Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 193

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192Archive 193Archive 194Archive 195→Archive 200

Charles, Prince of Wales hook

Can we remove the comma after "Charles Prince of Wales" in the second hook? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Always helps to state where the hook can be found: Prep 7. I'd say the comma is correct. Schwede66 18:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The comma was not in the DYK nomination. It was added for reasons unclear to me, and since I nominated the hook, I do not want it there. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty: I promoted that hook without a comma. It was added by @Ravenpuff:. I notice Ravenpuff is usually right on the money with their edits to hooks and I have no opinion about the comma. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Schwede66 19:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I've seen that, and I don't need it shown to me. I'm allowed to express an innocuous opinion without being accused of "ownership". However, if people really want that unneeded comma on the Main Page, so be it. Like many things, Wikipedia likes to make people jump through hoops to improve minor things, so that comma will just be another failure atop an already broken system. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty: I will remove it, I already pinged Ravenpuff so if they choose to comment here we can discuss. @Schwede66: you managed to rile up two editors today. I know you to be a pleasant hard worker here. Lightburst (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The comma is grammatically correct. He is Charles, and at the time was the Prince of Wales. "Joe Biden, president of the United States, said today..."; "Charles, Prince of Wales, described...". Omitting a second comma would mean that Charles was not a Prince of Wales but a "Prince of Wales described a proposed extension to the National Gallery as a 'monstrous carbuncle'". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin's correct. Schwede66 19:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Those two are different. The analogous sentence would be "In 2023, Joe Biden, said that [...]". The fact that Charles had a comma in his name means nothing; the comma preceding "Prince of Wales" is part of a name, unrelated to the rest of the sentence. So, whilst Charles's "name" was "Charles, Prince of Wales" (as his article was titled for many years), Joe Biden's name is not "Joe Biden, President of the United States". I believe you've misinterpreted the hook. Having "Joe Biden, said that" is obviously wrong. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Prince of Wales was his title, not his name. But even if it were his name, as in "Charles, Jr.", it would still need to be offset with a comma on either side. Tamzin is correct. – bradv 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say "Prince of Wales" was a name. I said Charles, Prince of Wales was his "name". His name is Charles, but there's no good way of describing what the mishmash "Charles, Prince of Wales" is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Lightburst. The comma should in my opinion be read in the same spirit as MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA – in brief, it's recommended (necessary?) so that "Prince of Wales" remains associated with "Charles" rather than with any following words. Another way to parse the hook would be: "that in 1984, Charles, [who was] Prince of Wales, described [...]". In this case, the comma is unambiguously necessary. If, however, other DYK editors prefer to omit the comma by consensus, I'd be happy to go along with the decision. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Is this really the most interesting thing we can find to say about the King of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth? That he once criticized a proposed building extension? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Why? It's interesting, is it not? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't find it so, but then again I'm often out of alignment with the DYK regulars on this. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If people want the comma, it would have to be "that in 1984, Charles, the Prince of Wales, described [...]". Otherwise, the comma is superfluous. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I see your point @Sojourner in the earth:. I wonder if any other editors think we may conjure up a better hook? Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst Tricky to find something that people wouldn't know about Charles that is in the article already. His "monstrous carbuncle" comment is fairly colourful and refreshing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it should run as planned and if anyone is motivated, we can think of better hooks or choose one from the nomination. I like ALT0 but I wonder what the reviewer @Gerda Arendt: thinks. Bruxton (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. As said in the nom, I believe that people would say "yes" to ALT0, which (for me) makes it not interesting. After all the coronation glamour, I think a kind of quirky hook is better, and being the oldest says pretty much zero about his achievements or points of view. I'd like an image but - again as said in the nom - the cute one provided is not in the article and the other one is a few years off the statement. We are not doing British royalty things, but have a hook for an article that qualifies by having been promoted to GA. - 300 years ago OTD, Bach became Thomaskantor, and it's on the Main page, not in the DYK section but OTD, pictured even. New perspectives for me. Sadly, the pic is off by decades ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7 Amanda Lee (pilot)

Blue Angels pilot Amanda lee

Re: Prep 7, the picture hook needs to insert the words "fighter jet" so it reads:

... that the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels' first female fighter jet demonstration pilot Amanda Lee (pictured) uses the call sign "Stalin"?

Further tweaks possible. The main thing to keep in mind is that Katie Higgins became the first female Blue Angels pilot in 2015. Higgins was a support plane demonstration pilot, whereas Amanda Lee was a pilot on the elite fighter jet demonstration squadron (i.e. what most people picture when they hear "Blue Angels") in 2023. (Considering whether or not to nominate Higgins for DYK...if I do I'll try to make it totally different from this one.) Cc: Bruxton, Lightburst Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh good idea. I had not even looked at the other pilot. You should definitely nominate. Heading into summer season in many parts of the world and the Blue Angels will be performing often. Regarding fighter jet, I thought demo pilot covered it but I am not opposed. Bruxton (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about WP:DYKSG#D2 at GA

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#RfC: change GA criteria to require inline citations in all cases in which GA is thinking about adopting WP:DYKSG#D2 for GA articles. It may be relevant to DYK, and frequent DYK viewers may have insights on its application. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

GA with a high copyvio score Nomination

I wonder if anyone has a way to see when an internet website was created or edited. In the case of this Nomination and article: Zakir Husain (politician) I find a very high copyvio score. I do not think they are mirrors and I am wondering if the good article process may have missed something. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst The only "suspicious" bits of text in the copyvio result you had directly linked are various names, titles, standard phrases, and a few actual quotes of statements by the subject, so there's nothing to be concerned about. I suspect the rest of the listed "copyvios" would be similar. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
What I usually do is plug the URL into archive.org's search box. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
So not an issue... I am fearful about promoting the article with a 77% score. I will have to go through the items. For the GA review I see one copyvio spot check. So I will ping the reviewer @AirshipJungleman29:. Thanks for the messages about the cc. Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
You will find that quotes typically throw Earwig into a tailspin, as it's only use is for directly copy-pasted content—aka precisely what a quote is—and not for any further detection of plagiarism. In this case, it is a lengthy speech that has drawn the algorithm's ire. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Things like this are why I discourage people from using Earwig for anything but a quick check before actually examining the sources properly. It misses most copyright issues, and most of the ones it does find are false positives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

abu dhabi marathon

i am wondering if the unit symbol "km" that was used in the originally approved hook may be restored. i am admittedly not sure why it was replaced with "kilometres" in this edit. from what i can tell, we have had no issues previously with using "km" in dyk hooks, as seen here, here, and here.

i had originally used the unit symbol in the spirit of mos:commonality. to be honest, i don't even know which spelling is considered more prevalent in the united arab emirates, or even if there is one. a comparison between google searches for instances of "kilometres" and "kilometers" within the .ae top-level domain suggests that "kilometers" is used more, but not significantly enough that i would consider the difference definitive. i can't seem to find either spelling of the full word on the marathon's official web site.

in addition, within the context of road races, the word is generally abbreviated, to the point where race types have common names like "5K", "10K", and "25K", and proper names of road races that mention a metric distance generally abbreviate the word as well, as seen in "New York Mini 10K", "Breaking Barriers 50km", and "IAU 100 km World Championships". the article was written with this in mind, so spelling out the word would be contrary to the style of the article. (the single use of "kilometer" in the article is in a quote, where the person quoted appears to be based in the u.s., so that spelling should not be viewed as dispositive.)

please note that this hook is queued in the set scheduled to appear next on the main page. courtesy pinging Ravenpuff. dying (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dying: I'm happy to have it re-abbreviated to "km" – I could have just expanded the template incorrectly here. I might also add that the default behaviour of {{convert}} is to leave the main unit unabbreviated but use a symbol for the one in parentheses, ostensibly for it to read better in the context of prose, but this has little bearing on the present case. (As another aside, the internationally approved/preferred spelling, generally speaking, is "kilometres".) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought it was "klicks" :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done – Schwede66 21:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thanks, Schwede66. dying (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Roy McGrath, incorrect credit

Roy McGrath, Queue 2 (next to hit the main page): TDKR Chicago 101 is receiving a creator credit, but the article was created and written by Y2hyaXM. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems too late now, but this was incorrect. The article creator Y2hyaXM should have received a creator credit (they haven't received any DYK credit), and TDKR Chicago 101 should have received a nominator credit. The issue was that Y2hyaXM wasn't listed as a contributor on {{Did you know nominations/Roy McGrath}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Traveling

I am traveling this week so I will be off and on as internet connectivity allows. Bruxton (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Athlete nicknames and comparisons Max Bielfeldt Nomination

... that after the Wolverines passed on the return of their "Moose" for a fifth year, he went on to win another Big Ten Championship with the Hoosiers?

After our recent discussion about athlete comparisons, I promoted this hook to prep 1. It was the one accepted by all concerned and the nomination had been languishing. I wanted to get feedback about it before it proceeds. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

How about Lionel Messi and "The Flea". Both are used in admiration. I'd have approved that one, too. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
From my reading of the previous discussion the use of this hook would likely be dehumanizing if it were an athlete of color. We are using the possessive "their" and then referring to the athlete as an animal, a "moose". As an aside, I think many teams have a fella micknamed "Moose" Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

British royalty

In queue 7, we have a hook about Charles III, and another mentioning Princess Margaret, - isn't that a bit too much for one set? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Casualties?

In Queue 7: ... that at the time, the Battle of Shiloh was the largest battle fought in the United States with nearly 24,000 casualties—including 20,000 killed or wounded? – Nomination; credits: TwoScars, Lingzhi.Renascence; nominator: Onegreatjoke

What happened to those other nearly 4000 "casualties"? What's a casualty other than being killed or wounded? (If it's something like disease, it wouldn't seem right to classify it as a battle casualty.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know in this case, but displacements are often considered casualties of war, sometimes those MIA are, too. Per the article infobox: "captured/missing". Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Personally, it seems counterintuitive, but I guess it's standard military terminology. Although I'm usually in favor of fewer links in hooks, in this case it may be better to link "casualties" to Casualty (person). Also, there should be a comma after "States". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
See the nomination. I actually promoted another hook and then resized that the article was not in the hook! Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I propose that we shorten the hook by removing —including 20,000 killed or wounded. That removes any ambiguity. Schwede66 01:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I think cutting that works better and is less confusing. Bruxton (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I agree—cutting the killed and wounded makes it less confusing. Going off on a tangent, when people talk about "bloody" battles, I do not think that POW/MIA should be included in the counts. An example of this problem is in Battle of Antietam, where the lead says "It remains the bloodiest day in American history, with a combined tally of 22,727 dead, wounded, or missing." Many of those "missing" casualties were POWs, and are not necessarily "bloody" (although I would not have wanted to be sent to Andersonville Prison). TwoScars (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 Done – Schwede66 19:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you also please add a comma after "States"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 Done by Schwede66. Thanks again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Move to holding area

Would someone please move Template:Did you know nominations/Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela) to the holding area? --evrik (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You can ask the reviewer to do such things. Schwede66 03:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jengod:? --evrik (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Evrik I regret to inform I have absolutely no idea how to do that. :( V sorry jengod (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I've moved it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Mx. Granger! jengod (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I will no longer oppose the move as it's already done, but I really have to note that WP:DYK said nothing about IAR local consensus at nomination pages being allowed to grant special occasion requests. The rules explicitly state that a WT:DYK request is required to grant IAR exemptions; while such a discussion did take place, there was no discussion or explicit approval (or indeed any responses) and the only approvals for the special occasion were at the nomination page. It's a moot point as it's already in the special occasions holding area and thus I will no longer hold this back, but this is for everyone to keep in mind for next time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    Narutolovehinata5, the rules don't say anything about six-week extensions being a function of IAR; IAR can be invoked at any time, in any venue. In other words, sticking so rigidly to the six-week rule is only a hindrance. DYK had its chance to be a negative on the process, and it chose not to – a local consensus will do just fine, because if a guideline prevents us from improving or maintaining wikipedia, we ignore it. DYK should be cutting red tape, not hardening it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See the Nom

I guess this is the second time the article has been made a GA according the nomination. So does it qualify? Article: The Holocaust, Nom. Bruxton (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not the first time this has happened, should still be good to go as long as there isn't a previous DYK run :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I see nothing on the article talk page about a previous DYK. Bruxton (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
then we're all right, yeah? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I've had a look through the archives and there is no indication that it's been at DYK. I suggest this is good to go. Schwede66 01:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Schwede66: I tried to do a search and then promoted to prep 1. Glad you also checked. Bruxton (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Marvin Harrison Jr. and how we talk about athletes of color

This is about the current lead hook, but isn't an error that would get it pulled from the Main Page, so I'm raising it here.

... that one NFL scout compared watching Marvin Harrison Jr. (pictured) to "window shopping at a Lamborghini dealership for the model that doesn't come out until next year"?

I'm sure this wasn't intentional on the part of anyone involved (and so I'm not pinging anyone because I really just want a general discussion), but this hook is about buying a Black man because of his physical strength. Yes, athletes are signed to contracts, which is a transaction based on their bodies' worth, but this quote explicitly compares that process to buying an inanimate object. Is this maybe a kind of phrasing we can work harder to avoid in the future? I think we've done a decent job of avoiding hooks that objectify women on the basis of attractiveness, but it's important to remember that objectification occurs in the context of race too, not just gender. In fact one of the first results I found on the topic is about Black male college football players in the U.S., and explains the issue quite clearly:

Black players are much more likely than white players to have their bodies objectified. ... Dehumanization occurs in many ways, including through language and symbols, such as likening individuals to animals or inanimate objects. ... In the US, bodily objectification has been used to justify a litany of sins: enslavement (both because the Black body was recast as a machine, made to work, and in terms of the imagined risks inherent in not containing allegedly libidinal Black bodies); over-policing; mass incarceration; excessive force; denial of civil rights; and lynching.

— "Invincible bodies: American sport media’s racialization of Black and white college football players"TWL (internal references omitted)

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a rather interesting take. I do not think there will be many people who will read it as tantamount to purchasing a black man. Just an exceptional athlete that pro teams will love to have. Not unlike the impressive and unaffordable car in the hook. Might as well ping the other participants from that nomination so we are not talking behind their backs. @BeanieFan11 and Newtothisedit: Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really seem that offensive in my opinion. If I was a star wide receiver and someone said something like that about me, I would probably enjoy it as to me it seems to be a compliment saying that he's an incredible athlete that teams are upset won't be available for another year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'd encourage you to read the paper I linked. Statements like this aren't made in a vacuum. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think the comment itself is race-neutral. I see no reason why the same could or would not be said of a white player. BD2412 T 22:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    That's not how racism works. Most racially-loaded things one can do are things one could also do to other races. I could cross the street every time I see a white man; that doesn't change the fact that it would be racist for me to cross the street every time I see a Black man. What matters is that people don't say this sort of thing about white athletes, at least with nowhere near the frequency. That's not guesswork, mind you. That is the determination of studies cited in the aforementioned paper: From "Infrahumanizing Praise"offprint p. 196:

    We found support for our novel hypothesis that praise can be dehumanizing, so long that it praises one’s bodily skills. ... [T]he media depicts Black athletes (when compared to White athletes) more in terms of their body (e.g., naturally athletic, physically strong) than their mind ... [W]hile Black and White athletes may both be infrahumanized as a function of being described in terms of their bodies, these descriptions are far more likely to affect Black athletes in practice.

    -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    Thats ok, but there is no mention of bodily skills in the hook. To compare someone to something unaffordable which is seen as excellent by the vast majority is acceptable in my opinion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry but I don't have the time to read that whole thing. But as for comparisons to objects, from my experience it happens often for both white and black athletes. For example, Harry Bolick was compared to an iron fence (and was featured at DYK for that), Paul Loudon was called a battering ram, Dick Butkus was called "The Animal", Allen Keen was called a "rabbit", etc. Are those comparisons (all made about white athletes) racist too? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don't see why this is seen as an issue. I thought the hook was about how he was compared to the best or something very expensive to afford. The connection to the physics and not to the skills is made by the reader. Reading the article it makes it obvious he is an extraordinary very successful athlete.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    I am thinking of the comparison of a "Flea" (Pulga) to Lionel Messi....I am pretty sure players and journalists use the name in admiration.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we can find reasons to be offended about most things. I am glad that Tamzin came here with the concern but I believe the hook is not offensive to anyone. In fact it made me want to look into the person. Seems like an exceptional athlete and the comparison in the hook is interesting. Thank you for teaching me a new word: Infrahumanisation. introduced by Belgian psychologist Jacques-Philippe Leyens and colleagues in 2000. i will try to use the word in a sentence: I do not think this hook is infrahumanizing. Bruxton (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    That is your opinion. A number of people here are expressing their opinions. I am not expressing an opinion here, but rather conveying a widespread consensus among the same kinds of academics we base our articles around. I do not think it is in dispute, among scholars of race and racism, that comparing Black people to inanimate objects is offensive. If you don't see the problem, well that's the point, isn't it? If we want our main page to be taken seriously as somewhere to get information, surely we need to do better than trusting editors' gut feelings as to what is and isn't offensive. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Tamzin Do you want use to read all these papers to find your point? I tried one, but after some pages I gave up. Show one with page number so we can follow your reasoning.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Paradise Chronicle: I've already linked two papers on this topic, quoting the portions most relevant to our discussion. I linked the Google Scholar results just to show these aren't fringe views, not because I expect you to read every result. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    This Guardian article (or NYT to trade accessibility for quality) also gives a good description of how discussion of professional athletes' mental and physical prowess correlates with skin color. Consider also how the NBA has moved away from the word "owner" because of its racial connotations. Comparing a Black man to an object you want to buy, on the basis of his strength, is a lot worse than calling a team's primary backer its "owner". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    When you say I believe the hook is not offensive to anyone, Bruxton, that's a somewhat weird statement as it was brought here by Tamzin as it's, well, offensive. Schwede66 00:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am confused. You and Tamzin think it is offensive and dehumanizing but not enough for either of you to pull the hook? I watch many athletic competitions and athletes are often compared to race cars. I never consider it dehumanizing. I understand the points which were made. Bruxton (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I for one didn't have a chance to pull the hook as I didn't understand it. It was only Tamzin's explanation that clarified to me what the hook was on about. I made the above comment four minutes after the hook came off the Main Page. Schwede66 04:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
As to me, it didn't feel obvious enough to pull unilaterally, and I felt that if I started a discussion at ERRORS about it, we'd have the same discussion we're having now but with tempers running hotter, and it probably wouldn't reach a consensus by midnight. So I picked the lower-drama, more forward-looking approach. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is racist on the part of whomever said it. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • For a start it's not that great a hook, essentially "Someone said X is good as sports". Oddly, that is probably partially why it made it to the main page; it seems really hard to get something interesting out of what are pretty by-the-book athlete biographies. No-one likes to reject an article, and no-one can find anything better, so it moves through. I would add that the problematic aspect might not be caught by those unfamiliar with the topics of either American sports or American race relations, of which this seems an intersection (and in this specific case, further also requires understanding cars). CMD (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Your last sentence is really the crux of this, CMD, and is why I tried to frame this not as "Who fucked up?" but as "How can we avoid this in the future?" Being more conscious of potential systemic biases as we propose, review, promote, and enqueue hooks isn't something that we can just add to the checklist and be done with, but it is something we can work on. It's been 15 years since a wheel-war over a hook that obectified women led to Jimbo desysopping a DYK admin, and like I said, I think we do pretty well on not letting that kind of thing on the Main Page. But thinking a bit deeper about what biases a hook might represent—especially when it's a quote or paraphrase of someone's opinion, not a statement in wikivoice—is something we can all work on. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think you are way off. Perpetually offended about things that are not offensive at all. And you are the same person who regularly puts the word fuck in hooks? And above? I guess you can propose a new rule. Lightburst (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    You're entitled to that opinion, Lightburst, but there's no need to personalize this. This is a sensitive topic but everyone else has managed to remain respectful of one another. As to a rule, like I said, I don't think adding another box to check would fix anything here. What I'm asking is for people to be more aware. Something I think this thread is accomplishing even for most of those who see things differently than me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Addendum: If there is something to add to WP:DYKSG, it would probably not be specifically about race, but rather something about exercising caution with hooks that quote a person's opinion or analysis, which seem to disproportionately cause trouble. But I'm not sure how I'd word such a rule. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    (EC) Lightburst, you are totally out of line here. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks as you are on a trajectory towards ANI. Schwede66 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
When someone disagrees with your position it does not mean we need to call it a PA or threaten ANI. I am surprised that you interject such a harsh assessment of my comments. I promoted the hook so I thought it was appropriate that I comment on this discussion. I apologize to Tamzin for the "perpetually offended" comment. I will not comment further here since I am threatened with the drama boards. right now I am promoting hooks so I will leave you to this discussion. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst when you say you are ... Perpetually offended about things that are not offensive at all, that's a personal attack. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • As someone who leans left politically and sympathizes with BLM, at first glance I didn't even realize the hook can be considered offensive, and I'm not even sure if the quote had racial connotations to it in the first place (as in this particular instance). I imagine if the quote was said too but about a non-black athlete I don't think it would raise attention too. I agree that we have to be careful about how we treat race on DYK but I'm not even sure if this is even the best example of how (not) to deal with it. As for the "buying" connotation, that isn't how I interpreted it. In my case at least, I thought it was more about the idea that "we want him for our team but he won't be available until some time in the future". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think the hook is anything out of line. I'm sure the athlete's skin colour was not the reason the comment was made, and it shouldn't be treated like it was. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ping Urve for her thoughts on this discussion, as I know that she'd have quite a bit to add here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping, leek. I don't have much to say that Tamzin hasn't. (Tamzin, see my comments at User talk:Storye book/Archive 30 § DYK thanks; you might find what I say there, and the source, interesting.) I agree that the language used here has problems; the fact that we disagree on that might speak to the ubiquity of this kind of language. I don't know.
    My view is that DYK -- like all curation services -- is unavoidably going to promote some narratives that understand minority life in uncomfortable ways. Not always, but the risk is always there. It's a problem of both selection (which stories get told) and dictation (how do we tell them). As much as we have a duty to our readers to present "interesting" facts, we also have a duty to the subjects of our articles -- the people and (sometimes historic) communities involved -- to respectfully represent their lives in authentic, true, and where possible, uplifting ways. We all have blind spots, and sometimes the language we use may not be obviously problematic, or might cause any specific harm, but which good-faith passersby can understand as uncomfortable. Discomfort is a good thing, but when it sometimes (at least perceptually) comes at the cost of respectfully portraying the life and career of a sportsperson, maybe we can find something else. In the case of Harrison, that's easy, since there's a lot of interesting information included in his article. When it comes to more sensitive subjects, like how we represent lynchings and massacres, or historic figures who used entirely different terms than our own, I don't know...
    Tamzin asks us: "Is this maybe a kind of phrasing we can work harder to avoid in the future?". In this case, yes, we'll probably do better about this specific language going forward. As for a more general fix to the problems of selection and dictation, I don't think any curation service is equipped to fully handle these issues. Unless we want to create a role for sensitivity reading (which can, and probably would, feed into these very same issues because no sensitivity reader has full context for all minority groups), these issues will pop up again. And certainly we can solve each whenever it pops up. But a less reactive solution... I don't know. Partly out of protest and partly because I don't have the solutions to these problems, I have stopped sending articles I create to DYK. Sorry that I wrote so much but said so little. Urve (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think discussions like this are positive. Part of the beauty of English Wikipedia is the diverse readership which means that the same text gets read and interpreted in different ways, and it's always good to know where there are significant differences in opinion. The challenge of DYK of course is that the hooks are short and we're constantly testing the boundaries of what is "compelling" and "interesting" and "attention getting" while trying to reach a broad(er) group of readers. The fact that these discussions happen do, I think, make a difference even if nothing gets "codified" as a result.
    The main thing I've learned around DYK, AfD, etc., is that if you want to make a difference, you have to show up. In general I think we need more support at WP:DYKNA for "approved" nominations to be re-reviewed by uninvolved editors, rather than waiting until the hooks hit the main page to comment. When promoting, I'm always grateful and more confident when I can see that a DYK nomination has been bulletproofed by multiple editors passing through, many of whom have made constructive comments in trying to get an article and/or hook ready for the main page. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
A slightly different take - The statement in the hook was a quote of something an NFL scout said about a black player. It was presented as a quote, not presented in Wikivoice. Let's leave aside any debate about if it is or isn't or should or shouldn't be offensive and just for argument's sake assume it is offensive. We are not presenting it in Wikivoice. If we say, "Gee, this is offensive. Let's not feature it on the main page," and we have no other hook for the article, so the article isn't featured on the main page, could the argument not be made that we are sweeping the ugliness and racism under the rug? Hiding it? Isn't our job to present the world as it is, both the good and the bad? NFL scouts look at athletes - especially black ones - as objects. This is a fact. It is an ugly and unpleasant fact, but it is a fact, and we would do our readers a disservice to hide this fact from them. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but, also, with the lack of anything of substance in the hook, deciding just to run "DYK that [coach] said [black player] was [quote that plays into racism]?" is just unnecessary showcasing of that opinion. Like running a hook that says "DYK that sport fans called [black player] "monkey"?" The issue would probably not have occurred with a better hook, but now we can see that allowing weak hooks through can create another issue. Why not address it? Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • This discussion has taken a lot of turns, and I've just come to it. A few thoughts:
  • However editors find the hook personally, there is concern here; Tamzin was alarmed enough to bring the hook to discussion, and that's enough to establish that readers could be alarmed, too. I also believe that the editorship at DYK is more international than the largely-American readership.
  • The hook is bad (anyway) in its overuse of quotation and its vapidity. These elements undoubtedly contribute to Tamzin's concern.
  • DYK's relationship with WP:BLP is often more cautious than in articles, as the information in DYK hooks is presented contextless and is being promoted to be read.
  • A suggested solution I propose, then, is that we universally uphold a higher standard for DYK hooks about living people. No comparisons for a start, which may flout neutrality whatever they say.
Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
No comparisons about living people sounds like a plausible SG that might help prevent issues editors and reviewers aren't aware of. CMD (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Prep 1: Penelope (platypus)

  • ... that in 1953, zookeepers accused Penelope the platypus at the Bronx Zoo of "posing as an expectant mother just to lead a life of luxury on double rations"?

Factually correct according to the source, but were these zookeepers seriously accusing a platypus of faking a pregnancy for material gain? It seems more likely to me that these were merely ironic expressions of exasperation after it turned out that "five months of anxious waiting" were for naught. The only actual zoologist quoted in the source has "no doubt" that Penelope really was pregnant but suffered some kind of miscarriage. The article doesn't mention this, and takes it for granted that she was faking.

In fact, I find the entire article strangely judgemental, not only in this but in reference to Penelope's treatment of Cecil; language like "abandoned Cecil", "deserted Cecil", and the inclusion of a quote from TIME that calls her "one of those saucy females who like to keep a male on a string". It's common for journalists to anthropomorphize animals in this way, but it's out of place in an encyclopedia article.

The ALT1 hook proposed in the DYK nom would work as a replacement for this one, but I do think the article needs a bit of an objectivity check before promotion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) @Crunchydillpickle, TompaDompa, and Bruxton: Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Sojourner in the earth, thank you for the comments! It's a privilege to have such thoughtful review. I agree that some of my wording was rather biased. I changed "abandoned Cecil" to "escaped from the zoo" and "deserted Cecil" to "disappeared." Additionally, I added this sentence: "Australian Zoologist David Fleay believed that Penelope had indeed hatched young but that 'something apparently went wrong.'" I chose to keep the TIME quote ("one of those saucy females who like to keep a male on a string") in the article because it demonstrates how much the media anthropomorphized and sensationalized Penelope. But I won't die on this hill. If you think its mere inclusion is biased, I'd be convinced to remove it... begrudgingly. Thanks again. Let me know next steps (it's my first time in the DYK-verse). Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I must have missed Fleay's comment when checking that the source verified the content, which was an oversight on my part. I agree that the rephrasing to put less focus on leaving Cecil and more on leaving the zoo is an improvement. I think the silly/hyperbolic nature of the accusation is part of what makes the hook funny and interesting—it is a "quirky" hook, after all. On the TIME quote, I take the same view as Crunchydillpickle. TompaDompa (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Not my circus not my monkeys BUT I think it's funny and quite obviously meant to be funny. Platypi are one of nature's most naturally hilarious animals which sets the stage for a slightly more light-hearted article. I don't think we're violating any BLP (biographies of living platypi) rules here and it's ok use a looser approach to some articles/DYK hooks, so long as all the facts are all squared away. jengod (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
BLP (biographies of living platypi) rules ROFL — Schwede66 03:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for those changes, Crunchydillpickle (I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your defence of the TIME quote, but like you I don't believe it's worth fighting over). If others are finding it obvious that the hook is not meant to be serious, well, okay. It's less problematic for me now that Fleay's comment has been added to the article, but it still falls into that grey area of "not quite true, not quite false" that never sits right with me. But this is a feature of quirkies in general, and I know my views on quirkies are not in line with the majority, so I'll let it go if I'm alone in finding this a problem. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again and sounds good. And @Jengod, thanks for the chuckle about biographies of living platypuses :) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2: hook check

I've replaced a hook in Q2 (see above). Upon undertaking the necessary checks (AGF for hook fact as it's from an offline book), I wonder about the photo license. It's PD in Europe (fine) but what about the US where the servers are based? As far as I can see, Template:PD-1996 should apply but I'm not 100% sure. Can somebody with deeper copyright knowledge please weigh in? Schwede66 04:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Dunno about the photo license, but it's missing a credit: * {{DYKnom|The Holocaust|Onegreatjoke}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I had left that one behind; sorry for that. Schwede66 10:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Schwede66 that photo is from the Auschwitz Album and was taken 1944 by a Nazi guard. Under US law if he didn't declare copyright (on his souvenir photos of atrocities) and didn't file for copyright renewal (on his snapshots of war crimes) it's entered into the public domain. I am not a lawyer. But the album currently in the hands of Yad Vashem and their whole deal is public information about the Holocaust, so in my amateur IANAL opinion, we're (Wikimedia/pedia we) good. jengod (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Prep 6 Katie Higgins Cook to Katie Higgins

Currently in the "quirky" slot for Prep 6, I think the target article needs to read "Captain Katie Higgins", because at the time she was a Blue Angel and a Marine Captain, her surname was "Higgins", not Cook. (All explained in the actual article; she married another ex-Blue Angel pilot, Dusty Cook, later, after which she changed her name again.) @Bruxton, Onegreatjoke, and Lightburst: Sincere thanks for nominating/progressing in my absence; I would have pointed this out during review but it all seems to have gone so fast in a good way. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I will switch it, @Ravenpuff: changed it from upper case "Captain" to lowercase. But I will put it back to uppercase because it is used as part of her name for this hook. And I will shorten to her maiden name. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Lightburst. It's not even her maiden name! Her maiden name is Johnson but her first marriage was to someone named Higgins. Haven't found a lot of detail about her first marriage (except that she tagged some of her social media posts as #MrsHiggins), or how it ended, so have avoided discussing in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst and Cielquiparle: I believe that "Captain" should be lowercase here, since it is currently used as a modified description rather than a title. If it were really part of the name, the hook would currently read "United States Marine Corps [name]", which is incorrect syntax. But valid alternative wordings that keep the word in uppercase are "... that the United States Marine Corps' Captain Katie Higgins" or "... that Captain Katie Higgins of the United States Marine Corps". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: I trust you on your explanation of the lower case c. I will go change it. Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominating a 2x expansion: Charm quark

Hello,

I recently did a 2x expansion of charm quark, but the hooks I found are really interesting, and the article itself is a level-5 vital article, so I am nominating it for DYK. User:Onegreatjoke suggested that I bring this article to the discussion here.

The nomination can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark.

Cheers, --TheLonelyPather (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather Maybe you could submit it for GA review now and either re-submit for DYK once it passes, or put a note on your current nomination that it's pending confirmation of GA status? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
That is a good idea. I am probably going to refine it and re-submit it for DYK once it gets GA. Thanks! -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Page move → redirect

Zakir Husain (politician) in Queue 4 has been moved, so it's now a redirect. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, can you please also fix the DYKmake template for that nom so it also doesn't use the redirect? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
To be more specific, please do not change the subpage parameter, but change the second parameter so it's "Zakir Husain" rather than "Zakir Husain (politician)". Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Done: Special:Diff/1158736342. I hope I got it right :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2: Gull egg

The quote should read "make smashing meringue", without the "a". But also, I don't think this hook meets the DYK guidelines. It's presenting an opinion rather than a fact, and the opinion in question comes from the owners of a store that sells gull eggs, who obviously aren't an independent source for that claim.

