to just "nominations" that includes failed nominations. Which in my opinion is problematic and watering down of quality of DYK review process. Venkat TL (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Venkat TL, I've personally long felt that failed nominations should count, because they typically take up as much or more reviewer time trying to get the nominator to make important improvements to the article. It has always bothered me that a QPQ submitted for a nomination that failed can then be reused on a subsequent nomination, possibly more than once, before a nomination finally succeeds. But the standard has been successful nominations, and there seems to be enough pushback here to "all nominations" (and even to nominations instead of credits, though at this point it would require an RfC to change back to credits) that it's unlikely to change. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    In my opinion quality trumps quantity. I personally would not want folks with less than 5 "Successful DYKs" reviewing my noms. Hence I have opposed this proposal. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset: I can't find that change in the RfC you mentioned, where might it be?
    Also, you can't re-use a QPQ from a failed nomination, can you? WP:DYK#gen5 says "for every nomination"... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    theleekycauldron, the change from credits to nominations in determining QPQ status is effected right at the top: At the time of nomination ... (a) if the nominator has previously nominated fewer than 5 articles (self-nominations or otherwise), no QPQ is required. That makes it unambiguously nominations with the passage of that RfC and not credits. There was discussion over this precise point during the RfC, and nomination was deliberately used. As for the QPQ reuse, I don't remember if gen5 has always been worded that way, but nominators would frequently reuse QPQ reviews if their original nomination was withdrawn when faced with failure (and I think sometimes even if failed), and I don't recall anyone ever being called out for doing so. I'd be perfectly happy if gen5 were used to prevent reuse going forward. I don't know how many reviewers take the step of checking whether the submitted QPQ has been used before... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
To answer your specific query, I check most of the time whether a QPQ has links to more than one nomination template. Schwede66 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I do the same; and I remember getting called out because I absent-mindedly used the same QPQ twice. So, I know users are on the lookout for it, at least... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: The wording doesn't seem to be clear. By "nominated fewer than 5 articles", does that mean they must do their QPQ beginning with their fifth nomination, or after their fifth nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: that's pretty much analogous to the rule in WP:DYK#gen5 anyway, so it'd suggest that anyone with five nominations/credits loses their immunity to the QPQ requirement. "five is not fewer than five" is a funny phrase to say out loud theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, "previously" is key here: if you've previously nominated five articles, then you're subject to QPQ; if you've previously nominated fewer than five, you aren't. So if you've had two previous nominations that made it to the main page (with no failures) and have three in process, a new nomination will require a QPQ because you've made five previous nominations. If, on the other hand, you've had four on the main page and no failures, you're not subject to QPQ with your new, fifth nomination, because you only have four previous noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: So basically, Venkat must provide QPQs for his currently open nominations? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Relax. WP:RFC is that way. Any sneaky attempts to sidestep or avoid wider community consensus will be reverted. Things are working well, if you plan to break it, have an RfC first. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • TLDR Theleekycauldron through this proposal, wants a user with 5 'unsuccessful' DYK Noms to compulsorily judge DYKs that others have submitted. This is a significant watering down of the current WP:DYKRULES that require 5 'successful DYKs before they can review. I believe an RfC will be needed to adopt such a major change. Venkat TL (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm currently a bit too worked up to make a proper response, but I will say that's not at all what i want. Summarizing can be dangerous, in its tendency to omit nuance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
      @TLC, your proposal (if adopted), will allow this to happen. Yes/No? Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
      Hmm, it's not that simple.
      To start, I say in the diff that you linked to that such a situation would be less than ideal, and that (given its rarity) we could exempt on a case-by-case basis if the reviewer feels that the nominator is still too inexperienced for a competent review.
      That said, it's highly unlikely that such a scenario would arise—think about it. That would have to mean that on four separate occasions, a user made a DYK nomination without even reading the rejection message from the previous nomination. I would be astonished to find that more than a handful of users exist in that category—and even more astonished if one of them suddenly made a sixth nomination that was completely viable, save for a QPQ they were too incompetent to carry out.
      In addition, I also say in the diff you linked that I would support kingsif's idea, as i'd already proposed it to Mhawk10 as a compromise. Kingsif's idea was that a user must make five successful nominations (merely being a creator or expander doesn't count)—this removes the clause where someone can nominate five of my articles, blowing through my freebies without me ever gaining any experience with the DYK process. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
      You are failing to admit, but the short answer to my Yes/No question is Yes. Your proposal will allow this to happen. There is nothing in your proposal to stop this from happening. It is not possible to check and permit every DYK reviewer. People have to read the rules and make their judgement based on what is written in the WP:DYKRULES. The creator vs nominator issue is separate from your proposal and you better not muddy up the water by mixing it here. Venkat TL (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This sneaky attempt to push the proposal without going for an RfC for this major change has been reverted. Please do not add this without generating a wider consensus for this change of WP:DYKRULES Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Venkat TL: this RfC on proposal to require a second QPQ from "senior" DYK editors (those with 20+ DYK credits) when there's a backlog of unreviewed nominations also provides for the switch from credits to nominations. Take care! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron thank you for the link of the 8 months old RfC. I read the page. I see that the RfC statement, used the word "DYK nominations" and used it to mean "DYK CREDITS", Now you are changing the meaning of the word and including unsuccessful nominations too. I still suggest you initiate a fresh RfC with neutral wording to state this clearly that unsuccessful nominations too would be counted as DYK CREDITs. Currently they are not counted as DYK CREDITS, and this is still a major departure from the existing rules, Hence my objections to your modification of the WP:DYKRULE. Venkat TL (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Venkat TL: That wasn't quite my understanding. I see that the RfC statement, used the word "DYK nominations" and used it to mean "DYK CREDITS". Well, there were two proposals in the RfC—the first one (which correlates with the title of the RfC that says "DYK credits") does count DYK credits. However, the proposal explicitly changed its wording from "DYK credits" to "nominations" in the second take of the proposal (found at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 182#Take 2 -- Everyone please vote again on revised proposal) to prevent some confusions about when the requirement kicks in. Rest assured, the two terms are not used interchangeably in the RfC, and you're welcome to ask the creators of the proposal to confirm. One of those creators is BlueMoonset, who said earlier in this discussion that my understanding was that back when we had the RfC that set up the mechanism for having experienced nominators doing two QPQs per nomination in times when the unreviewed backlog got out of hand, we changed "five credits" to "five nominations". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think I disagree with summary you are suggesting. The RfC proposal seems to have not considered unsuccessful nominations. Instead the main thrust of the RfC was on "Pending nominations" and the 20 nom rule for 2 QPQ. In any case 6 months have passed and we should have a fresh RfC for this change. If the community consensus wants to ask failed DYK noms to start reviewing, I will agree. Please propose the neutral draft for RfC. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Venkat TL, you may disagree, but the RfC was approved and is currently what we should be working with. Unless there is a new RfC that is subsequently approved—and aside from you, I don't see anyone eager for one—that most recent approved RfC is how DYK is supposed to operate. You don't get to pick which community consensus you wish to agree with, you have to go by the most recent one. Where DYK has fallen down is in not modifying the "rules" to reflect the new consensus when it was reached in the RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    On that note, I've done my best to implement the full proposal in WP:DYK#gen5. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

QPQs and User:Venkat TL

I wondered why Venkat TL, as a relative DYK-newbie, is expressing such strong opinions on matters QPQ. I've looked into this and found:

  • What the five current nominations have in common is that they were all nominated with "Reviewed: Exempt" for the QPQ requirement.
  • In addition, there is one are (at least) three failed nominations (amended based on Narutolovehinata5's input below):
  • As an aside, what the nominations have in common once a review starts is that there is a lengthy back-and-forth going on. To review this user's nominations appears to be "hard work".

Clearly, the next time one of those open DYK nominations makes it to the front page, the remaining nominations require QPQ. Claiming to be "Exempt" in all five cases is not a good look. And do not attempt to WP:GAME this, Venkat TL, because the moment we get the impression that you do, we promote one of those nominations and let the other four sit there until you meet the QPQ requirement. I therefore suggest that you start adding QPQs to at least four of those nominations. Schwede66 22:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

He also has at least two other failed DYK nominations: Template:Did you know nominations/Bulli Bai case and Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka. That would mean twelve nominations without a single QPQ. There is some confusion as to when wording of when QPQs kick in, but personally, having that many nominations without doing a single QPQ is at the very least, odd. I'm still not sure if it's allowed or not, but in my almost six years on DYK, I have never seen a similar case to this before. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: re-ping due to a typo in my previous ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 On top of that, Venkat TL said on your talk page that you were editing DYK based on your ego when this was brought up there. Venkat TL then started an argument on theleekycauldron's talk page when their comment was redacted as a personal attack. I'm not sure if its gaming the system, but it is very much being uncivil and assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
three times, actually: here, here, and here. I tried to strike the second one, leading to the aforementioned discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: you forgot to add Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown into this list? How could you miss this when you did not miss the DYK I submitted few hours ago today? How convenient? Perhaps because it spoiled the entire conspiracy.

To answer the most BURNING question in your mind, why I am being so vocal against this harebrained proposal? I have already explained every aspect of my opposition in my comments if you would have cared enough to read them. It is not that hard to understand. My vocal opposition is because I will be impacted by this proposal, and not in a good way as far as I can foresee. My DYKs have already been suffering because of bad quality of reviewing or hostile reviewers far more concerned about striking line-items on this page than improving Wikipedia. I dont see the situation improving if we start allowing people with failed DYKs reviewing DYKs by others. So here I am speaking for myself. You have a problem with that?

I find this extremely concerning that this admin named Schwede66, "a relative DYK expert", is making extreme bad faith arguments against me and plotting schemes. He seems to have checked my entire DYK history and with all those failed nominations (failed deliberately and inappropriately in most cases citing WP:BUREAUCRACY) And yet failed to notice, that 3 hours before he made this extremely Assume bad faith post, I had already reviewed my first ever DYK. (Yes, go ahead, and check the time stamps.)

Now I am not going to believe that this admin, with more than 200,000 edits, who has crawled my entire contributions history, and assisted by minions above, failed to notice that I had already reviewed a DYK without anyone lecturing me about it, so that leaves me with other reason that there are some sinister intentions against me. So Admin Schwede66, tell me what 'evil, no good plans' you have in mind for me? Another fascinating point that I noted, 3 more "relative DYK experts", commented as reply to the original bad faith post by Schwede66, (namely SL93, narutolovehinata5 and Theleekycauldron) and yet at the time of this writing, none of these 3 noticed my DYK review or cared to point it out on this thread.) Is this some kind of deliberate group blindness? I hope I will hear better excuses than sorry I failed to notice that. --Venkat TL (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, what an attitude. No wonder your reviews generate so much discussion. I compiled my list from the following sources:
  1. The QPQ check tool
  2. Template talk:Did you know (hence why a three-hour-old nomination is included, and there I did see that you reviewed a nomination but that isn't relevant and hence I didn't comment on it; what is relevant is for you to add reviews to your nominations)
  3. your talk page and your talk page archive (where I checked for DYK notices)
Hence I missed the two items that Narutolovehinata5 mentioned plus the item you now mention; you never received notifications about those (or at least there aren't any in your archive). Schwede66 01:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, now that I have taken the wind out of your scheming plans, you will talk about attitude, as a distraction. Of course that DYK you admit you deliberately left out, of your bad faith post, is entirely relevant to this discussion but hey, why let facts come in the way of a 'good story'? Venkat TL (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Attitude isn’t a distraction, Venkat TL - it’s actually one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. A continued lack of civility toward other editors will have consequences, as I’m sure you’re already aware. You appear to be on thin ice, but there’s still time to change course. Doing so will require being open to questions and criticism, rather than responding with accusations of bad faith and claims that editors are conspiring against you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Ezlev FWIW, I will state that I talked to exactly nobody before I posted my analysis above. Schwede66 02:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Bad faith comments that deliberately omit facts and build a false narrative for malicious purpose will be called out for what they are. Venkat TL (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile, despite this problematic behavior, Venkat TL has been active in editing the main Wikipedia:Did you know page. I am starting to think a topic ban may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I would support a topic ban. Nothing they've done at DYK has been productive and collaborative- they're wanting to just post highly charged political articles, and avoid doing QPQs. It's like the controversial Northern Ireland hooks debacle again, just this time with controversial Indian politics articles instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you know you are making allegations without any basis. I suggest you read my response above, before making another comment on this thread. Provide diffs for your claim that "I want to avoid doing QPQs" or strike off your false allegations. Venkat TL (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I've seen the DYKs you've nominated, they've been massively controversial and a time sink, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka you opened a massive time sink thread after it was rejected, and this whole discussion about DYK nominations seems like a clear gaming of the system so you don't have to do as many QPQs. Which considering that QPQ is a basic level of collaboration with the project, is another reason why it seems all you want to do here is promote controversial Indian politics topics. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
In case you dont know yet, 3 hours before OP made this baseless thread, I had already reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown, but you carry on with your agenda of denigrating me and making baseless personal attacks without diffs. Venkat TL (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes I can see you've done one. But you've made more than 6 nominations, so owe more than 1. Doing 1 QPQ to prove a point and try and "win" an argument isn't the right way. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification?

@BlueMoonset, Schwede66, and Theleekycauldron: Probably could be tweaked in the rules. I'm pinging BlueMoonset as the editor with probably more dealings with the rules than the rest of us. Maybe I keep my own records differently, but I've been tracking my own thusly: DYK-ReviewsCount. I also keep a couple of other tracking lists on mine. However, my personal method is dependant upon my own diligence to keep it up to date. There needs to be a procedure/guideline that works for everybody and is easy to check. And they have brought up a good point, whether or not it should be based on nominations that make it to the main page, or does it include multiple nominations that are still to be reviewed? I think that's the point of the comments by Leek and Schwede. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My own system is much more simple, Maile. When I do a review, I add it to the list that's in the lead of User:Schwede66/DYK. When I use one of the reviews, I delete it from that list. Schwede66 02:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
And regarding the main point that I'm making, there are four credits and five open nominations. The moment that one of the open ones hits the main page, the remaining nominations need a QPQ. It does not usually happen that we have a newby with so many active nominations just as the QPQ requirement is about to kick in. But that's the case here. The "I don't need to do QPQs" as part of so many nominations just does not sit right with me. Schwede66 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Another bad faith comment that attempts to build up a false narrative by putting words in my mouth. I never said that "I don't need to do QPQs", this user deliberately did not give a diff. This kind of conduct is unbecoming of an admin. In fact at more than one location on this page and others, I have said that I will provide QPQ when I am required to. Venkat TL (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you completely @Schwede66:. But we need to come up with some added verbage to cover this in the future, as well as now. I don't think we anticipated such a prolific editor. And @Venkat TL: I understand you are fairly new on Wikipedia, and I've been sitting here trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on your defensive attitude.You've done so much in such a short time, that we need to sort it out how to handle it. But if you keep up the attitude you've been expressing here, you're going to end up defending yourself at WP:ANI — Maile (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I did not start this unnecessary thread here, nor I asked them to spin stories about me. I am being attacked here. I will defend myself whenever and wherever I deem necessary. They are making a fuss about a non issue. Once my QPQ check shows 5 DYK credits, as per the DYKRULES I will start providing QPQs. I doubt that QPQ is the real concern here, they are aiming bigger targets by attacking me. Venkat TL (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah, Maile, Schwede, I have a full table to record mine; which brings me to a suggestion - is there a way to show QPQs vs noms? Just a tool to record how many QPQs a user fills out on their nomination templates, compared to how many nom templates they create. It'll show pretty clearly if someone is going to go over 5 freebies, if making a lot of noms early before any pass. Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I don't know who created the QPQ check, so can't answer that question. You really took a lot of care with your Reviews full table. I also do something similar to your table, but no images or anything: User:Maile66/DYKReview, but I don't count QPQ in this one. On a technicality, I could probably skate on the QPQs forever, on the old reviews. But I like to give a current review now and then. It just seems like good practice, and a good example to set. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 1: Francis Childs (printer) (nom)

  • ... that Francis Childs was the publisher and printer of The New York Daily Advertiser, the third daily newspaper to appear in the United States, in 1785?

Okay, I'm sorry, I should've made myself clear. I thought we'd work out a compromise without me ever having to go there, but as the hook was promoted, I feel I should bring it up. Simply put, I just don't find this hook to be very interesting to a broad audience. We've run a lot of publisher/printer/newspaper hooks over the past few months—some of these have actually been pretty excellent, like The Constitutional Courant (nom) The Constitutional Courant (nom), despite generally below-average pageview counts. But I think highlighting that someone published and printed (did he found it?) not the first, but the third daily newspaper in just one country...

Listen, I'm happy to back off if consensus disagrees—it's entirely possible that I'm wrong. However, I just don't think this hook should run in current form. Pinging @Gwillhickers, Lil-unique1, and Z1720: as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I was the promoter of this hook. While I do not think this hook is the most thrilling thing we have run on DYK, there are lots of hooks that appear in DYK that I don't find interesting. However, this hook had been open since March 3, was one of the hooks at the top of the approved list, and had been approved by a reviewer. The nominator felt that the information about The New York Daily Advertiser being the third newspaper printed in the US was important. I wanted to honour the nominator's wish, as ultimately DYK would not have articles on the main page without our nominators. I appreciate others suggesting better hooks (and I have done the same thing myself) but I decided that, after a long wait, it was time to promote this. If others believe another hook should be used (like the proposed ALT2) then I will not oppose this. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron — Clearly this is a matter of opinion. Even the mention of printing laws isn't any guarantee it will appeal to a broad audience. I really don't think the founding of a newspaper, "in just one country", is something to be brushed off so readily. Founding a newspaper, the third in a country like the United States, at a time when the newspaper industry was in its infancy, is a distinguished accomplishment. Printing laws, though a big responsibility, was just a job and shouldn't be something that takes a front seat to Childs' accomplishment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Leak, @Gwillhickers: - this is one of those topics where, if you're someone like me and fascinated by American history of that era, or even just an interest in newspaper history, it catches your eye. If not, maybe no hook will work. Maybe all DYK hooks are like that. One thing I did find interesting, is that when Childs and Swaine got the contract to publish the Laws of Congress, not only did the Government pay an agreed upon fee for the printing, but also provided the paper supply on which they would be printed. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, actually it was a common practice for a government agency, be it county, state or federal, to supply paper, ink etc, for a given printing commission, esp since it usually involved appreciable amounts of paper, which often times could be scarce. Private commissions could go either way, depending, but usually printers supplied the wherewithal in those cases, rather than having a private customer go out and procure those things. In such cases, the cost of materials was factored into the overall agreement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66 and Gwillhickers: my apologies for the rant in advance. I think my thing boils down to the idea that every hook has two independent qualities: interestingness and hookiness. Some hooks are both interesting and hooky; some hooks are interesting but not hooky; some hooks are hooky but not interesting; and some hooks are the textual equivalent of the colour beige. The difference, in my head, is that an interesting hook gives good information on its face. You read it, and you go "hmm! that's pretty cool", but you don't really want to learn more. You just go about your day, storing this fact somewhere in the back of your head.
By contrast, a purely hooky hook doesn't impart any substantial information, but it does pique the reader's interest to the point where they want to click through, read the article, and really dig into all the interesting nuggets in the article. April Fools' Day is when we celebrate having hooky hooks with very little raw interest value, and I love it. The best hooks, of course, are the ones that have ample and excellent hookiness that also gives those less inclined to click something neat to walk away with.
So, it's not even that I read this hook and find it dull; I actually think it's pretty cool that Childs founded a major newspaper, and the fact that it was just the third in the United States. In that sense, I think the hook is absolutely interesting to a broad audience. I think a good 70% of those who read the hook are gonna regard that as pretty cool, and not give it much more thought.
However, while purely hooky hooks can sometimes be too insubstantial or even clickbaity, purely interesting hooks leave no reason for the reader to want to find out more, and that's a real shame. Because of the lack of hookiness in this hook, it won't get readers to click, and I think that DYK should strive to enchant those looking for a reason to click. Those who are but fish floating around, looking for inspiration, looking for a reason to be reeled in by the hook for a two-hour adventure that starts with an article you found off the main page and ends with a complete understanding of the 1902 Kosher Meat Boycott.
This is, in my view, the danger of being adamant that hooks should trumpet the key accomplishment of a historical or contemporary figure—it kind of admits defeat. It assumes that users won't find a reason to click, and therefore tries to jam as much information to give to the reader without them clicking, without them ever wanting to click through. Insubstantial hooks are, of course, a problem of their own, but we should be careful about these extremes and strive for hooks that have both a reasonable amount of hookiness and interestingness. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
No rant my friend. At the risk of sounding patronizing, it's clear your heart is in this discussion. I'll do what I can to expand on Childs' involvement in printing the first laws that were established after American independence. Not a menial task at all. Printers and publishers were the 'internet' in those days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: 'preciate it, thanks :) it's not just this hook—this style has been making me simmer for quite a bit (there's been an uptick as of late), so I figured I'd lay out my thinking in general, in case this comes up or I want to write a real essay on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Templates

@Theleekycauldron:, or anyone else ... about this comment in the edit summary. Can someone please point out in the guidelines where it says reviewers are also responsible for grading the article in a WikiProject template? Much appreciated. --evrik (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's in the length requirement, if I recall correctly—the article can't be a stub. It's not specifically on the reviewer to reassess—in fact, that should be on the nominator. I just meant that the article shouldn't be okay'd if it's still classified as a stub. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the nominator should do it, or ask someone else to. In most cases a true stub would probably be ineligible on grounds of length anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
But nothing in the reviewer instructions says the reviewer has to double check what the templates on the back say? Just checking. I was surprised to have been called out for not adjusting the templates. --evrik (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes actual stubs shouldn't be posted at DYK. But it's not the reviewers responsibility to change the WikiProject templates, as it's not in the reviewing instructions (and I don't support adding it either, as it would just make the instructions even more complex). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I always interpreted that requirement as meaning that it cannot actually be a stub (too short with no section structure) and that it cannot be tagged as a stub, with a stub tag, visible in the article itself. The talk page assessment is often far out of date and I don't think that's an issue for DYK. DYK is for readers, so it should be based on article content. Talk pages are for editors and the only purpose of their assessments is to guide editors, so their content is irrelevant for DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
no, it's totally not the reviewer's responsibility—I'm pretty used to making a lot of pre-promotion cleanup as promoter, and over a while, you just start to shoulder responsibility for that stuff. but it ain't really. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The talk page project banners and their ratings, were designed as a system for the projects to eyeball for a work plan. They usually show up on the projects under "Tasks" or something similar. Each project, if they are active, have their own standards about what assessment rating applies to a given article. It is not DYK's responsibility. However, most projects are inactive. If a nomination otherwise meets DYK requirements, it's not a stub. Remove the stub rating if you see it. A true stub would not be complete enough for DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I've also seen some articles that are too long to be stubs and yet still have a stub tag (usually they were kept in because editors forgot to remove them). Usually those need to be removed before review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
They're easy enough to miss, down below even the navigation templates. DYK does not run stubs, but whether an article is a stub is not determined by a template on the article or its talkpage, but by its actual content, and that is what is reviewed. CMD (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
To me, the whole stub issue is no big deal. DYK possibly first came up with the "not a stub' issue in reference to how developed an article is. If it can pass DYK, it's also more than a Stub. Nobody is likely to come along later and put the stub back. And if someone does put it back, DYK does not monitor past nominations. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5: Afternoon of a Faun (Robbins)

@Theleekycauldron: I'm not happy with the modified hook. Currently in prep as below:

  • ... that the 1953 ballet Afternoon of a Faun (pictured) is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if they were the mirror?

I used "Jerome Robbins' ballet" rather than "the 1953 ballet" in the nomination. The year doesn't tell us anything major about the ballet. The choreographer's name let the readers know that he's involved with why the dancers look at the audience like a mirror. There are multiple ballets named Afternoon of a Faun, as indicated by a paragraph in the article, and the existence of the article Afternoon of a Faun (Nijinsky), which some view as the more famous version. In my opinion, the choreographer, rather than the year, helps differentiate the various versions. Also, Robbins is somewhat famous outside of the ballet world - he won an Oscar for co-directing the original West Side Story film, and worked extensively on Broadway, for which he won five Tonys, surely his name is worth mentioning in the hook. Corachow (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, Corachow! I agree that the hook could benefit from having robbins in it; what I'll is that I modified it mainly because the original hook would have needed parenthetical commas around the article and (pictured), which made the flow of the hook a little janky. If you have an ALT that mentions Robbins and gets around that, I'd be happy to implement :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I don't find the flow of the hook janky at all. If you insist, the following is the ALT from the nomination.
I don't think this hook work as well for people who had never seen the ballet. Alternatively I'll just go with something completely different. Still far prefer the original with Robbins included, or some way to rephrase it to convey the same message. Corachow (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Corachow: I don't think that's as good either; i was only saying that punctuation corrected, the original looks like this:
So maybe we change it to:
Or, for quirk-by-omission:
but if you don't want to spring for that, that's fine :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I think you misread the my original hook then. As shown in the nomination, there isn't a comma between "ballet" and "Afternoon". Corachow (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I think theleekycauldron is saying that, although there wasn't a comma between "ballet" and "afternoon", gramatically speaking, there should have been a comma there, but she didn't like it with the comma, so she rephrased it to eliminate the need for a comma. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I see, my bad. I much prefer "Jerome Robbins' Afternoon of a Faun..." over the omitted version. The only problem is that it doesn't say it's a ballet, but hopefully the word "dancers" and the picture can help, or we can change it to "ballet dancers". Corachow (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Ping theleekycauldron. Corachow (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, couldn't you just add "the", like you did in your 1953 hook? eg. "... that the Jerome Robbins ballet Afternoon of a Faun (pictured) is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if they were the mirror?" MeegsC (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@MeegsC: While that would technically be grammatical, names are usually only used as adjectives when the artist achieves a certain level of notoriety—e.g. a Bach cantata, a Verdi opera, a Beatles song. Extending that honour to Jerome Robbins wasn't something I was quite comfortable pulling off. However, I will swap in the suggestion Corachow liked. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
ah, looks like it's in queue. Could one of our DYK admins please swap in the third bulleted suggestion to Queue 5: Afternoon of a Faun (Robbins) (nom)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Sorry to bother you, but the new hook on the queue is not the one I like. The one I prefer is the following.

More queues needed

@DYK admins: There's a backlog at DYK with one queue ready to go. Since we are at two-sets-a-day, backlogs might be more likely for the next few days/weeks. Any help promoting preps would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Three filled queues at the moment, more will happen. However, I would like to applaud all our prep builders. Looking over the Approved list, building the preps is truly an art form. The prep builders are deserving of respect and admiration. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Quirky hooks

It seems... we're running a bit short at the moment on quirkies. I'll keep searching and sifting, but could someone please promote Paddy Morgan (nom) to the quirky slot of p5? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe ALT0 or ALT2 is quirky enough at Template:Did you know nominations/Phillips O'Brien? SL93 (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT2 might work, but it's treating a quote as fact... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Despite being a quote, the article makes it clear that is exactly what the author was trying to accomplish with his book. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I mean that is what the book literally is marketed as - "Phillips Payson O'Brien shows us the war in a completely different light. In this compelling new history..." SL93 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
how does that contribute re: revision of revisionists? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I got that hook mixed up with the original hook which I think is fine for the quirky slot with no or few choices. As for ALT2, I'm not sure if we have progressed from the celebrity peas hooks when we recently had a watching frogs playing poker one when the frogs were dead. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I promoted Paddy Morgan. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing help

I need help at Template:Did you know nominations/Harold DeMarsh. Harold DeMarsh was the first NCAA wrestling champion due to his weight class competing first at the first NCAA wrestling championship and winning that. I can find brackets of the 1928 NCAA Wrestling Championships, but I can't find a source that specifically states that the 115-pound bracket competed first in 1928. SL93 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I contacted the Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum since they have exhibits on DeMarsh and the matches. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I solved it by throwing money at the problem...as in spending a few dollars on an ebook. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
and they say we don't sacrifice anything for this project. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I bought it so I might as well see if I can use it on other articles. The book has the history of collegiate wrestling in chronological order which might prove to be useful again. SL93 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, I withdrew the nomination. SL93 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Is?

In Queue 7:

Nominator: Sammi Brie, reviewer: GreatLakesShips, promoter: Z1720.

The main problem is the "is". The source is from 2013, and there should be a more recent source to verify that the hook is still true. Also, the source of the information is the station owner; I would prefer to see an independent source. Unless a more recent, independent source can be supplied, I'd suggest changing the hook to something like:

 MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  00:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  • https://playbill.com/article/where-to-listen-to-classical-music, dated Feb. 2022, lists seven US stations/groups of stations; however, all appear to be non-commercial. KLEF was not included. I am a bit worried that it's easy to miss the "commercially operated" part of the hook and think that there are only three classical stations altogether. You can make any subject appear unusual by adding enough qualifiers that describe it and don't describe its competitors. Why is being commercial relevant here? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @David Eppstein, there used to be many more commercial classical stations in the US, and these were quite famed in their day: WQXR-FM, KFAC, KKHI, etc. It is certainly unusual in US radio that one is operating—let alone in Alaska—let alone one started in the late 1980s, whereas the other two (WFMT and WRR (FM)) have been around far longer. I *do* support the proposed revisions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is "unusual" that this station is a commercial classical station, in the sense that it is commercial, is classical, and there are few other stations that have both combinations of characteristics. Your reply repeats this claim of unusuality, already implicit in the hook. But it does not answer my question. Why is this specific combination of characteristics an interesting one, rather than a misleading one that hides the fact that there are actually many more classical stations? I mean, if we had a hook stating that it was the only classical station whose original owner was named Rick, it would be clear that the name of the owner is only included to impart uniqueness, rather than actually being informative. Can you explain to me why "commercial" has a more important function in the hook than that? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      The idea is that it's one of the last of a nearly extinct breed that was more common in US radio. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      I'm not really clear on what the point is, either. On the surface, this hook seems to be saying that there are ONLY 3 classical music stations in the entire country, and that is false. Are the many other classical stations in the US all public broadcasting/non-profit? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a person who has a relatively limited interest in radio, I did find it interesting that, commercial or not, there are that few classical music stations left in a country as large as the United States. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Narutolovehinata5: I think that, by misunderstanding the hook, this comment clearly demonstrates that the hook is misleading. It is not accurate that "there are that few classical music stations left". The actual number of classical stations is significantly higher, but most are non-commercial. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      • They may have been responding to your post above about there being just seven of any kind. I don't see the modified hook as being the least bit misleading – it says exactly what the source does. We can't be responsible for users who misread things.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  19:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
What makes it unusual is that commercial classical music stations in the US generally don't survive; that's why most remaining ones are non-commercial. They don't survive because they often don't pull in sufficient advertising. That's not something non-commercial stations have to worry about. They're supported by a combination of donor funding and taxes. MeegsC (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

new tool in light of rule change

Since we changed our QPQ system from credits to nominations, I've (with the help of SD0001 for hosting) created a new nomination-counting tool at https://leekbot.toolforge.org. anyone have any objection to me swapping it into the {{DYK tools}} template? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How are the 2 different- I've checked for my own username, and I get 261 nominations for both? Which definitely isn't correct, as in my early days, I had at least 1 rejected DYK nom. Leek/new one, old one Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
my tool returns 253 for you; are there any articles you wrote that someone else nominated? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
no, my tool is counting doubled nominations as one. hmm... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
My mistake on the numbers. Yes there may be a few that I didn't nominate but had credit for. But there will be also a few double/triple article nominations too. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This might not matter, but it doesn't seem to pick up very old nominations, such as my 2006 nomination of Wyandotte Caves. Of course, back then nominations did not have subpages. See Old revision of this version of the template talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
for what it's worth, the old tool wouldn't pick that up either; as far as I know, the template subpage system predates DYKUpdateBot, which is what the old tool relies on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot began its reign in February 2010; DYK subpages first appeared about July 2011.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
and schwede66 made around 100 nominations in that timespan, leading to that bug... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
What Joseph2302 links as the old one, is wierd. I ran the one he linked, and it kicked up a list of every DYK credit notice from me that went to any nominator when I promoted a given queue. The URL looks the same, but when I click on the link actually inside my most recent nomination template, it kicks out my own DYK credits, which it should. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I just put my name in and got no results. Does that mean my next five noms are free? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
it's a slower tool for now, give it a couple seconds; I got 272 nompages. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Just got an (edit conflict) in saying that yes, it showed up as 272. But, that's only 2011 through 2015. I'm over 500 now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
strange. I'll get into it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: ah, it returns 465 (through 2022 April 10) if you give it enough time. I really gotta implement a caching system, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't get any results, either. Maybe I have too many? It says, "PANTS: the Plaintext Automatic Nomination Tallying System Just a sec... :) no. timestamp revision id nomination page" — Maile (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm getting 109 for you; just give it time for now, I'm working on some optimizations. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm getting 129 for myself. According to my own records, that number should be 287. And yes, I have a number of multi-hook nominations, but the count shouldn't be that far out. Schwede66 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
oy va voy, looks like you made a hundred or so nominations before the template subpage system was implemented. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, looks like the tool has outstanding problems in the areas of speed, multi-hook nominations, and early-nomination detection. I'll let you know when those problems are solved. Thanks for the feedback, all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks like it may be broken for some users as my check shows a grand total of zero nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I see 96 nominations when I click your link. It just takes a few seconds to load. DanCherek (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I can see it now. Strangely when I first loaded it up nothing appeared. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There are still some bugs in the tool though. For example, the tool lists Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Ross (anarchist) as one of my nominations even though my only edit to the nomination was to fix a title move (given that DYK noms shouldn't be moved even if the bolded article is moved). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
yep, that one's on the page's to-do list. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've tested it on various names and sometimes after over twenty minutes it still shows no results. After repeated attempts, I've gotten most to work eventually.
There's a bug specific to Apple devices. The problem is that Apple doesn't recognize certain date formats. On an Apple device (Mac, iPad, etc.), all PANTS timestamps appear as NaN undefined NaN at NaN:NaN:NaN. I encountered the same issue when I wrote a script to assist with adding {{Unsigned}}. I solved the problem in my script by changing the parameter passed to the Date function from a Wikidate format such as 09:31, October 25, 2021 to a format that Apple accepts: October 25, 2021 09:31.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  01:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the alert and thorough diagnosis, Mandarax! Walk me through this apple bug a bit; I don't take any date input from the user, and by the time I output it, it should be just a string—where in the code do I need to modify the date format so that Apple devices can work with it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
In the course of writing my script, I discovered that if you're doing something like var ts= new Date(x);, many different formats can be used for x in Windows, such as "October 25, 2021 13:01", "Oct 25, 2021 13:01", or "Oct 25 2021 13:01". Also acceptable in Windows are "13:01 October 25, 2021" and "13:01 10-25-2021", but formats such as these two will produce an "Invalid Date" on an Apple device. I dunno how you're processing dates in PANTS, but I'm guessing that you're somehow using a similar date format. Wikipedia puts the time before the date in its timestamps. I think if you reverse that, it'll solve the problem.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  10:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

How is this quirky?

I'm not sure how the hook at the end of prep 1 is quirky. ".. .that after Leonel Gómez Vides died in 2009, one of his friends expressed surprise that he had not been murdered?" That is assuming quirkiness is the reason for it being in the last slot. theleekycauldron SL93 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

it's not the best quirky; I think readers would find it odd (as I did) that one's friend expects them to be murdered... usually, you hope your friends will live long and healthy lives, and have no reason to believe otherwise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I do remember when we tried to avoid anything slightly hinting at someone dying for the quirky slot, but things can change. I personally would have picked something about his career as a political activist for a hook, but that's just me. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: How about this one? I don't read Spanish, so I hope you got it correct. Drop down to the last sentence of the last paragraph to see where I got the info.
  • Huh. I found that hook very quirky – in fact, when I was looking through hooks to build part of a set, I earmarked that (in my own mind) for the last spot! It made me click on the article to read more about him. As it turned out, somebody else grabbed that hook first. MeegsC (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I personally don't find hooks about someone dying to be quirky. But consensus is what Wikipedia goes by. SL93 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    i don't think death is quirky; it's structure and unexpectedness that makes quirk, not topic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's kind of amusing, if it's being said at an entertainer's funeral, or something. But with politics, assassination risks are a reality and not funny (to me). I still hear echoes of the 1960's, and people around a TV set utteriing, "Somebody ought to shoot him ... ", as they watched (take your pick) John Kennedy or Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Governor George Wallace. Comments like that really happened, and still do. It isn't amusing to me. — Maile (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    I also think that the hook wasn't likely meant in a mean-spirited away due to the nature of the subject's work. I personally wouldn't want there to be a quirky hook for my death or even those that I care about. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that it was meant in good-goofy humor. But it's one thing to joke among social acquaintances that someone's life or personality was such that it's a surprise he wasn't shot before he had a chance to die of a natural cause. In that regard, it's funny. I'm just not so sure how that same humor will be received on the main page. One way to find out, it to just leave the hook as the nominator intended, and let whatever happens happen.— Maile (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with you about how the situations are different. I don't agree with the quirky slot. I'm also more keen on having a hook that celebrates the person's life. But I guess off to the main page to see what happens. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Last filled queue will be on main page in a few hours

Per title. @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I promoted two more to queue. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 4. We currently have a total of 224 nominations, of which only 70 have been approved, a gap of 154, up 6 over the past seven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Queue 4 typo, formatting

The lead hook of Queue 4 has a typo: movel should be novel. Also, the ? should be replaced with {{-?}}.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  09:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Easter and Good Friday

I have a modest proposal for Easter, Template:Did you know nominations/Ihr Christen, singet hocherfreut, needs a review first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm on it right now. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done This has been reviewed, if anyone would like to promote it to either Prep 7 or prep 1, both of which have one slot open. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I promoted this to Prep 7. I felt Prep 7 was better because it will be on the main page during the morning in Germany, and Easter is traditionally celebrated in the morning in many Christian denominations. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, both. - Once we are together: a hook for tomorrow, Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfram Menschick, says "will be performed". Will be performed in the liturgy beginning 3 pm. It's in the second set for the day, which - during the Main page time - will get wrong when performed and afterwards. Should we 1) not care, 2) change each time, 3) find a different wording, 4) move it to the first set, where it could be swapped with Nabucco? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Possibly an admin needed for tomorrow, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Menschick