I'm sorry to be pouring cold water on this hook because the article is great, and exactly the kind of article that DYK was made for. However, I think there are plenty of alternative hooks to be found. For example:

  • ... that a gull egg will make an airier cake than a chicken egg? [to stick with the theme of the original hook]
  • ... that during World War I, the UK government advised citizens to harvest seagull eggs as a supplement to hens' eggs? [I can't access the source for this one so I haven't checked it myself]
  • ... that following the Second World War, seagull eggs were in such demand in the UK that they were imported from abroad? [found in this source but not currently in the article]
  • ... that there are fewer than 100 licensed gull eggers in the UK? [wouldn't work for a picture hook, but it amuses me how baffling that sentence is out of context]

Hope these ideas help. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jengod, Onegreatjoke, and Lightburst: Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
My solution would be:
... that '''[[gull eggs|seagull eggs]]''' ''(examples pictured)'' are said to make a "smashing meringue"?
jengod (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I've just added a failed verification tag in the second paragraph of the article, and a dubious tag in the section on North America. At this point I'm tempted to pull this from Queue 2 until various issues with the article and hook are addressed, but as I am the one who added the tags I don't think I should be the one to pull it. @DYK admins: ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw the nomination. jengod (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be a shame to withdraw it over a couple of minor issues. I think the refs you've added resolve the concerns raised by ONUnicorn, and if none of my proposed hooks work I'm sure another can be found. Let's wait for a couple more outside observers to weigh in; the hook is still three days away from the main page, so there's time for calm discussion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree it's a shame to withdraw it entirely - I do think the issues are fixable and already you've gone a long way towards fixing them. I'll try to look at it again later tonight. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The last-minute ticking-clock fire alarms on DYK (and AfD, as well, even if it's not "your" article) are quite stressful. The information that there are three days left before launch is slightly reassuring. Sigh. I'm more or less around for whatever else needs addressing. Changing the hook is none of my business at this point. I hope you find something good. jengod (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I like the third one, it presents an unusual standalone fact and it's thought-provoking enough that, I don't know if the article would answer the questions, but I'd click through to find out - why did Brits like seagull eggs so much? why couldn't they get them at home? is the link with WW2 suggesting that maybe the Battle of Britain killed a lot of seagulls? I think it works well as a hook if the source is incorporated. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately the source doesn't answer these questions (I've ony just got access to page 172 which GBooks wasn't showing me before). However, the author cites this article Closed access icon from the Dundee Courier, which mentions the importation of gull eggs in the context of rationing restrictions, so presumably the reason is that hens' eggs were still in short supply in 1947; but that doesn't explain why they couldn't get enough eggs from British gulls, or why they didn't import hens' eggs instead. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5/1987 Bullingdon Club photograph

At some point the hook for 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph was changed from (my emphasis) ...commissioned a painting of a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring... to ...commissioned a painting of the 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring.... Is it possible to change back to "a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph". Saying "the" makes it sound like this is the title of the photograph which it is not - it's just the name of the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith @Ravenpuff @Lightburst This goes on the main page tomorrow so pinging those involved in the hook's promotion/editing to get someone to look at this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vladimir.copic: Your change seems logical to me. You will need to ping the {{DYK admins}} Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff it looks like you made this change in Special:Diff/1158090978. Any objections to changing it back? BTW, the convention is to ping the hook author in the edit summary when making changes like this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vladimir.copic  Done BorgQueen (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vladimir.copic and RoySmith: I'm happy for the change to have been made. But I think that either "the" or "a" would work here, since the article is clearly about a specific photo. Even if "1987 Bullingdon Club photograph" is not its title, it's still a correct description of it. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK closure issue

I think a reviewer is having difficulty closing Template:Did you know nominations/75/24 Split. I would help, but I'm not the most experienced here. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed :) Gnomingstuff, reviewers aren't supposed to close DYK nominations, that's for promoters to do. If you ever want to close a nomination (that you aren't the reviewer for), I suggest reading Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook. To approve a DYK nomination, simply subst in {{DYKyes}} in your comment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Actually, another part of the problem here is that Bneu2013 actually does owe a QPQ review despite thinking they didn't. So this shouldn't be given a tick until that review has been completed. I've posted to that effect on the nomination page, not realizing that this section had commenced here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I've already started a QPQ. But I have had some pass without this. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps your earlier nominations only total to 5? According to the guidelines, "As soon as a new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth nomination of an article for DYK, each of those requires a separate QPQ review".Supplementary guidelines. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, that's what I had thought previously, which is why I hadn't done it until I was asked. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, the QPQ rules were reformulated a couple of years ago in an RfC and the update clarified that it's five freebies; this was when we set up the possibility that two QPQs could be required per nomination for those with a great many prior DYK nominations whenever we have way too many unreviewed noms. While the now-obsolete instructions prior to that were ambiguous, over time it became the practice to allow five freebies rather than the four, rather than the fifth requiring a QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday. I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 8. We have a total of 211 nominations, of which 59 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 5 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

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) 05:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't see this problem going away while the DYK page uses the unreadable format that it does. I can anecdotally say that I would almost certainly review more at DYK if the nominations page was clean and organized. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Urwa ibn al-Zubayr

Queue 1: Urwa ibn al-Zubayr (nom) @Onegreatjoke @BorgQueen @AhmadLX I see in the article that Alfred Guillaume calls him the "founder of Islamic history", some other authors made similar statements, and one argued the other way. I'm not seeing how that supports the hook statement in wiki voice that he is widely considered to be the founder of Islamic historiography. Maybe there's this handful of authors who feel this way, but there's also hundreds of others, not cited here, who feel differently? On the other hand, maybe I'm being overly picky; I'd like to hear what others think on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith I've rephrased it. Please check. BorgQueen (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It's a small change, but yeah, I think that's better. To be honest though, I was thinking more about the "widely" part. If we find N sources that say, "I think X is Y", when is it OK for us to say in wiki voice, "X is widely considered to be Y"? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith "Widely" in that context simply means that it is a majority opinion, yes? It does not deny that there are differing views. BorgQueen (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this specific case, but generally I think that for an article (or a DYK hook) to say that X is widely known as Y, we need a reliable source that says exactly that. If we perform our own review of the literature and decide that a majority of scholars hold a certain opinion, that's original research. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I suppose you have invalid view of Original Research. OR is searching primary sources to draw new conclusions. Surveying secondary RS is exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. How would you write an encyclopedic article? You serious? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Good point. @AhmadLX: what do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
May I suggest
... that Urwa ibn al-Zubayr has been called the founder of Islamic historiography?
as sticking to the spirit of the original while avoiding the OR aspects of "widely considered"? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith  Done BorgQueen (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and BorgQueen: I've no issue with the new hook, but how would you know if something is "widely held"? By surveying people? Or seeing if an RS uses the phrase "widely held"? To me "widely held" means widely held by academics which you can see by surveying academic sources. I went milder by saying "widely held" instead of just stating that he "is" only because of Robinson's dissenting opinion, otherwise Encyclopedia of Islam and other sources state it as a matter of fact. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Max Bielfeldt

Queue 1: Max Bielfeldt (nom) @Cielquiparle @Launchballer @Lightburst I can't verify the sourcing for the hook. Can you walk me through it? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Cielquiparle it looks like you wrote this hook. Can you please help me understand the sourcing? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    Propose rewording the hook as follows so it's clearer and aligns more with the article wording:
    The fact that the Wolverines released Max Bielfeldt from his athletic scholarship for his fifth and final season of NCAA eligibility is explained in the first sentence of the sub-section called "Transfer". (The sub-sections leading up to that explain that he redshirted his freshman year.) The fact that Bielfeldt was the first player in history to win Big Ten Conference men's basketball championships at two different schools is repeated twice in the article, with a citation the second time (the source is 247Sports published by CBS Sports Digital/CBS Interactive). Added a wikilink to the Big Ten Conference men's basketball regular season champions article as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, TonyTheTiger, Lightburst, and Launchballer: Copying everyone in. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation, and I've updated the hook to your suggested wording. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

J. Howard Crocker

Queue 2: J. Howard Crocker (nom) The cited source only talks about "introducing volley ball into the Chinese public schools", which isn't quite the same thing as introducing it "to China". But more than that, it's a letter written by the subject about his own activities. We shouldn't assert something in wiki voice based on a first-person account. @Bruxton @Flibirigit @Onegreatjoke -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the other citation also listed at the end of the sentence. [1] It clearly mentions Crocker introducing volleyball to China. The letter from Crocker is only used to support the year, 1912. I will add a footnote later today, to bundle the citation. Flibirigit (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.

Queue 2: Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. (nom) The wording in the hook video game case is confusing. I read that as meaning Computer case, i.e. some legal notice was stamped into the plastic housing of the game. It took me a while to figure out it meant Legal case. Could this be reworded to avoid the ambiguity? @BorgQueen @Joraham @Onegreatjoke @Launchballer -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith I suggest removing "the video game case" altogether. BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
That works, done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination David Gerard (author)

I was looking over this Nomination before promotion, and I wondered, what does everyone think about the article and image. About the image, I was specifically wondering if we should be showing the image of the pint in the image. The image is also not very clear. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

He is shown in his natural habitat; the quality is fine for the article, & just about ok for MP. A crop at the bottom would be good, & maybe a little straightening-up. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
So long as drinking beer is legal in the jurisdiction where he was photographed, I think it's fine. jengod (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Heathrow Terminal 5 apparently. I've done the bottom crop & substituted it. In fact there is a large choice in his commons category, nearly all in the vicinity of beer, plus often cigarettes. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Aren't his books self-published? Apparently they have received reviews, but I don't know if that's enough to get over the fact that they're self-published. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
No idea if self-published or not, but that isnt really relevant to this situation where they have subsequently been reviewed by reputable organisations. If anything you could make a credible argument that despite self-publishing those reviewers consider his work notable. The reason why 99% of self-published stuff doesnt get reviewed is because its just rubbish of no note. We rely on critics to filter out what is and isnt notable (good and bad) for both formally published and self-published. Self-publishing is more relevant to the 'is this factual' question where something hasnt had any reviews. We do explicitly allow self-published works by people who are recognised experts in their field for use as sources/references, the question is are they enough of an expert/notable - and reviews by quality papers etc are one way of demonstrating that. It would be a weird situation where we allowed a self-published work as a source then said the author wasnt notable enough to be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Are there trademark issues with the WMF logo? I've been dinged in the past for including it in screenshots because the logo is not free content, and I would think putting it on a t-shirt doesn't make it so. And, yes, the image is of very poor quality. Surely we can find better images for the main page. Also, I agree with @Black Kite about the dubious notability of this subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked through the sources hence I can't comment on notability. But surely, we can find better photos for a picture hook, eh? Schwede66 05:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
While I agree there are often better image hook options than bios (and we just get through an awful lot of bio image hooks because there's a lot of them), I have also gone ahead and tweaked the image to bring David out of the shadows. Kingsif (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Much better, thanks! I had also cropped the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: de minimis, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It will need to be put on hold now as it is at AfD. Bruxton (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I picked this up on COMMONS:COM:Is a photo of a t-shirt with a non-free logo on it freely licensed?. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Promotion problem

In this edit, PSHAW (used by Bruxton) erroneously replaced a hook in Prep 4 with another, while leaving behind the credits from the hook which was removed. I'm assuming this was a PSHAW error; theleekycauldron, was it because, prior to that edit, the credits were not in the same order as the hooks? (I've removed the stray credits, and added the hook and credits to Prep 5.) Promoters and others should be aware of this issue, and check for it happening again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mandarax: Thank you. I remember last night Pshaw froze and I had to manually move the last one I promoted. It looks like I promoted one over the top of another and that is my error. Bruxton (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
So, even though the edit summary said "PSHAW", you had made the edit manually. It's good that it wasn't an automated problem. I only brought this here to alert people that PSHAW might be misbehaving; sorry, leeky, for mistakenly blaming your baby. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
honestly, user-side error was my first guess :) would've been happy to dig into it, but, no trouble. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Huntsville, Alabama

Queue 2: Huntsville, Alabama (nom) needs an end-of-sentence citation for Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army @Bruxton @Epicgenius @Onegreatjoke @MyCatIsAChonk -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

believe i've added it Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking at https://www.spacefoundation.org/company/nasa-marshall-space-flight-center/, right? That has all kinds of glowing language about NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, but I'm unconvinced it supports the statement Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army. Saying "the center" implies it's the only one. The source doesn't say that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, you raise a good point, the statement is difficult to support the and I'm not finding many sources that support it. I've rephrased it in the article to "Huntsville is a key city in rocket-propulsion research for NASA and various organizations run by the Army," and I think one of the ALT hooks should be swamped out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
How about:
ALT4: ... that Huntsville, Alabama is nicknamed Rocket City?
That keeps with the space theme, and is supported by https://apnews.com/article/north-america-ap-top-news-mars-huntsville-moons-d4c8b31ad3d245d8b5a71b2b4eaa9a21 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
that's good enough Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Done -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-BLP biographies

I've finally finished Marie Sophie Hingst and moved the article to mainspace only took 1.5 years. This article is not a BLP -- its subject has been dead for nearly half a decade -- and is a tragic but fascinating story I feel worthy of main page attention. Nonetheless, while BLP has hard cutoffs that this has crossed even by the most lenient of them, there's a complicated sliding scale from "articles where BLP policy applies" to "long-dead historical figures", and everywhere in the middle is sometimes a mess. (I remember fielding ERRORS complaints about BLP for subjects who died in the 1980s.)

While Hingst has been dead for some time now, there are many people who've been dead much longer than her, and the whole article is a sensitive one. I feel that 'being on the main page at all' is completely viable for this article (I'd be happy to put it in OTD, for instance, or TFA if I take it through FAC), but I'm drawing up some blanks with the specific 'interesting <200 character snippet' context. I don't know whether this is Skill Issue on my behalf, or if there just isn't anything that can treat the whole complex story right while simplifying it that far. I'd be interested in sparking some discussion on this -- what possibilities exist, whether possibilities exist, how to handle that sliding scale. It wouldn't be the first complex BDP I've seen at DYK (we get more than a few gruesome murders, for instance), but it might be the most, and I really want to get a sense of the community here. Vaticidalprophet 16:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting article, I had somehow completely missed this. Can you use the differences between German and Irish reporting as the basis for a hook? That should be possible without being unduly negative, and I found that part especially interesting. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh there's certainly enough to work with here "interesting" wise... How about something along the lines of "... won x, y, and z awards while pretending to be a descendent of holocaust survivors." ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure is a lot to work with on interestingness. I do like Kusma's suggestion, and my first shot at a hook is working with it, but it's probably going to be very iterative. I've made a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Sophie Hingst to get a feel for the possibilities. Vaticidalprophet 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Preps and Queues

Only three queues are filled. As soon as Prep 4 is emptied there is something from the special occasion holding are for it. --evrik (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Evrik, I will keep an eye out. @DYK admins: Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Would like to help, but one of mine is in Prep 3 so I can't promote it. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Neither can I, as I'm the primary builder of the set. BorgQueen (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Roy looks left. Looks right. Doesn't see anything. Sighs. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. I've verified the hooks, but earwig is down so I'll have to come back later and do some copyvio screening. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, earwig is back up and says everything is clean. But, so clean that I have a sneaky suspicion it might not be running at full strength; it's rare for earwig to find as little as it did. So might be worth doing another earwig run before this hits the main page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential picture spot for Kushner hook

Greetings, DYK. Hope everyone is doing well. This David Kushner hook was recently promoted to Prep 2 after two months of waiting, which I am grateful for. However, I was really trying to achieve the picture spot for the Switch challenge. Two Kushner articles are nominated, with his bio one of them, and there are two quality pictures available. I followed all of theleekycauldron's suggestions. Just wanted to ask politely if the picture spot was possible, after two months of waiting. I was extremely hopeful this time. Ping Evrik as promotor. Thank you very much for the help. It is fine if it is not possible, please be kind while replying. Regards.--NØ 05:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We get about four times as many picture nominations than we have picture slots available. Hence, the chances are around 1 in 4. Most pictures thus miss out. It is entirely up to the prep builders which images are chosen for lead hooks. Nobody here will mess with their choices. Whether a nomination gets promoted within a day or after months has no bearing on that choice. Sorry for being the bearer of bad news, MaranoFan. Schwede66 06:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn’t like the picture. If you want, I will remove it from the prep set, or if someone else wants to use the picture for another prep set they are welcome to take it. --evrik (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. evrik, there's another one that has more standard dimensions for DYK usage. Since the nomination has already waited quite a bit, I would be nervous about it being removed from the prep set unless another promotor following this discussion wants to use it with the picture. Best, NØ 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
It’s not going to work with this prep set so I can remove it and you can pitch the idea to another promoter. --evrik (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Italics

In the fourth hook of Queue 5, "Bahsahwahbee" should not be in italics. It was italicized in the article until I changed it. (Courtesy ping to Reywas92.) According to WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms, italics are used for foreign words, but an exception to this is that proper names should not be italicized unless referring to the name itself. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7: 715 Harrison

I wanted to promote this prep to queue, but I am not satisfied with this hook.

  • ... that the San Francisco nightclub City Nights was the target of a foiled terrorist attack by supporters of the Islamic State?

The article states that "In 2018, City Nights became one of the many targets of threats made by a terrorist allegedly supporting the Islamic State. The ISIS supporter, named Amer Alhaggagi, suggested hitting nightclubs and other popular places in San Francisco and while suggesting that all San Francisco nightclubs were crowded, City Nights was the club which the news reported Alhaggagi planned to bomb." and the linked source has him pleading guilty but a forensic psychiatrist saying he was a troll instead of a terrorist, and just says that he talked about bombing the club, and there is no evidence that he actually had the means to do so. Not quite good enough for the claim in the hook, I think. Pinging nom @InvadingInvader, reviewer @Evrik, promoter @BorgQueen. Any ideas how to fix this (or source the statement in the hook?) —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh I see how it could possibly be misleading, though the wording is similar to how the venue describes the incident on its San Francisco Legacy Business Filing Documents (see under Criterion 2). Consider maybe rewriting as "DYK that the San Francisco nightclub City Nights was the target of bombing threats by an alleged supporter of the Islamic State?" InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure whether the conviction itself overrules the forensic psych InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
That's much better (and supported by the source given), I'll change to that. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Now in Queue 7. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay by me. --evrik (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Child abuse in association football

Queue 6: Child abuse in association football (nom) @BorgQueen, FuzzyMagma, and Gonzo fan2007: There's a lot of copy-paste going on here. I'd like to get a 2O on how bad it is, but my initial impression is that this would fail our close paraphrasing rule and possibly WP:Copyvio. The Earwig report doesn't look too bad on the surface, but it's the same story with a half dozen different sources. For example:

  • The president of the Gabonese Football Federation (Fegafoot), Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, was held in preventive custody for six months and faced charges of "failure to report crimes of paedophilia," with a report alleged sexual abuse of hundreds of children within the football system.[57] Despite awaiting trial, Mounguengui travelled to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This action was criticised by Fifpro, the international football players' union. -->
  • The president of the Gabonese Football Federation, Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, spent six months in preventive custody and was charged with “failure to report crimes of paedophilia”. Despite the fact he was awaiting trial, Mounguengui went to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 Fifa World Cup – a move denounced by the international football players’ union, Fifpro.

-- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing... I'll pull it. BorgQueen (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Replaced with one from a Prep. BorgQueen (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Let me have a look maybe I can fix the close paraphrasing. I must admit I resorted to close paraphrasing to avoid mis/represent any fact, especially when writing about a contentious topic, while avoiding Earwig .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma To be honest, I think you're looking at nearly a total rewrite. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you are exaggerating, very. I’m going for a light copy edit (which I was going to do anyway for the GA nom) done fixing but feel free to tag it for copyvio and apply procedure if you disagree. Also listing what you think need to be changed will be super helpful because I will I want to proceed with the nom once the close paraphrasing problem is solved please FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria some input please? BorgQueen (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Didn't get here until post-draftification, but I think that's a reasonable call given the entirety of the issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007, BorgQueen, and RoySmith: I saw this nomination in the preps – I didn't have the energy at the time to raise any issues, but now that this appears to be in the limbo of post-approval reworking and rechecking, I gotta put in my two cents: I feel that this nomination should be closed without action. The fact that FuzzyMagma admitted to deliberately 1. breaching copyvio policy and 2. attempting to cover it up, combined with the fact that article remains riddled with prose and neutrality issues, should signal that the amount of combined volunteer time and effort needed to bring such an important article to an acceptable standard outweighs the time it would take to simply draftify the article and have someone else rewrite it from the ground up. AirshipJungleman29 made this edit removing quite a bit of non-neutral and poorly sourced prose, but I don't think that even finishes it up. Remaining issues include:

  • § Childern safeguarding in football [sic]: Nearly entirely sourced to the clubs themselves, but draws conclusions in wikivoice. The language around the first paragraph, about the FA, is particularly promotional.
  • § Research:
    • more space than I'd argue a single research finding merits, especially if we're only citing one newspaper and the inquiry itself as due weight
    • The research, funded by the European Union, highlighted that abuse is common in non-school sports was psychological, such as a lack of recognition to humiliating treatment but lack of recognition was defined as "negligence" in an earlier section? Abuse might be an umbrella term, though
  • § Afghanistan: emphasising the need for comprehensive understanding and effective interventions to address this serious issue opinion in wikivoice
  • § Brazil: The power of football in Brazil is significant, and speaking out about abuse in the sport requires immense courage, as getting a break in football is often a dream for many families some opinion in wikivoice
  • § Democratic Republic of the Congo: WP:BLPCRIME problem from start to finish
  • § Scotland: There are documented historic sex abuse cases in Scotland especially at Celtic Boys Club and Rangers F.C.. undue singling out
  • § Zimbabwe: first sentence has nothing to do with football
  • Some sections have sources for the purported severity of their child abuse problems, others don't – and i don't think that it's always due weight to include these high-profile examples. I'm not sure what purpose that serves. Some sections are PR faff from the clubs.

I think the best thing to do right now is draftify the article, it's a long way from meeting Wikipedia's standards and such an important article needs more attention from a variety of contributors. It's certainly not going to be fit for the Main Page any time soon, and a rush job to patch this up is not – in my humble opinion – a worthwhile endeavour. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed in my (very superficial) run-through instances of quotes being misused and of seeming WP:SYNTH-like issues. I too don't think FuzzyMagma fully grasps the issues here: they assert they were being careful when taking a difficult topic to GA, but it's hard to imagine the article being any laxer in quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Currently FuzzyMagma has a couple of other articles in Template:Did you know/Queue/4 and Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Can someone double-check them please? I don't have the energy at the moment. BorgQueen (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it’s then wise to move the article to the draft space. I have issues with what @AirshipJungleman29 removed especially Oman section but will discuss that in the article talk. Again, I must admit, I am always wary when it to come to these topics and I am yet to get it right, even when I follow the structure of the BBC for example.
anyway, Let’s move the page to the draft space, at least it will give me a chance to learn if @AirshipJungleman29 has the patience. Sorry for quality of the work, I was too confident that I did a good job but it’s a process.
PS: don’t bre deluded by my edit count, I started - emphatically- about 6 months ago and still feeling my way by making mistakes and hopefully learning from them.
@Theleekycauldron thanks for the detailed analysis FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
That's very gracious of you, FuzzyMagma :) I don't know many contributors who freely admit their limits – credit to you for that. The nomination's been wrapped up for now – shall we say we reconvene after the article has reached GA status? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Awkwardly worded P4 hook

"... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season that would remain until an even worse loss 56 years later?"

Ugh. Just ugh. What happens when nominators believe, or are led to believe, they absolutely have to include the article title as is in the hook.

Can we reword this to: "... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered the team's worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"

Much more elegant. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also see WP:INTOTHEWOULDS. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why this is more elegant, since it is easily misunderstood: to me the new hook is saying that it was their worst defeat since a previous drubbing 56 years ago (in 1908), not that it was the worst ever as a team until an even worse one 56 years later (in 2020). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
this one seems difficult to reword well, but i agree with BlueMoonset, so i will try to suggest a couple of alternatives.

alt0b: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?

alt0c: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their worst margin of defeat, until 2020?

the 2020 season is linked to conform with the originally proposed hook, currently in the prep area. alt0c is admittedly reworded rather radically, but it is short, so i thought i might mention it too. (i am not sure if it reads better with or without the comma before "until".) dying (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [struck alt0b. dying (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)]
I like alt0c. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
same with me Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It is currently sitting in Q4 as: "... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season, which stood until an even worse loss 56 years later?"Facepalm Facepalm This solved the lesser of the two problems, the one BlueMoonset found made my proposed replacement inelegant, but leaves the bigger one intact. Would we expect the Chargers to suffer a defeat during the 1964 New York Yankees season? Once we've mentioned the team, do we really need to clarify this in the linked wording? Why have we not used the wording of any alt suggested here?

Also, another issue occurs to me: If the 1964 defeat margin has since been eclipsed, it cannot be described as "the worst".

So, now I propose ALT 0D: "...that in 1964 the San Diego Chargers suffered what would be their worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"

Really compact, and unambiguous. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's still there and this will be on the Main Page in 2 days. Should I just fix it myself? Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to do it with ALT 0E, which strikes me as the 1964 best possible way to do this:
"... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered what would be their worst margin of defeat for 56 years? Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Daniel Case, i think the wording "for 56 years" is problematic. both BlueMoonset and i think it qualifies "worst" to mean that it was the worst during a specific period of 56 years, while making no assertions regarding whether it was worse than that of any season outside of that specific period.
i had noticed that the 1964 season's margin of defeat was not their worst outright, but had interpreted the phrase at the end to effectively qualify "worst", in both alt0b and alt0c. if that is not sufficient, then perhaps the prefix "then-" could be added.

alt0bii: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?

alt0cii: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their then-worst margin of defeat, until 2020?

i think alt0bii could work, but also think alt0c was fine as is. i believe "until" tells the reader that a statement was true up to a certain point, and strongly suggests that it was not true after that point. in this case, the 1964 season's margin of defeat was actually their worst until 2020; qualifying "worst" with "then-" would suggest that, after 2020, the margin of defeat in the 1964 season was not their worst at the time.
i am not sure why this point had not been resolved earlier, but it might be because the section heading did not explicitly mention the article, or possibly because the editors involved with the hook's promotion had not been pinged. i don't think replacing the hook with your own is a good idea; i believe the processes established at dyk aim to prevent such conflicts of interest.
pinging Onegreatjoke (nominator), BeanieFan11 (reviewer), Bruxton (promoter), and BorgQueen (approver). courtesy pinging Harper J. Cole (ga nominator). linking to the nomination so that it can be more easily referenced. Onegreatjoke, thanks for your earlier input. i thought you might also be interested in offering your opinion on the more recently proposed hook alternatives. dying (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [struck alt0bii. dying (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)]
As this was purely a matter of the wording of the hook and not the substance, I thought there would be quick agreement on amendment. I didn't expect that no one would see what I saw as the worst problem with it, the needless repetition of "San Diego Chargers", and instead focused on the semantics of whether it implied that a worse defeat had occurred 56 years earlier or later (a rather picayune concern IMO). After a rather involved discussion, I pointed out that this issue had gone unaddressed, let it sit a day in the apparently naïve belief that someone would see it and respond, and after no one did, leading me to believe everyone would be OK with it, I took care of it so we would not have a poorly-worded hook on the Main Page.
I thought that would be the end of it. Apparently not ... there is still wrangling about the semantics of the last part of the sentence, to the extent that we have in serious contention the overly wordy alt 0bii with but a few hours till the hook hits the Main Page. It seems to me that everyone is 100% committed to missing the point here.
And regrettably this is not the first time in my recent memory that people here on this page seem to have cared more about checking a set of bureaucratic boxes than putting the best-quality content on the Main Page, and/or completely ignored a post here about a brewing issue which became more difficult to resolve when it reached, or was about to reach, the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd go for alt0bii, though I'd suggest "only surpassed" rather than "surpassed only". The current wording suggests that 56 years isn't a long time for the record to stand. Whatever you think best, though. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I hate to bring up minor semantics, but the hook does now have two question marks, Daniel Case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Case, i admittedly haven't been at dyk long (and am certainly much less experienced than you in the area), but my impression is that, at least recently, accurate semantics have generally taken precedence over issues of style, which may be why editors have largely ignored your initial suggestion. i had tried to help you out by suggesting alt0b and alt0c. so far, no one else has agreed with the "for 56 years" wording, and two editors have found it confusing, so had i been in your position, i don't think i would have used it. i am not sure if the concern over semantics is focused on whether the 56 years should be counted beginning from 1908 or from 1964; the original hook considers that season's margin of defeat their worst starting from their first season (which appears to have been in 1960) until 2020, and i don't think "for 56 years" accurately captures that.

Harper J. Cole makes a very good point; i had not considered the possibility that "only" could refer to the number of years that had passed. therefore, i am striking alt0b and alt0bii, and implementing Harper J. Cole's suggestion.

alt0biibis: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, only surpassed 56 years later?

alt0b was a bit long because it was worded to preserve a link to the team itself, respecting the choice to include one in the original hook. i had actually drafted a hook that had a length between that of alt0b and alt0c, but had only proposed two to avoid having too many alternatives being suggested. however, as it seems like this is no longer a concern, i am proposing alt0f, which drops the link, preferring to be brief, but otherwise follows the wording of alt0biibis.

alt0f: ... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, only surpassed 56 years later?

for the record, i am fine with alt0biibis, alt0f, or alt0c. (i think alt0cii is problematic, as explained before, but had proposed it to address your earlier concern.) alt0f seems closest with your alt0e without using the "for 56 years" wording.

by the way, i think you may have read the dyk schedule incorrectly; this hook is scheduled to appear on the main page tomorrow, not today. dying (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. My error. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

So all readers need to presume/know British Empire units?

Sleep in the NBA: "between 68 and 70 degrees"—what does that mean? Doesn't anyone check before DYKs go on the main page? Tony (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tony1: Thank you for finding the issue. It was an easy fix, I added templates, {{convert|68|F|C}} and {{convert|70|F|C}}. Bruxton (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree, they should be using conversions, as per MOS:CONVERT. Though 68 to 70 degrees is in Fahrenheit, which used mostly by Americans, so not a British empire thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, "between 68 and 70 degrees" is a quote from the article, not the hook. DYK reviewers won't spot every error in every article. Secondly, I believe the article refers to United States customary units rather than Imperial units. TSventon (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
US units are mostly British imperial units. Tony (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Besides the point, but not really. Kingsif (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Problem

@DYK admins: I think we need to pull the double hook for Order of Excellence for Women in Template:Did you know/Queue/4. The lead and background sections are almost directly copied from the foreign language source. I am not finding the same issues with El-Tigani el-Mahi which is in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Bruxton (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton OK I'll pull that one. BorgQueen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @BorgQueen:. I appreciate you. Bruxton (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Template:Did you know nominations updating?

I don't see any entries for June 13 on Template:Did you know nominations. I know this would should appear there: {{Did you know nominations/Cross of Saint James}}.

What's the fix? --evrik (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe DYK joined the reddit strike? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
evrik, I've just manually added a June 13 header, which is how we did things back before a bot took over the task. Every once in a while, the bot isn't able to edit the page and add the new date, and an editor eventually notices and adds it themselves. It's easy enough to copy the previous header and paste it in again in the right place, changing the date to the missing one. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way to see if there are nominations made in the last fifteen hours that may be out in limbo? --evrik (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@Evrik I think this db query will get you close. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, but those results were all over the place. One of the results is already in a queue for the main page. Oh well. --evrik (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Which result was wrong? I may be able to improve the query. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
evrik, I believe DYKHousekeepingBot keeps track of failed transclusions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
i compared the list of pages in the category of pending nominations with a list of nominations transcluded at wp:dykn and wp:dykna, and found three nominations that were not transcluded. none were recently nominated, though.
i also noticed that one redirect was transcluded at wp:dykn, and do not know if this is an issue.
dying (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all. --evrik (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to introduce CREEP, but is this kind of error and fix documented anywhere? --evrik (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like at leas two of these were depromoted nominations Order of Excellence for Women and 2023 Texas dairy farm explosion. So after depromotion they must go into limbo? Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Admins who pull nominations from prep don't always follow up and add the nominations back to the DYK nominations page; it also helps if they post a new icon to the nomination page and note the issues so it doesn't get moved to the approved page and promoted again before the issues are dealt with (pinging BorgQueen). I've posted accordingly to the nom for Order of Excellence for Women, and for Women in the Etruscan Society, I have updated the transclusion and the template to reflect the nom's new name, Women in Etruscan Society, because WugBot doesn't move redirected nomination pages to the Approved page when they pass (pinging dying, who wondered whether it was an issue). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thanks, everyone, for figuring out what happened, fixing everything, and explaining the relevant issues. dying (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rick Suder

Why is Template:Did you know nominations/Rick Suder not listed at WP:DYKN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe it should be listed at March 19.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It was moved to Template talk:Did you know/Approved. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 24. We have a total of 216 nominations, of which 62 have been approved, a gap of 154 nominations that has increased by 2 over the past 13 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than three 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) 21:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

ASUCLA hook

Queue 3: Associated Students of the University of California, Los Angeles (nom)

  • @ROADKILL, Dr vulpes, Evrik, and BeanieFan11: I have a question about the wording of the hook, which currently reads ... that when UCLA was founded in 1919, the university's students were tasked with providing numerous services, including athletics, housing, and parking? The part that I'm bringing up is the were tasked with wording. The source doesn't say they were tasked with this and indeed the source given in the DYK nom stresses that the ASUCLA was very much independent of the school's governance in its early years. From reading the article and its sources it looks like they weren't tasked with this so much as they did it of their own initiative. If I'm reading this right, would there be any objection to rewording it to read ... that when UCLA was founded in 1919, the university's students provided numerous services, including athletics, housing, and parking? or some variation of that? - Aoidh (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Also pinging the promoter User:Kusma which I forgot to do. - Aoidh (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Good point. I verified that they did all these things from the sources, but I did not check whether anyone told them to do so. So no objection from me to your rewording (but I would like to hear from the page author(s) and others who know the subject well). —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No objection from me. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks y'all, I've gone ahead and updated the hook accordingly. - Aoidh (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Ramón Iribarren

Just pulled the Ramón Iribarren hook per concerns raised at ERRORS. Courtesy ping @RoySmith:. BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion and I agree it should be pulled. There is no evidence that Iribarren's work was actively restricted from widespread distribution, or suppressed in any way, by Spain itself. Rather, as stated in the article, the political conditions in Spain at that time meant that the work was not widely read, or even published, internationally. The article makes clear that his work was largely ignored internationally until picked up by the Beach Erosion Board in the USA, and translated. This was as a result of attitudes towards the Spanish Government by other nations at the time and hence, the Hudson formula was more widely used as it was available to wider international audience. So the DYK hook was wrong to claim something that there is no evidence for, and that the article itself does not claim. The Spanish Government had no role, at least no direct role, in inhibiting the dissemination of Iribarren's work, and the article does not claim that it did. D McParland (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Vaal Reefs mining disaster

Queue 4: Vaal Reefs mining disaster (nom). This possibly fails "C11 (sensational): Excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected.". Seeking 2O on that. @Lightburst @Zaian @Reywas92 RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

(Approver here) This was a very tragic event, but I don't see what makes this hook either sensational or gratuitous, nor excessively so. This reads as a dispassionate description of what happened, in accordance with the article. The hook doesn't even link List of elevator accidents which describes many other unfortunate, if admittedly gruesome, incidents. Reywas92Talk 21:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I too saw it as factual and not gratuitous. Lightburst (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, we'll go with it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Evelyn Pruitt

Queue 4: Evelyn Pruitt (nom) I can't verify highest ranking woman. The source only says "highest ranking woman scientist" @Dafodil007 @Grnrchst @Lightburst. RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Ooops, pinged the wrong user, should be @DaffodilOcean RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the source says 'highest ranking woman scientist', and now I cannot remember which source I read 'highest ranking woman'. Sorry for the confusion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the hook to add "scientist", thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@DaffodilOcean and RoySmith: Should this be changed in the article too? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes! done. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Something that needs to be clarified regarding the six-weeks rule

There have been a few cases in the past where a nomination has been delayed for so long that, at one point, a nominator or another editor suggests (long after the actual nomination) that the nomination could run on a particular special occasion. The requested date is within six weeks from the date the suggestion was made. However, it was beyond six weeks from the actual date of the nomination. For example, an article was nominated back in March but did not have a special occasion request (for example, for June 15) until May 25. For context, the nomination was either not reviewed for that long, or had issues that kept pushing back the approval until a possible date fell under that six-week period. I can't remember exact examples of this happening (apart from I think at least one NBA-related hook that was requested to run around the NBA Finals, despite the original nomination date being outside the six-week period).