The hook for Good Friday, Wolfram Menschick, is on the Main page, but User:Fram removed the hook fact and its references from the article, twice. (See article history and my talk.) - I'm going out. - The hook is wrong by now as explained above, because the performance is over. We could say that he composed Marian vespers for women's choir, congregation and organ for the visit of Pope Benedikt XVI in Altötting in 2007, which is more sensational, but normal vespers would not be performed on Good Friday, so it would be ignorant to say so today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I restored the work to his works, so a hook could say he composed it, a work for the liturgy, for modest means, practical. A performance years after his death and at a Cathedral tells much more about his stature but I have no time to fight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It went off the Main page, and nobody seems to have problems. That was the strangest thing happening to me in almost 13 years of DYK. I hope it will not happen again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:DYKNOT "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes."
  • Changed by Leek [you know/Preparation area 4&oldid=1082458658] on April 8: "that the Johannespassion by Wolfram Menschick, a setting of the Passion after St John for three soloists and choir, will be performed today at the Essen Cathedral?"
  • At that point, it became an advertisement for the performance, listing the venue where it would be performed. Perhaps Leek was acting on good faith as a request from you? I don't know, and I assume good faith for both of you. Maybe one of us should have caught it before it was on the main page, but we didn't. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Advertisement? For a church service, free for all? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, Gerda. All churches advertise, even just their regular services. All non-profit for-free events advertise. but it's still promotional. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Maile66: While I don't think the hook is extraordinary (see Green Line Extension (nom)), I think you're right that this was hook steps over the line of what DYK should be. (By the way, I just copyedited for punchiness; I'm not sure why that changed it from not-ad to ad, but I digress.) I didn't adequately consider the promotional nature of the hook, and I'm sorry for that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think maybe we are not conditioned to think of mentions of church programs as promotional, so I guess that skipped all of our brains. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    When I say Happy Easter, is that promotional? It went on the Main page at 2pm local time, and began 3pm. How many readers of the English Wikipedia do you think would feel "promoted" to attend? Happy Easter! On the Main page now an invitation to sing with "high gladness" ("hocherfreut", no good translation found yet). Is that promotional? In a way I'd hope it's infectious. It promotes not to remain fixed to an empty tomb. Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Gerda, I understand your feelings are hurt about this. It's apparent your faith (and good will) are very important to you. The readership is unknown and unimportant. Let me give you a non-religious scenario. " ... that "Imagine" was the best-selling single of John Lennon's solo career?" is an historical fact, and not promotional. But it becomes promotional if the hook says, " ... that John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono has arranged a free concert in Central Park today to celebrate "Imagine"? With that wording, it is promoting the specific location of a free concert. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion DYK for Easter

Late notice, I know, but I just wrote Template:Did you know nominations/Easter in Poland. Might be a good hook for this weekend or so. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you rushed to get the nomination done, and just added the most generic hook possible. Please supply a better hook.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I suggested three alts, though I encourage others to suggest better hooks. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I like ALT4, ALT5 and ALT5a. I have not validated any of the hooks -- but, they meet the interestingness criteria for DYK. Ktin (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hooks 0 to 2 are approved and could go to tomorrow's set, second (Queue 1) preferred because the first has already something for Easter. I'd swap the Goldberg Variations to later, as we just had a ballet yesterday. It needs an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
sorry, hang on, don't promote this yet. ALT0 is did you know that there are many customs and traditions related to Easter in Poland? Yes, yes I did know that. That was the only hook proposed by the nominator two days ago for something that's happening tomorrow?? Yes, Z1720 proposed better hooks, and I proposed more, but I personally don't think ALTs 1 and 2 are up to snuff either—lots of holidays are important, and Americans aren't exactly going to be wowed by the fact that Polish Easter also does baskets and egg decorating. ALTs 4, 5, and 5a might well have their own problems, but that's the point—this needs more discussion for a consensus to develop.
This nomination was rushed and haphazard, and I strongly object to it bypassing the normal prep set process. WP:DYK#Date requests says that requests should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, and this is a prime example of why. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I think to show an article Easter on Poland a week later, just to follow rulez, would raise some brows of our readers. I have a hook in the next set, Katharina Konradi, which I offer to be replaced by ALT1 by any willing admin. The several partitions of Poland match ongoing East European political developments, - interesting hook, far beyond customs. (I'd really by please to see Konradi later, - I have a hook in the following set, also we celebrate Easter, and the article about the mentioned composer is not yet where I'd like it to be.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion request for April 23 or May 15

I submitted Template:Did you know nominations/W. A. Hewitt which has a special occasion request for April 23 or May 15. Either date is fine. Thanks for consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Looked and approved. 23 April preferred but probably needs extra work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. The prep set for April 23 is already full, so May 15 is fine too. Flibirigit (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Article nominators and other editors removing comments by others on a DYK nomination

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#On_my_DYK_contributions

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.

Generally speaking, is it allowed for article nominators to remove comments made by a reviewer or commenter if they disagree with them, or is that not allowed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Schwede66 07:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely not, it's antithetical to the entire decision making process. (except personal attacks/harassment/outing, of course) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Noted. For reference, the nomination being referred to is Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, where the nominator removed some comments I had made on the nomination. Should the comments be restored or should they be allowed to remain deleted? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Considering that the comments were relevant (as they were asking the user to do a QPQ, and clarify the meaning of a word in the hook), they should definitely not have been removed. It comes as no surprise to me that the user in question is the one who's been filling up this talkpage with tonnes of QPQ discussion, instead of actually doing QPQs.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I've re-added the comments, but honestly if the user won't do QPQs in a timely manner, we should probably be rejecting their nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
No comments were ' removed '. Narutolovehinata5 did not provide the diff, as the edit summary made it clear, that Off-topic comments were moved to the article talk page. See WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, WP:TPG for the rules. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not a talkpage, it's a template page. And the comments were asking you to do a QPQ, and asking for "greenhorn" to be made clearer- both of which are acceptable things to ask on a DYK nomination. Moving them to an article talkpage, when they are about the DYK nomination is wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
How were they off-topic? The comments have to do with the nomination. I think you probably should be taken to ANI by someone who is used to that thing. SL93 (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I see that you updated the QPQ at the nomination with "Done, although Exempt", but you aren't exempt and your only QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown was for your Modi Years nomination. You need another one. SL93 (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I am exempt as I do not "yet" have 5 DYK Credits. My second review is Template:Did you know nominations/Chibuzor Nwakanma Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It's 5 nominations, not 5 DYK credits, as you very well know (as you've started multiple threads above to argue about this). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I've now read all the threads above and I have to ask; for how much longer are we going to allow Venkat TL to be such a time sink at DYK? Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I can’t believe the user continues to be disruptive after previous warnings. Time for a topic ban. Schwede66 17:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me follow up on the topic ban question; here's a process question. Is a topic ban something that we sort here on this talk page in an informal way, or do we need to be more formal and use (for example) an RfC process, or do we go to ANI for it? Schwede66 01:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: ANI was used for The C of E's case; I think the wider community should probably have their say. Neglecting that, an RfC here could also work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
From what I recall, propsals for editor topic restrictions generally need to be discussed in a wider venue such as ANI. When TRM was topic banned (and subsequently unbanned) from DYK, it was through ArbCom as part of his existing ArbCom restrictions. The C of E's topic bans (like his earlier partial ban and later his full ban from DYK) were discussed at ANI. A discussion that's only here might count as local consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
ANI would be the most logical place to request a topic ban, with the quickest result. In the TRM case, there were multiple issues over an extended period of time, and involved many editors. TRM had once been both an Admin and a Bureaucrat. It was a much different case than this one. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Hopefully without coming across as insensitive, are you planning on opening an ANI thread? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I shall draft something here and will ask for broader input before taking it across to ANI. Not today... Schwede66 00:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft ANI notice

I volunteered to draft an ANI notice for dealing with Venkat TL's behaviour. This is now done. I invite others to check this and make sure that it covers the relevant issues. Please suggest amendments or edit the text. Venkat TL, I suggest that you don't comment here (as this isn't your ANI yet) but that you keep your powder dry for the ANI discussion itself:

Start of draft

==User:Venkat TL and behaviour at DYK==

I'm a regular at DYK (Did you know...) and wondered why Venkat TL, as a relative DYK-newbie, is expressing such strong opinions on matters QPQ. That's the "quid-pro-quo" system that requires editors to review other DYK nominations, with there being an initial period of five freebies so that newbies can get some experience first. An RfC on the finer details closed in September 2021 and when an editor finally tried to reflect the consensus in the rules, why would Venkat TL show such a strong reaction to that? I looked into this and found the following nominations from them:

Nomination date Nomination title Status
16-Dec-21 The Concept of Active Defence in China's Military Strategy Rejected
18-Dec-21 Our Hindu Rashtra Successful
21-Dec-21 Price of the Modi Years Successful
28-Dec-21 To Kill a Democracy Successful
28-Dec-21 2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election Successful
11-Jan-22 Bulli Bai case Rejected
15-Jan-22 Tek Fog Under review
11-Feb-22 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka Rejected
24-Feb-22 Stray cow Successful
23-Mar-22 Mann ministry Under review
4-Apr-22 Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house Under review
8-Apr-22 Aakar Patel Under review

What the nominations have in common once a review starts is that there is a lengthy back-and-forth going on. To review this user's nominations appears to be "hard work". At the time I did the above analysis, Venkat TL had four successful nominations and five pending ones, but each nomination claimed for them to be "exempt" from QPQ, which I suggested was not a good look. I therefore gave the advice to "not attempt to WP:GAME this". I received a hostile response, which included allegations of "extreme bad faith arguments", that I was being "assisted by minions" who contributed to earlier discussions, and we were collectively being accused of "deliberate group blindness". Subsequent comments reiterated bad faith (1, 2, 3) and talked about "personal attacks" (4). Venkat TL's DYK activity spills out onto user talk pages, where he accused Narutolovehinata5 to edit DYK for their ego (twice at that), which was repeated at DYK talk. Theleekycauldron removed "His ego won, Wikipedia lost" from Narutolovehinata5's talk page as a personal attack but Venkat TL reverted that removal and reinstated the personal attack. This led to a discussion on Theleekycauldron's talk page.

Venkat TL then started an RfC to have rules clarified and that itself contained the allegation that their "DYKs have already been suffering because of bad quality of reviewing or hostile reviewers far more concerned about striking line-items on this page than improving Wikipedia." The RfC was closed on procedural grounds.

Several users have pondered whether Venkat TL should receive a topic ban at DYK, including David Eppstein "topic ban may be necessary", Joseph2302 "would support a topic ban", BusterD "I am seeing at least one uninvolved administrator who has suggested a DYK topic ban on Venkat TL. I'm leaning in that direction myself; Venkat TL seems to make lots of bad faith accusations against others on this page", Black Kite "I've now read all the threads above and I have to ask; for how much longer are we going to allow Venkat TL to be such a time sink at DYK?", and myself "Time for a topic ban".

Therefore, I ask the wider community to consider a DYK topic ban for Venkat TL for ongoing uncivil behaviour displayed in the context of DYK.

End of draft

Appreciate any feedback before I take it across to ANI. Schwede66 21:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there should also be more emphasis on the "DYK closed without proper review" discussion as multiple assumptions of bad faith were made in that discussion (not just the one about ego). There should probably be also a mention of his "It appears there is a sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list" comment on the Hijab nomination. For what it's worth, it probably should also be noted that he has now started providing QPQs for his newer nominations, albeit only after much drama. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I also forgot to mention how he removed my comments regarding QPQs and hook wording (i.e. the greenhorn thing) from the Mann ministry nomination for being "offtopic"; it may be worth noting that removing comments bh others from DYK discussions is apparently a no-no even if you disagree with them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Narutolovehinata5. I suppose things have moved on since and there's no need any longer to amend the above. Thanks for your feedback; appreciate it. Schwede66 23:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Well, since you're shooting for a topic ban, WP:ANI advice recommends WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. But also, bearing in mind that I have little experience with ANI and have no desire to change that—I think this is well-written for what it attempts to do, but I also worry that ANI won't appreciate some of the messages here. Reading through the ANI advice, it suggests that the uninvolved participants don't like it when the plaintiff puts a spin on the diffs, or tries to prosecute a case. Neglecting that, this does lay out the relevant timeline well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, Theleekycauldron, don't go by the ANI Advice page. WP:AN is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators; WP:AN/I is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Your problems with yon fella clearly falls into the latter (and yes, since you want as many non-DYK eyes on it as possible, that's where you find them, not the backwater of AN). I note that in any case he has forced your arm by filing there already. Any fans of native aboriginal weaponry should take a long cool drink and sit back and watch. HTH, SN54129 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
gotcha, fair enough—thanks, SN54129! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
What's being discussed at ANI is whether Venkat TL should be topic banned at DYK. If that were to happen (and currently, this looks likely), they could not respond to any reviewer comments. Should the open nominations be paused for the time being so that we don't waste reviewer time? If the topic ban does get imposed, would that result in instant fails of the nominations, or would be see whether another editor would want to respond to review feedback? Schwede66 22:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I think we'd treat it the way we do any absent nominator; mark all the nominations for closure, and wait between a couple days and a week to see if someone adopts them on a case-by-case basis. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
any already-ticked nominations would go through, and any unreviewed nominations are still eligible provided someone is around to fix any issues that come up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:35, 18 April 2022 (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.

Special occasion hook

I'm seeing if someone can move Template:Did you know nominations/1977 World Snooker Championship to the special occasion holding area for May 1 or May 2. I'm not sure if I can as the reviewer. SL93 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

do we do special occasion moves for commercial events? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the problem when it's the 1977 championships that will be on DYK. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Pinging nominator BennyOnTheLoose. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't see why not. Today's featured list/April 8, 2022 appeared on the Main page the date of the 2022 Masters Tournament event. The difference between the fluff-up about yesterday's church service, is that yesterday's DYK gave a date, and place of the concert. — Maile (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
fair enough, just making sure. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
SL93, as reviewer, you're the one best placed to decide whether it is appropriate to move it when you approve the nomination. By all means go ahead. It's good to mention in the review whether you think the special occasion request is appropriate. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok. I moved it. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Shining Spark (nom)

we're really low on quirkies; could someone put ALT0a in a quirky slot somewhere? thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@SL93, Z1720, and Bruxton: any chance this could get promoted? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I have no opinion on the hook suggestion. I did not know if it was too misleading to use a term that relates to humans instead of the word foals. The article's creator thought the suggestion was ok so I stayed out of it. Bruxton (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about it. I thought we were trying to not promote hooks that could be misleading. SL93 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I also think that quirky hooks aren't super necessary if none are available. As much as possible, we'd want sets to have at least one, but if there are none out there we shouldn't try to force them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Man camp (nom)

the article is tagged with {{Over-coverage}}, but it's not listed at WP:DISPUTETAG. does that mean the article is good to go? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I disagree. The article sat for two weeks before it was approved, and then another handful of days before the nom was approved - all before the tag was placed. One person coming by and slapping a tag on an article shouldn't stop the process. If others care, this will get raised after DYK. --evrik (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5: Hitler teapot (nom)

I also wonder if it's even acceptable to have a quirky hook in prep 5 that is related to Hitler. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

On this point, we almost had a whole AFD set about Hitler one year, I think. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I certainly disagree with that as well if that happened. Holocaust related topics are not quirky or funny. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Great, 18 years ago. You may think that the Holocaust can be funny, but I certainly don't. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I apologize for that comment, but I don't see anything relating to that atrocity as funny or quirky. Whether that be something like a Hitler teapot or a baby being named Hitler. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • But maybe I'm old-fashioned. A hook about a political activist having a quirky death hook didn't sit right with me either when his life was full of hooky topics, but that did nothing. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think that the examples that the article uses about making fun of Hitler and Nazis is similar to a teapot that was bought because it looks like Hitler. Was the teapot meant to make fun of Hitler? SL93 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I inserted another section for this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Teapot

Implementing rule change

Following theleekycauldron's update to Wikipedia:Did you know, I have updated Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide to refer to articles nominated rather than credits. Please adjust further as necessary. TSventon (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WMFLabs Dup detector in DYK toolbox no longer is accessible

The link is

https://dupdet.toolforge.org/

And it kicks up a message "503 Service Not Available". It's been that way for a while now. Don't remember if there's been any discussion about this, but am wondering if we should remove the link from Template:DYK tools. — Maile (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was in wide use; earwig always seemed much more convenient/accessible. So, yeah, my vote's on pull. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I just did a general search at Village Pump (technical) and see that this same problem came up in 2014. The original developer had left the tools lab, and they were searching for someone else to take over the tool. I guess someone did, but now it's defunct again. Like you, I prefer Earwig's tool. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Xaosflux replied over at Village Pump just now that he's removed our Toolbox link to it, since the tool has no active maintainers. — Maile (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
That's too bad. I always found Dup Detector useful for helping to find close paraphrasing where editors would make tiny alterations every few words to get around Earwig's limitation of not highlighting anything under five words in a row. It was also helpful in determining how much of a Wikipedia article was copied into a spun-off one when we needed to determine how much the new article needed to be expanded to meet DYK rules. While Dup Detector could only handle one source at a time, it did a good job of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Article creator wants me to withdraw nomination - says its distressing, but won't say why

Asilvering begged me at Template:Did you know nominations/Federated Legion of Women to withdraw the DYK nomination of an article they started. The editor later redacted the reasons at User talk:Asilvering/Archive 2#DYK. Apparently my nomination is "utterly discouraging" and that they don't understand my motivation for not withdrawing the nomination. I have told Asilvering that I'm willing to work with them on the issue once they let me know what the issue is. It appears to be an ownership issue at this point. If it is an ownership issue, I refuse to withdraw the nomination because that would mean that they find the core concept of Wikipedia distressing. I don't have any sympathy for such things. SL93 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they're not done, and would be embarrassed to see their handiwork on the main page in its current state? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe, but that should be easy to say instead of trying to paint me as a bad person for nominating their work for DYK. They gave two reasons which were later redacted. SL93 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Can you provide links to said redactions? Can't find any removal of text... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron The conversation in question was on my talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's get a bit of perspective. This is a volunteer activity where people choose to create and improve articles to help people learn about subjects they otherwise would never know. There are emotional dimensions to volunteering your time and energy, and if you are distressed -- for a reason that you can name, or for one you can't -- then there's not much reason for you to continue. That alone should dispose of this issue; if the article creator feels distressed, that should be all we care about in the name of goodwill in editor retention. The Federated Legion of Women is an excellent article that should one day be on the main page, but only if we have the time and emotional capacity to support it being there. There are any number of reasons someone can be distressed about this nomination being put on the main page: It can be embarrassing for possible mistranslations to be pointed out, there's a high incidence of vandalism and utterly pointless edits, it distracts you from other work, it can be embarrassing for something you intend on improving later to be in a poorer state than you wish it to be. Or you simply don't care to have it there. (I recall, but can't find in the archives now, a TFAR that was rejected because the main editor to the article requested it.) I can't read the article creator's mind, but I took their comment about the article having French sources to be a WP:NONENG issue: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance". Who can tell if that's the case here? I know what can't determine that: A drive-by nomination that repeatedly demands detailed reasoning. I wouldn't blame someone for leaving Wikipedia over this. Urve (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
A "drive-by nomination" makes it sound like a negative connotation such as drive-by tagging or deleting. SL93 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project and an important part of DYK's purpose is to encourage editors to develop great content. The creator being unhappy is sufficient reason for a decent person to withdraw the nomination. SL93 should not complain about OWNership while OWNing a DYK nomination for an article where they have a single and insignicant contribution. Find something else to increase your DYK count. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I also think that DYK is designed to be a positive and stress-reduced environment—that's why we give out credits and celebrate stats page appearances and run silly hooks. I'm seeing an uptick in editor dissatisfaction/disputes here lately, and I don't think that's good for anyone. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I mean that they said they redacted them. Wow, drive-by nomination and a claim that I'm trying to increase my DYK count. Fine, I'm an asshole and I withdraw the nomination. SL93 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@SL93 I retracted the two reasons I gave without debate because I did not want an argument. Unfortunately, we had one anyway. Thank you for withdrawing the nomination. And good luck (I mean it!) with finding other articles to feature at DYK. -- asilvering (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
A claim that I'm trying to up my nomination count is just great. And that I'm doing something as a drive-by. Why would I aim for such a thing when I already rarely receive recognition for my work on Wikipedia? It's actually no different from my real life. SL93 (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
No one thinks you're a bad person in or because of this, SL93. It looks to me like asilvering was frightened of a conflict, creating a miscommunication where neither of you could understand where the other was coming from. That's okay; miscommunications happen, we live and we learn. I think we'll all be able to handle this a little better next time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, @Theleekycauldron and @Urve! It's very encouraging to see these kinds of responses, and so quickly. I was very worried, as someone who has never been involved with DYK before, that it was the norm for articles to be nominated by uninvolved editors, and that a request to retract the nomination would be ignored if the article met DYK criteria. I thought I would have to start editing "defensively" to avoid this in the future, starting new articles at under 1.5k characters and spooling them out slowly so that I could avoid things being posted to the main page for whatever reason - which would be a real drag. (The reasons given here are all good ones, and of course there are more!) -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @SL93 for your generosity in spending your time nominating another editor's article for DYK, and for all the work you do at DYK. You are a most valued contributor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 6

Conversation moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Death to Arabs

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.

  • ... that "death to Arabs" is shouted by Israeli football fans and nationalist marchers, and is commonly seen in graffiti (pictured)?

@Buidhe, Paradise Chronicle, and Bruxton: Maybe it's just my usual reservations over any hooks that vaguely involve Israel-Palestine (or really any nationalist conflict), but is this particular hook really a good idea? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you define "good idea". IMO it meets all the DYK requirements and is true. People were shouting this just yesterday. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it's more of "is it really a good idea to highlight Israelis saying stuff like that about Arabs on the main page?" I mean, I know NOTCENSORED at all, but still. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
the relevant guideline is WP:DYK#gen4: Articles and hooks that ... promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. It'd be difficult to argue that this article doesn't leave you with a pretty negative impression of Zionism; is that coverage and criticism undue? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
we could pare it down...
  • ... that "death to Arabs" is commonly used by Israeli football fans and nationalist marchers?
take away the image, tone down the language; maybe it keeps a bit of the controversy at bay and still keeps the core encyclopedic part of the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Should add "the slogan" to clarify that it is not death that is commonly used. —Kusma (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I was going to bring this up, but remembered how there were no considerations for the hook saying that what Israel is doing to Palestine is illegal, only a few weeks ago, and assumed that the DYK consensus was to just take Palestine's side. Especially after getting nowhere with asking caution for Russia/Ukraine hooks, which we have instead seen a massive increase of, I thought it would be pointless. Happy to see some clear minds prevail and, no matter what the hook says, it absolutely should not have a picture - it adds nothing and I am sure seeing the slogan in context would be more upsetting to its targets than a reasonably neutral hook is. Kingsif (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I presume that the context of death to Arabs includes death to America, is that mentioned by any sources? Do Israeli right wingers say anything like "the slogan in its historical context has been provoked by U.S. government's hostile policies towards Iran and expresses outrage at those policies, and does not wish for literal death for American people themselves" (quote from death to America)? TSventon (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I did not find any such thing in reliable sources. In fact I was unable to find a single source that supported or justified the use of such phrases. This may be one of those issues where there's no "other side". (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

What does it mean exactly that hooks which promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided? Does it mean we should never run a hook about, say, a Palestinian terror attack, or some crime against humanity committed by one nation or people against another? Surely not - these are legitimate topics. So to my mind, the guideline means that hooks should be avoided that are not neutrally worded - i.e. they should not be one-sided or biased.

With regard to this particular hook, it's arguably a little blunt in expression, which is not helpful. The article is also a little brief. I think if you want to write on a sensitive topic like this, you are going to need to write with sensitivity, and the article does seem a tad attack-pageish as it is. More expansive treatment than a handful of brief quotes might help. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The key word is probably "promote" and, honestly, depending on what one thinks, they might take such a blunt hook as this as promotional to either side... Kingsif (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Not that I promote hook sets to queue with any regularity but I would not touch it with the picture included. Toning down the hook and omitting the photo are good ideas. Schwede66 17:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I write what I can based on the sources available... I don't think there's an "other side" to this issue and have yet to find any reliable source that supports the use of such phrases. I'm not opposed to leeky's suggestion if others think that's preferable. The image does not need to be included. (t · c) buidhe 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with buidhe – I think this hook should run, whether in its original form or with a rewrite. It's a fact. A really ugly fact, sure, but an accurate and reliably sourced one. I see no valid reason not to run it. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Gatoclass, Schwede66, Narutolovehinata5, Kingsif, TSventon, and Theleekycauldron: This sends shivers down my spine, no matter how it's phrased, or how it is meant by those who say it. In the world we live in, regardless of how this is meant, it makes me really nervous. A similar situation might be a sports event held in San Antonio, Texas - Texas vs. Mexico teams - having a chant, "Death to Mexicans", or "Death to Texans". Or perhaps an American city with a predominately mixed-ethnic sports team in Boston with a chant, "Death to the Irish". On the main page, this could really backfire on us. Please consider a less offensive hook. I think we should really step back and consider what the proposed hook could inadvertently trigger.— Maile (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "backfire on us". That Israeli football fans chant "Death to Arabs" is highly offensive; mentioning this on the Main Page isn't any more offensive than newspapers reporting on racist incidents. —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The article mentions an interesting incident whereby (presumably Jewish) graffiti artists painted the slogan paired with swastikas at a university where Arab students were unpopular, as well as a scholarly statement about the slogan being influenced by Nazism and the German side of the Holocaust; phrased correctly, the irony of either fact could make a more interesting hook, IMO, and perhaps a safer one, especially going the scholarly route. Kingsif (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you - this is what bothers me, the hook wording. I'm fine with the article and believe it should be on the main page, even the lead hook. When it comes to any ethnicity or religion, some are easily offended. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think having a more "scholarly" hook about the topic would be a reasonable compromise between still covering the topic at DYK and making sure not to cause unnecessary offense, especially when it comes to a topic as heated as Israel-Palestine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a pretty graphic photo of American soldiers torturing someone on DYK recently. I don’t understand how we can run that but not the photo of graffiti. Thriley (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That was taken down after complaints though. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose the hook being pulled for now until a compromise hook is agreed upon? It's clear at this point that running the current hook working could cause issues even through no fault of the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the issues of bluntness raised above, I don't find the hook that hooky. Nationalist marchers, football fans, graffiti, slogans, nothing unique in those intersections. CMD (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Given the amount of discussion it's already generated, I have doubts that it will bore our readership. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Much like a football game where this chant might be used, excitement can be generated from an uninteresting situation. There's so much that could be pulled from this article, the combination with swastikas, the link to a Sheik, the association with the Mizrahi working class, there's no need to run something so generic. CMD (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I found the defaced headstone interesting, I actually wrote an article called Desecration of graves and so it was of interest to me. The photos I usually see are of desecrated Jewish graves like the one I used in the article. Regarding this hook: I wanted to say that Narutolovehinata5's actions appear to be out of process. They started this thread which asked the question: "Is this particular hook really a good idea?" Then they counted a "rough consensus" from a discussion which followed. Then Narutolovehinata5 took action on their own request: they removed the hook and stated, "It's clear at this point that running the current hook working could cause issues..." FYI: The article is called "Death to Arabs". It is a provocative subject and title to be sure. But apparently it is accurate or someone would tag or edit the article. If we are uncomfortable with it, maybe that is because we should be. From what I have seen at DYK we do not hide the article title when we are uncomfortable like the suggestion for this one on the now reopened nomination page: "an anti-arab hate slogan". Bruxton (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, multiple editors were opposed to the hook as currently written so it was clear a different hook was needed. I debated at first whether or not to pull the hook but given that it wouldn't be long before it hit the Queues (and thus would need sysop attention) along with how there was at least one comment above that supported pulling the hook, it appeared to be the best option given the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:37, 22 April 2022 (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.

i need a week

Lately, DYK seems like it's been more exhausting than usual. Disputes and discussions are getting longer and sometimes more acrimonious, unfinished/unsatisfactory hooks i don't want to promote keep piling up, and before you know it, it starts eating up more and more of your time. I'm taking a break for a week; hopefully that allows for a refresh and an ability to jump back in. Z1720, Bruxton, and SL93- I hope you can handle for a while. Thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Just hit the Snooze Alarm on DYK, and disappear to parts unknown until you're ready to come back. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

New review needed for Template:Did you know nominations/Zionism as settler colonialism

Basically the header; I can't continue reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Zionism as settler colonialism, and would support someone else do so. Kingsif (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

I have so far nominated (all have been approved) five articles for Do You know. I hope to nominate a sixth. I am aware of the quid pro quo rule and that is means I should review before I nominate. Does it mean to nominate a 6th, I need to review 6 to get me leveled up, or is it like the first 5 are for free and here it's one for one? CT55555 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The first five were free. To nominate a sixth, you need the QPQ. --evrik (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • It should also be noted that technically do not need to provide the QPQ at the moment the nomination is created, it's only needed for the nomination to be approved. You just need to provide one within seven days of the nomination, whether it's before the nomination or after. It's permitted to nominate an article then do the QPQ later as long as it's done within seven days and is mentioned on the nomination page. With that said, if a QPQ is not provided within seven days plus a reminder, the nomination may be failed by a reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    I understand I'll need to do the QPQ. I'm asking if I need to do 1 or 6? i.e. is it QPQ from hereon it, or am I considered to have a backlog of 5? CT55555 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    Hereon. There is no need to go back and do five additional ones. (Although, don't let a lack of a need stop you if you're interested!) CMD (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, thanks. I thought I'd do one, see how easy it was and then maybe do more. I've just looked at the instructions and I found it so bafflingly complicated so I decided not to bother nominating any more. I wish wikipedia had an easier graphical user interface and tools. I'm willing to do the work, but I lack the skills to help more. CT55555 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's a checklist. A bit daunting at first, but as you get more familiar it becomes quite easy. I hope it doesn't put you off nominating interesting DYK hooks, feel free to ping me or post here if you have questions. CMD (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Queue 2 phrasing

The commas in ... that most of the Chinese in Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? make it sound like Phoenix is the Chinatown of Arizona. It is the hook subject, too, so any improvement in phrasing would be helpful. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

MB, what say you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
... that most of the Chinese in Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? The way I had it before avoids that problem. MB 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
yeah, but that has a problem with WP:EGG; we could write the same hook, with that link pattern, if the bolded article linked to Chinatown. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The hook says Phoenix's Chinatown. I don't think readers would be surprised that they went to an article on Phoenix's Chinatown and not Chinatown. This is within the spirit of WP:EGG. How do other people feel? MB 21:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but the wording still feels awkward. How about something like this:
... that most residents of Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona previously lived in the same village in Hoping County, China?
Unless the fact that those residents were Chinese isn't sufficiently implied... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona" just sounds clunky and unnatural to me. MB 22:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
How about, ... that most of the immigrants in Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown, came from the same village in China?--evrik (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"emigrant" is used twice; maybe swap the second to "came from"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
plus, it contains the problem Kingsif raised initially (that it sounds like Phoenix is the Chinatown of Arizona). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I adjusted the text. I don't think Kingif is right here, but Phoenix is the largest city on AZ. --evrik (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MB, Ezlev, Theleekycauldron, and Evrik: The question really is if we need "Arizona" in there. "Phoenix" may have multiple meanings, but this is clearly talking about a place and Phoenix isn't unknown internationally (and even if it was, you know, hook clearly refers to a place - people aren't going to confuse [random city] with a mythological bird). Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:GEOCOMMA, do we need a comma after Arizona? Personally, I sometimes use "the" to help avoid an egg in these cases, e.g. ... that most of the Chinese in the Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? I'd expect a link for just "Chinatown" to go to Chinatown but a link for "the Chinatown" to go to the specific one being discussed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
i see we've come full circle... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I've never lived in the US and for me Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown, no matter how wikilinked, is completely opaque and confusing. The Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona (possibly with "Arizona" dropped) is much clearer. Sdkb's wikilink works alright, but won't it be clearer if the entire phrase is linked instead? – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Ezlev's "Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona", and disagree with "clunky"; why is it clunky? Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It's clunkly because it reads as if "Chinatown in Phoenix" is some kind of name, instead of "the Chinatown" that is in Phoenix. Building on the above, how about ... that most of the Chinese in the Chinatown of Phoenix, Arizona, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? MB 22:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Maile66, several people have expressed concern with the current hook. Per the above discussion, using "the Chinatown" is probably best. MB 16:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why you pinged me, except that I promoted the set to Queue. But perhaps lay out the entire hook wording as currently approved. This has been a long rambling thread. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Maile66, yes that is why I pinged you. The current hook, can be read as Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown:

This hook prevents that:

One queue filled

@DYK admins: Thanks to any admins who promote more preps to queues. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: more queues need to be filled. --evrik (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 6 biographies

Prep 6 has three biographies in a row and five biographies in all which should really be fixed. I'm not in the mood for it. SL93 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: So there are five biographies in the set which means there is one too many? I thought we try to get 4 and 4. I will move one biography and the whole thing will be fixed. Bruxton (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Bruxton as the promoter; Bruxton, in general, two biographical hooks shouldn't be placed to each other. Two hooks from the same country also shouldn't be placed next to each other, and there probably shouldn't be more than one or two hooks from a non-U.S. country in a set (mostly because we almost always have more U.S. hooks than any other country). In general, you'll want to keep track of your U.S. bios, non-U.S. bios, U.S. non-bios, and non-U.S. non-bios as you build a set. At least, that's what I do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: thanks for the insight. Bruxton (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hook for Met Gala on May 2

I recently made this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/American Accountability Foundation. It would be nice to run it on the day of the Met Gala if possible, assuming it gets approved in time. Thriley (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Image for Template:Did you know nominations/Duke of Alcantara Stradivarius

Hello. When I created the DYK nomination for my article Duke of Alcantara Stradivarius, I did not include an image, but now that I have added one, I am requesting that the image and the hook would go together for its DYK appearence. I know I am unable to edit a DYK template page after its discussion has been closed, so I am requesting here to see if this is possible. I am the owner of the image and it was taken a few hours ago. Thanks. Yinglong999 (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've attached the relevant code for the image here, if a prep builder wants to take it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
This has already been promoted sans image Bruxton (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton: I'm aware, I'm just saying that if a promoter wants to move the hook into an empty prep and use the image, it's available here. It's worth considering; a nice image indeed, and a good shape for the text. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would make a good lead hook and image. I recommend that its promotion be reverted so that it can be placed in an image slot in a later prep. Z1720 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I swapped this out from Queue 6 to Prep 5. However, I think we need to do more swapping from Queue 6 to elsewhere. There are three music hooks one after another in Queue 6, and were already like that when the violin hook was up there. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Anybody else having this issue? - preps and queues visuals

This project is the only place I'm experiencing this, and it started yesterday. Doesn't matter what browser I'm using. This started when I tried to move Preps to Queue 4. It would let me do the move, but when I saved and looked at the page, the Queue looked blank. If I opened it, the hooks were there, but would not let me see them unless I opened the edit window. It's the same thing with the Preps. And here's what seems to be happening. I can see Queue 4 right now, because Cwmhiraeth finally did the update. But if I open the Queue, the URL at the top says this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Queue/4&action=edit

Queue 3, on the other hand, which I did not edit, says what it's supposed to say when I click on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3

I just did a similar thing on Prep 4, in that I did a null edit (no changes) except to add a blank space on one of the lines. Now if I click on the Prep 4 section, without even opening it, the url says this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_area_4_[edit]

I did some tests on both an old article I had written, and over at Village Pump. This does not happen anywhere else. So, what's going on with the coding at the Preps and Queues. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I had exactly the same problem when I promoted Prep 4 to Queue 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I promoted a few nominations to prep, but I can still see them on the approved page. I wonder if its related. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early this morning, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 10. We currently have a total of 242 nominations, of which only 81 have been approved, a gap of 161, up 7 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoting to prep 6

I have been promoting some hooks recently and so I thought I would try my hand at promoting a whole set (Prep 6). Here is how it went so far. I picked articles that were of interest to me and even tried to have a pseudo-theme. Like youngest hockey player...youngest rapper...Old violin......old photos...old tomb. Regarding the desecrated grave marker photo I chose for the lead initially...I wrote an article about the desecration of graves and the photo was a representation of that.

First the provocative lead hook I chose along with the photograph of a tombstone were pulled by an editor after wt:dyk discussion.
I moved a hockey player hook and accompanying image up to the lead.
I also promoted an article related to an archive of old photographs. Without the accompanying old image of a pyramid.
Next there was an objection that I chose a "generic hockey player image" in the lead spot instead of the pyramid in that spot.
So I consulted leeky, and then accommodated the editor by de-promoting the pyramid hook so that someone else might choose to promote it with the pyramid image
But apparently my de-promotion effort was not up to par. Another editor had to clean up after me. Thanks and Sorry.
Next an objection was raised on wt:dyk that there were 5 bios in the set, and 3 of them were in a row. Note: I was trying to have 4 + 4 as is suggested - obviously I confused myself with the hooks going in and out of the set.
To accommodated that concern I moved one of the biographies to a different set, and I moved a violin hook in its place in prep 6. (violin article had no image)
Next an editor uploaded a photograph of a violin for the violin article and wanted the image promoted with the hook.
Another complaint appeared on Wt:dyk: apparently there were three music related hooks in a row in set 6. Stolen violin/a rapper biography/Elvis Costello album -
The violin hook was pulled from prep 6 and another article was inserted.
Next a suggestion was then made to move the young rapper's bio from the set as well - apparently we can't have the Rapper bio and Elvis Costello album next to each other.
And I was thinking WP:5P5. Maybe I will do better on the next set. At least you know what I was thinking. Bruxton (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I've only been prepping a little longer than you (I did some prepping in the summer, then restarted again in March) but this is the process and some tips on how I conduct my prepping:
  • As I build the preps, I open a Google doc and record the country, theme, and if it's a bio article for every article in the set. For example, Prep 7 has Germaine Bailac in the image slot, so I would note that as "French opera bio".
  • As I build the prep, I keep in mind some unwritten rules: 4 bios max in a prep set (none next to each other) and 4 max American hooks (none next to each other). Two max per country (not next to each other) and one max per topic. I'll also keep in mind how many media/popular culture topics there are (songs, film, television, actors, etc.) and try to space them out within the set. I also try to have at least one hook that is from a non-English speaking country and one hook that is not from North America or Europe, although these are sometimes secondary concerns. As I promote a hook, I keep track of the theme, location and bio hooks in that Google doc I opened in bullet one.
  • Since the above is so difficult to accomplish, I don't try to build themes in the DYK (although maybe I should?) unless there are hooks in the SOHA that are for a theme. Instead, I start at the top of the approved list, and add the oldest hooks to the prep first (keeping in mind bullet point two's stipulations.)
  • I also try to space out where in the hook the bolded word is placed. For example, I avoid a hook set where 5 hooks in a row have their bolded hook after the word "that". I also try to have a variety of lengths for the hooks, to keep reader interest.
Prep building is an art form, not a science. Don't worry about making a mistake, as it is the queue promoters will double-check everything. If you want, post when you complete your next prep and experienced prep builders can give feedback. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thanks much for the valuable insight and a good lesson about your prep set rationale. Often an editor will not get to do a whole set from what I have seen, and perhaps that is good. Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Often when I start a prep someone has already promoted the image slot. When I am starting a prep that already has hooks in it, I will put their theme, country and bio in the Google doc and continue building the set. There's also been times when I have not completed a prep, either because I ran out of time or I can't find a quirky hook. It's not necessary to build a whole prep, as others can take over and complete the set as needed. Sometimes I like completing a prep as it's like a puzzle to find a hook that fills the remaining slots. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Please have a look at a set I am working on Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6 1. algae, 2. Military/American 3. British band/song 4. Catholic Priest from Germany 5. Scholarship for an American University 6. Double -woman write from US, and woman writer from Canada. Any editor who is interested in critique. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton: It looks good. Some might quibble that Jefferson Scholarship is American, and one of the Carrie Jenkins Harris is also American, but I think it's fine. Just don't let the 7th hook be American, too. Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Bruxton (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ranchlander National Bank (nom)

History has shown that my engaging in quote-on-quote "quick clarifications on the QPQ requirement" tends to result in disaster. But I'm pretty sure we can all agree that, as is relevant to the linked nom, reviewers should get one QPQ credit per article reviewed, not per nomination (i.e. two QPQ credits for two nominations)? That's basically been the precedent for a while, I've done it myself and ticked QPQ submissions from people who have done the same. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course. You need a reviewer for each article nominated. Each nominated article gets you one credit. Schwede66 08:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, despite the change in the QPQ requirements from counting credits to nominations, the old "you must review one article for every article that is nominated" guideline. That means, if you have a nomination with two bolded links, you need to review two articles. You can either review another double article nomination (this would count as two articles) or two separate one-article nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Schwede66: To clarify, I mean in granting QPQ credits, not the number required—as in, if I review a double nomination, I should get two QPQ credits to use for later, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, although for the sake of getting the unapproved backlog down, it is perhaps better to ignore the extra credit :) —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Leeky. That's right. Schwede66 08:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
all right, sounds like this was just an oversight. Without further objection, i'll update WP:DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7: Two Pieces of Nuts (nom)

Conversation moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Two Pieces of Nuts

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.