For such cases, should such request be declined as going against the spirit of the six-weeks rule, or should they be treated on a case-by-case basis? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The spirit of the rule is to keep hooks cycling through and stop noms hanging around in the approved list, I don't think it's a problem to take a newly approved hook and see if there's a good time to run it. CMD (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking only about newly approved hooks but even hooks that are yet to be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The nomination process is nebulous as it is. I think that being flexible makes things around here more fun and interesting. We shouldn't be servants to our own rules. --evrik (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @Evrik Ktin (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Mackay Davashe

Queue 5: Mackay Davashe (nom) The article says "single", but the source only says "record". Is there a source that says it's a single? @Evrik @Vanamonde93 @Graham87 @Elias RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, there's a couple of sentences copy-pasted from the source ("In the English version, the Xhosa lyric..."). RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I'll try to look into the single vs record issue later, but there is no copyvio here. The link you're looking at (which is not a source) is copying from Wikipedia's article about Miriam Makeba (which I wrote most of, but that's not very relevant); I did copy within Wikipedia in this edit, and I provided the necessary attribution. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for checking it out. RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed, I see the version of the article when I finished with it did say "record". It was changed by Your Power in this edit, which I have now partially reverted. The hooks says "piece" still. Thanks for checking, however, as I had missed subsequent edits to the article. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Pope Sisinnius

Queue 6: Pope Sisinnius (nom) simple:List of popes by length of reign says 21 days vs the 20 we say. My guess is that simple just got it wrong, but worth double-checking for accuracy. Hmmm, our own Pope#Shortest-reigning popes also says 21, so definitely needs to be verified. @Bruxton @Unlimitedlead @Onegreatjoke @Ffranc RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

All the sources say 20; my guess is that the Simple Wikipedia pulled from our own Pope article, which states: "There have been a number of popes whose reign lasted about a month or less. In the following list the number of calendar days includes partial days. Thus, for example, if a pope's reign commenced on 1 August and he died on 2 August, this counts as reigning for two calendar days". Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there a standard convention for how partial days are counted? I would certainly expect that two articles in enwiki would both use the same algorithm for computing the number of days. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
More likely, that website copied the first paragraph from us, as they also did with at least some of the other material on the page you've linked. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, I thought of that, but dismissed the idea since our version is only a few weeks old. But, digging deeper, I found https://diff.wikimedia.org/2016/01/28/wikipedia-history-mit-pantheon/, so yeah, it seems more likely now. They must have some kind of automated update process. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Lowrey

Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Lowrey. Am I the only one to think that the interchange is not productive? Anybody ready to approve ALT0, or ALT2 of which the so far only reviewer said it was the better option, only to return weeks later to say it may be not interesting enough? - Read Template:Did you know nominations/Soňa Červená to see how I like reviewing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I would like to see happen (in no particular order):
  1. Gerda, stop putting Source: several in your submissions. It make it difficult to review.
  2. Everybody else, lighten up on this narrow interpretation of "interesting".
RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
"Source: several" might be an indicator that the hook relies too much on personal knowledge. As for interesting, I don't see how this is an example of a remotely narrow interpretation. "... that countertenor Christopher Lowrey took part in the world premiere of Brett Dean's Hamlet?" will be read by readers as saying someone performed in Hamlet. How does an assessment of interest get broader than considering that? Contrast to the aforementioned Template:Did you know nominations/Soňa Červená, where the initial hook was similarly rejected, and replaced with a better one. CMD (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. The issue with the hook wasn't that there's a "narrow interpretation" of what makes an interesting hook, but whether the hook is interesting to a narrow specialist audience, or even to a non-specialist audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
This source might cover the entire proposed hook. However, reading it, it itself uses a hook to draw a reader into the article, "Lowrey got his start in opera via an unusual path that started with his church choir." The source indicates that he moved to the UK because he wanted to join a choir. It is attempting to sell the performance with an interesting story, of leaving the US to study choir in the UK, and then ending back in the US to perform in Opera instead. Perhaps a hook here could do the same? CMD (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Everybody else, lighten up on this narrow interpretation of "interesting". I'd argue that Narutolovehinata5 is exactly correct in his interpretation of the guideline – a guideline that was recently re-written by RfC, as a result of Gerda. She wanted to continue writing hooks like this, but we all agreed that her hooks didn't follow the guideline as written then, and then an RfC found a consensus against loosening the guidelines for her. That we're turning around and say that we're being too strict is only because Gerda is back to pushing for the same thing the community turned down, and now we're all back to spending editor time parsing and dissecting it like it's new. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
For those who are curious, the RfC was Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 188#Request for comment: The need to update Wikipedia:DYK#gen3. Skimming the RfC, I see I was broadly in favor of enforcing interestingness. That being said, I think we need to be practical here. Gerda has been around for 13 years with over 300k edits, and is the #1 contributor on WP:DYKLIST. She's not going to change how she writes hooks at this point. So, we've really got two alternatives. We can WP:TBAN her from DYK (which I don't think anybody wants) or we can accept it. Continuing to bicker about it in novella length nomination discussions is pointless. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I'm just not a fan of giving special treatment to an editor just because of their tenure or how prolific they are. This isn't because it's Gerda specifically, it's a general sentiment and I would have felt the same even if it was a different editor being discussed. We've already seen issues that have happened elsewhere on Wikipedia because of an editor being given special treatment (see the boat race brouhaha over at ITN as an example). Allowing an editor to ignore a rule but making others follow them, especially when said rule had relatively strong consensus in favor of it to begin with, sounds like a double standard and seems unfair to other editors who may be just as hardworking and passionate.
As for the "Continuing to bicker about it in novella length nomination discussions is pointless." comment, there is a very simple solution to that, but one that editors seem reluctant to actually do: simply reject nominations for lack of a suitable hook. One of our issues is that we, frankly, rarely have the balls to decline discussions because it would hurt feelings, and this reluctance to reject is one of the main reasons why nominations drag out (note: I am not referring just to Gerda here, it's also the case with other nominations by other editors). If editors give a hard reject to an article that is simply not suitable instead of bickering and prolonging discussions in the interest of trying to salvage a nomination, we can prevent novella-length discussions from happening in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I also don't understand why we try so hard to salvage failed nominations. Template:Did you know nominations/Order of Excellence for Women has been on life support for over 3 months now. It can't be worth investing that much effort in a single nom, when there's so much other work we're behind on. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I am with you on this one @RoySmith:. Quite a few editors have been hand wringing abut this one. Bruxton (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Because people don't like their nominations failed. Isn't that why we're here in this very discussion? CMD (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree with Narutolovehinata5 on both main points: we need to be far stricter on the interestingness criterion, and this is a generic issue as opposed to something Gerda-specific. I've made a few attempts post the above RfC to suggest "let's reject because there simply isn't anything interesting that could be said" but there's always one of the regulars here who disagrees. If we want to get real about this, then the regulars here all need to buy into this concept. Currently, we are running this not by consensus but by the lowest common denominator, and that's not how you get change. Schwede66 03:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 is correct. The overly specific hooks ripe with minutia are regularly passed over by our readers. Cielquiparle proposed a hook that would make me click. Bruxton (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith We can WP:TBAN her from DYK (which I don't think anybody wants) you're wrong. I do want it very, very much. BorgQueen (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd be very much opposed to a full topic ban as I do believe losing Gerda would be a major loss to the community. However, I have wondered if some kind of restriction similar to what The C of E used to have before his TBAN was converted to a full ban may be worth a shot: basically, reviewers would have a veto power over Gerda's hooks, and if a particular hook was rejected, she or another editor would have to propose a substantially different hook (like a different hook fact) in lieu of an appeal. I'm not saying I'm proposing such a restriction, rather it's been in my mind if it would be a feasible solution to this long-running issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I do agree that continuing to bicker about it in novella length nomination discussions is pointless, but isn't that why we got done with the RfC? To settle this question? Maybe a TBAN is too harsh, but as much as it pains me to say it, we do have a term for continuing to edit against the wishes of the community: that is disruptive editing. It is disruptive to the DYK process – instead of spending their time vetting, reworking, and reviewing nominations, now have to get sucked into these novella-length bickerings. Discussion is healthy, but the discussions have been over for a while – now we have to uphold what the result of the discussion was, instead of rehashing it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Stone Breakers

Queue 6: The Stone Breakers (nom) @BorgQueen @Bruxton @JJonahJackalope I'm a little concerned about this being misleading, almost to the point of being click-bait. When you say "X did Y", it implies that X intended to do Y. The truck carrying the painting may have been destroyed by a bomb dropped from an allied plane, but that wasn't the intent of the bombing mission. I think it would be better if the hook said something like "... was destroyed in 1945 during a bombing raid by the Allies of World War II?" RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith yup. That sounds better to me. BorgQueen (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I had thought exactly the same thing, but I didn't mention it because it is true and it did get me to click, especially since I knew that the Nazis had intentionally destroyed art which they considered degenerate. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It does sound more accurate reworded. The Nazis were moving it by truck as the allies were bombing Dresden. It was an enormous painting. So terrible that it was destroyed, but the greater good. Bruxton (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

KPBT-TV

Queue 6: KPBT-TV (nom) The source talks about a "church meeting space", the article says "church venue", but the hook says just "church" which I don't think is accurate. To me, "a church" means the place where religious services are held, but a "church meeting space" could be some other space owned by the church but used for non-religious activities (community center, etc). @Sammi Brie @MatthewHoobin @Lightburst. And while I'm here, the {{DYKsubpage}} template is broken on the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: This was something I considered as well, but left as is, perhaps mistakenly so. The only other mention I could find online of the theater being used for church purposes is here ("At one point following its closure, a church leased the space"), but this fails WP:BLOGS. Also, in case anyone tries to search for other sources themselves: the theater in question is not be confused with the one described here—another blog, but this still tripped me up in my research attempts since it describes a movie theater, also in Texas, also called the Ritz, that was also built in 1928, and also temporarily served as a church venue—but this one's in McKinney, Texas, not Midland!
I'm in favor of changing the wording in the ALT1 hook from "a church" to "a church meeting space" or "a church venue". —Matthew  / (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Come On Over

Queue 4: Come On Over (nom) I can't verify the best-selling album by a Canadian country artist. The source says "the best-selling country album and the best-selling album of all time by a female artist" but I don't see anything about Canadian. @Lightburst @Onegreatjoke @TabooMatters94 @Magiciandude RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess we can drop Canadian from the hook? I passed over ALT0 because it felt awkward to say biggest-selling studio album Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Whatever the result of the above, can we please reduce the redundancy by removing "the album" from the start of the hook? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It's nice to feel wanted :-) I went ahead and changed the hook to say "best-selling country album and the best-selling album by a female artist", which is exactly what https://www.billboard.com/music/country/shania-twain-come-on-over-20th-anniversary-interview-8022830/#! says. And got rid of the redundant text. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A question

Am I allowed to very selfishly request that a hook from this nomination is included in a set before 27 June, solely and entirely for WikiCup reasons? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I am checking it over. Seems the reviewer likes 0 and 2 for hooks. I like 0 but have trouble piecing the four khans together. It would be great if you can place the hook as a sentence or two in the body - cited. Bruxton (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, the first four khans are Genghis, Ögedei, Güyük, and Möngke. The last of them died in 1259, while the subject of the hook died in 1260. Do you think it would best if the hook specifically outlined them (something like "...had survived the first four khans of the Mongol Empire—Genghis, Ögedei, Güyük, and Möngke—when he died at over 80 years old?") ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: It certainly makes the promotion and queue building simple when a hook can be found in the body followed by a citation. I think all the information is in the article right now but I have to put it together and so does the queue promoter. and eventually the DYK reader. So I am specifically talking about the hook representation in the article. Bruxton (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry Bruxton but I can't do that per WP:SYNTH guidelines—I hoped this would fall under WP:BLUESKY. Is ALT2 acceptable, or do you think it best to put this back in the nominations list? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Not synth, but even a list or several sentences with citations so that we do not have to do an Easter egg hunt. lol. I am not sure why this is not in approved nominations; I did not move it anywhere but I will add it to the approved list. Bruxton (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I have added cited phrases that specifically state when each khan died to the article: "Genghis' death in 1227", "Ögedei, who had died in 1241", "the death of Güyük in 1248", "Möngke, who reigned from 1251 until his death in 1259". Does that work Bruxton? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Replaced with {{died in}} templates on two occasions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Odd redirect

Why does Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas redirect to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Rules of thumb for preparing updates, and not, y'know, Template:Did you know/Queue ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing because @theleekycauldron make an accidental mis-direction in Special:Diff/1121636603. RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron fix ping. RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I redirected the page to the place I merged the content, but i've always thought that was a bit of a weird result. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me we might as well retarget it, unless there's a concern that an excessive number of links would be broken. We can tag it with {{R from merge|Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines}}. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the Wall (2023 book)

Prep 2: Beyond the Wall (2023 book) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @MaranoFan @Llewee Are we OK with the length of this vis-a-vis quoting? DYK check says it's 2804 prose, but 1168 of that is quotes. I know the rules say only block quotes are excluded, but several of these are long enough that they really should be set as block quotes. It still squeaks by the letter of the rule, but it just doesn't seem like what we're trying to encourage. RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Marsala Punic shipwreck Nom prep 3

I was unable to confirm the hook in the given source. I may be missing something but the hook was something I could not confirm. Can anyone else find that the ship was the "earliest warship known from archeological evidence". I put a stop on the nomination when I could not confirm it, but the hook was promoted anyway. Pinging the promotor @AirshipJungleman29:.

ALT3: ... that the 3rd century BC Marsala Punic Ship is the earliest warship known from archeological evidence? [2]. Thank you in advance because I am not infallible.

Bruxton (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've undone the promotion. AirshipJungleman29, nominations can't be promoted if there are outstanding objections made in good faith. I, like Bruxton, don't see the quote that would support the hook, nor do I see any reason for the personal attack made against them in the nomination (not by AJ29, to be clear, but by the nominator). To be resolved at WP:DYKN, as the nomination has not passed the multilayered review we require.
I'll also note that, with the source giving a mean of 235 B.C. and a standard deviation of 65 years, the authors only express 54% confidence in the idea that the warship is 3rd century at all. And given that the source dates to 1981, I'm not at all certain that the record holds to 40 years of intervening advances in the archaeological field. this source, for instance, seems to indicate an archaeological record of a 4th century B.C. warship. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Somewhat orthogonal to the above, @AirshipJungleman29, I notice that between 22:42:28 and 22:44:48 today, you promoted 7 hooks. That's an average of one promotion every 20 seconds. There's no possible way you were giving each one the attention required at that rate of speed. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, I was experimenting with ways to structure a set, so I tried organising one in open tabs and promoting them simultaneously when things were organised to my satisfaction; I may have gotten a little trigger-happy as above, so apologies about that, but I plead forgiveness as a beginner in this WP area. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Almost everything on Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. I am glad you have decided to help build preps. I advise going slow and not worrying about promoting every slot in a prep. In the case of this hook, first, earliest, oldest, biggest etc. need more scrutiny and I could not confirm. I think there are other hooks which can work for this nomination but we were going for the one which was approved by the reviewer. Pinging the parties from the nomination @Piotrus and Elias Ziade: so that they see the discussion. Bruxton (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Bruxton (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll echo what @Bruxton said. It's great that you're helping out, and don't sweat the absurdly steep learning curve. I'll admit, I assumed the worst when I saw the rapid-fire promotions, but your explanation is reasonable, so carry on. And, yes, hooks with superlatives (first, best, biggest, most, etc) have traditionally been a frequent source of problems, so they do get extra attention. RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Prep 5: Effects of climate change (nom)

Perhaps I'm being overcautious, but climate change is a hot topic and I'd be wary of stating something as fact which isn't definitely known to be true. Here's what the source says (italics in original):

It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s ... with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver of these changes ... Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006.

A footnote on p. 4 explains the italicized terms. Confidence levels aren't quantified, but the available levels are: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. As to expressions of likelihood, "very likely" indicates a 90–100% probability, while "virtually certain" indicates 99–100%.

So my main concerns are that "high confidence" is something less than "very high confidence", and the source's claim that human-induced climate change has very likely contributed to most marine heatwaves since 2006 is different from the hook claim that "due to climate change, there are ... more heatwaves within the ocean". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not work in the terminology "high confidence" into the hook? Then the hook aligns with the source. Schwede66 07:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Usually when scientific studies cite the IPCC on a high confidence statement, they state it as a fact. I can't find a direct citation of this part of the IPCC report, but the first line of this recent Nature paper states the increased frequency as a fact. Wikipedia has a bit of a problem with exaggerating uncertainty on climate change, and I would not want us to fall in this trap. I purposefully made a weaker claim in the hook than the source (but it does follow), to avoid needing a long sentence with quantifiers in.
Happy to add the Nature paper citation to the WP article if that helps, as it's a more direct support. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Mark Curry (rapper)

Prep 2: Mark Curry (rapper) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Ritchie333 @Launchballer Maybe I'm just missing it, but it looks like this needs a QPQ. RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You are missing it. Third line of my response, below ALT3: Template:Did you know nominations/Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars (Game Boy Advance). I'm well aware I have a bad habit of putting 'QPQ forthcoming' on nominations and then only doing them on request when I should do them at the time (I'm about eight behind), but that one is done.--Launchballer 14:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Why do you only do them on request? You're just making more work for the reviewers by making them ask you for something you already know you need to do. RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I tend not to review noms lacking a QPQ and hope others also pick up this habit. —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I feel you. I don't review noms that say "Source: several". RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Only doing QPQs on request is a bad habit. It's in the rules that a QPQ needs to be given no more than a week after the nomination, plus a reminder to make sure the nominator knows. Ideally the QPQ should have already been done by the time the nomination is done, but I realize that it can be a lot of work for some editors (though from experience, a QPQ can be done in as little as 10 minutes or even less depending on the nom). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Renomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Florey was closed as ineligible after its GA review was deleted per WP:G5. (Although WP:G5 explicitly says this should not be done.) The article has since passed GA again, but I cannot find the procedure for renominating the article. Can someone help? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as the nomination is made clear that it's due to being improved to GA status, it can be renominated again. The nomination could instead be under "Howard Florey 2" or "Howard Florey (2nd nomination)" or something like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I have moved the first nomination out of the way and renominated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure renaming the old nomination was a good plan. Now pages that link to the old nom will be linking to the new one. Wouldn't it have been better to name the new one something different, as @Narutolovehinata5 suggested? RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

1934 Central Eagles football team

Queue 2: 1934 Central Eagles football team (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @BeanieFan11 @Epicgenius It's WP:OR to call the Rinkeydinks the "reserve squad". The yearbook mentions that ''something'' exists which is called the Rinkeydinks, and lists some people who are associated with it, but doesn't actually say what it is. For all we know from what's written in the yearbook, it's the cheerleading section. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And, obligatory Wikipedia:TROUT for not including a QPQ with the nomination. RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I could have sworn I saw one of the yearbooks mention it as a reserve squad; I'll have to go back and check – though, not sure why you're suggesting I be TROUTED because I did include a QPQ with the nomination. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Because you're supposed to include a QPQ with your nomination. Leaving it out until your reviewer asks you for it just makes additional work for your reviewer. RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Its not mandatory to include at the nomination - and sometimes I can't do eight QPQs at once; its not really that difficult to say "QPQ needed" either (I've reviewed plenty of noms needing qpqs and it took, on average, about 1.5 seconds to write). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Providing a QPQ is mandatory so without it a nomination is incomplete and probably should not be reviewed. I understand why people skip it: they have a window of time to make a nomination. But then the QPQ should be done very quickly and not only after requested... or when the nominator gets to it. As Narutolovehinata5 has said above, it only takes minutes. JMTC Bruxton (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I never give approval if the QPQ is not done. Sometimes I don't even start the review. --evrik (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean its not mandatory to include at the same time its nominated - there's only certain times that I'm available to do QPQs, normally I'm busy with other work - there's no real difficulty in saying "QPQ needed" (in fact, it only takes seconds). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
And doing a QPQ, particularly for easy nominations, can be done in 5-10 minutes. Yes, technically you don't need to give a QPQ at the same time as the nomination. However, it's strongly encouraged, and it is in the rules that if a QPQ is not provided within seven days (plus a reminder), a nomination can be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
If anything, I'm surprised more people aren't being encouraged to review nominations even if they don't have any nominations of their own. Not only does it create a stash of QPQs for future use, it also helps cut down on the backlog. I rarely nominate things these days but I still review regardless; maybe something similar could be encouraged as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I do that ^. I have three in the bank if anyone needs one. Bruxton (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
How many BTC per QPQ these days? RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't take crypto. And no diamonds. I take payment in Au and Ag. Bruxton (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Prep 5: Beyond the Wall

... that Beyond the Wall, a book about East Germany, was well reviewed in the UK but deeply controversial in Germany?

With the proviso that English isn't my first language, I shall state that this appears clumsy to me. But I may be wrong. Either way, had I written the hook, I would have suggested:

ALT1 ... that Beyond the Wall, a book about East Germany, received positive reviews in the UK but was deeply controversial in Germany? Schwede66 02:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose ALT1 is fine, but shouldn't there be a hyphen, so "well-reviewed"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd leave out the "a book about East Germany" clause. The rest of the hook implies that it's a creative work; that it's a book doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out. It's also clear that there's something about the work which resonated in one country but not the other, so that's a clue that it's about one of the countries. Something like:
  • ALT1a "... that Beyond the Wall received positive reviews in the UK but was deeply controversial in Germany?"
Gives you enough information to get the gist, but leaves just enough unsaid to make somebody curious about the details. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
As the nomination's reviewer, ALT1a looks concise to me and doesn't seem to lose any part of the meaning. It is a good alternative.--NØ 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Need some guidance on WP:AGF

Hello there. Long time. Hope you are all well.

I need some guidance on approving a hook with the AGF check mark. The nomination under question is this one: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fore_River_Railroad

Typically, I ask the nominator for text as-is in the offline source to be an additional pair of eyes and ensure that the hook is rightly referenced by the source. And, once that is done I mark the nomination as approved with AGF. Though, I admit, I have not had to do that many times in the recent past.

However, in this nomination -- The nominator does not have the text as-is and I am being asked Can't you just AGF and have it done with?. I personally do not feel too great about that. However, if I should be marking this one as AGF despite not having the text from the nominator / editor, I am happy to do that. I want to ensure that I am not holding the nominator to a higher standard than I should be -- please let me know. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I often look at the contributions of the nominator and article writer. In the case of this nomination Trainsandotherthings brought the article up to GA. Trainsandotherthings is a competent editor so I am ok AGF here. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Probably should ping the participants. @Trainsandotherthings and Onegreatjoke: Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. I will give this some time for any other editor(s) to chime-in. If I hear nothing different, I will mark this approved with the AGF check-mark. Ktin (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
ironic, as I would hazard that TAOT would be the last person to argue that trust via editor name-recognition should be how Wikipedia works :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, while I'm humbled by the nice things people have said about me in this thread, I wouldn't want someone to use AGF as a reason to avoid giving me scrutiny they would give the average editor. We all make mistakes. And this is why when I have a DYKN relying on an offline source, I always provide a supporting quotation from that source as part of the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not wild about the idea that drive-by nominators simply aren't required to know that what they're proposing is true. I do trust TAOT as a contributor, but this is not the first time we've run into the problem that Onegreatjoke can't address any issues that arise with articles they haven't written. TAOT was rightfully a little irked that they weren't notified of the nomination, didn't get to contribute to the hook, but were then expected to help solve the problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you AGF based on trust. Take that for what its worth. --evrik (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I've always been uncomfortable with the "AGF pass". I'm all for WP:V accepting that references can be off-line. But when we put something on the main page, the stakes are higher. It's one thing to say you're going to passively AGF that the source is good, but once you ask about it, having the nom push back on the request with "Can't you just AGF and have it done with?" crosses a line which shouldn't be crossed.
And, yeah, I'm with TOAT on the drive-by. I'd be miffed if somebody took an article I wrote and submitted it without even a courtesy ping. It's not strictly against the rules, but it certainly seems impolite. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I think best practice is to always quote from the source for the hook, especially if it isn't available online. I expect the nominator to be able to produce the source from the hook on demand; you should never nominate any hooks that you can't verify yourself. —Kusma (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
In the case at hand, nobody has explicitly vouched for the content of the hook and its source to text integrity and copyvio status (the nominator is unable to do so and the GA's main author has so far been unwilling to do so). So there is little basis on which to waive the verification requirement for the hook. —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Were I the nominator, I would have done exactly this. It's not that I was unable, I have been very busy this week and not been online much. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It's TAOT. Sometimes I consider changing my name. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith hungry for some toasts? Yum yum. BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • When browsing Wikipedia I often find cases where a claim in an article isn't actually supported by the cited source – frankly, way more often than I would hope. So I'm inclined to think for DYK we should make sure that someone (author, nominator, reviewer, or someone else) confirms that the source supports the hook claim. And I think it's reasonable to ask for the sentence from the source that supports the hook.
I don't have access to the 2017 edition of the source (the edition cited in the article), but fortunately the 1995 edition is available from Open Library. It contains this passage in the chapter about the Fore River Railroad: "In 1987 General Dynamics at last found a buyer—the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), which was looking for land to use in conjunction with the $6-billion Boston Harbor cleanup project. The railroad was conveyed to the MWRA along with the shipyard." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: I feel like taking a bite out of the Impossible Whopper! Great photo. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst: Thanks! That's great to hear. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
AGF does not mean "assume infallibility". DYK nominators sometimes make mistakes, and that's not because they're acting in bad faith; it's because human beings sometimes make mistakes. This is the very reason why we have a review process; otherwise we would just allow people to edit their hooks directly into prep. Please please please do not discourage editors like Ktin from checking the verifiability of main page content. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I own the book in question, which does in fact verify the claim (I'd be a pretty shitty writer if I brought it through GAN and one of the core claims was wrong). The relevant sentence is "In 1987 General Dynamics finally found a buyer - the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) which was looking for land to use in conjunction with the $6 billion Boston Harbor cleanup project." This is also easily verifiable by visiting the MWRA website. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings: Commenting here. Sorry for all this trouble. About the not-notifying thing, for some reason I had assumed for the longest time that making a nomination and including the original GA promotor would automatically notify the GA promotor (in this case TAOT). This is the first time i've realized that this isn't the case.
Again, i'm very sorry. I no longer will nominate any articles with hooks using offline sources as it clearly causes more harm than good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The other issue is that you really should be notifying the original contributor as a courtesy. I imagine many would be fine with you running DYKs that they declined to nominate themselves, as long as you ask them first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Will like to update to say that I no longer plan on nominating articles by other people at all. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Given the quote supplied by TAOT, we're obviously good on that score. But I suggest we add a rule requiring a quote be included in the nomination for any off-line source used to support a hook. For non-English sources, we should require an English translation. It means a little more work for the nom, but presumably they've got it at hand already so it's just a matter of typing out a sentence or two. But it will save a lot of work for the THREE people who conduct reviews (initial approval, promotion to prep, promotion to queue) and generally improve quality. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment can we tweak an existing rule? --evrik (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I would worry that it puts off new contributors to DYK. The submission tool is great but it's easy to get wrong the first time (or subsequently despite lots of experience, especially if it's a somewhat complex nomination). That said, maybe those items could be incorporated into the rules as a best practice ("should" rather than "must"). Cielquiparle (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    We already have more submissions than we can handle without periodically going into overdrive to clear out the backlog. It won't hurt us to lose a few submissions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    But if the long-term goal is to encourage broader DYK participation, it hurts to lose potential new contributors (who may also be more likely to stick around Wikipedia more broadly on that basis). Cielquiparle (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    My goal is to improve DYK quality and reduce the chances of us putting something on the main page which ends up at WP:ERRORS RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    And to do so as efficiently as possible. I would say we all have the same goal to improve DYK quality and reduce the chances of putting something on the main page which ends up at WP:ERRORS. We just have different trade-offs for efficiency/convenience vs. inclusiveness. And one could argue that rule bloat can lead to inefficiencies as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    See #Ramón Iribarren a few threads down. That's a perfect example of AGF gone bad. I remember reviewing that hook during promotion-to-queue and not thinking there was anything special about it. Had I had a source quote available to me, perhaps I would have spotted a problem. Or perhaps there is no problem, and the WP:ERRORS report is bogus. I tried to find the ASCE papers but they're behind a paywall and not available through WP:TWL, so there's no real way to know which is the correct explanation. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think people should be encouraged to give a quote at nomination time, but failing to respond to a request for the full quote / more context should lead to the nomination being declined. (It is actually helpful if the reviewer goes and tries to verify the hook to get more context instead of just believing the quote given, so 5 minutes of research to see whether the source is somewhere on TWL or in some other place could be time spent well). —Kusma (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    (What we really should have is a space where we can upload and share scans of all the sources of an article, but copyright law makes that very difficult to do properly). —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. It is Fair Use. What makes it very difficult is our own rule that such images can only be used in the article space. But we can change that with an RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7 this isn't my field of expertise, but reading WP:FAIRUSE, it says This section documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow, where "normally" is linked to Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE. I think it's common sense that if I wanted to use a scan of a portion of a source document to support a hook, I think you'd be OK as long as you followed the intent of Wikipedia:NFCCP. Common sense would tell you that Minimal usage would be met by just upload that portion of the scanned document needed to verify the hook. And One-article minimum would be met not by transcluding it in the article page, but by transcluding it in the DYK nomination for that article. Those of you who are better wiki-lawyers than I am, feel free to tell me I'm being an idiot. RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    WP:NFCC#9: Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. A DYK nomination is not in the article namespace. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    And immediately after that it says, subject to exemptions and if you follow the "exemptions" link, you find language like, uses [that] are necessary for creating or managing the encyclopedia. Is a DYK nomination template not necessary for managing the encyclopedia? RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    If we're requiring the quote to be presented, it should appear in Article space, in the footnote of the article, so that everyone can verify it and see that it is correct. I sincerely think quoting it in the Nomination template is way less important. The fact that so much attention is paid to sources presented within the Nomination template rather than in the article itself has also led to routine errors at DYK, because people often forget to continue updating the article, or lose sight of the fact that the article and the nomination template have to match. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    That's true. The parameters quote= and trans-quote= are our friends. BorgQueen (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I'd like to support it. The cite templates have quote= parameter which I've found very helpful. I almost always use it whenever I cite foreign language offline sources. BorgQueen (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd lean towards supporting making this a rule. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
We have to be mindful of rule creep. What we are balancing is making it harder for some editors (especially for new ones) and making it easier for reviewers. An overall goal of fewer reports at Errors is commendable. All up, I'm in favour of this, even though it's an additional rule and it does put the hurdle a little higher. As such, I'm explicitly accepting the rule creep. Schwede66 21:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I was going to support making this a recommendation rather than a hard rule, but I notice that the nomination wizard already says You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting the hook. If this is being ignored to the point where nominators are pushing back against reviewers asking for a quote, then perhaps a hard rule is appropriate. Even if the rule weren't followed to the letter, it would at least create an expectation that nominators should be willing to provide quotes on request. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • It looks like there's broad consensus to do this, and I agree with @Cielquiparle and BorgQueen: that putting the quote in mainspace is a good idea. If there's no objection, I'm going to add under WP:DYKSG:
    • C13 (inaccessible sources): If the source used to support a hook is not available on-line and in English, a short (translated, if necessary) excerpt from the source which verifies the fact stated in the hook must be included in the mainspace citation. If using one of the {{citation}} variants, this can be done with a quote= or trans-quote= parameter.
Putting it in the supplemental rules addresses Cielquiparle's concern of frightening off new DYK participants. I suspect most newbies won't get that far before they make their submission, and they can be gently guided/assisted into compliance during the review. RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith sounds good to me, except or is probably not the correct logical operator here. The trans-quote parameter has to be accompanied by quote as the former is merely an added translated text facility for the latter, meaning trans-quote can't be used alone, unless I'm mistaken. So it will have to be something like [...] this can be done with a quote= and, if necessary, trans-quote= parameter. BorgQueen (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. There's also script-quote=. I'll come up with something more generic. RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
What about paywalled sources? I would say "available on-line without subscription and in English". TSventon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
For many of the paywalled sources on DYK, I think we could consider suggesting that people link the WP:TWL paywall bypass. (We obviously can't use that in mainspace). Giving more context than a single sentence snippet by linking wherever possible looks better than quoting to me. —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
As a #visualeditor and advocate, I would just like to point out that there's this nice field in the default citation form called "quote". Cielquiparle (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Fairly Strong Oppose This will often involve a good deal of work for very little extra benefit. I don't like articles cluttered up with long quotes in the notes. If a reviewer asks, that's a different thing. The consensus above is too thin to change long-standing rules. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This will often involve a good deal of work for very little extra benefit. I've done this for every DYK I've filed using an offline source, and it never takes me more than a minute or two. All you're adding is 1 or 2 sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Speak for yourself! I expect train facts are usually much more easily conveyed than art history facts. It often wouldn't work at all well for me. Two sententences would be the minimum I expect, and the maximum could be a great deal more. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Could you give a quick example? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
From my most recent ones Template:Did you know nominations/Nanni di Bartolo in April would need 8 lines from a book to be typed; four sentences. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
For clarification, I mean adding the sentences to the nomination, not to the article itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the concern about cluttering articles with long quotes. I think providing the quote in the nomination should be fine – can we modify the proposal to say that that's enough? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
As we do not ordinarily (in non-DYK articles like FAs) expect to have long quotes in every citation template (and it is questionable where the limit of fair use lies for these) we should not ask for long quotes in the article at DYK. It is bad enough that we ask for a (sometimes redundant) extra citation footnote at the end of the sentence corresponding to the hook; we should not demand a special citation style for the hook. —Kusma (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the quote doesn't need to be in the article citation. Generally, I don't think articles should have to be altered for DYK compliance except in ways that unquestionably improve the article. I've seen edit wars caused by rule 3a, when the nominator adds a duplicate citation and the article author removes it as redundant; I think the same would happen if we tried to enforce in-citation quotes, which are really something of a style choice. Providing a quote in the nom should be sufficient. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Speaking for myself, I already do this with or without this proposal, but, asking the nominator to provide this additional detail is not asking for much. Have not had an issue / push back from the nominators. So, we should be good. To be clear, we are not asking for the article to be augmented. We are already AGFing on all offline sources on an article and that is perfectly fine. We just need the nominator to help with the offline text that references the blurb before the DYK can be approved for the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Query - so what about something like Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Plum Point Bend or Template:Did you know nominations/1824 United States presidential election in Missouri where an offline or restricted access source (those two are a mix of Wikipedia library and personal hardcopy sources) is needed for the hook, but the nominator was not the article writer. As the article writer in both of those two, who did not feel particularly inclined to send to DYK because I was/am quite busy in real life, am I now expected to find time I don't really have, dig out the sources I've already put away, and then piece together quotes from a multiple page spread for somebody else's DYK nom? Hog Farm Talk 17:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    My two cents. No urgency to approve these nominations. If we are putting some text on the mainpage, the onus is on us to stand by the accuracy of the text that is displayed there. I do not know if a list of pending nominations will break one of our waitlists, but, any such limitation aside, I think we should verify and only then approve. Ktin (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    As Kusma said above, the burden should be on the nominator to provide the quote, and if they are unable to do so within a reasonable timeframe, the nomination should be declined. I don't believe this rule would require the article author to do any extra work if they were not involved in the nomination. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'm still not 100% where this will end up, but I certainly agree with @Sojourner in the earth that the nominator owns the nomination and is responsible for 1) making sure it's correct and 2) providing additional documentation if requested. It's absurd to expect somebody who wrote an article to be obligated to defend a hook they had nothing to do with writing. RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Considering the concerns about copying whole quotes or making very long quotes, why not just simply copy short excerpts, not necessarily whole paragraphs? For example, if a hook fact is cited to just one or two sentences, shouldn't that just suffice? And if it's something that's cited to a long paragraph, maybe just copy the relevant phrases? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
    In some cases it's helpful to have the entire context. I know that @SusunW has at times included excerpts of entire passages during DYK review, and then deleted most of them after the nomination is approved. It is a highly variable process. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Adding something to the article for the sake of the review and then deleting it seems odd. If it's something which is only of use for reviewing the nomination, putting it on the nomination page makes more sense to me. RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    I see what you mean. In that case, why change the rule at all. It's already a recommended practice, and everyone in this discussion is saying they routinely provide quotes or ask for them in the nomination template, or will avoid writing hooks based on sources they don't have access to in the first place. This isn't the only source of errors at WP:ERRORS so I'm hesitant to see so much emphasis put on formalizing this particular thing, when the reality is that the hook sources are so variable (ranging from literally just a sentence or two, to pages and pages of text from multiple sources). Cielquiparle (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Where is this actually recommended? I know I've done it in the past, prompted by one or another of the submission scripts, but I can't find it written down anywhere. I looked at WP:DYKRULES, WP:DYKSG, and WP:DYKNOM, none of which seem to say this. RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    It's in the nomination template: Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination and mouse over the question mark next to "Source". Cielquiparle (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    To be clear, this is only in the nomination page, right? i.e. to help the validation / approval process? If so, I see no issues at all. Ktin (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the Wall (2023 book)

I've gone ahead and updated the hook as discussed in #Prep 5: Beyond the Wall above. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It seems there's a missing word – after rephrasing the hook should say "but was deeply controversial in Germany". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

2004 Nosratabad fuel tanker explosion

Queue 3: 2004 Nosratabad fuel tanker explosion (nom) @Bruxton @M Imtiaz @Evrik Saying this crash "highlighted" Iran's road safety record is WP:OR. The source doesn't say anything about "highlighting". RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm not really sure which other verb could be used; the source's mention of the road safety record coming "under scrutiny" is what was meant to be referred to. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 13:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The source says, "Travel safety in Iran has come under scrutiny in recent months". It doesn't say that this particular crash is what caused the scrutiny. In fact, the article implies that the scrutiny began before this crash happened. So I don't think it's a matter of finding the right verb; the basic premise that the scrutiny was caused by this crash is not supported by the source at all. RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. Is it too late for me to propose a different hook? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It's in Template:Did you know/Queue/3, which has a couple of days before it hits the main page, so plenty of time to update it. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: how would you phrase it? --evrik (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure I have anything good for you. Personally, I'm not a fan of "There was a horrible crash, XXX people were killed in gruesome ways" hooks. RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Here are two options. They are both represented in our article:

At least 90 people died in southeastern Iran when a fuel truck lost control and crashed into a police post, with the explosion engulfing other trucks, cars and buses, the Iranian Red Crescent said yesterday.

Most of the victims were women, as male passengers were being searched at a police checkpoint near where six buses and five trucks burned

I am partial to ALT2 because it immediately begs the question - why? Bruxton (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding ALT1, trucks are inanimate objects. They don't lose control. The driver may lose control of the truck, however. RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Lol. Literality has the potential to ruin every hook. But I like 2 anyway. Bruxton (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I also like #2. Thank you, @Bruxton and @RoySmith. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Sigh. I see even the NY Times considers trucks to have volition: "A few days later, as if by divine warning, a truck carrying 8,500 gallons of gasoline lost control as it was getting off the highway in Philadelphia and caused a stretch of I-95 to collapse."[1] RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
It is our aversion to accepting and placing blame. Like Alec Baldwin said the gun just "went off". Bruxton (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The B.Q.E. Wasn't Built for Delivery Trucks. Its Cracks Are Showing". nytimes.com. Retrieved 25 June 2023.

Piri & Tommy Villiers song hooks

Right now on WP:DYK, there are multiple nominations by Launchballer regarding songs by a group called Piri & Tommy Villiers, all of which feature hooks that are just song lyrics. There have been concerns raised by other editors that the hooks in question are either too vague to be interesting or give information, or may violate the "articles must have a relation to the real-world" criterion. What should be done about these song lyrics hooks? Should all these hooks be rejected and be replaced with something else? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @Aoba47, JIP, Juxlos, Tcr25, and Grnrchst: who all participated in the relevant nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping and for raising this discussion. I would reject all of them. From my understanding, the primary point of the DYK space is to share "a surprising or intriguing fact", and just listing song lyrics does not do that. I have also have concerns with the connection the real-world. I disagree with Launchballer's defense that this should be done because one of these hooks did well (and this interpretation is purely based on page views which is just one aspect of analytics in general). I do not think using page views for these kinds of hooks is a strong argument. I think alternative hooks should be used instead. Aoba47 (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that, provided the song lyrics are sufficiently interesting and cited and mentioned explicitly in the article, it should be fine.
On the other hand, the nominator should probably propose alt hooks that are more "normal". Juxlos (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:DYK says "The hook should include a definite fact". Hooks like "... that updown updown updown updown?" and "... I got him bussin, he makin some mayo?" do not include definite facts, so in my opinion they don't meet this criterion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Personally, based more on gut feeling than pure policy, I'd reject them all and replace with something that better aligns with the DYK standards for hooks (in particular, H3: "should be relevant for more than just novelty"). I'd also be concerned about too many hooks related to one group/artist in rapid succession. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I think having many hooks about closely related topics is pretty normal for DYK, if you just think how many of us write several related articles in quick succession. I have recently had hooks about Andrew Planta and two of his daughters; a third daughter has just been approved. —Kusma (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
That's true, but each of biographical articles you're talking about have a much broader scope and have distinct, interesting hooks. Maybe my concern is colored by the use of a song lyric snippet without any context: It makes the series of hooks blend together in a way even though they're for different articles. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
There was a recent issue regarding there being a succession of Taylor Swift hooks, which some editors and readers complained about. So readership concerns about repeated topics are not unheard of. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'm of the opinion that as these fail to provide facts of interest, they should be rejected on that ground. I remain unconvinced of the argument that they are inherently valuable because a similar one got a lot of clicks. Personally, if I saw such a nonsensical string of words on the front page, I'd probably click on it too, but it would be out of confusion rather than interest. The moment I saw it was a song, I'd almost certainly click away. (I'll note this is why we have a similar policy against easter egg links) The point of a DYK nom shouldn't just be to get clicks, but to attract people to read these articles. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of clickbait.
I also think this is an example of why we should be really encouraging nominators to write alts. Even with hooks that are interesting, when there's only one hook, or a collection of marginally-reworded hooks, it seriously limits what facts we can showcase. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I would just like to say, in my defense, I did propose alts, for Soft Spot and On & On, and on both occasions the reviewer has taken those over the "normal" hooks - pinging Schminnte and Sebbirrrr who participated in those discussions. Beachin and Words have alts too, though they haven't been reviewed yet. I do think that with quirky hooks there should be some space for creativity, because otherwise it loses the fun.--Launchballer 15:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't see anything wrong with the hook, and felt that the 'quirky' hook would perform better (which it probably did). The hook seemed to make grammatical sense and was reasonably interesting: in my opinion it passed the criteria set out in the DYK checklist. If the consensus here is that this was not ok, then I will be sure to amend my reviews in the future. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I think "... that the beat goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on?" was fine. "that updown updown updown" isn't coherent English, though; that is a minimum expectation unless it's April Fools' Day. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I share the concerns of Narutolovehinata5 in regard to several hooks. But I would give Launchballer the opportunity to redesign hooks. Some of them are confusing and I am sure we can say real world things about the songs. I also share Grnrchst's concerns. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
There's absolutely no question about it; all of those hooks are completely unacceptable. They would not even be acceptable for April Fools' Day, where all normal rules apply except for a few specific exceptions. (I'm reminded of hooks put forth by a user who's now topic banned from DYK.) The hooks must be replaced with ones that actually present facts, with a real-world connection. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that these hooks shouldn't be used, but I can see why nominators might be confused on this point. DYK routinely allows hooks that don't contain any real-world facts, and until practice aligns with principle, people are naturally going to assume these kind of hooks are acceptable because they've seen them on the Main Page before. Recent examples that come to mind, beside "the beat goes on and on and on" already mentioned, are the hooks that simply copypaste a meme, like "...that longcat is long", or "... that Ice Spice is Princess Diana", or "... that average person eats 3 spiders a year factoid actualy just statistical error" [sic]. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Well it is embarrassing to be called out. Each one of these was a quirky hook so I understood there was a bit more flexibility. I am sort of new at promoting with a bit over 100 promotions. I promoted two of those hooks mentioned by @Sojourner in the earth:: the longcat annd princess hooks. @Cielquiparle: promoted the spider hook. The spider hook was also written by a DYK expert @Theleekycauldron:. Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Let's not beat ourselves up about past sins. Let us look into the future and not do things that sit outside of the rules. Schwede66 01:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
True @Schwede66:. If we were machines we would never err unless our programs were faulty. I note that the longcat was actually long, and it is the third most clicked hook (1,302.2 clicks per hour) this month. Bruxton (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Was longcat long? The article doesn't say so. I don’t bring this up to criticize people for past mistakes, but to highlight that many regulars here don’t see such hooks as problematic. If these hooks are permissible, the rules should say so; if not, the rules should be enforced across the board. Or if, as is repeatedly claimed, the rules for quirkies are different, that should be written down somewhere so everyone is on the same page. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there also has to be a balance between quirky and understandable. It's a bit of a balancing act: sometimes, vagueness helps a hook's hookiness, other times it makes the hook incomprehensible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, if we are rigid in our approach we could create a program to promote hooks. Organized by subject, geography {{DYKsmirk}} and other criteria. But as it is whenever we have a rule that requires subjectivity (interesting, quirky) we have humans who decide. As Narutolovehinata5 has said, we balance. I like how we are flexible here about our criteria and we communicate often. We all work very hard to help each other feature work. I think that quirky slot is always going to be discussed because of the degree of subjectivity required. And sometimes we disagree and then realize that maybe we are wrong as I did here. But we get it figured out. I am always thankful that I got involved in this section of the project. I have become so much better at many things including editing. Bruxton (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst Well, it was in the April Fool's Day set. Which also wasn't straightforward overall. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that I am finally up to date with QPQs, I would just like to agree that whatever the rules are regarding quirky hooks, they should be recorded somewhere. I have seen loads of hooks that don't strictly adhere to guidelines, and would point out that they all went through at least three people who saw no problem with them - Sojourner names four including On & On, though my immediate influence was a hook that consisted of nothing but "... ?", and I've also seen "... that?". In fact, if I had my time again, out of seven hooks, six I'd propose again, and one I'd propose with added context. For my use, the following are the Piri related hooks I proposed (note that all of them are cited within their respective articles):

Soft spot - proposed "that you're in my soft spot" as ALT2; the reviewer preferred either ALT1 or ALT2.
Beachin - "that I got him bussin', he making some mayo" - there are two other hooks there. Not reviewed yet.
Words (Piri & Tommy song) - "that you need to think before you speak" - just reviewed, by someone who agrees that ALT1 is best. Two further hooks.
On & on (piri & tommy song) - two hooks suggested, ALT1 preferred, ran, and did well.
Froge.mp3 - "that I still see a silver lining" from one of the album tracks. Reviewer was confused, so I proposed ALT1. I may siphon off half that article into Froge.tour and propose something like "that although froge.tour was ostensibly to promote froge.mp3, Piri & Tommy performed at least five tracks not on the album including future singles Updown and Nice 2 Me?"
Updown - "updown updown updown updown" - reviewer was happy with it, though other editors were not. If I were running this again, I would either run "that I take it updown updown updown updown", or "that updown updown updown updown was a mistake" (which it was - accidental copying and pasting vocals) - there is a usable ALT1 in there already suggested by the reviewer, although it should really say "that the Piri & Tommy song Updown is about the cowgirl sex position".
Nice 2 Me - all three hooks are lyrics, not reviewed yet. I may suggest a chair dancing-related hook just as soon as a) I can work out exactly what it is (our article on burlesque does not mention the word 'chair' anywhere) and b) am up to writing an article about it.--Launchballer 14:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if these solve the issue that has been raised here. Rather than a move away from the lyrics-based hooks, there appears to be a desire to continue doing them at least for some of the nominations. Given the concerns raised above, it might be for the best to just abandon the lyrics-based hooks altogether.
There's also a separate concern, one that was raised above. There may be complaints if too many of these hooks by the group run in quick succession, much like the objections that were made about DYK being the Taylor Switftpedia a while back. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It's this discussion, right? That discussion followed four Swift-related hooks in five days, which was overkill. There are alternative hooks already in Soft Spot, Beachin, Words, Froge.mp3, and Updown, and I just replaced the hooks in Nice 2 Me with a non-lyrical one, so if you're worried about ennui, use those.--Launchballer 15:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I would review each one on its own before making any judgement. My main concern is that the hooks should at least make some sense without having to read the article beforehand. A hook saying "Did you know that... updown updown updown updown?" is far too nonsensical, I would reject that in a heartbeat. JIP | Talk 16:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking at these now, there's another problem other than not being facts (H3), using information not in the article (H5) and using inappropriate piping (H9). Many of these also use the first-person pronoun "I" and the second-person pronoun "you", which are both heavily discouraged by the manual of style, and one could argue also shifts it to a non-neutral point of view (H4). This goes beyond "not strictly adhering to guidelines", it breaches those guidelines on multiple levels. When you lay them out in sequence, it shows the breadth of the problem with using out-of-context lyrics for hooks. I don't think any of these are acceptable. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Soňa Červená

Queue 5: Soňa Červená (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Gerda Arendt @Onegreatjoke The hook isn't wrong but it would be cleaner if you just worked out her exact age when she got the award and use that instead of "over 80 years old". RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The hook was made by Storye book. Afaik only the year of the award is given, and the exact date could only be said as one year or another, which looks clumsy to me. Does it even matter? Wouldn't even "over 60" be surprising? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The award was presented in March 2009, so she would have been 83 at that time. I'd agree that it would sound better if it said "when she was 83 years old". —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
OperaWire says 2008 RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it, the award is for performances that happened in 2008, but it was presented in March 2009. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, this is a mess. Looking around, I see some sources that say 2008 and some that say 2009. I don't see any that are explicit about whether the date is for a performance in that year or when the presentation happened. Alfréd Radok Awards says 2008, but it's almost entirely unsourced. The fact that I can't read Czech doesn't help. RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Why does her age matter? Run the hook without it. --evrik (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It's factual and adds another point of interest to the hook. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
More to the point, "over 80 years old" is just a way of saying, "We're too lazy to figure out the correct number, so whatever". We should aim for better than that. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This article, published Feb. 24, 2009, is announcing the nominations. The last line, "Slavnostní předání Cen Alfréda Radoka za rok 2008 se uskuteční 14. března v Divadle Kolowrat.", translates as "The 2008 Alfréd Radok Awards ceremony will take place on March 14 in the Kolowrat Theatre." It looks pretty clear that the award was presented in 2009 in honor of a 2008 performance. [Just so the link is here for the article history: The awards' website is long dead, but this archive of their news page shows clearly the 2008 nominations were announced in February 2009 and awarded in March 2009.] —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification (and translation). I've updated the hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few days ago. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 9. We have a total of 230 nominations, of which 78 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has decreased by 2 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

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) 17:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominate a 5x expanded article

I would like to nominate Catherine de Parthenay for a DYK with the following DYK scan results: DYK eligibility scan results: (See here for details.)

  • Prose size (text only): 12321 characters (2049 words) "readable prose size"
  • Article created by Nikkimaria on July 12, 2012
  • Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 134 edits ago on June 23, 2023

The tool (very cool by the way), though, for nomination looks to just accept new articles. I am sure I am missing something, but cannot figure out how to nominate it as 5x expanded. Your help is much appreciated!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I missed this at first. You can use the tool, just select 5x expanded rather than created in the status box. TSventon (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks, TSventon! Good-old-user-error!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Suitability of United States v. Strong Nomination for DYK

I read through the Nomination. The article survived AfD with a no consensus result. There is an objection from @SnowFire: in the nomination about the suitability of the article for DYK. Pinging the involved parties from the discussion: @Launchballer, Edge3, Dr vulpes, and Surtsicna:. I would like to have a discussion before promotion in order to avert a later discussion. Bruxton (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Per my comments on the nom, I'd rather it not be run on DYK. That said, I don't consider it a "strong veto" (like I would if, say, the truthfulness / authenticity were shaky), and if others feel it's worthy of promotion, go for it (I personally would take a stricter stance on criterion 4a, unduly focusing on negative aspects of living people, than some of the rest of the community). SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a mere case of accidentally soiling one's pants. Strong was convicted by a magistrate judge, affirmed by a district court judge and thereafter by an appeals court. He is notable only because of this case, and the facts of what he did are well-established and a matter of public record, so I don't see a BLP concern or DYK-4a concern with this article. Edge3 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Do you think the promotion can move forward for #July 4 - Independence Day (United States), or would you still like to continue the discussion? Edge3 (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I see no other editors commenting so it is likely fine to promote. But I was hoping for nominations specifically about Independence Day for prep 3. These hooks are not that but maybe they are all we have. Bruxton (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I checked all of the U.S.-related hooks currently being nominated, and I couldn't find anything more political than what I've provided. You might have different ideas for which hooks would qualify, so feel free to propose them. Edge3 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Atonio Mafi

Queue 7: Atonio Mafi (nom) @Edge3 @BeanieFan11 @Onegreatjoke The hook says he "holds" the record, but the source only says he tied for the record. RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Another "first" hook that doesn't check out

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors
 – Schwede66 19:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The PBS Appalachia Virginia blurb is misleading because the entire United States transitioned to all-digital television before this station even launched. It is unique but “digital” is the wrong word to express that. 98.97.15.49 (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to be misleading. It's actually non-terrestrial. Terrestrial television can be/is also digital. Secretlondon (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
And the phrase is straight from a press release which they cite as a reference! Secretlondon (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Correct; thank you. I came here just to make that point. My endorsement of the need to change the listing to "non-broadcast" or "non-terrestrial" or "Internet-only" may be superfluous now but I still want to weigh in in hopes of adding to the pressure for that change and making that change more likely. Carney333 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 Fixed, but I’ll also raise this at DYK talk. Schwede66 18:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Original hook: ... that PBS Appalachia Virginia is the first all-digital public TV station in the United States?

Amended hook: ... that PBS Appalachia Virginia is the first all-non-terrestrial public TV station in the United States?

I've fixed a hook that's currently live but I wonder whether we should pull it altogether. The issue is not that it wasn't the "first" but it was described as the "first all-digital", where digital is the wrong word as pointed out in the discussion above. The reason why I considered pulling the hook is that the article no longer contains the hook fact (at least not at the time I amended the hook some 90 minutes ago). I didn't have time to check the editing history and dive into the sources. I leave it to others to decide and take action; I'm off to work now. Schwede66 19:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I remember thinking about this when I promoted it to a queue. The source describes it as "the nation's first all-digital public television station dedicated to Southwest Virginia." I wasn't sure how to parse that and eventually decided it should be "Of all the public television stations dedicated to Southwest Virginia, this was the first to go all-digital". It seemed overly specific (if you add enough qualifiers to anything, you can make it the first anything) but I decided not to make a fuss. Perhaps I should have? RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that checks out even less; Schwede66, if it's still worth it, I'd pull. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replacing the hook with alt1 seems to be a decent alternative to pulling. it was drafted by Sammi Brie, who has a lot of experience with the subject area, so i presume that it is accurate.
courtesy pinging Bobherry (nominator), Sammi Brie (alt1 author), Dr vulpes (reviewer), and Lightburst (promoter). note that this is Bobherry's first promoted nomination. (welcome to dyk, Bobherry!) dying (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
... that on his first promoted submission, Bobherry fell into a classic DYK trap? RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that on his first promoted submission, Bobherry fell into a classic DYK trap despite some old hands doing the review? 😀 Schwede66 23:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
ooof I should have dug deeper that's on me. Thank you @Dying for the ping. I'll add it to my list. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Can we have a moratorium on all but the most watertight and interesting "first" hooks? Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    Works for me. RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    Do we need to make this a formal RfC or something, like if we want to make a moratorium on "first" hooks? They've been problematic for a while and editors have voiced concerns about them either being, for lack of a better term, lazy, or they turn out to not be first at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    Well, last time we talked about this, it turned out every alternative everyone provided was worse -- which is kind of the problem with Hook Interestingness, isn't it? Consensus exists there is a problem, perhaps even an existential problem; attempts to determine further what said problem is become endless clusterfucks. "No firsts" would probably end up as a DYK-ruiner on the scale of "you need to have a Real World Connection, so all hooks for books become 'was inspired by the author being bullied in high school' or the like". Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't get as worked up over interestingness as some other people, but I do get worked up over WP:V, and "first" hooks often fail that. Some firsts are easy to prove because there's a finite set, i.e. "George Washington was the first president of the United States". But take for example, "Roger Bannister ... ran the first sub-4-minute mile". That's generally accepted to be true, and it's certainly true that it's the first one that's recorded in the official records, but how do we know that some kid in Kenya wasn't running 4 minute miles 500 years ago when nobody was keeping notes? RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I have missed the discussion here. Apologies that my assessment of the hook discussed here was not on point. Please do not ban "first" hooks. I think it would be a "DYK-ruiner" as Vaticidalprophet has said above. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
but how do we know that some kid in Kenya wasn't running 4 minute miles 500 years ago when nobody was keeping notes -- well, we can't verify that kid existed, so we assume he doesn't. I can picture-perfect imagine the hypothetical DYK conversation for Bannister where people try to come up with a hook that isn't "he ran the first sub-4-minute mile", and I very much doubt they'd be good. ("Did you know... ... that Roger Bannister became a neurologist after retiring from athletics?" Well, you'd suppose he didn't become a beggar.) Vaticidalprophet 14:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do think the neurologist aspect would have been decent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
It neglects the question of why you should care that This Random Dude changed careers in a way (sports to !sports) that is pretty routine. Bannister is a very recognizable name to people of certain ages in certain places (and these do happen to be well-represented amongst Wikipedia editors), but to the main page he's not nearly so assumable as a household name. You can make a very good hook combining that he both had this unusual accomplishment and this career change, but you can't strike the unusual accomplishment and get something that rises above the unkind 'do you kare' stereotype. Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I knew that Bannister was the first to run a 4-minute mile. I don't follow sports at all, but I suspect that's one of the best-known records in any sport, so it's not particularly interesting. On the other hand, until a few minutes ago, I had no clue about his medical career, so that would have made a much more interesting hook for me. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
we can't verify that kid existed, so we assume he doesn't is exactly how we get into trouble. In this specific case, there's plenty of WP:RS[1][2][3][4] so there's really no doubt and no need to rely on failure to find a counter-example. But the fact remains that we've had multiple instances of "first" claims in hooks turning out to not be correct, so it does deserve greater scrutiny. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I was more gesturing at your defense being 'verifiability' when the issue there is, exactly, that you can't verify that there exists a counter-example. First hooks come through WT:DYK often enough that I agree they're clearly prone to specific sorts of issues, but they also come through so often because they're so popular a hook structure in the first place. The reactions that try to strike them entirely have never looked like a viable improvement. Vaticidalprophet 15:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I'm not opposed to all "first" hooks, but it can take a good eye to identify where sources may have hyped something as the first but it is unlikely to be so and likely other sources will dispute it (for V). It takes less of a good eye to know that "... X was the first Y" is usually bland by itself (unless Y is inherently interesting). Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Roger Bannister | Biography, Running, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  2. ^ Daley, Jason. "Five Things to Know About Roger Bannister, the First Person to Break the 4-Minute Mile". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  3. ^ "Roger Bannister, First Athlete to Break the 4-Minute Mile, Dies at 88 (Published 2018)". nytimes.com. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  4. ^ "The story of the 'Greatest Living Englishman'". ESPN.com. Retrieved 27 June 2023.

Drew O'Connor

Queue 7: Drew O'Connor (nom) @Edge3 @HickoryOughtShirt?4 @Theleekycauldron @Cielquiparle I agree that the source supports "four teams recruited Drew O'Connor", but saying "heavily recruited" in wikivoice seems like Wikipedia:OR. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To me, it seems that "heavily recruited" is supported by the source. Edge3 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how else to word it when four teams are trying to recruit an undrafted college player. To add to Edge3's comment, the source directly says: The kid who was desperate for so long to get noticed had become arguably the most sought-after free agent in college hockey.. Beyond that, hockey pundits have said: There is definitely no shortage of NHL interest in O’Connor and he was described as a "prized" free agent [3]. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
As somebody who knows little about professional sports in general, even less about ice hockey, and nothing about how players are recruited, I don't get from the source that having 4 teams express an interest in a good player is anything out of the ordinary. How about we just drop the word "heavily", and let readers draw their own conclusion about whether this qualifies as being heavily recruited? If it really is as obvious as you suggest, then leaving the word out won't detract from the hook. RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously 5 Believers

Queue 7: Obviously 5 Believers (nom) @BennyOnTheLoose @Bruxton @Onegreatjoke the hook seems really complicated. I can't get to the end of it without getting lost. Isn't there some simpler way to say this? RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Sigh, I agree as I said in the nom. Nobody came to address my concern. Until now. Bruxton (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
i share Bruxton and RoySmith's concern: the hook seems needlessly complicated. personally, i would drop "later known as the Band,", as i think losing it does not seem to significantly affect the interestingness of the hook. (it is also unclear from the hook itself whether "the Band" refers to the hawks or to robbie robertson.) serendipitously, this removal would still preserve the symmetric nature of the hook.
also, the link used in the hook seems to suggest that ronnie hawkins was the band member that was featured in the 1966 song, even though hawkins appears to have split with the hawks by 1964. would it be appropriate to replace "one of the Hawks" with either "one of the Hawks" or "one of the Hawks"? this would also address the mos:egg issue of having a band name linked to an article on one of its members. dying (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy with any tweaks; apologies for using up so much of people's time on this one. I had intended it to be quirky but it's obviously not landing for everyone. 09:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This is only a couple of slots away from the main page, and we've got significant issues to work out. My recommendation is that the hook be pulled. That'll give people an opportunity to work on a better hook without the pressure of the ticking clock. RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Since you're an admin, maybe you can do it yourself? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I can, but I prefer not take unilateral actions when feasible. RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lord Adolphus FitzClarence

Queue 5: Lord Adolphus FitzClarence (nom) Maybe I'm just not following this correctly, but it looks like @Festucalex approved their own hook, @Sojourner in the earth pointed out that they couldn't do that, but the self-approved hook was promoted by @Evrik anyway. Am I missing something? RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I wondered about that too. I assumed Evrik knew what they were doing. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I took what I thought was the best hook. As the promoter I thought I had the flexibility to do that. --evrik (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:DYKSG#J2. You only get to promote only those hooks that have been approved. The idea is that there's multiple independent sets of eyes checking that it's OK so we don't end up swimming upstream into the lake of WP:ERRORS. In the hopes of avoiding needless wiki-bureaucracy, I'll leave this in the queue for now, pending somebody coming along and doing a post-dated approval. RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I could rummage through the archives and find a number of instances where the approver proposed a hook upon the closing for the promoter to consider. In any case, I looked at the hook and found it cited and somewhat funny. --evrik (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @BorgQueen: I'm just running it past you guys since I have exactly 0 experience in this regard. I wouldn't feel confident opening an RfC. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
    We certainly do have lots of rules, and it's unreasonable to expect that people new to the project will learn them all up front. So nobody should sweat this. It's just part of the learning process. I do think we can do a better job of marking which hooks are approved and which aren't. As I understand it, the idea is that each individual approved hook is supposed to get a checkmark and/or each unapproved on is supposed to be struck out. In practice, neither of those happen a lot, so the promoter doesn't have a clear indication of which are approved and which aren't. RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Bot to move unapproved noms from the approved page

This is yet another instance where a no-longer-approved nom should've been moved back from the approved page to the pending page. I've lost track of where we were, but if I recall correctly, both RoySmith and theleekycauldron were working (or thinking about working?) on bot code to take care of this, and Wugapodes had it basically done but didn't have time to work on it. Any progress from anybody? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, my first couple of interactions with the bot approval process left me kind of gun shy. RoySmith (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mandarax: unghhhhhhh. I don't think I ever had any code in place – maybe either Roy or I should take both the forward and reverse tasks off of Wugapodes' plate? It really doesn't make sense to have two separate codebases for what is essentially the same task. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe Wugapodes said the code just needed some tweaks and/or testing, and it would be made available to anyone who wanted to take over. As for bot approval, I can't think of any objections to this useful and uncontroversial task. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, it looks like RoySmith isn't interested in pursuing this, and Wugapodes hasn't edited since a week before my initial comment, so, theleekycauldron, do you intend to take care of this? (I've seen that it's listed as a future GalliumBot task.) I had previously suggested potentially going the WP:BOTREQ route, but figured I'd give people here a chance to do it if they desired. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mandarax: I do – should I just lift the codebase from Wug and see what tinkering I can do with it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks in advance for taking this on. If you need to contact Wugapodes, email might be the best choice, considering his recent activity level around here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

July 4 - Independence Day (United States)

Anyone have any hooks for Prep 3 that we can work in here for Independence Day (United States)? The set is presently empty. Bruxton (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We could probably do Template:Did you know nominations/First Lady Bake-Off and Template:Did you know nominations/Held v. Montana as the more poltically-oriented hooks. Edge3 (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I also suggest Template:Did you know nominations/Blackwell Street Historic District as the picture hook. Edge3 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to do US Independence Day, we should also do Canada Day, Independence Day (India), Australia Day, and so on. RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd be down for that. You have any suggestions for Canada Day on July 1? Edge3 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This is a great idea! Ktin (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
A little late for developing the Canada Day hooks, etc. I am not Canadian, but some of the greatest laughs and guffaws I've experienced came from the Great White North. I refer to Bob and Doug McKenzie and the like. — Maile (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No reason to limit it to English-speaking countries. I guess like all special date requests, it just depends on people having the interest in creating/improving and nominating a relevant article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
We've had Canada day sets and half-sets in the past. CMD (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've placed all three of the hooks I suggested above into Prep 3. Happy to entertain other ideas. If there are a lot of ideas, we could consider lifting the 4-hook limit on American topics just for this set. Edge3 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to do US Independence Day, we should also do Canada Day, Independence Day (India), Australia Day, and so on. Agree, doing this only for the US seems like a clear bias. Especially when we've already had a bias of US images on the DYK image set recently..... Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are some other U.S. political hooks: Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Plump and Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Strong (also being discussed at #Suitability of United States v. Strong Nomination for DYK). Edge3 (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you like rockets red glare, what about Template:Did you know nominations/Fire basket? --evrik (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Anita Gustafson hook

My hook for the article Anita Gustafson was just promoted to Prep 6 by Lightburst - is there any way this hook could be held so that it can run on August 1? Thanks. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No word from reviewer Cbl62 on special occasion suitability – how we lookin', Cbl62? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw August 1, in the request. It was an either or proposition that the nominator wanted in the nomination and after considering I decided to promote it now. It fit my prep well. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Fine with me either way. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@PCN02WPS: I am feeling bad about not moving the article last night after this request, so I will remove the nomination from prep and place it in a hold area. Lightburst (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ali al-Hadi

Queue 3: Ali al-Hadi (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Onegreatjoke @Launchballer somebody needs to walk me through the sourcing for the hook. RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

From the cited source RoySmith: "Al-Hādī arrived in Sāmarrāʾ in 233/848 and remained there for the rest of his life ... under constant surveillance [by the Abbasids] ... his imāmate was an important turning point in the development of Imāmī Shīʿism, as it was with his move to Sāmarrāʾ that direct leadership of the community by the Imām effectively ended." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the quote. I'm good. The reason this was confusing for me is that when I'm reviewing a batch of hooks at one time, I generally just search for keywords in the article to at least find where it's mentioned. In this case, searching for "restricted" or "shia" didn't find what I needed. RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Missa brevis in B (Tambling)

Prep 1: Missa brevis in B (Tambling) (nom) @Edge3 @Gerda Arendt @Kusma I've renamed the page per WP:TITLEDAB. I'm also unsure if the image makes sense for this article. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context". I don't see how a picture of a church helps the reader understand a piece of music that was performed in that building. I think it's distracting as a main page image; it leads the reader to think the hook is about the church, when it's not that at all. RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It is a double hook, so there is some point in including an image of the church (the second bolded link). Thank you for the page move, I was unaware that disambiguation was unneeded. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the double hook aspect. RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Your concern about the title was spot on, though. I looked at it more critically and now think it should be "Missa brevis in B flat". (Strange false friend in music: German B is English B flat, while English B is German H). @Gerda Arendt: do you agree? —Kusma (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
My knowledge of German music is exceeded only by my knowledge of ice hockey recruiting practices, so I'll go with whatever you folks decide. RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
It is written in what I would call B flat, but if it's called "Missa brevis in B", it should remain that way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that's the piece's name in German (half Latin). In English it would be called "Missa brevis in B flat", and some English-language sources use that name. I would expect the (half-)translated name, just like Mozart's mass is Mass in B-flat major, K. 275. —Kusma (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I have moved the page and adjusted it a bit; I hope this clears up the B/B-flat confusion and does not make it worse. Happy to be overruled on this. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Gerda moved the page back; discussion now at Talk:Missa brevis in B. —Kusma (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
And I think we agreed that "B-flat" is ok per the publisher's webpage. —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the hook's a double hook, but isn't the hook a bit too complicated? I think it could be made a bit more concise. It's so long that to me at least the point of the hook (showing how many instruments were used for it and the number of people involved) easily gets lost. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The hook makes two points: strange instruments and large number of singers. I find it difficult to leave out much. We can't remove the church as that would stop it being a double hook, and do you really want to remove the composer? —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the location of the church so even the inattentive reader can get to the 1,400 singers; as I was the original approver of the hook, this probably merits a second look (and of course a comment by Gerda as the nominator). —Kusma (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that's okay. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I wish the second link could be moved up or made larger, but the average reader won't notice. --evrik (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My attempt at a hook.--evrik (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I like evrik's version also (better than mine, in fact). I think we could drop "around"; a figure ending in 00 implies a level of imprecision all by itself. RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I added another version (2a). I didn't like the word around either. --evrik (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Late to all this:
  1. Why not have the first bold link first (as it was earlier)?
  2. What does "work" add to understanding? This is pictured with a church, what else could Missa mean? If that seams to much to find out for the average reader, how about mass?
  3. Why that clumsy translated full name of the church that would never be the common name, nor be used in advertising a musical event? Only to get it fatter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
In reply to Glenda's points:
  1. I don't think there is any advantage or requirement to have the first link in bold.
  2. "mass" seems more appropriate than "work"
  3. I agree that we should use the common name.
Schwede66 09:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

i don't know if it's too late to comment, but i had also been surprised at the omission of tambling's given name (as mentioned at wp:errors) and the inclusion of the somewhat uninformative word "work" in the hook (as mentioned above). i admittedly hadn't brought up my concerns earlier because i didn't think they were that important, but now that they are the object of discussion, i thought i might say something.

personally, i would just drop "work" altogether instead of replacing it with "mass", because "missa" already means "mass". i don't know enough about how churches are usually referred to in hooks to determine how best to mention this church, but would suggest switching to the common name simply because the hook is currently longer than 200 characters. with the shorter name of the church, there's plenty of space left to include tambling's given name. also, i think the "'s" should not be included as part of the link text, but that's just a minor style issue. dying (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Catherine de Parthenay

Queue 4: Catherine de Parthenay (nom) @Bruxton @CaroleHenson @CurryTime7-24 I'm not sure calling her a "key" member is justified by the source. A member, sure. But "key" seems a bit WP:OR RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, RoySmith, if it works to just remove "key", I am fine with that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, done. RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sack of Mecca (930)

Queue 4: Sack of Mecca (930) (nom) @Dympies I'm curious why you performed this rename. WP:TITLEDAB says you don't use the "(930)" unless there's other articles with the same title. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Just checking whether the ping to @Dympies failed? Valereee (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, there are too many articles with similar name listed here- Siege of Mecca. I moved it to avoid confusion as year is important here. Dympies (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, I see the dilemma. I'm not completely sure what's the best way to do this, but I've added a {{seealso}} hatnote. RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/5

I've been busy IRL so haven't been helping out much recently. Just transferred one set to Q5; would appreciate if anyone could double-check the hooks. Thanks! BorgQueen (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of which... the Rodger Page hook sounds like it was a same-sex marriage. Is it a deliberate joke? BorgQueen (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Works for the quirky either way? Valereee (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee I suppose so. Just wanted to check. BorgQueen (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Are third-party editors allowed to re-open nominations that have already been closed by another editor without first making a formal request?

Template:Did you know nominations/United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was closed by BuySomeApples after it was marked for closure. The following day, Novem Linguae undid the closure and asked for a re-review. Considering Novem is not the nominator and had not previously participated in the nom, was this re-opening without a formal request proper, or should Novem have first asked either here or somewhere else for a re-opening? Although this is about a specific case, I'm also asking in the general sense, just in case something similar happens again. Courtesy pings to Launchballer who was the reviewer and the nominator ElijahPepe. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't realize it'd be controversial. I had it on my watchlist and the close reminded me to fix it up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Second time in as many days, eh. This is something that has happened more than a few times in DYK history. It's not even rare for rejected nominations, though I'm not a huge fan of it in that case (I think we should reject more often than we do, for articles where there's no appropriate hook). See Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier for a particularly extreme case. Vaticidalprophet 14:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
It should be allowed, especially if the third party is offering to fix the article/nomination. It's too confusing to keep having to toggle back and forth between the nomination and this Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The thing being discussed here isn't if a nomination that has been closed cannot be reopened and adopted by a third-party editor, but rather if they need to make a request first for the nomination to be reopened, either here or on the closer's talk page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
There are certainly cases where bold reopening is appropriate. In the case at hand, the re-opener fixed the issue, which makes it okay in my book. (I would support being more aggressive about timing out nominations, but we currently are very patient). —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see it as inherently problematic at all. Reopening a nomination helps prevent prep builders from moving to prep a nom that at least one editor thinks needs work. Valereee (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's irregular or not as a general rule, but I don't have any problem with this case. BuySomeApples (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem with it, as long as it is timely. --evrik (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with hook?