Okay, at this point it's possible I've just gone entirely crazy, because quite a few of the objections I've made over the past couple days have been wordlessly overruled. So, I'll just bring this up, and if everyone disagrees, fine.

  • ... that in the Hungarian folktale Two Pieces of Nuts, to woo the king a woman promises to bear children with a moon on the chest and a star on the forehead?

I raised the issue, in the nomination, that this hook falls afoul of WP:DYKSG#C6 because it's mainly plot summary with no substantial connection to the real world. evrik responded that this wasn't the case, because the hook says it was a hungarian folktale. I didn't respond to that; I didn't want to push it, because Venkat TL (the reviewer) said he agreed and didn't think the hook was valid. Since it was promoted by Kingsif, I thought I should note that simply mentioning that the work is fictional is not enough to pass C6, as I understand it; the hook needs to demonstrate some kind of real-world connection or impact as its hook, and use plot as a supplement if necessary. For example, this hook has no substantial real-world connection:

At the very least, that seems to break the spirit of the rule. I don't know. Like I said, I feel a little twilight zone-y at the moment, so I could be totally wrong. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif left a comment while I was writing this; they note that because it's a hungarian folktale, the pseudo historical nature means that it's not entirely a fictional work. I don't agree with this either (we wouldn't do that for, say, the Odyssey or the Bible), but I'm happy to bow to consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with Kingsif. The folktale is still fiction. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, with the windows open, I promote, then comment. I'm also happy to let consensus take it. Maybe I'm going soft, because I'm usually the one with the firmest stance on plot-ty hooks. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Leekycauldron, yes. Ping me separately if you want to discuss. --evrik (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
eh, i'll just leave it. it is what it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Late reply, but at the very least a new hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and evrik: We could make a hook about the number of translations, but I think the larger problem is that the article is basically a plot summary of the tale and the several plot summaries of its variants; that makes it difficult to find a hook about real-world impact. I can articulate my reasoning here if needed, but I think that represents an issue that needs correction before the article can proceed. Part of my objection to two of Venkat TL's nominations was that the non-fiction books were too focused on argument synopsis, and not real-world impact. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
C6 says, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." The words Hungarian folktale meet that requirement. I think this is being overthought. I would be open to other hooks. --evrik (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@evrik: Past interpretations of the rule don't bear that idea out. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#Prep 3:Music video plot; the hook there was:
  • ... that Harry Styles befriends a gold-dappled fish and takes care of it in the music video for "Adore You"?
The words "music video", despite showing that the hook details a work of fiction, is not shown to tie the hook to the real world. The hook needs to substantially hinge its interestingness on some kind of real-world fact, and use plot only when and where necessary. The same for Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 147#Prep 6 and the nomination for Wayward Son (novel) (nom). Maybe BlueMoonset could lay this out better than I am at the moment. Anyways, another hook is difficult when the article is mostly plot summary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The words technically meet the requirement, evrik, but that's not really what matters. I've run across this same issue. How about going super obscure, like one of these?
The only other thing that comes to mind would be a hook about the ATU classification, but that feels like a reach. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@ezlev: clever as always :) I think that works as a hook (although we've had some objections to misleading hooks like this recently; pinging SL93 for his opinion). The title'll need to be italicized; the first has an interesting play on the awkwardness of title pluralization that I like, but the second is a more standard-issue quirky. If the issue with the article can be resolved, I'd be happy to sign off on either hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ezlev: I find the term you embedded in the link above to be fairly insulting. It somehow says that I am acting in bad faith. More than one person said that the hook was fine, but somehow we've spent much more time than we had to developing a hook for an obscure topic. I'm fine with either of the alternates you offered above, but not with the insinuation that I am acting in bad faith. --evrik (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think wikilawyering is necessarily something done in bad faith, evrik. For me, at least, it’s something I often catch myself doing when I’m really invested in making something work. That’s what I believe happened in this discussion too, and as far as I’m concerned that’s the very best of good faith – but it’s also something I’d want someone to point out to me, which is why I wanted to point it out to you. In hindsight, though, it’s totally reasonable that you interpreted my comment as an insult, because that page includes some pretty serious negative stuff in addition to the mild meaning I meant to refer to. I’m sorry about that. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with either of the two hooks if the title is italicized. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2022 (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.

Request for Franziska Seidl to appear on 1 July

I started writing and nominated said article (see Template:Did you know nominations/Franziska Seidl) unaware of the 6-week limit for special occasion hooks. Would it be possible to wait till her 130th birthday on 1 July to put this hook on the main page? (Provided it will be approved of course.) Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I would be OK with that, especially because the nom's ALT1 specifically mentions that it is their birthday (so makes sense to run on the person's birthday). I'll note that I would consider this a one-time exception for this editor. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Bruxton (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon I think we can IAR as a one-off here. FYI and unrelated, the KZ-Jasenovac-Denkmal-Seitenansicht image that ἀνυπόδητος currently has on their user page, is one of the most interesting sculpture designs I've ever seen. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Also, I fully agree with Maile on the Jasenovac monument 😊 --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion at WJWF

Could use some quick attention at Template:Did you know nominations/When Jews Were Funny, which I hope to run for the beginning of May. The reviewer has requested a second opinion on two matters: (1) sourcing requirements for documentary films synopses, and (2) whether 'among the last filmed interviews' by people now deceased can pass general verification (ie: uncited). Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Vector killed the nom TOCs

...or, in plain English, it looks like the implementation of the new table of contents in the Vector 2022 skin has screwed up the special tables of contents at WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA. They show up as large empty boxes, while the new (and well-designed, although it's gonna take some getting used to for me) table of contents appears as normal in the sidebar. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are nominations in the Template namespace?

While investigating why the [reply] links on Template talk:Did you know do not work (@Piotrus), I was surprised to notice that the discussion pages (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Celmisia major) are all in the "Template" namespace. May I ask how that came to be? Matma Rex talk 23:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Because nominations are transcluded. Originally, the Mediawiki software did not have this functionality; it was provided with the template namespace in 2004. Since then the functionality has been expanded, and any page can now be transcluded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, but I don't think that explains it. Even in 2007 (I didn't look further), the nominations were not transcluded. And when templates were introduced, it seems like they supported transcluding from any namespaces from the start (r2769), except for a bug with the main namespace that was fixed in r5507. (Before that, you could only transclude from the "MediaWiki" namespace, using syntax like {{msg:foo}} – maybe this is what you're thinking of?) Matma Rex talk 16:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There was actually a successful proposal to move that out of template space, if i recall correctly; no one ever did that, unfortunately. Maybe that's something I could get on? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Might be a good idea if you could find that proposal and link it here. Although Hawkeye says above that now any page can be transcluded, the question is how do individual nominations that transclude only on the article talk page, the nominator talk page, and Wikipedia:Recent additions . I think it's important to have a record of the complete review. My first nominations have no historical records at all, except for the talk page notice that it had been on the main page. I have no idea if they were self-noms, or how they got on the main page. Really and truly, I don't think we want to lose the review history, which should be linked on the article talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
My first nominations are all in the page history of Template talk:Did you know; if you know when your hook hit the Main Page, it is not hard to find the nomination. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The difference is, that I keep a list of my nominations - 10 years of them - with a link to the nomination template - as well as a link to the QPQ I did on someone else's. If I want to see any specifics about either, and I do refer back at times, I just click on the template link I've saved. It is not practical to scroll through a decade of WP:DYKN, even if I know the exact date involved. That's the method used if someone has to provide historical diffs at WP:ANI, and it can be very time consuming. — Maile (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't relate to which namespace nominations reside in, just to having one page per nomination. —Kusma (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we're talking across each other here. What I'm saying is that I can now click on my individual nomination, as well as the nomination that I reviewed for DYK, and instantly know what was on those reviews. I really don't want to have to bring up a long list on my browser, and scroll through a mass of nominations to find the info I want. Also, the more that is on a page, the more likely it can slow down the browser load of that page. To me, what's being proposed here is going backwards. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, the proposal was to move future nomination subpages into the Wikipedia namespace. This will have no effect on the things you describe. —Kusma (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Correct, the transcluding would work regardless of namespace; it already works that way at AFD, where e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming clubs in Kent can be seen transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 28#Swimming clubs in Kent. I'm not really proposing specific changes, although it seems to me that it'd be more intuitive to have discussions in the usual discussion namespaces. Matma Rex talk 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The [reply] links won't work on WP:DYKN no matter which namespace the subpages are in. The only way they'd work is if we went back to how we did it in the Olden Days, when there were no subpages and all text for all nominations was on that single page. We're definitely not going to do that. You'll have to continue to click on the "Review or comment" links within each nom.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  06:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, after reconsideration, I think that those links would work in another namespace. (Personally, I find those links to be an annoyance, and I've disabled them.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  14:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the reply tool can handle transcluded subpages (e.g. at AFD). But it looks like just moving the DYK pages wouldn't make them work – there is a second obstacle, because the nomination pages are wrapped in the {{DYKsubpage}} template. Anyway, I'm not trying to change that, the namespace just seemed confusing to me. Matma Rex talk 15:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax, the reply links would work within the nompage though, yes? because they don't now... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
From the user perspective, why can't we use the same system we use for deletion discussions? There are subpages, transclusions, and the reply links work there without any issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
From a user perspective, we probably could. We're where we are because of path dependence. However, I believe after the discussion theleekycauldron mentioned above, I believe some (most?) of the DYK tools were retooled to work in the Wikipedia space in preparation for such a move. CMD (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We're below 60!

Readout shows 56; too tired to check for spec occs right now, and in any case, nothing can be done for another 12 hours until the new day UTC. I'm goin to sleep. Thanks to all the admins and prep set builders who kept DYK running! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The only special occasion hook in queues and preps that I saw is in the next set to be promoted (at midnight), so it will run on April 18 as planned, just for 24 hours rather than 12. There is an unpromoted April 24 special occasion hook that will need to be promoted into an already filled Prep 1, displacing one of the hooks there. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, SL93! Looks great. As it's now after midnight, pinging @DYK admins: to adjust User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 right away (and definitely before noon!) so the set currently on the main pages gets its full 24 hours now that we're officially at one set per day. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
We are currently at 59 approved nominations but also just two queues filled, so I've changed it to one set per day. Schwede66 00:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that switching to one set per day was the right call. The current problem seems more that we have more nominations coming in than noms being reviewed. Can people help with that? (I already have six QPQs saved up for a rainy day, or for the day when we'll require two reviews). —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
We have a gap of 153 unapproved/unreviewed nominations. That is pretty big. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see the numbers graphed over time; has anyone ever done that? —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK's unapproved hook backlog, from 2022 January 1 to 2022 April 18
@Kusma: "can someone please give me a graph"? that's practically pinging me, just so you know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: that was quick, given the indirect ping :) As the reward for good work is always more work: can you go further back in time? We had 160+ unapproved hooks before, for example in July 2020 but I have no idea how often it gets like that. —Kusma (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK's unapproved hook backlog, from 2020 January 1 to 2022 April 18
@Kusma: Done! seems like that 160 was actually coming down from a much bigger high... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Woah – it's like the heartbeat of DYK! Yes, I know that's not what an EKG should look like. Does this mean the current backlog isn't a big deal, or just that it's a less big deal than past problems we've had? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, theleekycauldron. It was the early summer 2021 high watermark that brought about the two QPQs per one nomination RfC proposal that passed for when unapproved levels got too high—presumably the thought was that it might be invoked with levels of around 200 or more, though no number was set in stone. I was interested to note that summer seems to bring about extra reviews, given the steep drops in the July through September periods of 2020 and 2021. If we don't get that drop this year, or the unapproved level rises too much before then, we may need to invoke the two for one regimen. Some of the 2020 spikes were caused partly by the additional DYKs generated by the GA backlog review drives, which sent increased numbers of new GAs over to DYK in April/May and October 2020, and March and July 2021. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This year's GA backlog drive doesn't seem to have had such a huge effect. As most GA-related DYK noms are by people doing QPQs and the articles are usually in pretty good shape, I don't expect them to cause issues for us. I'm more curious what causes the numbers to go down. From the graph, it looks like Northern hemisphere summer?? —Kusma (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm generally offwiki in the summer, so not creating noms or doing QPQs, but I doubt there are enough people who disappear like me to account for the backlog reduction... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
my activity also generally decreases when school's out; structure helps me make time for this by procrastinating on other stuff. but like ezlev said, I can't see that being a systemic reason for backlog reduction. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, could you produce a graph of nomination approvals from from 2020 January 1, averaged over the past 7 days (after your DYK break if you prefer)? My guess is that a reduction in unapproved nominations over the Northern hemisphere summer is likely to be due to a reduction in nominations, rather than an increase in reviews. TSventon (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: here's a Google Sheet with the data; I put the relevant graph (no smoothing, sorry) in the "approved+total" tab. The "uploading SVGs" strategy gets clutter-y, fast. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Kusma, theleekycauldron, thank you for the Google Sheet, looking at the change in the number of unpromoted hooks between 1 August and 1 September 2021, the reduction does seem to be caused by fewer hooks being nominated (and approved) than were promoted in the period. There was a similar reduction around August 2020. I am assuming that the number of hooks promoted was the same as the 496 hooks published at 2 sets a day, which seems reasonable as there was a steady reduction in the number of unpromoted hooks over the period.

  • The total number of unpromoted hooks reduced by 163 (279-116) suggesting that nominations were 33% less than the number of promotions.
  • The number of approved unpromoted hooks reduced by 49 (130-81) suggesting that approvals were 10% less than the number of promotions.
  • The number of unapproved unpromoted hooks reduced by 114 (163-49), 22% of the number of promotions. TSventon (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Still a purging problem

I have moved Prep 1 to Queue 1, cleared Prep 1 and updated the counter, and none of these actions produces a visible result. Until this purging problem is sorted, I do not intend to promote any further prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@SD0001, is there a way to embed lua in T:DYK/Q that forces a server-side cache purge every time the page is loaded? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
or embed it in T:DYK/Q1 if it needs to be a transcluded page... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
or maybe a client side javascript program? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There's no way to use lua to purge pages. However, it can be done periodically by adding an entry to User:ProcBot/PurgeList, or with clientside javascript. – SD0001 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a general problem. When I create an article, the link used to turn blue immediately. Now, it remains red (but works), for some time, and I haven't found out what changes to blue eventually. Beginning a new window and even closing Firefox don't change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If you have not already done so, go to your Preferences settings for your account, then Gadgets. Scroll down to Appearance, then select "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache" and Save. I have Modern skin, and the Purge asterisk appears at the top. One or two clicks should turn the red to blue. — Maile (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll try. How about - just observed - that a deleted page remains blue? - same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Tried and worked. Would that solve the preps problems as well. Nice side effect: seeing that I just passed 300k edits ;) - I would never know without you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Been offline, and just saw this. Re the preps problem, I would say it's the same issue. Use the Purge option and see if that resolves it. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66 and Cwmhiraeth and anyone else interested: you'll want to add the following code to your common.js page:
window.autoPurgePages = ["Template:Did you know/Queue"]; importScript("User:Eizen/AutoPurge.js"); // Backlink: [[User:Eizen/AutoPurge.js]] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
What does this extra coding do? 01:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
If Eizen's code works (and, as far as I can tell, it does), it'll purge the page while you load it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I added the code suggested by @Theleekycauldron: to my common.js page and this morning I moved Prep 3 to Queue 3 without encountering any purging problems. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I just now added the code suggested by @Theleekycauldron:, so we'll see how it goes. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Cwmhiraeth: I have now removed the code from my common.js. Immediately after loading it, I noticed my Firefox browser slowed when loading a page, and not just on Wikipedia. And as a page was loading, my watch list appeared faint, gradually getting normal line by line. It happened enough that it became unproductive to sit here and watch the several-second delay. Having removed it, my pages are back to loading normally. But thanks for suggesting - it was worth a try. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Cwmhiraeth: It's me again. It wasn't the script, because English Wikipedia is starting to slow down again. I've been testing. I do not have this issue with Commons or Wikisource or Wikidata, nor do I have it on Meta Wikimedia. Therefore, it's just English Wikipedia, and apparently ye olde caching. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

JobQueue lag and our purge issue

Please see VP Caching issue. I don't pretend to know all the technical jargon and particulars. But I do know everything is processed on what is called the Job queue. We have an ongoing issue - see phab:T300914. It doesn't look like the solution is just around the corner. So, until the tech bunch figure out how to resolve this, we deal with it. I vaguely remember something similar (not necessarily at DYK) when I was a fairly new editor. We're all in the same boat right now, admins and non-admins alike. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this might be a similar issue to what is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Cache issue?? FAR has a manual button to purge the cache there, and that seems to have worked so far. I swear everything about Wikipedia has been breaking this year; it's time for the WMF to hire some more coders I guess. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we need a fundraiser for Wikipedia. Unlike the WMF, Wikipedia actually needs more money for code and technology. —Kusma (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This is getting a lot worse, if you ask me. See my latest comments right above. We can add to the rest of it, that during certain parts of the day, when my Watchlist loads .... very slowly ... it also looks too faded out to read, loading the normal look one line at a time on the watchlist ... slowly, very slowly. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5

Based on the DYK errors page, it seems that the $6.50 in the Julie Jensen McDonald hook should be US$6.50. I can't change it since I'm the nominator. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Schwede66 20:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Check my work?

I just filled out Prep 5 from the few hooks that were already there. This is my first foray into prep-building – feedback is appreciated! See Prep 5 ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the circus, ezlev! i'll leave notes here :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would've asked that Munkatsher Humorist include a lead section for WP:DYKSG#D7, but that's subjective.
  • Hokuseihō Osamu has a MOS:SEAOFBLUE problem
  • An ALT0a hook was suggested at Template:Did you know nominations/As It Was for accuracy—was there a reason for not putting it through?
  • "Foul-mouthed" seems to be lifted from the source, although it's not a quote; that could be minimal enough to avoid copyright or not, but you may want to change to vulgar to be on the safe side
That's all—nice work! thanks for helping out :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
My brain did one thing and my hands did another on As It Was – thanks for the catch! As for the other three (and I think Munkatsher has a SEAOFBLUE problem also), how should I go about tweaking them, leek? Should I ping the nominator in the edit summary? (If so, I'll need a reminder of which ping method works in edit summaries) ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
For now, ping the nominator (you'll want to link to their username directly, no pipe trick allowed) any time you modify a hook; as you start to do this 5, 10, 2,000 times (yeesh), you'll get a feel for what needs a ping and what doesn't. If someone ever closes the damn RfC up top so I can start building my bot, then you won't have to anymore. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
By "no pipe trick", i mean [[user:ezlev|]] doesn't work, you have to use [[user:ezlev|ezlev]] if you want it to display without the user: tag. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Just to make it explicitly clear: [[User:Username|]] does work to ping a user in an edit summary, although there's no reason to use the "|" since it doesn't do anything. (You could add a space after the "|" to perform a hidden ping, since it would be piped to a space.) I think the "which ping method works in edit summaries" query may have been about plain wikilinks, which do work, vs templates such as {{U}} or {{Ping}}, which don't work.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  17:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
And I forgot to ping you, ezlev theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the tips! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, ezlev, one more thing! arguably the most difficult thing about prep building is balancing nationalities and bio/non-bios. In general:
  • no biographical hooks next to each other
  • no hooks from the same country next to each other
  • no more than one or two hooks from a non-U.S. country in the same set (based on the number of hooks from that country in DYKNA)
In this case, As It Was is next to Book of Common Prayer, both of which are English, and Osamu is next to Julie Jensen McDonald, both biographical. You'll want to separate them; I usually refer to this as a mechitzaing, although that maaay not be your cup of tea. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
nicely enough, you can kill two birds with one stone by swapping Osamu with "As It Was". I'm going to remove the link to sumo as overlink, but that's usually something that slips my mind anyway (and Ravenpuff takes care of it). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Ezlev: good work! The editors in this DYK section of the project are so helpful: And as @Z1720: told me, if you mess it up another editor will help fix it. Bruxton (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Not just that, my weeklong vacation is up and I'm feeling a lot better! I think I'm ready to come back and help :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7 Doug (tuber)

... that Doug was nominated to Guinness World Records as the world's largest potato before genetic testing confirmed it was actually a tuber?