I feel like there's an amazing hook around According to the Kentucky Distiller's Association, they receive "regular calls from state residents asking what they can do with unopened bourbon cases they discovered while cleaning out a relative’s attic or basement" at Revival Vintage Bottle Shop, but I can't even come up with categories for this article. Any help? Valereee (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Added some cats. It's an interesting fact, but hard to tie into the article subject itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those cats! Valereee (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Alt1 ...that some people in Kentucky don't know what to do with bourbon? JennyOz (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
A cute hook, but it might be too easter eggy if it doesn't explicitly mention the shop. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem I'm having...they don't know what to do with bourbon, so they take it to a shop? They don't know what to do with bourbon, so they sell it? They discover unwanted bourbon, and the Kentucky Distillers Association tells them what to do with it?
Maybe: Alt2 ...that when Kentuckians discover unwanted bourbon, the Kentucky Distillers Association tells them what to do with it? Valereee (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the implication is that there's a more direct connection between KDA and the shop than the source supports. Maybe something around the term "dusties"? It's got some folksy intrigue to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Kind of hate to focus on dusties when it's currently a redlink...
Alt3 ...that when Kentuckians discover unwanted bourbon, there's something they can do with it?
Probably doesn't even have to focus on Kentuckians, really.
Alt4 ...that if you find unwanted bourbon, there's something you can do with it?
Alt5 ...that there's something you can do with unwanted bourbon? Valereee (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I think "Kentuckians" helps. For many people, "unwanted bourbon" is surprising enough a phrase as it is, but people with a little familiarity with Kentucky will find that more unexpected. I say go ahead with a nom! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Kentuckians is better, too. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I can't come up with a good hook, but something around "Kentucky employees were sometimes paid in bourbon" might be fun. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Alt6 ...that Revival Vintage Bottle Shop helps people with their unwanted bourbon?--evrik (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I like that one too! I think I prefer Jen's, which I've nommed with, but that's a close second for me. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Alt1a ...that some people in Kentucky don't know what to do with bourbon? --evrik (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
+1 for ALT6 RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived not quite two hours 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 June 24. We have a total of 265 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, 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) 03:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you know we had four pictures of 19th-century buildings in the north-east of the US in sets in June...

and now we have another upcoming in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3? There are alternatives. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Thank you for pointing it out. I promoted two of the building hooks which were nominated by Epicgenius. One problem we have is that the @Epicgenius: writes great articles with great promotable images. They have 437 GAs and their nominations are usually on point with multiple verifiable hooks. This makes the job of everyone in DYK easier. Bruxton (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not commenting on the articles themselves, or the nominations, but the use of several so very similar (and to many not very exciting) images as the image pic over a short period. In the Prep area 3 set there is a rather cute cat (when did we last have one of these?), and a very lovely Renaissance painting, and probably others. The pic currently chosen there is nothing to do with Epicgenius btw. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should limit editors to one DYK a year? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
?Huh. How do you get from anything above to there? Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem appears to have been caused by an excessive number of submissions from a single user, this would alleviate that problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
No, the problem stems from the fact that many nominations by one user are of exceptional quality, but that is not an issue. If other users matched that quality, if reviewers were quicker at getting less-easy nominations approved, and/or if users promoting hooks gave a bit more thought to images, there would be no problem. We don't want to limit nominations at all, let alone to such a degree that DYK would literally cease to function. Terrible misunderstanding of the issue and, worse, of how DYK functions. Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why not ask that one user to take a break and see if others will naturally fill the territory they've monopolized/owned? Any wikipedia process that relies on a single editor has already ceased to function, is your statement hyperbole or is there really a single editor dominating this sector of wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think anyone's "monopolizing" anything. If you're referring to me in particular, I nominate one article for DYK about every week. There are other people who nominate more frequently than I do.
We generally don't restrict editors because they write good hooks, we restrict editors because they write bad hooks. If you actually applied this so-called solution to every editor, we'd run out of high-quality articles really quickly. So I'm honestly not seeing what this is supposed to solve, but I can see a lot of issues that this is going to cause. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea who Kingsif is referring to. Why would we run out of high-quality articles really quickly? The vast majority of high quality articles currently don't appear to make it to DYK, we don't need more high quality articles we just need DYK to be representative of wikipedia and not a club of regulars. Also note that presumably if people are restricted in the number they can nominate they will on average nominate a higher caliber of article than they would otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to the fact that there are several DYK regulars who nominate articles really frequently, sometimes as much as three times a week. However, it seems like Kingsif was referring to Bruxton's earlier comment about my nominations.
Why would we run out of high-quality articles really quickly? - The DYK criteria are relatively strict. Although there are certainly tons of articles that are of decent (or even exceptional) quality, the most pressing criterion is that they have to be created, expanded fivefold, or improved within seven days, which disqualifies people from just nominating any random article of reasonably high quality. There are also other requirements, such as a minimum length, as well as neutrality and sourcing requirements, which would disqualify many of the articles that you're thinking of.
Also note that presumably if people are restricted in the number they can nominate they will on average nominate a higher caliber of article than they would otherwise. - In practice, this seldom works. If such a restriction is implemented, someone can just wait until they are able to nominate another hook, without taking the time to improve the article that they previously nominated. Or, worse, create sockpuppets to get around such a restriction (thus gaming the system).
DYK exists to showcase newly improved, relatively high-quality articles. If only a few users are nominating such articles, the problem isn't with DYK regulars; it's the fact that other editors aren't getting involved in DYK. The solution is to try to attract these other editors, not to restrict existing nominators. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to put a back-of-the-envelope number out there: for every 500 nominations that see the Main Page, the number of nominators that produce them come out to around half that number. I don't think we can reasonably keep a one-set-a-day pace at DYK with that kind of throughput, not to mention the amount it would piss off our most loyal contributors (many of whom put in long hours behind the scenes as well). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Nobody has monopolized anything, it's your suggestion for users to only get one DYK nom a year - which would rely on 3000 unique users nominating, at least - is what I said was a terrible misunderstanding. Now your seeming belief that there is only one DYK contributor when nobody suggested that (I referred to one user who makes great nominations based on previous comments, please read better) shows that you have no idea what you're on about in the slightest, so thanks for participating but if you don't know how this place works then you're not going to come up with a workable solution. Kingsif (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back I assume this was Tongue-in-cheek. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
It was not, would one a week be better? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we should be restricting anyone from DYK unless they're consistently creating problematic articles or nominating hooks that repeatedly need to be pulled. Historically, if there are a high number of nominations, the DYK admins just swap out the sets more frequently (i.e. every 12 hours instead of every 24 hours). Right now, we have relatively few nominations, so the DYK admins are only swapping out sets once every 24 hours.
If the issue is that not enough people are contributing to DYK, we should be encouraging more DYK submissions from users who don't normally nominate articles for DYK. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't creating more space for DYK submissions from users who don't normally nominate articles for DYK encourage more DYK submissions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Not at this time. DYK doesn't have a maximum daily number of submissions, but it needs at least eight daily nominations. Each set consists of eight hooks, which run on the main page at the same time; the sets are changed every 24 hours at most. If more people nominate articles for DYK, that's great; the DYK admins can just run two, three, or four sets per day, changing out the sets more than once a day. However, there are many days where fewer than eight DYK nominations are created; I've seen days where people have made only two or three nominations. My point is that DYK currently has more than enough capacity to accommodate additional nominations. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I whole heartedly agree. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open community oriented project, not another Club 33. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 05:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
No. Terrible idea. Schwede66 15:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Limiting to one per year would be absurdly excessive, but yeah, no matter how much I appreciate Epic's epic ability to create epic articles, and I love the subject matter, even I am finding myself growing tired of buildings. It is, however, the nature of things. People write about what they're interested in. The solution to a bland diet of buildings is not to limit the contributions from one person, but to find ways to encourage and nurture high-quality contributions from other people. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, can we not get side-tracked by this silly non-sequitor. Many DYK contributors, like myself, are specialists, and that is fine. But its nothing to do with the need to have balanced choices of set pics, just like we strive for balance in the choice of articles in sets, where people don't have to read each one (and the stats show that few do). Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why not make an effort to expand the number of people submitting DYK proposals though? Wouldn't that go a long ways towards alleviating this issue without having to actively manage for balance? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Quite a few people seem to be a bit turned off by the bureaucracy and the bickering. The bureaucracy is part of our quality control, while a lot of the bickering is caused by us disagreeing about what makes an interesting hook. Can we be nicer to more people without sacrificing quality? —Kusma (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
We should be nicer to more people either way, if that means "sacrificing quality" yeah thats well worth it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
They didn't say sacrifice quality. In fact, they said the exact opposite. Work out a friendlier solution that can assure more community involvement while still ensuring quality control. There's also no need to be sarcastic and rude about this. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 05:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith. you make a good point - I could see why someone else might be tired of seeing similar topics repeatedly. However, we have quite a few regulars at DYK, and they tend to nominate articles in their own niche, e.g. U.S. radio stations, European opera personalities, pop songs, Southeast Asian politicians. Short of attracting tons of new editors to DYK, though, we only really have a few options:
  • Spread out these frequent nominators' hooks as much as possible (we already do this);
  • Restrict frequent nominations (which will definitely be controversial and has been rejected before);
  • Make it easier to reject nominations because they're missing a QPQ or because the hook is uninteresting (which will also be controversial).
It's probably easier to encourage people to nominate articles for DYK, as we don't have to resort to rule creep. Imposing restrictions on editors for making too many high-quality nominations would actually create much more problems than it solves. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Talk about a solution in search of a problem. How about let's quit trying to suck one of the few joys left of contributing to this project (namely being recognized on the main page). If we have a surge in entries in a specific category we can bank them and save them for a "slow day". Dave (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
We should aim to have more variety in the image hooks that are chosen, but we don't have any good mechanisms for doing that, and anything I could suggest would increase the workload on DYK promoters even further. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why not decrease their workload by limiting the number they can make? Would one a week be reasonable? So 52 possible a year? Seems like a massive number for one individual, do people really exceed that now and if so is this disproportionally a longstanding problem? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Who do you mean by "they" and "they"? Do you want to increase workload for people by making them police yet another rule of "only one DYK per week per nominator"? —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
DYK promoters, why do you not think these editors are competent enough to self-police? Are there currently problems with following simple instructions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Are there currently problems with following simple instructions? it's like herding water with a sieve. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Just another day in the life. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 05:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, why not? RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
For a while, I basically just promoted image hooks to preps (helping out with others, but leaving them for other prep-builders) - I think this created a coherence in quality, subject matter, and variety. I also checked the TFA to see if there were clashes. So I really think that just a bit more thought going into planning the images, which is comparatively not much extra work with how much goes into promoting a hook to prep already, would just fix it. Users could individually take the initiative or coordinate on the talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why not just have a "parking lot" or a "reserve" page for DYK hooks that have already been approved, but are postponed because that specific category has been over represented. That wouldn't be much (if any) additional overhead as we already have holding areas, so this would just become a part of that existing process.Dave (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
There was a request above at #July 4 - Independence Day (United States) to have hooks related to the Independence Day holiday. I proposed (and then promoted) this particular photo precisely for the reason you stated: it's a historical building from the Northeastern U.S., where colonial America was founded. While this particular building was built long after Independence, it is still part of a historic district in a Northeastern state. When I considered the request above, I could not find any other suitable candidates for a picture hook. I also expressly invited other editors to propose different hooks, but there was a very limited response. Edge3 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Simple solution: don't run a US-only set, as we wouldn't do it for any other country. And then we wouldn't have a continuation of this US building bias too. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
We have run themed sets for various countries, including Canada and (fairly recently) the British monarchy. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I also opposed the British monarchy one too. And when did we ever run it for Canada? And that doesn't take away from the problem that the suggested image is yet another US building very similar to the 4 we've had last month. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of making whole sets with a given country as a theme, because of the systemic bias issues you allude to – realistically it will only happen for the populous English-speaking countries that are already overrepresented. But I think it's fine to choose a couple of relevant hooks for a country's independence day or similar. That's not so different from other special date requests. Of course we should also do this for other countries besides the usual suspects of the US, UK, and co. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: To be clear, this isn't a US-only set. That was merely a suggestion that never came to fruition because nobody supported it. In this case, we just have a special occasion set with a few hooks that are slightly more related to American politics and history (e.g. political baking, a court case, and a historic district) than what we usually would have. As to the building, there were no other images that could even be tangentially related to American Independence, despite my best efforts to find alternatives. Edge3 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
And there was not really consensus for the Independence Day half-set either. Just two editors doing it without any prior consensus, just "let's do it!" without at least asking first if there is interest or consensus to do so. The fact that it's America also further adds to the concerns about us having a systemic bias. Frankly, I don't even know if there would have even been a suggestion to make such a set or even have half a set, or at least enthusiasm for such an idea, if it was any other country. Like Bastille Day is coming up but I don't see any suggestions for a France-related set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
We ran one for the 150th Canada Day IIRC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I only put it out there to see if there were any related hooks. I did not expect a full or even a half set: I hoped that there was one Independence day hook. If I think of it, I always want to have date specific hooks. I think it comes down to who is building sets. If there is a Bastille day hook I am all for featuring it for the Bastille date. Bruxton (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a Bastille Day hook. In fact, I'd be willing to entertain hooks for any major holiday. It's just up to an editor to propose it, and if there are relevant hooks ready to be promoted. Edge3 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if Red-tailed hawk has seen this discussion. But they may want to move the Offerman Building out of the image slot of prep 7 after reading the above. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Aah! I was puzzled why Red-tailed hawk has been distracting (rather successfully) this thread with no fewer than 10 totally off-topic comments. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I had not seen this discussion prior to moving that into the prep 7 image slot. I think that the image quality and article quality make it suitable for an image slot, though I have no objection if anyone were to place that into a non-image slot and place another hook in the image slot or in another prep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: I will move the building to a non-image slot without objection. Bruxton (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It's a really nice image, and I'd hate to see it moved into a non-image slot. Maybe defer the hook to a future date? Edge3 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
For me the issue with articles about buildings and DYK images is that there's nearly always an easily-obtained image. Buildings sit still for photographs. Images of buildings really should need to be very special in order to get the image slot. If the image is of an existing building, nearly every other image should take precedence for the image slot. Ditto anything that sits still or passes by on a regular schedule. Valereee (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I see that it's now running with an image of the building, in spite of these objections? Bruxton if you moved it out of the slot, seems like someone else has put it back as the image slot. Good to know that some admins just unilaterally revert a clear consensus of editors because they feel like it.... The hook is terrible too, as it fails to tell readers where the street is (there will be loads of Blackwell Streets throughout the world). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Joseph2302 I think what happened is that Bruxton said he would change the image if there were no objections, somebody objected and Bruxton did not change the image. In any case the histories of prep 3 and queue 3 show that the image was not changed. TSventon (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@TSventon and Joseph2302: I moved a different building. Bruxton (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Pachysentis

Queue 6: Pachysentis (nom) @Edge3 @Mattximus @Premeditated Chaos do any of the sources say these things "attach" to the intestine? I see where the sources say they're found in the intestine, but can't find where it explicitly talks about attachment. RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Using pointy things to attach to the gut wall of the infected creature is diagnostic of the entire phylum Acanthocephala to which the thing belongs. IMO it's blue sky that this genus must, by definition, also do so (else it would be in a different phylum). That being said, the following source discusses intestinal hook use in Acanthocephala and mentions Pachysentis as one of the genera studied for hook patterns, so that should be a sufficient source:
♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, that works for me, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Creeping up on us

Mercy! That 120 number is creeping up on us. Total 263 117 with four queues and 2 preps filled. Probably still a bit off but the promotors might soon get a taste of the WP:DYKROTATE Merry go round. Bruxton (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Need to have a few more preps and queues filled before we can go faster. I think we have a few more days before this hits us. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
We're struggling to find enough admins to handle the current load. Let's not make it worse by going to 2x. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Ha, I said something like this a few years ago, but it fell on deaf ears. There's a maxim that we have to switch based on numbers, with no regard for available people to work on it. I ended up doing the 2x promotion more or less singlehanded then.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The "at least 10 preps/queues must be filled" condition we added in January hopefully makes sure we don't switch to 2/day without enough support from promotors and admins. —Kusma (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
We could also split the difference by having sets rotate every 18 hours, which lets us go through 4 sets in 3 days. Edge3 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a perennial suggestion, and is always soundly rejected as being infeasible for a bunch of technical reasons. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you. We're getting backlogged with a lot of hooks waiting for promotion, and the threshold under DYKROTATE has been met. Edge3 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Edge3: Needs 120 approved with 10 filled queues and preps. My editing will be spotty after the 8th for a few weeks as I will be traveling. But I will still peek in to see if we are peaking and to check on my DYK friends. Bruxton (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Don't things (noms) normally slow up a bit as the northern summer peaks? Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Piero del Pollaiuolo

Queue 3: Piero del Pollaiuolo (nom) @Johnbod in the nomination, you say the sourcing is "Complicated, as there is a before and after aspect to several". Could you uncomplicate it a bit for me, please? @Onegreatjoke @AirshipJungleman29 RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you asking this here? I would think it should be fairly obvious, and the various sources, many online, have it all. But it isn't the sort of single factoid one can reasonably be expected to quote in a sentence or two. This is an excellent example of why I objected strenuously to recent attempts to quote all sourcing. Galli pp. 41-50 (less reading than it seems, as it is over 50% images) gives the nub of it. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking because it's my job to verify hooks before they get to the main page and I wasn't able to do that with the information I had at hand. If I get pinged on WP:ERRORS I'd really like to be able to say something more intelligent than "The author said it was complicated so I didn't bother to do my job". RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I meant why weren't you asking on the nom page. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah. To be honest, I think keeping all the conversation about a nom on the nom page would make more sense, but the convention seems to be that once it gets promoted, the discussion moves here. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I like getting more eyes on concerns here. Once it's in prep or queue, we're on deadline. Valereee (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Admins needed to promote preps to queues

Pinging @DYK admins: we're down to a single queue, which will be promoted in the next couple of hours, so promoting at least a couple of the available preps would be most welcome. If you could keep an eye on things over the next few days to make sure we don't get so low again, that would be great, too. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I presume that the queueing process was stalled by the discussion above at #Missa brevis in B (Tambling), which affects the next prep set to be queued. Edge3 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I've been doing a bunch of them lately, but other interests are making demands on my time. I'm hoping we can get some of the non-admin DYK regulars to go mop shopping. RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I've promoted two queues, which I will endeavour to check thoroughly tomorrow. Like yourself, I've been struggling to commit a huge amount of time to the project of late, so concur with the suggestion that a few more people step up and get a mop: there are spillages in need of a clean-up happening all over Wikipedia, not just here!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, more admins from the ranks of DYK regulars would be great. I am happy to help with the RfA process, anything from informal advice to a potential nomination. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
If I may be so bold as to name names, I've always been impressed by Kingsif, Cielquiparle, and Vaticidalprophet – just from my interactions with them, I think any of them could make short work of becoming a DYK-oriented admin if they set their mind to it. I would also love to see mops in the hands of Bruxton and Sojourner in the earth at some point, but I don't think either are well-positioned to pass RfA in the near future. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, nominate more DYK users to admins. You can never have too many admins. I apologize for my long and sometimes frequent absenteeism here, but I think we all have our own other Wikipedia areas that we get lost to once in a while. Being part of Wikipedia is an education unto itself. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I hope you're willing to make another run at some point. I know your first RfA didn't go well (and I was one of the naysayers), but I really think you'd be a shoe in if you tried again. Certainly for my part, the concerns I had are no longer valid. I see you wrote {{tq| Until next time!}} when you withdrew your nomination. I hope you still feel that way. RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I really appreciate that! I won't lie, I've been thinking about it :) not certain if it'll happen, but we'll see how things look after summer classes end in August. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
That's very exciting to hear. Schwede66 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree. @Theleekycauldron Why not run in the middle of US/EU "summer" when things are more quiet anyway, rather than wait until the fall. In my book, even if you are only able to spend 2–3 hours a week on DYK as an admin moving forward, that's probably worth much more than most. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I've gotten it more than a few times. Someday, perhaps. My activity patterns have consistently been too bizarre for a non-experimental RfA in the medium-term future, though, and while experimental RfAs can be very interesting indeed, I'm not sure for a couple other reasons if I'm a great candidate for one. (I still think you should run again.) Vaticidalprophet 05:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I would be a yes to a Leeky RFA. I somehow missed the first. Bruxton (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Same, and agree leeky may be in a better position to run again now. Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • As general advice to anybody thinking of running, here's my take on what makes a good candidate (partly my own personal opinion, but mostly reflecting what I see at RfA). Despite everybody agreeing it's stupid, editcountitis is a thing. I don't know what the exact numbers are that people are looking for, but I'd imagine a couple of years and 5000 edits is in the ballpark. People are also looking for content creation. I suspect anybody who is active at DYK will meet that, but having a few GAs will certainly be a plus. One of the stock questions is "Why do you need the bit?" Any DYK regular will have that one covered in spades: because only admins can promote to a queue, and we're backed up on that.
    I think the biggest thing that people are looking for is grace under pressure. There's lots of controversy at DYK. It'll look good to be able to show people some nomination review you were involved in where you needed to enforce some rule, got resistance from the nominator, but managed to negotiate the situation holding firm to the requirements and also remaining polite and not losing your cool. If you can show people a few of those, I think most people will be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
    I tried, and specifically offered to handle DYK queues, and I have over 100,000 edits and 100 FAs. Would advise stating another justification at RfA and not to be too concerned about counts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
    This is one of the main reasons why I am not considering running for adminship anytime soon (and note to anyone who is considering it, please don't nominate me). I don't think I will be able to handle the pressures, and admittedly my handling of heated and personal stuff can be lacking. I can probably pass the edit and experience requirements, but the ability to handle pressure is the thing that I don't think I can handle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, I don't think anyone should run unless they think adminning itself sounds at least partially like actually interesting work. I've seen too many really good editors who've gotten the mop and not long after walked away from the project, and we need really good editors at least as much as we need a few more admins. Don't do it out of a sense of duty to DYK. DYK is always going to have a problem with having enough admins because the main admin job -- moving a prep to queue -- has a fairly significant time commitment each time, and also has a deadline each time. If you're worried about the pressures (which of course you shouldn't be, this is volunteer work and you should feel free to give only that which you wish to give, but I understand the feeling), maybe consider listening to your instincts. JMO. Valereee (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    What's frustrating about this whole thing is that the admin role bundles too much power. Give somebody a mop and you give them the ability to block users, delete pages, assign other users various riles, etc. Because of all that, the bar at RFA is absurdly high. But all we really need is to give people the ability to edit a few pages. We could do that by changing the protection on the queues from full to template, and then a few trusted DYK regulars could be given the template editor role. The last time I suggested that, it was shouted down. So we're in this absurd situation of we've got people who are capable and willing to do the work that needs to be done, but they can't because we've made it so onerous to obtain the required permissions, nobody is willing to go through the ordeal that RFA has become. RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    Many people consider "editing the main page" precisely one of the things the bar needs to be set extremely high for. (Unbundled main-page-adminning would also have some perverse incentives -- main page admins are virtually always going to be very content-focused editors, and the one hard Never Unbundle, the ability to see deleted articles, is one of the single most useful admin powers for people who primarily work on content.) Vaticidalprophet 23:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    The unbundling of page moving and template editing has made life much easier for the content creator but viewing deleted pages remains a sore point, especially when admins continue to point you at deleted pages you cannot see. I don't recall the idea of allowing template editors to deal with the queues being shouted down; my recollection is that there were some technical issues with it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    There's no need to view deleted material to handle DYK queue promotions. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    True. I was talking about content creation. It normally comes up where I am trying to rebuild an article deleted for copyvio and want to see the references and the infobox. There would be no obstacle to my handling DYK queue if that ability was granted to template editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Gerard image Prep 6

I just promoted the Gerard image and hook to Prep 6. I feel like the image could use a closer crop to remove the edge of a book that David Gerard is holding. Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version with the book masked out. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Much better RoySmith - thanks Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Lightburst: This is the hook we're running? In the image slot and all? The nomination complains about navel-gazing, but this is if anything the opposite problem. Readers do not understand that Wikipedia lacks editorial control and has a flat hierarchy; you can look just about anywhere where they interface with the project to find out they understand 'admins' as Wikipedia's editorial team. If you put "This Wikipedia admin wrote a 'no-holds-barred attack' on X subject" on the main page, it will be understood as "Wikipedia admits to bias about X subject". This is incredibly poor optics, and unbelievably so while the project is facing existential threats in the UK due to a bill based around misunderstandings of Wikipedia and editorial control. Is there no other hook that doesn't give four and a half million people (before the news orgs pick it up, of course) the impression we're admitting to a whole subset of our articles being 'no-holds-barred attacks'? Vaticidalprophet 16:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: I had not considered the hook in the context described above. Since the subject is an author it seemed appropriate to have a hook about their work. The article itself has been controversial - deleted once, AfD'd when recreated. Debated on this page and the nomination. I thought we were ready with a better image. I am ok with whatever consensus is decided. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I've boldly demoted and retranscluded the nomination for further discussion on a hook here. Vaticidalprophet 16:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: very bold indeed. Usually we discuss without starting over and you were the only dissenting voice so far. Seems like a Streisand move since all one has to do is click the article and they get the same information. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It's far from the first time I've seen this done, and I'm simply copying prior observation of the practice. Vaticidalprophet 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
To me it's a reasonable move by an editor who has a concern about content on the main page. Valereee (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm in the same place as @Valereee. It should be easier to demote than to promote. Demoting can always be undone with nothing lost other than a bit of work and time. Once a hook gets to the main page, it's out there. RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Valereee: A revert is always abrupt and about the least collegial move an editor can make. Unless there is some compelling reason. In this case the editor overrode multiple editors who had nominated, approved and promoted a hook. There was no need for such an uncollegial move in my opinion. We operate on consensus and the hook was nowhere near appearing on the main page since it had not hit the queue. JMHO. Lightburst (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm so confused as to what's happening here. So basically, Vaticidalprophet wants the hook to be about Wikipedia, despite objections about that angle being brought up on the nomination page? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    I want it to "not be something that gives the strong impression Wikipedia has biased editorial coverage". I don't particularly care what it is otherwise. (Ideally it might not mention Wikipedia at all, given the difficulty of putting "Wikipedia admin" and "writes No-Holds-Barred-Attacks on subjects" in a way that doesn't make it sound heavily like Wikipedia has biased editorial coverage, but Wikipedia is one of the things the subject is notable for and possibly something other "hooks that don't give that impression" can be written about.) Vaticidalprophet 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Why do we have to mention Wikipedia at all? It's not exactly what DG is notable for. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    I wasn't a fan of the Wikipedia angle at all but consensus ruled in favor of mentioning it. Honestly I've never been a fan of navel-gazing hooks to begin with, and I can't help but shake off the feeling that, as good as David's work is, he wouldn't have had an article in the first place if he wasn't also a sysop. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    Personally I'd rather not mention Wikipedia in a DYK unless there's a compelling reason. Valereee (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    I'm also uncomfortable running this. We really shouldn't be using DYK to promote our own admins. I also don't see how this passes the newness test, as it's been around in one form or another for 15 years. It's not a new article just because we added "(author)" to the title. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    Oh, wow, that does make it a problem. That's a fail. Needs to be pulled. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    That is a completely different article, though, written before Gerard became a notable author. —Kusma (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    The list of Wikipedians with articles they would certainly still have if they weren't Wikipedians consists of Aaron Swartz and no one else. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Vaticidalprophet 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I did not promote this a second time after Edge gave it another tick because Vaticidalprophet did not respond to my ping at the nomination. I think it is customary after raising an objection to help get the nomination on track. The AfD decided this was a notable author, and I think we should not be rejecting the nomination. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
So I do not know if we are free to promote this or we are dead in the water? Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Would the hook just work without "and Wikipedia administrator"? Maybe the hook can be promoted without that bit since the hook still works without it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I can't help thinking that the author aspect is just a WP:COATRACK upon which we're hanging WP:N. If the primary interest is that he's an author, why are we showing a photo of him with his book cropped out? Fully half the lede is about his wiki activities. RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

QPQ Patricia Davies (cryptographer)

Hello, I did my first QPQ but can't see the article on any lists of pending DYKs, queues, etc. (please see Template:Did you know nominations/Patricia Davies (cryptographer). Have I missed a step? Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0 all looks fine to me. When you add the tick, a bot moves it to Template talk:Did you know/Approved, which I can see has happened. From there, at some point a promoter will moved it from there to a prep which determines when it'll run, but that could well take a few weeks, as we have about 120 approved nominations at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Thank you for the link! All clear. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7: Cameron Cutie (nom)

I just promoted this to queue, but I have a concern.

The source mentions Cameron Cuties and has Jenkyns refer to herself as "feisty Yorkshirewoman", but she does not explicitly reject the other term as far as I can see. I would like to see further eyes on whether this juxtaposition is sufficiently sourced. Pinging nom @Moondragon21, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @Bruxton. —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the hook isn't supported by the source. The section on Jenkyns doesn't mention the "cutie" label, and the context of the "feisty Yorkshirewoman" quote doesn't relate to it even indirectly. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've found various unreliable sources that do apply the term to Jenkyns (who isn't in the list in the article): The Sun, The Daily Mail. It might be better not to focus on Jenkyns. Can we get a hook that works with the term being worse than "Blair Babes" or do we need to pull this completely? —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pulled, replaced by Soft Spot (song) from Prep 4 (nom). Pinging nom @Moondragon21, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @Bruxton again: Cameron Cuties have been returned to WP:DYKN, please use Template:Did you know nominations/Cameron Cutie to find a new hook or source this one properly. —Kusma (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about this @Kusma, I didn't see it. How about this hook:
  • ALT1: ... that the Mayor of Antrim, Adrian Watson, said he was overlooked for not being a "Cameron Cutie"?
This seems like it's reliably sourced. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Might work. The nom has been returned to the general pool, please discuss new hooks on the reopened nom page. —Kusma (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Separate concern on this—I'd raise this at the nom page, but I'm genuinely not sure of the answer, so maybe better to ask here: Does the general reference to "the DYK criteria" at Template:Did you know nominations/Seda Kaçan satisfy the "all five criteria"/"full review" requirement ? -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 02:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@'zin is short for Tamzin: by the letter of the law, not so much. But honestly, given that we let reviewers just go down the {{DYK checklist}} and put down 'y', 'y', 'y' without comment, enforcing the rule against somewhat-but-not-totally verbose reviews basically just becomes "did you say all the correct incantations", without a real way to check that a full review was done. So, I tend to just AGF in the borderline cases. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Kississing Lake (nom)

@P199, Onegreatjoke, and 97198: The paper's claim is explicitly cited to a single nurse in the area who claims no expertise other than residency (strike that, she claims to be in the area) – i.e. not really a reliable source. I'd also concerned about close paraphrasing of the hook fact to the source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. In reply: Reporters routinely interview people as a source of info for their articles. Whether or not they quote people or rewrite the info into articles doesn't change our view of considering newspapers as a reliable source, doesn't it? As for close paraphrasing, that involves only 5 words ("the main source of income") which is a fairly common expression. Moreover, in order to remain accurate, I can't change that drastically. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@P199: It does change the reliability of the source; if a newspaper isn't willing to repeat a claim in its own voice, that's a sign that the newspaper didn't or couldn't verify the claims made by the third party. This is especially the case when the paper talks to anyone for routine background – therefore, as far as situational reliability goes, the claim is only as reliable as the person making it, which in this case is a person who lacks expertise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't doubt the veracity of the statement, but if you are not comfortable with that, then we need to come up with an entirely new hook. Any suggestions? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
... that Kississing Lake has faced waste dumps from an abandoned mine and the orange waters of a lake nearby? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
There's two things at play here. One is whether the paper feels comfortable stating the fact in its own editorial voice as opposed to using an attributed quote. The other is that not all papers are the same; I expect greater editorial oversight and more rigorous fact-checking from, say, the New York Times than from the Flin Flon Reminder. Both of those argue against stating this fact in wikivoice. RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that the five words there ("the main source of income") constitutes close paraphrasing in any inappropriate way, particularly when taken from a direct spoken quote given to the newspaper. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I meant the hook fact in the article, not as appears at DYK – I agree that "main source of income" is covered by WP:LIMITED. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've actually softened that in the article a bit to 'a source of income', as it's a tiny local paper quoting an area resident who has no apparent claim to expertise. I'd actually prefer to soften it even more to 'According to area residents, the lake is a source of income' but we've only got this one person's opinion so we can't even do that. It's not ideal. It would be good to find a better source. Valereee (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: OK, let's return it to the DYK nomination page and I'll work on another hook. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

All right :) pinging Aoidh, who moved P1 to queue, to pull the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess I didn't dig deep enough into the source when verifying the hook. I've swapped it out, then added it back to the "Awaiting approval" queue and made a note about that with a relevant tick mark and a link to this discussion so that it doesn't get added back to the Approved queue prematurely. - Aoidh (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Accidentally closed the wrong tab and moved Template:Did you know nominations/List of homeless relocation programs in the United States back instead of Template:Did you know nominations/Kississing Lake. I've fixed the mess I did with the relocation nom and Kississing Lake has been been unpromoted, commented on, and moved back. I will now go wipe the egg off my face. - Aoidh (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Egg, when applied to the face sparingly and promptly cleaned off, is good for the complexion. RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Pidakala War (nom)

  • ... that the Pidakala War is a cow dung fight held every year?

@dying, Alaexis, and Red-tailed hawk: ClickOrlando.com is cited as a source – it looks like local news, and not upper-tier local news at that. Are we sure that we want to call that a reliable source for a local South Asian custom? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Other sources cited in the article (such as The Hindu) also report that this is an annual new year's tradition, and WP:NEWSORG states that News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, so I don't really see any potential issue here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thanks for pointing this out, theleekycauldron. i had added this source because i wanted to show that the festival was of interest outside of india, figuring that, as the source was affiliated with cbs, it was reliable enough. i admittedly had not realized that there may be an issue using a local source for a local event occurring outside the locality the source is based in. (the new york times, for example, is often cited in articles on the russian invasion of ukraine, so it hadn't occurred to me that there may be a line drawn somewhere.)
i had relied on this source only for (1) one interpretation of the nature of the original dispute and (2) the idea that a winner is declared, so i have pulled the source without causing much disruption to the article. (rt also reports that a winner is declared, but i obviously can't cite rt.) i believe pulling this source does not affect the hook itself, as detailed by Red-tailed hawk. dying (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, dying! Should be good to go :) [to answer the example, every source does have to be based somewhere, but reputation informs how big a NEWSORG's sphere of reliability really is, both topically and geographically. The New York Times is one of the most respected institutions of journalism in the world, so much so that it likely has advantages on both Russia and Ukraine in collating quality jouranlism about the war.] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Puerto Rico

I've marked this as ineligible due to extensive close paraphrasing and other issues, but nominator Chidgk1 has requested more time to work on the article. The nomination has been open for over a month already so I'd like a second opinion on whether this can be kept on hold. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Given how the nomination has been up for a month already and the request for more time the nomination should probably be given no more than three days from today for more time was made. If the issues aren't resolved within three days, it should be closed. Normally I would have suggested a week, but a month of being open with severe close paraphrasing issues is already generous; ideally they should have been caught and resolved sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This seems not uncommon on climate change articles, possibly as they are somewhere new enthusiasts can be drawn into Wikipedia, and for which there are programs to try and bring in new editors. I had to do quite a thorough rewrite of Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Kenya, and given the large chunks in this associated with singular sources it may need a similar amount of work. I wouldn't leave it unless they're going to do a lot of work in a very short order. (Hook seems banal to me too, but perhaps that's just my familiarity?) CMD (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

IAR request for Template:Did you know nominations/Kathryn Bryce

This is currently the third-earliest active DYK nom (April 15). The nom had promised to expand Sarah Bryce article for the nom, but this went slow because they had been hospitalized and the stats at ESPNcricinfo mostly went down, causing the expansion to eventually fall short of the five times/one week criterion. I therefore initially considered declining the Sarah Bryce article and gave them the option of a GA nom, but then I later felt inclined to request WP:IAR given the causes behind the stalling and the nom's self-admitted lack of GA nom experience and desire to have both sisters bolded. However, given how long the expansion stalled (a month), I would like to see what others think before I can ask Bahnfrend to do a second QPQ and the entire nom can be taken care of. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, I think it's still possible to have the original hook run, just without Sarah's hook being bolded. The important thing is that Sarah's name is still mentioned in the hook, although I suppose the lack of a DYK credit may be a bit disappointing. A month-long stall regardless of the circumstances is simply too generous and while I understand the circumstances, having to IAR such an expansion when other articles may not get the same treatment seems unfair to other articles. We really want to be as fair as possible and not give special treatments to nominations or nominators. If there is a desire to see Sarah on DYK as a proper DYK article, other editors could always help the nominator bring her article to GA status; it's not like there aren't people here willing to help out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thank you and agree. The nom's definitely running without the bolded Sarah. I'll let Bahnfrend know. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Les Avariés

Queue 4: Les Avariés (nom) @Evrik @Colin M @Theleekycauldron The lede says it was censored for some time in France and later in England. but that needs an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Schminnte could speak to that better than I can, as the source reviewer :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Leeky. @RoySmith: It's in this source here: [4]. I've added an end of sentence citation, so this should now be  Done. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

... that M. Farooqui, who had been expelled from his studies for having organized a strike in 1940, received his Delhi University degree in a special convocation 1989?

Missing "in" before 1989. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK Awards

Humility in all work

First, a shout out to @Theleekycauldron: for her work on developing the {{DYK promoter of the month}}, and on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYK promotions. I was amused to see I had just squeaked onto the bottom of the list. More important, this morning I went through and cleared a backlog of unawarded barnstars. Not everyone is comfortable claiming an award. I just gave out {{The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}} and {{The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}} awards up to the 100 DYK level in the 100 DYK level. I have not tackled any of the missing awards for people with more than 100 DYKs, nor anyone of the list of DYK nominations list. If anyone else has time, maybe you can go through the list and hand out the missing awads? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 3

Michael Huber (writer)

@Kusma, Gerda Arendt, and Edge3: While the article says "Through this translation, Gessner became the best known German-language poet in Europe" I cannot find in the article where it says Gessner was the best-known German poet before Goethe. Did I miss something in the article, or does this need to be added in? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added "before Goethe" (which is in the source). It is more or less implicit if you know when Goethe lived, but it is probably best to state it explicitly. —Kusma (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Kusma, this resolves my concern. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Would "until Goethe" scan better? Until I checked the relevant dates, I wasn't clear if "before Goethe" meant chronologically or some sort of ranking of popular poets. ("until he was surpassed by Goethe" would be even clearer, but a bit wordy.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter Fallon (poet)

@SeoR, TheLonelyPather, and Edge3: The second half of the hook (the info about editing a magazine with works by Lennon and Ginsberg) is not cited in the article, and the source used in the DYK nomination does not seem to be used as an inline citation or a source in the article. I have added a "citation needed" to indicate the location. Please cite this fact in the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - that arose in the process, and I thought it was cited, and it may be covered by the next citation, but as it is required at the end of the relevant sentence anyway, I have added that cite used in DYK. Thanks for catching that, Z1720 SeoR (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@SeoR: I'm looking through the book now on archive.org and I can't find where in the source it says that Lennon and Bowie were published in Capella. Page 7 verifies Henri, and page 12 verifies Ginsberg, and the page numbers should be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I will double-check page numbers, etc., right away - I have photocopies of a range of pages, and of at least some Capella pages themselves, from when I worked on the article. SeoR (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for delay, RL moments. Now, I can't find the Lennon ref. in the book now - I know I had an "aha" moment, but that work was some months back. So I've cited the actual appearance in Capella for now, page 4 of issue 3, but the story of its origin, sent from the Amsterdam "bed-in" is a secondary source item, and I will track it down again. I took out Bowie, as I also need to relocate and add that source, and it's not needed for DYK, so out for now. SeoR (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I promoted the hook to the queue because I figured it would be easy swap Lennon's name with another writer if needed. If I'm not around, another admin can WP:BEBOLD and switch the names. Z1720 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Z1720, a second citation for Lennon, which also references Bowie, is now included. Sorry for the bother, these should have been there already, as I had sight of refs when doing the article and DYK work. SeoR (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Jerry Waller

Queue 2: Killing of Jerry Waller (nom) @Edge3 @Muboshgu @Daniel Case The hook verifies, but we seem to be running a lot of hooks about errant shootings by police. I'm wondering if we're doing too many of those. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the police are the ones doing too many errant shootings. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
That may be true, but if that's the reason we're running so many of these hooks (which I suspect is the case), that's not WP:NPOV. RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Queue 7 and 1 have hooks pertaining to police shootings, so I am not concerned about too many hooks concerning this topic. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we're running these hooks because it represents the work of Wikipedia editors and what's happening in the U.S. in recent years. I think not running these hooks would be a POV violation by omission. I would suggest delaying the posting of this one by a little while if you think that we need to space them out more, but this article was nominated in May and is I imagine one of the older non-promoted hooks we have. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
And, as recent events have demonstrated (ahem), this is not an exclusively American problem.
Also, FWIW, a couple of months ago I got Killing of Nathan Heidelberg, about the accidental killing of an on-duty police officer by a civilian (later acquitted), an incident that also took place in (surprise!) Texas and likewise might not have happened if proper communications had been made, to DYK. So maybe there's some balance there.
There is one other incident from the past 10 years of someone getting acquitted in the U.S. after fatally shooting an on-duty police officer, but as I like to time these articles to the event's anniversary it might be till at least late this year if I create and write it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
How is "too many" determined? —Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2

Bshp

@Launchballer, DigitalIceAge, and Edge3: The about section in the source ( [5]) implies that she was signed onto Island Records before Kissing You was featured on Love Island. I think a different hook is needed. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the hook isn't very interesting? I really don't see how this was meant to be hooky or appealing, at least as currently writing. Like I don't get the point. Is it the Island connection thing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The source states that the song achieved 2 million views and 16K Shazam searches after the Love Island appearance: maybe a hook can be built off that? It helps explain the significance of the Love Island mention. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure Spotify said "copyright bshp" the last time I looked, but it doesn't say that now, and the Internet Archive's attempt at snapshotting it failed. I've reworded the article. ALT7: ... that bshp's cover of Kissing You was streamed over 2,000,000 times after it appeared on Love Island?--Launchballer 08:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Launchballer: ALT7's fact about the number of streams will need to be added to the article text before this can be approved. Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I've found a source for it being over 3,000,000 times. ALT8: ... that bshp's cover of Kissing You was streamed over 3,000,000 times on Spotify after it appeared on Love Island?--Launchballer 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Neither the source nor the article say that the 3 million streams happened after the song's appearance on Love Island, just that the song has received 3 million in total. I suggest using The Ocelot source and stating 2 million, since that source says the 2 million happened after the LI appearance. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Technically, the source doesn't really say that either. It says 2 million as of January 2021. I've updated the article accordingly.--Launchballer 14:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I have changed the hook in DYK Queue 2, per the discussion above, and welcome feedback below. Z1720 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The hook in Queue 2 has an incorrect apostrophe template: {{'s}} should be used after italics; when incorrectly used, as it is here, it adds undesirable extra space. Please replace with {{`s}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Done. —Kusma (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Clown (Mariah Carey song)

@Heartfox, Launchballer, and Edge3: While this fact is cited in the article, there is a note beside this citation mentioning an interview where Carey does not confirm that the song is about Eminem. I don't think the hook should state this as fact in Wikivoice. Perhaps Carey's non-answer should be incorporated into the hook, perhaps as something like below:

ALT1: ... that when asked if her song, "Clown" was about Eminem, she responded "I've known a lot of clowns. I've known a circus full of them"? (this will involve putting the quote in the article"
ALT2: ... that while sources state "Clown" by Mariah Carey is an answer song to "Superman", Carey has not confirmed the connection?

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

ALT2's snappier. Let's go with that.--Launchballer 08:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not that serious y'all. She was obviously being puckish in the interview. This is the same artist that has never said "Obsessed" is about Eminem, when it obviously is. Changing the DYK is implying that the article prose should also be changed to favour Carey's non-confirmation (not a denial) over multiple scholarly sources (I highly disagree with that). At least make the DYK "an answer song to Eminem's "Superman". Heartfox (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: has promoted this to the queue. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2: Clown (Mariah Carey song) (nom) @Edge3 @Heartfox @Launchballer The footnote When asked about the song by USA Today, Carey did not explicitly acknowledge it is about Eminem says to me that this isn't certain. Given this is a WP:BLP, I'm dubious about saying this in wikivoice. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I've merged your below post with this one. My vote remains with ALT2, or perhaps ALT3: ... that sources have described "Clown" by Mariah Carey as an answer song to Eminem's "Superman"? or similar.--Launchballer 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
i am admittedly a bit wary about using alt2 unless there is a recent reliable source stating that carey has still not confirmed the presumed connection, as i think it is possible that she has confirmed it sometime in the two decades since the usa today interview.
i like Launchballer's alt3, but worry if there isn't enough there to hook a potential reader unfamiliar with either song. what if alt3 and alt0 were merged?

alt30: ... that sources have described "Clown" by Mariah Carey as an answer song to Eminem's comments about their relationship in "Superman"?

dying (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
In the article, USA Today prefaces the quote by saying "Carey dryly notes" aka it's not a denial but not an explicit confirmation. There are also three other songwriters; Carey is not the only one allowed to say what a song is about. There are three scholarly sources (Stephens, Alesan Dawkins, Dagbovie-Mullins) which describe the song in relation to Eminem. Carey's non-confirmation should not change that. Heartfox (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Another problem here is that the first two paragraphs of the article are identical to text from http://songstube.net/77312-Mariah%20Carey-Clown.html. I'm guessing they copied from us, but the intertwined history of our article in User:Heartfox/sandbox/Clown makes it hard to trace. I'd appreciate if somebody who's better at copyvio sleuthing took a look at this and confirmed we're OK. @Heartfox: a much better way to do this would be to just start a new draft page in your userspace for each article you write, then move that into mainspace instead of copy-pasting it and re-using a shared sandbox page. That would leave the histories intact and simplify auditing. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Information about the song "Clown" is automatically taken from Wikipedia."--Launchballer 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Jack Critchley

Queue 2: Jack Critchley (nom) @97198 @Peacemaker67 @Onegreatjoke I can find in the source where he was diagnosed with "torticollis", but can't see anyplace it talks about "wry neck". RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: According to Torticollis, wry neck is an alternate name for this condition. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Our own articles are not WP:RS. Putting something in quotes in the hook implies it's a direct quote from a source. This will need to get fixed. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Given we are talking about technical jargon, putting something in quotes in the hook does not necessarily mean it is a direct quote, per MOS:TERM which explicitly states that quotes can be used for technical or other jargon words being used in addition to their grammatical role. In this case, we are introducing the term wry neck in a jargon sense. But perhaps it should be italicised (as I have done here) instead of placed in quotes to avoid confusion with a direct quote from a source? I have now cited a neurology journal in the article for the alternative common name for the condition. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
i think Peacemaker67's suggestion of using italics instead is a good solution. dying (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Antonio Dini

Queue 2: Antonio Dini (nom) @Edge3 @Onegreatjoke @Theleekycauldron the source says he had no memory of the crash, but I don't see anywhere that says it was due to a concussion. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You're gonna want to rope in Seddon as the reviewer of record, i think :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess we can just get rid of the concussion part if it's too big of an issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 1

While working on Prep 1, I changed the hooks on Template:Did you know nominations/Save America and Template:Did you know nominations/David Gerard (author). Would someone please remind me how to document this? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

those should be logged by my bot, but it seems to be having bugs... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Article expansion

How to check how far yet left to expand article five times? DYKcheck only shows after it's already expanded five times. The article is quite long and there is a lot to do for just 7 days. What about unreferenced sentences which been removed due to lack of sources? These sentences still counts for article length and from this point it counts 5 times expansion? From DYK rules, it's 7 days ("within the past seven days"), but DYKcheck counts 10 days ("within the past 10 days"). Eurohunter (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

To check expansion, go to the revision immediately before you began expansion, get the prose count from DYKcheck for that version, multiply by five, and see how close the current version is. Everything from previous versions counts (including unreferenced material), except for clear copyright violations and blatant vandalism. For example, if you're talking about "Boten Anna", even if you were given an exception and allowed for expansion beginning on June 30, the previous version (from April 25) had 4476 prose characters, so an expansion would have to be at least 22,380. This would be virtually impossible for an article about a song. It's currently 7938. Your best option is to get the article to Good Article status, and submit for DYK within a week of that promotion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mandarax: Thanks. Looks quite hard to do but I will add everything I can then eventually nominate it to GA. Eurohunter (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 1

While working on Prep 1, I changed the hooks on Template:Did you know nominations/Save America and Template:Did you know nominations/David Gerard (author). Would someone please remind me how to document this? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

those should be logged by my bot, but it seems to be having bugs... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Article expansion

How to check how far yet left to expand article five times? DYKcheck only shows after it's already expanded five times. The article is quite long and there is a lot to do for just 7 days. What about unreferenced sentences which been removed due to lack of sources? These sentences still counts for article length and from this point it counts 5 times expansion? From DYK rules, it's 7 days ("within the past seven days"), but DYKcheck counts 10 days ("within the past 10 days"). Eurohunter (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

To check expansion, go to the revision immediately before you began expansion, get the prose count from DYKcheck for that version, multiply by five, and see how close the current version is. Everything from previous versions counts (including unreferenced material), except for clear copyright violations and blatant vandalism. For example, if you're talking about "Boten Anna", even if you were given an exception and allowed for expansion beginning on June 30, the previous version (from April 25) had 4476 prose characters, so an expansion would have to be at least 22,380. This would be virtually impossible for an article about a song. It's currently 7938. Your best option is to get the article to Good Article status, and submit for DYK within a week of that promotion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mandarax: Thanks. Looks quite hard to do but I will add everything I can then eventually nominate it to GA. Eurohunter (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoting preps out of order?

We're in the odd situation right now of prep 1 being the only one that's ready to promote to a queue, but 5th in chronological order. Is there any process for promoting a prep area out of order? RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: you can copy/paste swap prep 1 to whichever one is next in line, and just promote that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I am traveling, but just for you I swapped the sets. Bruxton (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
When prep 1 got replaced, my DYK nom for House of Ashes got removed and wasn't put into a new prep area. Just a heads up in case it accidentally got overlooked on the replacement. -- ZooBlazertalk 03:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton thanks. I see we've now got the same problem with preps 2 and 3 being the only complete ones, but blocked from being promoted behind 5, 6, 7, and 1 which are partially filled. @Vaticidalprophet it looks like you worked on 2 and 3. Perhaps you could switch to working on the preps at the head of the order first? RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I was going to come here to talk about it before being pinged. I don't enjoy working on preps that already have hooks in them, and generally this works consecutively, so I was going to ask about whether there was any appetite for either clearly allowing or clearly prohibiting "moving around preps" that way (i.e. building a prep in an empty slot, then swapping the now-full prep and one that's been partially built). More philosophically, there's a bit of a disconnect between the experiences of people who prefer to promote individual hooks and who prefer to build full preps, but that's not a 'solvable problem' per se. Vaticidalprophet 15:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Out of curiosity, why do you skip preps that already have hooks in them? It takes longer to finish a full prep than a partial prep. Edge3 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It takes me much shorter to finish a full prep than a partial-prep-someone-else-made. The factors I consider when prep-building are much more difficult when a prep is already semi-developed; there are existing hooks I wouldn't promote, decisions about which of a multi-hook to promote I think had better alternatives, placements (including image/non-image decisions) I wouldn't make, subject matters represented that restrict my options (e.g. if a soccer hook is in the prep, and there's a soccer hook I think would be a good image or quirky, it can't go there). What I enjoy and find easy about prep-building is sitting down and scripting out how a set should flow and work both in individual parts and as something above the sum of its parts. I think the numbers suggest my strategy works -- I've built a lot of preps and when I check my promotions they tend to have much better pageviews than average -- but it's not everyone's preference in the same sense people differ on whether they prefer making small article improvements or writing FAs from scratch. Vaticidalprophet 02:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I would echo that – Yoninah's guidelines of set construction make picking up where someone else left off quite difficult, though they do ensure a good quality. I've taken to just promoting all of the hooks i verify into a single Long Prep and then distributing that over wherever I need to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I see that your hook now appears in Queue 4. I'm not sure what happened to make your hook disappear in the first place. Does this resolve your concern? Edge3 (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Edge3 Yep, thanks. -- ZooBlazertalk 03:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
(Forgot to ping ZooBlazer) Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we should generally avoid doing that if we can. It is confusing to nominators looking for their hooks. If the top prep set isn't finished, any admin who wants to work on DYK can just help fill the prep instead of promoting something to queue. Or just wait; we are not in immediate danger of running out of filled queues. —Kusma (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
It's good not to let the queues run too thin. If we're doing "just in time" queue filling, there's not a lot of time to discuss problems which come up during the final reviews. RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but we can discuss these problems also while the hooks sit in an incomplete prep set. Ideally we should find the problems before p2q. —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I've just filled Prep 5. Please feel free to promote the set to the queue. BorgQueen (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I swapped all hooks and credits between prep 3 and 6 Bruxton (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Question on Prep 6

Hello, I'm a new user just getting into DYK and wanting to learn. I noticed the top of prep 6 that no more than half of them can be biographical. However, I noticed that hooks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 appear to biographical. Is the half rule a hard and fast rule, or am I misinterpreting something. Thanks for helping me, Heart (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, HeartGlow30797! we go by the bolded article – for hook two, looks like it's a temple. Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I did misread it. Thanks so much. Heart (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

QPQ...

Is there a tool or a script that can figure out an editor's QPQ-status, either to run it on your own contributions or to see if someone else in DYK?-land has fulfilled the QPQ stuff? I just submitted Robert Todd Lincoln for a DYK? but it's been a long time since I've done a GA and I have no idea if I have fulfilled the QPQ parameter. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You want https://betacommand-dev.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/dyk.py RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh thanks. I ran it on myself and got results of 13, but be kind...what in the world do the results actually mean? - Shearonink (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I was afraid you were going to ask that :-( It lists all the DYKs you've done, but to be honest, I'm not sure what the "on behalf of" part means. RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This is just a list of the DYK bot's edits to your talk page, including a link to the diff ("timestamp") and the edit summary ("comment"). It isn't a list of all DYKs you have done (it misses those that are older than the bot and those where the update was done manually because the bot was down). But it is a reasonably good approximation for the number of DYK nominations in the QPQ era. —Kusma (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Omg thank you RoySmith - now I don't feel so stupid! It's been so long since I've submitted anything for a DYK? I cannot remember how to do anything around here, like do I need to add an image to the nom page or does the reviewer to that...
Ok, so, now, like I said, be kind...I've done 13 DYKs so I think that means I need to do a QPQ-DYK? review so Robert Todd Lincoln can proceed... Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I already did - Template:Did you know nominations/Imadaddin Nasimi. Interesting article but I can't verify the hook's source, it's behind a paywall. Shearonink (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The source is on TWL (linked at the nom page). Is there some kind of gadget to rewrite source links to use TWL if possible? (I remember talking about this but don't remember the outcome). —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Gansen-ji

Queue 6: Gansen-ji (nom) The article uses {{convert}}, but the hook doesn't. Is that intentional? RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

75/24 Split

Queue 4: 75/24 Split (nom) @Evrik @Bneu2013 @Theleekycauldron I see where the source says "aims to make the river of cars and trucks flow better and more safely", but I don't see where anything that justifies the "one of the worst bottlenecks for trucks" language in the hook, i.e. why specifically for trucks? RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff could speak to that better than I can, as the source reviewer :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
If you've got a green checkmark next to your name, you get pinged :-) RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Might I request that you ping whoever does the actual source evaluation instead? I'll often do all-but-perfunctory checks, for articles that didn't need to be held up on procedural grounds or reviewers who don't come back to stamp a late QPQ. It's more helpful to ping the person who can speak to the issue at hand – I don't think the green checker should take full responsibility if it's 'per' another prior review (especially because I don't get QPQ credits out of it). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: This interchange is the convergence point for two major north-south freight corridors, and the ATRI studies are based on GPS data from trucks, not all vehicles. The article also cites a study that found that Chattanooga ranks number one in the country for the share of truck traffic destined elsewhere. Largely due to unusually high volumes of truck traffic coupled with rugged geography, Chattanooga has some of the worst traffic of any metro area of its size in the country. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been AFK for a few days. Did I miss something? --evrik (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Betty Clements

Queue 6: Betty Clements (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @Whispyhistory @CeeGee I don't see where the article says she was removed from training. RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggest ALT2 please Whispyhistory (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
If not in ref 1, which I can't access, we could just change it to "that during World War II, pilot Betty Clements flew secret missions associated with the Manhattan Project?" Referenced by ref 1 and ref 6 and interesting enough in itself. There's also the original ALT1. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy I'm confused. You wrote the hook, you must have gotten that fact from somewhere. Where did you find it? It's a great hook, we just need the right citation for it. RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure now, I wrote the hook but not most of the article and now can't access what looks like the primary source. We still have Alt1 and the variant of it I suggested above which is still a good hook because I have never heard of a woman flyer associated with the Manhattan Project missions and I don't suppose anyone else has either. It seems clear she was only selected by mistake. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith:, @Philafrenzy:...The sources are reference 1.(Coon) "Following her training, Clements was assigned a supersecret mission related to the atomic bomb missions. Reportedly, Col.Paul W. Tibbetts Jr. requested a pilot from Washington with specified flying capabilities of a certain age and the ability to keep confidentiality. It was later reported that “[s]omeone in Washington evidently flipped a card file and pulled out G.E. Clements, not looking to see that G.E. was a she.” Clements took orders and reported to Wendover Field in Utah where the officers who greeted her were allegedly amazed when a woman stepped out of the cockpit. At this base, there were difficulties with her gender as there was no housing designated for women, so she stayed in nurses’ quarters. In addition, the requested pilot was supposed to be shipped overseas but due to her status as a WASP, this had to be abandoned".[6]. Reference 6. "Clements then became a member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots program in 1943, where she flew as part of the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb in the United States" [7] Whispyhistory (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm good with that. RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Soundbombing II

Queue 6: Soundbombing II (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @AstonishingTunesAdmirer @Onegreatjoke the cited source doesn't say anything about funding the album. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. That ref was there to prove he was friends with label's founders, as the other one doesn't explicitly mention it. –AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@AstonishingTunesAdmirer looks good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Rank for Francis Slater Rebow

Queue 7: Francis Slater Rebow (nom)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Onegreatjoke, Normsupon, and Kusma: The hook currently reads ... that a misreport led to Francis Slater Rebow being promoted to lieutenant-colonel twice? but I think from reading the article and supplemental information that he was not promoted to "lieutenant-colonel" but to the Life Guards-specific rank of "Major and lieutenant-colonel", as pointed out by Note 1 in the article. Here's a non-Rebow example of the rank being used. The source for the relevant text, Wellington's Brigade Commanders, similarly lists "Major & Lieutenant Colonel" as the rank both in the line-by-line breakdown of ranks obtained at the beginning of his entry in the book as well as in the text itself which discusses the appointment of the rank of "major and lieutenant colonel" as well as the mixup regarding the rank announcement. I wanted to check first because I'm no expert on British military ranks by any means, but would something like ... that a misreport led to Francis Slater Rebow being promoted to the rank of "major and lieutenant-colonel" twice? in quotes be better, since it is an odd rank and is easily confused for two separate ranks? - Aoidh (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Hi, I'll start by saying that your suggested hook doesn't work because he was only ever promoted to major & lieutenant-colonel once. The mix up came about because instead of being recorded as a major & lieutenant-colonel, Rebow was put down as a major alone. Thus, when an opening came he was promoted to brevet lieutenant-colonel. In this alternative timeline he never became a major & lieutenant-colonel, instead holding the two ranks separately. I believe the original hook is more accurate; to the best of my knowledge the rank of major & lieutenant-colonel denotes that the holder was a major within the regiment but a lieutenant-colonel in the army list. Thus in the most technical of senses he was promoted to lieutenant-colonel twice. I realise this isn't the simplest of explanations, and certainly understand if different hooks are suggested..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: In the book there's a note under the listing for "O’Loghlin, Terence O’Bryan" that Major and Lieutenant Colonel was dual rank in the regiment and the army. Unless I'm misreading the source, it says he was appointed major and lieutenant colonel two years into his service in the 2nd Life Guards, which was announced incorrectly on 1 October 1799, and the second "promotion" was via a War Office Memorandum of 25 September 1802 that fixed the error, but both were specifically the Major and Lieutenant Colonel rank, not just lieutenant colonel, unless you're talking about something that I'm not seeing? On the initial list of promotions he was "Major & Lieutenant Colonel", then "Lieutenant Colonel & Colonel" and then Lieutenant Colonel with the 90th foot, so even without the dual ranks there's a lot of lieutenant colonelcy (a word I just learned) going on there so I am admittedly confused and will defer to what you're saying if you're sure, because I am not. - Aoidh (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: I believe you're correct about the nature of the rank, that was me confusing it with Foot Guards ranks. The narrative is such: Promoted to major & lieutenant-colonel on 25 September 1799; incorrectly announced on 1 October 1799 as promotion to major; incorrectly promoted to brevet lieutenant-colonel on 29 April 1802; seniority rectified as major and lieutenant-colonel on 25 September 1802. He was not promoted again on 25 September 1802, the books were just rectified to show his previous promotion. The London Gazette report here lists the change as a memorandum rather than another promotion. I realise that still leaves us with the original quandary of the hook, though! Would something akin to "...that a misreport led to Francis Slater Rebow being recorded in the wrong rank for three years?" work? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That does seem like a more accurate hook and would resolve any concerns about the rank name by sidestepping the issue entirely. I'll wait a bit to see if there's any objection/input before making any changes though. - Aoidh (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I like Pickersgille-Cunliffe's suggestion, and apologise for misunderstanding the issue when promoting the hook. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma: I think its absolutely understandable to have overlooked it with how unusual the situation is with that dual rank. I've changed the hook but did add the word "military" for context on the type of rank. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Two firsts (Prep 3)

Ann Tahincioğlu

  • ... that Ann Tahincioğlu is Turkey's first female car racing driver to have competed in a national racetrack championship?

Here's a Google translation of the Turkish source; I've also run it through DeepL Translate and it's pretty much the same. The relevant passage reads:

Fighting in the 1st leg of the 2022 Turkish Track Championship, Kaçan broke new ground as the first woman to drive in this organization after Ann Tahincioğlu, who competed in the Turkish Track Championship in 1992.

This is not saying that Tahincioğlu was the first to do anything, just that Kaçan was the first since Tahincioğlu. @CeeGee: Is this translation correct? If so, the hook will need revising. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  • ALT1 ... that Ann Tahincioğlu was 49 years of age when she competed in Turkey's first all-women car race, the "Volkswagen Polo Ladies Cup", in 2005? Source: "Her şey Volkswagen’in özellikle gençlere ve kadınlara yönelik sportif ve güvenilir bir otomobil üretmesiyle başladı. Böylece Türkiye’de ilk kez kadınların katılacağı bir otomobil yarışı ortaya çıktı: Polo Ladies Cup.", "İşte aralarında birçok tanıdık isim bulunan 17 kadın pilot. ... ANN TAHİNCİOĞLU (49)" (in Turkish) [8]

Please check. CeeGee 05:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems to check out, but the part about "Turkey's first all-women car race" will need to be added to the article. The year could probably be dropped from the hook to make it punchier. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Egghead & Twinkie

I think we should be clearer that it is the film's creator, Sarah Kambe Holland, who is making this claim. The Slugmag source says "Crowdfunded through TikTok ... the film now credits itself as the first to do so". The Knockturnal source only says "Known as the first feature film to crowdfund on TikTok", but this line contains an embedded link to a TikTok video by Holland, in which she says "As far as I know, there hasn't been a feature-length film that has successfully crowdfunded on TikTok". I suggest rewording the hook to something like "...that Egghead & Twinkie claims to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok?" Pinging nominator Peaceray. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with revising it to ...that Egghead & Twinkie claims to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok? Peaceray (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we technically need an independent reviewer to approve this, but there's plenty of eyes on this page so I'll go ahead and change it myself; if anyone objects, feel free to revert. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2: Shooting of Aderrien Murry (nom)

I'm concerned about featuring this on DYK because this is an ongoing event. An investigation is underway, a lawsuit is in progress, the body camera footage has not yet been released, the officer has not been charged, and there is currently no "official" version of events, only the mother's eyewitness testimony (and she didn't see the actual shooting). The content of the article is likely to change significantly in the coming weeks, and this would seem to be a fail of WP:DYKSG#D7: the article should be complete and not a work in progress. Given the sensitive nature of the subject, and the potential criminal charges against a living person, I think we should be especially wary of putting this on the main page when we still don't know what really happened. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging starship.paint, Mhhossein and Vaticidalprophet. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
These ones are tricky. It's come up a couple times lately that we have a lot of police shooting hooks coming through. DYK always overrepresents subjects by editor interests, but usually these subjects are a little less...contentious. We don't currently have any settled sense that we should treat these hooks differently to others, which may or may not be desirable. I don't have much of a personal opinion on their suitability or unsuitability and will defer to consensus for them as a group; I don't think at this time I can rightfully decide individual ones are more appropriate or inappropriate than others to promote until we have a good sense yet of if we want to run this many of them at all. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you want to freeze this in stasis until more is known, fine, but I sure hope you don’t fail it right there just because of this. But you should establish a standard for what exactly you want known. starship.paint (exalt) 23:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not in favor of freezing it since both the article and the hook are abiding by the reliable sources. It's not a NEWs or so. Which part of the hook can change...? --Mhhossein talk 18:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

Lemon pepper wings

@AllWeKnowOfHeaven, Juxlos, and Vaticidalprophet: The article and the sources say that Williams received this nickname after ordering the wings at a strip club while breaking COVID-19 quarentine restrictions. I could not verify that he recieved the nickname because of his "love of" the food. Should this hook be changed? Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The article and sources agree with the existing hook -- Williams was a regular who eventually saw the kitchen team formalize his order, name it after him, and add it to the establishment’s menu well before he broke the NBA bubble and garnered the club’s chicken wings a new flood of national media attention (cite 4). Vaticidalprophet 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Right now, the Wikipedia article says, "Lou Williams of the Los Angeles Clippers was nicknamed "Lemon Pepper Lou" on social media after it was reported that he visited the Magic City strip club with rapper Jack Harlow during the COVID-19 pandemic, where he ordered lemon pepper wings." This to me does not indicate that he got the nickname from his love of the wings, but from his order when he went to the club. The source quoted above says the establishment named a lemon pepper dish after Williams, but does not mention the "Lemon Pepper Lou" nickname in the source. Can you quote in the Wikipedia article where it says that Williams's love of lemon pepper wings got him the nickname, or can this information be added in with a source? Z1720 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet @Z1720 I agree the hook needs to be reworded. BorgQueen (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I think something like
would be more accurate. —Kusma (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kusma I like it! ^ Lightburst (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@AllWeKnowOfHeaven, Juxlos, and Vaticidalprophet: I have replaced the hook in the queue with Kusma's ALT above, as it better conforms to DYK rules. I am willing to revisit this if another hook is suggested below. Z1720 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks fine. Vaticidalprophet 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a good substitute! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Jeffersonville station

@PlanetJuice, Onegreatjoke, and Vaticidalprophet: The source used to verify that the station closed does not mention that the station was closed in 2003, only that Amtrak ceased its operations to that station. The source also says that "The Transit Authority of River City also uses the station, where it has its headquarters" giving me the impression that the station was not closed down at this time. I'm proposing an ALT below:

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That quoted bit seems to be referring specifically to Union Station (Louisville), not Jeffersonville station, but I still think you're correct that no source explicitly says that the station closed (at least that I've found), just that no trains have served it. I proposed ALT1 on Template:Did you know nominations/Jeffersonville station for that reason, so no objection if you want to switch to either your ALT1 or that ALT1. I will tweak the language in the article a bit in a few hours to eliminate any potential WP:OR issues. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I replaced the hook with ALT1 from the DYK page, and added the word "there" to the hook. Please take a look and indicate any requested changes below. Admin are welcome to make changes that think is best without consulting me. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Quick query about one of my own hooks

I have Marie Sophie Hingst in prep 7 right now and just noticed that the hook is either one of "ungrammatical" or "grammatical, but in a way most people will think is wrong anyway" (... that when the German-Irish historian Marie Sophie Hingst was revealed to be pretending descent from Holocaust survivors, the media of different countries disagreed on how to report on it?). I'd go tweak that, but I wrote the hook, and want to avoid the appearance of impropriety by reworking one of my own hooks in prep, and I was very careful with this one given the sensitivity of the subject. Would changing it to "faking" be fine, both from a 'literally doing that' perspective and from a 'not too blunt/insensitive' one? Vaticidalprophet 23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Schwede66 18:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5: Lil Uzi Vert

I've just promoted this to queue. Earwig flags this up as a straight copyvio, but my impression is that [10] is a copyvio from our article, not the other way around (editing history makes no sense otherwise). Just mentioning this here in case someone wants to check my work and comes to a different conclusion. —Kusma (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Bokura no Kazoku

Queue 7: Bokura no Kazoku (nom) The article says inspiration for Bokura no Kazoku came shortly after development on the first Boku no Natsuyasumi concluded, which coincided with the birth of his first child which isn't really the same as being inspired by the birth of his child. The citation URL should be the more specific https://scroll.vg/extras/summer-vacation-confidential, which does support the hook statement about inspiration, but that needs to be in the article. I'm also a little dubious about whether scroll.vg is a WP:RS, a point which I see was raised in the nomination. @AirshipJungleman29 @Morgan695 @Maury Markowitz

RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I've revised the relevant section of the article to support the hook. And the issue raised in the nomination was not about the reliability of Scroll, but whether this Sony Computer Entertainment source was sufficiently verifiable as an WP:ABOUTSELF source; this is a somewhat moot point now, as the selected hook is not cited to this source. Morgan695 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(Possible) error in the DYK toolbox?