If testing had confirmed only that Doug was a tuber, Doug would be in the Guinness book, because a potato (that you eat) is a tuber of the potato plant. The potato article begins: "The potato is a starchy tuber of the plant Solanum tuberosum ..." The best reference quote is from reference 4: "'Sadly the specimen is not a potato and is, in fact, the tuber of a type of gourd,' the email from a Guinness World Records spokesperson read." I think the article is OK, but I think the correct statement for DYK would be: "... it was actually a tuber of a gourd?" (emphasis added) Art LaPella (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging nominator Jurta. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Art LaPella. I've made the suggested change.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  21:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Freeman (classicist)

I am reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Freeman (classicist), which is for a new Good Article. It is my sixth review. I asked some questions on 25 April, 8 days ago, and posted a reminder on the nominator, Srsval's talk page yesterday. The nominator has only made one edit since I posted the questions. How much time should I allow before asking if somebody else will adopt the nomination? TSventon (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In such cases it may be worth waiting at least two weeks from the initial reminder before marking for closure, meaning you can probably wait another week. Just to be sure I'd suggest you given them another reminder now, ideally on the talk page for better visibility. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, thank you, I hadn't found that written down anywhere. I have reminded Srsval again on their talk page. TSventon (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Queue will be on main page in less than an hour, leaving one filled queue

What the title says. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the next queue won't be on the Main Page unless someone takes care of the image. I had reported it on WP:ERRORS, but it hasn't been handled yet.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  23:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I had also notified Krinkle on Commons, and the bot is now back, and the image is protected.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Amakuru and‎ ‎Cwmhiraeth for each promoting a queue. There are now three filled queues.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  14:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about 50 minutes ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 17. We currently have a total of 270 nominations, of which only 95 have been approved, a gap of 175, up 14 over the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Please change DYK hook

I didn't realize my DYK hook for Royal Theater (St. Petersburg, Florida) would not / could not run with the original wording. The compelling element of the hook is now gone. Would it be possible to either restore the hook, or could we send this DYK nomination back for review, so we can propose some alternate hooks? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Ravenpuff to see if they want to reverse; if not, I'll depromote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
For the outside reader, this is at Prep 5. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I've reverted the hook to the original wording. My (slight) concern with the hook was that "St. Petersburg" might be a little misleading since there's a Russian city more closely associated with that name, but of course that doesn't falsify the hook. Would you be happy with linking "St. Petersburg" here? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff Could we revert it to how it originally appeared when the hook was approved? Like this: Royal Theater in St. Petersburg (Looks like you changed it in two steps.)
You are correct that this hook intentionally plays upon the fact that there is another (more famous) city called St. Petersburg, in a country where dance (ballet) is very important.
At the same time, it isn’t complete misdirection – the word “Royal” is a clue that it’s probably not Russian (i.e., not the St Petersburg Ballet Theatre), and people who know who Angela Bassett is will know that it’s likely in the US.
Part of the thinking in embedding the wikilink across the whole phrase Royal Theater in St. Petersburg was that 1) it is closer to the actual article name; 2) “Royal Theater” is an overly generic name for a theater with a rather long disambiguation page, not unlike referring to a “Palace Theatre” (or for that matter, a “Vue Cinema”) in the UK; 3) historically there were dozens of cinemas called “Royal Theatre” within the state of Florida alone, but if you search the Internet for “Royal Theater” and “St. Petersburg”, you always find this one; and 4) I would prefer not to direct people to the St. Petersburg, Florida page inside the hook – they can always read more about the city once they read about the historically African American theater building that now houses an arts-oriented youth club which Angela Bassett attended as a child. (Or, maybe they’ll just end up going to the Angela Bassett page, but that’s OK, too.) Anyway, it’s a short hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Sure, I'd be fine with that. Since the hook's now in the queue, however, we'll need an admin to revert it. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Ravenpuff. Pinging @DYK admins to change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/5 accordingly if still possible Royal Theater in St. Petersburg. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Directly asking for a nomination to be approved

Just to clarify: for example, if a DYK nomination has stalled and the nominator or another editor in the discussion asks for a specific other editor to approve the nomination, would that be considered canvassing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Without knowing specifics, if I ask explicitly another editor to approve my nomination by overriding the objections of another reviewer? yes, that is canvassing. Neutrally asking an editor with a record of friendly opinions to weigh in is... borderline, but probably not actionable without wider consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Really depends on the motivation, and it's usually quite obvious. Like, there's a whole load of reviews I did a few years ago without actively looking to review, I'd just kind of made myself available and so if a nom was waiting a long time, I was one of the users specifically pinged to review/new review/second opinion, and that was just to make sure that noms actually got attention. That situation still falls under what's been described, but was clearly not canvassing or even dubious. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kingsif: oh, totally; DYK regulars do often get pinged for clarification or re-review. I was thinking more if, say, my nomination was flailing, and I go to a editor I know will be friendly and ask them to "take a look". Context is king here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it depends. I recently wrote about a topic that isn't my area of expertise but squarely falls into Gerda's core interests. So I pinged her as part of the nomination, inviting her to have a look. And as expected, she added some value. I was after someone's expertise rather than canvassing for an easy tick. Schwede66 01:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thankfully, we are humans, so even if all these examples have matching parameters, we are able to judge what seems squarely wrong. Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting May 7 DYK

I have another time-sensitive one at Template:Did you know nominations/Free Comic Book Day. May 7 is the 20th anniversary/edition of the event (they skipped one year due to Covid). It just passed GAN today and the hook is straight-forward. Much thanks if someone can take this! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally against promoting this for May 7 - "The nomination should be made between at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance." It is now 5 days away in Wikipedia time. IAR could be the consensus, but I'm against it. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
If Reidgreg can fix the problems while the relevant prep is still available to the prep builders, I don't think it's that big of an issue. But if the nomination is rushed, or it has to be rushed into the queue about to air, I don't think that's worth it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm more concerned that the prep is filled and any hook kicked out of that set will go to the very last prep. It doesn't seem right to me. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering why such a rule exists when it seems like IAR is used for every case. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I think of it as something to point to for extreme cases; if we get too many at once, or when one nomination is too big to be rushed, that's when we start to need more time. Other times, a one-off valid request every other two weeks, while they start to add up in our memories, aren't egregious enough to enforce a rule against them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I like Comic Book day and support putting it in on May 7. --evrik (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
If the prep set is not closed by an admin, I think we should run it on the 7th.Bruxton (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It's been approved. It would go in either Q1 or Q7. --evrik (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks to be for prep 7 since we're at one set a day. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Prep 7 is next for moving to queue. We have one queue filled currently. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
and this is why we leave the bottom prep set open; I've bumped one nom, and depromoted Ty Erickson. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The bottom prep set is almost full and I didn't use it. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
right; I wouldn't've had to depromote Erickson if we'd left space in the bottom prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess I'm even more confused. You filled most of that prep. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I excel at self-deprecation :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ladislaja Harnoncourt

Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaja Harnoncourt - the article was created for women's month, and by now it may be too late for Mother's Day even. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

We're at one filled queue

"what the title says". DYK admins – could you help us out? Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

May 15 special occasion request

Template:Did you know nominations/W. A. Hewitt has been approved, but was never placed in the special occasion holding area. Could it please be posted to Prep 1 for May 15? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Flibirigit:  Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

struck hook, unsure call

At Sarah Sayifwanda (nom)—since she died only two years ago and was never convicted, I struck the hook on BLPCRIME—leaving it here since I don't want to freeze it forever unnecessarily. Feedback appreciated, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a good move. Arrests aren't what we want to highlight. They happen for all sorts of reasons. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A problem with the review structure

Something I've noticed throughout conducting reviews and promotions at DYK is that suggesting new hooks is... cumbersome. It's easier if you're the promoter, since you can get the original reviewer to come back and give a new tick, and just let another promoter decide. However, if you're the reviewer, you then have to propose the hook, get the nominator to agree to it, and then (after having done all the work of reviewing) leave a marker, which delays the nomination by several days until someone gives the final tick. I think we should be encouraging outside suggestion and workshopping of hooks, and this system feels a little broken. Can we brainstorm some ways to streamline this process? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, let's think from the fundamentals. A DYK review is supposed to do several things: check the article, fact check the hook and assess its hookiness. If we want to prevent nonsense on the Main Page, fact checking is important. In theory, the article author is best placed to fact check any newly proposed hooks, but they may be tempted to agree to anything just to move things along (and sometimes the nominator isn't really involved n the article).
A modified process could try to separate article approval from hook approval a bit, and have extra ticks for every hook, plus a system to flag additional hooks still in need of approval. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Where does it say the nominator has to agree with the revised hook? --evrik (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    Good point. Perhaps we are tolerating too much WP:OWNership of hooks/noms here. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    they don't have to, but hooks are usually approved by unanimous consent. Gaining consensus is much more difficult if the nominator doesn't like the hook, and reviewers/promoters will usually defer to the nominator and won't promote a hook over their wishes (unless they've given up and said they don't care). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    It's also important that someone familiar with the topic of the article checks that changes to hooks don't introduce mistakes. Especially for hooks on technical subjects, hook-wordsmithing behind the scenes by people involved in the DYK process but not subject experts has often led to problems where they inadvertantly make the hook inaccurate or miss the point. The nominator is likely to be more expert on such things than the queue preparers, but often does not find out about such changes until the hook has run and it is too late. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    The wordsmithing is done in two phases: a slow and cumbersome one at the nomination stage (where everything is triple checked by nom and reviewer and whoever proposes the new version) and a quick and lightweight one (I'm tempted to call it "wiki") once the hook has hit the prep set, where people just boldly edit. It might be better to have a quick process before all fact checking is done and then not to have to do changes that might introduce inaccuracies later. —Kusma (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Kusma: I've got a bot currently pending approval that would record changes made after promotion to the nomination page; it's simply too difficult for prep set builders/copyeditors to vet every hook before it hits the prep sets, there are too many at once. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm basically saying we should encourage far more copyediting before hooks are approved. Your bot will mitigate the problem (and maybe avoid things like one of my DYKs ending up misgendering Lao She) but it seems wrong to have hooks untouched for weeks through the approval process that then get changed several times within a few days. —Kusma (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    The "quick and lightweight" phase of hook-wordsmithing is more error-prone than it should be, in large part because it is invisible to subject-matter experts (the nominators). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK's April (and March!) wrapped, 2022

See Wikipedia:Did you know/Monthly wrap/April 2022

Special occasion before May 15

I approved Template:Did you know nominations/Anju Gurung and as per the nominator's request, I was wondering if the hook can be placed in the queue so that it is posted prior to May 15? I think there is a place for special occasion hooks, correct? Any sooner and I am concerned that the requested day might pass. I am willing to swap it out with the hook I had submitted: North Calotte People / Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Norwegian Sámi parliamentary election since that one is supposed to be posted before May 15, and have it be posted at a later date if need be! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ornithoptera I moved the Aakar Patel hook from prep 7 to a later prep to slot this one in. I needed to replace a biography and I would normally notify an editor if I had to move their hook, but the nominator of Aakar Petel is retired from Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
SL93 Thank you for letting me know! I really appreciate the help! I've heard mumblings there was a set order to the hooks but I never got a direct chance to ask, I'd love to hear about what order everyone puts them in honestly! Ornithoptera (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL's nominations

Venkat TL has retired from Wikipedia. In addition, he is currently the subject of an ANI discussion where a DYK topic ban has been proposed; although it has not been closed yet, discussion appears to be leaning towards a topic ban being implemented. In the meantime, he currently has three open nominations: Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog, Template:Did you know nominations/Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house, and Template:Did you know nominations/Aakar Patel. The first two have ongoing issues while the third is unreviewed. Would any editor here be willing to adopt the nominations and address any concerns raised in his absence? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should. The ultimate irony. The ANI issues are because he's refusing to provide a QPQ for his nominations. So, if we review the nominations and pass them in his absence, he gets what he wanted without providing the QPQ. — Maile (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
All of the noms above have QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the topic ban proposal at ANI had more to do with his behavior and attitude (described by other editors as "battleground behavior") rather than the QPQ thing itself. The QPQ thing was a symptom of his overall issues rather than it being the main issue itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
(EC) Venkat TL is at ANI because of uncivil and disruptive behaviour. In my view, anything that has unresolved issued should be parked and ultimately rejected as we should not accommodate such editor behaviour. But if an individual here would like to steer those nominations through then so be it. Schwede66 10:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe in geographic balance on the hooks. These should go forward. The "Attack" nomination seems to be done. The Tek Fog nomination is waiting for a GOCE edit. I will take the third. --evrik (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Evrik: Bruxton (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it time to start a drive to reduce the backlog of nominations needing reviews?

In the above thread, BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) has noted that the gap between approved nominations and total nominations has continued to grow. I think a short-term drive to reduce the gap would be beneficial, and I recall that DYK has previously considered giving our awards such as barnstars for helping. It may also be time to ask for double the QPQs. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we know how this delta compares to past levels? We have briefly mentioned doubling the QPQs in the past. If that is easy to implement e.g. updates to template, the QPQ credit tool etc., I would support that move tp doubling the QPQs as a stop-gap measure.
One other way to see the problem is if every nomination requires one QPQ, the only way we can get a delta is due to some of the nominations not requiring QPQ. In this case, that would be due to the first five submissions not needing a QPQ. If that is indeed the cause for the delta, it maybe worth temporarily suspending that rule? Ktin (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Flibirigit (talk · contribs), Ktin (talk · contribs), the past history was discussed above, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#We're_below_60!, Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) attached a chart showing that the number of unapproved hook nominations tends to increase for most of the year then reduce again over the northern hemisphere summer. I looked at August 2021 and found that nominations in the month were 33% less than promotions (2 sets a day), while approvals were 10% less than promotions, resulting in a reduction of 114 in the number of unapproved nominations over the month. So the situation should improve in August, if it doesn't get too bad by then. TSventon (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was decided last year in an RfC that rather than doing a drive, when the gap grew large enough, those editors with 20 or more nomination credits would be responsible for doing an additional QPQ per nomination. (Ktin, it was a very long, involved process, hardly a brief mention.) What wasn't decided was what that triggering gap size would be. I'd like to suggest that 200 is a reasonable point at which to start; we're at 178 as I type this. (Picking a point to swap back is another unknown; I'd suggest continuing until the gap was only 40 or 50, but perhaps people won't want to go beyond 75 or 100.) Requiring complete DYK novices to attempt QPQ reviews from their first nomination isn't something I'd recommend at all, and I think changing that would need its own RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why don't we boost the visibility of the oldest articles needing a review?--evrik (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
One issue may be a result of giving an editor 5 nominations without a QPQ. I think after just 2 nominations they would get it - maybe someone could check their work on their first QPQ? The math in practice: if 10 new editors create five new nominations that would add 50 nominations to the backlog. Bruxton (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton (talk · contribs), the agreed approach was that, when the gap grew large enough, those editors with 20 or more nomination credits would be responsible for doing an additional QPQ per nomination, so that should be tried first. BlueMoonset (talk · contribs), could you post a link to the RfC? TSventon (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. So many backrooms on the project. I had no idea there was an RFC making plans. Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: if you go to the archives box at the top of the page, there's a link to a table of past RfCs held at DYK. you'll want EEng's proposal from August 2021. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon and Theleekycauldron: -- would the proposal of 'senior nominators' i.e. folks who have nominated / landed 20+ DYK noms having to QPQ two nominations, require any updates to the templates, tools etc? If so, how easy is it to get going? If it is easy enough, I would recommend a new thread to seek supports (you have mine) as a temporary measure with a clear exit guideline i.e. return back to 1 nomination review when the backlog gets to xx. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, did you see @Ktin:'s question about whether updates to the templates, tools etc are needed? TSventon (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: I don't think any major tool updates would be needed (although a note added to {{NewDYKnomination}} would be nice). I don't think the backlog's large enough that activating this would garner a good amount of support; getting this going should be done by acclamation, with broad support. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@theleekycauldron, thank you, I can see that this discussion has not acclaimed activating the RfC. A problem with consensus is that decisions need a lot of discussion.
This may have been mentioned elsewhere, but I would expect doubling the number of QPQ reviews needed to reduce the number of nominations made by the editors affected. Nobody has unlimited time for the project and more time spent on reviews would leave less time for nominations. TSventon (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Relevant discussions: RfC on proposal to require a second QPQ from "senior" DYK editors (those with 20+ DYK credits) when there's a backlog of unreviewed nominations and RfC Discussion: Details of implementing EEng's propsal "Unreviewed backlog mode" Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Re BlueMoonset's comments about timing: I want to avoid the back-and-forth switching that happens with the one-to-two sets a day. It will be difficult to let editors know about the 2 QPQ requirements when they happen and to let the reviewers know when the 2 QPQ requirements are in place. I suggest that we set the bar higher, that the 2 QPQ will always last for one month, and that there is a set date that the trigger is checked. For example, if the trigger is 300, and the date we decide is the 15th of every month, then on May 15 we check to see if the trigger is hit. If there is a gap of 300 on May 15, then for the month of June the 2 QPQ will be required for those with more than 20 DYKs. If the trigger is not reached on May 15, then there will not be the requirement for June. This will give us a few weeks to advertise the one-month rule change. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    I like that idea! Gives us some time to organize the troops. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't like it. Having a specific date each month is too restrictive. If we hit a specific target, we should start working on lowering it. I can see waiting a set time so people are aware of it, like a few days, but there won't be back-and-forth switching for this process: it takes a long time to get up to (for example) 200 unreviewed nominations because the regular QPQ is always there. As long as the switch back from the extra QPQs to the regular level is set low enough, these will be few and far between, perhaps once a year or very large fraction thereof. I'm also not fond of the one-month duration: if we don't need a month to get from 200 to 50, say, then keeping it going for the full month could mean having too few nominations available for QPQ reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Why don't we boost the visibility of the oldest articles needing a review? We can create a subpage. We can link to it from several places. --evrik (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think that'll be very effective—the oldest nominations needing review generally have one or more issues making it inaccessible to less experienced users: length, quality, controversy, source accessibility, prior review/disputes... anyone with the experience and desire to get through a nomination near the top of the backlog already knows how to check the top of WP:DYKN and BlueMoonset's weekly listings. New reviewers should start closer to the bottom. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    Is there a way to move all the articles that have had an initial review and still have "fixes" and discussions in progress to another page – e.g., after a week or ten days following the initial review? It would clear out lots of clutter visually for reviewers looking for something "new", and also help keep an eye on the ones where people are still waiting on responses for whatever reason? (BTW, just spotted that the DYK for the baseball player can probably be moved to the Approved page already.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Cielquiparle: The technical feasibility would be up to Wugapodes and Shubinator, since their bots patrol WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA.
    As for whether we should... I'm not entirely sold on the idea. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, we could win a lot of free time (that could go into reviewing!) if we would accept more suggestions as they are even if not super-interesting and not super-attractive. I have seen hooks approved, and then questioned and discussed for more than a month, absorbing the time of all who comment. - When I review I usually accept, but ask the nominator if the hook could be improved, and then it's up to them to invest more time or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    This raises quite a few questions for me. How do we encourage people to write better, catchier hooks if we agree just about anything they come up with? How do we convince our readership (the whole point of this project) to keep coming back to DYK if we don't hold ourselves and our nominators to a higher standard? If our audience feels like the vast majority of DYK is too boring or too niche or too self-absorbed, some people aren't gonna keep coming back to look for interesting ones, and then all of our hooks go underappreciated. How much quality are we willing to sacrifice in the name of backlog reduction?
    Ending squabbling is good (believe me, as someone who's read through many, many noms, approving shorter ones is much less taxing). Faster approval is good. But should it really be our top priority? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    That's rather abstract, and suggests that quality is sacrificed (which hurts a bit), while my point is that often we spend hours, in a process lasting several weeks, on achieving a 5% increase in interest. To be less abstract, look at the following and discuss what you see, perhaps even approve some:
    1. Template:Did you know nominations/2022 AFL Women's Grand Final (recent)
    2. Template:Did you know nominations/Serhiy Kot (approved today)
    3. Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaja Harnoncourt (in prep, finally, but a good example for a 15% increase in interest, discussed from 28 March until a few days ago)
    I believe in good faith that the nominator is the one to know a subject best, and to pass that best knowledge is my concern, not fast process for its own sake. - I will happily attend to RL until Monday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    The problem is that this amounts to dropping the need for "interesting", which would encourage even more people to nominate every article they create for DYK. Instead, we should probably have more editors nominating only their most interesting new creations. (I must admit that I have nominated most of my own recent creations and expansions at DYK, but I hope they have been reasonably diverse). —Kusma (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    How is that? In the three articles suggested to be reviewed, no nomination was not interesting, and none had an dramatic improvement in being interesting, just an enormous waste of time imho. For Serhiy Kot, we arrived at dropping one name from the original hook, for example, no more. Was that worth any of the effort? Check the others. For the 2022 final, I believe we had an interesting hook to start with (not by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    I was not talking about your three examples here. I just disagreed with your suggestion we could win a lot of free time ... if we would accept more suggestions as they are even if not super-interesting and not super-attractive. I don't like the suggest-review-refine-accept cycle much; I would prefer a wiki model of collaborative improvements followed by a final fact check and approval. If many changes are needed post-approval the approval of the facts as stated in the hook becomes meaningless. —Kusma (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm not able to say what I mean but the examples show what I see as a problem. Nitpicking over weeks, and then arriving at dropping three words for Kot (a "recent" death, - no longer recent after all this). We should not spend our limited time on that, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Questionable special occasion