I know I'm an occasional noob around here and don't often understand Wiki-coding but this doesn't seem quite right... I clicked on the bottom link in the toolbox - "Find sources (notability)" - but all that comes up is a template, Template:Find sources. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but it doesn't seem to be an actual tool that reviewers can run... Shearonink (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you clicking on it while in edit mode or through the article history? Because then you're clicking the link to the template instead. I'm not sure why it does that, but it does. Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Lol I can't remember but I am sure that was the issue. For DYK occasionals like me or pure noobs I wonder if maybe a pop-up note could be added that this Template is only activated when the editor who is attempting to use it is in a certain editing situation?... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Glyn Johns article

Hello, I just completed a huge expansion for the Glyn Johns article, and had it reviewed and it made GA. So, I nominated the article for DYK. However, before I was able to properly address the reviewer's concerns, I noticed that it disappeared off of the nomination page, so I re-nominated it (with the same template Template:Did you know nominations/Glyn Johns)--then my re-nomination got reverted. If they put it into the queue schedule, nobody let me know. I they withdrew it, then I was not given a fair chance to correct it. I just want this nomination to have a fair chance. I was wondering if someone could help me. GloryRoad66 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

GloryRoad66, the article is on the 'Approved' page (WP:DYKNA, rather than DYKN) and can be found there. It's automatically moved there when it gets a tick symbol, which the reviewer added in the original review. The reviewer's comments are a little odd combined with an approval -- it seems to me that they were approving it but wanted to see if you could come up with more hooks? (Speaking personally, I'm very strict on hook interestingness but think this one was fine.) There's also the sourcing comment, which...without reviewing the article myself and taking your statement at face value, is usually (in what I've seen) interpreted the way you interpret it. But as it stands, that symbol means they approved the article as "good enough for DYK" and that further comments past that are optional considerations rather than necessary. Vaticidalprophet 01:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Here from my talk, GloryRoad66 :) Vaticidalprophet is correct that your hook has been moved into the 'Approved' column. In the future, it's helpful to make nominations with Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination, since I see you were struggling with formatting. Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know that it had been approved. GloryRoad66 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
On the page Template talk:Did you know/Approved, one down in the sidebar from the nominations page, the approved hooks that haven't been put in queues yet are listed. This one hasn't yet been promoted, but it should pop up on your watchlist with a notification when it is. The promotion message doesn't list what prep it's been placed in (Leek, is there any appetite to make PSHAW do that if it's not too hard? I remember that during the later manual period it was a thing), but you can check those too at Template:Did you know/Queue, listed in the same sidebar. Vaticidalprophet 01:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: I mean, it links to the target prep in the edit summary, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
True! I recalled it being on the nomination itself for a while, though that might be a false memory (will check). PSHAW is great, by the way. Vaticidalprophet 01:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Quick question

Is queerbaiting and, by extension, any sort of baiting based on such implicit characteristics explicitly disallowed, generally discouraged, or okay? I ask this because I noticed that a previous DYK was changed on this basis. Thank you in advance, Cessaune [talk] 16:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Misleading hooks are generally frowned upon, with some exceptions for the final ("quirky") hook and, of course, April Fools' Day. The extent to which the quirky hook is allowed to be misleading is up to continuous debate. —Kusma (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I hope my Wrinkle the duck ALT1 isn't considered queerbaiting. RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 5. We have a total of 252 nominations, of which 125 have been approved, a gap of 127 nominations that has decreased by 17 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, 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) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I add an image to an (already) Approved DYK?

Yay Robert Todd Lincoln made it to a GA and I nom'ed it for DYK and that was approved -> Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Robert Todd Lincoln. So now I am thinking I should have included any one of these images of him from the article in the DYK Nom...like:

  • circa 1865
    circa 1865
  • as an adult, circa 1870-1880
    as an adult, circa 1870-1880
  • 1888 "Presidential Possibilities" tobacco card
    1888 "Presidential Possibilities" tobacco card
  • Taken in 1915 by Harris & Ewing
    Taken in 1915 by Harris & Ewing

but is it just too late? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

you can if you'd like (use {{main page image/DYK}}), but you'll want to ping your reviewer to have someone do the normal checks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I admit to being a little puzzled - 3 of the images are on Wikimedia Commons, and are PD from the Library of Congress without any known restrictions. The tobacco card one is held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and was donated to Commons with a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. What additional/normal checks would now need to be done - is it just that another editor has to approve their use? Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
freely licensed, used in the article, clear at 100px, suitable for the Main Page – that does need to be certified by another editor as normal. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron - The original DYK Reviewer passed/approved the images I added to the DYK Nom. I'd appreciate it if you could look in on the Template and make sure we did everything right. I am sorry to bother you about this again but I don't do all that many DYKs so when I do one I tend to stumble through it all a little bit. Thank, Shearonink (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm an occasional noob at all this but finally figured out how/where to add the image and have asked the DYK Reviewer to review it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's another question. Let's say that Hook1 isn't approved but that the consensus is for Hook2. This image to the right is a photograph in the article that matches up better with Hook2 (the photo of RTL as an older man, taken by the Harris & Ewing studio, ca. 1905-1920s. Is there any way to have two (or multiple/more than one) submitted images in a DYK, each image to be used with a particular Hook? It doesn't seem so from looking at the Template but I thought the folks on this page would know what is possible. Or what is Not. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
It is (I did so at Template:Did you know nominations/Prehistoric religion), by way of copying the same template used to insert a single image and changing the image/caption in it for each desired one. Vaticidalprophet 15:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Vaticidalprophet! Exactly what I needed to know. Done! Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please promote some nominations to prep sets

Template talk:Did you know/Approved has breached the post-expand include size limit and has stopped transcluding all nominations. We need volunteers to help build prep sets so the approved nominations don't clog up that page. We can't move to 2 sets per day (our usual fix) without sufficient prep building throughput. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7 is ready to roll. BorgQueen (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma BorgQueen (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen, I helped build that prep so I would like to avoid doing p2q for it unless there is an emergency. —Kusma (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, and 5 are all done now as well. Some open spots have been left in 4, and 6 is still all empty as usual. Vaticidalprophet 17:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems admins are the weak link again right now ... unfortunately I've been involved in the next prep up for promotion to queue (P3), but once that is out of the way, I am happy to work on the following one(s). —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Benedict Thompson

There are two things wrong with the hook currently in Prep 5. Thompson didn't actually sing on This Time Around, taking Respect the Cock out of scope of the article, and most sources refer to him as Tony Thompson, not Anthony Benedict Thompson. (He's at that title due to Tony Thompson and Tony Thompson (singer) both being taken.) I only found out after spotting a claim in a YouTube comment, prompting me to pull out the liner notes. No-one has said ALT7 is not interesting, so let's start by adapting that: ALT9 ... that the Benz and Phats & Small singer Tony Thompson is an ex-cage fighter? Launchballer 21:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I did like that one – it seems like the proper article title would be to disambuguate the two to Tony Thompson (American singer) and Tony Thompson (British singer). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This seems fine -- I was basically 50/50 between ALT7 and ALT8 anyway. Is it possible we could get a year of birth for this Tony Thompson? Birth year disambigs are preferred, but if reasonable source-diving turns up blank we can use the American/British one. (Generally per WP:NCPDAB you'd go genre before birth year before technically-deprecated nationality, but they're the same genre too.) Vaticidalprophet 23:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I think if it was available, I'd have used it. His bandmate Ben Ofoedu seems to have been born in 1972 (though I can't find a satisfactory source to that effect); I shouldn't think Thompson be that far off. But I do stand by putting it at "Anthony Benedict Thompson", per WP:NATURAL.--Launchballer 00:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Name disambiguation is weird -- I linked WP:NCPDAB, the guideline on it. We don't generally disambig by uncommon-full-names, except when they're fairly common in sources (e.g. George W. Bush vs George H. W. Bush). It feels intuitively sensible that NATURAL would apply, but it doesn't. You run down preferences generally as:
  • Most overall-compliant version of what the sources do (e.g. the Bushes)
  • Career ("footballer" vs "martial artist")
  • More specific field ("Australian rules footballer" vs "rugby player")
  • Birth year ("Australian rules footballer, born 1985" vs "Australian rules footballer, born 1999")
  • Birth month and year ("Australian rules footballer, born January 1999" vs "Australian rules footballer, born October 1999")
As you can...see from the last examples, this can get long sometimes, but fortunately I don't personally remember closing a move I had to do as long as those. (I have closed quite a few disambig-by-month-and-year. I haven't found a day one yet.) Nationality is not formally supported, I imagine to avoid the kind of shenanigans you see at WP:LAME, and also because as extrapolated from those examples it can get strange consequences like "American Australian rules footballer". (Or "Australian Australian rules footballer", for that matter.) It's conceivably a least-bad in some cases, though. Vaticidalprophet 00:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of updating the prep area myself (I put former rather than ex-, just because someone made an identical alteration to my Rebecca Jane hook). And with nationality deprecated (and rightly so, in my opinion), and with Benedict coming up in Benz sources (of the three, one says "my middle name is Benedict" but does not state Anthony, Tony, or Thompson, one says "Anthony Benedict Thompson", and the other gives nothing but numbers), I think the current name is the least-bad. You are entirely welcome to put this through WP:RM but I'm pretty sure that doing it before it runs at DYK would mean it would have to be pulled, so please wait.--Launchballer 07:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Early update

Is there some reason why the bot performed the update an hour and a half early? Pinging Shubinator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is, Mandarax. MSGJ changed User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200, and DYK from 24-hour to 12-hour updates at 22:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC), triggering the bot into an immediate update since it had been over 12 hours since the last update. That's one reason why we always wait until after an 00:00 update by the bot to make all changes to the time between updates. Perhaps we might want to wait a bit to do the formal switchover to two a day, since we're already back down to nine filled sets (ten minimum required). Pinging @DYK admins: for their thoughts. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree to waiting until later for the two-a-day switchover. As for the premature switchover, I did a premature switch-over hours early, once long ago, and also triggered a premature queue rotation. Embarrassing, but I learned from it. — Maile (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw the early update and considered reverting it but was not aware that the bot would swing into action immediately. Had I known this, I might have been able to stop this. Sorry. Schwede66 04:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Please help avoid further recurrence of unexpected early updates by clarifying what I wrote at Template:Editnotices/Page/User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kusma, I don't think we want any updates while DYKUpdateBot is running, so I usually tell admins to not make the change until a few minutes after midnight; checking the bot's history, it takes three to four minutes for it to finish. I'd suggest the following revision: "Please only update this between shortly after midnight (00:05) and shortly before noon (11:58) UTC." I think 00:05 is enough time at the one end, and we don't want people editing right at noon when the bot might be starting in a two-a-day situation; it could be 11:59, I suppose, but 11:58 feels safer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, I have put that into the non-warning text, but I have left the conditional warning text unchanged. Thank you for your suggestion! —Kusma (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Save America Nomination

I expressed my opinion that the hooks in this Nomination are a violation of WP:DYKNOT DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches and WP:DYKHOOK (not neutral) because Donald Trump is a declared candidate in the 2024 United States presidential election - it was promoted over my objection. Pinging promotor @Evrik:.

I am not seeing much neutrality in the article either WP:DYKCRIT#4d. Bruxton (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The more immediately actionable problem would be that evrik substantially modified the hook on promotion – facts can't be added to a hook without going through some kind of review-and-stamp process, and it looks like the modified hook uses scare quotes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I will depromote the hook and hope we can find another. Bruxton (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I added no facts to the hook, and in fact, tried to make it more neutral. --evrik (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Evrik's hook doesn't require separate approval because it's an improvement upon a previous hook. Edge3 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
oh I'm silly, I didn't see that "fashion strategist" is at the bottom of ALT1. my bad, evrik! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKNOT talks about promoting ... political causes. This is more bashing than promoting, but the spirit of the rule covers both and I agree that we should steer clear of this hook. RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m tapping out on this discussion. I’ve already replaced the hook in the set. I suggest this discussion be moved to the nomination page.--evrik (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Ping @Schwede66 Valereee (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
See my 3 July comment on the nomination form. Schwede66 14:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck

Could anyone add screenshot where it is located? Eurohunter (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's wherever the tools list is on your screen, which can be different based on user settings (a screenshot may not be helpful). Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

For me, it's on the left hand side of the screen.

tools
  • What links here
  • Related changes
  • Special pages
  • Permanent link
  • Page information
  • Cite this page
  • Wikidata item
  • Expand citations
  • Page size
  • DYK check

--evrik (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It does also depends which skin you're using. It's on the LHS on Timeless, Vector 2010 and Monobook skins, but it looks to be on the RHS in Vector 2022 skin, and on Minerva Neue skin, it's on a menu from the "more..." section. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
If you still can't find it, try using the "Find" function in your browser to search for "dyk check" on the page. RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
You also have to be on an article -- that is, it doesn't show up in any other spaces, so if you're looking for it while here at WT:DYK, you won't see it. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

DYKROTATE

criteria reached, iirc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Almost, 120 approved articles and almost ten full preps and queues. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 is one nomination short. TSventon (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
We always switch during the UTC morning, so if Prep 4 and another one get filled by midnight while keeping above 120 approved noms, we should switch to 2/day between midnight and noon UTC tomorrow. Or at the first midnight when the criteria are satisfied. —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
We are sitting at 120 approved nominations and 10 filled queues and preps, which meets the criteria. If nothing changes by UTC midnight, this will drop to 9 filled queues and preps due to the promotion to the main page, meaning that the criteria will no longer be met. Just saying. Schwede66 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Request

Per WP:DYKROTATE, with 10 queues full and 122 approved hooks, I think we are supposed to go to 2/day TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

see above thread – not quite there yet :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger and MSGJ: the above thread spelled out why that wasn't supposed to happen yet – changes to that page should only happen between midnight and noon UTC, not in the latter half of the day. Changing it at 22:34 UTC triggered an update at the wrong time, as the bot then thought it was overdue for the noon update in that day. And we weren't ready yet because once midnight hit, we would once again drop below 10 queues. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I did read the thread above but it was not spelled out clearly. It looked to me like there was general agreement that the criteria was met — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Annoying request

Hi, I've been trying to do what I can to cut back on the backlog of unapproved DYK noms this last week in hopes that someone might get to my recent nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish Prayer Book (1637), before the date I hoped it might run on passed. The hook has to do with an event which occurred on 23 July 1637, so I would really appreciate anyone who has a spare moment seeing if there's a chance it could run on that anniversary. I know that's annoying, but it would mean the world. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The nomination has been reviewed, and I have conducted the additional review for promotion. I intend to promote to a prep for July 23. Edge3 (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I moved the approved nom to the holding area.--evrik (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

KANG-TV

Queue 7: KANG-TV (nom) I find this hook befuddling, even for the quirky slot. What do other people think? @AirshipJungleman29 @Sammi Brie @Onegreatjoke RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe it was a nice reference to Kang the Conqueror, RoySmith, which quite a few people will understand due to recent appearances in mass media. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll let other people chime in, but to me, I think we're out of quirk territory and into easter egg land. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Isaac Newton's apple tree

Prep 6: Isaac Newton's apple tree (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @FuzzyMagma @Krisgabwoosh How would folks feel about holding this for next March 14? You know, Pi Day. As in Apple pie. RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch for that hook to run on pi day, because the hook does not mention pies or circles. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
agree. but nice idea tbh, I will keep that in mind if I made any new article that is pi or circle related. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
oh, but I would so love it as a general thing if we started adding Pi Day to the list of holidays DYK celebrates (along with the big three that are Christmas, International Women's Day, and April Fools' Day). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, moot at this point since I just used the hook to replace a pulled hook in the next queue. RoySmith (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd agree that this article is somewhat of a stretch, although having something for Pi Day isn't a half bad concept. Side note: I'm reminded that one of my former math teachers once promised to bring a pie for Pi Day and never delivered—I will forever hold this against her in my mind. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
That's sad. Lying about cake I can understand. But lying about pie is just reprehensible. A previous employer of mine had in-house cafeterias. Every pi day was celebrated with free pie for all employees. RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
i was in a chem class where the professor had a rule: "if you're late, at least bring donuts". It paid off once, during a four-hour lab – absolutely fantastic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh: That's awful! Consider reaching out to your former teacher to tell her this story. She might feel bad and give you a pie. ;-) Edge3 (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 4 image quality

File:Glyn Johns, 1978 (cropped).png

Glyn Johns (nomination) is currently in the image slot for Prep 4. The reviewer (RAJIVVASUDEV) rejected the image for having low resolution, but the promoter (Vaticidalprophet) disagreed and approved the image.

I agree with the initial decision to reject the image due to its low resolution. I raised the same concerns at the nom's talk page, and welcome more input from other editors. Also pinging nominator GloryRoad66 for awareness. Edge3 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I repeat my opinions on that page:
Sure. The image is in line with many other images that have run suitably in the image slot and received high views, such as Kid Canfield (~30k views), Teraura (~17k views), and John Rolph (politician) (~17k views). The Canfield comparison is most prominent, IMO -- high-quality hooks strongly benefit from image slot placements even when the image itself isn't 'perfect'. From my experience with bio-lead sets in particular, this image is in a fairly typical range for them and can be expected to benefit from the substantial image slot boost independent of 'being on the more low-res end of image hooks'.
[...] I don't really agree that there's a marked difference between the Canfield and Johns photos. Of course, these things are subjective, but I actually have a noticeably harder time making out much in the Canfield photo. I'm inclined to think that they inhabit the same sphere of acceptability.
Canfield image added (right on my screen, no guarantees about anyone else's) for comparison. Vaticidalprophet 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
It's an extremely poor-quality image, but more importantly, it also has an invalid license: it's from Billboard, and it's claimed that this major publication had no copyright notice, but the source, on page 10, in their infobox, says "© Copyright 1978 by Billboard Publications, Inc." I'm going to nominate it for deletion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah! I was hoping that we could continue the conversation at the nomination's talk page, where I had originally posted my concerns. But if you want to have the discussion here, that's fine too.
The instructions at the nom page, where it says "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page", are ambiguous because they don't tell you how to identify "the appropriate discussion page". Edge3 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I found a higher-quality, legitimately public domain publicity still on eBay, see right. Crop could probably stand to be tightened for DYK purposes, but I think it looks alright. DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Nice work! Thanks so much for finding the image. Edge3 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
No prob! DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, DigitalIceAge, for your help in concluding the issue. RV (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Awesome! I swapped out the image in the prep set a few hours ago, made a note to announce it here before I left for work, and...promptly left, forgetting the interim step. Whoops. Anyway, announcing here now that it's resolved. Prep should be fine to promote to queue now (it and the two before it are all complete, and we've only two queues at the moment). Vaticidalprophet 03:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. GloryRoad66 (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3 query: Preußisches Obertribunal (nom)

Looking through the sources, I am slightly confused whether the case was in 1858 or in 1859 (as I have added to the article, please double check that). Would it be better to play it safe and go for

  • ... that few decisions have instigated more discussion in German criminal law scholarship than an 1850s judgement of the Preußisches Obertribunal?

Pinging nom WatkynBassett, reviewer Onegreatjoke, promoter AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I thanks for reaching out. The case was decided on 5 May 1859 (see the judgment in the official case reporter). So I think the hook can remain as it was when amended by the promoter. WatkynBassett (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It is an 1859 judgment about a murder that happened in 1858, which explains why I saw that date in a different source. We can keep "1859 judgment" then. Thanks all! —Kusma (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Dolly Johnson

Queue 2: Dolly Johnson (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Jengod @Firefangledfeathers There's a trend in contemporary journalism to use "was an enslaved person" instead of "was a slave". I don't know what our style is on these things, but bringing it up here for discussion. RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  • While I appreciate what I presume is the argument that slavery was something done to them, I don't think that there is harm or inaccuracy in calling historic people slaves. Should probably be noted that the hook currently in queue is ... that Dolly Johnson (pictured), who had once been a slave of 17th U.S. president Andrew Johnson, opened her own bakery business in 1881? and if a change is required it should probably be to "...had been enslaved by 17th U.S. president..." (not "an enslaved person of 17th U.S. president"). Kingsif (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Personally, I don't particularly see the need to mince words, seeing how pathetic this discussion must seem to the millions who still live as "slaves"/"enslaved people" around the world today, but naturally if consensus says that "was a slave" is inferior/more degrading than "was an enslaved person" (as with owner vs. enslaver from the nom) I have no problem with it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I generally prefer "enslaved person" but I don't think it works in this hook. We end up with "who had once been an enslaved person of 17th U.S. president Andrew Johnson", which reads too clunky to me. "was once enslaved by" sidestepped the issue well, but it brought its own potential confusion as you can see in the nom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia has ever had a house style in that area, so MOS:VAR applies. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nina Tonga

Queue 2: Nina Tonga (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Pakoire @Soman The source (https://www.thecoconet.tv/coco-talanoa/humans-of-the-islands/women-of-the-islands-ane-tonga/) says "first Pacific person", but the article and hook turned that into " first Pasifika person". It's not clear to me that the two terms are interchangeable. RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Are they not in NZ (see Pacific Islander i.e. excluding the Maori)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, yes thanks for commenting. Pasifika is often used for Pacific Islander in New Zealand (this is in the Pacific Islander article), so could an option be to use the word Pasifika but link it to the Pacific Islander article? Pasifika is the preferred term as a reclaiming of the colonial term Pacific and is common in New Zealand English. Pakoire (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the hook in the queue as suggested. I think we're good now. RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Retiring the Learning DYK system

See also: Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK

Pretty much all of the information contained therein is woefully out of date – Unless there's strong objection, I'm redirecting anything that purports to contain guidelines where we actually keep our guidelines and standard practices, at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. It's a good idea, and we may want to bring it back at some point, but right now it's pretty confusing for anyone who happens to stumble upon it (we don't market it too heavily). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I wasn't even aware we even had a Learning DYK system, and I've been here for several years already. Was it ever actually advertised somewhere? Had it been properly implemented it might have been a good idea especially for newbie DYK contributors, but I think many weren't even aware of its existence. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • It looks like Art LaPella created it and maintained it at least through 2009. Art is still active, so I'm pinging him here in case he would like to provide input. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    The reason my ears perked up over this is because my other time sink area of interest is WP:SPI, which has a similarly sprawling and complex set of rules, and is also perpetually in need of new victims participating admins. The other day I entreated more admins to get involved, which resulted in a few "I'm willing, but can't figure out where to start" type comments. Wiki tends to build complex processes, and the documentation for most of them tend to get more and more detailed over time, which makes them less and less approachable for new folks. There's a need for ELIF-level introductions. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    What's now called Learning DYK was supposed to be one, and only one, place for DYK rules. But I couldn't convince people to revamp things my way, and now we have three places instead of one. That'll teach me to try to explain and simplify things at Wikipedia. Some of my ideas were later adopted one at a time, but leekycauldron is right, all it does now is confuse people. There should be one place for rules. And there should be a lot fewer, more predictable rules, not whims after someone devotes weeks to writing something. But don't ask me to lead the parade again. Art LaPella (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    I just found "Reviewing Instructions" and "Admin Instructions", so make that five places, not just three. There should be one place, clearly segmented by role (proofreader, author, nominator, reviewer, admin), so each level of participation doesn't keep getting confused by a labyrinth they're nowhere near ready for. Art LaPella (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    six – promoters have their instructions here. I would very much like to restructure DYK's architecture – I'm thinking one page for the guidelines and one page for How To Do Things. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    Agree. A rationalisation would be beneficial. Schwede66 20:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    Good luck. Others have tried. Art LaPella (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Point 1-A of WP:DYKCRIT mentions that an article is eligible for DYK if it has been promoted to Good Article within the last seven days, but it doesn't mention anything about Featured Lists. The most recent discussion I could find regarding Featured Lists promoted in the past seven days was ~6 and a half years ago. Has there been a more recent discussion or is this still the status quo? Just looking for a bit of clarification since I'm unfamiliar with DYK. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's still the status quo that FLs aren't automatically eligible. I would imagine that it's for a few reasons:
  1. A lot of new FLs actually qualify as fivefold expansions on the prose, just because they don't often start with a lot of it.
  2. FLs still aren't as likely to have great hooks, because, well, they're lists. They're not reeally conducive to surprising things.
  3. There's already a section for them on the Main Page, at TFL.
Despite all that, I do think it's worth looking at – maybe new FLs should be able to choose DYK or TFL, but not both. DYK gets so many more views on average, per bolded article, than TFL does, that we may want to make it a more accessible path. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly acceptable for an FL to run both DYK and TFL if it's acceptable for them to run DYK at all. TFL is currently problematized by the fact it only runs twice a week, but this should be high-priority to fix (as it stands, if it ran daily it would still take almost a decade to get through every unrun FL without promoting a single one in that timeframe). I might sidestep explicitly encouraging FLs until at least the TFL marginalia issue is resolved, but as noted they're basically all 5x expansions, and I'm happy to look the other way on the occasional 'sorry, forgot to nominate the expansion until post-FLC'. Vaticidalprophet 01:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

"... that Brison Manor, who played eight years in the National Football League, had never set foot outside of his home state before attending college?" Does anyone else find this insufficiently interesting? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral on it, but it might be more interesting if it said the state was New Jersey. Kingsif (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
As the reviewer, I did find it interesting at an American never left their home state even once for that long in their life, but I will leave it to consensus to decide and I will not oppose a new hook or a pull. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I am with @Narutolovehinata5:. I think it is interesting enough. Bruxton (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not a clear fail, especially if we specify that it's New Jersey and not, like, Alaska. I don't love it, but it is what it is sometimes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree it's not clearly uninteresting, a National league for someone who didn't see much of the nation. Agree we could add New Jersey if possible, for those familiar with the geography it makes it a bit more surprising (and then he played for a New York team!). CMD (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for an upcoming election

The article for Luisa González, a presidential candidate in next month's 2023 Ecuadorian general election, is currently featured on DYK. Isn't there a rule against featuring contemporary politicians that are up for election? If there isn't, there really should be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah, it's within 30 or 60 days, I forget which. Let's stick it in a holding area until late August? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The rule is 30 days (WP:DYKHOOK), and we are more than 30 days away from the election. Edge3 (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Having it show up 32 days before the election really feels like an issue of following the letter of a rule while sidestepping the spirit. Of course, I'm of the opinion that DYK has really been dropping the ball on filtering out contentious/POV content in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we should filter out POV content, but we should not shy away from featuring contentious topics, ideally showing off that we can treat them neutrally. —Kusma (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it would've been fine if it didn't mention the election, alas, that's what the hook is. It might need some minor rewording if we hold it until after, but it shouldn't be an issue coming up with that in the timeframe. Kingsif (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5: Ma Pyit-Nwe (nom)

Promoted this to queue last night before going to sleep, but now I have second thoughts. Everything about the person (not about general Burmese history) and the hook fact rely solely on either the 1560 Razadarit Ayedawbon or possibly on the editorial material for the 2005 edition. I can't check, and I can't read Burmese. Even worse, searching for "မပစ်နွဲ" on Google gives me essentially only this Wikipedia article, so I am having WP:V concerns. I'm inclined to pull this again unless there are better sources, but feel bad about both FUTON and Western bias. Any good suggestions for a replacement? Pinging nom Hybernator, reviewer Juxlos, prep builder theleekycauldron. —Kusma (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

One problem with the material is that some of it reads a bit like legend presented as fact (look at the "Aftermath" section). I would really like to be sure this is presented as fact also by modern sources, no matter what language they are in. —Kusma (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The author cited Nai Pan-Hla is established on the topic of medieval Burmese warfare ([11]), and seemed to have covered the specific war in question. I looked up the Razadarit Ayedawbon's Burmese name (ရာဇာဓိရာဇ် အရေးတော်ပုံ) online, and found a PDF, and with the help of Google Translate's camera feature, I verified that the specific hook fact is, at least, mentioned in the chronicle.
With a single event happening 650 years ago in the Burmese interior, I would say a translation of the chronicle is as good as it gets. Since the chronicle was written nearly 200 years after the event anyway, it would be little different than modern scholars citing Tacitus regarding the Roman Republic. Maybe attribution would suffice?
  • ALT1: ... that according to the Burmese Razadarit Ayedawbon chronicle, Commander Pyit-Nwe of Myaungmya refused to join the royal service after being defeated in battle, and instead asked to be executed?
Juxlos (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Juxlos! I had similar comparisons to Roman history in mind when I wondered about the bias I might be introducing by rejecting this. I am happy to use this with attribution. —Kusma (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing credit ...

Queue 1 is missing a credit: * {{DYKmake|Reason (software)|Launchballer|subpage=Goddard.}}. However, Pbritti, on the nomination page, you reviewed the first article, listing how various criteria had been met, but when the second article was then added, you responded with a tick and no mention of anything specific about the second article, so it's not clear if you did a thorough review of that article. Note that Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide suggests: "After posting the icon, indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've added the credit, but I am not fully convinced this should be a bold link/eligible for DYK credit. We have covered this software for a very long time, sometimes as a standalone article, sometimes in Reason Studios. Is this new attempt an eligible new article? —Kusma (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I should have elaborated at the time, my apologies. My understanding is that articles which are deleted/merged but later recreated in accordance with policy are eligible for DYK as new creations. If this is not the case, my apologies for that as well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma: honestly, one of the holes in our policies is that while splits are ineligible, ground-up rewrites of splits are eligible – as long as nobody sees the in-between step. I can't see that more than a fifth of the text in the new article is unoriginal, so new we consider it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so I've created a new list of all 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 13. We have a total of 220 nominations, of which 113 have been approved, a gap of 107 nominations that has decreased by 20 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, 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) 03:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we go back to one-a-day?

I know we just switched to two-a-day, but we're already below the WP:DYKROTATE threshold for going back to one-a-day (i.e. only 5 filled queues/preps). If we don't have the capacity, it's pointless to try and crank out hooks at double speed. I'll go promote a prep to queue, but that's not going to change the total. RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should go back to one-a-day after 12 pm UTC, unless Prep 6 and Prep 7 are filled by then. The short duration of two-a-day is partly because the previous switch was done early. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm slightly biased, because the next four all contain hooks of mine. But really - just filling all the preps and queues would take out about half of the approved noms. I might give it a go myself later.
On the substantive point, how wedded are we to there being eight hooks - certainly on my monitor, there's nearly always a gap between "Archive • Start a new article • Nominate an article" and "From today's featured list". We could probably squeeze one more hook in.--Launchballer 14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we could squeeze in one more hook some days, but that's not going to make a significant difference. Also, how much room we appear to have is very dependent on per-user details like what font they're using, how wide their window is, etc. Just playing around with the main page right now, as I drag my browser window to different widths, sometimes I have enough room for another hook, sometimes I don't. I've even got a range of window widths where I go from no room for any more hooks, to room for one more, to room for two more, all in about 100 px width change.
It's got to do with how the lines fold and reflow in all of the major sections. If we really wanted to consider running more hooks, I certainly wouldn't do so without including the folks who actually understand how the main page CSS works. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There have been a maximum of two or three queue slots used since the switch. Perhaps we could try using four or more to free up space for prep-building? See Kusma above—preps to queues is the weak link in the system. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
We're not yet below the threshold under WP:DYKROTATE, which requires "fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets". Right now, I count 7 filled queues/preps and far more than 60 approved nominations. Edge3 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
We were below at the time I started this thread. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem until the end of the month. We can revaluate then. --evrik (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We only had nine different admins promote preps to queue this year, and only six in the last five months. This is a bit unhealthy. —Kusma (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
We should imo go back to one-a-day soon, given how...sparse...the approved section is starting to feel from a prepbuilder POV. (This is a more subjective impression than the 60/120 thresholds.) I note DYKN proper is also feeling very sparse -- finding nominations for QPQs feels much harder than I'm used to. It would be nice for queues to not be so backlogged, though this is a longstanding problem. I am and have been for a long time of the opinion we should have way more prep sets. Vaticidalprophet 02:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, what do you mean by sparse, is it a lack of topics you are interested in or do you think there is something wrong with the nominations? TSventon (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
We are consistently flirting with queue exhaustion. At the moment, we've got one queue filled. This is untenable. We've already gone through a couple of cycles of raising the alarm followed by a flurry of promotions to get us back under the wire. That's not sustainable, and to be honest, I suspect the level of scrutiny applied in those fire-fighting sessions is less than optimum.
Based on Kusma's answer to my question below, I'll hold off doing anything now, but I'll take another look tonight. If we still don't have a reasonable number of queues filled, my plan is to do a WP:IAR switch back to 1-per-day, even if we don't strictly meet the requirements of WP:DYKROTATE. RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm fairly busy IRL today, but I will look at the preps in a few hours (before midnight UTC) and will try to fill some queues. —Kusma (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
We are now down to one queue and five preps, so more queues are needed. TSventon (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I've changed to 1-per-day. Special:Diff/1166351089 RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
With the frequency change, I have just moved the Scottish hook to Prep 2 since it is supposed to run on July 23, and swapped the entire Prep 1 set, for July 25, with Prep 4 so it will run on that date. Edge3, I am puzzled as to why you have just placed a hook from the special occasion section for July 25 into the lead of Prep 7, since that won't hit the main page until July 28. Are we limiting the special occasion entries for July 25 to four, and letting the rest run on other days? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset Thank you for cleaning that part up for me. RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Evrik: There were some really good images proposed for the July 25 set, including the lighthouse image. Since only one image can be run at a time, I promoted Way of the Lighthouses to a different prep, even though it won't run on the requested date.
Even if we included the lighthouses, we don't have a full set ready for July 25. Only 7 hooks have been approved in time for this set, 5 of which are currently in Prep 4. Aside from the lighthouses, the last remaining hook is Coat of arms of Santiago de Compostela, which I need to hold for further review before I can promote. Edge3 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, {{Did you know nominations/Elene Lete}} is one I wrote for the women's soccer effort. She's a Spaniard. She would fit into the set.

Right, @Kingsif:? --evrik (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry—stretching to "Spaniard" from "Santiago de Compostela" is really not on. Let's get some variety where we can. Also, if we're not going to run the lighthouses on the day, then we should be giving things a rest and promoting it in the normal course of things, not for a close-by day. There was a massive exception given for this set, and all this strikes me as going far beyond what was allowed as a once-off. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: About the Lete piece, if the soccer effort is going on, and I'm not sure if its happening, it would make sense.I was just putting out suggestions. --evrik (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Process question

WP:DYKAI#Changing from 1-a-day to 2-a-day and vice versa requires that the change be done After 00:00 UTC but before 12:00 UTC. Is that actually necessary in the 2 -> 1 direction? I understand that when we did the most recent 1 -> 2 switch, it was done outside that window, which caused an early promotion. Could somebody walk me through the details of what went wrong there? RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It is good practice also in the 2->1 direction. If we switch to 24 hours after 12:00, the bot will always update at 12:00 UTC instead of at 0:00 UTC, which makes all kinds of date requests rather messy.
In the 1->2 case, if the switch is done after 12:00 UTC, the bot will notice that more than 12 hours have passed since the last update and perform an immediate update, as seen last time. —Kusma (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Prep 6: Etika (nom)

Hey, so for the hook, I posted several fact ideas for Etika along with a poll to decide per consensus the best hook to use for DYK. However, it seems that the mural fact was already added to the prep. While I do like that fact for its strong sentimental value, I actually intended for other editors* to vote on it as well, and if it wasn't allowed I would've gone with ALT1 or 2 (preferably ALT2). Admittedly there were a lot less votes than I expected, but so far on the poll the two most voted options just so happen to be ALT1 and 2. So, I wanted to ask how long would it take for the prep to go on the front page, and if we could get more votes on the poll as well. At this point, I personally wouldn't mind delaying it for a couple more days so long as it's still guaranteed to be on DYK.

Also out of curiosity, how are the hooks with an image chosen? What's the priority for choosing an article for the image hook slot? I tried to find it in the rules but couldn't find a clear answer yet. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

ping AirshipJungleman29 as promoter -- I did the GAN so consider myself involved wrt DYK for this article, so won't comment from a suggestion-perspective Vaticidalprophet 09:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi PantheonRadiance, I did see the poll before promotion, and although as a gamer myself I did like ALT1/2, I didn't think they would be as interesting to the wider audience as the one I chose. It's currently in Prep 2, so it's set to be on the main page on 22 July (UTC). DYK prefers to leave selections up to the discretion of the promoter, which often conflates with the desires of the nominator—see a recent example of mine, which was promoted by Vaticidalprophet above with a hook I personally think is the least interesting of the three. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
(Baljuna was a tough one -- I was very close between it and ALT0, but landed on the 'mystery' element over the 'mentioning Genghis Khan' one. Very knife-edge decision, though, especially with the high stakes of one of the extremely few DYK FAs.) Vaticidalprophet 10:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, y'all, I will say as a quick PSA: don't submit a hook unless you're sure that you'll be happy with the prep builder picking it, because we're not bound by preference requests and might end up picking a hook you thought was less interesting. Keep a couple backup hooks in your back pocket, in case there's a verification issue – other than that, submitting 7 ALTs and holding out hope for a specific one getting picked isn't the best strategy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Vaticidalprophet, and Theleekycauldron: Hey, my apologies for the late reply, something personal came up for me these past two days. But thanks for the clarification, everyone. I understand that the DYK should appeal to as general of an audience as possible, and upon further reflection, the mural quote is honestly the most fitting both from a broader standpoint and a more "honorific" standpoint. So I'm fine with that fact being chosen for the main page. Once again, thank you for all your help. In the future I do hope to get a few more articles to GA status so conversations like this definitely help me understand the DYK process a bit more. :) PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter II (cat)

Queue 2: Peter II (cat) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Tim O'Doherty @Onegreatjoke Given subject matter, it seems almost criminal to waste a quirky slot on such a boring hook. Surely we can do better?

ALT2: ... that Peter II, at the age of eight months, died in service to the British Crown? (I'm assuming it's correct to describe being an employee of the government as "service to the British Crown")

ALT3: ... that despite Peter and Peter III serving for 17 years each, Peter II's tenure only lasted six months?

I'm sure people can come up with others.

RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Much better than what I came up with! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Allow me :)
  • ALT4: ... that Peter II was killed at the age of eight months, for the price of two shillings?
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I love it. Click-bait for sure, but I love it. RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I must oppose "killed". It was a euthanisation, not a stabbing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
killing isn't necessarily murder, but euthanasia is necessarily killing, in the morally neutral sense of the word. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
ALT4a: ... that Peter II was removed from office for the price of two shillings? RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll take that too :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
If I were to pick one, I'd suggest alt2 or alt3. @Theleekycauldron, I'm not trying to dunk on your hook, but I still think "killed for two shillings" is a bridge too far: it makes it sound like a hit-job. When animals are put down, they're never described as having been killed; usually just reported as having died after, for example, suffering an illness, with the euthanasia delivered to prevent an unnecessary, prolonged, painful death. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the clock is ticking (main page in about 10 hours) so I've gone ahead and changed to ALT3. If consensus for a better hook emerges, feel free to update it again. RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Works for me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith Just noticed a small error: the boldlink text includes an apostrophe. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
All good, Tim O'Doherty :) I'd never want to run a hook the nominator doesn't like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A New World (The Flash)

Queue 2: A New World (The Flash) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @OlifanofmrTennant @Hameltion I don't see anywhere in the article that talks about an eleven-year television franchise. RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s about the ending of the flash which is the final ARROWVERSE show 2600:1700:3351:1610:5D8D:46E1:B89B:DF5F (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't help me at all. Can you quote the correct sentence so I can find it? RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I've switched it to another ALT hook. Please check. BorgQueen (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hameltion pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen That works better, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the article is good enough for the Main Page anyway. The plot is meaningless to anyone who hasn't got a deep understanding of the franchise and the critical reception section is so thin it might as well not exist. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Leeds 13

Queue 2: Leeds 13 (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Onegreatjoke @Launchballer I don't see where in the article it says anything that supports the hook statement. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, perhaps 'staging' could be changed to 'faking' or 'falsifying'?--Launchballer 13:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Launchballer Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I still can't find where in the article the hook fact is stated. Could you point it out, please? This is going to hit the main page in about 12 hours, so I'd like to get this sorted out quickly. RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
"Faking a holiday": "They would pitch a conventional art exhibition asking for money to mount the show. Later, journalists would be told the group had spent the donations on a week-long holiday on the Costa del Sol (English: Sun Coast)."
"At Leeds Student Union's expense": "The group applied to their students's union, Leeds University Union, for money to mount an exhibition and were granted £1,126."
"Taken literally by the British press": I thought this was "On Tuesday 19 May, when the hoax was revealed, the holiday story was covered on television, radio and in national morning newspapers including the Daily Express, Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Times.", but now I'm not sure. Possibly change "taken literally" to "picked up"?--Launchballer 13:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "On Friday 15 May, they ran the holiday story under the front-page headline "Con Artists' Spanish Rip-Off" continued inside with "And They Call This Art?"[9] Two days later, the national Sunday Mirror newspaper picked up the story.[12] Regional newspapers the Yorkshire Post and Yorkshire Evening Post followed on Monday". Also , "This all matched the public and media's stereotype of art students as lazy and immoral.[24] So media outlets rushed to publish the story before their rivals instead of checking it was true". There are a large amounts of RS to back this up, whether they are all used in the article I haven't checked. [12] [13] etc. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    OK, I'm convinced. When a hook doesn't correspond word-for-word to the article, it becomes hard to verify. I'm not saying we need to slavishly do word-for-word hooks, just that when I'm trying to plow through eight reviews in one gulp, it's easier to just ask for a walk through. RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Double youngest?

In queue3, we've got Sofía Otero ("youngest actor to win...") and Lara Esponda ("youngest goalkeeper to play"). There's been pushback in the past about too many youngest, oldest, etc hooks. Are we OK with both of these? RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we switch the goalkeeper with one of the other women's football hooks? —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
As someone who regularly !votes to delete articles on the basis of WP:TOOSOON, I say it's fine! Let's see who is paying attention for 12 hours on a Sunday 24 hours on a Monday. (OK, I'm also part of the secret cabal of DYK hook promotion in pairs...but I may have disqualified myself now.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK template

I noticed that quite often DYK template date is one day earlier than actual (?) date on Wikipedia:Recent additions/Year, so which date is correct? Eurohunter (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Not the archived one, for whatever reason. This also means that any DYK link on an article t/p links to the wrong date. Oh well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The archive date is when the hook set came off the main page. —Kusma (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Since I've seen this come up several times now and had to hunt for an answer when I first noticed it myself, I have now made a super-convenient shortcut for when people ask in the future, WP:WHYISRECENTADDITIONSONEDAYOFF. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
That clearly wasn't communicated to whoever made the {{DYK talk}} template, try clicking on the DYKA archive link at e.g. Talk:Jane Severance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: @Tamzin: @Kusma: Wikipedia:Recent additions shows "taken off" date. Can't it be unified? Eurohunter (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Eurohunter, Tamzin provided a link to a discussion where a solution is proposed, including the code necessary to implement it. i am unaware of anyone opposing the proposed solution, but there appears to be a disagreement over whether or not there is a consensus to implement it. dying (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination Save America

CLOSED
--- Bruxton (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2023 (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.

I have depromoted the hook created by @Evrik: twice now as a violation of WP:DYKNOT and I was reverted by Evrik . I will not continue to edit war the nomination but Evrik has written and approved their own hook which is not allowed. The hook involves a candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election and it is negative. I believe we should reject the nomination if all we have to say about this PAC is negative. Bruxton (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  • People regularly modify hooks when they promote something. That's what I did. It's standard practice. I had no other involvement with the article or its review. --evrik (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Juxlos, Edge3, and Schwede66:, who I ask to notify the IP. For my view, @Bruxton:, DYKNOT says not to post something that could advantage a current political candidate. The US parties haven't even announced their nominees yet. Also, it's Trump, people who don't support him, won't, and people who do support him, will, no matter what is said. Kingsif (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It is clearly an anti-Trump hook and evrik's heading on my talk page is evidence of the politics involved. "Saving something, but probably not America". We have the spirit and letter of the law involved and we should steer clear of bashing the front runners. Bruxton (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I was making a joke about the name of the article. Really. I think that my hook actually toned down original hook. --evrik (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Look, it's not about a current political candidate, and it's not negative about an individual, either. A reviewer approved a version of the hook that named Trump, and Evrik removed the name, so until the bold link is clicked it could be any PAC doing this buying, too (even if we all correctly assume it's Trump's). The interestingness is (IMO) more about a bizarre fee for a stylist. It also looks like Edge3 "approved" Evrik's promoter copyedit of the hook (I believe it is only noted at the nom page itself because changing it when first adding to a prep doesn't record the change on the nom talkpage). I really don't see how any guidelines have been transgressed. Kingsif (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Kingsif, re your ping, please remind me – how do I notify an IP editor? Schwede66 10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Talkpages work better than pings! The nom established you have communicated with the IP before, so I thought a message there from you would be better than from me. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Put it back in prep. For goodness sakes, this is public information. It's not a negative on Melania. It's about the committee itself that funded her fashion consultants. The committee was founded and controlled by her husband. It doesn't violate any BLP issues. Let's not over re-act to this. — Maile (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Maile66: My two cents comes from an article I created a shortcut for in 2020: WP:NETRUMP. As I stated in the latest Firefangledfeathers RFA, I think Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Lightburst (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake. Evrik wasn't making a material change to any hook that required any extra review. I already made a comment to that effect on the nomination page. I did not "approve" anything because it wasn't required.
Anyway, regardless of whatever procedural posture we're in, the hook is now in Prep, and I have no objection to that. @Evrik: Any particular reason why you kept the scare quotes and rejected ALT2a? Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
As I said in a previous DYK Talk discussion the article does not maintain NPOV, the hook does not either. I see only negative things about the PAC in the article. The only neutral thing is the location of the PAC and the treasurer. The nomination probably should have been failed on neutrality WP:DYKCRIT#4d. I would have the same objections to articles and hooks about Joe Biden his PACs, or Hunter Biden's laptop etc. I think we can do better. Bruxton (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Then you reopen the nomination and ask the reviewer, you don't fight over a hook. Kingsif (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I think you are mischaracterizing my involvement. I did reopen the promotion based on my standing objection and the action was immediately reverted before any discussion could take place. I have not edit warred the nomination or fought over a hook. I brought the discussion here just as I did last time. I made my objection based on our DYK rules and WP:5P2. Bruxton (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I apologise for that, though I was following the way you presented the issue... you probably should have mentioned the article concerns and pinged the other nom page participants to start with (here). As it is, you can try have that discussion below. Kingsif (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
No worries, than you for creating the Super Alexia article and working on the Women's football noms. Bruxton (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea what is going on here (I do not follow American politics in much detail at the moment) but I found it interesting to read that the stylist in question also worked for Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Michelle Obama. Putting that into a hook would likely violate WP:SYNTH though. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Interesting stylist @Kusma:. This is our fifth Trump related hook and nom this year, three of them were nominated by the same IP that nominated this article. In case you are wondering we had one joe Biden related hook this year. I will give you a break by not going over my objections again, and one of my objections was based on a technicality (WP:DYKSG#H2). I thought we could do better with our hook but after reading the article carefully, neutrality is absent and it probably also fails WP:DYKSG#D7. The PAC states on its website Our mission is to elect a new generation of leaders from diverse service backgrounds who will always put the interests of the American people before their own. but that is not in the article. Bruxton (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2023 (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.

DYK rules: Expanded to something significant

CLOSED
----BeLucky (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2023 (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.

DYK stands for readers to discover fascinating and lesser-known facts. So what about the facts that has been added to wikipedia page and eligable by very defination of DYK but doesn't quilify due one sigle rule: Expanded at least fivefold.

So I'm pruposing addition of one more rule as or: "Expanded to something significant" which means added somthing significant which can be showcased at DYK. As something can be interesting enough to showcase at DYK without being 5x.

Or call it: Expanded at least fivefold or to something significant. Expand the rule.

As I faced it recently here: Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Luther King Jr.

@TSventon

--BeLucky (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@BeLucky: DYK is primarily to showcase new articles – or at least, that's always been the paradigm. The fivefold expansion clause is mostly for tiny stubs that were made substantial (say, from under 60 words to over 300 – we count it in terms of prose size, which you can read more about at WP:DYK). It's not meant to be for mostly-established articles that have a little bit added to them. You can always take Martin Luther King Jr. to good article status, though! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron So you saying a Good article expended to any length can be nominated !? --BeLucky (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@BeLucky: an article that has been promoted to GA status in the last seven days can be nominated. You don't even have to expand it! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Ok. Got it. --BeLucky (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Still left with "something can be interesting enough to showcase at DYK without being 5x" same question. --BeLucky (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron @David Eppstein Let me answer myself and close the discussion. As on wikipedia a lot of significant data adds up daily so it will be chaotic, if we add this rule. We better keep it as you said only for new pages. --BeLucky (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Far too subjective. The current rules are easy to check. I have no idea what "to something significant" is supposed to mean and I expect that it would be interpreted highly variably depending on reviewer. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@David Eppstein Ya that we can agree upon. It's too subjective and highly variably depending on reviewer. --BeLucky (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2023 (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.

Help with memory

CLOSED
Resolved

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.

I was looking at this discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_178#Yoninah_tribute, but when I looked at Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2021/July#3_July_2021 I could figure out what was the tribute. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary makes no mention of it. @Valereee: do you remember? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It was a set that ran on DYK, filled with Yoninah's past hooks :) at least, that's what I believe it was? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it was a set of her hooks. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. But which set? --evrik (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
It ran on 3 July, so it was archived on 4 July: Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2021/July#4_July_2021. —Kusma (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I added it here: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Hall_of_Fame/Themed_sets#Yoninah tribute. --evrik (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2023 (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.

How do I nominate an article for a second time?

Hello DYK folks,

Earlier this year I expanded the Charm quark article. I first nominated it (see Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark), but decided to retract it because it was not five fold expansion. Now that I have improved the article to GA status, I wish to nominate it for DYK again. How should I nominate this article? I cannot use Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination, for it will try to write into Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark and tell me that such page already exists.

Many thanks in advance!

-- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Just make a new nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2 and nominate it as a recently-promoted GA. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha, just did. Thanks! Will this new nomination be automatically transcribed to the article's talk page? Should I do anything about that? TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@TheLonelyPather: You do gotta transclude it at WP:DYKN and the article's talk :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Rotation rule rehash

I know I've proposed this before, but we need to have something in WP:DYKROTATE which enforces a minimum number of filled queues. I pushed the rule a bit yesterday to switch back to 1-per-day because our queue depth was hovering near exhaustion. Right now, we've got a single filled queue, which I promoted yesterday, and with under 10 hours to go, we're still working on resolving problem and verifying facts. There needs to be a bigger buffer against running out of main-page-ready material, and there needs to be more time to resolve problems found in the final reviews. I'd like to make the following change: 

fewer than six filled prep/queue sets
=>
fewer than two filled queues and six filled prep/queue sets overall.

It's either that or I just keep doing IAR switches when things get too close for comfort :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Makes sense to me. Edge3 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Support Good idea. I remain in favour of increasing the number of hooks.--Launchballer 14:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose toughening up this rule again. We should try to make switches between 1/day and 2/day and vice versa less frequent, not more frequent. When we are about to run out of queues (we haven't been closer to that point than 14 hours or so in quite a while) just post to WP:AN and ask for help. —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
At the very least, this shouldn't be fully automatic: admins noticing that we are at 2/day and after the bot update at midnight, there is one filled queue and six filled preps should be allowed to just promote a prep or two instead of switching to 1/day. —Kusma (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Support as better than rushing hooks to main or having admins who are unfamiliar with process doing piece work. Bruxton (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that we might not immediately get DYK proficient admins by posting to AN, but we do seem to need more admin involvement and more trained admins, so we need to make people aware how bad the situation is. We might get more help by declaring crisis mode than by narrowly avoiding crisis mode ourselves. —Kusma (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
question: RoySmith, did you mean to use a disjunction rather than a conjunction? if i am understanding your proposed change correctly, implementing it would mean that, even if there were no filled queues, we would not switch to one set a day if there were still six filled preparation areas. see also the previous discussion, where the analogous proposal (option b) used a disjunction with three disjuncts. dying (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
My intent was:
if (filled_queues < 2) or (filled_queues + filled_preps < 6)
revert_to_one_per_day()
} RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
that makes more sense. i am assuming, then, that the change in language that you are proposing is something like the following.
fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets
   →    fewer than 60 approved nominations, fewer than two filled queue sets, or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets
by the way, i thought it was interesting how an editor recently satisfied the conditions for a state change inadvertently by simply removing a hook from a number of completed sets. is this something we want to prevent in the future? dying (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Just like in the scenario with 1 filled queue and 6 filled preps above, if there is an easy remedy other than going to 1/day, admins should be encouraged to go for the other remedy. —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
What really bothers me about this whole thing is we're trying to fix the wrong problem. We switch modes because when the list of approved templates grows too large, we hit some more-or-less arbitrary limit in the MediaWiki software on how much text can be transcluded. So lets attack that problem directly.
The reason we transclude all this text in the first place is because prep builders want to get a unified view of what material they've got to work with. So let's find a better way to do that. Maybe we don't need to transclude the entire nomination template. Maybe we could build a page which just lists the article titles and the approved hooks. Short and simple, and enough for a prep builder to do an initial search. Once they've found a hook that looks promising, they can click on a link to see the full nomination. If you can't implement that with transclusion, then implement it with Lua, or Javascript, or some backend process, or whatever it takes to make it work. RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, the switch to 2/day is a band-aid solution for two separate issues, the technical one you mentioned (and I like your suggested direction for a fix) and the fact that the production rate of newly approved noms is somewhere between 8 and 16 hooks per day, so if we run 8 hooks per day in perpetuity, we will need some mechanism to deal with the growing backlog. For example, we could make approved nominations expire if they do not get promoted to prep after a reasonable time. —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • What is the average number of proposed hooks a day? I think DYK should aim to have that number of hooks on the main page a day. Also, what if we went to two-sets-a-day, but reduced the number of hooks in each set? Perhaps we could run two sets of six (12 a day) or two sets of seven (14 a day) and not worry about switching from 24 hours to 12 hours. I know as an admin I would be more likely to review preps if there were 6 hooks because it would take me less time (and make the experience more enjoyable.) Looking at the archives, there have been sets that have had 5, 6 and 7 hooks: consensus can be reached to change the number of hooks in a set if that's what DYK wants. Z1720 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, We switch modes because when the list of approved templates grows too large, we hit some more-or-less arbitrary limit in the MediaWiki software on how much text can be transcluded. isn't accurate. We switch modes because we've accumulated an enormous backlog of unpromoted approved nominations, or because we've started to run low on approved nominations. The transclusion issue is separate, and is a symptom of having gone way over the number of approved nominations (or having gone overboard in nomination comments). If there's a better way of creating pages to avoid the transclusion issue, that will leave the oversupply or undersupply of approved nominations an issue that still needs dealing with, and we do that by switching between one set and two sets a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
whenever the size of wp:dykna exceeds the peis limit, i view the templates at the end by previewing them in my sandbox. i assume, though, that it should be possible to transclude subsets of the nominations into alternative pages that can be used whenever the peis limit is hit. one option is to have a page that transcludes a subset of the nominations that is manually defined whenever required. another is to have twelve individual pages each transcluding nominations from a specific month, which should be sufficient to address the issue assuming that simply transcluding the approved nominations from a single month won't ever breach the peis limit. dying (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Antonia Niedermaier

Queue 1: Antonia Niedermaier (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @Joseph2302 @Sammi Brie I can't find where the article says she won the stage before crashing out. RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Both things are mentioned separatelt in the article, in the last paragraph of the "Cycling career" section. She won stage 5, and abandoned the race after crashing the next day (stage 6), both things are mentioned together in this source: But one day after taking her breakthrough stage victory at her debut Giro Donne, Niedermaier was involved in a crash with Jayco-AlUla's Urška Žigart, and both riders were forced to abandon the Giro Donne. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

costa concordia disaster

personally, i feel that this hook, as currently worded, appears to be a somewhat cringy use of gratuitous profanity. it says nothing about who de falco and schettino are, so to someone unfamiliar with this incident, the hook gives no reason as to why this particular use of profanity is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page. (i assume that many other similarly strong words were exchanged between others during the sinking.) also, the wording used to explain what the italian phrase actually means seems unnecessarily wordy, making me feel like the hook was stumbling over itself before it was able to drop the f-bomb.

i admittedly am not sure how best to reword this. my attempt below fleshes out the incident more, and adds the reaction noted in alt1, but drops the actual profanity due to length considerations. in a way, it follows a common practice of horror story writing: describe the situation and the reaction, but not the monster itself. i am somewhat worried if it feels a bit too much like clickbait, though.

alt2: ... that during the sinking of the Costa Concordia, coast guard officer Gregorio de Falco shouted a profane order at fleeing captain Francesco Schettino that later became a catchphrase in Italy?

however, if the point of the hook was to include profanity on the main page, then feel free to ignore alt2. i would still suggest tightening the wording by using a simple gloss with single quotation marks, as seen in the hook for walter von pückler here, or in that for surrexit a mortuis here.

please note that this hook is scheduled to appear on the main page at noon, so if it is too late to make any significant changes, i'll understand. dying (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • That includes our editorial comment. I'm not a fan of having the exact word printed on the front page (though the hook is interesting), but we shouldn't describe how we feel about the words used. We can find another hook or just use the literal one. Dahn (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The statement "Vada a bordo, cazzo!" is relevant, verifiable, and, more importantly, notable, given the "catchphrase" thing, T-shirts, memes, etc. It's also interesting, which cannot be said of all DYK hooks (see Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin A. Gilroy).
  • Wikipedia is not censored. Fuck is simply a word, used in a proper context. Per WP:PROFANITY (emphasis not mine): Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers.
  • "...so to someone unfamiliar with this incident, the hook gives no reason as to why this particular use of profanity is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page." But isn't that the entire point of DYK? To get someone to click on the links provided, by teasing at interesting facts in a vague enough manner that the reader is left wanting to figure out what? why? how? This is my first DYK nom (despite it being my second to grace the Main Page), so maybe I'm wrong. If so, please correct me. Cessaune [talk] 16:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Cessaune, to be clear, i agree that the profane order is relevant, verifiable, and notable. however, as it is currently presented, i do not think the hook is appropriately interesting. i assume that the incident is clearly interesting enough to anyone who understands the proper context in which the order was delivered, but right now, all the hook really says is that, during a bad situation, someone said a bad thing, which doesn't seem all that unusual. the hook itself does not give any reason for including the profanity, which is why i think it would appear to be gratuitous to a reader unfamilar with the disaster. a similar hook, using nudity instead of profanity, might have sounded something like "... that some of the people who died due to the sinking of the Costa Concordia had a penis (example pictured)?" one generally doesn't expect the use of profanity (or nudity) without an appropriate reason, and personally, i don't think the hook did a good job providing this. i do not have a similar concern with alt1, as the reason for the profanity's inclusion is clearly stated in that hook: the phrase went viral in italy.
      i also have no issue using profanity on the main page. i didn't raise this point "because [the profanity] may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers". to be clear, i am not saying that the hook violates wp:gratuitous, and i also think that the use of a variety of profanities in the article to explain the range of translations of the italian phrase is appropriate and not gratuitous. what i am worried about is whether, to someone skimming the main page, the hook appears to be a violation of wp:gratuitous. there are a lot of interesting things to be said about the incident, but if they aren't mentioned in the hook, the only thing in the hook that may grab the attention of a reader is the use of profanity, which feels cheap, and may give people the impression that we are a bunch of amateurs using profanity on the main page just because we can. (well, we are a bunch of amateurs, but i think it is better to avoid looking like we are.)
      i believe the point of dyk is to showcase new articles and recently improved articles, and to provide an incentive for the creation of content. there is disagreement regarding how exactly this should be done, though current consensus is that it should involve presenting interesting facts. my concern is that, as the hook is currently worded, the only thing clearly interesting is the profanity, which may lead readers to not wonder more about the incident, but rather why the profanity was mentioned in the first place. dying (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
      the hook itself does not give any reason for including the profanity, which is why i think it would appear to be gratuitous to a reader unfamilar with the disaster. Exactly, leaving them wondering why was this said? Then, hopefully, they'll click on the article and read it.
      that some of the people who died due to the sinking of the Costa Concordia had a penis (example pictured): this isn't a notable fact in any way. It isn't especially interesting, either, or relevant. You already agreed that "the profane order is relevant, verifiable, and notable"; your example fails all three of those, so I don't get its purpose. The day we allow such direct nudity to grace the Main Page, I wil be on your side, but fuck is nowhere near that.
      one generally doesn't expect the use of profanity (or nudity) without an appropriate reason: My reason is that it's relevant, verifiable, and notable, which cannot be said of all DYK hooks. Sure, without the profanity the hook becomes substantially less interesting, but the profanity has been included, so the hook stays interesting.
      what i am worried about is whether, to someone skimming the main page, the hook appears to be a violation of wp:gratuitous. If someone thinks so, then they should say so. Anyone aware of GRATUITOUS very likely knows where to come to complain if they feel the need to. Simple.
      the only thing in the hook that may grab the attention of a reader is the use of profanity, which feels cheap, and may give people the impression that we are a bunch of amateurs using profanity on the main page just because we can: Sure, I can agree with this. But, to the casual reader, I would imagine that a) they were unaware that Wikipedia is allowed to swear, leading to their entrance (which was inevitable, let's be honest) into the realm of profane and nasty stuff that we show here, b) they are disgusted by it and refuse to keep reading Wikipedia/become a less active reader, which could and would've happened sooner than later, c) they don't care/find it a little funny. If anyone thinks that we at Wikipedia are amateurs in a bad sense, based on a single swear word, despite the vast heaps of actual amateurish stuff that goes on every day (certain people's talk page behavior, or allowing Main Page images to get replaced with penises and stuff, to name two) I'm fine with that. That's a them problem. Wikipedia will still keep on moving forward.
      my concern is that, as the hook is currently worded, the only thing clearly interesting is the profanity, which may lead readers to not wonder more about the incident, but rather why the profanity was mentioned in the first place: Exactly. Repeating what I sai above, it'll leave them wondering why was this said? Then they'll click on the article and hopefully read it. It's actually an interesting topic, and even the context around why the swear word was said is interesting, see the call transcript. Again, there are less interesting hooks, and, sure this one could be made more interesting, but I feel like this is only an issue in the context of profanity, and would not be an issue if there was no profanity included. Cessaune [talk] 22:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
      Second all of this, more or less. Vaticidalprophet 23:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune, forgive me if i am misinterpreting your comments, but to me, it looks like we disagree on two major points: (1) whether it is better to ask for permission or forgiveness, and (2) whether presenting profanity, in and of itself, is an appropriate way to get clicks. i believe that both issues are rooted in one's life philosophy, so i realize that it will likely be futile for either of us to change the other's opinion of this hook. however, i did want to mention a few things, to better explain what i believe are some of the concepts in play, and to clarify some things that may have been misinterpreted.

regarding the first point, personally, i generally prefer to ask for permission first, and try to course-correct before encountering any significant negative feedback. (unfortunately, i cannot say the same about captain schettino.) however, as wp:bold effectively codifies the opposing view, i would not be surprised if i was in the minority here. in any case, upon encountering any negative feedback, i think it would be wiser to take it into account, rather than simply ignore it as a "them problem". also, i do not believe other editors acting in an amateurish way elsewhere on wikipedia is a proper justification for us to behave similarly. (as an aside, regarding vandalism of the article featured at tfa, you may be pleased to know of this discussion [perm] at wt:tfa, which aims to address that.)

i am admittedly not sure what location you are referring to when you state that "Anyone aware of GRATUITOUS very likely knows where to complain if they feel the need to.". previously, i had thought that this discussion board was one such location, which is why i had raised my concern here. i am also aware of an off-wiki criticism site which had strong words for us here at dyk for running this hook. in particular, one commenter complained that there was undue focus on the meaning of the italian profanity, and another remarked that the hook was not respectful, considering that a lot of people had died in the disaster. i won't debate your choice to highlight the catchphrase, but i feel that, at least, the phrase could have been presented better.

regarding the second point, i believe there has been a consensus that hooks should not be promoted to simply get profanity on the main page, but i admittedly do not know if there is a similar consensus regarding running hooks that focus on profanity, to the detriment of providing any appropriate context for it. on a related note, personally, i am somewhat wary of the current trend to use page views as a proxy to determine how well a hook has performed, as there is a danger of turning the dyk section into clickbait as more pressure is placed on page views. hooks like this will be able to get clicks, but over time, if such hooks become a trend, more people will end up avoiding the dyk section, which will end up impacting dyk's main goal: showcasing new articles and recently improved articles.

i'm sorry that it was not clear to you that the example i had provided was not meant to be an example of a hook that was relevant, verifiable, and notable. (well, i am pretty sure it is verifiable, but that is beside the point.) i had used it only to illustrate why i had felt that the presentation of the hook was problematic. as an alternative, consider the hypothetical hook "... that during a musical performance, one of the singers had her breast (pictured) exposed?". this example states a fact relevant to the target article that is verifiable and notable. however, the hook does not do much other than present nudity to try to hook a reader; the hook does not provide much context to indicate why this specific instance of nudity was relevant or notable.

also, when i said that "readers [may wonder] why the profanity was mentioned in the first place", i meant that they may wonder why the people at dyk chose to run a hook that presented a profanity in this manner, rather than wonder why de falco swore at schettino. the act occurred during a disaster, so presumably, it should not be too difficult to determine why anyone would be cursing during such a stressful situation.

by the way, when i was reading your user page, i was surprised to see that you had apparently bowdlerized your own poem about a little froggo. i believe you are generally free to curse on your own user page if you want. there are some policies that should still be adhered to, such as wp:civil and wp:npa, but i don't think you would be violating any if you chose to swear in a whimsical poem presented on your own user page. dying (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the 'hook', such as it is, is insensate drivel. SN54129 15:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide (nom)

Freedom4U has requested more eyes on this nomination, and I think it would be good to have a general conversation about whether this article should be featured on the main page. Sanctioned Suicide is an internet forum which encourages its users to kill themselves, and the danger is that running this on DYK will steer vulnerable people toward the site. Personally, I think this risk far outweighs any potential benefits (I'm not even sure what the benefits would be), and so I don't think the article should run.

This article discusses how the New York Times journalists who reported on the site in 2021 dealt with the question of whether or not to name it in their article. They consulted with "industry guidelines, editors, veteran reporters, the standards team at the Times, and medical professionals", before deciding to name the site only once, "deep in the article", and to include a prominent (full-screen) disclaimer at the top, with links to suicide resources (see the NYT article here). I think this demonstrates the seriousness of the ethical problems involved. Other news outlets cited in our article – BBC, ABC, Buzzfeed, Vice – all refrain from naming the site. In my opinion, it would be very bad form to buck this trend by placing a prominent reference to it on the front page of the 7th-most visited website in the world.

Of course it's important that we have a neutral and informative article on the subject, and Freedom4U deserves much thanks for their work on it, but whether it's appropriate for the main page is another matter. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating this discussion Sojourner—I was apprehensive about this decision and only decided to nominate it after discussing it with another editor I respect, who said that there could be a way to put it up on DYK in an appropriate and sensitive manner. One thing noted in that discussion is that this is already a highly visible article (18,000 views over the past 30 days) and the site itself has an even higher profile, having been noted in the article to draw over 10 million page views in a single month.
If the question of whether this is okay to run on the front page is answered, then there is also the separate question of how to appropriately phrase the hooks, and I would like help workshopping that aspect as well. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Alt.suicide.holiday and its successors have been around for 20 years. I don't see this as particularly novel of a website to merit being censored. Especially when RSes report the name -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m curious, has that page ever been a DYK on the main page? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
doesn't seem that way, given that the talk page doesn't contain any record of that being the case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I would have to imagine that our hands are bound by the overbroad and fairly antiquated policy that is WP:NOTCENSORED. There's never been a consensus to carve out some kind of exception for DYK, à la WP:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page, but I'd support trying. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Our hands are not bound by any rules because we are human beings, not machines. In any case, I don't think NOTCENSORED applies here; I'm not saying that we shouldn't run this article because people may find it offensive, but because people may die. The news outlets I mentioned above are also not censored, and yet they still decided not to name the website. It's an editorial decision, not censorship. If you're looking for precedent, there's been consensus in the past not to run certain Featured Pictures due to the likelihood of causing harm. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I’ve read “RfC on linking to the forum” on Talk:Sanctioned Suicide, and although these topics aren’t the same things, I believe many of the Delete/Remove positions in that discussion can be applied to this too(with some variation), and I’d have to agree with them. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Observation Anyone slightly dubious about the fact that the article was passed for GA with very little comment, and was then accepted for DYK, by an account that's less than a month old and showed remarkable familiarity with enwiki from their first edit? Not wishing to ABF, but I have ... concerns. I am not suggesting that the nominator has done anything wrong here, btw. Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for catching this, Black Kite – GA reviewers can't review for DYK, making the DYK review invalid. I've marked it for re-review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    No, I was suspicious as well. If it had been an established editor, I would have let the review go, but I brought it back to the noms page because I believed it would be better to have a second pair of eyes. As for the GA, another editor told me that it wasn't out of the ordinary for a first Good Article review. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Freedom4U/Black Kite: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cute baby rabbit -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    If the GA was reviewed by a block-evading sockpuppet, does this mean the GA review should be undone and resubmitted for a new reviewer to look at, putting the DYK nom on hold? - Aoidh (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    Some interpretations of G5 say so. I am not especially inclined to those interpretations -- G5 is intended to improve the encyclopedia, and throwing difficult-to-review subjects back in a nine-month GAN backlog doesn't really do so. Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    I've been on both sides of the GA review process a few times (though not nearly as much as some), and if it were a proper GA review I would be inclined to agree, but Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#GA Review is not a good review, block-evading sockpuppet or not. I don't see a benefit for the article to let a half-considered, seemingly rushed review stand when it was done while evading a block, and then that same sockpuppet reviewed the DYK nom for the same article. It needs a proper review via both the GA and DYK process. Especially for a topic like this, if we're going to promote it on the front page as a GA, we need to make sure it's done right. - Aoidh (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    The review is less thorough than I'd have done, but I've had very similar reviews, including recently from experienced GAN reviewers. There's fairly substantial variance in "what's considered an appropriate GA review", and "checklist-ish but including meaningful suggestions for improvement" is within the Overton window, even if it's not my preference. Vaticidalprophet 11:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    I mentioned this at WT:GAN, which resulted in Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/GA1 quickly being nominated for G5. I'll let somebody else handle that, but I agree that G5 is the correct thing to do. RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    For those who don't have a libretto, Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/GA1 was deleted under G5, and a new review (under the same title) is apparently already underway. Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, it appears like the original G5 might be contested. Tune in tomorrow for the next exciting episode. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    Omg, you crack me up! I know you probably didn't intend it that way, but your comment literally made me LOL. I'm glad to have some levity after a long day both on-wiki and IRL. Edge3 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    RoySmith any such DRV would effectively be an exercise in trolling at this stage, particularly with the new review under way. SN54129 15:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    If I remember correctly, Kusma userfied the original GA review (after it was speedily deleted) and it is now available here: User:Edge3/Sanctioned_Suicide/GA1. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that bringing this to DRV would be sub-optimal, and that Kusma's userfication was a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sundari (paintings)

Prep 5: Sundari (paintings) (nom) continuing on my "better images" theme, I suggest we use File:Paan Sundari.jpg instead of the current File:Promoda Sundari.jpg. They're both in the article but I think Paan Sundari will look better, especially at a small size. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree; much clearer. Boldly changed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
For a very small value of bold, however :-) You changed it in the nom; where it needed to be changed is in the prep template itself. I've gone ahead and done that. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah. Oops. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

How do I make an April Fools hook?

Hello DYK people,

I have a DYK nomination (see Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2) that has been approved by a fellow reviewer. I think the hook is interesting and I would like to make it an April Fools hook. My reviewer said they don't know how that is done, so I am here looking for help.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather: if you get your reviewer to sign off on it being April Fools'-y (which I don't think you should, by the way, this would be an excellent quirky but not an April Fools' Day hook), someone else can move it to the WP:DYKAPRIL area. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_193&oldid=1168316190"