This is about my nom for Craig Braun - from googling while writing the article, it looks sure that his birthday is June 1, so it's in time for a special occasion slot, but there isn't an RS (unless IMDb self-authored bios are, I forget where we fall on that at the moment) that supports this. Is it good to ask for a SO birthday hook when the birthday isn't mentioned in the article? Kingsif (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If we aren't sure about the birthday, it cannot be the basis for a special occasion. That's at least my 2C. Schwede66 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
hmm... the date should be verifiable, shouldn't it? At least, verifiable enough to place on a BLP... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Amazon Prime gives his birthday but I don't know if it would be good enough for this particular case (note that Amazon owns IMDb so it's possible the former got it from the latter, but that's just my theory). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It says they got it from IMDb; normally I'd say it's an about self for a simple biographical detail, but the mix of BLP and the ongoing IMDBCITE debates make me wary. Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that if the birthdate isn't in the article, it shouldn't be used as the basis for a special occasion request. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Fane Lozman

For context, the full hook is:

What do others think about the Fane Lozman hook in prep 4 referring to him as a "persistent gadfly"? It is sourced in the article, but it is a statement of opinion, and can be used as a pejorative (although I don't think that is the intent). I'm concerned about putting that on the main page - seems like it could be interpreted as a BLP vio. I've added a link to Gadfly (philosophy and social science) to the hook, which should help, but I'm still hesitant to promote it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"Gadfly" is a term I'd never heard of before but I'd err on the side of caution and just remove it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it's okay to use gadfly. --evrik (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    Pinging @Tamzin as nominator; the term is expressive, but I think whether or not it's negative is open to interpretation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
    He quotes the NYT "persistent gadfly" headline on his website, and I don't think the Times by any means meant it as an insult. If there is ambiguity, I do have his contact info from a (sadly failed) effort to license a picture of him and That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length; I can reach out to him if desired, although I'm not sure what timeframe he'd get back to me on, if at all. (He was very quick to respond to my initial inquiry regarding a photo, but we dropped out of touch after that.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that "gadfly" is fine to use. BD2412 T 02:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Queue

Hi! I nominated NSA ANT catalog for DYK, where can I view at what date it will be featured on the front page? Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

PhotographyEdits The queues for when things will be on front page are at Template:Did you know/Queue. Looks like that article is currently in Prep 6, which is scheduled to run on 13 May UTC time (in America, it'll be evening of the 12th until evening of the 13th May). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302 Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion on (or before) May 20

I wanted to request the DYK for British stage director Lucy Moss to run on May 20 (or before) if possible? Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lucy_Moss

Special occasion is that she has a show "opening" in London on May 20 (previews start May 13). (It is a new production of Legally Blonde: The Musical. Apparently, wigs are involved.) I have no connection to this show – and the proposed hook is not about the show – but I would expect that there will be more buzz in the media once again about the director (who is the co-creator (along with Toby Marlow) of the hit musical Six).

(Further comment is that the process for requesting "Special occasions" probably needs to be updated / clearer on the "Approval" page – I was a little confused by the directions in italics there and had gone ahead and proposed my "Special occasion request" there anyway, since there were no explicit instructions to propose it on the T:DYK page. Happy to go back and delete it if needed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no comment on whether or not the special occasion is appropriate, but it is worth mentioning that the guidelines discourage special occasions that could be construed to be promotional in tone. In practice, what exactly that means is up for debate, but I have recalled in the past seeing that having hooks about upcoming song releases being requested to come out on their release date being controversial (sometimes said requests were approved, other times they were rejected). Given that the hook is about a person and not their musical, it is more debatable if the guidelines apply here, it's just something worth mentioning. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Neither of the two approved hooks are tied to that date, so I fail to see the difference between this request and all those special occasion hooks granted to Gerda Arendt. No offense meant to Gerda, but she frequently requests special occasion hooks, tied to an individual because they're performing something unrelated on that date, or any number of reasons. I don't see how we can consistently accommodate Gerda's requests, but deny someone else's request. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Kindly give me an example of what you mean? I do recall birthdays of people, but the most recent thing I guess you mean (about performances) was that a certain St John Passion is frequently performed on Good Friday, and instead of saying so picking one specific performance as an example (a free performance during a church service, which was more or less over when the hook appeared). I don't see how that is different from mentioning a Passion hymn on Good Friday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I have now looked at this specific request and support it. It is not about the show, could run any day, so why not that day for a nice coincidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
What I mean is that you are the Queen of DYK, according to your count 1792 nominations. You've been the life's blood of this project in some ways. Because you have created more content, you also have more special requests than anyone. I'm saying in general you might do a hook on a specific performer or composer, something music related, and then have a special occasion request for it to run on the artist's birthday or something. There's nothing wrong with that, I was just using you as an example of why we should honor the request above. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
It is now in prep 6 for May 20. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

AFD article

I have an article expanded at AFD, but the voting process is slow. Can I nominate it right after it's formally kept if seven days since its expansion will have passed? Shahid • Talk2me 23:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You might want to link the article here in this thread, so editors here can have a look at it. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Shshshsh, I assume you are speaking of Nagina (1951 film). First, the article is still formally a stub, though 2166 characters is normally above the threshold for a Start-class article. I'd propose you still work on the article in the meantime to secure even better chances for it to pass both the AfD and the future DYK review. You must be sure that the article is no longer a stub at the time of nomination as any articles with stub templates will be rejected.
According to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, articles nominated for deletion must go on hold until they have survived the deletion process. Personally I see no problem for you to nominate the article while an AfD is underway as technically nothing in the rules prevents you from doing so (though this is unusual). I imagine it going this way: you nominate the article, the reviewer will automatically put it on hold and, after the AfD is successfully closed as keep, someone may proceed to review it on the merits. But again, that's only my opinion as this way of making sure the article is "new" is awkward. Also, personally, I'd make an exception for this particular case and review it anyway if the DYK is posted immediately after the AfD closure decides to keep. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
That's funny. I had the same thought, and was looking around to see if I could find guidelines about it. But, yeah, I think go ahead and nominate here, and deal with the review after it passes AFD. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Shshshsh, I'd nominate now. The 5x expansion began on 8 May, so you could wait another three days if you wish, but best to get it done. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Update: The AfD was closed as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Too many lead hook images of people

At the moment, in the seven Prep sets, five are headed by hooks picturing people. That's just too many. At most, there should be alternating person hooks (and preferably not as frequent as that), and there isn't a shortage of approved non-person nominations at the moment. Unfortunately, we can't spread them out at the moment because all lead hooks are filled, but we can demote one or two of the lead hooks to lower positions in sets, either temporarily or permanently. If no one else wishes to try, I'll do so later today. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved one down for now, but I thought the rule for lead hooks had to do with biographies and not merely people being pictured. List of awards and nominations received by Judy Ann Santos is not a biography. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
There isn't a solid rule on what kinds of images get used, except the advice to vary them up so the images help attract people to the DYK box. (Ideally images/media, at least how I see it, should also be selected based on how effective they are in conveying the message of the lead hook, so portraits should probably be in there less than other kinds of images, really). Kingsif (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
If it's just advice, I would leave it to those who actually build the preps to decide among themselves and leave it as is. Only an extremely small portion of DYK contributors build them after all. SL93 (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Just because it isn't written down doesn't mean that isn't how DYK has operated for many years. It isn't merely advice: we have avoided sequential lead hooks with the same kinds of images (pictures, buildings, and so on) and try for a good mix; when we're doing more than one daily set, we avoid having the same type of image at the same time of day so part of the world always sees people and another sees plants (or whatever). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I've always wondered if our actual main page viewership even cares about such things. I've only seen frequent DYK editors complaining when something slips by. I'm not discussing this due to me doing all those biography image promotions because it wasn't me who promoted those, but I'm not sure I see any value in bringing up such a thing. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed this reading sometimes - the tendency to include a random BLP picture instead of something more interesting. Take for instance the current version of Prep 4. Why include the Santos image instead of say, the more interesting desert kite image? Yes, I know the desert kite hook is in the quirky slot, although at least to me this doesn't seem to be quirky. You could apply the same to Prep 3 with the Blatty image and either Easter in Poland or the barn hoods (again, the quirky hook seems pretty standard for me, although maybe that's because I grew up on a farm and saw barn hoods all the time) Hog Farm Talk 15:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Humans like shiny things. Just in my own experience, if I have noticed an interesting image (or just a very nice one) on a page, I am more likely to look at it and read what it is about. Portraits don't really do the same thing, unfortunately. Kingsif (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hog Farm The desert kite article wasn't nominated with the image. Same with Easter in Poland and the barn. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif That seems like more of a reason to never include images of people instead of alternating though. SL93 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
maybe i'll collect some data about whether portraits or non-portraits tend to do better... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sometimes there are other considerations. Not least varying the kind of image for regular readers of the MP, but special occasions about a person and of course women's history month and the like, put enough focus on the person that their portrait can elevate the hook or attract some more attention. And very famous people, readers might just want to know what we're saying about them. Balancing the purpose of the image elevating the hook and also itself hooking people in visually, there are certainly users who encourage more portraits of obscure historic women to promote them, for example. Of course, I generally have a lot of philosophy of DYK, others will probably just say that having different images is nice. Kingsif (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hog Farm, I do agree with you on those images, but I'm not going to include them against a nominator's wishes. SL93 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
On the bright side, DYK hasn't been at ERRORS for a while. Things have obviously stepped up quite a bit. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is too terrible to sometimes have a few image hooks with people in a row; it is more important that pictures are free and good and help illustrate the hook well. There are already too many rules for prep builders to follow, and I'd rather make this easier than add further rules. —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree and I'm more focused on if major errors or BLP violations slip through. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion on Life Speaks to Me

Hi, this is my second DYK review, so I'd appreciate a second opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/Life Speaks to Me. My opinion is that the article does not meet WP:NSONGS, as it only has 2 non-trivial sources (and that might be a stretch too): Aftonbladet (ref #4) and EQ Music (ref #22). @Eurohunter has helpfully listed some other URLs on the article's talk page, but I reviewed those as well and didn't consider any of them to be non-trivial. I'd appreciate if I could get a second opinion on this and whether the DYK should be declined accordingly. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have doubts on whether or not the subject is notable, you can bring the article to AFD. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Right. I was hoping someone else could take a look and give me a second opinion on the notability question before I go to AFD. Legoktm (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a fair enough request; best for somebody to comment who works with songs and knows the notability rules (that's not me). Meanwhile, the other thing you can do is place a "notability" tag. That may result in more eyes being attracted to the article. Of relevance to DYK is that we don't run articles as long as they have maintenance tags. Schwede66 05:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
If I were you, I'd just nominate the article for AFD and get it over with. If the article ends up being kept, then the nomination can continue. If it's deleted, then the nomination obviously fails. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
In the absence of anyone else speaking up, I've gone ahead and done that. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning the sources that Eurohunter gave below so that commenters may judge if they are sufficient for the subject to pass notability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I'll make a source assessment table. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

we'll need more queues

Pinging the DYK admins to hopefully get some more queues. Thanks in advance :) also, the bottom prep set is filled, so any bumped hooks will have to be depromoted by then. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

p.s.: the stats page is new and improved, go check it out! and a list of our prep set promoters... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Just out of curiosity, I went to see how many hooks I'd promoted, and the result was zero. I don't know if it's 100, but it's not that low. Have I been doing things wrong? CMD (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I count 24... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Issue with the link, will bring to your talkpage. CMD (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early yesterday, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 23. We currently have a total of 300 nominations, of which only 101 have been approved, a gap of 199, up 24 over the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No May 14?

Trying to add a nom but today isn't there yet so it hasn't been added. Kingsif (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I've left a note for MusikAnimal, who runs the relevant bot.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  07:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Not appearing in nomination list

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but a few days ago I nominated an article for DYK. The issue is that it appears to have not transcluded into the list of noms pending approval. Is there any way to fix this? --🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Locomotive207: done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!--🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 00:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying a point of WP:DYKSG#C6

Prep 6: The Case of the Animals versus Man (nom): ... that in the 960s, the Brethren of Purity wrote an epistle where Christians, Jews, and Muslims are sued by Quran-reading animals?

Just to be clear what i'm doing here from the outset, I don't actually want this hook pulled (and thus, why I don't see the need to ping the involved parties)—even if this does end up falling afoul of C6, this one seems pretty interesting anyway due to the combination of the plot and the time.

But, here's my thing: What's the minimum bar for passing the requirement? It seems like people have two separate interpretations:

  • A: The hook must simply mention that it concerns a work of fiction, thus tying the work to the real world.
  • B: The actual thrust of the hook must be based on real-world information—plot is generally used as a supplement where necessary.

I interpret the rule more along the lines of option B, but this is the second hook I've seen where the justification for C6 was much closer to option A, after Two Pieces of Nuts (nom). Just to get a rough consensus here; what should the baseline be? Maybe some middle path? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I promoted the hook due to the year, what the type of writing is, and the group that was responsible for writing it. I never heard of the group beforehand so I thought that part might be interesting as well. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't see that the hook above is a violation of C6: you have both 960s and Brethren of Purity on top of "wrote an epistle". I also think B goes too far, requiring real-world to be more of the basis of the hook than plot elements, which is a new one on me. I do think a bit more than a simple mention is needed (as posited in A); having "in novel XYZ, this funny thing happens" doesn't seem adequate. I don't think the mentioned hook would sufficiently meet C6 if it just started "that there's an epistle where". BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I'd be opposed to something like option A since it could potentially allow hooks that were mostly fiction-based or plot to get approved on a technicality. For example, "DYK that Ash's first Pokemon is Pikachu" would not be allowed under the current rules, but A could potentially allow "DYK that Ash's first Pokemon in the 1997 anime series is Pikachu?" even though I think that interpretation goes against the spirit or intent of the rule (which is to link the hook's fact to the real world rather than just the hook itself). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Interpretation B is the one we have historically followed, but it's always been a tad controversial. The problem with option A, as has been noted on many occasions, is that hooks based on fictional events are difficult to objectively assess for DYK's interest criterion, since anything at all can occur in fiction. On the other hand, I personally have always allowed for the occasional exception for an exceptionally unusual plot device.

With regard to this particular hook, since it has real-world elements and is also dealing with an epistle rather than a work of fiction as such, I don't think it's a violation of C6, but regardless I think it's plainly unusual enough to meet the interest requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The template is currently miscoded

The code for Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination is currently wrong, refusing to accept a hook because it begins with "... that, [introductory clause], ..." There's no reason that space is important for the listing and we shouldn't be forcing people to screw up their grammar just to make the program load. — LlywelynII 10:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII, not sure I'm following? Maybe an example of what you want to write and what you're being forced to write? valereee (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Valeree: Did you know that in a sentence like this, I'm being forced by the programming to leave out the comma between 'that' and 'in'? Right now the program is coded to insist that the word "that" be followed by a space for no apparent reason and at the occasional cost of decent grammar. — LlywelynII 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
So you're saying you want to write
Did you know ...
  • ... that, in a sentence like this, I'm being forced by the programming to leave out the comma between 'that' and 'in'?
But the form won't let you? valereee (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ... that, in order to demonstrate this example, a comma needs to go directly after the "that" as a parenthetical comma?
  • ... that this sentence doesn't contain the comma after "that", thus not triggering the bug where the program rejects any hook that doesn't start with "... that " (space included)?
at least, that's my guess. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Yup. Good job with the emuing. (Oh, it worked so well because in this thread every single comment has its own reply button. Cool.) — LlywelynII 19:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
In any case, @SD0001 maintains the tool; SD0001, what do you have to say for yourself? :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ineligible image

I was about to promote Prep 4 but the file page for the image shows the statement "This image appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 April 2022." I think this hook should become a non-image hook and a different image hook be used in this set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch! Schwede66 05:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth Fixed; Prep 4 is good to go. I've added the photo of another bio in that set. The photo wasn't part of the article's nomination but it is eligible so I can't see anything wrong with that approach. Schwede66 05:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

First it was Boris Johnson, now it's the Royal Family

It seems that The Kunts, besides having a provocative name, also have provocative song titles, and apparently ISD writes about them a lot. An extensive discussion in December 2021 on the nomination of "Boris Johnson is a Fucking Cunt" was made here and here. Now we have another nomination, which is Prince Andrew Is A Sweaty Nonce (nom page). Technically speaking this does not seem to violate any rules, as both are song titles and are not negative statements about BoJo or Prince Andrew in WP-voice, though given the limitation that Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided, this one is a very risqué nomination.

My concern isn't about the swearing but the optics of promoting the songs to the main page, which may make it appear that Wikipedia somehow endorses the message of The Kunts. I believe that the present nomination is worse because while the "Boris Johnson is a Fucking Cunt" one was clearly expressing opinion which may be objectionable, and therefore was very borderline but probably OK (and in hindsight, it was a good one, featuring 22K views on the day of promotion), the other is an accusation of a grave crime of which Prince Andrew was not yet convicted and no criminal complaint was even filed AFAIK.

I'm also concerned that the first nomination was made seemingly in order to make promotion for the song (or so ISD appeared to say at the time), and this nomination was made just in time before the song is due to appear (27 May). While being a fan of The Kunts isn't a COI and I'm OK with them writing articles, the timing does bring forward some reasonable doubts.

PS. My politics are irrelevant but to be clear, they in most cases wouldn't have been aligned with the Tories. And I appreciate satire. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

We topic banned The C of E, but allow this?

  • Pinging DYK nominator ISD. Please refer to User talk:The C of E#Topic_ban_from_DYK. The C of E got topic banned for ""sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content". We should not have double standards - i.e. what gets one editor topic banned, is overlooked in another. Not being British, I had to look up "Nonce": Definition. Seriously, do we want to use Wikipedia's main page to call Prince Andrew "a sex offender or child sexual abuser"? And while we're at it, we also should not use the Main Page to call world leaders, "a fucking cunt" (even if it's just a song title) or engage in any other name calling, even if we're just quoting someone else. I'm seeing the lines blur between The C of E offenses, and using song titles to publicly slander someone. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    ISD "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" is linked twice in the hook, one as that wording, and one like this: Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt#"Boris Johnson Is STILL a Fucking Cunt"|Boris Johnson Is STILL a Fucking Cunt. — Maile (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, absolutely. I mean, my personal opinion is that Johnson is indeed a ****ing **** (is that even arguable?), and it is very probable that the other one is true as well, but seriously? No. Not happening. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Replying here for continuity but it's also in response to the top level comments. I think there are some conflicting issues. Not censored as Wikipedia and its front page are, but obviously users who abuse this to promote provocative content aren't HERE, which is grounds for some kind of punishment (as with The C of E).
    But I think 1. we should question if the nominator of all these hooks is just particularly passionate about the musician, and isn't trying to be provocative, like other editors who create and nominate articles within a particular interest; 2. have a discussion on the difference between displaying hooks about contentious topics that are serious vs. hooks about contentious topics that are satirical. To me, the obvious satire mutes the sentiment enough that it's acceptable, while we promote hooks about politics with a serious tone regularly anyway; and 3. have another discussion on the difference between displaying hooks about current politics vs. non-current politics. To me, non-current is safer, but context of wider disputes that relate to/are allegorical to long-past politics should be paid attention to.
    Of course, that's a lot of considerations, who's to say we wouldn't be better just promoting everything with a small print disclaimer that DYK is not edited for taste at the bottom of the box. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    How does it matter what intention the editor has? Either DYK censors it or they don't. Whether or not someone is "particularly passionate" about a subject doesn't change how it looks on the main page. Primergrey (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. Intent is not relevant, since a nominator will say whatever they have to, in order to get their nomination passed. — Maile (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    I think it's quite important, because that's principally what The C of E was banned for. While some of their hooks and timing requests were more political than we'd post if we understood the NI tensions as much as them, most were not so bad and would be accepted because of NOTCENSORED. It was the obviousness of their intentions to abuse DYK, which then fed into their attitude in pushing through their hooks, that was the reason for the full TBAN. If you don't think the nominator in the fruity language songs case has any bad intentions, then there is nothing to discuss here. We're not censored, the hooks aren't actually provocative in meaning or tone, and with this new one in particular the repetition and lack of other substance (nothing more than a list of questionable titles) dramatically lessens the effect of the cursing. Like, depending on the reader (and possibly their political alignment), some readers could take such a blunt statement with all the titles in it to be critical of naming songs like that.
    The question is whether the nominator is abusing DYK being NOTCENSORED for an agenda, unless you want to start writing rules about no politics or cursing or something. We currently don't have any DYK guideline on optics (how it looks on the main page), and it was recently pretty firmly agreed by users who don't include me that it should stay that way, so everyone could get their Russian hooks on MP. If we do now add a "but what impression does it give" clause, we shouldn't retroactively apply it to the nominator here. Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    When it comes to C of E, it looks like he had: "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention" and "Little or no interest in working collaboratively". Both of these are covered under NOTHERE. However things like "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" and "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner" are specifically excepted from NOTHERE. FWIW. Primergrey (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    I mean, it's one thing to promote a hook about, say, the current war in Ukraine or the Troubles if it is worded neutrally, and it's a whole lot another thing when the main page literally says "the leader of country X is a (choose whatever swear word you can use)". Even Putin, who arguably is a much better candidate for being a "fucking cunt", isn't suitable for such main page treatment. Note for example that the WP:SIGNPOST team (yes, it's not the main page, but is considered the unofficial Wikipedia news outlet, and like DYK, it's an offshoot of the core activity of Wikipedia, which is to write and correct articles), was forced to retract a piece called "We stand in solidarity with Ukraine" after backlash that revolved around two things, one of which was the "taking sides" issue. It was a very controversial piece even though the opinion posted there wasn't expressed along the lines of "Fuck Russia".
    What we have here is a much more egregious example, which, if posted as presented, may make people think that WP a) hates BoJo to the extent it has to call him names, b) considers Prince Andrew a sex offender even if the courts haven't ruled that way (at least for now). Even if they had done that, the hook "Did you know that Prince Andrew is a convicted sex offender?" would have never passed, at least not when he's alive. And it doesn't matter if this is a song title. Among the millions who visit Wikipedia every day, there will be a few who will read this literally or as a tacit endorsement of these statements. We should remove any possibility that this happens.
    That said, if the context is clear that this is simply a title and not a string of potentially insulting/libellous political statements, I'm fine with the hook. For example,
    • ...that the satirist YouTuber who published the song "Jebać PiS" also published a song called "JP2GMD"? is not OK, as this may be mistaken for WP's endorsement of the statements.
    • ...that the production team of the song "JP2GMD" beat the Guinness Record for the fastest drumbeat rate made by a non-human being? is fine, because it is clear that the emphasis is not on the statement that John Paul II was a pedophile and a rapist but on the drumbeat rate.
    Also, I sort of disagree with Primergrey's latest comment here. This isn't a talk etiquette issue. This is a neutrality issue. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the topic ban we gave CofE. I also think that we can say that the DYK doesn't have profanity or libelous material. Just my two cents. --evrik (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • C of E would always cry "NOTCENSORED" whenever one of his hooks was criticized but we've been over this before - WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to article content, and we can and do "censor" inappropriate hooks and images before and after they hit the Main Page. Quite apart from being a boring hook that just repeats the Boris Johnson song yet again for no good reason (except to get more clicks I suppose), calling a living person a sex offender is a step above just insulting a politician. I cannot see how we can possibly let this one run. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The C of E topic ban came a long series of issues, not a single poor hook. I'm not sure there is much value in discussing it here. Regarding the specific hook in question, neutrality aside it should be rejected on 3a. It's a list of three song titles, this is not interesting to a broad audience (who would likely not know what a sweaty nonce is anyway). CMD (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd wait for the nominator's reply before commenting further, but regardless of political standings or neutrality, the hook would probably count as a severe BLP violation and should be rejected on those counts. We wouldn't run hooks like "Did you know that Donald Trump has multiple divorces?" or "Did you know that Joe Biden is known for making verbal gaffes?", why should we allow this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with the sentiment Szmenderowiecki expressed that the article itself could still run on DYK, it just needs a more neutral/less provocative/less BLP-violating hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we should tread carefully on anything BLP. And a for instance, since you mentioned DT above. Some politicians may, or may not, shake this stuff off as easy as a duck sheds water. But it's not a guarantee. With DT, I would think it a very real possibility that if we did a hook on some personality quirk that came out in his first divorce proceedings - and put it on the Main Page - a lawsuit would soon follow. Just using song lyrics to reveal (true or false) a personal aspect of a living person, does not make Wikipedia exempt from legal action. — Maile (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, yeah, there's a few reasons to not run the hook as written, not least because it's super boring/is half a hair from just being "[DYK bold link] exists", but this thread was opened as an optics issue, and DYK doesn't have anything written about the impression our hooks give, and in recent experience has affirmed that stance, so let a regular review decide there's a BLP violation or that something substantial needs to be said. If you want a discussion about optics (which I am here for), well, here we are. Kingsif (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how to react to all of this. I am happy to rewrite the hook if it makes things easier. What about something like: "...that the band behind two expletive-laden UK Top 5 singles about Boris Johnson released a follow-up about Prince Andrew?" ISD (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Great idea, possibly some Easter Egg link issues, but thanks for that. Kingsif (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
widen the link to a follow-up about Prince Andrew and you should be good on the EGG front. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Kingsif this is an improvement, the note of the top five charting adds a bit of interest (even if for not the song in question). CMD (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this one is fine IMHO. The "from the producers of..." kind of making a hook interesting is legitimate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
While I am opposed to the NOTCENSORED exception for the Main Page, I actually like the new hook better (even if it does not express how I feel about certain people). Don't shock just for the sake of shocking, but don't hide shocking things that are central to the topic either. The link to the BoJo songs should not be easteregged to Boris Johnson, though. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
What about: "...that the band behind two expletive-laden UK Top 5 singles about Boris Johnson released a follow-up about Prince Andrew?" In terms of not hiding shocking things, perhaps: "...that the band behind two expletive-laden UK Top 5 singles about Boris Johnson released a follow-up song about Prince Andrew's involvement in Epstein Scandal?" Regarding the not the song in question" being confusing, would it be worth using a picture of Prince Andrew in the hook to make it clear the DYK is about him rather than Johnson? ISD (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I think bringing up the scandal by name would still be a BLP violation especially since he still has yet to be convicted. The most suitable compromise I can see is the one proposed above about the "top 5 singles about BoJo". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I would oppose including an image of Prince Andrew; the article isn't about him, it is about a song mocking him. We only have an image for one in eight hooks; this isn't the best use of this limited resource. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, just an idea. ISD (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • NOTE: DYK policy on BLP is about both the article itself and the hook: See #4 Within Policy – "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Based on DYK policy about the article, we never should have processed Boris Johnson is a Fucking Cunt - on Christmas Eve, of all dates - and we should not process the current offering. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    Interestingly, there seem to have been a grand total of zero complaints about that hook at WP:ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe, based on this discussion, that we are generally fine with running the ISD's alt hook, so I asked the potential reviewer to proceed with the nominations as usual (using ALT1, as in the nomination), and ignore my rant at the very beginning. I don't know if I can myself do that, but this step doesn't seem too controversial when you look at it. Or is it? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ISD (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Queue 6

@United States Man and Evrik: On moving Prep 6 to Queue 6, I did not find that the twelve hour claim in the Tennessee floods hook was supported by the article and I have changed the hook to

Queues...

Forgive if I'm mistaken, but right now T:DYKQ is showing no filled queues, like, at all. Pinging @DYK admins: Pamzeis (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I have filled two of them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I aim to do one when I log on in the morning. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's an automatic prep set promotion tool!

And it's not terrible? Hi everyone! I said a couple of weeks ago that I was working on a prep set promotion tool. I stopped working on it for a while because I decided to pay attention to my schoolwork for once gave up and forgot. But now it's done, and it's ready for a test flight! I know Narutolovehinata5 was interested, so I'll ping them; and if Z1720, Bruxton, Rlink2, or anyone else is curious, feel free to install.

but leeky, I hear you ask, does it work?

and, umm...

probably.

Most likely?

I have no idea, but it seems fine.

If you're interested, you can install a copy from user:theleekycauldron/DYK promoter. Let me know which inevitable bugs crop up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I see it shows up as "close DYK nomination" in my menu, but it only gives the option of set promotion rather than also giving the option to reject noms. I guess that can be worked on, at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
oh, true, I guess I could add a rejection option. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all you do! Also I saw I missed the process when you were up for a position here on wikipedia. I will learn how to participate in the next one. Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
As a suggestion for page text, how about reminding users to go to their User:USER/common.js page and add importScript('user:theleekycauldron/DYK promoter.js'); // Backlink: [[user:theleekycauldron/DYK promoter.js]] to a new line? Kingsif (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the suggestion! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Maybe it's just me, but File:Where is the install button?.png Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it either. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kingsif and SL93: ... no idea! Pops up my browser, so I don't know; sorry about that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, @Kingsif, @SL93, it's produced by script installer. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I assume this is for promoting hooks to prep sets? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
indeed it would be! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the tool appears to be frozen for me - "Promoting hook to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4... Closing Template:Did you know nominations/Snow removal in Montreal..." SL93 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: went fine for me—next time that happens to you, can you open up your javascript console and relay any error message you might have gotten? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron
index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:232
Uncaught ReferenceError: api is not defined
at evaluate (index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:232:3)
at HTMLInputElement.l (index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:170:24) SL93 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
oh, not a difficult fix; I'll get into it later today. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, thanks for this. I will see if i can integrate this in my browserscript.
I have been on a semi wikibreak but 2 weeks from now I should be returning to my full activites, including promoting DYK hooks. Rlink2 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: attempted a fix. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It works now. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I just gave it a shot and so far it seems to work fine, albeit with some strange bugs. I have another few suggestions:
  • If you load a prep after you've already loaded a prep, it will load options below that rather than refreshing the tool. For example, if I'm loading Prep 1, then I load Prep 2 afterwards, instead of Prep 1 clearing, I see the "Hook to Promote: File:" thing twice.
  • The tool doesn't seem to work well if there's already a hook on slot two (which for some reason is showing as slot one on the tool). For example, I was trying to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Arnaud Balard to Prep 5, but Bungay Castle (novel) was on the second slot but for some reason the tool was showing it on the lead slot. Luckily Prep 6 was free so I promoted it there instead.
  • Once promotion is done, the page should refresh (similar to what Twinkle does) instead of being stuck where it is.
  • If you're trying to promote a nomination that you created or reviewed, it should show a warning.
  • If a nomination is already closed, the tool should show a message saying that the nomination has already been closed and no further action can be done.
I understand that these are a lot and some suggestions could take a lot of coding (I imagine the "detect if you're promoting a hook you reviewed" thing could be tricky to code), but these are what came to mind based on my initial tests. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the bug reports, @Narutolovehinata5 and Kavyansh.Singh! I'll get into it later tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Kavyansh.Singh: okey dokey! new functions:
  • Options to mark the nomination as rejected/unsuccessful
  • A few safeguards, to make sure a misclick/omission doesn't screw something up
  • It'll give an alert (although it won't self-abort) if you've edited the nomination page before
  • The "undefined" bug with the images is fixed
  • Edit summaries and other minor aesthetic stuff
I'll check to make sure promotions still work; cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Another suggestion: it may be also worth adding a warning if you're trying to promote a nomination that doesn't have any of the DYK approved tick icons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Rather than "doesn't have any of the DYK approved tick icons", be more specific: that the last icon on the page isn't either of the DYK approved tick icons, though of course that last icon may be within the {{DYK checklist}} template as a "y" status. There can be ticks that were superseded by other, non-tick icons, and the nomination shouldn't be promoted in that case. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
that gets trickier, but I'll take a whack at it after shabbat. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron I tried promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Romy Golan, but it didn't load the prep within the tool and I received this javascript error -
index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:233
Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: String.prototype.replaceAll called with a non-global RegExp argument
at String.replaceAll (<anonymous>)
at HTMLInputElement.load (index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:233:17) SL93 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: took a whack at a fix? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, in the future, i'm going to ask that y'all direct your bug reports to user talk:theleekycauldron/DYK promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Great. It works. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I used this tool for the first time, and it worked really well. I recommend that anyone who is prepping should use this. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Mayoralty of Fiorello La Guardia (nom)

Wnated to get some outside opinion on this (pinging Jon698 and Doug Coldwell) – yes, this is supported by the sources, but doesn't it feel a little funky to run a hook that basically says "news outlets thought this guy was really really great"? Setting aside the fact that the article and hook disagree about whether NYT said La Guardia was the best mayor in world history or American history, and the WP:EGG issue in the hook, I'm not sure the hook should derive its hookiness entirely from uncomplicated praise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, I guess it would only matter if the article writer was notable and was known for their knowledge of politics. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The author of The New York Times article is Edward Glaeser. ... that Fiorello La Guardia was described as the "the most remarkable mayor of a great city in American history" by New York City economist Edward Glaeser? Though I'm not sure it's an EGG issue - we had two filmography articles that piped to the person's name. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
No opinion on this hook, but I added another hook on the nomination page. There are a lot possible hooks from this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Split the {{DYKsubpage}} template

Where it links to "Review or comment" on a nomination- can we split those into two separate links? Review and comment? Since closing a nomination doesn't require manual source editing anymore... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what this has to do with closing a nomination. People can review the nom to add a tick (or a question) or comment on the nomination if they have other comments. What is the other link that you would like to introduce? —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to allow for manual closing of nominations, substituting DYKsubpage in the traditional way. But I'm also puzzled as to why this proposed change would be an overall benefit. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma and BlueMoonset: right now, it says ([Review or comment] (edit link) - [Article history]), right? I want to change this to ([Review] (nomination page) - [comment] (edit link) - [article history]). That way, you can visit the nomination page (which is required to use the closer) without opening up the edit field. Kusma, this isn't about offering ticks or commenting, it's about closing/moving to prep – i assume you're familiar with that process? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I got it, and I'll support that. Lately promoting the hooks to preps with leeky's (excellent) script, I had to first open the nomination in edit view, then the normal view. So basically, they want a link directly to the nomination page, which sounds reasonable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Just add a link to the nom page, but call it "nomination page". As "review" and "comment" are both done by editing, they should not do different things. Please do not use the word "review" when you want to say "close as promote or decline". —Kusma (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: El Paso Star

  • ... that the El Paso Star (pictured) is lit up every night and visible from the air up to 100 miles (160 km) away?

Apologies for the late notice on this one, but when I was checking for it I Googled the name and found almost no hits whatsoeever for the proper name "El Paso Star" for this. I also observed that nearly all sources seem to call it the "Star on the Mountain".[8][9][10] I have therefore taken the liberty of WP:BOLDly moving the article and also tweaking the hook to read:

  • ... that the El Paso Star on the Mountain (pictured) is lit up every night and visible from the air up to 100 miles (160 km) away?

If this is a problem for anyone or we need more time to discuss it, or suggested hook tweaks other than what I've done above, then please let me know before 12:00 UTC when it's due to go live on the main page. Pinging @Bsoyka, Evrik, Theleekycauldron, and Sammi Brie: who have all nominated or reviewed this article for GA and DYK in the past.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Name change is good with me, nice catch. Should the hook be "that the El Paso ..." or "that El Paso's ..."? Bsoyka (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bsoyka: sure, that works well. I've changed it to that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru, looks good! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
p.s. i made a template for the section heading; you can use {{dyknstr|El Paso Star|queue=1}}. Gives the nom page and links the queue- you may want to subst it, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Nice work. --evrik (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Please move further discussion to Template:Did you know nominations/Avtar Singh Jouhl --evrik (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (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.

Does anyone want to reword the things that Earwig picked up at Template:Did you know nominations/Avtar Singh Jouhl? evrik approved the nomination despite multiple close matches of unquoted material. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

not to pile on, but shouldn't articles and hooks that can't be sufficiently improved to meet the DYK criteria... be rejected? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most of the issues from a mirror site? --evrik (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Someone would have to do some deep digging, but this involves two websites. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
this site appears to not be a mirror site- it looks like the article copyvios the interview. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks like it - "Avtar campaigned for the Labour party and for trade unions to support a law against this type of racial discrimination." "campaigned for the Labour party" and "to support a law against" are exactly the same wording with no quoting. I guess there could be more quoting used for that and other stuff, but do we really want that and is there a limit? SL93 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Good Beer Hunting is a major source for the article and from that, I see "getting some “big lads” to push aside the", "be dismissed for his actions", "Jandiala, in the district of Jalandhar", and "a senior lecturer of trade union studies at the then South Birmingham College’s Trade Union Studies Centre". These two sources are clearly not copies of the Wikipedia article. Where is the copy? SL93 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph that was the biggest issue. Most of the rest is quotes. --evrik (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I was unaware of this section when I asked Nikkimaria to check the nomination for any copying or close paraphrasing. Given the disagreements on the nomination page, I thought it would be a good idea to get someone who's been very helpful at DYK in this regard to take a look and let us know what issues she sees. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_185&oldid=1109731886"